Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026
Can the finding of custodial violence recorded in a judicial inquiry report under Section 176 CrPC, coupled with a medical report that omits any reference to the head injury subsequently recorded in the post-mortem report, justify registration of a fresh FIR and investigation notwithstanding that compensation has already been awarded in a writ petition?
LAHRA BAI TAMRE & ORS v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH AND ORS
2026 INSC 840 · Writ Petition (Criminal) No.76 of 2024
Coram: Sandeep Mehta; Vikram Nath
Answer
Yes. Since the medical report prepared at the jail at the time of death made no reference whatsoever to the head injury or the other injuries subsequently noticed in the post-mortem report, and the post-mortem report itself was placed on record only pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions, the facts clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation into the circumstances leading to the death, which the State authorities had conveniently and deliberately tried to cover up.
Headnote
Constitution of India — Article 226 — Custodial death — Compensation, public law — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.176 — Judicial inquiry report — Central Bureau of Investigation — Interim compensation —
Constitution of India — Article 226 — Custodial death — Compensation grossly inadequate —
Held: Where the High Court itself found that the deceased was subjected to custodial violence and died as a result thereof, but granted a pittance of compensation quantified at Rs.1 lakh and did not issue any consequential direction for registration of an FIR or investigation, the compensation awarded was completely inadequate and not commensurate with the gravity of the loss suffered by the petitioners. (¶4, 10, 11)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.176 — Judicial inquiry report — Central Bureau of Investigation —
Held further: The explanation offered by the senior officers of the State — that no police or disciplinary action was taken because the judicial inquiry report under Section 176 CrPC had not been served upon the police officials — was a cover-up story and an attempt to pull the wool over the Court's eyes, since the State had itself, in its own reply before the High Court, disclosed that the judicial inquiry had been instituted and its report awaited; the investigation into the custodial death was accordingly entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. (¶14, 15, 18)
Constitution of India — Custodial death — Post-mortem report — Interim compensation —
Held further: A clear attempt was made to mislead the inquiry, since the medical report prepared at the jail at the time of death made no reference whatsoever to the head injury or the other injuries subsequently noticed in the post-mortem report, which recorded the cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest due to head injury and its complications caused by a hard and blunt object; as an interim measure, compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- was directed to be paid by the State to the petitioners, the final quantum to be determined while adjudicating the petition. (¶16, 17, 22)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 16That apart, we have seen the medical reports of the deceased Shravan and find that a clear attempt was made to mislead the inquiry because, in the medical report prepared at the jail at the time of his death, the cause of death was recorded as cardiopulmonary arrest with aspiration pneumonitis, with the diagnosis being alcoholic withdrawal and delirium tremens. There is no reference whatsoever in the said medical report to the head injury or any of the other injuries subsequently noticed in the post-mortem report, which recorded multiple external injuries and opined that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to head injury and its complications caused by a hard and blunt object. The post-mortem report was for the first time placed on record with an additional affidavit filed by the State in compliance of the order dated 28th July, 2026. The petitioners have clearly alleged that, for the first time, they have been able to lay hands on the same. The post-mortem was conducted in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and bears his signatures, presumably because the same was undertaken during the course of the inquiry under Section 176 CrPC.
Paragraph 17Having regard to the age of the injuries noted in the post-mortem report, particularly Injury No. 2, being the laceration on the occipital scalp which was opined to be within one day, and Injuries Nos. 5 and 6 which were opined to be 2 to 6 days old, the possibility of the deceased having sustained these multiple injuries spread over the period of his custody cannot be ruled out. The facts, therefore, clearly warranted immediate registration of an FIR and a thorough investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of Shri Shravan, which, the State authorities conveniently and deliberately tried to cover up. The fact that the post-mortem report was not placed before the High Court and that the relevant material was brought on record only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court further highlights the dilatory approach adopted by the State authorities.
Acts & Sections
s.176 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.34(2) Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915Article 226 Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of LAHRA BAI TAMRE & ORS v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH AND ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →
Also decided in this judgment
Where a judicial inquiry conducted under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 into a custodial death finds that the death was caused due to complications arising from a head injury, but the State police, prison and home department authorities take no follow-up action and later claim that no criminal case could be registered because the inquiry report had not been received by the police, can the Supreme Court entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation?Where a High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, awards compensation for a custodial death that it finds was caused by custodial violence, is that compensation independent of any remedy the aggrieved party may separately pursue in tort or under the penal law?Can the Supreme Court, in a special leave petition against a High Court's compensation award in a custodial death case, direct payment of further interim compensation pending final adjudication of the petition, where the High Court's award was found grossly inadequate?