Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005229-005229 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 21716/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on Section 319 CrPC and dying declarations |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether, in a trial under Section 319 CrPC, untested statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC (including those of a deceased) and a minor’s deposition can prima facie implicate additional persons to face trial. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that Section 319 CrPC confers an extraordinary, discretionary power to summon unarraigned persons where cogent and credible material on record—stronger than at the charge-framing stage but short of conviction—prima facie implicates them. Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC by a deceased become dying declarations under Section 32 Evidence Act and are admissible despite lack of magistrate presence or medical certification. Untested examination-in-chief of witnesses (including minors) may suffice to invoke Section 319 CrPC, and inconsistencies or omissions (in FIR or statements) and credibility objections are matters for the full trial, not the summoning stage. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The extraordinary nature of Section 319 CrPC; requirement of cogent evidence beyond framing stage; examination-in-chief untested suffices; Section 32 Evidence Act applies to Section 161 CrPC statements of a deceased as dying declarations; cross-examination matters weight not admissibility; adherence to precedents in Hardeep Singh, Ispahani, Omi, Dharmendra Kumar, Shiv Baran. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 25 March 2021 an FIR under Section 307 IPC was lodged after a minor (PW-2) reported her father shot her mother. The wounded deceased gave two Section 161 CrPC statements (25 Mar and 18 Apr 2021) naming husband and relatives. She died on 15 May 2021. A chargesheet was filed solely against the husband under Sections 302/316 IPC. Prosecution moved under Section 319 CrPC to summon the relatives, but both trial court and HC dismissed the application for want of cogent prima facie evidence. The appeal challenges that dismissal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that untested Section 161 CrPC statements by a deceased qualify as dying declarations under Section 32 Evidence Act and can ground Section 319 CrPC applications.
- Absence of magistrate’s presence or medical fitness certificate does not render a dying declaration inadmissible.
- A minor’s untested deposition attributing overt roles to proposed accused suffices to invoke Section 319 CrPC.
- Omissions of names in the FIR or inconsistencies between statements are premature to decide when summoning additional accused; they go to credibility at trial, not admissibility at the preliminary stage.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary, discretionary provision to ensure “no guilty person escapes” and demands evidence stronger than at charge-framing but short of conviction.
- Examination-in-chief, untested by cross-examination, nonetheless constitutes evidence sufficient to prime facie implicate a person.
- Section 161 CrPC statements of a declarant who later dies fall within Section 32(1) Evidence Act as dying declarations; lack of magistrate or medical certificate is not fatal.
- Credibility challenges—omissions, inconsistencies, tutoring allegations—are matters for full trial; courts must not conduct a mini-trial at the summoning stage.
Arguments by the Parties
Prosecution (Appellant):
- PW-1’s and PW-2’s testimonies, plus the deceased’s Section 161 statements, name and implicate the relatives.
- Section 319 CrPC empowers courts to add unarraigned but implicated persons to secure a fair and complete trial.
- FIR omissions on instigation details are not fatal; FIR is not encyclopedic.
Respondents:
- Evidence is insufficiently cogent; PW-2 was not a direct eyewitness and may have been tutored.
- The deceased’s Section 161 statements lack magistrate presence, medical certification, and contain inconsistencies; thus cannot be treated as dying declarations.
Factual Background
On 25 March 2021, an FIR under Section 307 IPC was registered when a nine-year-old reported her father shot her mother at home. The injured woman recorded two statements under Section 161 CrPC (25 Mar and 18 Apr 2021) naming her husband and his relatives as instigators. She succumbed to her injuries on 15 May 2021. A chargesheet was subsequently filed solely against the husband under Sections 302/316 IPC. Prosecution then sought to summon the relatives under Section 319 CrPC, but both trial court and High Court declined.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 319 CrPC: Enables the court during inquiry or trial to proceed against any unarraigned person if evidence prima facie implicates them.
- Section 161 CrPC: Empowers police to record oral statements; such statements are not substantive evidence unless they fall under Section 32 Evidence Act.
- Section 32(1) Evidence Act: Admits statements by a declarant on the cause or circumstances of their death as dying declarations, notwithstanding Section 162 CrPC’s bar on use in evidence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed