1. Law of Crimes Paper II: Criminal
Procedure Code I
Internal Assessment- Third Improvement
ABSTRACT
Investigation with respect to the cognizableoffence by police.
FIR, Chargesheet, police Diary , and Inquestreport.
Name: Utkarsh Kumar
Roll No.: 356
PRN No.: 12010123356
Division: D- BA LLB
Batch: 2013-14

2. INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO
THE COGNIZABLE OFFENCE BY POLICE
Any officer-in-charge of a police station may without the order of a Magistrate,
investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction-over the local area
within the limits of such station would have to inquire into or try under the provisions
of Chapter XIII Sec. 156(1). The police can investigate even without a FIR, if a police
officer has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. F.I.R. is only a
report about commission of an offence and it is not a substantive evidence, as the
police has yet to investigate the offence [Sohan Lai v State of Punjab1].
This statutory right of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with or
controlled 7-9 by the judiciary [King v. Alitad2]. The court may or may not take
action when a charge-sheet is preferred by the police after investigation but its
function does not begin until that stage. If, however, the FIR other relevant materials
do not prima facie disclose any cognizible offence or the proceedings are initiated
mate fide, the police in that case have no authority to investigate and the High Court
in the exercise of its inherent powers under Sec. 482 can stop and quash such an
investigation [State of U.P v R.K. Srivastava3]. But the High Court is not justified in
quashing the investigation which is still on its way.4
A Magistrate has no authority to direct investigating officer to investigate any
case in a particular way [Jndrajit Mukherjee v Sate5]. But when an informant filed a
protest against the investigating officer for not recording a correct statement of the
prosecution witness, it was held that the investigation would become doubtful and the
advantage or the same would go the accused6. Interference by the High Court in the
investigation of offences is permissible only if non-interference would result in of
justice7.
Sec. 156(2) lays down that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case
shall, at any stage, be called in question on the ground that the case was one which
such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. Thus, an
irregularity in investigation does not vitiate proceedings or trial. In a wife-burning
incident, the investigating officer committed grave irregularity in omitting to send
burnt clothes and other incriminating material for chemical examination, held that the
mere fact that the officer committed irregularity or illegality would not and does not
cast doubt on prosecution case [State of Rajasthan v Kishore AIR 1996 SC 3035].
When a case is made out against all or any one of the accused persons the fact that
investigation was defective in nature cannot be made a basis for acquitting accused
1 2003 CrlJ 4569 (SC)
2 AIR 1945 PC 18
3 (1989) 4 SCC 59
4 Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v Chaitanya Kumar AIR 1992 SC 1930
5 1995-CrLI-3250-(Cal)
6 Jagdish Barhi v Stale of Bihar, 1990 Cr ti 1443 (SC)
7 See Eastern Spinning Mills v Rajiv Pocidar AIR SC,1668

3. [State of UP v Hari Mohan8]. A trial cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the
investigation have brought about a miscarriage of justice. An illegality committed in
the course, of investigation does not affect the competance and the jurisdiction of the
court for trial9.
Investigation beyond Territorial jurisdiction
The latter part of sub-sec.(1) enables the police to invegigate cognizable offences
committed beyond their local jurisdiction (See Secs. 181-183, Chapter XIII
[Satvinder-Kaiir v State (1999) 8 SCC 728. It is not within the jurisdiction of the
Investigative Agency to refrain itself from bolding a proper and complete
investigation merely upon arriving at a conclusion that the offences had been
committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The power vested in the Investigating
Agency under this section does not restrict the Tralsdiction of the Agency to
investigate into a complaint even frit did noel-lave territorial jurisdiction to do so
[Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v State of Gujarat AIR 2010 SC 715].
The Code has conferred power on the statutory authorities to direct transfer of
an investigation from one police station to another in the event if it is found that they
do not have any jurisdiction in the matter. The Court should not interfere iN the
matter at an initial stage in regard: thereto. If it is found that an investigation officer
has conducted investigation who did territorial jurisdiction matter, the same should be
transferred by him to the police station having requisite jurisdiction [Naresh K. Khatri
v State of Gujarat (2008) 8 SCC 300].
Order of Investigation by Magistrate is Sec. 156(3)]
According to Sec. 156(3), any Magistrate empowered under Sec 190 can order a
officer-in-charge of a police station to investigate an cognizable offence10, the words
`any, Magistrate' refers to Judicial Magistrate and not Executive Magistrate; the latter
cannot direct investigation of a cognizable offence11.
Whenever a Magistrate directs an investigation on a complaint the police has to
register a cognizable case treating the same as F.I.170nce such a direction is given
under Sec. 156Q) the police is required to investiate and on completion of it to submit
a police report in accordance with Sec. 173(2) on which a Magistrate may take
cognizance under Sec. 190(1)(b) [Madhubala v Suresh12]. It is the duty- of the
Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to register an FIR when investigation under
Sec. 156(3) is directed by the Magistrate, even when the Magistrate explicitly does
not say so [Mohd. Yousuf v Jahan13]. Usually it is for the police to register the case.
8 2001 CrLI 170 (SC)
9 Union of India v Prakash Hinduja, 2003 CrLI 3117 (SC)
10 As per Sec. 190, a Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a
complaint/ police report (chalan) or upon his own knowledge
11 Bateshwar Singh v State, 1992 CrLJ 2122 (Pat)
12 Kumar 1997 CrlJ 3757 (SC)
13 (2006) 1 SCC 627

