POWER TO REQUIRE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES
Under Section 179(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), investigating police officers are empowered to issue written orders requiring the attendance of any witness who appears acquainted with the facts of a case, provided the individual resides within the limits of the officer’s police station or an adjoining station.
To prevent potential harassment, specific statutory exemptions strictly forbid police from summoning women, males under 15 or above 60 years of age, individuals with mental or physical disabilities, or persons with acute illnesses to any location other than their residence, though voluntary attendance is allowed.
Enhanced safeguards apply to rape investigations, mandating that the victim’s statement be taken at her home or chosen location—preferably by a female officer in the presence of relatives or a local social worker—with provisions allowing audio-video recording via mobile devices.
While intentionally failing to obey a written summons makes a witness liable to prosecution under Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, police officers possess no statutory authority to use physical force, detain, or arrest individuals solely to compel their attendance as witnesses.
7. POWER TO INTERROGATE WITNESSES AND TO RECORD THEIR STATEMENTS
Under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 161 CrPC], police officers investigating a crime are granted explicit authority to orally examine any person familiar with the facts of a case, a term which the Supreme Court clarified in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani extends to accused suspects as well.
While individuals are legally bound to answer questions truthfully—facing potential prosecution under Sections 214 and 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for refusing to answer or providing false evidence—both Section 180(2) BNSS and Article 20(3) of the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right against self-incrimination.
This protection allows suspects to remain silent when faced with questions that could expose them to criminal charges, with “compelled testimony” covering psychological coercion and environmental pressure alongside physical force, though Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra affirmed this right to silence during interrogation is not absolute.
Procedurally, officers must record each witness’s statement individually—with modern BNSS provisions enabling audio-video recording and mandating that sexual offense statements from women be recorded by a female officer—and Section 181(1) BNSS strictly forbids police from requiring witnesses to sign these written statements to prevent coerced commitments.
Furthermore, officers are forbidden from using threats or inducements under Section 22 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, ensuring that statements remain free from improper police influence while preserving a person’s right to speak voluntarily.
8. EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF STATEMENTS MADE TO THE POLICE
Under Indian criminal procedure and evidence law—governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023—statements made to police officers fall into three categories: First Information Reports (FIRs), statements recorded during an active investigation, and other statements recorded outside an investigation.
None of these statements constitute substantive courtroom evidence (proof of the actual facts stated) because they are not given under oath in court and are not subjected to cross-examination.
Instead, their legal utility is largely restricted to testing witness credibility through corroboration or contradiction under Sections 160 and 148 of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
An FIR is not substantive evidence and can only be used to corroborate or contradict the specific person who lodged it, with unexplained delays in filing raising doubts of fabrication or exaggeration.
Statements recorded by police officers during an investigation under Section 181 BNSS (formerly Section 162 CrPC) carry strict statutory protections designed to safeguard the accused against police overreach: they cannot be used to corroborate prosecution witnesses, nor are they admissible against an accused as a confession, unless a statement directly leads to the discovery of tangible physical evidence under the proviso to Section 23(2) of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
These statements can generally only be used by the defense (or the prosecution with court permission) to point out material contradictions or significant omissions in a prosecution witness’s testimony.
The restrictions under Section 181 BNSS apply specifically to the criminal trial for that particular offense, leaving exceptions for dying declarations under Section 26(a), independent panchanama records, and voluntary statements made outside the official course of an investigation.
9. POWER OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TO RECORD CONFESSIONS AND STATEMENTS
Under Indian criminal jurisprudence, as codified in Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 164 CrPC), confessions and statements made directly to police officers are deemed inadmissible as substantive evidence due to the inherent risk of coercion, fabrication, or police overreach.
To safeguard constitutional rights and ensure evidentiary integrity, Section 183 BNSS establishes an exclusive judicial framework allowing only competent Judicial Magistrates to record confessions and statements during an investigation or prior to trial commencement.
A confession recorded under this special judicial procedure constitutes substantive evidence, carrying a statutory presumption of genuineness under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.
To guarantee voluntariness, the Magistrate is bound by strict procedural duties: informing the accused of their right to remain silent, warning them that any confession will be used against them, removing police influence from the room, inquiring into custodial treatment or injuries, offering reflection time, and ensuring the accused is not returned to police custody if they refuse to confess.
