Back
S. K. SAHOO, R. K. PATTANAIK
State of Odisha – Appellant
Versus
Dengun Sabar – Respondent
ORDER
I.A. No.1036 of 2024 filed in CRLA No.750 of 2021
Both the matters are taken up for hearing through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
2. This interim application has been filed under section 391 of Cr.P.C. by the appellants in CRLA No.750 of 2021 for recording of additional evidence of P.W.1 Melita Sabar, who is the informant by way of further cross-examination and allowing the questions mentioned in the questionnaire to be put to P.W.1 in the interest of justice.
3. It is stated in the petition that P.W.1 was examined in C.T. Case No.07 of 2017 in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gunupur on 31.07.2017. In the said trial, all the appellants were found guilty and death sentence was imposed on them. The learned trial Court submitted the proceeding to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence which was registered as DSREF No.01 of 2018. The appellants also preferred an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in JCRLA No.46 of 2018 before this Court. Both the DSREF and the JCRLA were heard together and the judgment was delivered on 05.11.2019 and the matter was remanded back to the learned t
Production of additional evidence – For sake of speedy trial, there should not be denial of justice or grave miscarriage of justice.
The court emphasized that additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. must not prejudice the accused and should only be admitted if necessary to prevent a failure of justice.
Point of Law : Application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal a....
Point of Law : To meet the ends of justice, the door cannot be shut against the accused persons without giving opportunity to cross-examine the witness only after he came to know that in another sess....
The admission of the genuineness of prosecution documents by the defense counsel without summoning the authors of those documents to establish their authenticity is a serious lapse and causes prejudi....
The court ruled that a witness cannot be recalled to confront them with subsequent statements for impeachment, as only previous statements are permissible under the Evidence Act.
Examination-in-chief – Witnesses - Merely providing a witness in such a situation for cross-examination would be of no consequence because witness has to be re-heard keeping in view principle of de n....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the discretionary and obligatory nature of the power to recall and re....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
