Section 174 CrPC vs Section 194 BNSS — Police Inquest Report and Magistrate's Inquiry into Death (CrPC 174-176)

In India, Sections 194 to 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the inquest provisions, Sections 174 to 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), on 1 July 2024. The police inquest report must now reach the Magistrate within twenty-four hours instead of "forthwith", and women, the elderly and the ill summoned for an inquest are examined at home.

A numbering trap. Section 176 CrPC (Magistrate's inquiry into death) is now Section 196 BNSS. Section 176 BNSS is a different provision — the procedure for investigation, formerly Section 157 CrPC, including the new forensic-expert duty. That provision has its own page and is not covered here.

At a glance

These are procedural provisions: they create no offence and have no First Schedule entry.

What changed

• Section 194(1) — Minor edit. "unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government" becomes "any rule made by the State Government". The duty to "immediately give intimation" to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and to draw up a report "of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury", is word for word the same.
• Section 194(2) — Modified. "shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate" becomes "shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate within twenty-four hours".
• Section 194(3) — Minor edit. The five triggers for sending the body for examination are unchanged; "other qualified medical man" becomes "other qualified medical person".
• Section 194(4) — Identical. District and Sub-divisional Magistrates, and other specially empowered Executive Magistrates, may hold inquests.
• Section 195(1), provisos — Expanded. Section 175(1) CrPC had no proviso. Section 195 adds: "Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person or a person with acute illness shall be required to attend at any place other than the place where such person resides", and a second proviso permitting a willing person "to attend and answer at the police station". These mirror the provisos in Section 179 BNSS.
• Sections 195(2) and 196(1) — Minor edit. Cross-references updated ("section 170" → "section 190"; "section 174" → "section 194").
• Section 196(2) (was 176(1A)) — Modified. The custodial inquiry "shall be held by the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed"; the CrPC said "by the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be". BNSS Section 6 lists no Metropolitan Magistrates among the classes of criminal courts, which, on a reading of the text, accounts for that word; the dropping of "Judicial" is discussed below.
• Section 196(3)-(5) (were 176(2)-(4)) — Minor edit. Renumbered; in (3) evidence is recorded "in any manner hereinafter specified" (was "prescribed").
• Section 196(6) (was 176(5)) — Minor edit. "The Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate or Executive Magistrate or police officer" becomes "The Magistrate or the Executive Magistrate or the police officer", and "as the case may be" after "inquiry or investigation" is dropped; the twenty-four-hour duty is unchanged.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 174(2) CrPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate.

Extract, Section 194(2) BNSS:

(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate within twenty-four hours.

Extract, Section 196(2) BNSS:

(2) Where,— (a) any person dies or disappears; or (b) rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman, while such person or woman is in the custody of the police or in any other custody authorised by the Magistrate or the Court, under this Sanhita in addition to the inquiry or investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall be held by the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed.

How it works — the steps

1. Trigger (Section 194(1)). The officer in charge of a police station, or another officer specially empowered by the State, receives information that a person has committed suicide, has been killed by another, by an animal, by machinery or by an accident, or has died in circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that someone committed an offence.
2. Intimation and inquest. He "shall immediately give intimation" to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests and, unless State rules or a District or Sub-divisional Magistrate's order direct otherwise, goes to the body and, "in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood", draws up a report of the apparent cause of death and the injuries.
3. Summoning (Section 195). He may, by written order, summon the inhabitants and anyone acquainted with the facts, who must attend and answer truly (except self-incriminating questions). Protected persons are examined at their residence unless they choose otherwise. If no cognizable offence to which Section 190 applies is disclosed, they cannot be required to attend a Magistrate's Court (Section 195(2)).
4. Report (Section 194(2)). Signed and forwarded to the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate within twenty-four hours.
5. Medical examination (Section 194(3)). In the five listed cases the body goes to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical person, subject to weather and distance.
6. Magistrate's inquiry (Section 196(1)). Mandatory ("shall") in cases under Section 194(3)(i) or (ii); optional ("may") in other Section 194(1) cases. The Magistrate has the powers of an inquiry into an offence, may order exhumation (196(4)), and must, wherever practicable, inform the deceased's relatives — parents, children, brothers, sisters and spouse — and let them attend (196(5) and Explanation).
7. Custodial cases (Section 196(2), (6)). A death, disappearance or alleged rape in police or other authorised custody requires a Magistrate's inquiry in addition to the police inquiry, and the body must be sent for examination within twenty-four hours of the death unless not possible for reasons recorded in writing.

