While Deciding S.319 CrPC Application, Court Not Required To Test Credibility Of Evidence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 4) set aside the Allahabad High Court's refusal to summon the deceased's in-laws as additional accused, stressing that courts cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess witness credibility while deciding an application under Section 319 CrPC.

“At the stage of deciding the application under Section 319 CrPC, the Court is not required to test the credibility or weigh the probative value of the evidence as would be done at the end of the trial for determining the conviction or otherwise of the accused. What the Court has to consider at this stage is whether the material on record reasonably indicates involvement of the proposed accused so as to exercise the extraordinary power.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh while allowing the deceased victim's brother's appeal against the refusal to summon her in-laws as additional accused, besides her husband who allegedly shot her dead at their matrimonial home following harassment over giving birth to daughters.

The appellant had lodged an FIR after his deceased sister was shot by her husband. Although the victim initially named only her husband in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, she later gave another Section 161 Cr.P.C statement implicating her mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, alleging they had instigated her husband to shoot her.

Despite these allegations, the police framed charges only against her husband. During the trial, the prosecution sought to summon the in-laws as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C, relying on the evidence emerging from the witnesses.

Both the Trial Court and the High Court refused, holding that there was no “strong and cogent evidence” to justify summoning them.

Aggrieved by the impugned decisions, the deceased brother moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned orders, the judgment authored by Justice Karol criticized the High Court for conducting a mini-trial at the stage of deciding a Section 319 Cr.P.C. application. The Court noted that the High Court's meticulous examination of the child witness evidence at this stage didn't comply with the requirement of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

“Drawing such an inference amounts to conducting a mini-trial at the stage of summoning, which is impermissible. At the stage of deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the Court is not required to test the credibility or weigh the probative value of the evidence as would be done at the end of the trial for determining the conviction or otherwise of the accused. What the Court has to consider at this stage is whether the material on record reasonably indicates involvement of the proposed accused so as to exercise the extraordinary power.”, the court observed.

Imminent Death Not a Precondition for Treating a Statement as a Dying Declaration

Further, the Court disagreed with the High Court's refusal to treat the victim's Section 161 Cr.P.C statements as 'dying declaration' under Section 31(1) of the Evidence Act, 1972. The High Court had refused to consider them as dying declarations, citing a nearly two-month gap between her recording of statement and her death and lack of certification by a Magistrate or doctor.

Terming this as a “fundamental legal error”, the Court observed “the High Court erred in holding that these statements cannot be treated as dying declaration(s) merely because the death of the deceased occurred after a substantial lapse of time from their recordings. Such an approach is clearly untenable since the law does not require that a declarant, at the time of making the statement, to be under the shadow of death or the expectation that death is imminent. Here the time gap between the incident and the death is less than 2 months. In any event, Section 32 of the Evidence Act, contains no such limitation. What is pertinent is that the statement relates either to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it.”

In light of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court.

“The objections raised by the respondents, including the alleged tutoring of the minor witness, omission of their names in the FIR, inconsistencies in the statements of the deceased and lack of contemporaneous medical certification, are all premature and cannot be conclusively decided at the stage of exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.”, the court concluded.

Cause Title: NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV Versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1171

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Vikas, AOR Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Kritika, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Aniket Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Joshi, AOR