LEGAL ISSUE: Can a trial court summon individuals as additional accused based on witness testimony during trial, even if they were not initially charge-sheeted by the police?
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Judgment Date: 3rd January, 2025
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 3rd January, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 27
Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.
Can a trial court summon individuals as additional accused based on witness testimony during the trial, even if the police had previously filed a closure report exonerating them? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. The Supreme Court addressed the powers of the trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to summon additional individuals as accused based on evidence presented during the trial. This judgment clarifies the extent to which a trial court can act independently of the police’s findings during the investigation.
Case Background
On February 20, 2018, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Padav Police Station, Gwalior, concerning an incident involving the offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR named seven individuals, including the petitioners, Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another person.
Following the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) filed a closure report for the two petitioners, stating they were not involved in the crime. However, a charge-sheet was filed against the other accused individuals. During the trial, the original first informant (PW3), Raghvendra Tomar, testified in court. In his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the details mentioned in the FIR, specifically naming the petitioners and attributing overt acts to them.
Based on the testimony of PW3, the trial court invoked its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the petitioners as additional accused to face trial along with the other co-accused. The petitioners, dissatisfied with this order, filed a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was subsequently rejected.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 20.02.2018 | Incident occurred; FIR registered at Padav Police Station, Gwalior. |
| Police investigation initiated; closure report filed for petitioners. | |
| Charge-sheet filed against other accused individuals. | |
| Trial commenced; PW3 (Raghvendra Tomar) testified, implicating petitioners. | |
| Trial Court summoned petitioners under Section 319 CrPC. | |
| Petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application before High Court. | |
| 23-10-2024 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected the revision application. |
| 03-01-2025 | Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court, after examining the testimony of PW3, decided to summon the petitioners under Section 319 of the CrPC. The petitioners challenged this decision by filing a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. The High Court, however, rejected the revision application, affirming the Trial Court’s order. The High Court agreed with the Trial Court’s assessment that the evidence presented by PW3 was sufficient to summon the petitioners as additional accused.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in this case is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This section empowers a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence presented during the trial that such a person has committed an offense. The relevant part of Section 319 CrPC states:
“Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.”
This provision allows the court to ensure that all individuals involved in a crime are brought to justice, even if they were not initially charge-sheeted by the police. The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and is to be exercised judiciously based on the evidence presented during the trial.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Trial Court should not have summoned them as additional accused because the Investigating Officer (IO) had filed a closure report exonerating them. They contended that the Trial Court and the High Court should have considered this report, which stated that the petitioners were not connected with the alleged crime.
The petitioners relied on the closure report, which detailed the investigation’s findings. The report stated that the complainant, Raghvendra Singh Tomar, had implicated several individuals, including the petitioners, in the FIR. However, the investigation, including statements from various witnesses and call detail records, suggested that the petitioners were not present at the scene of the crime. For instance, the report noted that Omi alias Omkar Rathore was seen in a bank between 4:00 to 5:00 pm on the day of the incident, and other witnesses stated that other accused were at home or elsewhere.
The prosecution argued that the trial court has the power to summon additional accused based on the evidence presented during trial, irrespective of the police’s closure report. They emphasized that the testimony of PW3, who was the original first informant, directly implicated the petitioners in the crime.
The prosecution relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226, which clarified that a trial court is not powerless to summon individuals as accused even if they were not charge-sheeted by the police. This decision highlighted that the power under Section 319 CrPC is triggered when evidence surfaces against a proposed accused during the trial.
