Supreme Court revives murder case, says Section 161 statements valid at cognizance

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the High Court correctly dismissed the case based on a police closure report and post-mortem findings.

Who it concerns: Petitioner/Appellant: Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary; Respondents: State of Bihar and the 2nd Respondent (accused); Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

What the court decided

• Allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order.
• Affirmed the cognizance taken by the Magistrate under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
• Directed the 2nd respondent to appear before the Magistrate within two weeks for committal proceedings.
• Ordered that if the 2nd respondent fails to appear, he shall be taken into custody and produced before the Magistrate.
• Directed that upon appearance or production, the 2nd respondent shall be released on bail on conditions deemed fit by the Court, subject to cooperation in the trial.
• Rejected any pending applications.

Also in the document

• The Court clarified that Section 161 CrPC statements cannot be relied upon at trial but can be considered at the cognizance stage.
• The Court noted that the High Court's reliance on the post-mortem report indicating drowning was flawed because it ignored attendant circumstances, such as witnesses seeing the accused flee the scene.
• The Court emphasized that the views taken at the cognizance stage shall not regulate or govern the trial.