When death speaks, the law must listen

The death of a young woman under suspicious circumstances often leaves behind more questions than answers. Some call it suicide. Others suspect murder. Family members grieve. Society speculates. Amid this uncertainty, one fundamental question arises: What is the duty of the police? The answer lies not merely in statutory provisions but also in a consistent line of decisions of the Supreme Court of India.  The duty of the State begins the moment information regarding an unnatural death reaches the police. It does not wait for a complaint.

Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), creates a statutory obligation upon the police to act whenever information is received that a person has died by suicide or under suspicious circumstances; met with an accident; or has been killed. The provision begins with the words, “When the officer in charge receives information.” The crucial factor is, therefore, the information itself, not a complaint. Upon receiving such information, the police are required to immediately inform the nearest executive magistrate, proceed to the place of occurrence, conduct an inquest, prepare an inquest report, and arrange for a post-mortem examination wherever required by law.

The Supreme Court in Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975) explained the limited but important purpose of an inquest. The Court observed that the object of holding an inquest, as can be seen from Section 174, is to find whether a person died a natural death, a homicidal death or due to suicide. Thus it is very clear that an inquest is not a criminal trial or even a criminal investigation in the strict sense. It is the law’s first response to death.

This distinction was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar (2020) arising out of the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, emphasising that proceedings under Section 174 are distinct from an investigation into a cognisable offence. The former seeks to discover the apparent cause of death; the latter seeks to identify offenders and establish criminal liability.

However, this distinction does not warrant police inaction nor a hasty statement that death is due to suicide or murder. The moment material emerges indicating the commission of a cognisable offence such as murder, abetment of suicide, dowry death, or cruelty, the law takes a different course. In the landmark Constitution Bench decision of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), the Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory whenever information discloses a cognisable offence. The police possess no discretion to postpone or avoid registration in such circumstances. Therefore, an unnatural death inquiry and a criminal investigation may begin as separate processes, but one can quickly transform into the other when evidence suggests criminality.

The importance of preserving the scene of occurrence becomes even more critical where competing versions of suicide and homicide emerge. Suppose a woman is found dead inside a room, and the body is shifted to a hospital before police intervention. Can the police wait for days before conducting a spot mahazar? Can persons who may later become accused continue to occupy and control the premises? The answer, both legally and logically, must be in the negative.

Criminal investigations must be done carefully, as they involve the rights of the accused and of the victims. The three-judge bench of the apex court in Anukush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra observed that all relevant facts and circumstances are to be brought to the notice of the Court so that due justice prevails. 

Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Rajesh Singh, the Court emphasised that proceedings under Section 174 CrPC are intended to preserve the first look. The police officer must investigate the place from where the dead body is recovered; anything and everything in and around the area may become crucial in determining whether a death is suicidal or homicidal.

Delay, passivity, and failure to preserve the scene as required strike at the very foundation of a fair and effective investigation. The law does not demand certainty before action. It demands vigilance.
For when death speaks through circumstances, avoidance from the investigating machinery is not neutrality—it is a failure of duty.

(The writer is a senior advocate in the High Court of Karnataka and senior mediator)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.