Can witness statements recorded by the police be looked at when a court takes cognizance? The Supreme Court says yes, and has restored a Magistrate’s cognizance of murder and evidence-destruction charges that the Patna High Court had set aside.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be relied on at the trial, the Supreme Court has held, but they can be gone into at the stage of cognizance, because they form part of the material the police produce with the final report. The Court set aside a Patna High Court order that had quashed a Magistrate’s cognizance of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). [Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Anr.]
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by the father of a man who died by drowning. The matter is at the cognizance stage. The allegations are those of the appellant, they are untested, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits. The presumption of innocence applies to the second respondent.
The legal position on Section 161 statements
The Court noted that the Sessions Court’s revisional order had specifically dealt with the Section 161 statements. It then explained the legal position:
Section 161 CrPC statements, obviously, cannot be relied on at the trial, but definitely could be gone into at the time of cognizance, since that is the material available before the Court, as produced by the Police along with the final report.
A closure report is no bar
A closure report, the Court held, does not stop a court from taking cognizance. It found that the High Court had casually brushed aside the detailed reasoning of the Sessions Court, which had found a prima facie case on the basis of the Section 161 statements, and that there was absolutely no reason to interfere with the cognizance taken.
ALSO READ: Accused Must Be Heard Where Cognizance Came After BNSS: Supreme Court Reduces Order To Mere Summons
How the case reached the Court
The appellant alleged that the second respondent played an active role in his son’s death, and pointed to witnesses who said they saw the second respondent running from the spot. The police investigation ended in a closure report finding no case, which the appellant protested, and the protest petition was registered as a complaint case.
After the closure report, the Magistrate first refused cognizance. In revision, the Sessions Court directed the Magistrate to consider the final report afresh, and on remand the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The High Court quashed that order, which brought the appellant to the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Unnatural Death in Police Custody: Supreme Court Directs FIR, SIT Probe in Gujarat Custodial Death
What happens next
The Court clarified that its view on cognizance shall not, in any manner, regulate or govern the trial. It set aside the High Court’s order of 5 May 2026, allowed the appeal and rejected pending applications.
The second respondent is to appear before the Magistrate within two weeks, and the Magistrate is to carry out committal proceedings in accordance with law. If he does not appear, he is to be taken into custody and produced before the Magistrate. On appearance or production, he is to be released on bail on conditions the Magistrate deems fit, subject to cooperation in the trial.
Case Details: Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Anr., SLP (Crl) No. 18490 of 2026, judgment dated 9 October 2026, arising out of the Patna High Court order of 5 May 2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 36193 of 2022.
Appearances: For the appellant, Advocates Sparsh Chaudhary, Naman Raj Singh and Dr. Amardeep Gaur, with Advocate-on-Record Akansha. For the respondents, Additional Standing Counsel Amit Chaudhary, with Advocate-on-Record Aagam Kaur and Advocates Nisha Bhaskar, Kartikey, Shrijeta Pratik, Anuj Prakaash, Niraj Dubey, Sohini Bardhan and Pradum Kumar.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Supreme Court holds Section 161 CrPC statements cannot be relied on at trial but can be considered at the cognizance stage, restoring Magistrate’s cognizance in Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar.