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?

Yes. Where the State authorities' own reply before the High Court had disclosed that the judicial inquiry was instituted and its report awaited, the plea of non-receipt of the report was a cover-up story and an attempt to pull the wool over the Court's eyes, and the ends of justice required that the investigation into the custodial death be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

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)

One 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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India