Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14987
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
B.Pugalendhi, J
RAJA – Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY( LAW – Respondent
WP(MD)Nos.20267 to 20273 of 2021 and 19405 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16926 to 16939 of 2021, 16135 and 16138 of 2021
Mr.J.Lawrance, Mr.K.Balasubramani
Judicial Magistrate's report on custodial death must be submitted to the Investigating Officer, not the Government, as per Criminal Rules of Practice.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 176(1-A) - Inquiry into custodial death - Police officers challenged the report of the Judicial Magistrate which concluded that the accused died due to police excess - The report was submitted to the Investigating Officer, not the Government, as per Criminal Rules of Practice 2019. (Paras 1, 3, 4)
(B) Judicial Magistrate's report - The report must not be forwarded to the District Collector or Government, as per Rule 94(7) of Criminal Rules of Practice 2019 - The inquiry report must be furnished to the Investigating Officer. (Paras 3, 4)
(C) Compensation and disciplinary action - The Government sanctioned compensation to the victim and initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners based on the Judicial Magistrate's report. (Paras 2, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, police officers, were involved in the custodial death of an accused, China Vellaiah, who died due to injuries sustained while in police custody. An inquiry was conducted, concluding that the officers were responsible for the death.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Government Order providing compensation and initiating disciplinary action against the petitioners.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Judicial Magistrate properly submitted the report and the legality of the Government's actions based on that report.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Judicial Magistrate's report must be submitted to the Investigating Officer and not to the Government, affirming the procedural requirements under the Criminal Rules of Practice.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners are police officers, part of a special team. They nabbed an accused, by name, China Vellaiah near Natham Kottampatti Road at about 2:15 p.m. on 04.01.2019 in connection with a case in Crime No.4 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (1)(B) of NDPS Act. The accused China Vellaiah died in a suspicious circumstances in the Hospital. Since the accused died while he was under the police custody, an enquiry under Section 176(1-A) of Cr.P.C . was ordered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the request of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The learned Judicial Magistrate has conducted the inquest at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, in the presence of the relative of the deceased and examined the witnesses and submitted a report that the deceased died due to the police excess. The postmortem report reveals that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries all over his body, including on his head and the deceased died due to the head injury.
2. During the inquiry, some of the officers have projected as if there was a clash between the deceased accused and another. But the same was not corroborated by other officers of the special team. However, the person, who said to have excessed, was also not identified by the special team. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by his report dated 29.07.2019, concluded that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries all over his body including the head injury, which caused the death, only at the hands of the members of the special team and they are alone responsible for the death of the accused. Based on the report of the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) Cr.P.C , the Government, vide G.O.(Ms.)No.325, dated 09.07.2020, sanctioned a sum of Rs. 5 lakh to the victim and directed to proceed with the criminal prosecution and also departmentally as against the petitioners / the officers of the special team. As against the said G.O., these writ petitions have been filed on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate is not supposed to hand over the report to the District Collector and the Government directly and no opportunity was provided to them.
3. To substantiate the case of the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on Chapter-XIII of Criminal Rules of Practice 2019 on the inquiry into custodial death/disappearance/rape and the same is extracted as under:
“94. Death or disappearance or rape while in custody -
(1) Any information relating to the death or disappearance of any person or rape of a woman while in custody of the police or in any other custody authorised by a Magistrate or Court, shall be registered as a case under Section 154 of the Code.
(2) On receipt of information of an occurrence referred to in sub-section (1-A) of Section 176 of the Code, the Judicial Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate, in whose jurisdiction the occurrence has taken place, shall hold an enquiry.
(3) During such inquiry under sub-section (1-A) of section 176 of the Code, the Judicial Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate shall have the power to record evidence on oath.
(4) On completing the inquiry, the Judicial Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate shall draw a report and keep the statements of the witnesses, documents collected and the report drawn by him as part of case records.
(5) The Judicial Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate shall furnish copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded during inquiry under sub-section (1-A) of section 176 of the Code, the documents collected and the report drawn by him to the investigating police officer without delay.
(6) The investigating police officer shall, without being hindered by the inquiry by the Judicial Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate, conduct investigation under Chapter XII of the Code thoroughly and submit a final report to the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court under Section 173 of the Code.
(7) The Judicial Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate shall not
