Section 319 CrPC: When Can Additional Accused Be Summoned?

This important Supreme Court judgment revisits the scope of Section 319 CrPC, which empowers a criminal court to summon additional accused during trial if strong evidence emerges against them. The decision is particularly relevant for victim-centric criminal practice and for lawyers handling cases of dowry harassment, domestic violence leading to murder, and instigation to commit crime.

Facts in Brief

• The complainant (Neeraj Kumar) lodged an FIR under Section 307 IPC, alleging that his sister Nishi had been shot by her husband, Rahul, at her matrimonial home.

• The information initially came from Nishi’s minor daughter Shristi, who told the complainant: “Papa has shot Mummy at home.”  

• During treatment, Nishi’s statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded twice on video:

  • In the first, she directly named her husband as the shooter.

  • In the second, she added that he acted on the instigation of his mother, brother, and brother-in-law (the private respondents).  

• Nishi later died of her injuries and the case was converted to Sections 302 and 316 IPC.

• The police, however, filed a charge-sheet only against the husband, exonerating the in-laws.

• At trial:

  • The complainant (PW-1) deposed that the husband fired at the instigation of his mother, brother and brother-in-law.

  • The minor daughter Shristi (PW-2) gave a detailed account of how her father shot her mother on the provocation of the in-laws and after receiving a country-made pistol from his uncle.  

• On this material, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the in-laws as additional accused.

The Trial Court dismissed the application; the High Court upheld that dismissal. The complainant challenged this before the Supreme Court.

⚖️ Core Legal Issue

Whether, in the facts of the case, the courts below were justified in refusing to summon the husband’s relatives as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC?  

This required the Supreme Court to re-examine:

• The standard of “strong and cogent evidence” under Section 319 CrPC.

• The evidentiary value of:

  • the child witness (PW-2),

  • the complainant’s testimony (PW-1), and

  • the statements of the deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC (as dying declarations under Section 32 Evidence Act).

📚 Law on Section 319 CrPC – Reaffirmed Principles

The Court referred to Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, S. Mohammed Ispahani, Omi v. State of M.P., and Shiv Baran v. State of U.P., summarising the governing principles:  

• Section 319 is a victim-protective provision ensuring that real offenders do not escape trial.

• Power is extraordinary and discretionary, to be exercised sparingly and not in a casual manner.

• The standard of satisfaction is:

  • Higher than “prima facie” at charge-framing,

  • Yet lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt needed for conviction.

• Evidence can include:

  • Examination-in-chief alone (even before cross-examination),

  • Supported by material collected during investigation for corroboration.

• Person not chargesheeted, or even dropped from investigation, can still be summoned if trial evidence indicates involvement.

🧩 Appreciation of Evidence in This Case

1️⃣ Testimony of PW-1 (Brother/Informant)

PW-1 deposed that:

• The deceased was harassed for giving birth to three daughters.

• On her fourth pregnancy, the in-laws allegedly got a sex-determination test done and pressured her to abort a female foetus.

• On the day of the incident, his niece told him that her father had shot her mother at the instigation of the grandmother, uncle and “fufa” (brother-in-law).  

The Supreme Court held that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia and missing details there do not automatically render later oral evidence an “improvement”, particularly when a subsequent written representation to the SHO carried those details.

2️⃣ Child Witness – PW-2 (Shristi)

Shristi, the minor daughter, gave a vivid description:

• Grandmother asked the deceased to take pills; deceased refused.

• Grandmother complained to father; uncle and “fufa” remarked that she only gives birth to girls and should be killed.

• On their instigation, the father fired twice; after checking that she was still alive, they urged him to shoot again, and he fired three more shots.

• She also stated that the uncle had given the pistol to her father.  

The High Court relied on a cross-examination answer about hearing “two gunshots” to conclude she wasn’t an eye-witness. The Supreme Court criticised this as conducting a “mini-trial” at the Section 319 stage, which is impermissible. At this stage, the Court should not weigh credibility like at final judgment; it must only see if evidence reasonably indicates complicity.

3️⃣ Statements of the Deceased – Dying Declarations

Two statements of Nishi recorded under Section 161 CrPC were produced:

• First statement: husband shot her after quarrel.

• Second statement: husband shot her at the instigation of his mother, brother and brother-in-law, who had threatened to get her killed and were unhappy with a property in her name.  

Key holdings:

• A statement of a person who later dies, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, is admissible as a dying declarationunder Section 32(1) Evidence Act, despite the general bar in Section 162 CrPC.

• It need not be:

  • recorded by a Magistrate, or

  • accompanied by a specific doctor’s certificate on mental fitness—these are rules of prudence, not rigid requirements.

• A time gap of nearly two months between statement and death does not disqualify it as a dying declaration; what matters is that the statement relates to cause of death or

🧾 Supreme Court’s Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that:

• Combined reading of:

  • PW-1’s deposition,

  • PW-2’s testimony and her Section 161 statement, and

  • the deceased’s statements (treated as dying declarations),
    prima facie indicates active participation and instigation by the in-laws.

• Objections about alleged tutoring, inconsistencies and omissions in FIR are trial issues, not grounds to refuse Section 319 summoning.

👉 Result:

The appeal was allowed.

The orders of the Trial Court and High Court were set aside.

The in-laws (respondent nos. 2–4) were directed to be summoned as additional accused to face trial alongside the husband in the Sessions Case.  

Key Takeaways for Criminal Law Practice

1. Section 319 CrPC is a powerful victim-protection tool — use it strategically when fresh evidence surfaces during trial.

2. Child witness evidence can be sufficient at the summoning stage if it specifically attributes roles to proposed accused.

3. Statements under Section 161 CrPC can operate as dying declarations, significantly strengthening the prosecution’s case.

4. Courts must avoid a mini-trial at the summoning stage; the test is “could be tried”, not “should be convicted”.

5. Defence lawyers must prepare for expanded liability of relatives in cases of dowry-related or instigation-based offences when evidence links them to the crime.

Need Help With a Case Under Section 319 CrPC or Serious Offences like 302/307 IPC?

At Pankaj Kumar & Co., Advocates, we handle:

• Applications under Section 319 CrPC (for both prosecution & defence)

• Trials under Sections 302, 304B, 306, 307 IPC, dowry death and domestic violence leading to homicide

• Cases involving dying declarations, child witnesses and complex evidentiary issues

• Criminal appeals and revisions before Sessions Court, High Court and Supreme Court

Contact the Best Criminal Lawyer in Delhi for Strategic Representation

Pankaj Kumar & Co., Advocates

📍 Rohini Courts, Delhi | Practising in all major courts of Delhi

🌐 Website: www.advocate-delhi.com

📲 Call / WhatsApp: [Add your contact number]

✉️ Email: [Add your email]

Strong research. Focused strategy. Relentless advocacy.

If you are involved in a serious criminal case or wish to invoke Section 319 CrPC, contact us for a detailed legal consultation.