What this means in practice

For the family of the deceased

• In the death of a woman within seven years of marriage, a relative's request is itself a ground on which the body "shall" be sent for medical examination (Section 194(3)(iii)).
• Where the case falls under Section 194(3)(i) or (ii), a Magistrate's inquiry is mandatory (Section 196(1)), and relatives are to be informed and allowed to attend wherever practicable (Section 196(5)).

For the police officer

• Section 194(2) does not state from when the twenty-four hours run.
• Confine the report to what Section 194(1) asks for — the apparent cause of death and the injuries. The judgments below hold that the names of accused and eyewitnesses are not required.
• Protected persons cannot be required to come to the station (Section 195(1) proviso).

For the defence and prosecution at trial

• An omission of names or details from the inquest report is not, by itself, a ground to doubt the prosecution (Amar Singh, Radha Mohan Singh, Bhagat Singh).
• A discrepancy or overwriting in the inquest report cannot be argued unless its author was confronted with it in the witness box (Radha Mohan Singh, para 10).

The "Magistrate" in Section 196(2). Section 176(1A) CrPC gave the custodial inquiry to a Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate. Section 196(2) says "the Magistrate", while Section 196(6) refers to "the Magistrate or the Executive Magistrate or the police officer holding an inquiry or investigation under sub-section (2)". On a reading of the text, naming the Executive Magistrate separately in (6) suggests that "the Magistrate" in (2) is not the Executive Magistrate. Section 2 of the BNSS contains no definition of "Magistrate". Section 3(1) BNSS provides that, unless the context otherwise requires, a reference "in any law" to a Magistrate without qualifying words is to be construed as a reference to a Judicial Magistrate; whether that rule governs Section 196(2) is a question of reading on which no judgment was read.

Judgments that still matter

Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 754 (2003 INSC 52) — 31 January 2003. S. Rajendra Babu and G.P. Mathur JJ. (judgment by Mathur J.) set aside a High Court acquittal in a murder appeal and restored the trial court's judgment. It rejected the High Court's reliance on the inquest report's silence about the occurrence: the requirement of Section 174 is to record the apparent cause of death and the injuries in the presence of respectable inhabitants, and the section "does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report". The report shows no paragraph numbers. Section 194(1) BNSS repeats the words construed.

Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of U.P., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 519 (2006 INSC 38) — 20 January 2006. A three-Judge Bench (K.G. Balakrishnan, Arun Kumar and G.P. Mathur JJ.; judgment by Mathur J.) held that an investigation under Section 174 "is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death" (para 12). It held there is "absolutely no requirement in law" of mentioning the details of the FIR, the names of the accused or eyewitnesses, or the gist of their statements, and overruled contrary observations in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (para 13). It also held that no argument on a discrepancy or omission in the inquest report can be entertained unless its author was given an opportunity to explain it in evidence (para 10). In the result, one appellant's conviction was altered to Section 302 IPC and three others' to Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC (para 21).

Bhagat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 527 — 22 May 2026. The High Court had granted bail to a murder accused partly because two panch witnesses made no allegation against him at the inquest. Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh JJ. stated that the scope of an inquiry under Section 174 CrPC, "now corresponding to Section 194" BNSS, is "a preliminary enquiry of a limited and specific character confined to ascertaining the apparent cause of death" (para 12), relying on Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P. and Amar Singh (paras 12-13). Non-mention of the author of the crime in the inquest report "cannot, by itself, be a reason to doubt the involvement of the accused" (para 14), and that omission could not be viewed in isolation from the FIR, charge-sheet, post-mortem report, recovery and Section 180 BNSS statements (para 15). The Court set aside the bail order, remanded the bail application to the High Court for fresh consideration, and directed the accused to surrender within one week (paras 17-18).

