Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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

Latest Legal News