In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified the discretionary power granted to trial courts under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The judgment emphasizes that individuals dropped from an investigation, even exonerated through a police closure report, can still be summoned as additional accused if new evidence emerges during the trial.
The Court noted that trial courts are not bound by police findings or closure reports. Instead, they are entrusted with assessing the evidence presented during trial proceedings to determine if someone not originally listed as an accused should face trial. This principle extends to those excluded from the chargesheet or previously cleared by investigators.
Highlighting this, the bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, addressed an appeal concerning a 2018 murder case in Madhya Pradesh. Initially, the police exonerated the petitioners by filing a closure report. However, during the trial, a key witness’s testimony implicated the petitioners, prompting the trial court to summon them under Section 319 CrPC.
Rejecting the petitioners’ objections, the Court underscored that the trial court’s authority to summon individuals is based on evidence presented during the trial, not the conclusions of investigative officers. The ruling affirmed that this power is independent of whether a person was named in the FIR or dropped during the investigation.
The Court also outlined guiding principles regarding the application of Section 319 CrPC:
- Broad Discretionary Power: The trial court can summon any person as an accused if evidence during proceedings suggests their involvement, even if they were not initially charged or were exonerated.
- Evidence-Based Decisions: The summoning must rely solely on trial evidence, not on materials in the chargesheet or case diary.
- Irrelevance of Police Decisions: The authority under Section 319 is unaffected by whether the person was named in the FIR or excluded in the closure report.
- Purpose of Section 319: The provision ensures individuals dropped during investigations but implicated by subsequent evidence are brought to trial.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring that all individuals implicated by credible evidence face justice, irrespective of investigative outcomes.
