The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court, directing the summoning of a deceased woman’s in-laws to face trial in a murder case. The Apex Court ruled that statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be treated as dying declarations under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, even without the presence of a Magistrate or a medical fitness certificate.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal in Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025 INSC 1386). The Court observed that the evidence on record—including the testimonies of the deceased’s brother and minor daughter, alongside her statements to the police—prima facie suggested the complicity of the respondents.
The primary legal question before the Court was whether the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in dismissing an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the CrPC. The application sought to summon the mother-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased as additional accused, who were named in the deceased’s statements but had been exonerated in the police chargesheet.
The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was erroneous. It reiterated that a statement made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death, recorded by a police officer under Section 161 CrPC, is relevant and admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated April 22, 2024, and the Trial Court’s order dated August 3, 2023, were set aside. The private respondents (Respondent Nos. 2 to 4) have been summoned to face trial in Sessions Trial No. 1151 of 2021.
Background of the Case
The case originated from FIR No. 187 of 2021, lodged on March 25, 2021, at PS Sikandrabad. The appellant, Neeraj Kumar, alleged that his sister, Nishi, had been shot by her husband, Rahul, at her matrimonial home. This information was conveyed to him by his nine-year-old niece, Shristi, who stated, “Papa has shot Mummy at home.”
During her treatment for firearm injuries, the deceased’s statements were recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC on two occasions:
- March 25, 2021: She named her husband as the shooter.
- April 18, 2021: She further alleged that her husband shot her at the instigation of his mother, Rajo @ Rajwati (Respondent No. 2), brother Satan @ Vineet (Respondent No. 3), and brother-in-law Gabbar (Respondent No. 4). She cited harassment over giving birth to daughters and a refusal to abort a female foetus as the motive.
The victim succumbed to her injuries on May 15, 2021. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on July 16, 2021, solely against the husband, Rahul, under Sections 302 and 316 of the IPC, while the other relatives were exonerated.
During the trial, the prosecution examined the appellant (PW-1) and the minor daughter (PW-2). Based on their testimonies and the deceased’s statements, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the private respondents. The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding the evidence insufficient. The High Court affirmed this dismissal, reasoning that the deceased’s statements could not be treated as dying declarations due to the time lapse before death, and that the witnesses were not eyewitnesses to the actual shooting.
Arguments of the Parties
The Prosecution’s Stand: The prosecution contended that the evidence recorded during the trial clearly disclosed the role of the respondents. They relied heavily on the testimony of the minor daughter (PW-2), who was present at the scene, and the detailed statement of the deceased recorded on April 18, 2021, which assigned specific roles of instigation to the respondents.
The Respondents’ Defense: The respondents argued that:
- PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that she reached the spot only after hearing gunshots, indicating she was not an eyewitness.
- PW-2 was a tutored witness, living with the appellant’s family.
- The deceased’s statements were inconsistent; the first statement did not name the respondents.
- The statements were not recorded before a Magistrate, nor was there any medical certification of the deceased’s mental fitness.
- The death occurred nearly two months after the first statement, which they argued weakened its validity as a dying declaration.
Court’s Analysis
1. Scope of Power Under Section 319 CrPC Citing the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak (2017), the Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC is “extraordinary and discretionary,” to be exercised when “strong and cogent evidence” exists. The Court observed:
“The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”
2. Testimony of the Minor Witness (PW-2) The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for relying on the cross-examination of PW-2 to discredit her testimony at the summoning stage. The Bench termed this approach as conducting a “mini-trial,” which is impermissible. The Court noted that PW-2’s deposition, read with her Section 161 statement, assigned specific overt acts to the respondents, such as handing the pistol to the main accused and instigating him to “finish her.”
3. Admissibility of Dying Declarations Addressing the validity of the deceased’s statements to the police, the Court rejected the contention that they were inadmissible due to the absence of a Magistrate or medical certificate. Relying on Dharmendra Kumar v. State of M.P. (2024), the Bench held:
“A statement made by a deceased person… to a Police Officer and recorded under Section 161 CrPC, shall be relevant and admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act… notwithstanding the express bar provided in Section 162 CrPC. Such a statement, upon the death of the declarant, assumes the character of a dying declaration.”
Regarding the certification of mental fitness, the Court stated: “The requirement for a dying declaration to be recorded in the presence of a doctor, following certification of the declarant’s mental fitness, is merely a matter of prudence.”
On the issue of the time gap between the statement and death, the Court clarified:
“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… What is pertinent is that the statement relates either to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, along with the statements of the deceased, provided sufficient ground to summon the respondents. The Court termed objections regarding inconsistencies and tutoring as “premature” and matters to be decided at trial.
“Therefore, the appeal is accordingly allowed… Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 08th January 2026. We direct them to fully cooperate and not take any unnecessary adjournments. The trial is expedited.”
