INQUEST

HISTORY:

The inquest, as a means of settling a matter of fact, developed in Scandinavia and the Carolingian Empire
before the end of the tenth century.[6] It was the method of gathering the survey data for the Domesday Book in
England after the Norman conquest.[6] In his account of the culture of the Gauls (Commentarii de Bello
Gallico VI.19.3), Julius Caesar mentions a very early use of the procedure: "if a matter comes into suspicion
about a death, they hold an inquiry (a quaestio) concerning the wives in the method used for slaves, and if
guilt is established, they kill the wives, who have been tortured, with fire and all torments."

DEFINITION:

An inquest is a judicial inquiry in common law jurisdictions, particularly one held to determine the cause of a
person's death.[1] Conducted by a judge, jury, or government official, an inquest may or may not require an
autopsy carried out by a coroner or medical examiner. Generally, inquests are conducted only when deaths are
sudden or unexplained. An inquest may be called at the behest of a coroner, judge, prosecutor, or, in some
jurisdictions, upon a formal request from the public.[2] A coroner's jury may be convened to assist in this type
of proceeding. Inquest can also mean such a jury and the result of such an investigation. In general usage,
inquest is also used to mean any investigation or inquiry.

An inquest uses witnesses, but suspects are not permitted to defend themselves. The verdict can be, for
example, natural death, accidental death, misadventure, suicide, or murder. If the verdict is murder or culpable
accident, criminal prosecution may follow, and suspects are able to defend themselves there.

Since juries are not used in most European civil law systems, these do not have any (jury) procedure similar to
an inquest, but medical evidence and professional witnesses have been used in court in continental Europe for
centuries.[3][4][5]

Larger inquests can be held into disasters, or in some jurisdictions (not England and Wales) into cases of
corruption

Another definition:

An inquest is an inquiry or investigation into the cause of death where death is apparently not due to natural
causes. It is done in order to identify the deceased person, place of death, time of death and cause of death.
This method of inquiry was first developed in Scandinavia and the Carolingian empire before the end of the
10th century.

An inquest helps in safeguarding the legal rights of the victim’s family by knowing full and accurate facts
about their loved one’s death. Inquest is a fact- finding process. It is usually held if the cause of death is not
clearly certified by the post-mortem examination report and a formal request is .

It is done in cases of sudden death, suicide, homicide, infanticide, death due to accident, poisoning, drug
mishap, unexplained death, death under anesthesia or an operation table or from postoperative shock, death
due to medical negligence, death of a convict in jail, police custody, mental hospital or correctional school,
dowry deaths (in India), death due to industrial disease (not held in India).

Types of Inquest

There are 5 different types of inquests:

  Police inquest
  Magistrate inquest
  Coroner inquest
  Medical examiner’s system
  Procurator fiscal
In India we only conduct police and magistrate inquest.

1. Police Inquest

It is conducted by the police officer, usually not below the rank of police sub-inspector. It is held under section
174 of Cr.P.C. The officer who conducts the inquiry is known as investigating officer (IO).On receipt of
information about any sudden, suspicious or unnatural death of any person, the IO forwards the information to
the nearest magistrate and proceeds to the place where the dead body is lying and investigation is made in the
presence of two or more responsible persons of that area called as panchas. No police officer can order for
exhumation. The IO then generates a report which is known as Panchnama.

Panchnama should be a handwritten document prepared in two copies, the inked one and its carbon copy. It
includes the description of the crime scene, initial investigation like the apparent cause of death, injuries
present on the body and so on. After the report is made it is signed by the panchas and the IO and the dead
body is forwarded to the nearest government doctor with the requisition and a copy of the inquest report
(Panchnama).

2. Magistrate Inquest

It is considered to be superior to police inquest and is conducted by District Magistrate, Sub-divisional

Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate. They are empowered on behalf of the state government or the
district magistrate such as tehsildar, collector or deputy collector.It is done in circumstances like death in
prison, death in police custody, dowry death, death in a mental hospital, death due to police firing. The
magistrate can also conduct an inquest in addition to the police inquest. Magistrate can order for exhumation
of body.

Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death: Crpc

176.(1) When any person dies while in the custody of the police, the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold
inquests shall, and, in any other case mentioned in section 174, clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1), any
Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the
investigation held by the police-officer, and if he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which
he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence. The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the
evidence taken by him in connection therewith in any of the manners hereinafter prescribed according to the
circumstances of the case.

3. Coroner’s Inquest

Coroner’s court is only court of inquiry into the cause of death and as part of the investigation the court
examines witnesses on oath and can record it as evidence. After examining the body, the court decides
whether or not an autopsy is required. The court can also order for exhumation. After the inquiry is completed,
the coroner finds the verdict as to the cause of death. If the accused was not found the coroner returns with an
open verdict.

