Summoned to Trial: When Witness Testimony Trumps Police Closure


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 

Citation: 2025 INSC 27. [PDF]

Introduction

This Supreme Court case involves a challenge to a High Court decision, which upheld a Trial Court order to summon Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another individual to face trial for murder. The case highlights a critical aspect of Indian criminal procedure, specifically regarding the power of a court to summon individuals as accused, even when the police have filed a closure report stating their non-involvement in the crime. The central issue revolves around the application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) registered at Padav Police Station, Gwalior, concerning offenses under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Initially, seven individuals, including Omi @ Omkar Rathore, were named in the FIR. However, after investigation, the police filed a closure report for the two petitioners, stating they were not involved in the crime. Subsequently, during the trial, the first informant (PW3), Raghvendra Tomar, provided testimony that directly implicated the petitioners in the murder, leading the Trial Court to invoke Section 319 CrPC and summon them to face trial.

The Supreme Court reviewed the case after the High Court rejected the petitioners’ revision application against the Trial Court’s order. This legal battle tests the balance between police investigation and the court's power to ensure justice, exploring the conditions under which a court can disregard a police closure report and bring additional individuals to trial. The Supreme Court's decision clarifies the standards of evidence required for invoking Section 319 CrPC and emphasizes the importance of witness testimony during trial proceedings.

Case Summary

  1. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Padav Police Station, Gwalior, against seven individuals, including Omi @ Omkar Rathore, for offenses of murder and related crimes.
  2. Following an investigation, the police filed a closure report for Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another petitioner, stating they were not present at the crime scene. A charge-sheet was filed against other accused persons.
  3. During the trial, Raghvendra Tomar (PW3), the original first informant, testified in his examination-in-chief, directly implicating Omi @ Omkar Rathore and the other petitioner in the murder of Abhishek Tomar. He stated they were among those who shot at the deceased with the common intention of killing him.
  4. Based on this testimony, the Trial Court summoned the petitioners under Section 319 of the CrPC to face trial along with the other co-accused.
  5. The petitioners challenged the Trial Court's order in the High Court, which was rejected. They then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.
  6. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court stated that the power under Section 319 CrPC allows the Trial Court to summon additional accused if evidence emerges during the trial, regardless of police closure reports.
  7. The Supreme Court clarified that the court is not bound by a police closure report and must independently evaluate the evidence that surfaces during the trial.
  8. The court also noted that the closure report in this case had not been reviewed or accepted by the Trial Court.

Study guide

  1. Section 319 of the CrPC: Understand the purpose and application of Section 319 of the CrPC. It allows the court to summon any person, not already an accused, if evidence during the trial suggests they have committed an offense.
  2. The Role of the Investigating Officer: Examine the role of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in this case. The I.O. filed a closure report for Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another, which was later superseded by the trial evidence.
  3. The Significance of Witness Testimony: Analyze the importance of Raghvendra Tomar's (PW3) testimony in this case. His examination-in-chief provided crucial evidence that led to the summoning of the petitioners. Understand that this testimony was not yet tested by cross-examination.
  4. The Impact of a Closure Report: Evaluate the impact of a police closure report on subsequent court decisions. The Supreme Court clarified that a closure report does not bind the court if trial evidence points towards the involvement of the exonerated individuals.
  5. Standards for Invoking Section 319: Review the standards set in the Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab case regarding the application of Section 319 CrPC. The Supreme Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 is discretionary and should be exercised only with strong and cogent evidence, which is more than a prima facie case but less than what is needed for conviction.
  6. Court's Power to Summon Additional Accused: Study the court's power to summon additional accused persons, even if they were not included in the initial charge-sheet. The court is not powerless even if the police exonerate a person.
  7. The concept of Prima Facie evidence: Understand the concept of "prima facie" evidence and how it differs from the standard of evidence required for summoning under Section 319 CrPC. The court clarified that the evidence needs to be more than just a prima facie case.
  8. Relevant Cases: Understand the significance of cases such as Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak cited in the judgment. These cases highlight the court's power to rely on deposition not yet cross-examined when invoking Section 319 CrPC and to summon accused persons even if not charge-sheeted.
  9. Court's Discretion: Note that the power under section 319 of the CrPC is a discretionary power, which is to be used sparingly.
  10. The Importance of Trial Evidence: Recognize that the power under Section 319 CrPC is based on the evidence adduced in court during the trial, not on materials available in the charge-sheet or case diary.

Rationale

  1. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power, to be exercised sparingly, and only when the circumstances of the case warrant it.
  2. The court reiterated that the standard for invoking Section 319 requires strong and cogent evidence against a person, which is more than a prima facie case for framing charges, but falls short of the evidence required for conviction.
  3. The Court clarified that a closure report filed by the police does not make the court powerless. The court can summon individuals as additional accused if evidence emerges during the trial.
  4. The court stressed that its power under Section 319 is based on the evidence adduced before it and is not controlled by the police naming or not naming a person in the FIR or charge-sheet.
  5. The Supreme Court found that the testimony of the first informant, Raghvendra Tomar (PW3), directly implicated the petitioners in the crime. His testimony was deemed strong and cogent enough to trigger Section 319 CrPC.
  6. The court rejected the argument that the trial court should have given weight to the police closure report before summoning the petitioners, and observed that the Investigating Officer’s satisfaction is not determinative when the court assesses evidence during the trial.
  7. The court highlighted that the trial court should not reject an application for the addition of new accused by solely considering records of the Investigating Officer.
  8. The Court noted that the closure report in this case was yet to be examined and accepted by the Trial Court, and in view of the evidence which arose during the trial, the report has been deemed insignificant.
  9. The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court should not keep a closure report pending for too long and should look into it promptly.
  10. The Supreme Court concluded that even when an individual is named in the FIR but not included in the charge sheet, they can be summoned if trial evidence suggests their involvement in the offense.

FAQ

Q.1. What is Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)?

Answer: Section 319 of the CrPC empowers a court to summon any person not already an accused to face trial along with the existing accused persons, if it appears from the evidence presented during the trial that they have committed an offense.

Q.2. Why were Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another not initially charged by the police?

Answer: The police filed a closure report for Omi @ Omkar Rathore and the other petitioner after their investigation. The report stated that evidence indicated they were not present at the crime scene and included alibi evidence. This closure report recommended not charging the petitioners due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Q.3. What key evidence led the trial court to summon Omi @ Omkar Rathore under Section 319 CrPC?

Answer: The key evidence was the testimony of the first informant (PW3), Raghvendra Tomar, who stated in his examination-in-chief that Omi @ Omkar Rathore was among those who shot at the deceased with the intention of killing him. This direct testimony was deemed strong and cogent enough to trigger Section 319.

Q.4. Did the courts consider the closure report filed by the police exonerating the petitioners?

Answer: Yes, the closure report was presented as an argument by the petitioners. The Supreme Court noted that although the trial court should consider closure reports promptly, they become less relevant when trial evidence points to the guilt of an individual. The decision to summon additional accused is based primarily on trial evidence.

Q.5. What are the legal standards a court must follow before invoking Section 319 CrPC?

Answer: The court must have "strong and cogent evidence" to invoke Section 319 CrPC, which is more than a prima facie case, but less than what is needed for conviction. The evidence must be compelling and indicate a strong probability of guilt.

Q.6. Can a person named in the FIR, but not included in the charge-sheet, be summoned under Section 319 CrPC?

Answer: Yes, the Supreme Court clarified that even if a person was named in the FIR but not included in the charge-sheet after the police investigation, they can still be summoned under Section 319 CrPC if the court finds sufficient basis from the trial evidence.

Q.7. Does the Court’s power under Section 319 CrPC depend on the police charge-sheet?

Answer: No, the court's power under Section 319 CrPC is independent of the police charge-sheet. The court can summon an individual even if the police have not charged them or have exonerated them, based on strong evidence presented during the trial.

Q.8. What is the final ruling of the Supreme Court, and what are the implications for the petitioners?

Answer: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. Omi @ Omkar Rathore and the other petitioner must stand trial for murder. However, they can still raise all available legal defenses in the Trial Court, including those mentioned in the closure report.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reinforces the broad powers of the Trial Court under Section 319 CrPC. This case clarifies that courts are not bound by police closure reports and must independently evaluate evidence presented during the trial. The judgment highlights the importance of witness testimony and the need for a thorough examination of evidence, ensuring that all culpable individuals are brought to justice, even if initially exonerated by the police. The power of the court is based on evidence which surfaces during the trial, and is independent of the police investigation.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more