Supreme Court of India
Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and another
Published on this website
Criminal appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 18490 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1043 (publisher citation); INSC citation and reporting endorsement not printed in supplied order
Background
Background
India’s Supreme Court restored cognizance after a closure report: section 161 statements can support proceedings, but do not become substantive trial evidence.
After the appellant’s son drowned, the police filed a closure report. The Magistrate initially accepted it and treated the protest petition as a complaint. A detailed revisional order led to reconsideration and cognizance, which the High Court set aside. The Supreme Court restored the course towards trial.
Legal questions
Legal questions
Can a court consider section 161 statements and take cognizance despite a police closure report in a drowning-death case, while preserving the independence of the trial?
Court holding
What the Court decided
Section 161 police statements may be considered at cognizance even after a closure report, without becoming substantive proof at trial. The court may independently assess the police report. A postmortem showing drowning does not by itself exclude foul play.
Final outcome
Final outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and matter remanded to expedite trial. Accused to appear within two weeks for committal proceedings; custody and production on failure to appear, with release on bail on appearance or production subject to cooperation. Preliminary observations must not govern trial.
Practical effect
What the decision means in practice
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and matter remanded to expedite trial. Accused to appear within two weeks for committal proceedings; custody and production on failure to appear, with release on bail on appearance or production subject to cooperation. Preliminary observations must not govern trial.
This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.
Key legal principles
Key legal principles
- A Magistrate may accept closure, take cognizance on the report’s material or direct further investigation.
- Section 161 statements can be considered at cognizance; that does not convert them into substantive trial evidence.
- A postmortem recording drowning does not alone establish absence of foul play.
- Alleged last-seen circumstances and flight required examination at trial, not a finding of guilt at cognizance.
- All preliminary judicial observations must leave the trial independent.
New judgment alerts
Follow this court or legal topic
Receive new judgments and analysis about Supreme Court of India, Criminal Law, Evidence by email.
Primary source
Original judgment and official source
This HTML summary does not replace the court record. Use the linked original judgment PDF or official court source to verify the exact text and directions.
Later treatment
Later treatment
No later treatment verified. Publisher citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1043. The order did not convict the accused or finally decide the alleged circumstances.
Research tools
Use this judgment in your research
Copy a link to a specific part
Judgment text is provided for legal research and general information. Verify the official court record before relying on it in proceedings.
Related article
Related article
India’s Supreme Court restored cognizance after a closure report: section 161 statements can support proceedings, but do not become substantive trial evidence.
Read the related article →