Published On: 17th August 2026
Authored By: Sakshi Singh
Amity Law School Noida
INTRODUCTION
The enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, effective 1 July 2024[1], represents one of the most comprehensive overhauls of India’s criminal justice procedures since Independence. While much attention has focused on prominent updates such as the introduction of Zero FIR and electronic summons, a particularly impactful yet less-discussed reform appears in Section 176(3) of the BNSS[2].
This provision requires that, in cases involving offences punishable by imprisonment of seven years or more, the investigating officer must arrange for a forensic expert to visit the crime scene. The expert is responsible for collecting forensic evidence and ensuring the entire process is videographer Typically using a mobile phone or other electronic device. This mandate aims to bring greater scientific rigor[3], improve evidence preservation, reduce the risk of tampering, and strengthen the overall quality of investigations by prioritizing forensic methods from the outset. States are also expected to notify its full implementation within a phased timeline and can source forensic support from neighboring states if local facilities are unavailable.
This change shifts traditional police-led investigations toward a more evidence-based, technology-driven approach, potentially leading to higher conviction rates and greater public trust in the criminal justice system[4].
Before the BNSS came into force, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contained no equivalent mandatory requirement. Forensic experts’ presence at crime scenes depended entirely on local administrative practices, departmental guidelines, or the investigating officer’s discretion rather than any binding legal obligation. Section 176(3) of the BNSS changes this fundamentally. By making forensic attendance compulsory for serious offences (those punishable with seven years’ imprisonment or more), the law reflects a clear legislative intent to elevate scientific evidence as the cornerstone of criminal investigations, moving away from over-reliance on oral testimony and memory-based accounts. This reform strengthens the objectivity, reliability, and integrity of the investigative process, aiming to reduce miscarriages of justice and enhance the quality of evidence presented in court.
THE STATUTORY MANDATE AND ITS JUDICIAL RECEPTION
Section 176(3) of the BNSS mandates that, for all offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, the investigating officer must ensure the presence of a forensic expert at the crime scene. The expert is required to oversee evidence collection, with the entire process being audio-visually recorded most commonly through mobile phones or similar electronic devices.
In cases where local forensic infrastructure is inadequate, the State Government must utilise facilities from neighbouring States until its own capacity is built up. This provision builds upon and significantly strengthens the framework earlier provided under Section 157 of the CrPC, 1973[5], which carried no such compulsory forensic or videography obligation.
The most notable judicial interpretation of this new requirement so far has come from the Kerala High Court in Suresh v. State of Kerala. While allowing an appeal and acquitting the accused in a murder case due to the prosecution’s failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, a Division Bench used the opportunity to issue important systemic directions. The Court called upon the State Police Chief and the Home Department to strictly enforce the mandatory involvement of forensic experts in serious offences, implement a robust digital evidence management system, and introduce regular training programmes along with accountability measures for investigating officers. In formulating these directions, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier observations in Pooja Pal v. Union of India, which stressed the need for scientific temper and integrity in criminal investigations, as well as Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., where the Court held that the non-production of available CCTV footage warranted drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution[6].
THE CAPACITY GAP AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS
The core challenge surrounding Section 176(3) of the BNSS lies not in its language but in its practical rollout. The law itself recognises this implementation gap by granting State Governments a window of up to five years[7] from the principal commencement date to fully operationalise the mandatory forensic visit requirement in their jurisdictions.
As a result, the provision does not apply uniformly across the country. Its legal enforceability depends on individual State notifications, leading to a fragmented landscape rather than a consistent national standard. Official data released by the Ministry of Home Affairs in July 2026, marking two years of the new criminal laws, presents a mixed but improving picture. Nationally, the percentage of chargesheets filed within 60 days rose from 51% in 2024 to 67% in 2026, while 90-day compliance increased from 40% to 60%[8]. Additionally, more than 700 mobile forensic vans have been deployed to extend forensic support beyond traditional laboratories. These developments reflect real progress. However, they also highlight persistent gaps: nearly one-third of cases still fail to meet the 60-day chargesheet timeline. Moreover, mobile vans serve primarily as an interim solution. The underlying constraints acute shortage of trained forensic professionals and limited accredited laboratory infrastructure continue to hinder full and effective implementation of the forensic mandate.
