New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that courts cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess the credibility of witnesses while considering applications under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional accused persons. At this stage, the inquiry is limited to examining whether the evidence on record prima facie indicates the involvement of the proposed accused.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the ruling while allowing a criminal appeal filed by the complainant challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order refusing to summon the deceased’s in-laws as additional accused in a murder trial.
The case arose from a tragic incident on March 25, 2021, when Neeraj Kumar lodged an FIR alleging that his sister, Nishi, had been shot by her husband, Rahul, at her matrimonial home. The information was conveyed by their nine-year-old daughter, Shristi, who told him, “Papa has shot Mummy at home.” The deceased was immediately taken to the hospital, where her statements were recorded under Section 161 CrPC on two dates—March 25, 2021, and April 18, 2021. Both statements were video recorded.
In her first statement, the deceased named her husband, Rahul, as the assailant. In her subsequent statement, she alleged that he shot her at the instigation of his mother, Rajo; his brother, Satan (Vineet); and his brother-in-law, Gabbar. She succumbed to her injuries on May 15, 2021. Following her death, the complainant submitted another representation on May 20, 2021, requesting legal action against the in-laws in view of the clear allegations in her statements.
However, upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet filed on July 16, 2021, implicated only Rahul under Sections 302 and 316 IPC and exonerated the other family members. During the trial, the complainant deposed as PW-1, and his niece Shristi was examined as PW-2. In her testimony, Shristi stated that her father shot her mother at the instigation of the other family members. Based on these testimonies and the deceased’s statements, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon the in-laws as additional accused.
The Trial Court dismissed the application on August 3, 2023, holding that the material was insufficient to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC. The Allahabad High Court affirmed this view on April 22, 2024, reasoning that the deceased’s statements could not be treated as dying declarations because death occurred after a substantial lapse of time; PW-1 was not an eyewitness; and PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that she reached the spot only after hearing gunshots.
The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework governing Section 319, which empowers a court to proceed against any person not already arraigned as an accused if evidence adduced during trial indicates their involvement. The Court observed that the provision seeks to give effect to the maxim judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur—“the judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted.”
Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that the degree of satisfaction required under Section 319 is higher than that necessary for framing charges but short of that required for conviction. This satisfaction must be based on cogent material that emerges during trial. Even examination-in-chief, though untested by cross-examination, qualifies as “evidence” for this purpose.
Citing S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, the Court reaffirmed that statements under Section 161 CrPC cannot independently justify summoning of new accused but may be relied upon for corroboration when supported by trial evidence.
Assessing the material in the present case, the Court found that PW-1 had attributed specific acts to each in-law, stating that the deceased was harassed for giving birth to three daughters, pressured into sex determination, and forced to abort when a female foetus was detected. He also testified that his niece told him that her father shot her mother at the instigation of the other in-laws. The omission of these details in the FIR, the Court held, was immaterial since an FIR is not meant to be an encyclopaedia.
Regarding PW-2’s testimony, the Court held that her account carried considerable evidentiary value. She stated that her grandmother forced her mother to take contraceptives, and upon refusal, the grandmother complained to her father. She further deposed that her uncle and aunt’s husband told her father to kill her mother for giving birth to only female children, and that her father shot her mother with a pistol provided by her uncle.
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s approach erroneous. Relying on cross-examination to conclude that PW-2 was not an eyewitness amounted to conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible at the Section 319 stage. Similarly, speculation regarding tutoring of the child witness could not defeat the application when her Section 161 statement had already named the in-laws.
The Court held the deceased’s statements admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act as dying declarations. It reaffirmed that such statements need not be recorded by a Magistrate or accompanied by a doctor’s certification, and that the law does not require the declarant to be under immediate expectation of death. Inconsistencies between the two statements, if any, were matters to be tested during trial and not grounds to reject the Section 319 application.
Finding that the material on record prima facie indicated the involvement of the in-laws, the Court concluded that the Trial Court and High Court erred in refusing to summon them. It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the Section 319 application and would not influence the merits of the trial. The Trial Court was directed to assess the child witness’s testimony in accordance with the principles laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Chatra and State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh.
Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court summoned the in-laws to stand trial and directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on January 8, 2026. The Court also instructed that the trial be expedited and that unnecessary adjournments be avoided.
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.
*Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7518 of 2025
