The Supreme Court on December 4, 2025 held that statements of a deceased woman and her minor daughter are sufficient to summon in-laws as additional accused in a murder case at the stage of considering an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had upheld the trial court’s refusal to summon the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and other relatives of the deceased woman. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had erred by assessing credibility and drawing conclusions that effectively amounted to a mini-trial, which is impermissible at the Section 319 stage.
The case relates to the death of Smt. Nishi, who was allegedly shot by her husband at her matrimonial home. An FIR was lodged on March 25, 2021 by her brother, Neeraj Kumar alias Neeraj Yadav, after being informed by Nishi’s nine-year-old daughter that her father had shot her mother. Nishi later succumbed to her injuries on May 15, 2021.
Before her death, Nishi named her husband Rahul as the person who shot her. In a subsequent statement, she further alleged that the act was committed at the instigation of her mother-in-law Rajo alias Rajwati, her brother-in-law Satan alias Vineet, and another relative Gabbar. Both statements were video recorded during the investigation.
The police filed a charge sheet only against the husband under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code, while the in-laws were not arrayed as accused. After charges were framed, the minor daughter of the deceased deposed before the court that her father had shot her mother at the instigation of the in-laws. On this basis, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon them as additional accused.
The trial court rejected the application, and the Allahabad High Court affirmed the decision on April 22, 2024, holding that the minor child was not an eyewitness to the firing and pointing to omissions and inconsistencies in the statements.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated that the object of Section 319 CrPC is to ensure that no guilty person escapes the process of law. The Court observed that while the power under Section 319 is extraordinary and discretionary, the level of satisfaction required is higher than that at the stage of framing charges but lower than the standard required for conviction.
The Bench held that the depositions of the complainant and the minor daughter, when read along with the statements of the deceased recorded during investigation, prima facie indicated the involvement of the in-laws. It ruled that objections raised by the respondents, including allegations of tutoring of the child witness, omission of names in the FIR, inconsistencies in statements, and lack of medical certification, were premature and could not be conclusively examined at the summoning stage.
The Court clarified that an FIR is not expected to contain every detail of the incident and its primary purpose is to set the criminal law in motion. It held that the High Court erred in concluding that the child was not an eyewitness, noting that drawing such inferences at the Section 319 stage amounts to evaluating evidence, which is not permissible.
The Bench emphasised that while deciding an application under Section 319 CrPC, courts are not required to test the credibility or probative value of evidence. The sole consideration is whether the material on record reasonably indicates the involvement of the proposed accused.
Rejecting the contention that the minor child may have been influenced or tutored, the Court noted that she had consistently named the in-laws even in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Though such statements are not substantive evidence by themselves, they can be used for corroboration when exercising powers under Section 319, the Court said.
On the statements of the deceased, the Bench clarified that statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC become relevant as dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act upon the death of the declarant. The absence of a Magistrate or a medical certification regarding fitness of mind does not automatically render such statements inadmissible.
The Court further held that the time gap between the recording of the statements and the death of the woman did not undermine their evidentiary relevance. What is material is whether the statements relate to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the parties to appear before the trial court on January 8, 2026. It clarified that all observations made in the judgment were confined to the decision on the Section 319 application and should not be construed as findings on the merits of the case.

Supreme Court Says In-Laws Can Be Summoned in Murder Case Based on Statements of Woman and Minor Daughter

Tags

Articles

Event Corner

Smart Invester