Inquests and death inquiries: BNSS 194–196

Unnatural deaths are where the Executive Magistrate’s work is most solemn and most scrutinised. Three sections carry it, and around them sits a lattice of clocks — 24 hours to report, 24 hours to the civil surgeon — that the BNSS tightened deliberately. Miss a clock and the file is suspect forever, whatever the truth was.

The police inquest: s. 194

On information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another person or by an animal or machinery or in an accident, or has died in circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, the officer in charge of the police station:

• immediately intimates the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests — this intimation is the EM’s entry into every unnatural death;
• proceeds to the place, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, holds the inquest — the inquest panchanama: an investigation drawing up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing wounds, fractures and other marks of injury, and stating in what manner and by what weapon or instrument they appear to have been inflicted;
• has the report signed by the police officer and the witnesses, and forwards it to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate within twenty-four hours — a timeline the BNSS tightened.

Where any doubt exists regarding the cause of death, or the police officer otherwise considers it expedient, the body is sent for post-mortem examination. Post-mortem is effectively mandatory where a woman has, within seven years of her marriage, died by suicide or in circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion of an offence — the dowry-death window. s. 195 gives the officer holding the inquest the power to summon persons acquainted with the facts; those summoned are bound to attend and answer truly.

The magisterial inquiry: s. 196

• Mandatory in the seven-years-of-marriage categories: where the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of marriage, or her death within seven years of marriage in suspicious circumstances, or death within that window with a relative’s complaint of foul play, or any other case the State notifies, the nearest empowered Magistrate shall hold an inquiry into the cause of death — instead of, or in addition to, the police investigation — with all the powers he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence.
• Discretionary in other s. 194 cases: the Magistrate may hold such an inquiry in any other case of the s. 194 kind.
• Custodial deaths — s. 196(2): where any person dies or disappears, or rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman, while in the custody of the police or in any other custody authorised by a Magistrate or court, an inquiry shall be held by the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed — in addition to the police inquiry or investigation.
• Evidence and record: the inquiring Magistrate records the evidence taken, according to the circumstances of the case.
• Exhumation — s. 196(4): the Magistrate may, where he considers it expedient to establish the cause of death, cause a buried body to be disinterred and examined — in practice a reasoned order, with the Magistrate present alongside the medical officer and panch witnesses, and a fresh post-mortem.
• Relatives — s. 196(5): wherever practicable, the Magistrate informs the relatives of the deceased (parents, children, siblings, spouse) and allows them to remain present at the inquiry.
• The civil-surgeon 24-hour rule — s. 196(6): within twenty-four hours of the death, the body shall be forwarded to the nearest civil surgeon or other qualified medical person appointed by the State Government for examination — unless it is not possible to do so for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Who inquires into a custodial death? Handle with care

CrPC 176(1A) expressly named the Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate for the mandatory custodial-death inquiry. BNSS 196(2) says only “the Magistrate” — the express “Judicial” label is not reproduced, and the point is being debated in commentary. The bare text is as quoted above and is verified; how the forum question settles in practice is UNVERIFIED and evolving. The working rule for a probationer: treat custodial-death, custodial-disappearance and custodial-rape inquiries as going to the Judicial Magistrate, per prevailing practice and NHRC guidelines, unless the State Government issues contrary instructions — and if such a file lands on your desk, raise the forum question in writing to the DM before proceeding. What you must do regardless of forum is the Executive Magistrate’s undisputed share: the s. 194 machinery, the clocks, and preservation of the record.

NHRC practice adds its own layer in custody cases: prompt intimation to the Commission and videography of the post-mortem are the working norms, and the district administration is expected to know and follow them without being asked.

A worked example: the 2 a.m. lock-up intimation

A Tuesday, 2:10 a.m. The Tahsildar of a mandal in erstwhile Karimnagar — the nearest empowered Executive Magistrate — is woken by a call from the SHO: a 34-year-old man, picked up the previous evening in a theft investigation, has been found unresponsive in the station lock-up and declared dead at the area hospital. The RDO is informed minutes later. What the next 24 hours should look like:

