This article is written by Amit Garg and updated by Monesh Mehndiratta. The article explains Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It explains the applicability of the Section, its objective and the particulars of the report to be made under the Section. Further, it also provides important case laws related to the Section.  

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Introduction 

Imagine, A healthy young man with no disease and a harmful medical history dies suddenly. Will it be shocking? Will there be a suspicion about his death?

Obviously, if a person who is healthy and fit dies suddenly, there will be a suspicion regarding his death. There will be a doubt whether the death is unnatural or any offence has been committed against him. All these questions have to be answered if a person dies suddenly. For this reason, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 empowers the police to conduct an investigation and make a report about the cause of death of the deceased. This is given under Section 174 of the Code. Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a legal provision that deals with the procedure that the police and the Executive Magistrate need to follow in cases of unnatural death.

The present article deals with Section 174 of the Code and explains the provision in detail. It explains the circumstances under which the inquest report is to be made, the particulars of the report, who is empowered to make the report, the object, and the intricacies involved in the procedure through case laws. 

What is unnatural death

When a person does not die due to natural circumstances, a person is considered a victim of unnatural death. Several causes of unnatural deaths are accidental death, murders, animal attack, complications of surgery, suicide and many more. Suicide can be defined as intentional killing or causing one’s own death. Suicide is not permissible under Indian Law, and so Section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 lays down the punishment if any person attempts to commit a suicide. If a person attempts suicide, then he shall be imprisoned for a term of one year or charged with a fine as per the court’s discretion, or both. There have been several attempts to remove Section 309 of the IPC, but the attempts seem to have failed. However, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023 does not provides any punishment for committing suicide but Section 224 of the said Bill criminalises an attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain exercise of lawful power. 

If a person dies naturally, then there lies no suspicion so as to the death of the person. But in case of unnatural death, the death is caused due to circumstances which needs to be explained and examined. There lies an obligation on the state to secure the health and life of every citizen of the country. If any crime is committed, the crime is against the state. If a person dies due to unnatural circumstances, the state is burdened to identify the cause of death and if there lies a suspicion as to the cause of death, the state must take appropriate steps to punish the guilty. In order to provide for the procedure in case a person dies unnaturally, Section 174 was created that lays down the procedure the police officer and the Executive Magistrate must follow in case of untimely deaths.

All about Section 174 CrPC 

Applicability of the Section

Section 174(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 empowers the officer-in-charge of the police station or any other police officer empowered by the state government, to conduct an investigation regarding the apparent cause of death upon receiving the information about the same and intimating the Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest, under the following circumstances:

• A person committed suicide or,
• Killed by any other person or,
• Killed by any animal or,
• Killed by machinery or accident or,
• Death of the person raises a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence. 

Objective of Section 174 CrPC

The primary objective of this Section is to ascertain the apparent cause of death of the deceased, and so the scope of the inquiry must be limited. The Supreme Court, in the case of Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975), held that the scope of the Section is limited and is only confined to determining whether the death was unnatural or the deceased died under suspicious circumstances. 

Further in the case of Ravi @ Ravichandran v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police (2007), the hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of the report under Section 174 of the Code is to ascertain whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not. In another case of Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P. (2011), the Supreme Court held that the purpose of an inquest report made under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is to investigate the apparent cause of death of the deceased and the manner in which the wounds have been inflicted upon the body. 

Thus, the object of this Section can be summed up as:

• To do a primary investigation regarding the cause of death of the deceased. 
• Prepare an inquest report to determine the apparent cause of death. 
• Description of wounds, fractures, bruises or other injuries upon the body. 
• To state the manner in which the weapon was used to inflict the injury. 

Essentials of Section 174 CrPC

The essentials of Section 174 are:

• There must be a death of a person and the same must be informed to the police. 
• The nearest Executive Magistrate must be intimated regarding the death. 
• The Magistrate must be capable of holding the inquiries or inquiry. 
• The police must proceed to the place where the dead body was found. 
• The investigation must be done in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. 
• The investigation must be limited to the cause of death and description of wounds, fractures, bruises etc., if any. 
• The same must be mentioned in a report, which must be signed by the police officer conducting the investigation and other persons present during the investigation, as given under Section 174(2) of the Code. 
• The report will be sent to the District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate. 

Inquest report under Section 174 CrPC

For the purpose of the unnatural deaths, the executive magistrate, upon the intimation by the Station House Officer or some other Police Officer specially empowered by the State Government, shall prepare an inquest report which shall contain the minute details regarding the cause of death of a person. An inquest report is prepared by a District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or Executive Magistrate especially empowered on this behalf by the State Government when the deaths are sudden and unexplained. 

Particulars of the report

As stated above, the police have to make a report regarding the apparent cause of death of the deceased upon investigation in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants residing in the place of occurrence. The following are the particulars of the report:

• The report must contain the following information-
  • Nature of the area where the dead body is found.
  • cause of death;
  • weapons that were used to inflict injuries;
  • manner of inflicting the injuries;
  • number of injuries along with their positions; and
  • description of wounds, bruises, burns, fractures or any other marks of injury found on the body. 
• The report must be signed by:
  • Police officers conducting the investigation; and 
  • other persons in whose presence the investigation is conducted. 
• The report must be duly submitted to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate. 

In the case of Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh (2003), the Supreme Court held that the Section does not require that the name of the accused or manner of incident must be mentioned in the report but only contemplates the apparent cause of death and description of wounds to be mentioned therein. 

Circumstances under which post-mortem examination can be done under the Section 

Section 174(3) of the Code provides certain circumstances under which the police officer can send the body to the nearest Civil Surgeon or any other qualified medical person appointed by the state government for the post-mortem. This is only done if there is no risk of putrefaction or decaying of the body while covering the distance to such a medical person, or otherwise the examination would be useless. However, this medical examination cannot be done in every case but in certain circumstances as provided below:

• If the case pertains to the suicide of a woman within 7 years of her marriage. 
• Death of a woman within 7 years of marriage, creating a reasonable suspicion that an offence was committed by another person to the deceased woman. 
• The case is related to the death of a woman within 7 years of marriage, but the same has been requested by the woman’s relative to the police by any of her relatives. 
• The circumstances create a doubt or reasonable suspicion regarding the cause of death.
• The police officer conducting the investigation for any other reason considers it expedient to send the body for examination.

Who can hold inquests

According to Section 174(4) of the Code, the following people are empowered to hold the inquests or inquiries about the cause of death of the deceased:

• District Magistrate or,
• Sub-divisional Magistrate or,
• Any Executive Magistrate empowered by the State Government or the District Magistrate to do so. 

Duties of a magistrate under Section 174 CrPC

Section 174 lays down the duties that a magistrate must do upon intimation by the police officer of the cases of unnatural death. The police officer is bound to give intimation to the nearest Magistrate, who is empowered to hold inquiries, when he receives information regarding the unnatural death of a person:

• The foremost duty of a Magistrate is to determine the cause of unnatural death. The magistrate shall examine any body and upon investigation conclude as to the reason which caused the death of the person. The death may be caused by any reason as mentioned in the Section 174 (1) of CrPC.
• Since Section 174 is very limited in its scope, therefore it is restricted to the suspicious circumstances that caused the unnatural death of a person and the magistrate has no scope or authority under this section to trace the person who has so caused the death. In the case of Radha Mohan Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the Supreme Court held that section 174 is limited to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death. The magistrate is therefore bound by the limited scope of Section 174 and does not have to trace the person who has caused the death or determine who assaulted the dead person or in what manner or under what circumstances, etc. 
• In cases where there is suspicion over the death of the deceased as mentioned under Section 174(3) then the dead body must be sent to the Government Medical Officer for postmortem.
• The magistrate need not examine all the witnesses while performing investigation for a cause of unnatural death. In the case of Shakila Khader v Nausheer Cama (1975), the apex court held that for the purpose of preparing the inquest report, there need not be examination of all the witnesses as the purpose of the inquest is only to establish the cause of death. If a person’s name is not mentioned in the inquest report, it does not lead to the assumption that he was not an eyewitness to the incident. An inquest report is concerned with establishing the cause of death, and only evidence to establish it needs to be brought out.
• The report must be prepared by the magistrate in a prescribed format. But if a report is not prepared in a prescribed format, the report cannot be declared as unacceptable.
• The magistrate must conduct the investigation in presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood. In case when no resident is there on the spot or when no one volunteers to be a witness of the investigation, the inquest report may be prepared without the presence of respectable inhabitants.
• On completion of the report, the magistrate must get such a report signed by the police officer who informed him of the death and the other persons as well who were part of the investigation. The report must be then forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate

