Tacit Legal 24 feb 2026
In a significant judgment strengthening the scope of Section 319 CrPC, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that courts cannot conduct a “mini-trial” or meticulously evaluate witness credibility while deciding whether to summon additional accused during trial. In Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors., the Court set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to summon the deceased woman’s in-laws as additional accused in a murder case arising from alleged harassment over the birth of daughters.
The ruling reinforces that at the stage of Section 319 CrPC, the court must only see whether the material on record prima facie indicates involvement not whether the evidence is strong enough for conviction.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of a tragic incident where a woman was allegedly shot by her husband at her matrimonial home. The FIR was lodged by her brother after being informed by her minor daughter that her father had shot her mother.
During investigation: The deceased initially named only her husband. In a later statement under Section 161 CrPC, she implicated her: Mother-in-law, Father-in-law, Brother-in-law
She alleged that they had instigated her husband to shoot her.
However, the police filed a charge sheet only against the husband. During trial, based on: Testimony of the deceased’s brother (PW-1), Testimony of the minor daughter (PW-2),
Statements of the deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC,
the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking summoning of the in-laws as additional accused.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court rejected the application, holding that there was no “strong and cogent evidence.”
Aggrieved, the brother approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
1. No Mini-Trial at the Stage of Section 319 CrPC:- A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh emphasized:
At the stage of Section 319 CrPC, the court is not required to test credibility or weigh the probative value of evidence as would be done at the stage of final conviction. The Court reiterated principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, that: The power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and discretionary. The standard is higher than framing of charge. But lower than the standard required for conviction.
Courts must avoid cross-examination based analysis at this stage. The High Court was found to have erred by:- Relying heavily on cross-examination of the minor witness.
Evaluating contradictions. Assessing reliability prematurely.
This amounted to conducting an impermissible “mini-trial.”
2. Section 161 Statement Can Become a Dying Declaration
Another crucial aspect of the judgment relates to Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court had refused to treat the deceased’s Section 161 CrPC statements as dying declarations because: There was nearly a two-month gap between statement and death. No Magistrate recorded the statement. No medical certification of mental fitness was available. The Supreme Court termed this a “fundamental legal error.” Relying on Dharmendra Kumar v. State of M.P., the Court held:- A statement under Section 161 CrPC relating to cause of death can assume the character of a dying declaration upon death of the maker. The law does not require the declarant to be under the “shadow of death.” A Magistrate’s presence or doctor’s certificate is a matter of prudence, not a mandatory requirement. Time gap between statement and death does not invalidate it, if it relates to cause of death or circumstances leading to it. Thus, the High Court erred in rejecting thestatements on technical grounds.
3. FIR Is Not an Encyclopedia:- The Supreme Court also clarified that omission of certain details in the FIR does not automatically discredit subsequent testimony. An FIR is meant to set the criminal law into motion not to contain every minute detail.
Legal Significance of the Judgment This ruling strengthens:
Victim-centric jurisprudence Judicial duty to ensure real offenders do not escape. Proper interpretation of Section 319 CrPC
Case Details
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India. SLP (CRL) 7518 OF 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: 04 December 2025