It was held in Kolkata and Mumbai in India but later was abolished in Kolkata and discontinued on 29 July
1999 in Mumbai. Under the Coroner’s Act 1871, a coroner who is an officer of the rank of First Class
Magistrate, appointed by the state government is empowered to inquire about any unnatural, suspicious death
or death occurring in jail. The coroner may be a doctor, lawyer or both.

4. Medical Examiner System

It is prevalent in most states of the USA and is done by a Medical Examiner who is also a forensic pathologist.
He does not have any judicial powers and so cannot examine the witness under oath and does not have the
authority to arrest any person. All sorts of sudden, unnatural, suspicious deaths are analyzed by the Medical
Examiner. In India, this type of inquest is not followed.

5. Procurator Fiscal
Procurator fiscal is a public prosecutor who can investigate criminal matters, investigate sudden, unnatural or
suspicious deaths as well as fatal accidents. He can request an autopsy which will be performed by a forensic
pathologist and can present the case for the prosecution in the courts. 

Conclusion

An inquest and the report made by the officer is of what he himself observed and found and hence is of high
evidentiary value. The main objective of conducting an inquest is to find whether the death is unnatural or
suspicious and if so, then what was the cause of death.

It does not look into details of the accused like who, how and why was the victim assaulted. The law
commission of India in its 206th Report has recommended that the inquest report should be regarded as
material evidence.

FROM ANOTHER RESEARCH PAPER:

Relevant provisions under the code

Under Section 174 of the Code, the police have been empowered to enquire and report on cases of unnatural
death. The first clause to the provision states that when an officer-in-charge of a police station or some police
officer who is empowered by the State Government receives information that:

1. A person has committed suicide;

2. A person has been killed by another;
3. A person has been killed by an animal;
4. A person has been killed by machinery;
5. A person has been killed by an accident;
6. A person has died under such circumstances which raise a reasonable suspicion that some other person
has committed an offence.

In the aforementioned cases, the police officer should immediately notify the nearest Executive Magistrate
who is empowered to hold inquests. Further, he shall proceed to the place where the body of the deceased
person is and in the presence of two or more respectable residents of the neighbourhood, such police officer
shall make an investigation and prepare a report.

The statements of the witnesses which are to be so recorded during the course of the investigation are within
the inhibition of Section 162 of the Code. The statement recorded under this section cannot be used as a
substantive piece of evidence. It can be only used to corroborate or contradict the person making it at the trial.
But, there are no restrictions on the powers of the police officers from obtaining the signatures of the
witnesses on their respective statements. 

Under Section 174(2) of the Code, the report has to be signed by the investigating police officer and other
persons, including those who concur therein. This report is then forwarded to the District Magistrate or the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

Under Section 174(3) of the Code, special circumstances involving the death of a woman have been laid
down. This was added by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. 

In the cases where:

1. Suicide has been committed by a woman within seven years of her marriage;
2. The death of a woman within seven years of her marriage raises reasonable suspicion that some other
person has committed an offence in relation to such a woman;
3. The death of a woman within seven years of her marriage has taken place and any relative of such a
woman has made a request on  this behalf;
4. There is a doubt regarding the cause of death;
5. The concerned police officer for any other ancillary reasons considers it expedient to do so.
In the aforementioned situations, the concerned police officer shall forward the body to be examined, to the
nearest Civil Surgeon or any other qualified medical personnel appointed for these purposes by the State
Government. This discretion must be exercised in a prudent and careful manner. The forwarding of the body
should only be done if there is no risk of putrefaction on the road, which would render the examination
useless.

Under Section 174(4), the Magistrates have been listed down who are empowered to conduct inquests.

1. Any District Magistrate;

2. Any Sub-Divisional Magistrate;
3. Any other Executive Magistrate

These Magistrates should be empowered to function in this capacity by, either the State Government or the
District Magistrate.

Under Section 175 of the Code, the police officer who is investigating may, by an order in writing, summon
two or more persons as mentioned above for the purpose of conducting the said investigation. This shall
include any person who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case. All such persons who are
summoned are bound to attend and truly answer all questions asked. They can choose not to answer such
questions which would have a tendency to expose them to a criminal charge or a penalty or forfeiture. Under
clause 2 of the provision, it is mentioned that if the facts do not disclose a cognizable offence to which Section
170 of the Code applies, then such persons would not be required to attend a Magistrate’s Court.

