Legal provisions involved: Section 161 and Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act

Judgement by: Supreme Court

Judge/Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

Facts

The deceased woman suffered gunshot injuries, allegedly caused by her husband. Her statements were recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC on the day of the incident and again after a few days. In these statements, she implicated her husband and later accused other family members of instigation. 

She died two months later. During the trial, the prosecution sought to summon her husband’s relatives as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Trial Court and Allahabad High Court rejected the request, saying the statements could not be treated as dying declarations since there was a long gap between recording and her death.

Key legal provisions

Section 161 (now Section 180 of BNSS) and Section 319 (now Section 358 of BNSS) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 26 of BSA, 2023)

Issues raised

• Whether the deceased’s statements remain valid as dying declarations despite the delay?
•  Whether additional accused can be summoned based on these statements?

Arguments of the case

The appellant argued that the statements clearly pointed to the involvement of other family members. The respondents argued the delay made the statements inadmissible.

Judgement 

The Supreme Court held that dying declarations do not lose value just because death occurs after some time. Statements recorded by the police are admissible under Section 32(1) with caution. The court set aside the lower court orders and directed the private respondents to be summoned for trial.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.