Failure to give information about death is not an offence.

This is a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the two accused in C.C.No.11584 of 1986 on the file of the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, to call for those records and quash the same.

2. The 1st petitioner is working as Nurse in the Maternity Hospital for Women and Children, Egmore, Madras and her husband the 2nd petitioner is working in the Government Press, Madras. They have no children of their own. The 2nd respondent Ambujammal, who had been impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 8.9.1988 in Crl.M.P. No.5389 of 1988 is the elder sister of the first petitioner’s mother. She is a resident of Tiruchirapalli. She had an adopted son by name Rajasekar alias Sekar. About two years ago, the said Rajasekar came to Madras and stayed with the petitioners. He was studying Siddha Medicine at the Anna Hospital, Madras.

3. On the evening of 12.2.1986, the petitioners left their house viz. No.22, Sami Reddy Street, Egmore, Madras, leaving Rajasekar in the house. When the 1st petitioner returned home at about 8.00 P.M. she noticed Rajasekar in an unusual condition with an iron box in his hand with electricity connection. Immediately, she disconnected the electricity supply and took Rajasekar to Dr.Surendran, who is having clinic at Gengu Reddy Street, Egmore, Madras, along with her neighbours. The doctor examined Rajasekar at about 8.15 P.M., and certified that he died due to cardiac failure due to electrocution. The 1st petitioner took the body of Rajasekar to her house and informed her husband, the 2nd petitioner, who by then returned home. They gave telegram to the 2nd respondent and other relatives. The body of Rajasekar was kept till 9.00 P.M., the next day i.e., on 13.2.1986. As the 2nd respondent did not come, the petitioners had buried the dead body of Rajasekar at Kilpauk burial ground at 9.00 P.M. on 13.2.1986.

4. Subsequently, on the same night, the 2nd respondent came and took part in the second day ceremonies. She was informed of the happenings on 12.2.1986, about the disposal of the dead body etc. The 2nd respondent did not express any suspicion about the death of Rajasekar till she left for Tiruchirapalli after a few days. After a lapse of seven months on 26.9.1986 the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before F-2, Egmore Police Station suspecting foul play in the death of her adopted son Rajaksekar and requesting enquiry to be conducted in this regard. The Inspector of Police, Egmore, who conducted an enquiry found that there is only fault on the part of the petitioners in not reporting the suspicious death of Rajasekar to the police immediately and as such, they are liable to be prosecuted for such lapse under Sec.176, I.P.C. Sec.176, I.P.C. being a non-cognizable one, after obtaining permission from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, to investigate the case, the Inspector of Police investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the petitioners before the 14the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, as under:

“That on 12.2.1986 between 18.00 hours and 20.00 hours at No.22, Sami Reddi Street, Egmore, Madras-8, in the residence of accused 1 and 2 noted in the charge-sheet, one Sekar alias Rajasekar (22 years) died due to electric shock while he was ironing the clothes. The body of Sekar alias Rajasekar was buried in Kilpauk burial ground, on 13.2.1986 without informing to police even though the death was unnatural one.

The accused 1 and 2 noted in the charge-sheet who are legally bound to give information to police about the unnatural death of Sekar alias Rajasekar have intentionally omitted to give information to police as they arc legally bound to give it and buried the body. Hence, accused 1 and 2 are liable to be punished under Sec.176, I.P.C.”

In the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present petition to call for the records and quash the impugned proceedings. In this petition, the 1st respondent is the Inspector of Police, Egmo