NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV v. STATE OF U.P.
Section 319 CrPC: Summoning Additional Accused Based on Evidence; Dying Declarations and Evidentiary Standards Clarified.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1386
Decision Date: 04-12-2025
List of Laws
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Case Brief
- Facts: The appellant, Neeraj Kumar, filed an FIR alleging that his sister, Nishi, was shot by her husband, Rahul, at the instigation of Rahul's mother, brother, and brother-in-law (the respondents). The FIR was based on information from the niece, Shristi. Nishi succumbed to her injuries. During treatment, Nishi gave two statements under Section 161 CrPC, initially naming only her husband, but later implicating the respondents. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed only against Rahul. The prosecution then applied under Section 319 CrPC to summon the respondents as additional accused.
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 319 CrPC, finding insufficient evidence. The High Court affirmed this dismissal, stating that the deceased's statements could not be treated as dying declarations due to the time lapse between the statements and death, and that the testimonies of the brother and daughter were of limited evidentiary value. This appeal is against the High Court's judgment.
- Issue: Did the Courts below err in dismissing the application to summon the respondents as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the evidence presented?
- Holding: Yes, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing the Trial Court to proceed with summoning the respondents as additional accused.
- Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence. The Court noted that the testimony of the brother (PW-1) and the minor daughter (PW-2), along with the deceased's statements, prima facie suggested the respondents' complicity. The Court emphasized that at the stage of Section 319 CrPC, a mini-trial is impermissible, and the court need only be satisfied that the evidence reasonably indicates the involvement of the proposed accused. The Court clarified that statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC are admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act as dying declarations, even if not recorded before a Magistrate or accompanied by medical certification. The Court also stated that a time lapse between the statement and death does not automatically invalidate a dying declaration. The Court relied on several precedents, including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Omi v. State of M.P., to reiterate the principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC.