New Delhi, Oct. 25 -- A death by drowning cannot automatically be treated as a natural accident, the Supreme Court has held, cautioning that even a post-mortem report confirming drowning cannot rule out foul play and that the circumstances surrounding the death must be investigated. A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran set aside a Patna high court order quashing criminal proceedings against a man accused of deliberately drowning a boy, holding that the high court casually brushed aside compelling circumstances warranting a trial. "Merely because the postmortem indicated death by drowning, it cannot be assumed that there was absolutely no foul play," said the bench in its recent order, stressing that even if a person is deliberately pushed into water with the intention of drowning, a postmortem examination may reveal nothing suspicious. The court was hearing an appeal by the boy's father against the high court's May decision to quash the cognisance of offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC against the accused. According to the father's complaint, the accused, Kumar Gitanshu, took his son from their home for a walk on May 12, 2020. A short while later, a man told the family that the boy was drowning near a state boring facility and that, despite his efforts, he could not save him. The father rushed to the spot and arranged for boatmen to search the river, but the efforts proved unsuccessful. The bench noted that two witnesses also stated that they saw the accused fleeing from the scene. These circumstances, it said, warranted a trial. "Especially when the 2nd respondent (accused) who took the deceased from his house, with whom he was last seen, should proffer an explanation, more so, when he was found running away," noted the court. The Supreme Court faulted the high court for relying on the post-mortem finding that the death was caused by asphyxia and ventricular fibrillation from drowning, treating it as a reason to rule out anything sinister. The court also rejected the reasoning that the FIR was lodged after the father received information about the drowning without adequately disclosing how that information reached him. A reading of the FIR, the bench pointed out, clearly showed that the information was conveyed by the man who reported the incident. The case had earlier seen a judicial magistrate accept the police's final report, which effectively closed the investigation, and direct that the father's protest petition be registered as a complaint. In revision, a Darbhanga court directed the magistrate to reconsider the closure report. On reconsideration, the magistrate took cognisance of the offences. The high court then quashed that decision. Reiterating the law on police closure reports, the bench said a magistrate is not bound to accept the police's conclusion that no offence was made out. The court can take cognisance on the basis of material collected, or direct further probe....