4. However, on perusal of a report the Magistrate can order registration of the case under
Sec. 156(3).
The power to order investigation under Sec. 156(3) is different from the power to
order investigation under Sec. 202(1). The first is exercisable at the pre-cognizance
stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage (when the Magistrate is seized of the
case i.e. issue of process to the accused). The legal prepositions regarding the order of
investigation by a Magistrate under the Secs. 156(3), 190 and 202 of the Code are:
(i) A. Magistrate can order investigation under Sec. 156(3) before taking
cognizance under Sec. 190, and where a Magistrate decides to take
cognizance under the provisions of Chapter XIV he is not entitled by law
to order any investigation under Sec. 156(3).
(ii) Where the Magistrate chooses to take cognizance he can (a) peruse the
complaint and if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can issue
process (warrant/ summons) to the accused (b) postpone the issue of
process and direct an inquiry by himself (c) postpone the issue of process
and direct an inquiry by any other person or an investigation by police
(Sec. 202).
(iii) In case the Magistrate after considering the statement of the complainant
and the witnesses or as a result of the investigation and inquiry ordered, is
not satisfied, that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can
dismiss the complaint.
(iv) Where a Magistrate orders investigation by the police (before taking
cognizance) under Sec. 156(3) and receives the report (chailan) thereon
under Sec. 173, he can act on the report and discharge the accused or issue
the process against the accused or apply his mind to complaint filed before
him and take action under Sec. 190.
In such a case when cognizance is later taken by the Magistrate, it would be
deemed to have been taken on the police report and not on the original complaint.
The question whether cognizance of the offence has' been taken by the Magistrate
on a complaint or on a police report, is of some importance, because the trial
procedure in respect of cases instituted on a police report is different from that in
other cases. This is particularly so in trial of warrant cases and trial before a court
of session.
i. The power conferred upon the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) can be
exercised by the Magistrate even after submission of a report by the
investigating officer under Sec. 173 which would mean that it would
be open to the Magistrate not to accept the conclusion of the
investigating officer and direct further investigation.14
ii. If a Magistrate has acted upon a complaint under Sec. 202, it may not
be possible for him to send up the complaint to the police. under Sec.
156(3) for investigation. However, in a case, after the investigation
report under Sec. 156(3) and examination under Sec. 202 the
Magistrate again sent the complaint to the police. Held that such a step
14 State of Bihar v J. A. C Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554

