Drowning death cannot rule out murder, says Supreme Court, restores trial in boy’s death case

A death by drowning cannot automatically be treated as a natural accident, the Supreme Court has held, cautioning that even a postmortem confirming drowning cannot rule out foul play and that the circumstances surrounding the death must be investigated.A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran set aside a Patna High Court order quashing criminal proceedings against a man accused of murder in the drowning death of a boy, holding that the high court had casually brushed aside compelling circumstances warranting a trial.“Merely because the postmortem indicated death by drowning, it cannot be assumed that there was absolutely no foul play,” said the bench in its recent order, emphasising that even if a person is deliberately pushed into water with the intention of drowning him, a postmortem examination may reveal nothing suspicious.The court was hearing an appeal filed by the boy’s father, challenging the high court’s May decision to quash the taking of cognisance of offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.According to the father’s complaint, the accused, Kumar Gitanshu, had taken his son from their home for a walk on May 12, 2020.

A short while later, a man informed the family that the boy was drowning near a state boring facility and that, despite his efforts, he could not save him. The father rushed to the spot and arranged for boatmen to search the river, but the efforts proved unsuccessful as the boy had been swept away by the current.The bench noted that two witnesses had also stated that they saw the accused fleeing from the scene.

These circumstances, it said, made the case suspicious and warranted a trial to unravel the mystery surrounding the boy’s death.“Especially when the 2nd respondent (accused) who took the deceased from his house, with whom he was last seen, should proffer an explanation, more so, when he was found running away from the spot,” noted the court.The Supreme Court faulted the high court for relying on the postmortem finding that the death was caused by asphyxia and ventricular fibrillation resulting from drowning, treating it as a reason to rule out anything sinister.

Such a conclusion, the bench said, failed to account for the possibility that drowning itself could have been the means by which a person was deliberately killed.The court also rejected the high court’s reasoning that the first information report had been lodged after the father received information about the drowning without adequately disclosing how that information reached him.

A reading of the FIR, the bench pointed out, clearly showed that the information had been conveyed to the family by the man who reported the incident, following which the father rushed to the spot and arranged a search.“The finding of the High Court is flawed insofar as the documents having not been read properly,” the order said.The case had earlier seen a judicial magistrate accept the police’s final report, which effectively closed the investigation, and direct that the father’s protest petition be registered as a complaint.

In revision, a court in Darbhanga directed the magistrate to reconsider the closure report, pointing to circumstances that could justify taking cognisance. On reconsideration, the magistrate took cognisance of the offences. The Patna High Court subsequently quashed that decision, prompting the father to approach the Supreme Court.The top court said the high court had failed to properly examine the detailed revisional order, which had considered statements recorded during the investigation and found prima facie material warranting a trial.Reiterating the law on police closure reports, the bench said a magistrate is not bound to accept the police’s conclusion that no offence has been made out.

The court can accept the closure report and end the proceedings, take cognisance on the basis of the material collected, or direct further investigation.“The primacy of the Court to take cognizance or deny it is the law discernible from the very provisions of the CrPC,” said the bench, quoting an earlier Supreme Court judgment.