Arur Singh alias Roor Singh and others vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr. P.C.) challenging the impugned order dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure P-2) whereby application moved by the petitioners for permission to lead additional evidence was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by way of additional evidence, petitioners wanted to prove on record the medico legal reports of Gurcharan Singh, Budh Singh and Gurdip Kaur wife of Budh Singh. The said medico legal reports were very necessary to be proved on record for the just decision of the case.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.

Section 391, Cr. P.C. reads as under:-

Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken.

(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.

(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal.

(3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken.

(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry.

Thus, as per the above provision, the Appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence to be led in appeal if it is necessary for the decision of the case. In the present case, petitioners want to prove on record the medico legal reports of Gurcharan Singh, Budh Singh and Gurdip Kaur wife of Budh Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the application has observed that copies of medico-legal reports of Gurcharan Singh and Budh Singh had been attached with the application and as per the same, the said injured had suffered simple injuries. Medico legal reports of Budh Singh and Gurcharan Singh have been placed on record as Annexure P-3 and P-4. The said reports were prepared on 23.11.2005. However, for the reasons best known to the petitioners, the said medico legal reports were not proved on record during trial. Learned counsel has further submitted that medico legal report of Gurpreet Kaur, wife of Budh Singh was also liable to be proved on record. However, a copy of the said medico legal report has not been placed on record with this petition. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same was also not placed on record before the Appellate Court. Petitioners had also not set up any cross version by filing a private complaint, if their cross version was not registered by the Police.

In these circumstances, the learned Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners to lead additional evidence u/s 391, Cr. P.C. Petitioners cannot be allowed to fill up lacuna in their case by resorting to Section 391, Cr. P.C. Petitioners should have been vigilant and should have led all the relevant evidence during trial. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.