The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot hold a mini-trial or evaluate witness credibility while deciding applications under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage, the court must only consider whether the evidence on record prima facie indicates the involvement of the proposed accused.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the decision while allowing a criminal appeal filed by the complainant challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to summon the deceased woman’s in-laws as additional accused in a murder trial.
The case relates to the death of Nishi, who was allegedly shot by her husband Rahul on March 25, 2021. The FIR was lodged by her brother Neeraj Kumar, who said he was informed of the incident by the couple’s nine-year-old daughter, Shristi. Nishi’s two video-recorded statements under Section 161 CrPC first named only her husband but later alleged that he acted at the instigation of his mother Rajo, his brother Satan (Vineet), and his brother-in-law Gabbar. She died on May 15, 2021. However, the police chargesheet implicated only Rahul and exonerated the other relatives.
During trial, Neeraj testified as PW-1 and Shristi as PW-2, both attributing involvement to the in-laws. Relying on the testimonies and the deceased’s statements, the prosecution sought to summon the in-laws under Section 319 CrPC. The Trial Court rejected the application, and the High Court upheld the order, finding the evidence insufficient and questioning the credibility of the witnesses.
The Supreme Court found this approach flawed. Referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that the level of satisfaction under Section 319 is higher than that needed for framing charges but below that for conviction, and courts must avoid deeper evaluation of evidence at this stage. It also reaffirmed that statements under Section 161 CrPC can corroborate trial testimony and that examination-in-chief constitutes evidence for the purpose of Section 319.
The Bench held that the High Court wrongly relied on cross-examination observations and speculated about tutoring of the child witness, effectively conducting a mini-trial. It also ruled that the deceased’s statements qualify as dying declarations under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Any inconsistencies, the Court said, are issues for trial.
Finding that the testimonies provided a strong prima facie basis to summon the in-laws, the Court set aside the High Court order and directed the Trial Court to proceed with trial, calling for the accused to appear on January 8, 2026. It also urged expedited disposal without unnecessary adjournments.
Case: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7518 of 2025