5. could be taken by the Magistrate as he is entitled under Sec. 202 to
order further. investigation15.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Randhir Singh Rana v
Delhi16 in which it was held that a Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the
offence on the basis of police report and appearance of accused cannot order further
investigation. Here the accused was neither summoned nor did he appear on being
summoned. Hence the Magistrate's sending the complaint again to the police was held
proper.
It may be noted that ordinarily the Supreme Court does not order "reopening
of an investigation" after its completion unless there are special facts and
circumstances.17
When the Police Itself is a Complainant
In Bhagwan Singh v State of Rajasthan18, a police head constable lodged F.I.R. that
bribe was offered to him. He himself investigated the case. Held that the Investigation
by the complainant himself was an infirmity, which was bound to on the credibility of
the prosecution case. In Megha Singh v State of Haryana19, a head constable arrested
the accused, recovered a pistol and cartriges from his possessior, and lodged an F.I.R.,
yet he proceeded to examine witnesses. Held that the complaint himself should not
have proceeded for investigation.
15 Bharatiben Verma, 1998 CrLJ 17 (Karnt)
16 (1997) 1 SCC 361
17 Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh v State of Punjab AIR
1994 SC 10230
18 AIR 1976 SC 985
19 AIR 1995 Sc 2339

6. FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (F.I.R)
[SEC. 154]
Sec. 154 deals with what is common known as a First Information Report (F.I.R) i.e.
the first information of a cognizable crime to the police. A first information report'
means the information, by whomsoever given, to the officer in charge of a police
station in relation to the commission of a cognizable, offence and which is first in
point of time and on The strength of which, the., investigation-into, that a offence
commenced.
Any person aware of the commission of any cognizable offence may give
information to the police and may, thereby set the criminal law in motion. The
information so received shall be recorded in such a form and manner as provided in
Sec. 154, viz.
iii. Information given orally to the officer-in-charge of the police station
shall be reduced to writing by the officer himself or under his
direction;
iv. Information given in writing, or if reduced to writing as aforesaid, the
writing shall be signed by the informant;
v. Information as taken down in writing shall be read over to the
informant;
vi. The substance of the information shall then be entered by the police
officer in a book to be kept by such an officer in the form prescribed
by the State Government [Sec. 154(1)].
[2013 Amendment: In Sec. 154(1), the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:
"Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence
under Secs. 326A/326B/354/354A/354B/354C/354D/376/376A/
376B/376C/376D/376E or Sec. 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been
committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police
officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that:
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under Secs. 354/354A/354B/
354C/354D/376/376A/376B/376C/376D/376E or Sec. 509 of the Indian Penal Code
is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently
mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police
officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient
place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator,
as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial
Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-sec. (5A) of Sec. 164 as soon as possible.'"]

7. vii. A copy of the information as recorded above shall be given forthwith,
free of cost, to the informant [Sec. 154(2)].
viii. If the office-in-charge refuses to record the information, the aggrieved
person may send, in writing and by post, the substance of such
information to the Superintendent of Police concerned. If the S. P. is
satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence, he shall either
investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a
subordinate police offrcer45 [Sec. 154(3)].
Sec. 154 has a three-fold object, namely:
(1) To inform the Magistrate and the District S. P. who are responsible for the
peace and safety of the district, of the offences reported at the police station;
(2) To make known to the judicial officers before whom the case is ultimately
tried, what are the facts given out immediately after the occurrence and on
what materials the investigation commenced; and
(3) To safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions.
The principal object of the F.I.R from the point of view of the informant is to set the
criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to
obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable
steps to trace and bring to boo the guilty.
When a Statement Amounts to F.I.R.?
The question whether a statement is F.I.R. or is one made after the receipt of F.I.R.
assumes importance. It has held that first information is that information which is
given to the police first in point of of time (on the basis of which the investigation has
been commenced) and not that which the police may select and record as first
information20.
However, any sort of information given first in point of time is not necessarily
first information within Sec. 154. It is necessary that such information must relate to a
cognizable offence on the face of it; and-not merely in the light of events. In a case,
a person first made a statement that certain woman named S had left her house last
night with ornaments on her person". The next day he made another statement that "S
was sought to be located, but could not be found". Investigations began; the day after,
he made another statement " as S has not yet returned, I suspect that M and L had
taken her somewhere, and she might have been killed by them for the sake of her
ornaments". Held that it was really this third statement, which amounted to first
information, because it related to the commission of a cognizable offence.21
Sec 54 does not necessarily contemplate that only one information of a crime
should be recorded as F.I.R. but all information given to the police after investigation
is started, may amount to first information. Therefore, information lodged at two
different police stations regarding the same offence would both be admissible in
evidence. However, there is a trend of court's acceptance of F.I.R. as statements,
20 Bhutnath 7 CWN 345
21 Mani Mohan, 35 CWN 623

8. which give circumstances of the crime with a view that the police officer might
proceed to investigate22. In this view the Supreme Court accepted as F.I.R. a
statement which the police officer recorded on the next day of occurrence though he
visited the place on the day of occurrence itself.23
If any oral information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is
given to the police officer, but the same is not recorded and the police officer
proceeds to the scene of the offence and there records statements of witnesses, none
of such statements would amount to F.I.R. Because in such a case the real F.I.R. is the
unrecorded oral information given to the police officer by the informant24.
The following points may be noted about a FIR.:
(1) It should be information of fact disclosing the commission of a cognizable
offence.
(2) It should not be vague or indefinite, ‘If the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence, the
criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR. should be quashed'.25
(3) It may be given by anybody; the injured should not always be the first informant.
(4) It is not necessary that the offender or the witnesses should be named.
The following do not come within the purview of a F.I.R., namely:
(1) A statement given to the police after investigation have commenced.
(2) A statement made by a witness during investigation.
(3) A statement recorded by an officer-in-charge on the basis of his personal
knowledge.
(4) A report by a police officer informing his superior that he had been told of the
possible commission of a dacoity at some time in the future in Jagdish V State
[1992 CrLi 981 (M.P.)], held that where the message is transmitted between
the police officers inter se, such message can be said to be FIR only if its
object was to narrate the circumstances of the crime with a view to initiating
the investigation therein.
(5) A complaint made orally or in writing to a Magistrate.
Omissions in the whether Justified?
The word "information" means something in the nature of a complaint or accusation,
or, at least information of a crime. The FIR should contain information regarding the
circumstances of the crime, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them
as well as the names of eye-witnesses. However, F.I.R. has to be appreciated keeping
in mind the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
It is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. It is sufficient if it gives broad
spectrum of the incident26 Sometimes witnesses, do not think it proper to get it
22 Jagdish v State, 1992 CrLJ 981 (M.P.)
23 Pattad Amarappa v State of Karnataka, 1989 CrLJ 2167
24 S.V Madar v State of Mysore (1980) 1 SCC 479
25 State of UP v R.K. Srivastava (1989) 4 SCC 59
26 Manoj v State of Maharashtra IT 1999 (2) SC 58

9. mentioned it the F.L.R. But the omission of important facts in an FIR lodged by a
witness to the occurrence must be taken serious note of and would affect the veracity
of the prosecution case.27 FIR Is required to contain basic features of the prosecution
case, since it sets law into motion. In Superintendent of Police, CBI v Tapan Kumar
Singh28, it was held that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts
and details relating to the reported offences. Only a report lodged by the informant
about the commission of offence without any name is sufficient for the disclosure of
the commission of cognizable offence.
Delay in Filing F.I.R.
The provisions as to an information report are enacted to obtain early information of
alleged criminal activity to record the circumstances before there is time for them to
be forgotten or embellished and the report can be put in evidence when the informant
is examined if it is desired to do so29. Criminal courts attach great importance to the
lodging of prompt F.I.R. because the same greatly diminishes the chances of false
implication of accused as well as that of informant being tutored. The prompt FIR
goes a long way in establishing that the prosecution story was an authentic and
truthful one. Thus, the F.I.R. relies on spontaneity; deliberation and consultation are
inimical to it.
However, the mere fact that it has been lodged early does not rule out
embellishment or falsehood in every case30. At the same time, mere delay in lodging
the report is not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution; delay can be
condoned if there is satisfactory explanation [Apren Joseph v State ref Kerala31] viz.
where the delay is due to its being lodged at a wrong police station.
Evidentiary Value of F.I.R
The F.I.R. can be put in evidence (usually by the prosecution) when the informant is
examined, if it is desirable to do so. However, F.I.R. is not a piece of substantive
evidence (evidence of facts stated therein) and it cannot be preferred to the evidence
given by the witness in court32, It can be used only for limited purposes, like
corroborating (under Sec. 157, Evidence Act) or contradicting (cross-examination
under Sec. 145, Evidence Act) the maker thereof, or to show that the implication of
the accused was not an after-thought. It can also be used under Sec. 32(1) and Sec.
8(j) and (k) of the Evidence Act.
27 Shyamaghana v State 1987 CrLI 952 (Ori)
28 2003 CrLJ' 2322 (SC)
29 Nazir Ahmed (1944) 47 Born LR 245
30 Tam Chi AM 1970 SC 189 I
31 AIR 1973 SC 1
32 George AIR 1960 Ker 142