Contents and Particulars of the report

The report that is made by the police under Section 174(1) of the Code is not exhaustive in nature. It contains
in it only the first impression of the dead body. The police officer conducting the investigation is supposed to
prepare the report. 

The report must contain the following details:

1. The apparent cause of death.

2. Description of the wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury found on the dead body.
3. The manner in which such marks appear to have been inflicted.
4. The weapon or instrument (if any) which appears to have been used to inflict such injuries.

The Madras High Court has held in the case of Manohari & Ors. vs. The Dist. Superintendent of Police &
Ors. (2018) that unnatural deaths which are registered under Section 174 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure,
1973, the police cannot close the case only by submitting a report to the Executive Magistrate. Irrespective of
whether the investigation yields results or not, the police are expected to file a Final Report under Section 173
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Inquest by Magistrate

Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with an inquiry by the Magistrate into the cause of
death.  

This section is read in consonance with Section 174, with special emphasis on Section 174(3)(i) and Section
174(3)(ii). If the case referred to is of the nature of these aforementioned clauses or in any other case
mentioned in Section 174(1) of the Code, then the Magistrate who is empowered to hold an inquiry into the
cause of death shall have all the powers to conduct it, which he would have in holding an inquiry into the
offence. The Magistrate can hold such an inquiry instead of or in addition to the investigation held by the
police officer.

Under 176(1A), the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate within whose jurisdictional area the
offence has been committed are empowered to conduct the inquiry, in the following cases.

1. Where any person has died or disappeared;

 2. When rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman.

This inquiry by the Magistrate is held in addition to the inquiry or investigation held by the police.

Under Section 176(2) of the Code, the Magistrate who holds such an inquiry is bound to record the evidence
taken by him in connection therewith, according to the circumstances of the case. 

Under Section 176(3) of the Code, in cases where the dead body has already been interred (placing a corpse in
a grave/tomb, with funeral rites), the Magistrate to discover the cause of the death can order for the body to be
disinterred and examined.

Under Section 176(4) of the Code, the Magistrate who holds an inquiry under this section should, wherever
practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased person (whose names and addresses are known) and is bound
to allow them to remain present at the inquiry. According to the explanation of this section, relatives ‘mean’
parents, children, brothers, sisters and spouse.

Under Section 176(5) of the Code, the Magistrate (Judicial or Metropolitan or Executive) or the police officer
who is conducting the inquiry or investigation, under 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are
bound to send the body of the deceased for examination to the nearest civil surgeon or any other qualified
medical person appointed by the State Government. If it is not possible for them to do, then the reasons for not
being able to do are to be recorded in writing.

The proceedings under this section are judicial proceedings and the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction
over it by the virtue of Section 397 and Section 401 or under Section 482 of the Code.

Scope of an inquest report:

The scope of an inquest report has been discussed in several case laws. Some of the landmark judgments are
mentioned below:

In the case of Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court has discussed the scope of
Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

In Pedda Narayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975), the Apex Court held that the scope of an inquiry
under Section 174 of the CrPC is limited in nature. It is only to ascertain whether a person has died under
suspicious circumstances or unnatural death and the apparent cause of death. This above principle was
reiterated in Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh (2003), wherein the Court observed that the section does not
contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be mentioned
in the inquest report. 

The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to determine the apparent cause of death. This view has been
upheld in a catena of cases such as Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991), Radha
Mohan Singh Alias Lal Saheb vs. State of UP (2006). 

In Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. State of Chattisgarh (2016), a two-judge bench has held that the purpose of an
‘inquest’ in cases of accidental or suspicious deaths under Section 174 and Section 175 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is different from the ‘investigation’ under Section 157 of the Code. This was re-
iterated in Bimla Devi vs. Rajesh Singh (2016), wherein it was held that the section aims at preserving the first
look at the body recovered and it does not need to contain every minute detail.

In Madhu Alias Madhuranatha vs. State of Karnataka (2014), a two-judge bench of the Apex Court has
observed that an inquest report is not substantive evidence. The Supreme Court held in Yogesh Singh vs.
Mahabeer Singh (2017) that the inquest report can only be looked into for testing the veracity of the witnesses
of the inquest.

Conclusion:
The scope of an inquest report is extremely limited in its orientation. A recent discussion on this topic is to
include the cases of ‘missing persons’ in this provision. The provisions lay down only the preliminary
investigation or the ‘first impression’ of the body. The question related to the details as to how the deceased
was assaulted or who was the accused or under what circumstances he was assaulted are topics which fall
outside the scope of Section 174 of the Code. The provision is primarily restricted to deal with unnatural
deaths and dowry deaths. In the latter cases, it enlists the special performance that has to be followed by the
police personnel.