Procedures for Police Search and Seizure at Crime Scenes

When police officers arrive at a crime scene, every action they take – from the moment they enter to the last piece of evidence they bag – is governed by a strict legal framework. In India, this framework was historically rooted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), but has now been substantially updated by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the CrPC. Understanding how police must conduct searches and seizures at a crime scene is not just an academic exercise – it directly determines whether evidence will hold up in court or be thrown out entirely.

Search and seizure: what do these terms mean? 🔗

In criminal law, these two words are often used together, but they refer to distinct actions. A search is the process of examining a person, place, vehicle, or premises to find evidence connected to a crime. A seizure is the formal act of taking possession of any item discovered during that search. As iPleaders explains, “search” refers to carefully inspecting a location or person to detect something hidden or to reveal evidence, while “seizure” involves capturing or removing that item once found.

The two actions are legally inseparable at a crime scene. A search that is not followed by proper seizure documentation is incomplete; and a seizure without a lawful search preceding it is vulnerable to challenge. Both must conform to the procedural requirements set out under the BNSS.

Legal authority to search: with and without a warrant 🔗

The police can conduct searches in two ways. The first is with a warrant, issued by a court under Sections 96, 97, 98, and 99 of the BNSS. The second is without a warrant, permitted under Sections 108, 185, and 186 of the BNSS in situations where obtaining a warrant beforehand is not feasible. As noted by Mondaq, the without-warrant route is intended for urgent situations – particularly at crime scenes, at hideouts of suspects, and at locations where incriminating articles may be stored or concealed.

Under Section 185 of the BNSS, a police officer conducting a warrantless search must demonstrate that the circumstances demanded immediate action and that there was no time to approach a magistrate. In sensitive cases, the preferred course is always to obtain a warrant. The issuance of a warrant is not a routine formality – the court must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist before authorising a search.

Step-by-step procedure at the crime scene 🔗

Once the investigating officer (IO) arrives at the scene, the law prescribes a methodical sequence of actions. Cutting corners at any step can compromise the entire investigation.

Preserving the crime scene first 🔗

The IO’s first duty is to leave the scene undisturbed. LawBhoomi notes that the investigating officer must not alter the position of any object, pick up or touch any item, or disturb the scene before thorough documentation has taken place. The crime scene must be secured and access restricted to authorised personnel only. This principle of non-interference is foundational – any premature handling of objects can destroy latent fingerprints, biological samples, or trace evidence.

Calling independent witnesses (panchas) 🔗

Before the actual search begins, the IO must summon at least two independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality. These individuals are called panchas, and their presence is mandatory under Section 103 of the BNSS. They serve as impartial witnesses to verify that the search was conducted fairly and that no evidence was planted or tampered with. Importantly, if a person refuses to act as a pancha without reasonable cause, they commit an offence under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The panchas must be present throughout the entire procedure – they cannot arrive midway. Their signatures on the panchanama document are what give the search its legal credibility.

Preparing the panchanama 🔗

A panchanama is the written record of everything observed, found, and seized at the crime scene in the presence of the panchas. As Infipark explains, the term derives from the Persian word “panch” (five), historically referring to a council of witnesses, though today two or more witnesses suffice. The panchanama must record: the time, date, and location of the search; the reason for the search and the legal authority under which it is being conducted; a description of every object found and its exact position; details of items seized, including marks, numbers, and quantity; the identity of the occupant or their representative; and the signatures of both the IO and the panchas.

This document must be factual in every respect – it must record only what the panchas actually saw and heard. Any correction in the panchanama must be properly attested by the witnesses, and a copy must be delivered to the occupant of the premises or the person searched upon their request.

Documentation: photographs, videos, and sketches 🔗

Detailed visual documentation is an integral part of crime scene procedure. The IO must take photographs and videographs of the scene and all objects of evidentiary value before they are moved. Sketches must be drawn to scale, indicating compass directions (North, South, East, West) and precise measurements using a ruler and compass. The exact position of each piece of evidence must be noted on the sketch.

Under the BNSS, this has become a statutory requirement for serious offences. Section 176(3) of the BNSS mandates that for offences punishable with seven years or more, a forensic expert must visit the crime scene to collect forensic evidence, and the entire process of evidence collection must be videographed. The photographer must sign the back of photographs taken, and their statement under Section 161 must be recorded.

The BNSS mandate: audio-video recording of search and seizure 🔗

One of the most significant changes introduced by the BNSS is the mandatory audio-video recording of the entire search and seizure process. Section 105 of the BNSS requires that the whole process – including the preparation of the seized items list and the signing by witnesses – be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably a mobile phone. This recording must then be forwarded without delay to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

Additionally, under Section 185 of the BNSS, copies of such recordings must be sent to the nearest magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence within 48 hours. As Drishti Judiciary notes, this mandatory videography requirement is a direct legislative response to concerns about evidence manipulation and the planting of incriminating materials. It creates a verifiable, contemporaneous record that cannot be altered without detection.

This is a meaningful departure from the old CrPC regime, where such recording was largely optional. The BNSS now treats audio-video documentation not as a best practice but as a legal obligation.

Seizure: taking possession of evidence 🔗

When an item of evidentiary value is found during the search, the IO proceeds to formally seize it. Under Section 106 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 102 of the CrPC), any police officer may seize property that is known or suspected to have been stolen, or found in circumstances suggesting a crime was committed. The seizing officer must immediately report the seizure to the magistrate with jurisdiction over the matter.

Where seized property cannot be conveniently transported to court, it may be entrusted to a custodian who executes a bond undertaking to produce the property before the court as and when required. A detailed seizure memo must be prepared on the spot, listing descriptions, quantities, identifying marks, and numbers of all seized articles. The chain of custody – who held the evidence, when, and where – must be maintained without any break from the moment of seizure to its production in court. Any gap in this chain weakens the evidentiary value of the seized material.

Special considerations during the search 🔗

Searching persons at the scene 🔗

If any person found at or near the scene is reasonably suspected of concealing relevant articles on their person, they may be searched under Section 103(3) of the BNSS. A critical safeguard applies here: if the person to be searched is a woman, the search must be conducted by another woman, and must be done with strict regard to decency. This rule is absolute – no male officer may conduct a personal search of a female suspect.

Digital evidence and electronic devices 🔗

The BNSS has substantially updated the law to account for the digital age. Section 94 of the BNSS now empowers a court or the officer in charge of a police station to demand production of electronic communications and communication devices – including smartphones, laptops, and similar devices – that are likely to contain digital evidence. This is a significant expansion from the CrPC, which had no specific provision for summoning electronic records. A smartphone seized at a crime scene can potentially yield bank transaction records, WhatsApp communications, location data, photographs, and much more. The BNSS also requires that a police report include details of the sequence of custody in cases involving electronic devices.

Searches under special laws 🔗

It is worth noting that certain statutes have their own distinct search and seizure procedures that override the general BNSS framework. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Customs Act, 1962 are prominent examples. Officers operating under these laws must follow the specific procedural requirements set out in those statutes rather than relying solely on the BNSS provisions.

Consequences of procedural non-compliance 🔗

Non-compliance with the procedures discussed above carries serious consequences. The Legal Quotient observes that any deviation from the mandatory requirements under Section 103 of the BNSS can adversely affect the prosecution’s case and may even invalidate a trial. Courts have frequently acquitted accused persons where panchanama procedures were not followed correctly – such as where corrections were not attested, different parts were written by different officers, or the panchas were not truly independent.

Defence lawyers routinely challenge evidence on grounds of a broken chain of custody, absence of independent witnesses, or failure to provide the accused with a copy of the seizure memo. While Indian courts have held that evidence obtained through procedural irregularities is not automatically inadmissible, such lapses create serious doubt about the prosecution’s case. The BNSS, by mandating audio-video recording and forensic expert visits, has made it harder for such challenges to succeed – but only if officers actually comply with the requirements.

Balancing investigative power with individual rights 🔗

The entire framework for search and seizure at crime scenes reflects a deliberate balance. The state needs effective tools to investigate crimes and secure evidence. But individuals have constitutionally protected rights – including the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, affirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – that cannot be violated without due process. Every procedural requirement – the panchas, the panchanama, the audio-video recording, the copy of the seizure memo to the occupant – exists to ensure that police powers are exercised transparently and accountably, not arbitrarily. As P39A Criminal Law Blog notes, the videography mandate under Section 176(3) is specifically designed as a safeguard against irregularities and manipulation in evidence gathering.

For law students and practitioners, understanding these procedures is not merely about memorising sections. It is about appreciating that the integrity of a criminal trial depends on the integrity of the investigation that precedes it. Evidence collected in violation of the law does not just harm the accused – it undermines public confidence in the justice system itself.

What do you think? Given that the BNSS now mandates audio-video recording of search and seizure, does this adequately protect accused persons from evidence manipulation, or are there still procedural gaps that need to be addressed? And considering that non-compliance with panchanama requirements can jeopardise an entire prosecution, should courts take a stricter stance on automatically excluding improperly obtained evidence?

References

1. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/procedure-relating-search-seizure-cpc/
3. https://www.mondaq.com/india/court-procedure/1649298/unlocking-the-secrets-of-search-and-seizure-new-rules-new-tools-new-era
4. https://www.livelaw.in/articles/search-seizure-law-enforcement-agencies-code-of-criminal-procedure-bhartiya-nagrik-suraksha-sanhita-bill-238943
5. https://lawbhoomi.com/search-and-seizure-under-crpc/
6. https://www.apnilaw.com/bare-act/bnss/section-103-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhitabnss-persons-in-charge-of-closed-place-to-allow-search/
7. https://www.infipark.com/articles/panchanama-arrest-memo-under-the-new-criminal-law-bnss-drafting-compliance-defence-strategy/
8. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2042126
9. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/practice-of-videography-and-photography
10. https://thelegalquotient.com/criminal-laws/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita/general-provisions-relating-to-searches/7017/
11. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_24-Aug-2017.pdf
12. https://p39ablog.com/2023/11/criminal-law-bills-2023-decoded-12-audio-video-recordings-during-investigation/