Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Justice Not Confined to Evidence Initially Produced”: Kerala High Court Upholds Admissibility of Post-Trial Evidence in Acid Attack Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has upheld the admissibility of a post-trial document in a criminal case, underscoring the broad scope of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The decision, delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, emphasized the importance of flexibility in criminal proceedings to ensure a fair and just trial.

The court addressed the pivotal legal issue of whether a document not procured during investigation or produced with the final report can be admitted post-completion of evidence under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. This legal point concerns the admissibility of new evidence in a trial process, particularly in criminal cases.

The petitioner, Shyju, challenged the trial court’s decision allowing the introduction of a disability certificate and the examination of the issuing doctor, asserting that this evidence, produced after the trial’s conclusion, was not permissible. This document, crucially, attested to the victim’s 100% blindness resulting from the acid attack, allegedly perpetrated by Shyju under IPC sections 308, 326A, and 120B read with Section 34.

Relevance of New Evidence: The court clarified that the prosecution’s right to introduce new evidence is not strictly limited to the investigation phase or the final report submission. Referencing several Supreme Court decisions, the court highlighted the importance of admitting essential and relevant evidence to ensure justice, even if it emerges post-trial.

Scope of Section 311 CrPC: Justice Thomas elucidated the broad scope of Section 311, which empowers the court to summon any witness or document deemed essential for a just decision. The provision aims at aiding the objective of a criminal trial – rendering justice – without being confined to the materials initially produced.

Emphasis on Justice Over Procedure: The decision stressed that the introduction of new evidence should not be restricted solely because it was not part of the original investigation or final report. The essentiality of the evidence for a just decision overrides procedural limitations.

Decision The High Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, finding no error in the trial court’s decision to allow the introduction of the disability certificate and examination of the issuing doctor. This decision upholds the principle of justice and the effective application of Section 311 CrPC.

Date of Decision: April 3, 2024

Shyju VS State of Kerala              

 

Latest Legal News