Indore (Madhya Pradesh): A Judicial Magistrate conducting an inquiry into a custodial death is not confined to determining the cause of death and can name persons who may be responsible for the death, Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed while dismissing two writ petitions challenging a judicial inquiry report and an FIR arising from the death of prisoner Bheru at the district jail, Dhar.
The HC held that Section 176(1-A) of the CrPC gives a judicial magistrate wider powers to inquire into a death in custody, including examining the circumstances of the incident and identifying persons whose acts or omissions may have led to the death.
The HC relied on its earlier ruling in Ram Sharan Prajapati vs State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that the expression “inquiry into the cause of death” appearing in Section 176(1) is absent from Section 176(1-A).
According to the court, this difference indicates that the legislature intended to give judicial magistrates a wider field of inquiry in custodial-death cases, including the power to name persons who may be responsible.
The ruling came in petitions filed by Dhar jail superintendent Raja Ram Dangi and empanelled doctors (Dr Kamlesh Kumar Ahirwar, Dr Chhatrapal Singh Chouhan and Dr Ashish Mishra) who conducted Bheru's autopsy.
Bheru, who was serving a sentence after being convicted in 2019 under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC read with the POCSO Act, died in district jail, Dhar, on February 27, 2023.
According to the order, Bheru was allegedly beaten after another inmate was found possessing tobacco and said he had obtained it from him.
His condition deteriorated and he was declared dead at district hospital, Dhar, at 8 pm. A medical board found eight ante-mortem injuries, but kept the cause and manner of death open pending the viscera report.
The JMFC's subsequent inquiry recorded prisoner statements and made findings against jail officials and doctors.
It specifically named jail personnel allegedly involved in the beating and recorded an eyewitness account alleging the presence of Dangi and his failure to arrange immediate medical assistance.
The inquiry also referred to alleged destruction of evidence and irregularities in the autopsy documentation and videography.
The HC found no jurisdictional error in the inquiry, upheld the report and FIR, and dismissed both petitions.
It directed the investigating agency to proceed impartially and expeditiously, making clear that its observations were only for deciding the writ petitions and would not influence the investigation.
