Mistakes in presenting evidence do not equate to filling a lacuna, and courts should allow corrections necessary for justice.

1. The issue raised for consideration in this petition is whether the prosecution can produce an additional document after completing the prosecution evidence.

2. Petitioner is indicted for murder in S.C. No.602 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court - III, Thalassery. The prosecution alleges that on Christmas eve in the year 2010, petitioner caused the death of one Sri. Sathyan and also attempted to murder PW2 and thereby committed the offences punishable under S.302 and S.307 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

3. After the prosecution witnesses were examined, two applications were filed by the Public Prosecutor as CMP No. 4274/2019 and CMP No. 4275/2019 under S.91 and S.311 of the CrPC, respectively. In the first of the applications, prosecution sought to examine the Sub Inspector of Police of Kelakam Police Station as an additional witness while in the latter application, they sought the production of a certified copy of FIR and First Information Statement in crime No. 54 of 2009 of Kelakam Police Station.

4. According to the prosecution, the motive for the crime in the case under trial was a previous incident of restraint and assault by the accused that occurred on 19.04.2009, for which FIR No.54 of 2009 was registered. The prosecution further contended that, instead of producing FIR No.54 of 2009, by a bonafide mistake, FIR No.53 of 2009 was produced and marked to prove the motive. The prosecution prayed that the said document was a vital piece of evidence to prove its case, and hence it was necessary to issue summons to the Sub Inspector of Police who registered FIR No.54 of 2009 of Kelakam Police Station to examine him and also to direct production of the said document.

5. The accused objected to the application and pleaded that the prosecution is attempting to bring about a change in the prosecution case, and if the document is permitted to be brought on record, it will prejudice the defence case.

6. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application after observing that the additional evidence sought to be produced is essential to render a just decision in the case. It was also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the attempt of the prosecution was not to fill up any lacuna but only to tender and mark the correct documents and whether the additional documents will prove the motive for the crime or not can be decided only subsequently.

7. Sri. John S. Ralph the learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the defence had put questions to the witnesses, especially PW2, based upon the document produced as FIR No.53 of 2009 and that there was no mistake in producing the said document, as PW2 himself was a victim in the aforesaid crime. The learned Counsel argued that the entire defence evidence was based upon the alleged motive relying upon FIR No.53 of 2009. However, after realising that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, they are attempting to bring in new evidence for varying the prosecution case. It was further submitted that on an earlier occasion also, the prosecution had sought production of an additional document and despite the objection raised by the defence, the court had allowed the same. The learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution's attempt was only to delay the proceedings further and to overcome the lacuna in its case, which is not permissible under law.

8. Sri. Vipin Narayan, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the failure to produce FIR No.54 of 2009 was a bonafide mistake since, instead of the said document, FIR No.53 of 2009 was produced. The prosecutor further pointed out that the mist