The police have a mandatory duty to investigate the death of a woman who has committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, and any failure to do so is a serious lapse.

The petitioner, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased Prabha Kumari, wife of the fifth respondent herein and daughter-in-law of respondents 3 and 4, invokes the inherent powers of this Court, for a direction to the concerned police to enquire into the death of the above Prabha Kumari and to pass such further orders as this Court might deem fit.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly as follows. The deceased Prabha Kumari, aged 20 years, at the time of her death on 21-3-1987, is a native of Rajasthan. Her parents had moved over to Hassan in Karnataka State and were doing business there. She was their eldest daughter. She was married to the 5th respondent herein on 14-12-1985 at Rajasthan. Respondents 3 to 5 reside in Kancheepuram, wherein the deceased also took up her residence. Even prior to the marriage, there had been demand for dowry, jewels, silver vessels, and in addition articles like Fridge, Television etc. An agreement had been arrived at regarding the above demands and finally the marriage had been celebrated. After the marriage, respondents 3 to 5 persisted in demanding additional cash and other items of jewellery.

The parents of the deceased satisfied the demands to the extent to which it was possible for them. On that score, the deceased was ill-treated and harassed by respondents 3 to 5, and had been forced to deliver her first child in the house of respondents 3 to 5, quite contrary to the custom of their community to have the delivery in the house of the parents. Harassment had continued and finally on 21-3-1987, she died. According to the petitioner, who was in Bangalore, news about the death was conveyed by their distant relatives to the parents of the deceased and in turn to the petitioner. They were told that the death was due to massive heart attack. On reaching Kancheepuram they were informed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. The petitioner and the parents of the deceased were not satisfied with the explanation, since the mother of the deceased found injuries on the body of the deceased. However, their attempts to have the body subjected to poet-mortem failed and since they were handicapped in not knowing the regional language 'Tamil' and since they felt helpless being in an alien state, they could not prevent the body from being cremated.

3. On 25-3-1987, the father of the deceased gave two telegrams, one to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and another to the Home Secretary of India, New Delhi alleging that the death of her daughter was not doe to suicide, but it was a suspected dowry death and the police were in connivance with the in-laws and had avoided post mortem and that immediate action was prayed for. Finding that no action was taken, on 28-3-1987 the father of the deceased sent petitions to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu at Madras, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu Dist. the Chief Minister of Karnataka, the Collector of Chengalpattu Dist., the Home Minister of India, New Delhi and the Minister of State for Home, New Delhi. The petitions to all the above authorities have been sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and the photostat copies of the acknowledgments have been produced in court. In the petition, the father of the deceased had stated that even the news of the death had not been initially conveyed to them by respondents 3 and 4 and that the police were a has present in the house at the time when they want there, that there were injuries on the body of the deceased which was cremated abruptly. It was further alleged that the deceased had died due to homicidal violence and necessary action was requested. Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court on 3-4-1987 with the present petition

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Thiru V. Gopinathan, learned counsel for resp