Section 161 Statements Can Support Cognizance Despite Police Closure Report: Indian Supreme Court

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

Section 161 statements can be considered before trial

The Supreme Court of India has held that statements recorded by police under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be considered when a court takes cognizance, even where the police have filed a closure report. Their availability at that preliminary stage does not make them substantive proof of guilt at trial. Order, paragraphs 8 and 12.

In Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and another, the Court restored cognizance in a case concerning the drowning death of the appellant's son. Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Patna High Court's order and directed the matter to proceed towards trial. The signed order is dated 9 October 2026 and arises from SLP (Crl.) No. 18490 of 2026. Order, paragraphs 2 and 13–14.

The decision separates the question whether a case should proceed from the question whether guilt has been proved. It also explains why a medical finding of drowning cannot, without examination of the surrounding circumstances, answer whether the death involved foul play. Neither the police conclusion nor the medical cause of death could replace judicial scrutiny of the material in this case. Order, paragraphs 8–12.

The father's account and the police closure report

According to the first information statement, the second respondent took the appellant's son from his house for a walk. Later, Ashok Chaudhary informed the family that the boy had been found drowning near the State Boring and that efforts to save him had failed. The father rushed to the site and arranged boatmen to search the river, but the boy had disappeared in the currents. That account led to the FIR. Order, paragraphs 5.

After investigation, the police filed a final report, described in the order as a closure report. On 29 October 2021, the Magistrate accepted it and directed that the father's protest petition be numbered as a complaint. The complaint was posted for examination of the complainant on 1 December 2021. Order, paragraphs 6.

The father pursued a revision. The 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, directed the Magistrate to reconsider the final report, identifying circumstances that could justify cognizance. On examining the material again, the Magistrate took cognizance under sections 302 and 201 IPC. The High Court subsequently interfered with that course. Order, paragraphs 2 and 7.

The Supreme Court was therefore examining the legality of stopping the prosecution at this stage. It was not deciding an appeal from a conviction, and it did not decide that the second respondent had murdered the boy.

A police conclusion does not bind the Magistrate

Paragraph 8 reproduces the legal position concerning a closure report from Brajesh Kumar alias Birjesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, cited in the footnote as 2026 SCC OnLine 1311. The reproduced passage explains that the Magistrate has three options when the police report concludes that no offence is made out. Order, paragraphs 8.

• Accept the report and close the proceedings.
• Take cognizance on the material disclosed in the report.
• Direct further investigation.

The court may assess the material facts independently and take cognizance under section 190(1)(b) of the Indian CrPC where those facts disclose an offence. It need not adopt the investigating officer's conclusion simply because the report recommends closure. Order, paragraphs 8.

The same passage preserves an important limit: the court cannot direct the police to file a charge sheet merely because it disagrees with their conclusion. Independent judicial cognizance and further investigation are different from compelling the investigating officer to reach a predetermined result. Order, paragraphs 8.

The order does not require rejection of every closure report. The duty is to exercise judgment on the material, rather than treat the police recommendation as automatically decisive.

Why section 161 statements mattered at cognizance

The revisional order had examined the statements recorded during investigation and found material that, on a prima facie view, warranted a trial. The Supreme Court criticised the High Court for brushing aside that assessment and the authorities on cognizance despite a closure report. Order, paragraphs 11.

Paragraph 12 explains why the statements could be examined at this stage: they were part of the material available to the court, produced by the police with the final report. The court was entitled to consider them when deciding whether to take cognizance. Order, paragraphs 12.

That is a procedural use of investigative material. It does not mean that the court has finally accepted every recorded account as true. The defence remains entitled to contest the prosecution case through the trial process. The Supreme Court expressly directed that the preliminary views of the revisional court, Magistrate and Supreme Court must not regulate or govern the trial. Order, paragraphs 12.

The ruling thus prevents an evidentiary restriction applicable at trial from being misapplied to erase material relevant to the earlier decision whether proceedings should continue.

“Cannot be relied on at trial” does not mean every statutory use is prohibited

The order states that section 161 statements cannot be relied on at trial. That passage should be read as distinguishing police statements from substantive evidence proving the prosecution's allegations. It should not be enlarged into a claim that a previous police statement can never be used for any legally permitted purpose.

Section 162 of the Indian CrPC, 1973 restricts the use of statements made to police during investigation, while preserving specified uses. Its proviso permits a duly proved part of a prosecution witness's statement to be used by the accused, and by the prosecution with the court's permission, to contradict that witness in the prescribed manner. It also permits limited re-examination to explain a matter raised in cross-examination. The section preserves other stated exceptions as well.

The distinction is between using the statement as proof of the truth of its contents and using it through a permitted statutory procedure, such as contradiction. The present order did not adjudicate a particular contradiction, omission or exception. Its central point concerns use of investigative material at cognizance and the independence of the eventual trial. Order, paragraphs 12.

A postmortem showing drowning does not exclude deliberate drowning

The High Court had reasoned that the postmortem revealed nothing sinister because the death resulted from asphyxia and ventricular fibrillation due to drowning in water. The Supreme Court rejected that inference. A person deliberately pushed into water with an intention to drown may still have a postmortem showing death by drowning. The surrounding circumstances therefore remain relevant. Order, paragraphs 9.

The Court noted the allegation that the second respondent took the deceased from home and that he was found drowning shortly afterwards. It also referred to two witnesses who spoke of seeing the second respondent flee from the scene. Those circumstances called for examination at trial. Order, paragraphs 9.

