Supreme Court Clarifies Police Statements May Support Cognizance but Are Not Trial Evidence

The Supreme Court distinguished the limited use of police-recorded witness statements when a Magistrate takes cognizance from their evidentiary treatment during trial.

Background and legal issue

A father challenged the handling of an investigation into his son's drowning. Police had filed a closure report, but a protest petition and statements recorded during investigation formed part of the material considered by the Magistrate.

Court's reasoning and legal position

Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran explained that statements under Section 161 CrPC, corresponding to Section 180 BNSS, are not substantive trial evidence. At the earlier cognizance stage, however, the Magistrate may examine the material accompanying the police report, even where police recommend closure.

Operative effect and next step

The Court set aside the Patna High Court's interference with the cognizance order. The distinction protects the different procedural standards governing initiation and proof of a criminal case.