Police investigation in case of dowry death 

In the year 1983, there was a large number of cases reported of deaths caused because of the demand for dowry. Women who could not pay the demand after marriage were either brutally treated or they were murdered. In order to control the inflammatory situation of dowry death, the Parliament inserted Section 304B in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986. Section 304B of IPC states that if the death of a woman is caused by such bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances or if she is subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry and if such death or act of cruelty is caused within seven years of marriage, then the husband or his relative will be deemed to have caused her death. This presumption shall be raised under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

The parliamentarians also inserted Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983, which penalizes cruelty by husband or his relative on a woman for any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, which forces her to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life.

Duties of police officer in case of unnatural dowry death

The Criminal Amendment Act of 1983 inserted Section 174(3) in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to curb the increasing incidents of dowry deaths. This subsection says that if the death of a woman is caused within seven years of marriage and if there is any reasonable suspicion over the death of the woman that an offence has been committed under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC in this regard, the police officer should subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, send the body for medical examination to the nearest civil surgeon, over the request made by any relative of the deceased woman.
The police in order to exercise this discretion must fulfil the following conditions:

• Death of a woman is caused within seven years of marriage or
• A request is made by any relative of the woman on this behalf.

The medical examination under the Section can only be done if there is no risk of putrefaction or decaying of the body while covering the distance to reach such a medical person, or otherwise the examination would be useless.

Police investigation in case of suicides

Legal provisions related to suicide

The enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 has decriminalized suicides. Section 115 of the said Act overrides the provision of Section 309 of IPC; the person committing suicide shall be presumed to be innocent unless proven otherwise. So, now a person cannot be arrested for making an attempt to commit suicide and thereby no FIR. There is no restriction on filing of a FIR in cases of abetment to suicide. If it appears that the person has committed suicide , firstly it is the duty of the Medical Examiner to determine the cause of death of the person whether it is caused due to natural, accidental, homicidal or suicidal. After the determination that the death is caused by suicide, the police officer needs to step up and perform the necessary functions. He shall investigate into the matter and determine the reasons of the suicide. However, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023 does not provides any punishment for committing suicide unlike Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.  

Investigation and report to be made under Section 174 CrPC

Investigation plays a vital role in any offence. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, an investigation starts after the First Information Report or FIR is lodged. However, the investigation under Section 174 is different. The Section gives power to the police officer to make an investigation whenever they receive any information regarding the death of any person which creates a suspicion regarding the death or if the person committed suicide. The police are empowered by the state government to intimate the same to the nearest Executive Magistrate capable of holding inquiries and conducting an investigation regarding the apparent cause of death of a person. The following information has to be gathered from the spot from where the body is recovered:

• Condition of the dead body.
• Number of wounds, bruises, burns or other injuries along with their shapes, position, length and breadth. 
• Nature of fracture, if any. 
• Articles found on or around the body. 
• Identification marks which includes:
  • In case of a male, the body must be described properly along with height, hair, moustache etc. 
  • Features of the body.
  • Marks of shoes. 
  • Any marks, scares, birthmarks, moles etc along with their position. 
• Any other information which could help identify the deceased. 

Duties of police officer in case of suicide

It is the duty of the police officer to collect evidence so as to the manner of death due to suicide. The evidence may be physical, documentary, or circumstantial. Physical evidence includes fingerprints, blood, etc. Documentary evidence includes testimonials or records that are on paper. Circumstantial evidence includes chronological presentation of facts.

If the investigation states that a person has abetted the suicide, a FIR shall be lodged against such person, and he shall be arrested as given Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. If the police are reluctant to file an FIR, then a private complaint with the Judicial Magistrate court under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be made, and the Magistrate may direct the police to lodge an FIR and conduct investigation. .