The medical finding established the recorded cause of death. It did not, on its own, resolve how the deceased entered the water or exclude the alleged involvement of another person. Equally, the Supreme Court did not find that a push had actually occurred; it used that possibility to expose the flaw in the High Court's reasoning.

Last seen and alleged flight required examination, not a premature verdict

The Supreme Court observed that the person who took the deceased from home, with whom the deceased was last seen, should offer an explanation, particularly when witnesses spoke of him running from the spot. That observation formed part of the Court's assessment that the circumstances deserved a trial. Order, paragraphs 9.

It would be inaccurate to turn this into a finding that last-seen evidence or flight was sufficient to convict. Paragraph 12 expressly prevents the preliminary observations from governing the trial. Whether the witnesses are reliable and whether the prosecution establishes the alleged circumstances must be determined in the appropriate evidentiary process. Order, paragraphs 9 and 12.

The Court also deliberately declined to set out every circumstance discussed in the revisional order, lest its observations influence the trial. That restraint matters: restoration of cognizance was a decision to allow judicial examination of the allegations, not a declaration of guilt. Order, paragraphs 11–12.

The High Court had misread the FIR

Another reason given by the High Court was that the father had received information about the drowning but the source of that information was not disclosed in the FIR. The Supreme Court examined Annexure P1 and found that it did identify Ashok Chaudhary as the person who informed the family. It also recorded the father's subsequent search efforts. The Court held that the High Court's finding rested on an improper reading of the document. Order, paragraphs 10.

This part of the order is useful for counsel challenging or defending interference at a preliminary stage. The application should compare the court's stated premise with the actual document. A supposedly missing fact may change the reasoning if it is already present in the record.

The older authorities and what they establish

The authorities below appear within the passage reproduced in paragraph 8. They are identified here as authorities used by the Supreme Court; their full judgments have not been independently reviewed for this article.

• Brajesh Kumar alias Birjesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine 1311: the immediate source of the extracted explanation of the court's powers after a closure report.
• Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 11 SCC 299: the court may take cognizance on the report's material or order further investigation, but cannot direct the filing of a charge sheet.
• H.S. Bains v. State (U.T. of Chandigarh), (1980) 4 SCC 631, and Ramswaroop Soni v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 327: the three options available on a closure report.
• Abhinandan Jha, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 107: the extracted passage refers to section 169 and the court's primacy in deciding cognizance.

Paragraph 8 of the attached order provides the Court's exact attribution and context. These authorities show that the decision applies an established distinction between the police assessment and the court's independent powers.

The final directions, including bail

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to expedite the trial. It directed the second respondent to appear before the Magistrate within two weeks, with committal proceedings to follow according to law. If he failed to appear, he was to be taken into custody and produced before the Magistrate. Order, paragraphs 13.

On appearance or production, he was to be released on bail on conditions the court considered appropriate, subject to cooperation in the trial. The appeal was allowed. These bail directions are part of the operative order and should not be omitted when describing its practical effect. Order, paragraphs 13–14.

The signed order says pending applications stand rejected, while the appended record of proceedings describes them as disposed of. The substantive directions concerning cognizance, committal, appearance and bail are set out in the signed order.

Use of the judgment by Pakistani readers

This decision applies India's CrPC, 1973 and IPC. It must be identified as an Indian Supreme Court authority. The article does not equate its procedural provisions with Pakistan's CrPC, 1898 or describe it as a Pakistani murder ruling.

Its analytical value lies in separating preliminary material from trial proof and in reading medical evidence alongside the alleged circumstances. Any argument in a Pakistani case must separately establish the relevant domestic law and binding authorities. Readers can find this order in our Indian judgments collection.

For another Indian decision examining whether allegations disclose the necessary criminal ingredients, see our analysis of contractual breach and cheating in Indroneel Goho. The facts and offence there are different; it illustrates why the actual legal ingredients and record must drive the decision.

Frequently asked questions

Can a Magistrate take cognizance after a police closure report?

Yes. The Magistrate may take cognizance on the report's material, accept closure or direct further investigation. The police conclusion does not bind the court. Order, paragraphs 8 and 12.

Do section 161 statements become substantive evidence because they supported cognizance?

No. Their consideration at cognizance does not convert them into substantive proof at trial. Permitted statutory uses, including contradiction, remain a separate matter. Order, paragraphs 12; section 162 CrPC.

Did the Supreme Court find the accused guilty of murder?

No. It restored cognizance and directed further proceedings, expressly protecting the trial from its preliminary observations. Order, paragraphs 12–14.

Does a medical finding of drowning prove that the death was accidental?

Not by itself. The Court held that the surrounding circumstances must be considered because intentional drowning may produce the same recorded cause of death. Order, paragraphs 9.

Sources and case reference

The primary source is the complete supplied nine-page PDF: the signed eight-page order and one-page record of proceedings in Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and another, arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 18490 of 2026, decided on 9 October 2026. The challenged Patna High Court order was dated 5 May 2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36193 of 2022.

The supplied order does not print a numbered criminal appeal, an INSC neutral citation or a reportable endorsement. LiveLaw identifies its report as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1043. That is a publisher's citation and should not be presented as a citation printed by the Court.

• Read the complete supplied order.
• Download the judgment PDF.
• Searchable judgment page and full metadata.
• Alternative complete judgment PDF hosted by LiveLaw.
• Indian CrPC, 1973 — official India Code text.

The uploaded PDF is a supplied judgment copy processed with third-party PDF software. The alternative full-text PDF was located and checked during preparation. No direct official court download has been verified for this order.