Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that legal heirs have a legitimate interest in challenging a police final report that arrays a person as an accused despite his death, particularly when such an entry may have consequences in a subsequent claim for compensation.

Justice Shahzad Azeem made the observation while entertaining a plea filed by Arshida Bano, widow of Late Sheikh Muzaffar Ahmad, challenging the police challan in a road accident case insofar as it arrayed her deceased husband as an accused on the ground of contributory negligence.

Taking note of the petitioner's contention that the challan had been presented against her husband after his death, the Court observed that criminal proceedings against a deceased person abate and that a trial court cannot proceed to frame charges, record a conviction or acquittal against him.

The Court issued notice to the respondents, summoned the Investigating Officer and stayed the proceedings before the trial court in the meantime.

Background

In the instant case, Sheikh Muzaffar Ahmad had died on April 30, 2026, at SKIMS Soura, Srinagar, due to injuries sustained in a road accident that had occurred on April 25, 2026, near Sheikhbagh Kangan on the National Highway. Following the accident, FIR was registered under Sections 106 and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 122/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted a final report under Section 193 BNSS, arraying the car driver as an accused and the deceased motorcyclist, Sheikh Muzaffar Ahmad, as accused No. 2, on the premise of contributory negligence.

Aggrieved by the inclusion of her deceased husband as an accused, the petitioner challenged the manner of investigation, alleging, among other things, non-seizure of photographs, non-recovery of CCTV footage, contradictions and delay in the investigation.

She also questioned the shifting of her husband's body from SKIMS Soura, Srinagar, to SDH Kangan for postmortem examination, despite the availability of medical records at SKIMS and the family's request that the postmortem be conducted there.

Court's Observations

The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner was the legal heir and spouse of the person who had been arrayed as an accused after his death. It observed that the inclusion of the deceased in the final report could have consequences in proceedings for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, as a finding of negligence against him could defeat such a claim.

The Court underscored that although criminal liability is personal and comes to an end upon the death of the accused, the judicial record continues to exist. It observed that arraying a deceased person as an accused creates an anomalous and incorrect public record, which the legal heirs have a legitimate interest in correcting.

The Court further observed that once an accused is no longer alive, the trial court cannot continue the trial, frame a charge or record a conviction or acquittal against him, as proceedings against the deceased person abate. It remarked,

“It has to be borne in mind that, while criminal liability is personal and abates on death, the judicial record remains. The final report that arrays a dead person as an accused creates an anomalous and incorrect public record. The legal heirs have a legitimate interest in correcting that record.”

Taking note of the circumstances surrounding the presentation of the challan, the Court observed,

“In view of above facts and circumstances, prima facie it appears that there is violation of statutory safeguards and non-observance of procedure which resulted in presentation of challan against the dead person, therefore, a case for indulgence is made out.”

Accordingly, the Court issued notice in the main petition as well as the connected application, making the same returnable within four weeks. The respondents were directed to complete the requisite steps for service within one week.

The Court directed that the matter be listed on December 22, 2026, on which date the Investigating Officer shall remain present before it. In the meanwhile, subject to objections from the other side and until the next date of hearing, the proceedings before the trial court were stayed.



Tags: