Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. 2025 INSC 1386 - Evidence Act - Dying Declaration - S.319 CrPC

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 32 - The law does not require that a declarant, at the time of making the statement, to be under the shadow of death or the expectation that death is imminent. What is pertinent is that the statement relates either to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it. [Context: High Court held that statements cannot be treated as dying declaration(s) because the death of the deceased occurred after a substantial lapse of time from their recordings - In appeal, Supreme Court held: Here the time gap between the incident and the death is less than 2 months. In any event, Section 32 of the Evidence Act, contains no such limitation. ] (Para 16)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 32 - ; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161-A statement made by a deceased person, as to the cause of his death or to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, to a Police Officer and recorded under Section 161 CrPC, shall be relevant and admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, notwithstanding the express bar provided in Section 162 CrPC. Such a statement, upon the death of the declarant, assumes the character of a dying declaration- A dying declaration need not necessarily be recorded in the presence of a Magistrate, and that the lack of a doctor's certification as to the fitness of the declarant’s state of mind would not ipso facto render the dying declaration unacceptable. (Para 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319- At the stage of deciding the application under Section 319 CrPC, the Court is not required to test the credibility or weigh 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. What the Court has to consider at this stage is whether the material on record reasonably indicates involvement of the proposed accused so as to exercise the extraordinary power. (Para 11) - The provision is an enabling one, empowering the Court, during the course of an inquiry or trial, to proceed against any person not already arraigned as an accused, if, from the evidence adduced before it, such person appears to have committed an offence. Its object is to ensure that no guilty person escapes the process of law, thereby giving effect to the maxim judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted). It casts a duty upon the Court to ensure that the real offender does not go unpunished, for only then can the concept of fair and complete trial be realised -The power conferred under this Section is extraordinary and discretionary in nature, intended to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. While invoking it, the Court must be satisfied that the evidence appearing against the person sought to be summoned is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such person to face trial. The degree of satisfaction required is higher than that warranted at the stage of framing of charge, yet short of the satisfaction necessary to record a conviction. Such satisfaction must rest on cogent and credible material brought on record during the trial, and not based on conjectures or speculations. 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319,161- While a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC is not substantive evidence in itself, it may be used to corroborate the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC. (Para 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154 - FIR is not an encyclopaedia that must contain every minute detail of the incident, since its primary purpose is to set criminal law in motion -Therefore, at this stage, his deposition cannot be construed as an embellished or improved one simply because of the absence of certain particulars in the FIR, particularly when his testimony is consistent with the overall narrative.