10. CHARGESHEET
There are three kinds of reports to be made by police officers at three different stages
of investigation: (1) Sec. 157 requires a preliminary report from the officer-in-charge
of a police station to the Magistrate; (2) Sec. 168 requires reports from a subordinate
police officer to the officer-in-charge of the station; and (3) Sec. 173 requires a final
report of the police officer as soon as investigation is completed to the Magistrate.
Sec. 173(1) lays down that every investigation is required to be completed
without unnecessary delay. As soon as it is completed, a report is to be submitted to
the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, in the
form prescribed by the State Government [sub-sec.(2)].
The police report submitted under this section is called "Completion/ Final
Report". If the report alleges the commission of a crime by an accused person, the
report is commonly called the "charge-sheet" or the. "challan". The police charge-
sheet corresponds to the complaint of a private individual on which criminal
proceedings are initiated.
Submission of charge-sheet means that the preliminary investigation and preparation
of the case is over and the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence33.
Until the Magistrate receives police report under Sec. 173, there can be no
intervention by him in his judicial capacity or as a court and until then no occasion
can arise for the Magistrate to make judicial order in connection with the police
investigation [M.L. Sethi v R. P Kapur AIR 1967 SC 528] Submission of the report is
absolutely necessary. Inordinate delay in submitting final report may lead to the
grievance that the investigation is carried on unfairly or with some ulterior motive34.
The police report contains the facts and the conclusions drawn by the police
therefrom. Charge-sheet is not a complete or accurate basis of the prosecution case
[R.K. Dahnia v Delhi Achnn35]. The "Police report" (result of investigation under
Chapter XII of the Code) is a, conclusion that an investigating officer draws on the
basis of materials collect during investigation and such conclusion can only form the
basis of a competent, court to take cognizance thereupon under Sec. 190(1)(b) and to
proceed with the case for trial, and it cannot rely on the investigation or the result
thereof36.
The Magistrate is expected to apply his judicial mind to the report and he is
not bOund by the conclusions drawn by the police. In Rupan Deol Bajaj v K.PS. Gill
(MR .1996 SC 309), a senior police officer slapped a senior lady IAS officer on her
posterior at a party in the presence of an elite gathering and the Magistrate accepted
the final report submitted by the police in the case initiated by the lady officer under
33 Rama Shankar V State AIR 1956 All 525
34 R. P. Kapur v State of Punjab MR 1960 SC 866
35 AIR 1962 SC 181
36 Kaptan Singkv State of M; P. (1997) 4 Supreme 211

11. Secs. 354/509, IPC, without giving reasons therefor, in spite of the objections made
by the complainant, the Supreme Court set aside the order and restored the case
directing the Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with Sec. 210, Cr. P.
C.
Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that
they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed37.
Supplementary Report on Further Investigation [Sec. I73(8)]
Nothing in Sec. 173 shall preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after
a report under sub-sec.(2) has been forwarded to the .Magistrate, and where upon
such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence
(oral or documentary), he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report regarding
such an evidence.38
It may be noted that a power to direct further investigation has been conferred
on the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3), which can be exercised by him even after
submission of a report by the police officer. This provision does not in any way affect
the power of the police officer to further investigate the case even after submission of
the report as provided in Sec. 173(8). However, a Magistrate after taking cognizance
of the offence on the basis of police report and after appearance of the accused,
cannot order further investigation39.
When a power under Sec. 173(8) is exercised, the court ordinarily should not
interfere with the statutory powers of the investigating agency. The court cannot issue
directions to investigate the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency40.
The underlying idea behind Sec. 173(8) is that if the investigating officer finds
additional evidence as to the guilt or innocence of the accused person it would be in
the interests of justice to allow such officer to make further investigation. While such
an investigation is going on, the accused can very well be remanded to custody under
Sec. 167, as the matter will again be under investigation qua that accused, when some
evidence is collected by the police against him [State v Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar AIR
1997 SC 2494]. It may be noted that Sec. 173(8) is only permissive and neither the
informant nor the accused can claim further investigation after the filing of the
charge-sheet as a matter of right [Shyanzcharan Dubey v State, 1990 CrLJ 456
(A11)].
Supplementary reports can be submitted to the Magistrate notwithstanding that
the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted
under Sec. 173(2) [Ram Lai Narang v State (Delhi Admn)41]. Thus, further
investigation by the police is not without jurisdiction or contrary to law when trial in a
37 Muniappan v State of T.N. AIR 2010 SC 3718
38 Sec. 173(8)
39 Randhir Singh Rana v State (1997) 1 SCC 361
40 Popular Muthiah v State, Represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296
41 AIR 1979 SC 1791

