Failure to utilize opportunities to present defense evidence and the relevance of submitted documents influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to

(i) call for records in Crl.M.P.No.7381 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Session Judge of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu;

(ii) set aside the order dated 08th December 2020 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.7381 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Session Judge of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.

R/w.

(iii) direct the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu to take additional evidence presented in Crl.M.P.Nos.7381 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Session Judge of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.)

1. The petitioner is the 1st appellant before the Sessions Court and arrayed as A-1 in the criminal case before the trial Court and the respondent prosecution registered the case against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 409 r/w.109, 120 (B) IPC. After trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409 IPC r/w. 109 IPC and 120 (B) IPC and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

2. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner has filed appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram, in C.A.No.82 of 2017 and during the argument, the petitioners/accused filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.7381 of 2019 under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to adduce additional evidence. After considering the same, the petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has enough documents to disprove the case of the prosecution and prove the case of the defence, did not file the same, as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the petitioner has not filed these documents. However, the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case and fastened the liability on the petitioner. The learned District Judge expressed his view that the defence failed to prove their case and therefore, convicted all the accused and at the time of arguments in appeal, the learned District Judge expressed his view that the defence would have disproved the prosecution case by producing necessary documents.

4. The petitioner has ample documents to disprove the case of the prosecution and prove the defence. But the Appellate Court dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and during the investigation, some of the petitioners approached for quashing the charge sheet and failed and went upto the Supreme Court and they have also faced the trial and now in order to protract the appeal, they have come forward with the present petition.

5. The Appellate Judge failed to look into the relevant documents and the relevant documents are very much connected to this case. With the above documents, the petitioner would very much establish the defence and it would be helpful to the petitioner and if the documents come to the Court and permitted to be lead in evidence, the judgment would be otherwise and therefore, an opportunity to be given to the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he also filed a petition under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. Even though he filed a petition under Section 243 (2) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, but the trial Court dismissed the petition without looking into the merits of the petition.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity, he failed to utilize the opportunity and he failed to lead the defence evidence and produce these documents. These documents very much available even at the time of closing the prosecution evidence and posted for defence witness and even in the appeal stage, he has not raised any ground