WP Crl.(MD)/5999/2026 of M.Prabhu Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep by on 4 November 2026

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to preserve the body of his deceased father, Manoharan, presently stated to be in the custody of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and to arrange for a re-post-mortem examination by a team of senior forensic medical experts, under continuous videographic coverage and with the assistance of appropriate forensic personnel, before handing over the body to the family, subject to medical feasibility and the orders of this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father, Manoharan, was employed in a private establishment belonging to V.K.M.T. Chambers at Jothipuram, where he was engaged in work relating to the firing of Raw bricks. According to the petitioner, on 24.10.2026, at about 4.00 p.m., while his father was attending to his usual work, he allegedly fell down from a chamber and sustained multiple injuries. The persons associated with the establishment are stated to have taken him to the Government Primary Health Centre, Kundrakudi, in a serious condition.

3. The petitioner would submit that his brother informed him about the incident over the telephone at approximately 6.50 p.m. on the same day. He immediately proceeded to the hospital and found his father with severe injuries on his head, face, neck, left hand, knees and other parts of his body.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Medical Officer at the Government Primary Health Centre advised that his father be shifted to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment, considering the seriousness of his condition. Accordingly, he was transported by a 108 ambulance and admitted to the emergency ward of the said hospital.

5. Despite the treatment provided, the petitioner's father died on 25.10.2026 at approximately 9.00 a.m. The petitioner submits that the number, nature and distribution of the injuries found on his body have given rise to serious apprehensions regarding the actual circumstances in which the injuries were sustained and the events leading to his death.

6. The petitioner states that he lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Keeladi Police Station, Sivagangai District and a case was registered in Crime No. 96 of 2026. The petitioner seeks a fair and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding his father's death. The petitioner would further submit that, having regard to the multiple injuries found on the deceased, he requested the authorities to ensure that the post-mortem examination was conducted by experienced forensic medical experts under videographic coverage. However, he entertains serious apprehensions as to whether all the injuries were properly examined, documented and correlated with the alleged fall from the Chamber.

7. On the above grounds, the petitioner seeks preservation of the body and a re-post-mortem examination by an independent team of senior forensic medical experts, with continuous videography and appropriate forensic documentation, before the body is handed over to the family.

8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the post-mortem examination has already been conducted by a duly constituted team of doctors. The entire post- mortem proceedings have been videographed and the post-mortem report has also been duly prepared and the same has been produced before this Court. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and all necessary steps are being taken by the investigating agency to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the death. He would further submit that there is absolutely no necessity to retain the body in the mortuary any longer and that no further post-mortem examination is warranted at this stage.

9. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Government Advocate and perused the materials placed on record.

10. The death of a person following an alleged work place accident, particularly when multiple injuries are said to have been sustained, calls for a careful and scientifically reliable investigation into the circumstances leading to the death. The purpose of a post-mortem examination is not merely to record the fact of death, but also to document the injuries, ascertain the nature and probable cause, and assist the investigating agency in determining whether the injuries are consistent with the history of the occurrence.

11. At the same time, a re-post-mortem examination is not to be ordered mechanically merely because the family expresses dissatisfaction with the initial examination. The Court must consider whether the body remains available for examination, whether the proposed examination is medically feasible, and whether the materials placed before the Court disclose a sufficient reason to undertake a further forensic examination.

12. In the present case, the primary consideration is that the post- mortem examination had already been conducted by a duly constituted team of doctors. A second post-mortem examination cannot be ordered merely because a petitioner entertains a suspicion that the first examination may not have correctly established the cause of death. A genuine medical or procedural deficiency in the first post-mortem examination was not pointed out by the petitioner. Further, the prosecution specifically submitted that the post-mortem examination had been conducted by a team of doctors. There was no material demonstrating that the medical team had failed to examine any particular injury, omitted any essential procedure, or improperly recorded the findings.

13. Furthermore, the entire post-mortem examination had been videographed which provides an objective record of the medical examination and may assist the investigating agency, medical experts and the Court in subsequently examining the manner in which the post- mortem was conducted. It also preserves a contemporaneous visual record of the examination and enables scrutiny of the external and internal examination, to the extent captured in the recording. Further, it facilitates verification of the observations recorded in the post-mortem report. It may assist in obtaining an independent medical opinion if any genuine discrepancy subsequently emerges. Thus, the availability of videographic material is a relevant factor in determining whether another physical examination is necessary.

14. Further, in the present case, no specific deficiency was demonstrated by the petitioner before this Court warranting re-post- mortem examination. The petitioner appears to have entertained an apprehension regarding the correctness of the first post-mortem. However, a mere apprehension, without supporting medical or other material would not ordinarily justify directing a second examination.

15. The Dean of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai shall secure and preserve the original post-mortem certificate, preliminary and final post-mortem reports, photographs, videographic recordings, hospital treatment records, emergency case sheets, investigation reports, records relating to the shifting of the deceased by the 108 ambulance, and all other connected medical and forensic materials available with the hospital.

16. Another significant consideration was the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the investigation had not yet been completed. It is for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and arrive at an appropriate conclusion based on the medical evidence, post-mortem report, videographic records and other material collected during the course of investigation.

17. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, shall ensure that the investigating officer in Crime No. 96 of 2026 preserves the inquest report, scene of occurrence records, statement of relevant witnesses, photographs, and all other materials collected during the investigation. The investigating officer shall also ascertain and record the circumstances under which the injuries were allegedly sustained at the work place.

18. Therefore, in such circumstances, in the absence of any specific material placed before this Court to indicate any procedural irregularity or deficiency in the post-mortem examination already conducted, this Court is not inclined to issue a direction for conducting a second post- mortem examination.

19. Though this Court has rejected the request for a second post- mortem, however, the investigating agency is directed to investigate the actual cause of death from all relevant angles and preserve the forensic samples.

20. Further, this Court is consequently of the view that the body need not be retained indefinitely in the mortuary merely because the petitioner continued to entertain doubts regarding the post-mortem findings. This Court did not leave the petitioner without any avenue to pursue the matter. Instead, this Court directs the petitioner to extend full cooperation to the investigating agency and furnish information concerning the circumstances preceding the death, the hospital admission, the medical treatment or other relevant events. If the petitioner has any material suggesting a discrepancy in the medical findings, the same can be furnished to the investigating agency for appropriate examination.

21. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the limited relief sought for in the present Writ Petition and shall not influence the course of investigation or the conclusions to be arrived at by the investigating agency. The investigating agency shall proceed independently and complete the investigation in accordance with law.

22. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mar/skn

To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

4. The Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai - 625 020.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

6. The Inspector of Police, Keeladi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. mar/skn WP Crl.(MD) No. 5999 of 2026 04-11-2026.