Supreme Court Upholds Summoning of Individuals Initially Exonerated in Murder Case

Supreme Court in its current order, held that the Trial Court has powers to issue summoning orders. In this present case the two individuals-Omi @ Omkar Rathore and Sonu Rathore were issued a summon to face trial for murder despite police exoneration of both of them, and when the police have not charged them while submitting a charge-sheet.

Background of the Case:
The case arose from a violent incident in which one Abhishek Tomar was shot dead on February 20, 2018. An FIR was registered against seven accused, including the petitioners Omkar and Sonu Rathore, under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC. In the initially, after conducting a preliminary investigation, the IO filed a closure report acquitting the two petitioners stating that there was no prima facie evidence linking the two petitioners to the crime. The chargesheets were filed against the other accused persons.

However, during the trial, the original informant, Raghvendra Tomar (PW-3), gave a detailed account of the incident, implicating the petitioners in shooting. An application under Section 319 CrPC was filed based on his testimony for summoning the petitioners as accused.

Trial Court and High Court Orders: The learned trial court, on the deposition of PW-3, issued summons to the petitioners for trial. The petitioners filed a revision application to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where it was dismissed upholding the power of the trail court in summoning the petitioners are accused. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the courts had erred in issuing summons against them notwithstanding the closure report exonerating them.

The Apex Court observed the following in its order:

Power of the Court to Summon Even After Closure Report: The Court explained that even if the police give a clean chit to any person during the investigation, the trial court is not precluded from summoning such person as an accused if some evidence tendered during the trial justifies his arraignment.

Summoning Standard Under Section 319 CrPC: The Court, inter alia, placed reliance on its earlier decisions and reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary one and has to be used sparingly. Evidence in respect of the proposed accused has to be "strong and cogent" and not merely sufficient for framing a prima facie case.

Eyewitness Account: The Court said that the original informant, PW-3, had given a direct and detailed account of the incident, naming the petitioners and attributing specific acts to each of them. This prima facie testimony, though without cross-examination as yet, was sufficient to summon the petitioners.

Closure Report Not Binding: The Court made it clear that while the closure report is an important document, it is not binding upon the court; it is the evaluation of evidence presented during the trial by the trial court that matters.

Ultimately, the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Supreme Court and impugned order of the High Court was upheld. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to raise all available legal arguments before the Trial Court, including the closure report, during their defense. The Apex Court emphasized the importance of the eyewitness account in the criminal trial and how it may influence the course of sending summons to more accused and also the discretionary authority given to the courts to summon any person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC, even if he was discharged by the police.

The Apex Court made it clear that the court is concerned with the evidence that surfaces during the trial and not merely with the conclusions reached in the initial investigation.

Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Between: Omkar Rathore & Anr Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr
Date of Order: 03-01-2025