Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: 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

Latest Legal News