Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No(s). 17781 of 2024
Decided On : 03-01-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 358] – Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Murder case – Only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from evidence power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised – Power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner – Test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie which is applied at the time of framing of charges – It will all depend upon evidence which is tendered in a given case – Even in a case where stage of giving opportunity to complainant to file protest petition urging upon trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in FIR but not implicated in charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and even those persons named in FIR but not implicated in charge-sheet can be summoned to face trial provided during trial some evidence surfaces against proposed accused – Closure report filed by Police now pales into insignificance in view of order passed by trial court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. summoning petitioners herein to force trial – High Court committed no error not in passing impugned order. (Paras 13, 18, 19, 20 and 21)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 358] – Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Murder case – Trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in charge-sheet or case diary because such materials contained in charge-sheet or case diary do not constitute evidence – It would not be proper for trial court to reject application for addition of new accused by considering records of Investigating Officer – When evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then satisfaction of Investigating Officer hardly matters – If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated – Petition dismissed. (Paras 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
High Court rejected revision application and thereby affirmed order passed by Trial Court summoning petitioners in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. First Information Report came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
It shall be open for petitioners to raise all contentions available to them in law before Trial Court including placing reliance on closure report whatever its worth.
Result : Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dated 23-10-2024 in Criminal Revision No.3172/2022, by which the High Court rejected the revision application filed by the petitioners – herein and thereby affirmed the order passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.233/2018 summoning the petitioners – herein to face the trial for the offence of murder in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The First Information Report bearing Crime No.96/18 came to be registered with the Padav Police Station, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for, short the “IPC”).
3. The FIR came to be registered in all against seven individuals. The FIR includes the name of the two petitioners – herein.
4. At the end of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a closure report so far as the two petitioners – herein are concerned. Against the other accused persons, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences enumerated above.
5. The Trial Court started recording oral evidence. The original first informant – PW3 stepped into the box. In his examination-in- chief, he reiterated what he narrated in the FIR.
6. In his examination-in-chief the PW3 – Raghvendra Tomar, deposed as under :-
2. After this we called an ambulance. As soon as the ambulance arrived, the police also arrived on the spot. As soon as the police arrived, we brought Abhishek to Sahara Hospital by an ambulance. In Sahara Hospital, the doctors declared Abhishek dead. As soon as all his family members arrived then his body was taken for postmortem. I lodged a Dehatinalishi, which is Ex.P/10, whereupon A to A part bears my signature. First Information Report was registered on the basis of Dehatinalishi. The map panchayatnama was prepared before me which is Ex.P/11, on which A to A part bears my signature. Police called me to the police station and questioned me and took my statement. I am able to identify the accused persons. Among the accused persons produced through VC of Gwalior jail, I recognize accused Veeru Tomar, but I do not know the remaining accused Rahul Rajawat and Anand Rathore. I do not recognize to accused Banti alias Ajay produced through VC of Badwani jail. Seeing the accused Prithviraj present in the court, the witness expressed that I do not recognize him. I also do not recognize to the absent accused Gaurav. I do not know to Vikram by name; if he appears in the Court then I can recognize him.”
7. Thus, it appears that in the examination-in-chief, the original first informant categorically deposed against the two petitioners – herein and also attributed a specific overt act.
8. Relying on the oral evidence of PW-3, an application was filed under Section 319 of the Code to summon the two petitioners as accused for the purpose of facing the trial along with the other co-accused.
9. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court summoning them to face the trial preferred Criminal Revision Appl
(1) Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from evidence power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised – Test to be applied....
Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - When strong and cogent evidence comes against a person before the Court and such power should not be exercised in a casual a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise this power, ....
The court clarified that under Section 319 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is sufficient for summoning additional accused, emphasizing that evidence merits are to be assessed during the trial.
The discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., requiring strong and cogent evidence to summon accused persons not named in the charge-sheet.
Section 319 CrPC invocation requires strong cogent evidence where, if unrebutted, conviction likely; prior omissions in complaint and eye-witness statements vitiate reliance on later examination-in-c....
Section 319 CrPC invocation demands strong cogent evidence higher than prima facie, where unrebutted it would lead to conviction; initial FIR and eyewitness omissions undermine later testimony despit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