Evidentiary value of the report made under Section 174 CrPC 

To check the veracity of witnesses

At this juncture, where we are aware that the report made under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is only to determine the apparent cause of death of the deceased, it is important to understand its evidentiary value and whether it can be used as evidence in the court. In the case of Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab (1992), the Supreme Court held that the report made under the Section cannot be treated as evidence but can be used to test the veracity of the witness. In the case of Shakila Khader v. Nausher Cama (1975), the Supreme Court held that all the witnesses under the inquest cannot be examined, as the purpose of the Section is only to ascertain the cause of death. 

To corroborate or to contradict 

In the case of Razak Ram v. J.S. Chauhan (1975), the Supreme Court held that the statement made under Section 174 or the report cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence but can be used to corroborate or contradict a person’s statement during the trial. In the case of Madhu v. State of Karnataka (2013), the Supreme Court held that the report made under Section 174 cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence. The same was reiterated in the case of Bimla Devi v. Rajesh Singh (2016). Further, in the case of Yogesh Singh v. Mahaveer Singh (2017), the Supreme Court stated that the inquest was a part of the investigation. It cannot be treated as evidence, but can be used to test the veracity of a witness during the trial. 

The Allahabad High Court in the case of Sheo Dayal v. State of U.P. (2007) held that there is no need to record a statement of a witness under the inquest report. The only aim is to ascertain the apparent cause of death and whether it was accidental, homicidal, or suicidal. It is important to note that it is not necessary to mention the name of the accused in the inquest report. In the case of Ram Sanjiwan Singh v. State of Bihar (1996), the Supreme Court held that there is no irregularity in the report if the names of the accused or assailants are not mentioned.

Other Sections related to Section 174 CrPC 

Section 175 CrPC

For the purpose of investigation under Section 174, the police officer has the power to summon any person by an order in writing under Section 175(1) of the Code. The officer can also summon any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case, and people summoned are required to answer all the questions other than those which can expose them to any criminal offence. 

The Section also provides that if the case does not disclose a cognizable offence to which Section 170 is applicable, people summoned by police officers are not required to come to the court. Section 170 of the Code deals with cases that must be sent to the magistrate, who is empowered to take its cognizance upon the police report when there is sufficient evidence.  

Section 176 CrPC

Section 176 empowers the Magistrate to hold an inquiry in addition to the investigation conducted by the police officer in Section 174 of the Code. Also, whenever a person dies or disappears or the offence of rape is committed against a woman while in police custody or any other custody authorised by the Magistrate or Court, the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate is empowered to hold an inquiry about the crime committed. 

The Magistrate is also required to record the evidence and can also order the post mortem of the dead body in order to find out the cause of death. For this, the Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate or Executive Magistrate shall give the body to the nearest Civil Surgeon within 24 hours. He also has a duty to inform the relatives of the deceased so that they can be present at such inquiry. 

Recent case laws

Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of U.P. (2006) 

Facts of the case

In this case, a person was assaulted by the accused and the brother of the deceased was a witness to the incident. The deceased was requested by the accused to not give any statement against them, to which he said that his brother was the witness and would definitely give a statement against them. The accused got annoyed and threatened him. While both the brothers were returning from the Holi celebration in their village, they were attacked by the accused because of which one of them died. 

The brother of the deceased lodged an FIR, after which investigation was done. The accused were presented before the session court and given punishment for the offence. Aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Court, an appeal was preferred to the division bench, wherein it was dismissed. Another appeal was preferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

Issues involved in the case

Whether the appeal be allowed and the conviction be set aside?

Judgement of the court

The Supreme Court in this case made important observations regarding the scope and object of Section 174 of the Code. It was held that the language of the provision is simple and free from ambiguity. The investigation under the Section is limited in scope. It is only to ascertain the apparent cause of death. It is only confined to determine whether the death was accidental, homicidal or suicidal and for this reason, people who are acquainted with the facts of the case are summoned under Section 175 of the Code. 

The court also held that it is not necessary to include details like the name of the accused, who assaulted the victim etc. in the report made under Section 174 of the Code. With respect to the present case, the court held that the investigation revealed that the deceased died because he was stabbed and assaulted by the accused, and so the conviction was upheld. 

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chattisgarh (2016) 

Facts of the case

The appellant in this case who was also the accused was serving in the Indian Air Force when he married the deceased who committed suicide in her matrimonial house. The police, after the investigation was conducted, submitted a report stating that there was no suspicion about the death of the deceased which was accepted by the Magistrate and hence, the case was closed.

