Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Section 319 CrPC: Trial Courts Can Summon Additional Accused!

Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court’s Power to Summon Additional Accused: Key Ruling on Section 319 CrPC

In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the discretionary authority of trial courts under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to summon additional accused during the trial, even if they were not named in the charge sheet. The case, Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, centered on two petitioners implicated in a murder trial, where the trial court exercised its powers under Section 319 CrPC to summon them based on key witness testimony, despite a closure report exonerating them.

The judgment, delivered on January 3, 2025, underscores that trial courts are not constrained by charge sheets or closure reports and can add individuals as accused if strong evidence surfaces during proceedings. This landmark decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring accountability and a fair trial, emphasizing that Section 319 CrPC enables courts to summon additional accused based on evidence that emerges in the course of the trial, irrespective of initial police findings.

Factual Background

The case originated with the registration of Crime No. 96/18 at Padav Police Station, District Gwalior, under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC (murder, attempt to murder, rioting, and related offenses). Seven individuals, including the petitioners, were named in the FIR.

After the investigation, a closure report cleared the two petitioners due to insufficient evidence, while charges were framed against the other accused. During the trial, the original informant (PW3), Raghvendra Tomar, testified about the attack on Abhishek Tomar, who was shot multiple times near the LIC office on February 20, 2018. Based on PW3’s testimony, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed to summon the two petitioners as co-accused.

The trial court granted the application, which the petitioners challenged in the High Court. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order, leading the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.

Closure Report Highlights

1. Investigation Findings:
   The police filed a supplementary charge sheet implicating some accused but cleared others, including the petitioners, due to a lack of evidence.

2. Witness Statements:
   Testimonies from family members and other witnesses corroborated the absence of some individuals, including the petitioners, from the crime scene.

3. Evidence:
   Call detail records and alibi evidence further substantiated the petitioners’ non-involvement in the crime.

Despite the closure report, the trial court relied on testimony presented during the trial to summon the petitioners as accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, represented by counsel Mr. Anil Kaushik, argued that the trial court and High Court erred in summoning them as accused under Section 319 CrPC, primarily relying on:

1. Closure Report:
   The petitioners emphasized that the police investigation had exonerated them, and the closure report confirmed no evidence linked them to the crime.

2. Judicial Precedents:
   The petitioners cited Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2021) and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), arguing that Section 319 should be invoked sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence emerges during trial proceedings.

3. Lack of Substantial Evidence:
   The petitioners contended that the evidence against them was insufficient to warrant their inclusion as accused, emphasizing the need for compelling evidence as per established legal principles.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioners’ arguments, holding that:

1. Trial Court’s Discretion:
   Section 319 CrPC grants the trial court the authority to summon any person as an accused based on evidence presented during the trial, even if they were not named in the charge sheet.

2. Closure Report Irrelevant:
   The Court clarified that closure reports filed by the police do not bind the trial court’s discretion under Section 319 CrPC.

3. Strong Evidence Justifies Summoning:
   The Court found that the testimony of PW3 provided sufficient grounds for summoning the petitioners, as it indicated their potential involvement in the crime.

4. Judicial Precedents Upheld:
   The ruling reaffirmed principles from Hardeep Singh and Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, emphasizing that Section 319 requires “strong and cogent evidence” but does not demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

In upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the trial court’s power to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based on emerging evidence during the trial. This judgment clarifies that closure reports are not definitive barriers to invoking Section 319, and the trial court retains broad discretion to ensure all involved in a crime face trial. The petitioners were advised to present their defenses during the trial.

This ruling serves as a significant development in criminal law, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding justice by ensuring that all individuals potentially involved in a crime are brought to trial based on substantive evidence.