The salient features of sec. 176 of CRPC are :
The provision of sec. 176 of CRPC has international implications because it continues to be directly under supervision and monitering of United nations as mentioned above.
It is the independent judicial investigation.
This provision is cognisable, mandatory and statutory.
The Judicial Magistrate proceeds with the inference that death is unnatural. ( culpable homicide ).
...The burden is, clearly on the respondents to explain how the deceased sustained those injuries which caused his death. Unless a plausible explanation is given by the respondents which is consistent with their innocence, the obvious inference is that the fatal injuries were inflicted on the deceased in police custody resulting in his death, for which the respondents are responsible and liable.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sec. 176 - Custodial death - Inquiry contemplated independently by magistrate and not jointly with police officer when role of police officer itself matter of inquiry - Joint inquiry report in case cannot made u/s. 176 CrPC and cannot be relied on as statutory report relating to cause of death
Joint inquiry report is stated to have been not made been u/s.176 CrPC and was not strongly relied on by the Additional Solicitor General as a statutory report relating to the cause of death. An inquiry u/s. 176 CrPC is contemplated independently by a Magistrate and not jointly with a police officer when the role of the police officers itself is a matter of inquiry...
[Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera V. State Of Orissa;1993-(002)-SCC -0746 -SC
1993-(080)-AIR -1960 –SC;1993-(099)-CRLJ -2899 –SC] Full Bench SC.
Hon'ble Sessions Court or High Court can order further investigations if the report submitted suffers from any infirmity or doubt.
Who is going to bell the cat ? Bangladesh is going to bell the CAT.
September 11, 2009
A ruling party lawmaker Thursday moved two private members’ bills, including one seeking protection against torture, cruelty and custodial deaths, in parliament to help ensure rule of law in line within constitutional framework.
Saber Hossain Chowdhury piloted the bills styled Oppression and Custodial deaths (Prevention) Bill 2009 and Eviction of Slum Dwellers from Government Land (Prevention) Bill 2009 in the House.
Jatiya Sangsad speaker Abdul Hamid sent the bills to the parliamentary committee on private members’ bills and resolutions for further scrutiny.
"This is a very important and historical move that could contribute to resolving some of the most difficult problems of human rights violations in Bangladesh. The Asian Human Rights Commission supports this move wholeheartedly and call upon others to do so", said Mr. Basil Fernando, the Director of AHRC
Previously in the matter of Judgement on Sections 54 & 167 of CrPC
Provisions relating to arrest, remand and detention require amendment to protect citizens' rights
High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction),
The Supreme Court of Bangladesh,
Writ Petition No 3806 of 1998,
Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST)
Bangladesh and others,
Before Mr. Justice Md Hamidul Haque and Justice Salma Masud Chowdhury.
Date of Judgement: April 7, 2003.
Result: Rule is disposed with directions.
Hon'ble Court made the following recommendation:
(With regard to section 176 of CrPC)
Existing sub-section (2) be re-numbered as sub-section (3) and the following be added as sub-section (2).
(2) When any information of death of a person in the custody of the police or in jail is received by the Magistrate under section 167(4)(e) of the Code (as recommended by us), he shall proceed to the place, make an investigation, draw up a report of the cause of the death describing marks of injuries found on the body stating in what manner or by what weapon the injuries appear to have been inflicted. The Magistrate shall then send the body for post mortem examination. The report of such examination shall be forwarded to the same Magistrate immediately after such examination.
(With regard to section 202 of CrPC)
1. A new subsection (3) be added with the following provisions:
(3) (a) The Magistrate on receipt of the post mortem report under section 176(2) of the Code (as recommended by us) shall hold inquiry into the case and if necessary may take evidence of witnesses on oath.
(b) After completion of the inquiry, the Magistrate shall transmit the record of the case along with the report drawn up under section 176(2) (as recommended by us), the post mortem report, his inquiry report and a list of the witnesses to the Sessions Judge or Metropolitan Sessions Judge, as the case may be and shall also send the accused to such Judge. ( Power to arrest ).
I express my appreciation in your effort to enact procedure to expedite disposal of litigation. What is missing in our system is inviduals with such commitment. Despite the best laws available we do not have inviduals who are matured, dispassionate and with adquate commonsense to deal the matters. Till we have such group in the system no laws can change the situation. It is possible to understand that parties can be oppurtunists, but persons involved in imparting justice cannot be. That is the virus which is eating our judicial system. As long as this virus is not removed by voluntery acts any new enactments will not have different result. To declare diposal of cases without proper research is one more persoanl opinion. The system is dying due to over dose of personal opinions. Well established principles of law are no more used to guide the system.
Nowadays it is becoming a fashion to curtail the jurisdiction of the judicial mechanism. As a result of which arbitrariness is taking place of the judicial mind. generally arbitrators are appointed by those departments who are respondents and those arbitrators have primary allegiance with that department so hope of free and fair judgment remains bleak. Full bench should take such type of aspects into consideration because in the name of special enactments, the general public/litigants are being forced to accept all wrong acts done on the part of department officials.
The reference of this matter to the larger bench is a welcome step. No doubt insurance companies are forced to meet the award and thereafter to initiate separately recovery from owner, an act which is more and more tedious. If insurance company proves on merit that it has no liability then owner shall directly be forced to satisfy the award instead of insurance company. It seems that it is sin to have business of insurance. If larger bench sets a law on this subject, it shall be a landmark judgment.