In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the discretionary powers of trial courts to summon individuals as accused during trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even when the police have filed a closure report exonerating them. The ruling came in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (SLP [Crl.] No. 17781 of 2024), which was decided by a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.
The court dismissed the special leave petition filed by Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another individual, upholding the decisions of the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court to summon the petitioners based on evidence presented during the trial.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR registered on February 20, 2018, at Padav Police Station in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh (Crime No. 96/18), for offenses under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 147 (rioting), 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were named in the FIR but were not charge-sheeted following the investigation, as the police filed a closure report citing a lack of sufficient evidence against them.
The trial commenced against the remaining accused, and during the examination-in-chief of the first informant (PW-3), evidence emerged implicating the petitioners in the alleged offenses. Consequently, the trial court invoked its powers under Section 319 CrPC to summon the petitioners as additional accused. This decision was upheld by the High Court, leading the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
The case centered around the interpretation and scope of Section 319 CrPC, which empowers courts to summon individuals as accused during trial if evidence against them surfaces. The petitioners argued that the trial court and High Court erred by disregarding the closure report and summoning them based solely on untested evidence.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, reiterated the principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC. The court observed:
1. Discretionary Nature of Section 319 CrPC: The court highlighted that Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence emerges during the trial.
2. Closure Reports Do Not Bind the Courts: Quoting precedent, the court underscored that the filing of a closure report by the police does not restrict the court’s authority to summon individuals if fresh evidence arises during trial proceedings. It stated, “The court is not powerless to summon a person named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted if evidence surfaces during the trial.”
3. Prima Facie Threshold: The court emphasized that the standard for invoking Section 319 CrPC is higher than a prima facie case required for framing charges but lower than evidence warranting a conviction.
4. Caution Against Casual Use: Referring to its earlier judgments in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak (2017), the court reminded trial courts to exercise this power judiciously, ensuring it is based on strong evidence rather than speculation or probability.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another, thereby affirming the orders of the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court to summon the petitioners as additional accused. It held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC based on the evidence provided during the trial.
The Court observed:
“Even when the police have filed a closure report, the trial court is not powerless under Section 319 CrPC to summon a person named in the FIR if strong evidence emerges during the trial.”
“The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, and it should be exercised sparingly. It must be invoked only when compelling evidence comes to light during the trial, demonstrating the involvement of the person not initially charge-sheeted.”
The Court also clarified that the closure report, while significant, does not bind the judiciary from summoning a person if credible evidence arises subsequently. The judgment further emphasized the higher standard of evidence required under Section 319 CrPC, stating that the evidence should be strong enough to create a probability of conviction if unrebutted, but it need not establish guilt conclusively.
In conclusion, the Court reiterated that the trial court has the authority to add new accused during the trial if warranted by evidence, regardless of their exclusion during the investigation phase.
