Introduction
Whenever there is an unnatural, suspicious, or sudden death, the first official step in the criminal justice process is the inquest. Before an FIR is registered, before a chargesheet is filed, before any arrest is made, the inquest report sets the foundation of the entire investigation. Yet, it remains one of the most misunderstood documents in Indian criminal law.
This article explains what an inquest report is, which provisions govern it under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the difference between a police inquest and a magistrate’s inquiry, and the evidentiary value courts have attached to it through key case laws.
What Is an Inquest Report?
An inquest report is a preliminary statutory inquiry conducted to determine the apparent cause of death in cases where a person has died under unnatural, suspicious, or sudden circumstances. It is not a full-fledged criminal investigation, nor is it an attempt to identify the accused or gather evidence for prosecution. Its sole purpose is narrow and specific: to find out whether the death was natural, accidental, suicidal, or homicidal.
In common practice, especially across police stations in India, the inquest report is also referred to as a Panchnama, a term derived from the requirement that it be prepared in the presence of Panchas (local witnesses). While the term is not formally defined in any statute, it carries significant procedural weight in criminal courts1.
Importantly, the inquest report is different from a post-mortem report. The inquest is a scene-level, preliminary inquiry, whereas the post-mortem is a detailed medical examination of the body that reveals the actual biological cause of death.
Governing Provisions Under BNSS 2023
With the replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the provisions governing inquest proceedings have been renumbered and, in some places, updated2. The relevant sections are now Sections 194, 195, and 196 of the BNSS, which correspond to Sections 174, 175, and 176 of the old CrPC.
Section 194 BNSS — Police inquest (formerly Section 174 CrPC)
Section 194 BNSS When is it triggered? A police officer in charge of a station must immediately conduct an inquest upon receiving information that a person has:
· Committed suicide
· Been killed by another person, an animal, machinery, or an accident
· Died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that a cognizable offence has been committed
· Died under suspicious circumstancesProcedure: The inquiry must be conducted at the scene of the death, in the presence of two or more local inhabitants as witnesses. The officer must document the apparent cause of death and any injuries found on the body.
Key addition under BNSS: Unlike the CrPC which had no fixed deadline, Section 194(1) of the BNSS now mandates that the signed inquest report be forwarded to the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate within 24 hours3.
Cognizable vs non-cognizable: In a cognizable offence (such as murder), the police can proceed with the inquest automatically without any prior magistrate’s order. However, where no cognizable offence is disclosed, any further investigation requires the prior approval of a Magistrate.
The section 195 BNSS — Power to summon persons (formerly Section 175 CrPC)
Section 195 BNSS
For the purpose of conducting the inquest, the police officer may summon persons who are familiar with the facts of the case. However, the BNSS introduces a protective provision: no male above 60 years, no person below 15 years, no woman, and no mentally or physically disabled or seriously ill person can be required to attend at any place other than their residence4. They may voluntarily attend the police station if they choose to.
Additionally, if the investigation under Section 194 does not reveal any cognizable offence, the persons summoned cannot be compelled to appear before a Magistrate’s court.
Section 196 BNSS — Magistrate’s inquiry (formerly Section 176 CrPC)
Also Read: Casteist Abuse Behind Closed Doors Won’t Hold Up Under SC/ST Act — Supreme Court Draws a Clear Line
Section 196 BNSSIn certain categories of cases, the inquest cannot be left to the police alone — a Magistrate must independently conduct an inquiry. These cases include:
· Death or disappearance of a person in police custody or other lawful custody
· Rape alleged to have been committed on a woman in custody
· Suspicious death of a woman within seven years of marriage (to address dowry deaths)Under Section 196(2) BNSS, in all custodial matters, a Judicial Magistrate inquiry is mandatory, in addition to any police inquest. This inquiry is conducted by the Judicial Magistrate of the jurisdiction where the offence was committed. Statements recorded by a Magistrate during such an inquiry carry the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS (equivalent to Section 164 CrPC).5
Key difference at a glance
| Aspect | Section 194 (Police inquest) | Section 196 (Magistrate’s inquiry) |
|---|---|---|
| Who conducts it | Officer in charge of the police station | Executive or Judicial Magistrate |
| When triggered | Any unnatural or suspicious death | Custodial death, disappearance, dowry death, custodial rape |
| Requires prior order? | No, for cognizable offences. Yes, for non-cognizable ones | Mandatory by law; no separate order needed |
| Timeline under BNSS | Report to be forwarded within 24 hours | Examination of body within 24 hours of custodial death |
| Evidentiary value of statements | Limited — cannot be used as substantive evidence | Equivalent to a Section 183 BNSS statement |
Evidentiary Value of the Inquest Report
One of the most commonly litigated questions around inquest reports is: how much weight should a court give to them? The settled legal position, reinforced by decades of Supreme Court rulings, is that the inquest report is not substantive evidence in a criminal trial. Its contents can be used only to test the consistency or credibility of a witness, not to establish guilt or innocence.
