 OTHER IMPORTANT POINTERS FOR SECTION 161-166

• Under Section 161 section, a police officer making an investigation can

examine the person acquainted with the facts of the case, and reduce the

statement made by such person into writing. There should not be a long delay

on the part of the investigating authorities in recording statements. In a case

where there was an unexplained delay for 10 days, and there were some

contradictions as well, the Supreme Court opined that though the

contradictions by themselves might not have much significance, yet,

considered in the light of the delay in the examination, the evidence became

suspect. {Balakrishna Swain v State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 804}

• The investigating officer, however, should be specifically asked about such

delay and the reasons therefore. Where belated examination of the victim of

an offence was unexplained, it was held to throw doubt on the veracity of the

prosecution case. When the delay is properly explained, it may not have any

adverse impact upon the probative value of a particular eye-witness.

{Ramsingh v State of MP, 1989 Cr LJ NOC 206 (MP); Brij Nandan Rai

v State of Bihar, 1922 Cr LJ 942.}

• The words "any person" in this section, which must be read in conjunction

with section 162, include any person who may subsequently be accused of the

crime in respect of which the investigation is made by the police officer.

• The word "truly" under Section 161 used after the word "answer" indicates

that the person examined is legally bound to state the truth. A person who

gives false information in answer to such questions can be prosecuted under

the provisions of sections 202 and 203 of the IPC.

• Compulsory exposure to narco analysis test would be violative of Article

20(3) of the Constitution. A person cannot be deprived of his protection

against self-incrimination. {Selvi v State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974

: (2007) 2 SCC 76}

• Sub-section (3) of Section 161 prohibits the making of precis of a statement

of a witness or merely recording that one witness corroborates another. The

statement, if recorded, must be recorded as made and should not be in indirect

form of speech. The writing should be a record in the first person.

• The substance of interrogation recorded by the investigating officer cannot be

regarded as a statement of a witness recorded under section 161. It cannot be

used for contradicting the witness at the trial under section 162. {Narayan

Chetanram Chaudhary v State of Maharashtra, (2000)}

• The expression "statement" does not include interpretation of the statement

by the investigating officer or its gist. Direction to supply gist is unsustainable.

• Where a relevant fact was not mentioned in the statement of the witness under

section 161 but was deposed before the Court in his testimony, the Court said
 that this would not be a ground for rejecting his evidence if it is otherwise

creditworthy and acceptable. An omission on the part of a police officer cannot

take away the nature and character of the evidence. Alamgir v State (NCT)

of Delhi, (2003)

• The significance of the omission would depend upon the fact whether the

specific question relating to the omitted matter was put to the witness or not.

• In reference to the statement of a witness recorded in the course of

investigation in some other case, it was held by the Supreme Court that the

Court could summon the case diary of such other case under section 91 for

the purpose of contradicting the witness. Restrictions envisaged under section

172(2) and (3) do not apply to use of such case diary. Restrictions envisaged

under section 162 CrPC and those under section 145 Evidence Act, would

certainly apply. {State of Kerala v Babu, AIR 1999 SC 2161}

• The statement of a witness in the case of a dowry death was recorded. The

case was then transferred to the CID. It was held that the investigating officer

who took over the investigation could record fresh statements of the witness.

It was not tenable to say that he ought to have relied upon the statement

recorded by the earlier investigating officer. { Uday Chakraborty v State of

WB, AIR 2010 SC 3506}

• The ban imposed by section 162 of the CrPC is sweeping and wide. But, at

the same time, the powers of the Court under section 165 of the Evidence Act

to put any question to any witness are also couched in wide terms...a narrow

and restrictive construction should be put upon the prohibition in section 162

CrPC, so as to confine the ambit of it to the use of statements by witnesses by

parties only to a proceeding before the Court. This will reconcile or harmonise

the two provisions and also serve the ends of justice. Therefore, section 162

CrPC does not impair the special powers of the Court under section 165 Indian

Evidence Act. {Tahsildar Singh v State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012.}

• The section 162 does not affect the provisions of section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act and therefore information leading to the discovery of a fact

made to the police and admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence

Act, is not rendered inadmissible under this section.

• The provisions of sub-section (2) of this section in so far as they relate to

section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, do not offend against Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. The distinction between persons in custody and persons

not in custody in the context of admissibility of statements made by them

concerning the offence charged is a real distinction between the two classes

and the distinct rules about admissibility of statements made by them are not

hit by the Article. {State of UP v Deoman Upadhayaye, AIR 1960 SC 1125}

• Merely taking a specimen of a handwriting does not amount to giving of a

statement so as to be hit by section 162 of the CrPC. {State of UP v Boota

Singh, AIR 1978 SC 1770}

• When two different persons make reports about the commission of an offence

at two different places, one earlier in point of time than the other, the later

report is not a statement made to a police officer in the course of investigation

but is an independent FIR and can therefore be used in evidence by the

prosecution.{ Maganlal v King-Emperor (1946)}

• Evidence in regard to test identification parades held at the instance of the

police and under their active supervision is inadmissible in evidence under

this section. If after arranging the test identification parade, the police

completely obliterate themselves and the panch witnesses thereafter explain

the purpose of the parade to the identifying witnesses and the process of

identification is carried out under their exclusive direction and supervision,

the statements involved in the process of identification would be statements

made by the identifiers to the panch witnesses and would be outside the

purview of this section. Distinguishing Ramkishan Mithanlal's case in

Yusufalli v State of Maharashtra, it was held that when the police officers

set the stage for the drama, in which the complainant and the accused appellant

were the actors, and hid themselves and took no part in it, neither the
 complainant nor the accused could be regarded as having made a statement to

a police officer as contemplated by section 162.

• The protection under section 162 CrPC is granted to the accused and that

protection is unnecessary in any proceeding other than an inquiry or trial in

respect of the offence under investigation and hence the bar created by the

section is a limited bar. It has no application, e.g., in a civil proceeding or in

a proceeding under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution and a statement made

before a police officer in the course of an investigation can be used as evidence

in such proceeding provided it is otherwise relevant under the Evidence Act.

