HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
Asharam @ Ashumal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 123/2018
Decided On : 25-01-2022
Additional Evidence - Criminal Law - Section 370(4) IPC, Section 342 IPC, Section 506 IPC, Section 376(2)(f) IPC, Section 376D IPC - The court allowed the summoning and examination of a witness at the appellate stage for the limited purpose of extracting the truth about a video recorded, with the book published at his behest with the title 'GUNNING FOR THE GODMAN, THE TRUE STORY BEHIND ASARAM BAPU'S CONVICTION'.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-applicant sought to summon a police officer as a court witness and to allow cross-examination based on a book authored by the officer, claiming the prosecution case to be false and fabricated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it essential in the interest of justice to summon and examine the witness at the appellate stage to extract the truth about the video recorded, as it could influence the decision of the case.
Issues: The main issue was the authenticity of the evidence and the need for additional evidence at the appellate stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to record additional evidence at the appellate stage should be exercised sparingly and only if essential for the just decision of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and directed the summoning of the witness for recording his evidence as a court witness at the appellate stage.
ORDER
Mehta, J. - The appellant-applicant Asharam @ Ashumal (undergoing imprisonment at the Central Jail, Jodhpur) has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.116/2016 (152/2013) (NCV No.129/2016):
Offences
Sentences
Fine
Fine Default sentences
Section 370(4) IPC
10 Years' R.I.
Rs.1,00,000/-
1 Year's R.I.
Section 342 IPC
1 Year's R.I.
Rs.1,000/-
1 Month's R.I.
Section 506 IPC
1 Year's R.I.
Rs.1,000/-
1 Month's R.I.
Section 376(2)(f) IPC
Life Imprisonment (The remainder of Natural Life of the Accused)
Rs.1,00,000
1 Year's R.I.
Section 376D IPC
Life Imprisonment (The remainder of Natural Life of the Accused)
Rs.1,00,000
1 Year's R.I.
2. While the appeals of the appellant-applicant and the other co-accused persons were listed for hearing, an Interlocutory Application No.01/2021 came to be filed on behalf of the appellant Asharam @ Ashumal under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for taking additional evidence by way of summoning the police officer Shri Ajay Pal Lamba, posted as DCP (West), Jodhpur at the time of the alleged incident, as a Court witness and to allow the applicant to cross-examine him.
3. The foundation of the application is based on the contents of a book authored by the said Shri Ajay Pal Lamba titled as GUNNING FOR THE GODMAN, THE TRUE STORY BEHIND ASARAM BAPU'S CONVICTION". The substratum of the grounds as set out in the application for summoning Shri Lamba as a court witness and to record his evidence in this appeal is based on certain excerpts of the said book.
4. It is asserted in the application is that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. In the handwritten complaint submitted at the Police Station Kamla Market, Central District, Delhi on 19.03.2013 (Ex.P/4), the victim Mst. 'S' (PW-5) claimed to have been ravished inside a hut like room (hereinafter referred to as 'the Kutia') in the Aashram of the appellant-applicant situated at Jodhpur. Neither in this handwritten complaint nor in the statement of the victim recorded on 20.08.2013 (Ex.P/7), was any description of the interiors of "the Kutia" given. Shri Ajay Pal Lamba, visited the crime scene on 21.08.2013 and conducted extensive site inspection and also undertook videography of the crime scene which fact has been described at length in the book, referred to supra.
Advancing his arguments in support of the prayer for summoning of Shri Lamba by way of additional evidence at the appellate stage, Shri Kamat, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant, drew the Court's attention to the following excerpts of the book, referred to supra, wherein, Shri Lamba, wrote:
"I immediately swung into action and sent a team to the location to scan and examine it thoroughly. I also gave clear instructions to the Station House Officer (SHO) of Soorsagar, Sub-Inspector Madan Beniwal, within whose jurisdiction the Scene of Crime (SoC) fell, to seal and secure the entire campus until investigations were completed. The investigating team would be required to visit the SoC multiple times and the evidence, any that remains, would need to be safeguarded. In any case, one would not be very wrong to assume that not much of the Forensic evidence would be found at the SoC because of first, the sheer delay in filing the FIR, and second, whatever important forensic evidence there was, which would have proven crucial for the case, would have most likely been destroyed by now.
..... While I was there, I thought it would be prudent to film a video of the place on my mobile phone, should I need to refer to it at some point during the course of the investigation. And so, I did." (Emphasis Supplied).
5. Shri Kamat referred to the findings of the trial court at para No.191 of the impugned Judgment wherein, it is recorded that the victim had given extensive description of the situation inside 'the Kutia'. Shri Kamat urged that the trial court treated the evidence of the victim to be reliable as she h
Atma Ram vs. State of Rajasthan
Mannan Shaikh and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Another
Rambhau & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra
Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat and Others
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
V.N. Pa til vs. K. Niranjan Kumar
V.N. Patil vs. K. Niranjan Kumar
Vijay Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
AI
Additional evidence – Touchstone of when additional evidence at appellate stage may be taken on record is not impossibility or inability to pronounce judgment in its absence, but whether there would ....
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 upheld the trial court's decision to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based on sufficient evidence from the informant, emphasizing the standard of proof required for such su....
The court reaffirms that police conduct during official duties must not infringe on rights, prioritizing eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt over medical evidence, thus validating convictions ....
Point of Law : Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretion....
Production of additional evidence – For sake of speedy trial, there should not be denial of justice or grave miscarriage of justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.