Equally important: the omission of a person’s name in the inquest report does not mean they cannot be named as an accused later in the investigation. Since the inquest is only concerned with the cause of death and not with identifying perpetrators, the absence of a name carries no automatic adverse inference.
Key Case Laws
Bhagat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. — 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 535
In one of the most recent and direct pronouncements on this issue, the Supreme Court (Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh) set aside a High Court bail order that had been granted solely on the ground that the accused’s name was missing from the inquest report. The court held that in a murder case, where a chargesheet, post-mortem report, recovery of the weapon, and witness statements under Section 180 BNSS all pointed to the accused’s prima facie involvement, those materials could not be brushed aside merely because of an omission during the inquest. The court reiterated that inquest proceedings are preliminary, limited, and not the stage at which culprits are identified.6
FIR vs Inquest — Which Comes First?
A frequently debated procedural question is whether the FIR must be registered before the inquest, or whether the inquest should precede the FIR. The answer depends on the nature of the information received.
Where information is received directly about a cognizable offence, say, an eyewitness reports a murder, the police register an FIR under Section 173 BNSS and proceed with a full investigation under Section 193 BNSS. In that scenario, the inquest under Section 194 is a parallel step focused specifically on the body and cause of death.
On the other hand, where information is received only about an unnatural or suspicious death, and it is not yet clear whether a cognizable offence has occurred, the police first conduct the inquest. If the inquest findings disclose a cognizable offence, the FIR is then registered, and the investigation begins. Both processes can, and often do, run concurrently in practice.
Conclusion
The inquest report is a foundational document in India’s criminal justice process, but one with strictly defined boundaries. It answers only one question: how did this person die? It does not name culprits, establish guilt, or serve as primary evidence at trial.
With the BNSS 2023, the process has been modernised with a mandatory 24-hour reporting deadline and stronger protections for vulnerable witnesses. Courts, as reinforced by a long line of Supreme Court decisions up to 2026, continue to hold that inquest omissions cannot be weaponised to either weaken a prosecution or grant bail to an accused, whether the signed inquest report be forwarded to the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate within 24 hours, or other incriminating material clearly exists. Understanding the inquest report’s purpose — and its limits — is essential for any practitioner working in criminal law.
- The term “Panchnama” is not statutorily defined under any Indian law but is widely recognised in police practice and court proceedings as referring to the inquest report prepared in the presence of local witnesses. See Section 194, BNSS, 2023. ↩︎
- The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Sections 194, 195, and 196 of the BNSS correspond to Sections 174, 175, and 176 of the CrPC, respectively. ↩︎
- Section 194(1), BNSS, 2023. The 24-hour deadline is a new addition under the BNSS. No such statutory time limit existed under Section 174, CrPC, 1973.
↩︎ - Section 195, BNSS, 2023. The protective proviso for women, the elderly, minors, and disabled persons is newly introduced under the BNSS and had no equivalent under the CrPC. ↩︎
- Section 196(2), BNSS, 2023, read with Section 183, BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 164, CrPC, 1973). ↩︎
- Bhagat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 535; Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 527, decided on May 22, 2026, by Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh. ↩︎