1. 2:15 a.m. — the intimation is logged. The exact time of the SHO’s call, and the fact that death occurred in police custody, go into the record at once. From this moment the file is a s. 196(2) file: a Magistrate’s inquiry is mandatory, in addition to whatever the police do.
2. Before dawn — the scene and the body. The EM reaches the hospital and the station. The body is guarded and photographed; the lock-up is sealed as found; the station’s general diary, arrest memo, and medical-examination-on-arrest record are secured in original. The inquest under s. 194 proceeds with respectable inhabitants as witnesses — describing every mark on the body without speculation as to cause.
3. Morning — the clocks. The inquest report moves to the DM/SDM well inside 24 hours. The body moves to the civil surgeon within 24 hours of death under s. 196(6) — and because this is a custodial death, the post-mortem is videographed and conducted per NHRC practice, with the district’s NHRC intimation sent the same day.
4. Morning — the family. The deceased’s wife and father are informed under the s. 196(5) discipline, told of their right to remain present at the inquiry, and given the inquest’s factual particulars. Nothing corrodes a custodial-death file like a family that learns of the death from the village before the administration tells them.
5. The forum note. The RDO puts up a same-day note to the DM: s. 196(2) inquiry mandatory; forum per prevailing practice the Judicial Magistrate, textual position under the BNSS unsettled; orders requested. Whichever way the district answers, the note protects the record — and the officer.
6. What the EM does not do. He does not question the constables on culpability, does not release the body against a promise of “no post-mortem”, and does not let the station clean the lock-up. Fact-preservation is the office; fixing responsibility belongs to the inquiry and the investigation.

Edge cases and common mistakes

• The missed clocks. A s. 194 report reaching the SDM on day three, or a body reaching the civil surgeon at hour thirty with no recorded reasons, is the first cross-examination question in every subsequent proceeding. The reasons-recording escape in s. 196(6) is for genuine impossibility — distance, terrain — not for slack.
• Inference in the panchanama. “Appears to have been beaten” is a conclusion; “three contusions of about 4 cm on the left shoulder blade” is an observation. The inquest records what is seen, before witnesses; cause is for the doctor and the inquiry.
• The skipped mandatory inquiry. A woman dead within seven years of marriage, quietly closed as “suicide — no complaint” without the s. 196(1) inquiry, is the classic dereliction — the inquiry is mandatory whether or not the family complains.
• Exhumation without a reasoned order. s. 196(4) is exercised by written, reasoned order, with the Magistrate present at the disinterment with the medical officer and panch witnesses. An oral direction to dig is indefensible.
• Forgetting the forum flag. Proceeding to hold a full custodial-death inquiry as an EM without raising the Judicial-vs-Executive question in writing — or refusing the file outright without securing the s. 194 record — are both wrong. Do the undisputed part; escalate the disputed part.
• Deaths in police action. Deaths in a lathi-charge or firing attract s. 196, and the Government or DM routinely orders an RDO-level magisterial enquiry into the necessity and proportionality of the force — witness statements under s. 195, scene inspection, report upward. If you authorized the force, the enquiry cannot be yours; flag the conflict immediately.

Questions you’ll actually get

“SHO: sir, family is not objecting, shall we hand over the body without post-mortem?” In a custodial death, never — the s. 196(6) examination and its videography are not waivable by consent. Even outside custody, where any doubt as to cause exists, the body goes for post-mortem; the family’s haste is a reason to explain, not to skip.

“Why is a magistrate inquiring at all when the police are investigating?” Because in custody cases the statute refuses to let the police be the only examiners of a death in their own hands — s. 196(2) mandates a Magistrate’s inquiry in addition to the police inquiry. In the dowry window, the same logic guards against quiet closures.

“The family wants the body exhumed — they suspect poisoning. Can it be done?” Yes — s. 196(4) empowers the Magistrate to have the body disinterred and examined where expedient to establish the cause of death: a reasoned order, presence at the spot, fresh medical examination, relatives informed.

“Who gets your inquiry report?” The record of evidence and findings goes up the chain — to the DM and the Government per the district’s instructions — and feeds any investigation, prosecution, NHRC proceeding or departmental action. Write it knowing every one of those readers will hold it against the clock entries on page one.

“A man drowned in the village tank — do you have to inquire?” The police inquest under s. 194 must happen and reach the SDM in 24 hours. A magisterial inquiry is discretionary in such a case — held if circumstances raise doubt — unlike the marriage-window and custody categories, where it is mandatory.

Field notes for a probationer

Attend one inquest with the Tahsildar before you hold one alone. Watch the clock consciously: intimation, the 24-hour report to the DM/SDM, the 24-hour civil-surgeon rule. Then read the panchanama against what you saw at the spot — the discipline of recording only what is observed, before witnesses, is the whole craft. And keep the custodial-death forum note from the worked example as a ready draft; the 2 a.m. call is not the time to compose it.