12. Court of Session is continuing. However, it is desirable that the police should inform
the court and seek formal permission. Even when a trial is in progress and a police
report under Sec. 173(8) is received by a Magistrate, he has power to issue process on
the basis of the report against any person who is not already before him as an
accused42.
Even if the party was discharged on the first report, the police on its own can
resort to further investigation43. The fact that a second challan was put in later would
not necessarily vitiate the first and invalidate the proceedings taken before the second
challan was submitted44. A supplementary charge-sheet based on reconsideration of
evidence already before investigating agency is not permitted; further evidence should
be obtained. However, further investigation is the continuation of earlier investigation
and not a fresh investigation or re-investigation to be started ab initio wiping out the
earlier investigation altogether. Sec. 173(8) clearly envisages a further report and not
fresh report45.
In Satish Pandurang v State46, rape was committed on a girl of 5 years who
complained to her mother. During the investigation, mother's statement was recorded.
Mother having died during trial, the court permitted to record the victim's statement
on being prayed by the prosecution. The High Court held the order to be legally
permissible under Sec. 173(8). The Magistrate could in the exercise of power under
Sec. 173(8) direct the special agencies like the C.B.I. to further investigate the case in
view of the objections raised by the appellant47.
Whether notice to the accused/ informant of further investigation is necessary- Sec.
173(8) lays down that the provisions of sub-secs.(2)-(6) shall, as far as may be, apply
in relation to a supplementary report as they apply in, relation to a report under sub-
sec.(2).
The issuance of a notice by the Magistrate to the informant at the time of
consideration of the final report is a must. In UPSC v S. Papaiah (above), it was held
that where the Magistrate after accepting the final report submitted by C.B.I. passed
an order to drop the proceedings and not to take cognizance, without notice to the
informant, the order of the Magistrate was illegal. If the Magist rate decides to drop
the case, after submission of a police report under Sec. 173, and there is a protest
petition (complaint) filed by the complainant the Magistrate is entitled to initiate
action on that petition48.
42 N.N. Ponnappa v State, 1978 CrLJ 1551 (Karnt)
43 K. Karunakaran v State, 1997 CrLJ 3618 (Ker)
44 Tara Singh AIR 1951 SC 441
45 K. Chandrashekhar v State of Kerala, 1998 CrLJ 2897 (SC)
46 1995 CrLJ 1509 (Born)
47 UPSC v S. Papaiah, 1997 CrLJ 4636 (SC)
48 India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v State of Karnataka (1989) 2 SCC 1321

13. INQUEST REPORT
Sec. 174 provides that if any officer-in-charge of a police station (or some other
police officer special empowered by the State Government) receives information that
a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or
machinery, or ' by an accident, or had died in such circumstances as raise a reasonable
suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he must immediately
inform the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest, and must
proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is lying (sub-sec.(1)].
Sec. 174(1) further lays down that the police officer must make an
investigation in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the
neighborhood and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing the
wounds, fractures, and other marks of injuries as are found on the dead body and
stating in what manner, or by what weapon such marks appear to have been inflicted.
Such a report shall be signed by the police officer and other persons, and sent
immediately to the District/Sub-Div. Magistrate [sub-sec.(2)]. A District/Sub-Div.
Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate (specially empowered) are empowered
to hold inquests [sub-sec.(4)}.
The proceedings under Sec. 174 relating to inquest report have a very limited
scope. The object is to ascertain whether a person had died under the circumstances
which were doubtful or an unnatural death and if so what is the cause of death [Podda
Narayana AIR 1975 SC 1252]. An Inquest Panchnama is a report required to be made
by the investigating officer with respect to the apparent cause of death [Shaikh Ayub
v State of Maharashtra, 1998 CrL,J 1656 (SC)]. There can be no inquiry under this
section when the dead body cannot be found or has been burnt or buried.
An inquest report need not contain the details as to how the deceased was
assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted [Podda
Narayan case, above]. Further, in an inquest under Sec. _174, all the witnesses to an
accident need not be examined or their statements recorded because an inquest under
this section is concerned with establishing the cause of death and only evidence
necessary to establish it need be brought 49out.
Simply because the inquest report was not in a prescribed form, it did not lead
to the conclusion that the investigation was tainted or unfair. Non-mentioning of name
of witness in inquest report would be hardly relevant for impeaching statement of
witness [Babu Singh v State of Punjab, 1996 CrLJ 2503 (SC)]. However; where the
ocular witnesses were all injured and the inquest report did not mention their names, it
was held that there is a lapse or incompetence on the part of the investigating
officer.50
Further, there is no requirement of law or any rule that inquest ‘panchnama’
should contain the name of the accused [Shaikh Ayub, above]. However, in Ballaka
49 Shakila Khader AIR 1975 SC 1324
50 Amar Singh v State, 1996 CrLJ 3848 (Del)

14. Singh v State of Punjab (AIR 1975 SC 1962), the name of four out of nine: accused
was missing in the inquest report. No explanation was given for the said omission. It
Was found that prosecution party was inimical to accused. The FIR was also found to
have been written after the inquest report was prepared. Held that the omission threw
doubt on complicity of the four accused.
Evidentiary value of Inquest Report - The statement under Sec. 174 cannot
be used as a substantive piece of evidence as such a statement would be within the
inhibition of Sec. 162 which provides inter al ia that no statement of any person, if
recorded by a police officer in the course of investigation shall be signed by the
person making it. Thus, the statements under Sec. 174 can at the most be used only as
a previous statement to corroborate and contradict the person making it at the trial
[Ch:- Razik Ram AIR 1975 SC 667]. The statements contained in an inquest
reportisto the extent they relate to what the investigating officer saw and found are
admissible but any statement made therein on the basis of what he heard from others
would be hit by Sec 162.51
Sec. 174(2) — It lays down that the report shall be signed by the investigating
officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein. The signature
refers to the signature of inhabitants in whose presence the inquiry is held [Kuruvilla
Joseph v State52].
Curbing Violence Against Women [Sec. 174(3)3 ]
Sec. 174(3), added by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, to
deal with the increasing incidents of dowry deaths or cases of cruelty to married
women by their in-laws. Provision was made for inquest by Executive Magistrate for
post-mortem in all cases where:
(i) a woman has, within 7 years of her marriage committed suicide, or
(ii) she died in circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some
other person has committed an offence in relation to such woman (Sec.
498A, IPC), or
(iii) she has died within 7 years of her marriage and a relative of such
woman had made a request in this behalf, or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do.
The police officer shall forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the
nearest civil surgeon (or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the
State Government), if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so
forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such
examination useless. Sec. 174(3) gives discretion to the police officer not to send the
body for post-mortem examination only in one case, namely, where there can be no
doubt as to the cause of the death. This discretion, however, is to be exercised
51 George v State, 1998 CrLJ 2034 (SC)
52 AIR 1952 SC 300

15. prudently and honestly53. The said discretion is taken away completely in cases falling
under clauses (i) (ii) and (iii) of Sec. 174(3).
53 K. P. Rao (1975) 2 SCC 570

