Home  > Recent Judgements  > SUPREME COURT’S RULING REINFORCES LIMITED SCOPE OF SECTION 319 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOT REQUIRED

Dec  05- 2025

SUPREME COURT’S RULING REINFORCES LIMITED SCOPE OF SECTION 319 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOT REQUIRED

Case Title:NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV V. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1386

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

Introduction

Reaffirming the limited and exceptional nature of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973, the Supreme Court of India on 4th December has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that had refused to summon a deceased woman’s in-laws as additional accused in a murder trial.

In a judgment with significant implications for criminal trials, witness evaluation, and the law of dying declarations, the Court clarified two critical issues:

  1. Courts must not weigh evidence or test witness credibility at the stage of deciding a Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 application.
  2. Statements recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be treated as dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, even in the absence of a Magistrate or medical certification, and even when death occurs weeks later.

The ruling effectively reiterates that Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not a platform for a mini-trial, and that substantial prima facie involvement, not conclusive proof, is the benchmark for summoning additional accused.

Background: The Tragic Case of Nishi’s Death

The case arises out of FIR No. 187/2021 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.

Key Facts:

  • Nishi’s minor daughter, aged 9, first informed the appellant:
    “Papa has shot Mummy at home.”
  • While undergoing treatment for gunshot injuries, Nishi’s statements under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded twice:
    • 25 March 2021 – She named only her husband as the shooter.
    • 18 April 2021 – She implicated:
      • her mother-in-law
      • brother-in-law Satan @ Vineet
      • brother-in-law Gabbar

She alleged they instigated her husband to kill her due to:

    • harassment for giving birth to daughters
    • demands to abort a female foetus
    • persistent domestic abuse
  • Nishi succumbed to her injuries on 15 May 2021.
  • The police filed a chargesheet only against the husband, exonerating the in-laws.

Application Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

During the trial, the prosecution relied on:

  • testimonies of the deceased’s brother (PW-1) and minor daughter (PW-2),
  • the deceased’s two Section 161 statements,

to seek summoning of the in-laws as additional accused.

Both the Trial Court and the High Court dismissed the application, holding that the evidence was not “strong and cogent.”

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

  1. Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Does Not Permit a Mini-Trial

The Court strongly criticized the High Court for engaging in a detailed assessment of witness credibility, noting:

“At the stage of deciding the application under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court is not required to test credibility or weigh the probative value of the evidence.”

The Court reiterated settled law from HARDEEP SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (2014):

  • The standard for Section 319 is higher than framing of charge,
  • but lower than the standard for conviction.
  • The evidence must indicate more than mere suspicion but need not be unimpeachable.

The Bench observed that the High Court had virtually conducted a mini-trial, especially by analysing cross-examination of the minor child witness. This was held to be legally impermissible.

  1. Testimony of Minor Witness (PW-2) Cannot Be Discarded at the Summoning Stage

The minor daughter’s account accused the in-laws of:

  • instigating the husband,
  • handing over the pistol,
  • telling him to “finish” her mother.

The Supreme Court held the High Court erred by discrediting her statement prematurely, noting:

“Questions of tutoring, inconsistencies or omissions are matters for trial, not for a Section 319 enquiry.”

  1. Section 161 Statements May Constitute Dying Declarations

A major contribution of this judgment is its clarification on dying declarations.

The High Court had refused to treat the deceased’s Section 161 statements as dying declarations because:

  • there was a time gap of nearly two months between the statement and her death,
  • no doctor certified her fitness,
  • no Magistrate recorded the statement.

The Supreme Court found this approach to be:

“a fundamental legal error.”

Court’s Clarifications:

  1. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 contains no requirement of imminent death.
    • A dying declaration is valid if it relates to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it.
  2. Presence of a Magistrate or doctor is not mandatory.
    • It is a rule of prudence, not a legal mandate.
  3. Statements under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 become dying declarations when the declarant dies.
    • The Court relied on its 2024 judgment in DHARMENDRA KUMAR V. STATE OF M.P.
  4. A two-month delay between statement and death does not invalidate the declaration.

This clarification will have wide impact in cases involving prolonged hospitalization, domestic violence, dowry deaths, burn injuries, and other situations where the victim survives for days or weeks after the incident.

  1. Sufficient Grounds to Summon Additional Accused

After evaluating the testimonies and statements, the Supreme Court concluded:

“There is sufficient material to reasonably indicate the involvement of the respondents.”

Therefore, objections regarding inconsistencies, tutoring, omissions, or medical certification were termed as “premature”, strictly to be adjudicated during the full trial.

Final Directions

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Orders of the Allahabad High Court (22 April 2024) and Trial Court (3 August 2023) set aside.
  • Trial Court directed to summon the in-laws as additional accused.
  • Parties instructed to appear on 8 January 2026 and cooperate without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
  • Trial ordered to be expedited.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling holds importance for several reasons:

  1. Strengthening the Application of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Prevents misuse of the provision to shield potential offenders.
  • Ensures that courts do not prematurely weigh evidence or credibility.
  • Clarifies the degree of satisfaction required for summoning additional accused.
  1. Broader Interpretation of Dying Declarations
  • Eliminates misconceptions about the need for imminent death or medical certification.
  • Affirms admissibility of statements recorded by police when the victim later dies.
  • Protects victims of prolonged medical treatment who speak out before succumbing.
  1. Protecting Vulnerable Witnesses
  • Ensures that testimonies of minors or traumatized witnesses are not discarded prematurely.
  • Maintains integrity of the summoning process.
  1. Reinforcing Victim’s Rights in Domestic Violence and Murder Cases
  • Ensures that the investigative and trial stages do not overlook the possible involvement of multiple perpetrators.
  • Particularly relevant in cases involving matrimonial cruelty, dowry harassment, or gender-based violence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV V. STATE OF U.P. provides crucial clarity on the scope of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the evidentiary status of statements recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By disallowing mini-trials at the summoning stage and recognising the admissibility of such statements as dying declarations, the Court has struck a balance between procedural safeguards and substantive justice.

This ruling will serve as an essential precedent for trial courts grappling with similar issues, ensuring that potential offenders are not prematurely excluded from prosecution and that crucial victim statements are afforded their due legal weight.