The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration remains valid even if death is not imminent, while restoring summons to the victim’s in-laws under Section 319 CrPC.
Introduction
In a significant ruling strengthening the evidentiary value of dying declarations and clarifying the scope of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision refusing to summon the deceased woman’s in-laws as additional accused in a dowry-related shooting case.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh held that a dying declaration does not become irrelevant merely because the declarant’s death is not imminent at the time of making the statement. The Court also reiterated that while deciding an application under Section 319 CrPC, courts cannot conduct a “mini-trial” or engage in an in-depth evaluation of evidence.
Background of the Case
The case arose after the appellant lodged an FIR alleging that his sister was shot by her husband at their matrimonial home.
Statements Under Section 161 CrPC
- Initially, the victim named only her husband in her statement.
- Later, she recorded another Section 161 CrPC statement implicating her mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, alleging they instigated her husband to shoot her.
Despite these allegations, the police framed charges solely against the husband.
Trial Court and High Court Decisions
During the trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the in-laws as additional accused based on emerging witness testimony.
Both the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court refused the request, holding that the material did not amount to “strong and cogent evidence.”
The High Court also refused to treat the victim’s Section 161 statements as a dying declaration, citing:
- A two-month gap between the statements and her death
- Lack of medical or magistrate certification
This led the deceased’s brother to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Key Findings
Imminent Death Not Required for a Dying Declaration
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a fundamental legal error in rejecting the victim’s statements as dying declarations.
Justice Karol emphasised that:
- Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act imposes no requirement that death must be imminent.
- The only requirement is that the statement must relate to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it.
- A two-month gap does not invalidate the statement.
Quote from the Judgment:
“The law does not require that a declarant, at the time of making the statement, be under the shadow of death or expect death to be imminent. Section 32 contains no such limitation.”
No Mini-Trial During Section 319 CrPC Proceedings
The Bench strongly criticised the High Court for scrutinising the credibility of witnesses—especially a child witness—at the summoning stage.
The Court held that:
- Courts should not weigh the probative value of evidence while deciding an application under Section 319 CrPC.
- The only requirement is that the material should reasonably indicate involvement of the proposed accused.
Key Observation:
“Drawing such an inference amounts to conducting a mini-trial… The Court is not required to test credibility or weigh evidence as would be done at the end of the trial.”
Court’s Conclusion and Directions
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:
- Restored the summons to the victim’s in-laws.
- Directed all parties to appear before the trial court.
- Clarified that objections such as alleged tutoring, inconsistencies, omission of names in the FIR, or absence of medical certification are premature at this stage.
The ruling reinforces the principles governing dying declarations and ensures that Section 319 CrPC is applied without prematurely prejudging evidence.
Cause Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Supreme Court on Spousal Communication and Privacy under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act
