Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 418 (UTT)

Saeeda v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-01

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Initially, present petition was filed as ‘Misc. Single’, but by the order of coordinate bench of this Court on 20.07.2016, it was converted into ‘Criminal Writ Petition’. 2. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner, who is the mother of deceased-Mukkarram, seeks following relief, among others “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the District Magistrate, Haridwar to take out the body of the son of the petitioner (deceased-Mukkarram) from the grave of graveyard of Lalwara, Manglore and to get the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased done in order to ascertain the actual cause of death of deceased-Mukkarram.” 3. Since the son of the petitioner (i.e. Mukkarram) allegedly died in an accident, therefore, he was buried on 31.05.2016 in the graveyard. Later on, the petitioner (mother) and her husband (Iqbal) came to know that an extra-judicial confession was made by one-Javed before Sharafat, Aarif and Naushad that he (Javed) has committed murder of Mukkarram. Initially, there was an impression that it was an accident. It was alleged that while Javed was driving his motorcycle and Mukkarram was a pillion rider, a dog, all of sudden, appeared in front of their motorcycle, due to which the motorcycle skidded off and Mukkarram sustained injuries and ultimately died. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Javed did not sustain any injury in the said accident and no damage was caused to the motorcycle on which they were riding. 4. The petitioner has filed present criminal writ petition to satisfy herself as regards the actual cause of death and so has made a payer that the Magistrate be directed to pass an order disinterring the dead body and examining to discover the cause of death of Mukkarram. 4. The petitioner has filed present criminal writ petition to satisfy herself as regards the actual cause of death and so has made a payer that the Magistrate be directed to pass an order disinterring the dead body and examining to discover the cause of death of Mukkarram. The gravamen of Section 174 Cr.P.C. is that when an officer in charge of a police station receives information that a person has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he (police officer) shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests and shall also proceed to make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, such marks appear to have been inflicted. After signing the report by such police officer and other persons, the same shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Section 174 Cr.P.C. also provides that the following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate. 5. Sub-section (3) of Section 176 Cr.P.C. is also important in the context of present case, which is being reproduced hereinbelow for convenience: “176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death. – (1) …………………. (2) ………………… (3) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of the dead body of any person who has been already inferred, in order to discover the cause of his death, the Magistrate may cause the body to be disinterred and examined.” 6. In the instant case, it has been prescribed as to what the Magistrate is expected to do in connection with such an examination. The word ‘disinterred’ used in sub-section (3) of Section 176 Cr.P.C. means to dig up something that has been buried. The same is equivalent to ‘exhumation’, which means to dig out something that has been buried especially a ‘corpse’ from the ground. 7. The word ‘disinterred’ used in sub-section (3) of Section 176 Cr.P.C. means to dig up something that has been buried. The same is equivalent to ‘exhumation’, which means to dig out something that has been buried especially a ‘corpse’ from the ground. 7. Having discussed the aforesaid facts of the case, as also the provisions of law, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) moved before the District Magistrate, Haridwar, be directed to be decided by the District Magistrate within three days from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the action thereon be taken at the earliest without further loss of time, otherwise the dead body could be decomposed. On a specific query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner replied that if any order is passed by the District Magistrate, the same shall not be against personal law of the deceased. 8. In the light of aforesaid directions and the law enumerated hereinabove, the criminal writ petition is disposed of by directing the District Magistrate, Haridwar to decide the representation of the petitioner and to take action in the matter forthwith within three days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner within 48 hours.