Therefore, even a statement made before a police officer during investigation

can be produced and used in evidence in a writ petition under Article 32,

provided it is relevant under the Evidence Act and section 162 cannot be urged

as a bar against its production or use. {Khatri v State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC

1068}

• The prohibition contained in the section relates to all statements made during

the course of an investigation. A statement of a witness recorded by the police

during the inquest under section 174 of the Code will be within the inhibition

of this section. {Razik Ram v JS Chouhan, AIR 1975 SC 667 }

• This prohibition cannot be set at naught by the police officer not himself

recording the statement of the person but having it in the form of a

communication addressed by the person concerned to the police officer.

• The notes on a site plan prepared by the investigating officer in accordance

with the various situations pointed out to him by witnesses are statements

recorded by the police officer in the course of investigation and are hit by

section 162. These notes can be used only for contradicting the witnesses in

accordance with the provisions of section 145 of the Evidence Act. Therefore,

where this was not done and the witnesses were never confronted and

contradicted with this record, the notes on that site plan cannot be used to

contradict the account given by the witnesses in the Court in regard to the

distances from which they saw the occurrence. {Jit Singh v State of Punjab,

AIR 1976 SC 1421}

• The words "any person" include a person who was not accused at the time of

making the statement, but became so thereafter. Similarly, a customs officer

is not a police officer and therefore confession made to him is admissible.

{Narayana Swami v Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47}

• Statements of a confessional nature made by an accused whilst in police

custody, cannot be used for any purpose. Certain kinds of statements, which

come within section 27 or section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, may be
 proved as against the persons making them. {Satish Chandra Seal v

Emperor, (1944) 2 Cal 76 : AIR 1945 Cal 137 ; Safi Mohd Hussain v State

of UP, 1992 Cr LJ 1755 (All); Public Prosecutor v PN Rao, 1993 Cr LJ

2789 (AP).}

• Statement of the accused pointing out the place of recovery of the dead body

in a murder case is held to be not hit by section 162 CrPC, but is relevant and

admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover,

action of the accused leading the Executive Magistrate and pointing him out

the place, where the dead body was buried, is admissible as conduct under

section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of a witness at a trial may

be shown to be inconsistent with his previous statements. This may be done

by producing his previous statements which have been reduced into writing

and which are contradictory of the witness's evidence in Court. The principle

is that a witness who makes inconsistent statements is unreliable and his

evidence shall be ignored.

• The phrase “in the course of the investigation” imports that the statement has

to be made not only after the investigation has started, but as a step in, or in

conscious prosecution of, the investigation itself.

• Where the police officer, after registering a case obtaining the FIR, proceeded

to the spot in the course of investigation, any statement recorded by him there
 will be hit by this section. {Sat Kumar v State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC

294}

• Where a report sent by an eye-witness reached the police station only after the

investigation had already begun, it could not be regarded as an FIR. It could

be regarded as a statement recorded under section 162 and as such

inadmissible in evidence. The failure of the prosecution to produce such report

was immaterial, particularly when it would not have helped the prosecution in

any manner because names of assailants were not disclosed in it. { B Subba

Rao v PP, HG of AP, AIR 1997 SC 3427.}

• The words "any such statement" cover not only written statements but oral

statements as well. A rough sketch map prepared by the Sub-Inspector on the

basis of a statement made to him by witnesses during the course of

investigation and showing the place where the deceased was hit and also the

places where the witnesses were at the time of the incident was held to be

inadmissible under section 162 for it was in effect nothing more than the

statement of the Sub-Inspector what the eyewitnesses told him and would be

no more than a statement made to the police during investigation. { Tori Singh

v State of UP, AIR 1962 SC 399.}

• The statement can be used for the purpose of contradiction. Contradiction

means the setting up of one statement against another and not the setting up
 of a statement against nothing at all. If a witness in Court says, "I saw A

running away," he may be contradicted by his statement to the police "I did

not see A running away." But the Explanation makes it clear that a significant

omission may in the particular context amount to contradiction. Whether it

does or not will be a question of fact.

• Section 162 proviso refers to the case where the statement has been recorded.

If the statements of the persons examined as witnesses by the police are

destroyed, the accused is robbed of his statutory means of cross-examination

and thereby denied the opportunity of effectively cross-examining

prosecution witnesses, and the evidence of such witnesses is not admissible

and proper for consideration as it does not satisfy the requirements of section

138 of the Indian Evidence Act. {Baliram Tikaram v Emperor, (1945) Nag

151.}.

• The words if duly proved under Section 162 (1) proviso indicate that if the

accused wishes to rely on anything in the previous statement of a witness to

the police, he must prove it in the ordinary way. If the witness admits this in

cross-examination, it will of course be sufficient; if he denies the contradiction

and the police officer who took it down is called by the prosecution, the

previous statement of the witness on the point may be proved by him; if he is

not called by the prosecution, the Court would no doubt itself in most cases
 call him, or if the accused is calling evidence in support of his defence, it may

be worth his while to call the police officer himself. Unless the statement is

duly proved, the evidence given in Court cannot be contradicted by it under

section 145 Evidence Act.

• Section 165 now authorises a general search on the chance that something

might be found. But the officer acting under this sub-section or sub-section

(3) must record in writing his reasons for the making of a search, and under

sub-sections (1) and (3), the thing shall be specified as far as possible. The

provisions of this section are mandatory and not directory and its requirements

must be complied with before a police officer can validly institute a search of

the nature mentioned in this section.

• Where the provisions of section 100 and this section are contravened, the

search can be resisted by the person whose premises are sought to be searched.

{Radha Kishen v State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 822 }

• But, even if the search be illegal, it does not justify any obstruction or other

criminal acts against the person conducting the search, after search and seizure

are complete. { Shyam Lal Sharma, etc. v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR

1972 SC 886.}

• If seizure is effected at a place where no witness was available nor facilities

regarding weighing the contraband articles, etc. were available, the officer can
 prepare the seizure mahazar at a later stage as and when facilities are available.

There should be justifiable and reasonable grounds to do so.

• The officer has no power to make a search beyond the local limits of his own

circle. But in certain cases, a search within the limits of another police station

is now authorised [see section 166(3)].

