This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the principles for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, holding that courts must apply a “strong and cogent evidence” standard—stricter than a prima facie case but short of conviction-weight evidence. It emphasizes that evidentiary reliability, witness credibility, and dying declaration admissibility are trial-stage determinations, not preliminary considerations.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from an FIR lodged on March 25, 2021, by the appellant, Neeraj Kumar, alleging that his sister, Nishi, was shot by her husband, Rahul, at her matrimonial home. The information was conveyed to the appellant by his nine-year-old niece, Shristi, who witnessed the incident. During the investigation, the deceased’s statements were recorded twice under Section 161 CrPC, where she named her husband and his relatives—her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and brother-in-law’s husband—as instigators and participants in the conspiracy leading to the shooting. Despite this, the chargesheet filed on July 16, 2021, implicated only the husband under Sections 302 and 316 IPC, exonerating the other relatives. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on May 15, 2021. During the trial, the appellant (PW-1) and the minor daughter, Shristi (PW-2), testified, explicitly detailing the roles of the exonerated relatives in instigating and facilitating the crime. Based on this evidence, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon them as additional accused. The Trial Court dismissed this application, and the High Court affirmed the dismissal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The case originated with the dismissal of the prosecution’s application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the Trial Court (Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar) on August 3, 2023. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant-complainant challenged it before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing Criminal Revision No. 4729 of 2023. The High Court, via its impugned judgment and order dated April 22, 2024, dismissed the revision and affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, holding that no strong and cogent evidence had emerged to justify summoning the private respondents as additional accused. Challenging this concurrent finding, the appellant-complainant approached the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7518 of 2025. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on December 4, 2025, and proceeded to hear the matter, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned orders of the courts below.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court: Courts Must Examine Contempt Grievances on Merits, Not Avoid Them
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erred in conducting a mini-trial at the stage of deciding an application under Section 319 CrPC, particularly by discrediting the testimony of the minor eyewitness (PW-2) based on her cross-examination regarding whether she actually saw the firing or arrived after hearing the gunshots. The Court clarified that at the summoning stage, the focus must be on whether the material on record reasonably indicates the involvement of the proposed accused, rather than on testing the credibility or probative value of evidence as would be done at the conclusion of the trial.Regarding the statements of the deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the Court firmly rejected the High Court’s reasoning that they could not be treated as dying declarations merely because the deceased survived for nearly two months after making them. It was observed that Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contains no such limitation requiring the declarant to be under the shadow of death at the time of making the statement; what is legally pertinent is that the statement relates to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it.The Court further observed that a statement recorded by a police officer under Section 161 CrPC, upon the death of the declarant, assumes the character of a dying declaration and becomes admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 162 CrPC. It was also noted that the absence of a Magistrate’s presence or a doctor’s certification regarding the declarant’s mental fitness does not ipso facto render such a dying declaration unacceptable, as these are merely matters of prudence rather than mandatory requirements.Additionally, the Court observed that the testimony of PW-1 could not be dismissed as an embellished version simply because certain particulars were absent from the FIR, since an FIR is not meant to be an encyclopaedia containing every minute detail of the incident. The Court emphasized that all evidentiary objections raised by the respondents—including alleged tutoring of the minor witness, omissions in the FIR, inconsistencies in statements, and lack of medical certification—were premature and must be determined at the trial stage upon full appreciation of evidence, not at the preliminary stage of summoning under Section 319 CrPC.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated April 22, 2024, as well as the trial court’s order dated August 3, 2023. The Court held that the material on record—including the depositions of PW-1 (the appellant and brother of the deceased) and PW-2 (the minor daughter and eyewitness), along with the statements of the deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC during investigation—prima facie suggested the complicity of the private respondents in the commission of the offence. Concluding that sufficient grounds existed to exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC, the Court directed the respondents to be summoned as additional accused to face trial in Sessions Trial No. 1151 of 2021 alongside the deceased’s husband. The Court clarified that all observations made were solely for the purpose of deciding the Section 319 application and should not be construed as remarks on the merits of the case. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on January 8, 2026, with instructions to cooperate fully and avoid unnecessary adjournments, and the trial was expedited. All pending applications were disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1386 Criminal Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 7518 of 2025) Date of Judgment: December 4, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Download The Judgement Here