Court Orders Summoning Of Alleged Instigators Under Section 319 CrPC And Directs Expedited Trial

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a criminal appeal arising from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which had affirmed the Trial Court’s refusal to summon three relatives as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC in a sessions trial concerning the fatal shooting of a woman. The appeal challenged the High Court’s conclusion that the material on record was insufficiently cogent to exercise the extraordinary power under Section 319.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and held that the depositions of the informant (the deceased’s brother), the minor daughter of the deceased, and the statements of the deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC prima facie disclosed the complicity of the proposed additional accused and therefore justified their summoning under Section 319. The Court reiterated that Section 319 is “an enabling” provision designed so that “no guilty person escapes the process of law,” and emphasised that the power was “extraordinary and discretionary in nature, intended to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The provision is an enabling one, empowering the Court, during the course of an inquiry or trial, to proceed against any person not already arraigned as an accused, if, from the evidence adduced before it, such person appears to have committed an offence. Its object is to ensure that no guilty person escapes the process of law, thereby giving effect to the maxim judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted). It casts a duty upon the Court to ensure that the real offender does not go unpunished, for only then can the concept of fair and complete trial be realised.” The Court also noted the settled principle that the degree of satisfaction required to invoke Section 319 was “higher than that warranted at the stage of framing of charge, yet short of the satisfaction necessary to record a conviction.”

Background

The dispute arose after an FIR was lodged on 25 March 2021 by Neeraj Kumar reporting that his sister, Nishi, had been shot at her matrimonial home. The initial information came from his nine-year-old niece, Shristi, who told him “Papa has shot Mummy at home.” The injured woman spoke to police on 25 March and again on 18 April 2021; the second statement named her husband’s relatives — his mother, brother and brother-in-law — as having instigated the act. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 15 May 2021. The investigating agency filed a chargesheet on 16 July 2021 only against the husband under Sections 302 and 316 IPC and exonerated the other relatives.

During trial the prosecution relied upon the testimony of the informant (PW‑1), the minor daughter (PW‑2) and the deceased’s Section 161 statements to move an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the relatives as additional accused. The Trial Court dismissed the application for want of “strong and cogent” material; the High Court affirmed, holding that the deceased’s pre‑death statements could not be treated as dying declarations given the lapse of time, that PW‑1 was not an eyewitness, and that PW‑2 had admitted she heard gunshots before arriving, undermining her status as an eyewitness.

The Supreme Court reviewed authorities including Hardeep Singh, S. Mohammed Ispahani, Omi and recent decisions on dying declarations and statements under Section 161/Section 32 of the Evidence Act, concluded that the combined material prima facie implicated the proposed accused, and held that the lower courts had erred by effectively conducting a mini‑trial. The Court observed that Section 161 statements by a deceased may assume the character of dying declarations under Section 32(1) Evidence Act and that the absence of magistrate presence or medical certification did not ipso facto render such statements inadmissible. The appeal was allowed; the impugned orders were set aside, the parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 8 January 2026, the trial was directed to be expedited, and pending applications were disposed. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the exercise of power under Section 319 and were not comments on the merits of the case.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1386 Case Title: NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV Versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment]