Sometimes when I read the verses that are claimed to be an abrogation pair and there is not a trace of contradiction, I think for a moment that you may have entered the wrong numbers when you used the verse tag.
Dr. Mustafa Zayd solves this puzzle in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 147-150 (items 896-904). He says that what is claimed abrogated is the phrase والحرمات قصاص
(and for [all] violations is legal retribution) which implies that the family of the victim may retaliate for him, while 17:33 mandates that retaliation is the responsibility of the authorities, hence a cause to think abrogation.
He says that this claim is based on a narration attributed to Ibn Abbaas, but that Ibn Al-Jawzi had discredited that narration. Ibn Al-Jawzi also said that Ibn Hanbal is of two opinions on the issue of individual retaliation. So, the matter is indecisive at best and that cannot be a basis to abrogate a verse.
Dr. Zayd relies on the reported circumstances of revelation, which in this case is agreed on that it was about the events of Al-Hudaybiya. God has compensated Muslims for missing the Umra on the month of Zhul-Qi`da of year 6 A.H. when the treaty was negotiated, with an Umra on the same month of the following year, hence the opening of the verse.
That may be, but it should not be the basis for refuting an abrogation claim, because it's interpretive and specific. A general verse like 2:194 is not to be limited by one interpretation and then claimed abrogated or not on that basis.