Examination of witnesses by police
Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with examination of witnesses by police. Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the fac The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records:
Provided that statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means:
Provided further that the statement of a woman against whom an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78, section 79 or section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is alleged to have been committed or attempted, shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
Section 180, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 161 Examination of witnesses by police Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita s. 124 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc
- s. 64 Summons how served
- s. 65 Service of summons on corporate bodies, firms, and societies
- s. 66 Service when persons summoned cannot be found
- s. 67 Procedure when service cannot be effected as before provided
- s. 68 Service on Government servant
- s. 69 Service of summons outside local limits
- s. 70 Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present
- s. 71 Service of summons on witness
- s. 74 Warrants to whom directed
- s. 75 Warrant may be directed to any person
- s. 76 Warrant directed to police officer
- s. 77 Notification of substance of warrant
- s. 78 Person arrested to be brought before Court without delay
- s. 79 Where warrant may be executed
Referred to by 5
- s. 129 Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders
- s. 192 Diary of proceedings in investigation
- s. 193 Report of police officer on completion of investigation
- s. 230 Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents
- s. 231 Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
R. Shaji v. State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-13.pdf 2013-02-04 (not same-date order-14 ROP). Chauhan/Gowda, Crl A 1774/2010. A CrPC 164 magistrate statement is not substantive evidence but can be used to corroborate or contradict; a 161 police statement is still weaker and cannot be treated as substantive. Delay or procedural wrinkles in recording 164 go to weight, not automatic exclusion. Map CrPC 161 and 164 plus BNSS 180/183.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 161 (mapping.csv near-identical). Police-statement teaching carries to BNSS 180.
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Examination of witnesses by police during investigation
-
Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC are: (1) the existence of a live link or nexus between the abetment and the suicide; (2) the active role of instigation or aiding on the part of the accused; (3) the intention to aid or instigate the commission of suicide; (4) the absence of any severing of these constituents. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide falls short of the offense of abetment. Contiguity, continuity, culpability, and complicity of indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Mere domestic discord, absence of support, or property disputes, without active sustained incitement with direct causative content, cannot sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused's conduct was the direct, proximate, and compelling cause for the victim's suicide, and if the victim appears hypersensitive to ordinary domestic discord not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the accused cannot be held guilty. The court must be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances to determine whether cruelty meted out to the victim in fact induced the suicide, and the absence of complaints to police, civil suits, or evidence of specific threats substantially weakens the prosecution's case.
On this section: Referenced regarding statements recorded during police investigation. The court noted that witnesses (PW5 and PW6, brothers of Surjit) admitted that they had not disclosed certain facts to the Investigating Officer during their Section 161 statements, which affected the reliability and completeness of the investigation.
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Recording of statements by police during investigation; statements recorded under this section are part of prosecution materials to be considered at discharge stage
-
Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An informant/injured victim has the legal standing to file a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed during trial, provided the order is not merely interlocutory but substantially affects the rights of the parties or could result in gross miscarriage of justice. The test for determining whether an order is interlocutory is whether it is of a purely interim or temporary nature that does not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties. Any order that substantially affects the rights of parties, such as an order refusing to mark crucial evidence as an exhibit, is not interlocutory and is therefore subject to revision. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC can be exercised at the instance of a private complainant or informant where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence or committed a manifest illegality that could result in gross miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Governs statements recorded by police during investigation. The Court clarified that the informant's statement at the hospital was not a Section 161 statement but the basis of the FIR.
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court must apply its judicial mind and sift the evidence placed before it by the prosecution for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or rely solely on post-mortem reports to determine the nexus between alleged assault and death. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence but merely a previous statement of the doctor; only the doctor's oral testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence. Whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault can only be determined after recording oral evidence of eye witnesses and the medical officer as an expert witness. The determination of whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) must be made only after evaluation of the entire oral evidence led by both prosecution and defence at the end of the trial, not at the charge-framing stage. If a prima facie case is made out based on the materials placed by the prosecution, even if those materials give rise to strong suspicion, the charge should be framed in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution, and the accused should be given the opportunity to defend against the higher charge at trial.
