CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Discharge of person apprehended No person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of a Magistrate.

Police to report apprehensions Officers in charge of police stations shall report to the District Magis- trate, or, if he so directs, to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the cases of all persons arrested without warrant, within the limits of their respective stations, whether such persons have been admitted to bail or otherwise.

Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.

Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate or officer in charge of police station A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of a police station.

Health and safety of arrested person It shall be the duty of the person having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused.]

Procedure when police officer deputes subordinate to arrest without warrant (1) When any officer in charge of a police station or any police officer making an investigation under Chapter XII requires any officer subordinate to him to arrest without a warrant (otherwise than in his presence) any person who may lawfully be arrested without a warrant, he shall deliver to the officer required to make the arrest an order in writing, specifying the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and the officer so required shall, before making the arrest, notify to the person to be arrested the substance of the order and, if so required by such person shall show him the order. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the power of a police officer to arrest a person under section 41.

Identification of person arrested Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction may, on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit:] [Provided that, if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such process of identification shall take place under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies the person arrested using methods that person is comfortable with: Provided further that if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, the identification process shall be videographed.] STATE AMENDMENTS UTTAR PRADESH ■   Section 54     Insert the following sentence at the end of section 54 :     “The registered medical practitioner shall forthwith furnish to the arrested person a copy of the report of such examination free of cost.”-Vide Act No. 1 of 1984. ■   Section 54A     Insert the following section after section 54 :     “54A. Test identification of the accused.—When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his test identification by any witness is considered necessary by any court having jurisdiction, it shall be lawful for an Executive Magistrate acting at the instance of such court, to hold test identification of the person arrested.”-Vide Act No. 1 of 1984. COMMENTS JOINT COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT Intention of the section – It has been observed by the Joint Committee of Parliament : “A person who is arrested should be given the right to have his body examined by a medical officer when he is produced before a Magistrate or at any time when he is under custody, with a view to enabling him to establish that the offence with which he is charged was not committed by him or that he was subjected to physical injury. In the view of the Committee a person in custody is in need of this protection.” The section is intended to give that protection.

[Examination of arrested person by medical officer  (1) When any person is arrested, he shall be examined by a medical officer in the service of Central or State Government, and in case the medical officer is not available, by a registered medical practitioner soon after the arrest is made: Provided that where the arrested person is a female, the examination of the body shall be made only by or under the supervision of a female medical officer, and in case the female medical officer is not available, by a female registered medical practitioner. (2) The medical officer or a registered medical practitioner so examining the arrested person shall prepare the record of such examination, mentioning therein any injuries or marks of violence upon the person arrested, and the approximate time when such injuries or marks may have been inflicted. (3) Where an examination is made under sub-section (1), a copy of the report of such examination shall be furnished by the medical officer or registered medical practitioner, as the case may be, to the arrested person or the person nominated by such arrested person.]

Examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner (1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius of sixteen kilometres from the place where the offence has been committed, by any other registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the arrested person and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose. (2) The registered medical practitioner conducting such examination shall, without delay, examine such person and prepare a report of his examination giving the following particulars, namely:— (i)   the name and address of the accused and of the person by whom he was brought, (ii)   the age of the accused, (iii)   marks of injury, if any, on the person of the accused, (iv)   the description of material taken from the person of the accused for DNA profiling, and (v)   other material particulars in reasonable detail. (3) The report shall state precisely the reasons for each conclusion arrived at. (4) The exact time of commencement and completion of the examination shall also be noted in the report. (5) The registered medical practitioner shall, without delay, forward the report to the investigating officer, who shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to in section 173 as part of the documents referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (5) of that section.]

Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer (1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose. (2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under this section, the examination shall be made only by, or under the supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner. [Explanation.—In this section and in sections 53A and 54,— (a)   “examination” shall include the examination of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner thinks necessary in a particular case; (b)   “registered medical practitioner” means a medical practitioner who possesses any medical qualification as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and whose name has been entered in a State Medical Register.] COMMENTS LAW COMMISSION REPORTS Need of the provision – This provision has been made for facilitating effective investigation and authorising an examination of the arrested person by a medical practitioner, if from the nature of the alleged offence or the circumstances under which it was alleged to have been committed, there is reasonable ground for believing that an examination of the person will afford evidence. Law Commission’s conclusions – The Law Commission examined the question in detail from legal and constitutional points of view. Its conclusions may be summarised as follows : a.   Whether such examination is legally permissible – Any interference with the body of a person is, prima facie, unlawful, and must justify itself under express rule of law. Sections 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, make provision for certain matters like taking of measurements, etc., of non-convicted persons, photographing, finger impressions, etc.; but they do not extend to medical examination. The provision of the Prisoners Act is intended for the purpose of check-up of a prisoner for contagious diseases, etc., and not for investigation. Section 51 of the old Code also does not permit such examination without the consent of the accused-See Bhondar v. Emperor AIR 1931 Cal. 601, Hanuman Sarma v. Emperor AIR 1932 Cal. 723 and Deoman Shamji Patil v. State AIR 1959 Bom. 284. b.   Whether a provision if made, would be constitutionally valid – Article 20(3) of the Constitution relates to the testimony, written or oral, of the accused person, and as has been observed by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu AIR 1961 SC 1808 does not bar the examination of the accused person, even if force is used for the purpose. Kathi Kalu’s case (supra) should be taken as overruling the view taken in Brij Bhushan v. State AIR 1957 MP 106 and Gunamudayan Packianathan v. Sirkar Prosecutor AIR 1950 TC 5 invalidating provisions similar to section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. Hence, a provision permitting examination seems to have a fair chance of passing the scrutiny by courts under article 20(3) of the Constitution. c.   Whether such examination is desirable – Such a provision is needed, as examination of the body would reveal valuable evidence. The examination may take various shapes, e.g., i.   examination of the body for ascertaining the accused person’s parts in a sexual offence, or for finding out the injuries received by him; ii.   examination for identification marks; and iii.   examination of internal parts, taking of fluids (e.g. in intoxication cases) and so on. GENERAL Position in England and U.S.A. – The position in U.K. and U.S.A. may also be referred to, so that the significance of section 53 is better appreciated. In England, “without the consent of a prisoner, a Judge or a Magistrate has no power to order an examination of his person, and if in pursuance of such an order, an examination is made, the person who made the order and the person who makes the examination are guilty of an assault”- Halsbury Law of England, 3rd edn., Vol. 10, page 742, para 1425. In U.S.A., “influenced by the historical development of the doctrine ‘non-testimonial evidence’ its purpose, and the need to balance the conflicting interests of the individual and society, the courts have generally restricted the protection of the Fifth Amendment to situations where the defendant would be required to convey ideas, or where the physical acts would offend the decencies of the civilised conduct.” Incidentally it may also be mentioned that the provision in section 53 is based on the second part of section 259 of the Criminal Code of Queensland (Australia), as suitably adapted.