Back
Orders in STF Case Under Section 176 CrPC
The has directed a into the of a man while in the custody of the , emphasizing that the revealing and specific allegations of by the deceased's family necessitated a probe by a Judicial Magistrate under .
Raises Questions
The petition, filed by Jhanvi Singh, initially sought a transfer of the investigation from the local police to the or an independent agency, alleging in the death of a family member who died while in STF custody in Pratapgarh. The case dates back to , when a First Information Report was registered under . The High Court, however, focused on a more fundamental procedural lapse: the absence of the legally mandated under .
The Legal Mandate:
The court observed that despite its earlier orders, no such inquiry had been conducted. Reports from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, indicated that no request for a had been made by the family, and consequently, none was held. The High Court, in its order dated , reproduced , which provides that where a person dies or disappears while in police custody or any other custody authorized by a Magistrate or Court, an inquiry shall be held by a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate, in addition to the police investigation.
The court took note of an inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Pratapgarh, on . That inquiry had concluded the death was natural, citing the deceased's heart condition and a heart attack. However, the High Court found this conclusion inconsistent with the , which recorded .
NHRC's Stance and the Court's Reasoning
The judgment also referenced proceedings of the concerning the interpretation of Section 176(1-A). The court noted the NHRC's initial 2010 circular that suggested a Judicial Magistrate's inquiry was mandatory only when there was of , but the NHRC later withdrew that circular, confirming that the amended provision requires a mandatory inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate in all cases of , regardless of the apparent cause.
The High Court concluded:
"After perusing the aforesaid facts and circumstances and noticing the fact that the deceased received as per and the specific allegation has been levelled by the family members of the deceased that the deceased died within the custody of STF personnel on account of their torturous act, so, the in terms of would be required."
The Court's Decision
Consequently, the Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra directed the District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, to issue necessary instructions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct the in compliance with . The inquiry must be conducted with expedition, preferably within six weeks from the production of a certified copy of the order, and the report must be submitted to the High Court in a sealed cover by the next hearing date on .
The order underscores that mandatory procedural safeguards in cases cannot be bypassed and that a Judicial Magistrate's inquiry is a non-negotiable prerequisite for ensuring accountability and justice, irrespective of the findings of an .