However, after five years, an FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased against the appellant and his family. Aggrieved by this, a writ petition was filed to quash the chargesheet by the appellant before the High Court. The writ petition was, however, dismissed and thus, the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. 

Issues involved in the case

Whether the appeal be allowed?

Judgement of the court 

While dealing with the issue of investigation under Sections 154 and 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Supreme Court made the following observations. The Court observed that the scope of investigation under Section 174 is limited as compared to Section 154. The only objective of the investigation is to ascertain whether a person died unnaturally or under suspicious circumstances, i.e. the apparent cause of death. Questions like who is the prime suspect, accused etc. are outside its scope. This Section only applies where an inquest report can be made and if the dead body cannot be found, there can be no such investigation. On the other hand, as soon as an FIR is lodged regarding the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 CrPC, the police officer has to proceed with the investigation and formation of a final report or charge sheet under Section 173 CrPC. The court held that the investigation conducted under Section 174 is completely different from that under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 

The court held that the evidence did not disclose commission of any offence, and so no case can be made out against the appellant. It was also observed that the present case reveals a malicious prosecution instituted by the brother of the deceased after five years of her death against the appellant, and that too on the basis of anonymous letters. All the allegations made against the appellant are vague and hence, the FIR must be quashed. 

Manohari v. District Superintendent of Police and Ors. (2018)

Facts of the case

In this case, a common issue was taken into consideration with respect to the procedure to be followed in cases where a first information report is filed under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The issue was raised in different criminal cases:

• In one of the criminal cases, the petitioner had a strong suspicion about the death of her son. This is also because the post-mortem report revealed that a particular poison was spread in the body and hence, wanted an investigation to be conducted by the police. However, the police filed a closure report with the Magistrate, which was challenged by the petitioner. 
• In another case, the petitioner claimed that her daughter who was 9 months pregnant died due to her son-in-law because of harassment due to dowry. However, the investigation was not conducted properly and has been pending since 2016. 
• Another petition revealed the death of the girl within 8 months of her marriage and the same was reported by her parents to the Panchayat president of the area who went to the place where the body was found. It was found that the left hand’s wrist of the deceased was fractured. The FIR was lodged, but the police filed a closure report with the Magistrate. 

Issues involved in the case

Whether the procedure followed by the police in the investigation of the above-mentioned cases is correct?

Judgement of the court

The Madras High Court in this case have certain guidelines with respect to the procedure to be followed in conducting an investigation in the cases under Section 174 of the Code:

• On receiving any information with respect to the commission of a crime under Section 174, the police are required to register a First Information Report and then proceed to the place of occurrence and make an inquest report. 
• If the information received reveals that the victim is not dead but lying in a serious condition, the police must proceed to the crime scene in order to save the victim and if thereafter the victim dies, an inquest report must be made. This report must contain a description of wounds, fractures, bruises and other injuries found on the body and what weapon was used to inflict such injuries. 
• The police are also required to prepare a rough sketch of the place where the body was found. 
• This inquest report and the rough sketch must be made in the presence of two or more respectable people residing in the area where the dead body was found.
• The object of making such a report is only to ascertain the apparent cause of death and whether the death was unnatural. It is not necessary to include the details of the accused, the manner in which the victim was assaulted etc. in the report. This information does not form part of the inquest proceedings, but the investigation to be conducted by police. 
• As soon as the report is made, it must be submitted to the Executive Magistrate. 
• At the conclusion of the investigation, the police must submit a final report to the Judicial Magistrate under Section 173(2) of the Code. 
• If the police proceed to file a closure report, the same must be informed to the victim’s family through a notice. 

The Court further held that the investigation done in the above cases is in violation of the procedure set out in the Code. The Court ordered that a proper investigation must be conducted in all the above-mentioned cases according to the procedure and guidelines issued by this court. 

K. Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2023)

Facts of the case 

The petitioner in this case sought an effective investigation in the death of his daughter, who was married in 2017 and found hanging in her bedroom in 2021. Also, before her death, she complained about the harassment she faced from her in-laws and husband for dowry and other marital issues. However, when the petitioner inquired from the police, he got to know that they were trying to close the matter so he sought an effective investigation into the matter. 