On this section: Recording of statements - statements of eye witnesses recorded under this section were considered as part of prosecution material
-
N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Cbi Cbi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for conclusive proof in criminal convictions. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing best evidence. The non-examination of a key witness who is the best person to clarify disputed facts is fatal to the prosecution case. Mere departmental misconduct, even if gross, does not constitute criminal breach of trust, cheating, or falsification of accounts unless the essential ingredients of these offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of financial loss to the bank and the absence of any complaint from the affected party are material factors in determining criminal liability. Once entrustment of property is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the property was dealt with in a legally and contractually acceptable manner, but this burden must be discharged in the context of the prosecution's failure to produce best evidence.
On this section: Provides for recording statements during investigation; Court noted that CBI failed to record statement of B. Satyajit Reddy under this section
-
Mohd Juned Shaikh vs The State of Gujarat State of Gujarat Secreatary
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal conspiracy cases involving terrorism under POTA, where the prosecution proves through confessional statements (recorded with all statutory safeguards), eyewitness testimony (corroborated by medical and forensic evidence), circumstantial evidence (including mobile phone records, recovery of weapons, and other incriminating items), and expert opinions (ballistic and forensic), the accused can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court's acquittal based on a hypertechnical approach and perverse appreciation of evidence can be reversed by the Supreme Court. Ocular evidence is to be preferred over medical evidence unless the medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the ocular evidence being true. Confessional statements recorded under Section 32 POTA with all safeguards are admissible and can be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. A PIL filed with oblique motives and in conjunction with accused persons is misconceived and should be dismissed.
On this section: Section 161 deals with recording statements during investigation. Section 164 deals with recording confessions before magistrate. Section 313 deals with recording statements of accused. Section 482 deals with inherent powers of courts.
-
Girish Sharma vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a prosecutor enjoys discretion in deciding whether to charge a person as an accused or cite them as a witness in a chargesheet, the court retains ultimate and final authority to take cognizance based on a balanced assessment of the interests of justice. In exercising this authority, the court must weigh: (a) the utility of the person as a witness in strengthening the prosecution case against more serious accused; (b) the interests of justice in summoning such person as an accused; and (c) whether summoning them as accused would jeopardize the prosecution case against the main accused. The prosecutor's decision to cite a person as witness is not binding on the court and can be interfered with when interests of justice so require. However, such interference must be based on a holistic consideration of all relevant factors, not merely on the existence of incriminating material. Additionally, the procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. (seeking pardon for accomplices) is not the only available procedure for citing an accomplice as a witness, and accomplices can be used as witnesses in appropriate circumstances without formal pardon proceedings.
On this section: Recording of statements during investigation; court held these statements should not be sole basis for summoning as accused after rejected as witnesses
-
Brijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power conferred by Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on courts to summon persons not arraigned as accused to face trial is discretionary and extraordinary in nature. This power must be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances warrant. A much stricter degree of satisfaction than the prima facie case standard (applicable at cognizance or charge-framing) is required. The court must be satisfied that strong and cogent evidence has occurred against the person from the evidence led before the court indicating that such person may be guilty of committing the offence for which such person could be tried together with already arraigned accused. Mere probability of complicity or weak oral testimony that has already been rejected during investigation is insufficient to invoke this extraordinary power. The trial court and High Court must carefully examine all material on record, including investigative findings, before invoking Section 319 powers, and the exercise of this power in casual or cavalier manner without such scrutiny cannot withstand judicial review.
On this section: Provision governing recording of statements during investigation; court held that investigative statements can be used for corroboration and support of trial evidence under Section 319
-
K. Srinivas vs K. Sunita
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Filing of even a single false criminal complaint by one spouse against the other and family members constitutes matrimonial cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and entitles the injured spouse to seek dissolution of marriage, particularly where the complaint is shown to be a contrived afterthought, the accused are acquitted, and the complaint was knowingly and intentionally filed to embarrass and incarcerate the other party.