• It has been held that an illegality in search and seizure by the investigating

officer does not vitiate the seizure unless it has caused prejudice to the

accused. Evidence of seizure cannot be discarded merely because the witness

was not from the same locality. {State of MP v Paltan Mauah, AIR 2005

SC 733}

• Sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 166 give power in certain circumstances to

an officer in charge of one police station to search or cause to be searched

places within the local limits of another police station. A search and seizure

in the area of another police station was not vitiated because information was

submitted to the other police station and also because by virtue of section 114,

Evidence Act, 1872, there is presumption that all official acts are deemed to

be performed regularly. {Ronny v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC

1251}
 [s 167] Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four

hours.

✓ CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2008 [ Clause (14) ]

This clause amends section 167 relating to procedure when investigation cannot

be completed in 24 hours. It amends proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 in

order to make provision for the Magistrate to extend further detention in judicial

custody of the accused also through the medium of electronic video linkage

except for the first time where the production of the accused in person is required.

The clause also inserts a further proviso to the said sub-section (2) to provide that

in the case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be

authorised to be in the custody of a remand home or recognised social institution.

✓ Police Custody

• When a police officer arrests a person on the suspicion of having committed

a cognizable offence, the arrested person is said to be under police custody.

The purpose of police custody is to interrogate the suspect to gather more

information about the crime, and to prevent destruction of evidences and

intimidation of witnesses.

• This custody cannot exceed 24 hours without the orders of a Magistrate.

• Every person who is arrested and detained in custody by police should be

produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such

 arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to

the court of the Magistrate. No person can be detained in custody beyond the

period of 24 hours without the authority of a Magistrate.

✓ Judicial Custody

• The Magistrate has two options when an accused arrested by police is

produced before her to - remand the accused to police custody or

judicial custody.

• This is clear from the wordings of Section 167(2) of CrPC that the

Magistrate may "authorize the detention of accused in such custody as

such Magistrate deems fit".

• In police custody, the police will have physical custody of the accused.

So, when remanded to police custody, the accused will be detained in

the lock-up in the police station. In that scenario, the police will be

having all time access to the accused for interrogation.

✓ In judicial custody, the accused will be under the custody of the Magistrate,

and will be sent to jail. The police can access an accused under judicial

custody for interrogation only on the permission from the concerned

Magistrate. Mere interrogation by Police, during such custody by permission

of the Magistrate, cannot change the nature of custody.

✓ To invoke S.167(1), it is not necessary that in all circumstances, the arrest

should have been effected by a police officer and none else and that there must

necessarily be records of entries of a case diary. Therefore, it necessarily

follows on mere production of an arrestee before a competent Magistrate by

an authorised officer or an officer empowered to arrest on a reasonable belief

that the arrestee "has been guilty of an offence punishable" under the relevant

law, he can be remanded, notwithstanding the fact that officer who arrested

the accused is not a police officer in its stricto sensu.

✓ Police Custody not beyond first fifteen days after arrest.

• The accused can be sent to police custody only within first fifteen days of the

presentation before the Magistrate after the arrest.

• Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) CrPC states that Magistrate can authorize the

detention of accused beyond the period of fifteen days, otherwise than in the

custody of the police.

• The detention in police custody is generally disfavored by law. The scheme

of S.167 is is intended to protect the accused from the methods which may be

adopted by "some overzealous and unscrupulous police officers"

• Taking the plain language into consideration particularly the words

"otherwise than in the custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days"
 in the proviso, it has been held that the custody after the expiry of the first

fifteen days can only be judicial custody during the rest of the periods of

ninety days or sixty days and that police custody, if found necessary, can be

ordered only during the first period of fifteen days. {Central Bureau of

Investigation, Special Investigation Cell - I, New Delhi v. Anupam J.

Kulkarni, AIR 1992 SC 1768}

The SC has observed :

"It can be thus seen that the whole scheme underlying the section is intended to limit

the period of police custody. However, taking into account the difficulties which may

arise in completion of the investigation of cases of serious nature the legislature

added the proviso providing for further detention of the accused for a period of

ninety days but in clear terms it is mentioned in the proviso that such detention could

only be in the judicial custody. During this period the police are expected to

complete the investigation even in serious cases. Likewise within the period of sixty

days they are expected to complete the investigation in respect of other offences"

Judicial custody may extend to a period of 90 days for a crime which entails a

punishment of death, life imprisonment or period of imprisonment exceeding 10

years and 60 days for all other crimes if the Magistrate is convinced that sufficient

reasons exists.

• Accused in judicial custody, if circumstances justify, can be remanded to

police custody or vice versa within time limit (15 days) as prescribed in

S.167(2) Cr.P.C.

✓ Police custody when an accused has committed several offences.

If it is known to police that an accused, who is already under custody for a suspected

offence, is linked with some other offences, can police custody in respect of the other

offences be sought, even though the accused has completed fifteen days of police

custody in respect of the first offence?

Yes, provided that the other offences are arising out of transactions different from

the offence in respect of which he was taken into custody for the first time. Merely

because more serious offences arising out of the same occurrence for which the

accused was taken into custody are discovered during interrogation, that will not

authorize police to seek police custody beyond 15 days.

This position has been explained in detail by the Supreme Court decision Central

Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell - I, New Delhi v. Anupam J.

Kulkarni AIR 1992 SC 1768.

"In one occurrence it may so happen that the accused might have committed several

offences and the police may arrest him in connection with one or two offences on the

basis of the available information and obtain police custody. If during the

investigation his complicity in more serious offences during the same occurrence is

disclosed that does not authorise the police to ask for police custody for a further

period after the expiry of the first fifteen days. If that is permitted then the police can

go on adding some offence or the other of a serious nature at various stages and

seek further detention in police custody repeatedly, this would defeat the very object

underlying S.167.

However, this limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which

complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. That would be a different

transaction and if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and

to enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case they can require

his detention in police custody for the purpose of associating him with the

investigation of the other case. In such a situation he must be formally arrested in

connection with other case and then obtain the order of the magistrate for detention

in police custody."