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an inquiry or investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is continued under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that clause, an inquest or Magistrate's inquiry that began before that date runs under Sections 174 to 176 CrPC, including the "forthwith" standard and the Judicial Magistrate requirement for custodial deaths; one begun on or after 1 July 2024 runs under Sections 194 to 196 BNSS. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 174 CrPC? Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 174 CrPC from 1 July 2024. Section 195 BNSS replaces Section 175 CrPC (summoning persons for the inquest) and Section 196 BNSS replaces Section 176 CrPC (inquiry by a Magistrate into the cause of death). Section 176 BNSS is a different provision: it replaces Section 157 CrPC on the procedure for investigation.

Within what time must the police send the inquest report under the BNSS? Section 194(2) BNSS requires the report, signed by the police officer and the other persons who concur in it, to be forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate within twenty-four hours. Section 174(2) CrPC said the report was to be forwarded "forthwith" and set no hour limit.

When must the police send the body for post-mortem under Section 194 BNSS? Section 194(3) BNSS lists five cases: suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; death of a woman within seven years of marriage in circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion of an offence; death of a woman within seven years of marriage where a relative requests it; any doubt about the cause of death; or any other reason the officer considers it expedient. The body goes to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical person, if weather and distance allow it to arrive without putrefaction making examination useless. The list is the same as in Section 174(3) CrPC.

Does the inquest report have to name the accused or the eyewitnesses? No. In Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. ([2006] 1 S.C.R. 519) a three-Judge Bench held that there is no requirement in law to mention the details of the FIR, the names of the accused or eyewitnesses, or the gist of their statements in the inquest report, because the inquest is confined to the apparent cause of death. In Bhagat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026 INSC 527) the Supreme Court, describing Section 174 CrPC as now corresponding to Section 194 BNSS, held that not naming the accused in the inquest report cannot, by itself, be a reason to doubt his involvement.

Can women and elderly persons be made to come to the police station for an inquest? No. The first proviso to Section 195(1) BNSS, which has no counterpart in Section 175 CrPC, says a male person under fifteen or above sixty, a woman, a mentally or physically disabled person or a person with acute illness shall not be required to attend at any place other than where the person resides. Under the second proviso, a person willing to attend and answer at the police station may be permitted to do so.

When is a Magistrate's inquiry into a death mandatory? Under Section 196(1) BNSS the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall hold an inquiry where the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of marriage, or her death within seven years of marriage in circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion of an offence. Under Section 196(2), where a person dies or disappears, or rape is alleged on a woman, in police custody or other custody authorised by a Magistrate or Court, an inquiry shall be held by the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, in addition to the police inquiry or investigation.

Who holds the custodial death inquiry under the BNSS — a Judicial or an Executive Magistrate? Section 176(1A) CrPC required the inquiry to be held by the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate. Section 196(2) BNSS says "the Magistrate" within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Section 196(6) separately refers to "the Magistrate or the Executive Magistrate", which on a reading of the text suggests that "the Magistrate" is not the Executive Magistrate, but no judgment deciding the point was read for this page.

Which law applies to an inquest into a death before 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS says an inquiry or investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 continues under the CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force. On a reading of that clause, an inquest or Magistrate's inquiry begun before that date runs under Sections 174 to 176 CrPC, and one begun on or after it under Sections 194 to 196 BNSS.

Related

• Mandatory forensic investigation — Section 176(3) BNSS
• Section 160 CrPC vs Section 179 BNSS — Attendance of Witnesses
• Section 154 CrPC vs Section 173 BNSS — First Information Report
• Dowry death — IPC 304B vs BNS 80
• Forensic evidence and videography under the new laws
• CrPC to BNSS master table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 6, 176 (numbering note), 179, 190, 194, 195, 196 and 531.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 174, 175 and 176, with the amendment footnotes (Act 46 of 1983; Act 25 of 2005).
• Judgments read in full text: Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh (2003_1_754_770_EN.md); Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of U.P. (2006_1_519_539_EN.md); Bhagat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Diary_10813-2026_Judgment.md). Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P. (Diary_60181-1971_Judgment.md) was read; it construed the 1898 Code and is mentioned only as cited in the later judgments.

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.