NEERAJ KUMAR @ NEERAJ YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 04-12-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 295 : 2025 INSC 1386
Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav 
v. 
State of U.P. & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 5229 of 2025)
04 December 2025
[Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the courts below, in the attending facts and 
circumstances, justified in dismissing the application for summoning 
additional accused.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed 
against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – 
Summoning of additional accused – FIR by the appellant-
brother that his sister was shot by her husband based on 
the information received by him from his niece, aged nine 
years that her father shot her mother – Two statements of 
the victim recorded u/s.161 CrPC, where in the first statement 
she named her husband as the person who shot her, and 
in the subsequent one she named her in laws alleging that 
they had instigated her husband to shoot her – Thereafter, 
she succumbed to death – However, chargesheet filed only 
against the husband, exonerating the in-laws – During the 
trial, the prosecution moved application u/s.319 to summon 
the in-laws as additional accused on basis of the evidence 
recorded during the trial which clearly disclosed their role 
in the commission of the offence – Both trial court and High 
Court dismissed the application holding that no strong and 
cogent evidence to justify summoning u/s.319 – Justification:
Held: High Court’s approach is erroneous – High Court concluded 
that victim’s daughter was not an eyewitness to the actual firing 
and relied on her cross-examination – Drawing such an inference 
amounts to conducting a mini-trial at the stage of summoning, 
which is impermissible – At the stage of deciding the application 
u/s.319, the Court is not required to test the credibility or weigh 
* Author
296
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the probative value of the evidence as would be done at the 
end of the trial for determining the conviction or otherwise of 
the accused – It has to consider whether the material on record 
reasonably indicates involvement of the proposed accused so as 
to exercise the extraordinary power – Thus, the reliance placed 
by the courts below on daughter’s cross-examination to discredit 
her testimony misplaced – Further, the minor daughter in her 
statement recorded u/s.161, categorically named the respondents 
as those who instigated the commission of the said crime – While 
a statement recorded u/s.161 CrPC is not substantive evidence 
in itself, it may be used to corroborate the evidence recorded by 
the Court to invoke the power u/s.319 – Thus, conjointly reading 
minor’s deposition along with her s.161 statement, a specific and 
overt act has been assigned to the respondents – Furthermore, 
the two statements of the deceased, clearly fall within the ambit 
of s.32(1) of the Evidence Act – Perusal of both the statements 
reveals that while the former primarily narrates the incident, the 
latter elaborates on the circumstances that culminated in the fatal 
act and brings forth the complicity of the respondents – High Court 
erred in holding that these statements cannot be treated as dying 
declaration merely because the death of the deceased occurred 
after a substantial lapse of time from their recordings – What is 
pertinent is that the statement relates either to the cause of death 
or the circumstances leading to it – Depositions of the brother and 
his niece, along with the statements of the deceased recorded 
during the investigation, prima facie suggests the complicity of 
the respondents in the commission of the said offence – Thus, 
sufficient ground to exercise the power u/s.319 and summon them 
to face trial – Objections raised by the respondents, including the 
alleged tutoring of the minor witness, omission of their names in 
the FIR, inconsistencies in the statements of the deceased and 
lack of contemporaneous medical certification, are all premature 
and cannot be conclusively decided at the stage of exercising 
power u/s.319 – Judgment and order of the High Court set aside – 
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32. [Paras 11-18]
Case Law Cited
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014] 2 SCR 1 : (2014) 3 
SCC 92; S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak [2017] 
10 SCR 29 : (2017) 16 SCC 226; Omi v. State of M.P. [2025] 1 
SCR 266 : (2025) 2 SCC 621; Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. [2025] 
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 
297
Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.