In S. Harsimran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984 CriLJ 253, a Division Bench of

the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the question whether the limits of

police custody exceeding fifteen days as prescribed by S.167(2) is applicable only

to a single case or is attracted to a series of different cases requiring investigation

against the same accused and held thus (para 10A):

"We see no inflexible bar against a person in custody with regard to the investigation

of a particular offence being either rearrested for the purpose of the investigation of

an altogether different offence. To put it in other words, there is no insurmountable

hurdle in the conversion of judicial custody into police custody by an order of the

Magistrate under S. 167(2) of the Code for investigating another offence. Therefore,

a rearrest or second arrest in a different case is not necessarily beyond the ken of

law".

This view by the P&H HC was approved as "practicable" by the Supreme Court

in Kulkarni case(supra).

After the expiry of 15 days, there cannot be detention in police custody, even if some

more offences that may have been committed by the accused in the same transaction

come to light at a later time.(Budh Singh v State of Punjab (2000) 9 SCC 266)

When accused is arrested during further investigation

Proviso to Section 309(2) CrPC deals with the power of the Court to remand an

accused to custody after taking cognizance. This remand can only be to judicial

custody. So, can there be a police remand of an accused who is arrested at the stage
of further investigation, after the filing of charge-sheet? Can such an accused be

remanded to only judicial custody in view of Proviso to Section 309(2) CrPC?

The answer to these questions were provided by the Supreme Court in the

decision CBI v Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar(1997). The Court held that remand of an

accused who is arrested at the stage of further investigation has to be dealt with by

Section 167(2) and not proviso of Section 309(2). Because, as far as that accused,

investigation is still progressing, and police cannot be denied the opportunity to have

his police custody.

The Court further held :

"There cannot be any manner of doubt that the remand and the custody referred to

in the first proviso to the above sub-section are different from detention in custody

under S.167. While remand under the former relates to a stage after cognizance and

can only be to judicial custody, detention under the latter relates to the stage of

investigation and can initially be either in police custody or judicial custody. Since,

however, even after cognizance is taken of an offence the police has a power to

investigate into it further, which can be exercised only in accordance with Chapter

XII, we see no reason whatsoever why the provisions of S.167 thereof would not

apply to a person who comes to be later arrested by the police in course of such

investigation.
If S.309(2) is to be interpreted - as has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court

in Mansuri - to mean that after the Court takes cognizance of an offence it cannot

exercise its power of detention in police custody under S.167 of the Code, the

Investigating Agency would be deprived of an opportunity to interrogate a person

arrested during further investigation, even if it can on production of sufficient

material, convince the Court that his detention in its (police) custody was essential

for that purpose.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the words "accused if in custody" appearing

in S.309(2) refer and relate to an accused who was before the Court when

cognizance was taken or when enquiry or trial was being held in respect of him and

not to an accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further investigation."

✓ Police custody of absconding accused who is arrested after cognizance

Applying the principle in Dawood Ibrahim case, the Supreme Court later held that

an absconding accused who is arrested after filing charge-sheet can be remanded to

police custody(CBI v. Ratin Dandapat 2015). The High Court order refusing police

remand on the reasoning that remand was under Section 309(2) was set aside by the

Supreme Court.

 An order of remand is a judicial order passed in exercise of judicial function.

Such order is not to be passed mechanically. It has been clarified in Suresh

 Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v State of Maharashtra,(2013), that the revision

of section 167(2)(a)(ii) enabling grant of default bail will be applicable

irrespective of the fact of cognizance having been taken. In this case though

the police report was submitted within the prescribed period, no cognizance

was taken as there was no sanction to prosecute. The Magistrate went on

granting remand till it was questioned by Special Leave Petitions after failing

to get bail from the High Court under section 167(2). The Supreme Court

clarified that once the police report is filed within the stipulated time, the

question of grant of default bail does not arise. Whether cognizance is taken

or not, is not material as far as section 167 is concerned.

 In a case, where the police filed charge-sheet within 90 days and the

Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the same was not challenged,

the plea of accused for grant of bail under the default clause on the ground

that the police report was not in accordance with the requirements of section

173(2) and (5), is not tenable.{ Narendra Kumar Amin v CBI, AIR 2015

SC 1002}

 An order for release on bail under section 167(2)(a) is not an order on merits

but an order on default of the prosecuting agency. Such an order could be

nullified for special reasons after the default has been cured. The accused

cannot therefore claim any special right to remain on bail. If the investigation
 reveals that the accused had committed a serious offence and charge-sheet is

filed, the bail granted under section 167(2)(a) could be cancelled on an

application by the prosecuting agency.{ Abdul Basit @Raju v Mohd. Abdul

Khader, (2014) 10 SCC 754 : 2014}

 Where an order of remand is passed and subsequently investigation is stayed,

the stay does not make the order of remand unsustainable and the detention

pursuant thereto, illegal. Therefore, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued

for the release of the person detained. {Manubhai Ratilal Patel v State of

Gujarat, AIR 2013 SC 313}

 While computing the total period of 60 days referred to in sub-clause (ii) of

proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of section 167, the period of detention under

section 57 (which must not be more than 24 hours) has to be excluded.{ LR

Chawla v Murari, 1976 Cr LJ 212 (Del); Jai Singh v State of Haryana,

1980 Cr LJ 1229 (P&H); Arjun Singh v State of Rajasthan, 1987 Cr LJ

1236 (Raj); State of J&K v Abdul Rashid, 1988 Cr LJ 834 (J&K).} Once

the accused is released on bail, the Magistrate ceases to have any jurisdiction

to commit him to police custody. Only refusal of bail or cancellation of bail

will enable him to commit him to custody.

 The purpose of section 167 is to protect the accused from unscrupulous police

officers. The right of an accused to be released on bail after 90 days or 60 days

 as provided in cls. (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) is absolute.

{Babubhai Parshottamdas Patel v Gujarat, 1982 Cr LJ 284 (Guj) (FB).}

 Where the charge-sheet was filed within 90 days, but the Magistrate had not

passed an order taking cognizance within the period, it was held that the

accused was not entitled to seek bail under the proviso to section 167(2).

(Dorai v State of Karnataka, 1994 Cr LJ 2987 (Knt).

