SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 330

P.SATHASIVAM, SWATANTER KUMAR
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) grants the Court the authority to summon the production of any document or thing that it considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the law (!) .

The purpose of Section 91 is to enable the Court to obtain relevant evidence or material that can assist in arriving at the truth or ensuring justice. It provides the Court with a broad discretion to call for such documents or things, which may include records, reports, or other materials that are not already part of the formal evidence but are pertinent to the case (!) .

This section emphasizes the Court's active role in the administration of justice by allowing it to seek additional evidence beyond what has been presented by the parties. It is an important tool to prevent miscarriage of justice by ensuring that all relevant and necessary evidence is available for proper adjudication (!) .

The exercise of this power must, however, be in accordance with the principles of fairness and legality, and the Court should consider whether the documents or things are relevant and necessary for the case before summoning them. The Court's discretion under Section 91 is thus aimed at facilitating a fair and comprehensive trial process [p__].


JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1)These statutory appeals are filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the final judgment and order dated 18/20.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006 whereby the High Court reversed the order of acquittal dated 21.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2001 and convicted Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma (appellant in Crl. A. No. 179 of 2007) under Section 302, 201/120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC together with a fine of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the family of the victim and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three years and also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to further undergo imprisonment for three months. He was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 201/120B IPC to


















































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Based on the provided list of case laws, the overwhelming majority of entries (e.g., Babubhai VS State of Gujarat - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 782, Jangalsai Pando S/o Munda Pando VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2017 0 Supreme(Chh) 469, State of U. P. VS Kuldeep S/o Mahendra - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 632) consistently reference *Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)* (2010) 6 SCC 1 as the leading precedent. The analysis of judicial treatment is as follows:

**Abhay Gupta VS State Of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1594**: This entry explicitly states: "State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1]. ... State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 5 SCC 542 have held to the contrary, they stand overruled." This indicates that specific rulings or aspects of the cases previously held in [2010] 6 SCC 1 have been overruled by the 2019 decision.

**** (Reference to case Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 5 SCC 542): This entry notes that a specific prior decision "does not lay down the correct law."

**Followed/Applied**: The overwhelming majority of the provided list (e.g., Center for PIL VS Union of India - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 396, Lahu Kamlakar Patil VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes (2012), Selvam @ Karuppusamy VS State rep. By its Inspector of Police - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1492, Mukesh Singh VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2023 6 Supreme 329) falls into this category. Courts consistently "rely upon," "follow," or "reiterate" the principles established in *Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, (2010) 6 SCC 1, particularly regarding:

The duties of a Public Prosecutor.

The scope of Section 173(8) CrPC.

Identification processes and fair trial standards.

The treatment of hostile witnesses.

Evidentiary value of cryptic telephone messages.

**Distinguished/Clarified**: While most citations in the list are affirmative, cases referring to earlier precedents (e.g., DEEPAK AGGARWAL VS KESHAV KAUSHIK - 2013 1 Supreme 355) mention that the Court "not accepting the view of Delhi High Court in Oma Shanker Sharma v. Delhi Administration..." represents a specific instance of judicial distinction or correction of a lower court's prior view in favor of the current precedent.

**Devendra Singh VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 712, Sarla Gupta VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1599**: These entries contain lengthy lists of case citations where *Manu Sharma* is cited alongside others (e.g., *Mam Raj*, *Babu v. State of U.P.*). While they are clearly being used as supporting authority, the density of the citations makes it difficult to determine if they are being used solely for the *Manu Sharma* principle or if they are being cross-analyzed for potential conflict. They are categorized here as the primary treatment of the *Manu Sharma* case remains "followed," but the surrounding context involves multiple distinct precedents.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top