Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Sanjeev Goyal and another – Petitioners
Versus
Gagan Goyal - Respondent
CRM-M-45163, 45237 of 2016
Decided On : 02-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate
The court has the power to allow additional evidence in exceptional cases to serve the interests of justice, as provided under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
additional evidence - Criminal - Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. - Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Appellate Court to take further evidence or direct it to be taken. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 391 and its purpose to prevent a guilty person from escaping due to a careless or ignorant action by the prosecution. It referred to relevant case law that recognized the power of the court to allow additional evidence in exceptional cases to serve the interests of justice. The court concluded that the application for additional evidence should be heard immediately after it is filed, without waiting for the appeal to be finally heard.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed petitions under Sections 482 and 483 of the Cr.P.C. to set aside an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The order disposed of the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for allowing additional evidence in two criminal appeals. The petitioner sought to produce documents to prove his possession over a property. The impugned order allowed the documents to be placed on record but deferred the decision on their exhibition until the final arguments. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds of contradiction and material illegality.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. and relevant case law. It noted that the power to allow additional evidence should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where it serves the interests of justice. The court referred to the principles of fair play, justice, and the well-being of society. It observed that the primary object of Section 391 is to prevent a guilty person from escaping due to a careless or ignorant action by the prosecution. The court also considered the arguments of the respondents and their reliance on Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It concluded that the application for additional evidence should be heard immediately after it is filed, without waiting for the appeal to be finally heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order suffered from material illegality and contradiction. It set aside the order and allowed the petitioner to produce the documents as additional evidence in the appeals. The court emphasized that the documents were of public nature, undoubted origin, and authenticity, and their production was essential for a just and proper decision of the case. It relied on previous judgments that recognized the power of the court to rectify mistakes and allow additional evidence to correct any negligence or oversight in the prosecution's case.
Result: The petitions were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the applications for additional evidence were allowed. The petitioner was permitted to produce the documents in question as additional evidence in both appeals.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
This order disposes of CRM-M-45163-2016 titled Sanjeev Goyal and another Vs. Gagan Goyal and CRM-M-45237- 2016 titled as Sanjeev Goyal Vs. Hira Lal Goyal and another as the same have arisen out of common order and involve common questions of facts and law.
2. The petitioner has filed above-said petitions under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for setting aside order dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2012 titled as 'Sanjeev Goyal Vs. Gagan Goyal' and Criminal Appeal No.422 of 2012 titled as 'Hira Lal Goyal Vs. State of Punjab', whereby application filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for allowing him to produce on record material documents by way of additional evidence for proper adjudication of the matter was disposed of.
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that on 10.10.2001 when Basisth Dubey was present at kothi 5/1 of complainant Sanjeev Goyal and construction of kothi No.5/1 and 5/4 the Mall, Ludhiana was in progress. At about 2:00 p.m. accused Hira Lal Goyal accompanied by 3 unidentified persons trespassed and gave beatings to him and two labourers Tilak Raj and Ram Kewal, criminally intimidated them and asked them to stop the construction. On being informed two police officials came from the Police Station but they first visited accused Hira Lal Goyal and then came to them and recorded his statement in Punjabi and instead of protecting them asked him to stop construction. Basisth Dubey sent telegram to SHO, Police Station, Division No.5, Ludhiana, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and D.I.G. Ludhiana range Ludhiana in this regard. Thereafter on 11.10.2001, Hira Lal Goyal accompanied by his sons Amit Goyal and Gagan Goyal, Sukhdev Singh and Gurdial Singh forcibly entered into Kothi No.5/1 the Mall Ludhiana and demolished a portion of the boundary wall and threatened Bashisht Dubey, Bindeshwari and Rajesh with dire consequences. Representation in this regard was given to DIG and IG, Ludhiana personally and was also sent by registered post. On 13.10.2001 at about 10.00 P.M., Hira Lal Goyal and his sons Amit Goyal and Gagan Goyal, who were standing on the first floor of their residence, threatened Bashisht Dubey and Bindeshwari, who went to the backyard of kothi No.5/11 and 5/4 the Mall, Ludhiana for pouring water on newly constructed boundary wall, that they shall get their limbs broken if they did not discontinued pouring the water. Since they continued pouring water accused Hira Lal Goyal and both his sons started throwing brick bats on them and they have to save themselves by running into the house. Accused Hira Lal Goyal and his sons asked them to vacate the premises by evening and threatened to wipe them out from the world if they failed to do so. FIR No.426 dated 14.10.2001 was registered under Sections 477 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. The police investigated the case and on completion of investigation filed report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. against accused Hira Lal Goyal and his sons Amit Goyal and Gagan Goyal. Amit Goyal died during trial. On trial accused Hira Lal Goyal was convicted and sentenced under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC while accused Gagan Goyal was acquitted of the charges by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 16.07.2012.
4. Accused-Hira Lal Goyal filed Criminal Appeal No.422 of 2012 titled as 'Hira Lal Goyal Vs. State of Punjab' against his conviction and complainant Sanjeev Goyal filed Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2012 titled as 'Sanjeev Goyal Vs. Gagan Goyal' against acquittal of accused-Gagan Goyal. During pendency of the appeals, complainant Sanjeev Goyal filed application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for p
