ECHOES BEFORE THE SILENCE: A JUDICIAL REFLECTION ON TRUTH AND ACCOUNTABILITY

INTRODUCTION
In Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2025 INSC 1386, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7518 of 2025, the Supreme Court of India, through Sanjay Karol, J. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. revisited the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case concerned the fatal shooting of a woman allegedly by her husband and the question of whether her in-laws, named during trial and in her own statements, could also be summoned as additional accused. The Judgment overturns the High Court’s refusal to summon the proposed accused and reinstates the principle that a criminal trial must not proceed without all potentially culpable parties before the Court.

BRIEF FACTS
On 25 March 2021, the Appellant lodged an FIR alleging that his sister, Nishi, had been shot by her husband Rahul at their matrimonial home. The information was first given to him by his nine-year-old niece, who told him that her father had shot her mother.
While undergoing treatment, the deceased’s statements were recorded twice under Section 161 CrPC—first naming only her husband and later expressly implicating her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and her sister-in-law’s husband for instigating Rahul. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on 15 May 2021. A charge-sheet followed, but only against the husband.
During trial, PW-1 (brother of the deceased) and PW-2 (the minor daughter) unequivocally attributed roles to the in-laws. The prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning them as additional accused, which was rejected by both the Trial Court and the High Court. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF LAW
The key question before the Court was whether the evidence that emerged during trial—including witness testimonies and the deceased’s statements, which had become admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act—was sufficient to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC to summon the in-laws as additional accused.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court began by reaffirming the settled principle that Section 319 CrPC exists to prevent the real offenders from escaping trial. Although extraordinary in nature, this power is essential to achieve a complete and just adjudication. The Court drew from the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, emphasising that the standard required is higher than a routine prima facie view but does not approach the rigour required for conviction. The purpose at this stage is not to determine guilt but to ensure that the material on record reasonably points to the involvement of persons not originally accused.
Turning to the evidence, the Court found that PW-1’s testimony provided a consistent narrative of harassment and instigation by the in-laws, forming a logical backdrop to the fatal incident. The High Court’s reliance on the absence of certain details in the FIR was rejected, given the well-established principle that an FIR is not intended to be an exhaustive account but merely to set the criminal law in motion. The Appellant’s deposition aligned with his subsequent representation and the overall chain of facts emerging during trial.
The Court treated the testimony of PW-2, the minor daughter, with similar seriousness. Her account was vivid and detailed: it described the quarrel, the pressure to administer pills, the instigation by the in-laws, the handing over of the weapon and the repeated firing by her father. The High Court’s conclusion that she was not an eyewitness—based merely on a line from her cross-examination—was held to be legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court reiterated that, at the stage of Section 319, courts are not permitted to conduct a mini-trial or undertake a microscopic credibility analysis. Assessments regarding tutoring or reliability must be reserved for the full trial.
The Deceased’s two statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC were also examined. The Court held that upon her death, these statements gained admissibility as dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. It rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the statements were unreliable because they were recorded weeks before her death. The Evidence Act imposes no requirement of imminent expectation of death; statements concerning the cause or circumstances leading to death are admissible regardless of the time gap. The Court further dismissed objections relating to the absence of a Magistrate or medical certification during recording, reiterating that neither is a legal prerequisite for a valid dying declaration.
When read together, the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 and the deceased’s detailed second statement formed a coherent and compelling narrative pointing to the involvement of the in-laws. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had prematurely weighed inconsistencies, which is impermissible at this stage. The material on record clearly reached the threshold of “strong and cogent evidence”, justifying invocation of Section 319. The refusal by the courts below was therefore held to be legally flawed.

CONCLUSION
The Judgment reinforces the duty of courts to ensure that criminal trials are comprehensive and not undermined by procedural omissions. By recognising the evidentiary worth of the deceased’s statements, respecting the testimony of a child witness and disapproving the High Court’s mini-trial approach, the Supreme Court has clarified the true contours of Section 319 CrPC. The ruling underscores that justice is not served when potential offenders remain outside the trial fold and that judicial caution must not overshadow the imperative of substantive truth. Through this decision, the Court strengthens the architecture of criminal accountability and affirms its commitment to uncovering the full truth behind a tragic and violent death.

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Rights of Husband in False Matrimonial Cases | 498A Misuse | 2025 Judgments Explained|” can be viewed at the link below: