
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a judicial magistrate probing a custodial death can name persons responsible and direct an FIR. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai held that Section 176(1-A) of…
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a judicial magistrate probing a custodial death can name persons responsible and direct an FIR. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai held that Section 176(1-A) of the CrPC gives magistrates wider powers than merely determining the cause of death, citing the absence of the phrase "inquiry into the cause of death" in the sub-section.

The ruling came in petitions by Dhar jail superintendent Raja Ram Dangi and doctors who performed the autopsy on prisoner Bheru, who died in February 2023 after an alleged beating. The magistrate's inquiry named jail personnel and found evidence of destruction of autopsy records. The court dismissed both petitions and directed impartial investigation.

This ruling rightly empowers magistrates to go beyond medical causes and fix accountability. But the real test is implementation: will the named jail officials and doctors face a fair trial, or will the case be buried in procedural delays? The High Court's order is clear, now the investigating agency must act without fear or favour. How many custodial death inquiries in India have actually led to convictions?
Sources (2): freepressjournal.in, livelaw.in
This story was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above.
Updated: this story now draws on 2 sources.