SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1862

D.K.JAIN, R.M.LODHA
Ajay Kumar Garg – Appellant
Versus
Gaurav – Respondent


ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 21st August, 2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Capital Case No. 3261 of 2007. By the impugned order, during the course of hearing of the appeal preferred by the convict, respondent No. 1 in this appeal, the High Court has ordered that Kalicharan, who according to the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 had apprehended the said respondent be summoned for giving evidence. The High Court has also summoned the officer-in-charge of Pushpanjali Hospital where the two deceased ladies had been examined/treated, with all the material records for its examination. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant is before us in the appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while exercising its power under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"), the High Court has failed to record any cogent reasons necessitating recording of additional evidence at this stage, particularly where the said Kalicharan has filed an affidavit before the High Court, in favour of the convict, inter alia stating that he had not seen an










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top