Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 196
Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death
(1) When the case is of the nature referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 194, the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any other case mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 194, any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer; and if he does so, he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence.
(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 authorisedby 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.
(3) The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in connection therewith in any manner hereinafter specified according to the circumstances of the case.
(4) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of the dead body of any person who has been already interred, in order to discover the cause of his death, the Magistrate may cause the body to be disinterred and examined.
(5) Where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall, wherever practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry.
(6) The Magistrate or the Executive Magistrate or the police officer holding an inquiry or investigation under sub-section (2) shall, within twenty-four hours of the death of a person, forward the body with a view to its being examined to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical person appointed in this behalf by the State Government, unless it is not possible to do so for reasons to be recorded in writing. Explanation.—In this section, the expression "relative" means parents, children, brothers, sisters and spouse.
Why this exists
This provision continues a long-standing safeguard (earlier found in Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) meant to check police excesses. Deaths or serious harm occurring in police or judicial custody raise an inherent risk of cover-up, since the same police force investigating the death might also be responsible for it. By mandating an independent Magistrate-led inquiry in custodial deaths, disappearances, and alleged custodial rape, the law tries to ensure an impartial check separate from the police's own investigation, and to give victims' families some visibility and voice in the process.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 176 CrPC), courts—including the Supreme Court in cases dealing with custodial deaths and encounter killings—emphasized that a magisterial inquiry is a vital, independent safeguard distinct from a police investigation, and is not a mere formality. Courts have stressed prompt medical examination of the body and proper recording of evidence to preserve the integrity of such inquiries, and have treated failure to hold or properly conduct these inquiries as a serious lapse. Specific case law interpreting the renumbered Section 196 of the BNSS itself is not yet settled, since the Sanhita is new.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Only the police need to investigate a custodial death; the Magistrate's role is just a formality.
Fact: The law makes the Magistrate's inquiry mandatory and independent in custodial deaths, disappearances, and alleged custodial rape—it exists precisely because relying only on police investigation is considered insufficient. - Myth: The family has no role in this process.
Fact: The Magistrate must inform known relatives and allow them to be present during the inquiry, wherever practicable.