 For release of accused on bail under the default clause, in computation of the

period of 90 days, the date on which the accused was remanded to judicial

custody is to be excluded. Thus, where charge-sheet was filed on the 90th day,

it was held by the Supreme Court that there was no infringement of section

167(2) of the Code. {Ravi Prakash Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 2015 SC

1294}

 The accused cannot be re arrested unless his bail has been cancelled. The same

has been held in the case of Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and others Vs. State

of Gujarat, it was observed by the court that the accused who has been

granted bail cannot be taken into police custody for further investigation

unless bail is cancelled.

 This is the general rule but there can be exceptions to these rules as well.

Following are 2 of the exceptions:

 1. In the case of Pralhad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T. Delhi , it was held that with

the change of the nature of the offence, the accused becomes disentitled to the

liberty granted to him in relation to a minor offence, if the offence is altered

for an aggravated crime. In this case, the accused was released on bail for an

offence under S. 306 of IPC and later on offence under S. 302 was added, it

was held that it was wrong on part of the Magistrate to say that for every

addition of offence, police cannot arrest the accused.

2. In another case of Ahamed Basheer and another v. Sub Inspector of

police, it was held that if the accused is released on bail for a bailable offence

and if later on a non bailable offence is added, then police can arrest the

accused without seeking cancellation order of bail.

 On the expiry of 60 days from the date of the arrest of the accused, his further

detention does not ipso facto become illegal or void, but if the charge-sheet is

not submitted within the period of 60 days then, notwithstanding anything to

the contrary in section 347(1), the accused would be entitled to an order for

being released on bail if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail.

 In a case for grant of statutory bail, the initial period for filing charge-sheet is

90 days, but the prosecution neither filed charge-sheet prior to the expiry of

90 days nor filed any application for extension of time. It was held that asking
 the accused to file a rejoinder affidavit to the application for extension of time

filed subsequently is improper. The application for grant of statutory bail has

to be decided on the same date it is filed. {UOI through CBI v Nirala Yadav,

AIR 2014 SC 3036.}

Dipak Misra J (speaking for the Bench), observed as follows:

“When the charge-sheet is not filed and the right has ripened earning the

status of indefeasibility, it cannot be frustrated by the prosecution on some

pretext or the other. The accused can avoid his liberty only by filing

application stating that the statutory period for filing of the chalan has

expired. The same has not yet been filed and an indefeasible right has accrued

in his favour and further he is prepared to furnish the bail bond.”

 Where there is more than one accused and they are not arrested the same day,

the computation of the stipulated time of investigation should be made from

the date of arrest or surrender of the first accused. Charge-sheets filed after the

expiry of the period of six months without any extension of time were quashed

by the High Court. {Subratapatra v Director of Panchayat, 1995 Cr LJ 115

(Cal).}

 The Supreme Court has held that the time-limit specified in section 167(5) is

not to be taken with rigidity. The discharge of the accused on the expiry of the
 period mentioned there is not mandatory. {Nirmal Kanti Roy v State of WB,

AIR 1998 SC 2322}

 About the provision for discharging the accused and stopping further

investigation, it was held by the Supreme Court that they are not applicable to

cases where the investigation had already been completed, though after two

years, and charge-sheet filed. The investigation could not be completed for

two years. The accused pleaded for discharge. The Supreme Court left the

question undecided. The expression in subsection (5) "made his appearances"

was taken by the Supreme Court to mean physical appearance and not through

counsel.{ State of WB v Pranab Ranjan Roy, AIR 1998 SC 1887}

 This section is not attracted in case of surrender of an accused before a

Magistrate. {Sushil Kumar v State of West Bengal, 1987 Cr LJ 1571 (Cal).}

 The police have no right to refuse to allow the legal adviser of an accused

person, remanded to their custody, to interview him, or his relatives to

supply him with food and clothing, as long as they satisfy themselves that no

objectionable articles are supplied. The right of the accused to consult and to

be defended by a lawyer of his choice is guaranteed under Article 22 of the

Constitution of India.{Llewelyn Evans, (1926) 28 Bom LR 1043 : 50 Bom

741.}
 IMPORTANCE OF CASE DIARY(SECTION 172)

• Under the provision of Section 172 Cr.P.C., every Police Officer

conducting the investigation shall maintain a record of investigation done on

each day in a Case Diary in the prescribed Form. Case Diaries are important

to record the investigation carried out by an Investigating Officer. Any Court

may send for the Case Diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court
 and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such

inquiry or trial.

• Facts to be incorporated in Case Diaries:

✓ The Case Diary, which is a record of day by day investigation

of a case, shall contain details of the time at which the information

reached the Investigating Officer, time at which the investigation

began and was closed, the place or places visited by him and a

statement of the facts and circumstances ascertained through investigation.

✓ Case Diaries should contain only particulars of actual steps taken or progress

made in the investigation and such details of investigation which have

bearing on the case.

✓ Addresses, both present and permanent of the witnesses and all other relevant

details should be invariably recorded in the Case Diaries. The following shall

not be incorporated in the Case Diaries:

The opinion of Investigating Officer, the opinion of the Supervisory

Officers and Law Officers.

Any conflict of opinion between I.O., Law Officers, SP, DIG, and Head

Office.

Recommendations made in concluding report of thecomments of Law

Officer and Supervisory Officers.

 Any other facts/circumstances not relating to the investigation of the

case.

• Every Investigating Officer, to whom the part investigation of a case is

entrusted, will also maintain a Case Diary for the investigation made by him.

This may be called ‘Supplementary Case Diary’ (SCD). SCDs will be taken

on record by the Chief I.O., who may incorporate the gist of important facts

disclosed in such investigation in his own CD for the date when

the SCD is received by him. It is important that SCD must be submitted

without any delay. A copy of the CD submitted by I.O./Chief I.O. to

the Superintendent of Police would invariably enclose the SCDs

received by him.

CONCEPT OF CASE DIARY

• Section 172 Cr.P.C. lays down that every police officer making an

investigation should maintain a diary of his investigation. Each State has its

own police regulations or otherwise known as police standing orders and some

of them provide as to the manner in which such diaries are to be maintained.

These diaries are called case diaries or special diaries. Like in Uttar Pradesh,

the diary under Section 172 is known as ‘special diary’ or ‘case diary’ and in

some other States like Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu, it is known as ‘case

diary’.
• The Section itself indicates as to the nature of the entries that have to be made

and what is intended to be recorded is what the police officer did, the places

where he went and the places which he visited etc. and in general it should

contain a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.

