Gratuity Is A Statutory Right, Cannot Be Denied On Vague Allegations Of Abandonment: Calcutta High Court Directs Employer To Pay Pending Gratuity With Interest Prosecutrix Is a Victim of Crime, Not an Accomplice — Sole Testimony Sufficient for Conviction If It Inspires Confidence: Bombay High Court Rape Is An Offence Against Society And Not A Matter To Be Left For Compromise: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Under Section 376 IPC And U.P. Conversion Prevention Act Despite Settlement Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Compartmentalized Horizontal Reservation in Sports Quota for MBBS Admissions Total Non-Compliance of Section 42 Vitiates the Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in 25-Year-Old NDPS Case Involving 30 Bags of Poppy Husk An Advocate’s Office Situated in a Commercial Building Qualifies as Non-Residential Use Entitling Eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Criminal History—Conspiracy Allegations Alone Insufficient Without Direct Role in SC/ST Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Vested Right to Retain Government Accommodation After Losing Public Office — Penal Rent Justified for Unauthorized Occupation: Patna High Court These Litigations Appear to Be Luxury Litigations: Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost on Over 6400 Petitioners Seeking Revival of TET-Based Selection Process Rule 6(2) Is Not a Cut-Off Provision—Supreme Court Declares Candidates Eligible If D.El.Ed. Was Completed Before Selection Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Cannot Be Halted on the Basis of Belated and Baseless Custody Without Communication of Grounds Is No Custody in Law —Violation of Articles 21 and 22 Nullifies Arrest and Remand: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Arrest of Music Producer as Illegal Scribe Is Not a Substitute for Attesting Witness—Will Must Satisfy Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects 45-Year-Old Testamentary Claim Removal From Service With Superannuation Benefits Entitles Employee to Pension: Supreme Court Acknowledgment of Liability Extends Limitation — Pendency of Appeal No Ground to Resist Recovery: Supreme Court Sympathy Cannot Override Binding Conditions of Tender: Supreme Court Sets  Aside High Court’s Direction to Alter Applicant’s Group Classification for BPCL Dealership Land Acquisition | Factory Without CLU Can't Claim Land Release Despite Long Possession; However, Compensation Under 2013 Act Granted : Supreme Court Person’s Identity Is Not Lost If a Machine Fails to Recognize Them: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes LIC’s Rejection Over Biometric Mismatch Mother Cannot Mask Paternity to Satisfy Ego: Bombay High Court Rejects Petition to List Woman as ‘Single Parent’ in Child’s Birth Certificate Transferee Pendente Lite Is Bound by the Decree—Cannot Obstruct Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Revisional Court for Overreach Higher Placement in Seniority List Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court Upholds Direction to Consider Contractual Worker for Appointment on Par with Others Regularised CBI Investigation is Not to Be Ordered Routinely on Vague Allegations: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Order Directing CBI Probe in Extortion Case When Aggressors Trespass Armed into a Dwelling and Cause Fatal Injuries, Exception to Murder Does Not Arise: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction under Section 302 IPC Delayed Payment for 50 Years Warrants Reasonable Interest, But Excessive Rates Cannot Be Granted": Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage Only Allowed to Prevent Injustice and Failure of Justice

03 September 2024 9:49 AM

By: Admin


On 17 April 2023, Supreme Court, in case titled STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ASHARAM@ ASHUMAL ( Asha Ram Bapu Case) , has recently observed that the discretion to allow additional evidence at the appellate stage should be exercised with caution and only in cases where there would be a failure of justice without such evidence. The court also held that the right to fair hearing of both the accused and the prosecution must be considered, and the power to take additional evidence is to prevent injustice and failure of justice.

The State of Rajasthan has appealed a judgment passed by the High Court of Rajasthan which allowed an application by the respondent - Asharam @ Ashumal to summon and record evidence of Ajay Pal Lamba, a former Deputy Commissioner of Police. Asharam has been convicted for various offences including sexual offences and is currently serving a sentence. The victim had given a complaint and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The investigation was conducted by Chanchal Mishra, and both the victim and the investigating officer were examined and cross-examined on several dates.

The respondent, Asharam @ Ashumal, filed an application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the victim had never been inside the house where the offence was committed and that the case against him was false and concocted. The application claims that the victim was tutored based on a video of the scene of the crime shown to her a day prior to the preparation of the spot panchnama/Mauka Naksha and site maps. The application asserts that Ajay Pal Lamba, who was the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, had recorded a video of the scene of the crime on his mobile phone on his first visit to the 'Kutiya.' The impugned judgment allowed the application for summoning and recording evidence of Ajay Pal Lamba primarily based on his statement in the book.

High Court has allowed an application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning and examining Ajay Pal Lamba, who is alleged to have recorded a video of the scene of the crime in which the respondent - Asharam @ Ashumal is accused of sexually abusing and raping the victim. The High Court has directed that Ajay Pal Lamba be summoned as a witness, for the reason that the defence has the right to claim that a video of the crime scene was recorded, which is sufficient to convince the court that it is essential in the interest of justice and for a just decision of the case to exercise the power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. to summon and examine him. However, the Supreme Court finds that the High Court's judgment is unsustainable and mistaken in both facts and law, and the reasoning is based on mere conjectures.

The Supreme Court has opined that the discretion to allow additional evidence at the appellate stage should be exercised cautiously and only when there is a failure of justice without such evidence. The right to fair hearing of both the accused and the prosecution must also be considered. The power to take additional evidence in an appeal is to prevent injustice and failure of justice, and thus, must be exercised for good and valid reasons necessitating the acceptance of the prayer. The court must balance the rights of the accused with the interests and rights of the victim and society.

Supreme Court found that the test to allow additional evidence was not satisfied, and the attempt was to re-open the entire case and seek re-examination of witnesses at the appellate stage. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The High Court was requested to take up the appeal for expeditious hearing, as the respondent had already suffered incarceration for nearly ten years.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS ASHARAM@ ASHUMAL

Similar News