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

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

The High Court erred in dismissing the Section 319 CrPC application; on the material on record — the informant's deposition, the minor daughter's deposition and Section 161 statements of the deceased (which fall within Section 32(1) Evidence Act) — there is prima facie, cogent material indicating involvement of the proposed additional accused, and the objections raised by respondents (omission from FIR, lack of magistrate presence or medical certification, alleged tutoring and inconsistencies) are premature and cannot be decided at the summoning stage, therefore the trial court and High Court orders are set aside and the respondents are to be summoned to face trial.

Parties
Appellant: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Rajo @ Rajwati; Respondent: Satan @ Vineet; Respondent: Gabbar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 22.04.2024
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr PC, Dying Declaration, Minor Witness, Summoning Additional Accused
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Evidence Law Section 319 Cr PC Dying Declaration Minor Witness Summoning Additional Accused

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Rajo @ Rajwati

Respondent

Satan @ Vineet

Respondent

Gabbar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 22.04.2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the prosecution's application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the deceased's in-laws as additional accused based on evidence recorded during trial, including statements under Section 161 CrPC and testimony of a minor witness

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in dismissing the Section 319 CrPC application; on the material on record — the informant's deposition, the minor daughter's deposition and Section 161 statements of the deceased (which fall within Section 32(1) Evidence Act) — there is prima facie, cogent material indicating involvement of the proposed additional accused, and the objections raised by respondents (omission from FIR, lack of magistrate presence or medical certification, alleged tutoring and inconsistencies) are premature and cannot be decided at the summoning stage, therefore the trial court and High Court orders are set aside and the respondents are to be summoned to face trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 22.04.2024 set aside
  • Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to be summoned to face trial under Section 319 CrPC in Sessions Trial No.1151 of 2021