A further concern stems from the compulsory character of Section 176(3) itself. The mandatory involvement of forensic experts especially when it involves the collection of biological samples or digital devices creates a delicate balance between the State’s push for scientifically robust investigations and the constitutional safeguards available to the accused. This includes the right against self-incrimination protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka,[9] and the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21, firmly recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[10]. While the videography mandate seeks to promote transparency and accountability in line with the principles laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal,[11] it simultaneously generates a substantial volume of sensitive audio-visual and biometric material. Crucially, the law does not yet provide a comprehensive statutory regime governing the retention, access control, and eventual deletion of such data. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023[12] primarily addresses the admissibility of electronic evidence, but stops short of laying down robust data protection protocols. In essence, a provision designed to advance scientific rigour and procedural integrity must not inadvertently result in the creation of an unregulated, parallel database of highly personal forensic[13] information.
A brief comparative perspective proves useful. Countries like the United Kingdom[14] have maintained well-established crime scene management protocols for decades. These are supported by specific statutory disclosure requirements and formal professional accreditation systems for forensic practitioners. India’s approach stands in notable contrast. The BNSS introduced the forensic visit obligation through legislation well before nationwide institutional capacity was in place. This reverses the typical global sequence, in which forensic standards and infrastructure usually develop in tandem rather than with the legal mandate preceding the supporting ecosystem.
This situation is not entirely new in Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.[15] made FIR registration mandatory for cognizable offences, demonstrating that procedural safeguards can be enforced strictly despite significant administrative challenges. Section 176(3) [16]now appears to stand at a similar turning point. If other High Courts across India follow the lead of the Kerala High Court in Suresh[17], the forensic requirement could transform from an aspirational clause into a firm evidentiary standard. This judicial push would accelerate the necessary investment in forensic infrastructure instead of allowing it to lag behind.
CONCLUSION
Section 176(3) of the BNSS reflects a clear legislative vision: Indian criminal investigations should move beyond heavy reliance on oral testimony and instead prioritise documented, scientifically verifiable evidence. The Kerala High Court’s intervention in Suresh v. State of Kerala signals that at least some constitutional courts are prepared to enforce this vision with seriousness. The Bench treated forensic participation and videographic recording not as mere procedural formalities, but as essential determinants of an investigation’s reliability. Nevertheless, the real strength of any mandate depends on the supporting ecosystem. The staggered, state-wise rollout of the provision, chronic shortages of forensic laboratories and trained experts, and the lack of a comprehensive framework for protecting the sensitive biometric and audio-visual data generated, all indicate that the section’s full transformative potential has yet to be realised. The notable rise in timely chargesheet filing over the last two years is a positive development, but it also underscores a system that is still striving to meet the standards it has set for itself.
REFERENCESÂ
[1] The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,2023,No 46 of 22023
[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973,No.2 of 2019, decided 23july 2025 Raja Vijyayaraghavan V.
[3] Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016)
[4] Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP. (2015)
[5] The BNS,2023 1(2) (empowering State Governments to notify date.
[6] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Two Years from the principle notified date.
[7] MHAGI New criminal Laws Implementation Update (July 2026); reporting an increase in 60 days chargesheet from 51% in 2024 to 67% in 2026.
[8] Selvi v. State of West Bengal,(1997) 1 SCC 1
[9] Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010)7 SCC 263(on the right against self- incrimination under art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India).
[10] K.S Puttaswamy v. U.O.I, (2017) to SCC 1 (recognizing the right to privacy under art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
[11] D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.
[12] The BSA, 2023, No.47 of 2023.
[13] Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
[14] Lalit Kumari v. Govt. of UP.; (2014)
[15] Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010)7 SCC 263
[16] K.S Puttaswamy v. U.O.I, (2017) to SCC 1
[17] (UK); see also the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Practice Advice on Core Investigative Doctrine (rev. ed.).