Sub-section (2) is to the effect that a criminal court may send for the diaries

and may use them not as evidence but only to aid in such inquiry or trial. The

aid which the court can receive from the entries in such a diary usually is

confined to utilizing the information given therein as the foundation for

questions to be put to the witnesses particularly the police witnesses and the

court may, if necessary, in its discretion use the entries to contradict the police

officer who made them.

• Coming to their use by the accused, Sub-section (3) clearly lays down that

neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries nor

he or they may be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by

the courts. But in case the police officer uses the entries to refresh his memory

or if the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer

then provisions of Section 161 or Section 145, as the case may be, of the

Evidence Act would apply.

• Section 145 of the Evidence Act provides for cross-examination of a witness

as to the previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing

 and if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must be

called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradiction.

Section 161 deals with the adverse party’s rights as to the production,

inspection, and cross-examination when a document is used to refresh the

memory of the witness. It can, therefore, be seen that the right of accused to

cross-examine the police officer with reference to the entries in the General

Diary is very much limited in extent and even that limited scope arises only

when the court uses the entries to contradict the police officer or when the

police officer uses it for refreshing his memory and that again, is subject to

the limitations of Sections 145 and 161 of the Evidence Act and for that

limited purpose only the accused in the discretion of the court may be

permitted to peruse the particular entry and in case if the court does not use

such entries for the purpose of contradicting the police officer or if the police

officer does not use the same for refreshing his memory, then the question of

accused getting any right to use the entries even to that limited extent does not

arise.

• Section 172 deals with three clauses:

(1)Every police officer making an investigation under this chapter shall day

by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the
 time his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of

the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.

(2)Any criminal court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry

or trial in such court, and may use such court, and may use such diaries, not

as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.

(3)Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries,

nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred

to by the court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to

refresh his memory, or if the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting

such police officer, the provisions of Section 161 or Section 145, as the case

may be, of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall apply.

 It means this section deals with or shows that what a “special” diary of a

police-officer making an investigation should contain. Every police-officer

making an investigation shall enter his proceedings in a diary which may be

used at the trial or inquiry, not as evidence in the case but aid the court in such

inquiry or an investigation started under section-174 of the code

 The object of recording “case diaries” under this section is to enable courts to

check the method of investigation by the police.

 The entries in a police diary should be made with promptness in sufficient

details mentioning all significant facts on careful chronological order and with
 complete objectivity. The haphazard maintenance of a police case diary not

only does no credit to those responsible for maintaining it but defeats the very

purpose for which it required to be maintained.

 So we can say that this section does not deal with the recording of any

statement made by witnesses. Oral statements of witnesses should not be

recorded in the diary.

 Similarly, the court should not while recording the evidence of investigating

office record anything which came to the knowledge of such an officer during

the investigation of the other case.

 A diary kept under this section cannot be used as evidence of any data, fact or

statement contained therein, but it can be used for the purpose of assisting the

court in inquiry or trial by enabling it to discover means for further elucidation

of points which need clearing up before justice can be done.

USE OF CASE DIARY

 In case of other purposes (Trial)

In case Shamushul Kanwar vs State of U.P

Held: It is manifest from its bare reading without subjecting to detailed and

critical analysis that the case diary is only a record of the day-to-day

investigation of the investigating officer to ascertain the statement of

 circumstances ascertained through the investigation. Under sub-section (2) of

Section 172, the Court is entitled at the trial or inquiry to use the diary not as

evidence in the case, but as an aid to it in the inquiry or trial.

Neither the accused nor his agent, by operation of sub-section(3), shall be

entitled to call for the diary, not shall he be entitled to use it as evidence merely

because the Court referred to it. Only right given there under is that if the

Police Officer who made the entries in the diary uses it to refresh his memory

or if the Court uses it for the purpose of contradicting such witness, by

operation of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it shall be used for the purpose

of contradicting such witness i.e., Investigation officer or the Court.

It is, therefore, clear that unless the investigating Officer or the Court uses it

either to refresh the memory or contradicting the investigating Officer as the

previous statement under Section 161 that too after drawing his attention

thereto as is enjoined under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, the entries

cannot be used by the accused as evidence.

 The Supreme Court has ruled that no court should rely on a case diary as

evidence and acquit or convict an accused on the basis of that. The judgment

could protect the interests of witnesses in criminal cases while keeping under

wraps the investigation done by police.

 A bench of Justices DK Jain and RM Lodha ruled that a criminal court can

use the case diary to help an inquiry or trial but not as evidence. This position

is made clear by Section 172(2) of the Code.

In the case of an investigation

• A police officer, who investigated a criminal case either fully or partly, is

entitled to look into the ‘case diary’ containing the details of the investigation

and refresh his memory while deposing as a witness before the trial court.

However, the accused is also equally entitled to cross examine the police

officer under Section 161 of the Indian Evidence Act whenever the

investigating officer of the case looks into the case diary and deposes from its

contents. A combined reading of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and Sections 145,159 and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act made it

clear a trial court too was empowered to call for the case diary to aid it in

trying the criminal case.

• The court could use the case diary, not as evidence, but only for the purpose

of contradicting the police officer with regard to details such as dates, time

and venue of the investigations conducted by him if there were disparities

between the written records and the oral evidence adduced by him.

Further, no individual other than the police officer and the trial court judge

could be allowed to look into the case diary. The role of the accused was
 limited to the extent of cross examining the officer when he happened to

refresh his memory from the contents of the diary, the judge added.

• Mr. Justice Akbar Ali also recalled a 113-year-old English judgment passed

in Queen Empress Vs. Mannu (1897) wherein a Full Bench of the High

Court dealt with, in detail, the importance of the case diary, its purpose and

how it must be used by the trial courts.It is the absolute duty of judges and

Magistrates to entirely disregard all statements and entries in special diaries

as being in any sense legal evidence for any purpose, except for one solitary

purpose of contradicting the police officer who made the special diary when

they do afford such a contradiction.

