S. 174---Police Rules, 1934, R. 25.37---Post-mortem examination---Procedure---Once the dead body of a person, who died in unnatural and suspicious circumstances, is taken into custody by a Police Officer, the following............

 2019 S C M R 1068

S. 174---Police Rules, 1934, R. 25.37---Post-mortem examination---Procedure---Once the dead body of a person, who died in unnatural and suspicious circumstances, is taken into custody by a Police Officer, the following essential steps followed: 'firstly', there was a complete chain of police custody of the dead body, right from the moment it was taken into custody until it was handed over to the relatives, or in case they were unknown, then till his burial; 'secondly', post mortem examination of a dead person could not be carried out without the authorization of competent police officer or the magistrate; 'thirdly', post mortem of a deceased person could only be carried out by a notified government Medical Officer; and 'finally', at the time of handing over the dead body by the police to the Medical Officer, all reports prepared by the investigating officer were also to be handed over to the said medical officer to assist his examination of the dead body.

Delay in conducting post-mortem, explanation for---At the time of handing over the dead body by the police to the Medical Officer for post-mortem examination, all reports prepared by the investigating officer were also to be handed over to the said medical officer to assist his examination of the dead body---Usually the delay in the preparation of said police reports, which were required to be handed over to the medical officer along with the dead body, resulted in the consequential delay of the post-mortem examination of the dead person---To repel any adverse inference for such a delay, the prosecution had to provide justifiable reasons therefor, which in the present case was strikingly missing---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge of murder.

Post-mortem report showing mouth of deceased as open---Adverse inference---Presence of eye-witnesses at scene of occurrence doubtful---In the Marg report and the post mortem report, the mouth of the deceased had been stated to be open, which clearly indicated that the dead body was not attended to by his close relatives after being pronounced dead---Stance set up by the prosecution in the present case was that the brother and the uncle of the deceased were present at the time of his death, and remained with him, even thereafter, however the posture of the deceased's mouth raised an adverse inference against the prosecution's version regarding the presence of the said persons at the place and time of occurrence