INQUEST
REPORT – IMPORTANCE
By:
NOOR ALAM KHAN ASC,
Member KPK Bar Council, Peshawar
Member Executive SCBA of Pakistan
Chairman
Voice of Prisoners
NOOR ALAM KHAN ASC,
Member KPK Bar Council, Peshawar
Member Executive SCBA of Pakistan
Chairman
Voice of Prisoners
An inquest is a judicial inquiry
in common law, particularly one held to determine the cause of a person's
death, 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 only conducted 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.[1][1]
The term ‘Inquest’ means (quasistus i.e., referred as ‘to seek’); legal or
judicial inquiry to ascertain a matter of fact. In broad terms, it can be
understood as ‘inquest that implies to inquiry about the cause of death, which
is apparently not due to natural causes. Such an inquiry and investigation of
sudden, suspicious, or unnatural death is obviously necessary to apprehend and
punish the offender.’ Or it can be said as the legal enquiry into the
circumstances and the cause of death a deceased person in cases of sudden,
suspicious and unnatural death, or generally it’s said to be the preliminary
enquiry in to the cause of sudden suspicious unnatural death is known as
Inquest.
An ‘inquest report’ or ‘panchnama’, is a report in
which the available history of the case and circumstances under which the body
was found or recovered are recorded. This recorded opinion of the witnesses and
the police officer’s, regarding the injuries, manner of their causation, the
cause of death, and indication of suspected foul play, if any. The whole purpose of preparing an
inquest report under Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. is to investigate into and draw up
a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as may be found
on the body of the deceased and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument,
if any, such wounds appear to have been inflicted. That the inquest report was
not the statement of any person wherein all the names of the persons accused
were to be mentioned.[2][2]
Section 174, Criminal P. C.
peremptorily requires that the officer holding an inquest on a dead body should
do so at the spot. This mandate is conveyed by the word "there"
occurring in Section 174 (1). Sub-section (3) of the Section further requires
the Officer holding the inquest to forward the body with a view to its being
examined, by the medical man appointed by the State Government in this behalf
if the State of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded
without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination
useless.[3][3]
Entries in the Inquest report are not substantive
evidence. Mere omission of the number of the case in the Inquest report which
may be either due to inadvertence or inefficiency of the Investigating Officer,
would neither discredit its authenticity nor would adversely affect the
investigation. Rule 25.35 of Chapt. XXV of the Police Rules, 1934, is directory
in nature.[4][4]
Preparation of Inquest report is a part of investigation. Statements made by
witnesses to police during examination in preparation of Inquest report' is not
substantive evidence and cannot form basis for conviction.[5][5] Under S.174,
Cr.P.C. and Chapter XXV, Rule 35 of Police Rules, 1934 mentioning the F.I.R.
number, names of accused or eye-witnesses or presence of empty shell in the
Inquest report was not a requirement of law.[6][6]
Manner in which incident took place of names of
accused. Need not be mentioned in inquest report.[7][7] Law
does not require that the Inquest report shall provide the names of the accused
and the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.[8][8]
Where Non-mentioning of empty in Inquest report
was negligence on the part of Investigating Officer and as such prosecution
should not suffer for the same[9][9]
or when the Inquest report revealed that it did not contain any F.I.R. number
and weapons of offence had not been mentioned in its Column No.2.[10][10]
or where weapon had not been specified; in another column of the Inquest report
time of death had not been mentioned and in other two columns, it had not been
mentioned that any empty was lying near the dead body.[11][11] F.I.R. registered
after preparation of Inquest Report[12][12], when Names of
the complainant and the eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the Inquest report,[13][13]
or when Inquest report and injury statement, did not bear signatures and stamp
of the Doctor.[14][14]
Non-sending of crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory immediately
after their recovery coupled with non-mentioning of crime empties in the
Inquest reports was sufficient to draw an inference that the crime empties were
manoeuvred after the recovery of alleged weapons of offence from the accused..[15][15]
When Inquest reports prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot were
silent about the involvement of the accused.[16][16] Or when witness
his name had not been mentioned in the brief summary of facts given in the
Inquest report.[17][17]
or when no injury had been mention on person of deceased in the Inquest report.[18][18]
or where Investigating Officer, in Column of Inquest Report had not mentioned
the presence of any article at the place of incident at the time of occurrence.[19][19] Or where Inquest Report of deceased was
prepared after sixteen days of the registration of the F.I.R..[20][20]
When the Time of death had not been mentioned in Column No.3 of the Inquest
report.[21][21]
Or when the Inquest report prepared by the Investigating Officer was also
silent about the presence of both the witnesses who claimed to have seen the
occurrence.[22][22]
but even in Column of the Inquest report no time of information had been given
as required under the law.[23][23]
And when the witnesses whose presence at the spot had not been proved, did not
sign Inquest report as eye-witnesses which was a most important document[24][24],
therefore, in all these circumstances the accused is acquitted from the
charges.
Failure to mention recovery of crime empties in
statement of facts recorded in Inquest report or omission in not pointing out
place to draftsman from where crime empties were picked up, is a mere
irregularity without any legal consequence, as the law does not require them to
be mentioned in the Inquest report.[25][25] Mention of crime
empties in F.I.R. or Inquest report are also not required. Law does not require
that the crime empties found on the spot must be mentioned in the F.I.R. or
Inquest report.[26][26]
Column No. 12 of the Inquest report regarding crime weapon, requires an opinion
as to the kind of crime weapon used in the occurrence and not that the crime
weapon should also be mentioned as per requirement of S. 174, Cr.P.C.[27][27]
Non-mentioning of crime empties in Inquest report could not belie the recovery
as lapses on the part of Investigating Officer could not be used to contradict
the prosecution evidence of unimpeachable character.[28][28] Lapses on the
part of Investigating Officer cannot be used to contradict the prosecution
evidence of unimpeachable character[29][29], and
non-production of Inquest report and injury sheet prepared by police was not
fatal to prosecution case.[30][30]
Where Name of witness not mentioned in inquest report[31][31] and Omission due
to inadvertence or inefficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer to
fill column in the Inquest report or failure to mention the number of the case
or absence of details of place of occurrence hardly discredit its authenticity
or adversely affect investigation, particularly in the presence of ocular
account of the occurrence.[32][32]
When the Inquest reports contained the brief details of the case, which
reconciled with the contents of the F.I.R., so the omission of Investigation
Officer to mention the name of complainant on two memos and name of accused on
some memos did not affect the prosecution case in any manner.[33][33]
Job of a Police Officer conducting an
investigation is confined only to collection of evidence, which has to be
placed by him before the competent court and then it is the authority and
obligation of the court to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of
accused and to adjudicate accordingly. Conceding formation of such an opinion
to a Police Officer would be a grave illegality, which would lead to grave
injustice and serious resulting consequences.[34][34] Purpose of
investigation under section 174, Cr.P.C. or inquiry under section 176, Cr.P.C.
is only to ensure that no offence has been committed in connection with death
of a person. Such investigation or inquiry is not to establish that suicide has
occurred.[35][35]
A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object of the
proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died
under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the
apparent cause of death. The question regarding the details as to how the
deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was
assaulted to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section
174. In these circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law was it
necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest report.[36][36]
No comments:
Post a Comment