On this section: Examination by police. The respondent wife admitted in cross-examination that she did not mention all incidents in her statement under Section 161, indicating the complaint was a contrived afterthought
-
In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-raped on Orders
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The State has a constitutional duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the freedom of choice in marriage and protection from sexual violence. When the State fails to prevent grave violations of these fundamental rights such as gang rape, the State is duty bound to provide substantial monetary compensation to the victim for rehabilitation and must implement systemic reforms including police vigilance, mandatory victim protection procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code, and long-term victim rehabilitation. Panchayats and village councils have no legal authority to order, authorize, or participate in violence or sexual assault, and such acts constitute unlawful assemblies and barbaric crimes deserving harsh punishment. The investigating agency must comply with mandatory procedural requirements including recording rape FIRs and victim statements exclusively by women police officers, invoking all applicable criminal sections, obtaining and certifying all evidence properly, and investigating larger conspiracies if any.
On this section: Amended provision (dated 03.02.2013) mandatorily requires statements of rape victims to be recorded by woman police officer or woman officer; Court noted violation in investigation where statements were re-recorded by DSP (male officer); Court directed strict compliance in all similar cases
-
Mohit @ Sonu vs State of U. P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An order of a trial court refusing to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not a purely interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. because it substantially affects the rights of the accused by determining whether they will face trial. Therefore, such order must be challenged through revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., not through inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Additionally, when any court (whether exercising revisional or inherent jurisdiction) passes an order prejudicial to the rights of an accused or any person, such person has a fundamental right to notice and opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. and the principles of natural justice before such prejudicial order is passed. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other specific remedy is available in the Code.
On this section: Statements of witnesses recorded by investigating officer during investigation
-
State of Assam vs Faruk Ahmed
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions for child marriage and sexual assault of minors under the POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the victim's age at the time of marriage through reliable documentary evidence such as birth certificates and marriage documents. Oral evidence alone, without corroborating documentary proof, is insufficient to establish that a marriage was a child marriage or that sexual assault occurred on a minor. The absence of such documentary evidence, despite the prosecution's duty to produce it, results in acquittal as the charges cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Statement of Witness - Referenced in the context of the informant's statement, which the court found lacked authenticity and basis.
-
State Inspector of Police, Repalle Ps vs Pallapati Nissi Kumar Alias Boyaz
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases relating to rape, the victim's evidence is crucial and significant. In the absence of credible testimony from the victim corroborating the allegations of sexual assault, the prosecution cannot prove the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt, even if other circumstantial or medical evidence is available. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and when the victim turns hostile and denies the allegations, the prosecution's case fails for lack of essential evidence.
On this section: Recording of statements by police during investigation; statements can be used to contradict witness if witness turns hostile
-
Neetu Dixit @ Nisha vs State Of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 161, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under criminal procedure, the court is required only to evaluate whether there exists a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed based on the material on record, accepting the prosecution's materials as true at that stage. Material discrepancies in evidence, allegations of planted evidence, and procedural irregularities are matters exclusively within the domain of trial and cannot be adjudicated at the charge-framing stage by way of criminal revision. The distinction between prima facie case (sufficient for charge-framing) and proof beyond reasonable doubt (required for conviction) is fundamental to criminal procedure, and the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the trial court on evidentiary matters without trial.
On this section: Recording of witness statements during investigation; petitioner highlighted discrepancies in timing of witness statements
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… He further submits that during the investigation, the daughter of the informant was recovered by the police and she, in her written statement before the police under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has stated that she had gone to Karnal with the co-accused Sanoj Kumar out of her own will and she has performed marriage with him and she is 5-months pregnant. - 5. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration …
-
… It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. > 8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on …
-
… It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. > 11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on …
Questions about Section 180
What have the courts held on Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (04 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 161, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 161 (mapping.csv near-identical). Police-statement teaching carries to BNSS 180. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 180, section 180 BNSS, section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 180 in crpc and bnss 180(3). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with R. Shaji v. State of Kerala (04 Feb 2013).
What should I read with Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 124 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc), section 64 (Summons how served), section 65 (Service of summons on corporate bodies, firms, and societies), section 66 (Service when persons summoned cannot be found), and on 11 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 161 (Examination of witnesses by police), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, commonly called statement to police, and cited as BNSS 180, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.