Limits of inquest inquiry: court found no reasonable suspicion of unnatural death and refused a further probe.

A court-directed further inquiry into Judge Loya's death was rejected because the contemporaneous record consistently showed chest pain, hospital treatment, and death from coronary artery insufficiency. The inquiry under Section 174 CrPC is confined to ascertaining the apparent cause of death, and an inquest report is not substantive evidence. The Court found no material to discredit the official record or the statements of the accompanying judges, and refused to rely on newspaper reports or collateral allegations to create suspicion. Cross-examination of persons examined in the discreet inquiry was also declined as not available as of right. No reasonable suspicion of an unnatural death was made out, so no further inquiry was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the death of Judge Loya gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of an unnatural death warranting a further court-directed inquiry, and whether the petitions based on the newspaper reports merited interference.

Analysis: The documentary record, including the inquest, post-mortem, accidental death reports, medical papers and the statements of the four judicial officers, consistently showed that Judge Loya suffered chest pain, was taken first to Dande Hospital and then to Meditrina Hospital, and died of coronary artery insufficiency. The scope of an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited to ascertaining the apparent cause of death, and an inquest report is not substantive evidence. The Court found no material to discredit the contemporaneous official record or the statements of the accompanying judges, and rejected the attempt to derive suspicion from alleged inconsistencies, the newspaper articles, or collateral allegations. The request for cross-examination of persons whose statements were recorded during the discreet inquiry was also refused, as such relief is not available as of right in these proceedings.

Conclusion: No reasonable suspicion of an unnatural death was made out, no further inquiry was warranted, and the petitions were liable to be dismissed.

---