Even in that case, they are not evidence of anything except that such police

officer made the particular entry which is at variance with his subsequently

given evidence. They do not evidence that what is stated in the entry was true

or correctly represents what was said or done,” the age-old judgment read. In

the present case, a person caught red handed while accepting bribe had moved

the High Court challenging an attempt made by a Central Bureau of

Investigation officer to depose from the case diary during the trial of the

corruption case before the Special Court for CBI cases in Chennai.

A diary kept under this section cannot be used as evidence of any date, fact or

statement contained therein, but it can be used for the purpose of assisting the
court in the inquiry or trial by enabling it to discover means for further

elucidation of points which need clearing up before justice can be done. It can

be used as an aid in framing a charge though not for founding the charge. The

magistrate cannot take cognizance or issue process against accused on the

materials contained in the case diary alone unless facts contained in the report

under section 173 constitutes an offense.

The Supreme Court has held that the police diaries of a case under inquiry or

trial can be made use of by a criminal court only for aiding it, in such inquiry

or trial. The court would be acting improperly if it uses them in its judgment

or seeks confirmation of its opinion on the question of appreciation of

evidence from statements contained in such diaries,entries in police diaries

cannot be used as evidence against the accused. They cannot, therefore, used

to explain any contradiction in the evidence of a prosecution witness which

the defense has brought forth for using any portion of his statement under

section 161.

 Personal diary of non-investigating officer excluded– Entries made

in a personal diary by a police officer who did not investigate into a

case do not fall within Section.

 Diaries to be properly kept. – Though police diaries are not evidenced

against the accused, it is very essential for criminal trials that they
 should be properly kept in the manner provided by the Code. But the

failure of the police witnesses to keep a diary as required by section

172(1) does not have the effect of making their evidence inadmissible

although it lays it open to adverse criticism and may diminish its value.

 Making false entries in diaries-Offence.- Where a public servant

makes a false entry in a diary kept and sent to his superior in pursuance

of a departmental order which that public servant is bound to obey, he

is guilty of an offense under Section 177, I.P.C.

 Power of criminal court to send for diaries and use thereof [Sub-

section (2)].- The prosecution is not expected to produce daily diary in

courts as a matter of course. Such production would seriously impair

the working of the police. If required for defense they can be summoned

on the application of defense.

 Use only as an aid to court -The power of the court under section 172

to look into case diaries should be sparingly exercised and it is

necessary for the court to be astute to avoid using it otherwise than as

provided by law. Under section 172, any criminal court may send for

the special police diary of a case under inquiry or trial in such court and

may use the diary “not as evidence, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial”.
 It may, for instance, be of importance in case that the court should know

when a witness first made a statement in connection with the case, or

whether any particular person made or did not make a statement. In

Khatri, the Supreme Court observes that sub-section (2) of section

172, empowers a criminal court holding an inquiry or trial of a case

to send for the police diary of the case and the criminal court can

use such diary, not as evidence in the case, but to aid in such inquiry

or trial.

 The meaning of the phrase “to aid the court in an enquiry or a trial” in

this section is that the court may see from the police diaries what is the

general trend of evidence to be given and what witnesses are important

and what not, and whether witnesses produced to give evidence as to

all the facts which they formerly professed to know.

 Power of High Court under section 482 to look into police diaries.-

When an application under Section 482 of the Code for quashing

proceedings of the lower court is made to the High Court at an early

stage of the proceedings, the High Court is entitled to look into the

police diaries for determining whether any case has been made out or

not, and that in order to determine the correctness of affidavits on record

it is necessary to look into them.

  The right of accused to call for and inspect police diaries– It is the

court alone which is entitled to use the special diary. Neither the

accused nor his agent is entitled under section 172 to see the special

diary for any purpose unless it has been used by the court for enabling

the police officer who made it refresh his memory or for the purpose of

contradicting him. A party has a right to look into a document before or

at the moment it is used by a witness to refresh his memory, and not

exercising it at the proper moment, does not continue to retain it

throughout the subsequent examination of the witness. In an Oudh

case, it has been held that an accused had no right to inspect the original

paper by which the police was refreshing his memory. It has been held

that there is nothing in the law which entitles the defense to an

inspection of anything more than that portion of the diary from which

the witness refreshed his memory.

In Khatri, the Supreme Court clarifies that by reason of sub-section (3) of

section 172, Cr.P.C. merely because the case diary is referred to by the

criminal court, neither the accused nor his agents are entitled to call for such

diary nor are they entitled to see it.

The accused can see the entries relating to the case made by the police officer

in the case diary only when the police officer uses it for refreshing memory or
when the court uses it to contradict the police officer. When the police diary

is used for refreshing memory by the police officer or the court uses it for

contradicting the police officer, then the provisions of sections 161 and 145

of the Evidence Act apply.

In Mukand Lal, the Supreme Court categorically states that the Legislature

has reposed complete trust in the court which is conducting the inquiry or the

trial. It has empowered the court to call for any such relevant case diary, if

there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context to the case

diary, the court can use the entries for the purpose of contradiction. Ultimately

there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of the justice than

the court trying the case.

In Malkiat Singh, the Supreme Court points out that where the evidence on

record clearly shows that the defense has freely used the entries in the case

diary as evidence and marked some portions of the diary for contradictions or

omissions in the prosecution case, it is clearly in negation of and in the teeth

of section 173(3). To conclude, therefore, the accused can only see the diary

if it is used by the police officer to refresh his memory or if the court uses it

to contradict the police officer. If there is no special diary, there can be no

case of refreshing memory or contradicting the police officer by the diary. The

absence of the diary, therefore, cannot prejudice the accused.

  Evidentiary value of entries in the police diary

A police diary may be an official document, and the entries therein are worth

what they are, but they cannot surely be accepted to be absolutely correct for

all purposes, in the absence of any definite proof. There may be circumstances

which might seriously challenge their correctness. An entry in a record or a

document made by a person for his own benefit even if admissible should not

always be taken without scanning; other circumstances have to be considered

along with the entry. Entry as to the time of F.I.R. must be presumed to be

true. Entries of the police diary are neither substantive nor corroborative

evidence.

 PROVISION RELATED TO ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION

OF CASES OF UNNATURAL DEATH

• Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the provision of law in the

criminal jurisprudence that manages the procedure that the police and the

judge need to follow in instances of suicide or other such situations resulting

in unnatural deaths.

• At the point when an individual does not die because of the natural conditions

of ageing or sickness, an individual is viewed as a victim of unnatural death.

 Some of the unnatural deaths are unintentional death, murders, death caused

by a wild beast, difficulties of medical procedure, suicide and so on.

• Suicide can be characterized as purposeful murdering or causing one’s very

own death. Suicide is not admissible under Indian Law and thus, Section 309

of Indian Penal Code sets out the sanction if any individual endeavours to

submit suicide.

• In the event that an individual endeavours suicide, at that point he will be

detained for a term of one year or punished with the imposition of fine

according to the court’s decision or both. There have been a few endeavours

to expel Section 309 of the IPC yet the endeavours appeared to have

fizzled.Presently with the enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017,

attempt to commit suicide is never again wrongdoing in India.

 Conducting Inquest and Inquest Report

• The Executive Magistrate upon the implication by the Station House

Officer or some other Police Officer specially engaged by the State

Government will set up an inquest report which will contain the

moment insights about the reason for the death of an individual.

• Inquest report, as propounded under Section 174, is set up by

District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Sub-divisional

Magistrate, or Mandal Executive Magistrate particularly enabled for

 this sake by the State Government when there are circumstances of

deaths in the places within their jurisdiction and if such deaths are

unexpected and unexplained.

• Section 174 of the Code comprises all kinds of death which cannot

be explained or deemed to be unnatural. For the purpose of this

provision, natural death means when a person ages to his death and

dies due to age or if a person suffers from a medical condition which

is sufficient or likely to cause the death of a person and the person

dies due to such suffering. Thus, any death caused by a reason other

than disease or old age is unnatural. In general, the provision

comprises four kinds of deaths:

✓ Suicide,

✓ Murder,

✓ Assault by a beast,

✓ Demise due to factory accidents (failure of a machine, etc.),

✓ Or on the other hand, passing under conditions raising sensible

doubt that some other individual has committed an offence.

 For setting up the report, the judge will examine the reason for death.

In the report, the justice must portray the obvious reasons for death
 where he will depict the slightest subtleties that he discovers on the

dead body. A portion of the subtleties that the officer must depict are:

✓ Nature of encompassing where the dead body is found.

✓ Any injuries, cracks, wounds, and different imprints that might

be found on the body.

✓ The officer must express the way wherein any twisted or damage

or some other imprint happened to be on the body, regardless of

whether the imprint is by birth, or generally, that caused the

demise of the individual.

✓ The imprints whenever brought about by any weapon or an

instrument.

 On account of Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the High Court has

held that the substance of the inquest report can’t be treated as a proof,

however, they can be investigated to test the veracity of a witness.

 In the judgment of the apex court, Radha Mohan Singh v. State of

Uttar Pradesh[2006], the Supreme Court held that Section 174 is

restricted to the ascertainment of the clear reason for death.

 The officer is in this manner bound by the restricted extent of Section

174 and doesn’t need to keep an eye on the individual who has allegedly
 caused the death or figure out who attacked the dead individual or in

what way or under what conditions, and so on.

 In the event that no injustice is found in the demise of the individual,

the dead body must be given over to the lawful heirs of the expired

person.

 In situations where there is suspicion or ambiguity regarding the death

of the deceased person, at that point, the dead body must be sent to the

Government Medical Officer for post-mortem analysis after death.

 The judge need not look at all the witnesses or observers present at the

scene of offence while performing the examination to find a reason for

the unnatural death.

 On account of Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama, the apex court held

that to set up the inquest report, there need not be an assessment of the

considerable number of observers as the reason for the examination is

just to ascertain the reason for the death. If the Magistrate fails to

mention anyone’s name in the inquest report, it doesn’t prompt the

presumption that the officer failed in the efficient exercise of his duties.

 The report must be set up by the officer in a recommended organization.

In any case, if a report is no readied in a specified manner, the report

can’t be proclaimed as admissible.

 The Magistrate must conduct the inquest in the presence of two

independent residents or inhabitants of the area in the vicinity of which

the offence had taken place. These people are called the panchas and

because of which the report prepared by the Magistrate and signed by

these panchas are sometimes called panchnama. In case no panchas are

available or willing to assist the Magistrate, the police officer or any

other member of other locality can be requested as well.

 On the accomplishment of the inquest report, it is the duty of the

Magistrate to inform the investigating officer or the police official who

informed him of the incident about the report and get the report marked

and signed by him. Further, as aforementioned, the report shall also be

verified and signed by different people too who were a part of the

examination such as the panchas who testified as to the accuracy of the

inquest. The report must be then sent to the District Magistrate or the

Sub-divisional Magistrate.

 Section 304-B of IPC says that if the death of a married woman is

brought about by such substantial damage or generally than under

ordinary conditions or in the event that she is exposed to cruel and harsh

treatment or badgering for request of dowry and if such demise or

demonstration of cruelty is caused within a time frame of seven years

 from the day of marriage, at that point, the spouse and/or his relative

will be regarded to have caused her demise.

 The parliamentarians additionally embedded Section 498-A in the

Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46

of 1983), which punishes brutality by spouse or his relative on a lady

for any unlawful demand for dowry or any property or important

security or is by virtue of disappointment by her or any individual

identified with her to satisfy such need, which constrains her to

perpetrate suicide or cause grave damage or threat to her life.

 The Act additionally embedded clause 3 to Section 174 in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 to control the expanding occurrences of

dowry demises.

 This sub-section asserts that if the demise of a married woman is caused

within a period of seven years of marriage and if there is any sensible

doubt over the demise of the lady that an offence has been committed

under Section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC in such manner, the police

officer should send the body for post-mortem analysis by the closest

medical officer, over the solicitation made by any relative of the

deceased woman.
 Clause (3) also empowers the police officer to use the power in the

opposite sense. It means that if after the due investigation, the police

officer is of the opinion that the case was not of dowry death and/or

there was no cruel treatment on the deceased, the officer may reject the

presumption of dowry death and release any person arrested in that

connection.