While recorded confessions serve as substantive proof, non-confessional witness statements under Section 183 BNSS are non-substantive and function primarily to corroborate or contradict courtroom testimony under Sections 160 and 148 BSA, with mandatory special protections—such as audio-visual recording and direct adoption as examination-in-chief—applied to vulnerable or disabled victims of serious sexual offenses.
Ultimately, any procedural lapses by a Magistrate during recording cannot be bypassed by substitute oral evidence unless saved under Section 509 BNSS to confirm that proper statutory conditions were fulfilled, thereby upholding fair trial guarantees.
10. MAINTENANCE AND USE OF “CASE DIARY”
Under Section 192 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [formerly Section 172 CrPC], every investigating police officer is legally bound to maintain a bound, paginated daily record known as a “case diary” to chronicle their step-by-step investigation proceedings, including key locations, daily start/end times, and recorded witness statements.
The primary objective of requiring detailed, prompt, and objective entries is to promote police transparency and prevent the fabrication or retrospective manipulation of evidence.
Although a court may call for and review a case diary to clarify obscure facts or guide the questioning of witnesses, the entries inside cannot be treated as substantive evidence to directly prove guilt or disprove a case.
Furthermore, the accused holds no absolute right to inspect the diary; defense inspection is strictly limited to relevant excerpts when a police officer uses the diary to refresh memory on the witness stand or when the court uses it to contradict the officer’s testimony under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.
While non-maintenance of a case diary does not automatically invalidate an officer’s testimony, courts evaluate such lapses on a case-by-case basis, maintaining the requirement for procedural integrity throughout criminal investigations.
11. ATTACHMENT, FORFEITURE OR RESTORATION OF PROPERTY
Under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, investigating police officers are empowered—upon obtaining senior approval from a Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police—to apply to a competent Court or Magistrate for the attachment of property believed to be derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity.
To maintain procedural fairness, the court typically issues a 14-day show-cause notice to the property holder before passing an attachment order, though it retains discretionary power to issue an immediate interim ex parte seizure order in urgent circumstances to prevent the property from being hidden or dissipated.
Once the court conclusively confirms that attached assets constitute proceeds of crime, primary priority is given to victim restitution, requiring the District Magistrate to rateably distribute funds to affected parties within 60 days; any remaining surplus, or funds without identifiable claimants, are ultimately forfeited to the government.
12. PROCEDURE WHEN INVESTIGATION CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN 24 HOURS
Section 12 details the strict legal procedure governing cases where a police investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, enforcing a fundamental safeguard under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 167 of the CrPC) to protect arrested individuals from arbitrary or illegal detention.
When an officer-in-charge, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, determines that the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and the accusations are well-founded, they must immediately forward the accused along with the case diary entries to the nearest Judicial Magistrate, or an Executive Magistrate if a Judicial Magistrate is unavailable.
An Executive Magistrate can authorize detention for up to 7 days with written reasons, while a Judicial Magistrate may grant custody for a maximum of 15 days in aggregate.
Under the BNSS, this police remand may be granted continuously at the start or in staggered intervals during the initial 40 days in 60-day cases or 60 days in 90-day cases.
The Magistrate must exercise judicial mind, examine the case diary, and record explicit reasons.
The accused must be physically produced for police custody remands, while subsequent judicial custody extensions may occur through audio-video electronic means.
To prevent indefinite pre-trial detention, the law provides 90 days for offences punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of 10 years or more, and 60 days for other offences.
If the police fail to file a complete chargesheet within these periods, the accused acquires an “indefeasible right” to default bail, an essential component of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Magistrate must inform the accused of this right and provide free legal aid if indigent.
However, the accused must apply for default bail before the prosecution files the chargesheet; otherwise, the right is extinguished.
Finally, any Magistrate granting remand, other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate, must forward a copy of the order and reasons to the CJM.
In minor summons cases, if the investigation is not completed within six months from the date of arrest, the Magistrate must order its stoppage unless special reasons justify an extension in the interest of justice.
Even where an investigation continues beyond six months without prior judicial approval, the trial is not automatically invalidated; rather, material collected after the six-month period will be ignored when deciding whether to take cognizance.
13. PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED ON COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION
Section 13 governs the complete procedure following the conclusion of a criminal investigation under Sections 189, 190, 191, and 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Sections 169, 170, 171, and 173 CrPC).
If the investigation yields insufficient evidence or reasonable suspicion, the police station incharge must release the detained suspect upon executing a bond to appear before the court when required.
Conversely, when sufficient evidence exists, the officer must forward the accused (or take appearance security if bailable or out of custody) along with physical evidence, weapons, and appearance bonds executed by key witnesses.
Witnesses are protected from unnecessary restraint or harassment, though individuals refusing to execute attendance bonds may be detained and forwarded to the Magistrate.
Upon completing the investigation without unnecessary delay, the police report—which can be submitted by the station incharge or a superior officer—must include all relevant documents and witness statements, with sensitive non-essential portions marked for potential redaction by the court.
The Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind to the police findings and is not bound by their conclusions; if the police seek to drop charges, the informant must be given notice and a hearing, while protest petitions may be treated as private complaints.
Complete copies of all case documents must be provided to the accused free of charge within 14 days, including via digital means.
Finally, under Section 193(9) BNSS, police may conduct “further investigation” upon discovering new material—which requires court permission during pending trials and carries a 90-day completion limit—whereas a complete “re-investigation” (de novo) wipes out prior proceedings and can only be directed by higher constitutional courts to safeguard Article 21 rights.
14. INVESTIGATION AND INQUIRY INTO THE CAUSE OF UNNATURAL DEATHS, SUICIDES, DEATH IN POLICE CUSTODY, ETC.
Section 14 outlines the mandatory legal procedures under Sections 194–196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding investigations into unnatural deaths, suicides, and offences occurring in custody.
Crucially, Section 196(2) BNSS mandates that whenever a death, disappearance, or alleged rape occurs in police custody or court-authorized custody, the local Judicial Magistrate must conduct an independent judicial inquiry in addition to the police investigation.
To preserve physical evidence and establish the precise cause of a custodial death, the Magistrate or investigating police officer is required to forward the deceased person’s body to the nearest civil surgeon or qualified medical examiner within 24 hours, recording reasons in writing if any delay prevents meeting this deadline.
This strict requirement reflects a fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence: because police officers cannot be solely trusted to impartially investigate alleged misconduct within their own custody, independent judicial oversight and rapid medical examination are essential to safeguard human rights and ensure transparency.
| Proceeding | By whom | Object and nature | Oath |
| Investigation | By a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. | Collection of evidence for the purposes of any inquiry or trial. | Oath cannot be administered to the persons examined or interrogated. |
| Investigation on an inquiry into the cause of death under Section 194²¹² | (a) By an officer in charge of a police station, or, by some other police officer who is specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, under Section 194. | (a) Ascertainment of the apparent cause of death in cases of suicide, unnatural death, death caused in the commission of a crime, etc. The concerned police officer is required to get the post-mortem examination done in cases of bride-burning or bride-suicides and in any other case where there is any doubt regarding the cause of death. | (a) Police cannot administer an oath to any person(s) summoned for the purpose of investigation. |
| Inquest/ Inquiry | (b) By a Magistrate under Section 196. | (b) Inquest by the nearest Executive Magistrate (who is empowered to hold inquests) is mandatory when death occurs in cases of bride-burning or bride-suicide. Inquest into the other cases of deaths as mentioned in (a) above is to be held at the discretion of any Executive Magistrate who is empowered to hold an inquest. Such an inquest is to be held either instead of or, in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer in this regard under (a) above. It is mandatory for a Judicial Magistrate to hold an inquiry (in addition to a police investigation) into (a) the death or disappearance of any person, or (b) the alleged rape on any woman, when such death, disappearance or rape occurs in police custody or in any other custody authorised by a Magistrate or a Court under the BNSS. | (b) The concerned Magistrate may administer an oath to the persons to be examined by him. |
| Inquiry | By a Magistrate or by a Court. | Judicial determination of any question (other than one relating to the guilt or innocence of any person in respect of any offence alleged against him) under the BNSS. | Oath can be administered to the persons to be examined. |
| Trial | —do— | Judicial determination as to the guilt or innocence of any person accused of any offence. | —do— |