16. POLICE DIARY
Sec. 172 deals with what is known as a "police diary", or a "special diary", or "case
diary" or a "station house report". It provides that every police officer making an
investigation under this Chapter shall, day by day, enter his proceedings of the
investigation in a Diary, stating therein the time at which information reached him,
the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by
him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation [sub-
sec.(1)].
In view of 2008 Amendment to the Code, in Sec. 172, after sub-sec. (1), the
following sub-secs. shall be inserted, namely:-
"(.1-A) The statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under
Sec. 161 shall be inserted in the case diary.
(1-B) The diary referred to in sub-sec. (1) shall be a volume and duly paginated."
The object of this section is to enable the Magistrate to know what was the
day-to-day information by the police officer who was investigating the case and what
were the lines of his investigation54. Thus, the object of recording "case diaries" is to
enable courts to check the method of investigation by the police. Further, where the
cases for prosecution and defence are both inadequate, the case diary would help the
court to discover for itself the material facts which can be brought to light through
examination of witnesses and get at the truth in the interests of justice [Habeeb Mohd.
v State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51].
The entries in a police diary should be made with promptness in sufficient
details mentioning all significant facts, in careful chronological order and with
complete objectivity55. All police officers-in-charge of a police station are required to
keep a diary, and the magistrate of the district is authorized to call for and inspect the
same. It is a document under Sec. 91 that can be summoned by the court de hors Sec.
172 [State of Kerala v Babu (1999) 4 SCC 621]. Any criminal court can send for the
police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such a court, and may use such diaries,
not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such an inquiry/ trial [Sec. 172(2)].
The diary can be used as aid in framing a charge against the accused person
but it cannot be used for founding the charge [Jyoti Jiban Ghosh v State AIR 1964 Cal
59]. It was held in A.K. Roy v State of W.B56 that the Magistrate cannot take
cognizance or issue process against the accused on the material contained in the case
diary alone unless the fact contained in the report under Sec. 173 constitute the
offence. Sec. 172 does not deal with the recording of any statement made by
witnesses.
54 Debendra Chandra v Emperor AIR 1934 Cal 458
55 Bhag-want Singh v Commissioner of Police AIR 1983 SC 826
56 AIR 1962 Cal 135

17. Use Permitted of a Case Diary
The accused or his agents are not entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they
be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the court; but if they are
used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the court uses
them for the purposes of contradicting such a police officer, the provisions of Sec.
161 or Sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act shall apply [Sec. 172(3)].
The case diary, including every entry in it, is privileged from inspection by the
accused or by his pleader. The reason for this is that if the accused were entitled to
inspect the, diary, the police officer making the investigation Would be tempted to
omit from the diary, all information which could prove to be injurious to the
prosecution. Further, in the absence of such a restriction on the accused person, the
informer conveying information to the police would be deterred and that would
hamper speedy investigation57.
However, the accused is allowed to use the case diary under two
circumstances: (i) if the police officer, while giving evidence, refreshes his memory
by referring to the case diary (permissible under Sec. 159, Evidence Act), the accused
is entitled to see the relevant or particular entries in the diary and may use the same
for cross-examining the police officer as provided in Sec. 161 of the Evidence Act;
(ii) if the court uses the diary for the purpose of contradicting such a police officer in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 145 of Evidence Act.
The court is not bound to compel the police witness to look at the diary in
order to refresh his memory nor is the accused entitled to insist that he should do so58.
In Kalpnath Rai v State59 held that there is no doubt daily diary is a document, which
is in constant use in police station. But no prosecution is expected to produce such
diaries as a matter of course in every prosecution case for supporting the police
version; if so, the function of the police station would be greatly impaired. Of course
it is open to the defence to move the court for getting down such diaries if the defence
wants to make use of it.
If there is failure to keep a diary as required by Sec. 172, the same cannot have
the effect of making the evidence of such police officer inadmissible and what
inference should be drawn in such a situation depends upon the facts of each case60.
57 Law Commission, 41st Report
58 Shamshul Kanwar v State of U.P. (1995) 4 SCC 430
59 1998 CrLJ 369(SC)
60 Niranjan Singh v State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 142

18. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Bharti, Dalbir (2005). The Constitution and criminal justice administration.
APH Publishing. p. 320.
 Menon, N. R. Madhava; Banerjea, D; West Bengal National University of
Juridical Sciences (2005). Criminal Justice India Series: pts. 1-2. Chandigarh.
Allied Publishers. p. 229.
 Black's Law Lexicon, 4th Edn., p. 177
 "The First Schedule of CrPC".
 "Make acid attacks non-bailable". The Indian Express. 19 July 2013.
 "Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932".