| Petitioners’ Submissions | Prosecution’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| Trial Court should have considered the closure report filed by the IO. | Trial Court has the power to summon additional accused based on evidence presented during trial under Section 319 CrPC. |
| The closure report exonerated the petitioners, stating they were not involved in the crime. | Testimony of PW3 directly implicated the petitioners in the crime. |
| The investigation, including witness statements and call detail records, suggested the petitioners were not present at the scene of the crime. | Relied on S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226, which allows summoning of additional accused based on evidence during trial, even if not charge-sheeted. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the Trial Court was justified in summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, despite the police having filed a closure report exonerating them.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Trial Court was justified in summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, despite the police having filed a closure report exonerating them. | Yes | The Court held that the Trial Court has the power to summon additional accused based on evidence presented during trial, irrespective of the police’s closure report. The testimony of PW3 directly implicated the petitioners, and the court is not bound by the police’s findings at the stage of summoning. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | The Court reiterated the principles laid down in this case regarding the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing that it is a discretionary and extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, based on strong and cogent evidence. |
| Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Another (2021) 12 SCC 608 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case, which approved of relying upon deposition which has not suffered cross-examination for the purpose of invoking Section 319 CrPC, but also noted the standards fixed for invoking such power. |
| S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize that even if the police file a charge-sheet without implicating a person named in the FIR, the trial court is not powerless to summon them as additional accused based on evidence during the trial. |
| Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | The Court analyzed the provision to determine the extent of the trial court’s power to summon additional accused based on evidence presented during the trial. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Petitioners argued that the closure report should have been considered and that they should not have been summoned. | The Court held that the trial court is not bound by the closure report at the stage of summoning and can summon additional accused based on the evidence presented during the trial. |
Authorities:
✓ Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92: The Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly, only when strong and cogent evidence is present.
✓ Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Another (2021) 12 SCC 608: The Court noted that while a deposition not yet cross-examined can be relied upon for Section 319 CrPC, there are standards that must be met.
✓ S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226: The Court emphasized that the trial court is not powerless to summon individuals as accused even if they were not charge-sheeted, if evidence surfaces during the trial.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the evidence presented during the trial, specifically the testimony of PW3, who directly implicated the petitioners in the crime. The Court emphasized that the trial court is not bound by the police’s closure report at the stage of summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised based on strong and cogent evidence, and the trial court had correctly applied this principle.
| Sentiment | Percentage | Color |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence of PW3 | 40% | |
| Power of Trial Court under Section 319 CrPC | 30% | |
| Rejection of Closure Report | 20% | |
| Principles of Natural Justice | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage | Color |
|---|---|---|
| Fact | 70% | |
| Law | 30% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the argument that the closure report should have been given more weight, but rejected it, stating that the trial court’s power under Section 319 CrPC is triggered by evidence presented during the trial, not by the police’s findings during investigation. The Court also considered the principles of natural justice, ensuring that the petitioners would have the opportunity to present their case before the Trial Court.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the trial court has an independent power to ensure that all individuals involved in a crime are brought to justice, even if the police investigation did not initially implicate them. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised based on strong and cogent evidence, and the trial court had correctly applied this principle.
The Supreme Court quoted from Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92:
“Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant.”
The Court also quoted from S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226:
“It needs to be highlighted that when a person is named in the FIR by the complainant, but police, after investigation, finds no role of that particular person and files the charge-sheet without implicating him, the Court is not powerless, and at the stage of summoning, if the trial court finds that a particular person should be summoned as accused, even though not named in the charge-sheet, it can do so.”
Key Takeaways
✓ A trial court has the power to summon additional individuals as accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, based on the evidence presented during the trial, even if the police had filed a closure report exonerating them.
✓ The trial court’s power under Section 319 CrPC is not controlled by the police’s findings during the investigation.
✓ The testimony of a witness during the trial can be sufficient grounds for summoning additional accused, provided it presents strong and cogent evidence.
✓ The closure report filed by the police pales into insignificance if the trial court finds sufficient evidence to summon additional accused.
✓ This judgment reinforces the trial court’s independent role in ensuring all individuals involved in a crime are brought to justice.
✓ The principles of natural justice will still apply, and the petitioners will have the opportunity to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the closure report should be looked into promptly by the court concerned and an appropriate order should be passed, one way or the other, after hearing the defacto-complainant.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a trial court’s power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC is not curtailed by a police closure report. The court can act independently based on the evidence presented during the trial. This judgment reinforces the trial court’s role in ensuring that all individuals involved in a crime are brought to justice, even if they were not initially charge-sheeted by the police. This case clarifies that the court’s power under Section 319 CrPC is triggered by evidence presented during the trial, and not by the police’s investigation findings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court’s decision to allow the summoning of the petitioners as additional accused. The Court reiterated that the trial court has the power to summon individuals as accused based on evidence presented during the trial, even if the police had filed a closure report exonerating them. This judgment reinforces the trial court’s independent role in ensuring all individuals involved in a crime are brought to justice and clarifies the scope of Section 319 of the CrPC.