Issues involved in the case

Whether the request for effective investigation be granted or not?

Judgement of the court

The High Court of Kerala in this case observed that the scope of investigation under Section 174 of the Code is limited only to ascertain the apparent cause of death of the deceased. The Court held that the Executive Magistrate has the duty to inform the relatives of the deceased about the results of the inquiry made under Section 174 of the Code in cases where no cognizable offence is revealed after the inquiry. Also, if the Executive Magistrate receives any information pertaining to the commission of a cognizable offence, he must immediately inform the Judicial Magistrate, who shall then proceed with the case accordingly. The investigation in the present case was entrusted to a special team of the crime branch. 

Conclusion

In a nutshell, Section 174 is very limited in scope; it lays down the procedure that a police officer must follow on the unnatural death of a person. When an unidentified dead body is found, the police officer shall inform the magistrate who shall investigate into the cause of death of the person and upon such investigation, prepare an inquest report that shall include the details that the magistrate has found during the investigation. The Section also lays down the requirements that the magistrate must fulfil for preparing an inquest report that shall specify the cause of death of the person. The Section does not lay down the procedure for tracing of the accused. The Section provides for special performance on the part of a police officer in case of dowry death, i.e., death of a woman within seven years of marriage for the demand of dowry. Thus, this section is confined to unnatural deaths or any other reason which is considered expedient by the police officer.

Section 174 of the Code, though limited in scope, empowers the police officer to conduct a primary investigation in the case to ascertain the apparent depth and whether the person died by accident, suicide or any cognizable offence was committed against the deceased. This further helps in the investigation if any cognizable offence was committed. However, there is a difference between the investigation conducted under Section 174 and Section 154 of the Code. The police is also required to make an inquest report which includes the details like apparent cause of death, description of injuries and wounds and weapon used to inflict such injuries. 

The investigation and the report must be made in the presence of two or more people residing in the area where the body was found. Further, Section 175 of the Code gives power to the police to summon people who have any knowledge about the facts of the case. Section 176 on the other hand, empowers the Magistrate to hold an inquiry in addition to the investigation conducted by the police officer in Section 174 of the Code. Where an offence is committed against a person while he is in police custody or any other custody authorised by the magistrate, leading to his death, the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate can hold the inquiry. Thus, it can be said that the Section upholds the objective of the criminal law to have fair investigation in the case. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is an inquest report?

It is a report prepared by the police under Section 174 of the Code to ascertain the apparent cause of death and whether it was unnatural or there is any suspicion regarding the death of the deceased. 

What is the difference between an inquest report and a post-mortem report?

An inquest report is made to ascertain the apparent cause of death and only to determine whether the death was accidental, homicidal, or suicidal. Post-mortem report, on the other hand, is prepared after a careful medical examination which reveals the actual cause of death like poison, impact of injuries etc. 

Who all have to sign the inquest report under Section 174 CrPC?

It must be signed by the police officer conducting the investigation and the people present during the investigation, as given under Section 174(2) of the Code. 

What is the difference between Section 154 and Section 174 CrPC? 

Section 154 CrPC deals with the lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) in case of cognizable offences upon which investigation is done by the police. Section 174 on the other deals with police inquiry and submission of reports in case of suicides etc. The scope of Section 174 is limited and only deals with answering whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or was it an unnatural death, along with the apparent cause of death. 

References

• https://www.aironline.in/legal-articles/Ambit%20and%20Scope%20of%20Inquest%20Report%20under%20Section%20174,%20Cr.%20P.C.#:~:text=Section%20174%20of%20the%20Code,has%20died%20under%20suspicious%20circumstances.
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-section-174-CrPC-suicide-dowry-death-executive-magistrate-inquiry-inform-relatives-232659
• https://www.harjindersingh.in/harjinder-singh/inquest-report-usec-174-cr-p-c
• https://police.py.gov.in/Police%20manual/Chapter%20PDF/CHAPTER%2041%20Investigation%20of%20Unnatural%20Deaths.pdf
• https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2018/sep/18/police-instructed-on-procedure-to-follow-under-section-174-of-criminal-procedure-1873483.html 

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.