In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No. 17781 of 2024), reaffirmed the principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision, which endorsed the trial court’s order to summon additional accused based on fresh evidence during trial.
Background of the Case
The case stems from the murder of Abhishek Tomar in Gwalior on February 20, 2018. The FIR, registered at Padav Police Station (Crime No. 96/18), initially named seven individuals, including the petitioners, under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, a closure report exonerated the petitioners, Omi Rathore and another accused, citing insufficient evidence of their presence at the crime scene.
During trial, the primary witness and first informant, Raghvendra Tomar (PW-3), testified about the involvement of the petitioners, attributing specific roles to them in the alleged crime. Acting on this testimony, the trial court invoked Section 319 CrPC, summoning the petitioners to stand trial.
Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners moved the High Court, which dismissed their plea, prompting them to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Addressed
1. Scope of Section 319 CrPC
The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 319 grants discretionary powers to summon any person as an accused during the trial if compelling evidence emerges against them. The Court emphasized that:
– The power under Section 319 is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly.
– The test for invoking this power requires evidence that is more than prima facie but less than what is necessary for conviction.
2. Significance of Closure Reports
The petitioners argued that the closure report absolving them of culpability was overlooked by the trial and High Courts. Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court highlighted that courts are not bound by the investigating officer’s conclusions if credible evidence surfaces during trial.
3. Evidence Threshold for Summoning Accused
The Court referred to its earlier rulings, including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak (2017), to underscore that summoning under Section 319 does not require a charge-sheet or inclusion in the original FIR. Evidence presented during the trial holds precedence.
Court’s Observations
The Court remarked:
“The trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the court is satisfied on evidence adduced that such persons should face the trial.”
Rejecting the plea to rely solely on the closure report, the bench observed:
“If satisfaction of the Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative, the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated.”
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the orders of the trial and High Courts. It concluded that:
The trial court acted within its jurisdiction by summoning the petitioners based on the informant’s deposition.
The High Court rightly rejected the petitioners’ challenge, affirming that the trial court followed due process in exercising its powers under Section 319 CrPC.
The Court further stated:
“The petitioners are free to raise all legal defenses during trial, including reliance on the closure report.”
