Summoning Additional Accused under Section 319 CrPC

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh in the case of Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) set aside the High Court's order and allowed the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) (Section 358 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) based on evidence that emerged during trial. 

What was the Background of Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• On 25th March 2021, appellant Neeraj Kumar lodged FIR No. 187 of 2021 under Section 307 IPC alleging that his sister Nishi had been shot by her husband Rahul at her matrimonial home. 
• The FIR was registered based on information received from his nine-year-old niece Shristi, who informed him that her father had shot her mother. 
• The deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Bulandshahar, and then to Kailash Hospital, Noida, where she underwent treatment for firearm injuries. 
• During treatment, the deceased's statements were recorded under Section 161 CrPC on two occasions - 25th March 2021 and 18th April 2021, both video recorded. 
• In her first statement dated 25th March 2021, she named her husband Rahul as the person who shot her. 
• In her second statement dated 18th April 2021, she further alleged that her husband had shot her at the instigation of his mother Rajo @ Rajwati, brother Satan @ Vineet, and brother-in-law Gabbar. 
• On 15th May 2021, the deceased succumbed to her injuries. 
• On 20th May 2021, the appellant made another complaint before the SHO requesting legal action against the instigators (relatives of the husband) whom the deceased had named in her statements. 
• The chargesheet filed on 16th July 2021 only named Rahul (the husband) under Sections 302 and 316 IPC, exonerating the other family members. 
• During trial, the appellant was examined as PW-1 on 28th March 2022, and the minor daughter Shristi was examined as PW-2 on 12th July 2022. 
• PW-2 testified that her father shot her mother at the instigation of her grandmother, uncle, and aunt's husband. 
• Based on these testimonies and the deceased's statements, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the additional accused. 
• The Trial Court dismissed the application on 3rd August 2023, holding that the material on record was insufficient to exercise the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC. 
• The appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 4729 of 2023 before the High Court, which was also dismissed on 22nd April 2024. 
• The High Court held that the deceased's statements could not be treated as dying declarations since death occurred after substantial time, PW-1 was not an eyewitness, and PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that she reached the scene only after hearing gunshots. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary power to ensure no guilty person escapes justice, and requires cogent evidence indicating prima facie involvement, with satisfaction higher than framing charges but short of conviction standard. 
• The Court found that PW-1's testimony prima facie indicated active participation and instigation by the respondents, and clarified that an FIR is not an encyclopedia requiring every minute detail.
• On PW-2's testimony, the Court held that the High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial by relying on cross-examination to conclude she was not an eyewitness, stating this approach was impermissible at the summoning stage. 
• The Court rejected contentions that PW-2 was tutored, noting she had categorically named the respondents even in her Section 161 statement, and clarified that whether she actually witnessed the firing or arrived immediately thereafter are matters to be determined at trial. 
• On the deceased's statements, the Court held they clearly fall within Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act as dying declarations, rejecting the High Court's reasoning that death occurring after substantial time disqualifies them as such. 
• The Court reiterated that dying declarations need not be recorded before a Magistrate, lack of doctor's certification does not render them unacceptable, and any inconsistencies are matters to be examined at trial, not at preliminary summoning stage. 
• The Court found that the material on record - depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 along with the deceased's statements - prima facie suggested complicity of the respondents, and there existed sufficient ground to summon them under Section 319 CrPC. 
• The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 8th January 2026 for expedited trial. 

What is Section 319 of CrPC? 

• This provision provides for power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence. 
• This is contained in Section 358 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• It is based on the doctrine judex damantur cum nocens absolvitur which means Judges condemned when guilty is acquitted. This section states that- 
  • Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 
  • Where such a person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. 
  • Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. 
  • Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then— 
    • The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; 
    • Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. 
• Essential Elements of Section 319: 
  • There is any enquiry or trial of an offence. 
  • It appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused has committed any offence for which, the person to be tried together with the accused.