9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against order for summoning witnesses u/s 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The appeal was directed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a capital case. The High Court had ordered the summoning of a witness, Kalicharan, and the officer-in-charge of Pushpanjali Hospital for giving evidence during the appeal hearing. The appellant contended that the High Court failed to provide cogent reasons for recording additional evidence at this stage, especially when Kalicharan had already filed an affidavit favoring the convict. The appellant argued that the impugned order was not sustainable. The Supreme Court examined Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the appellate court to record additional evidence if it deems it necessary, provided that reasons are recorded. The Court emphasized that this power should be exercised cautiously to ensure justice is served and not as a routine procedure. Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted that the purpose of Section 391 is to serve the ends of justice and not to prejudice either the prosecution or the defense. The Court stressed that the discretion granted must be used judiciously, with reasons being a prerequisite for exercising power under this section. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adhere to the essential principles while issuing the directions for summoning witnesses. The Court noted that the issue of summoning Kalicharan for evidence, especially when he had submitted an affidavit contradicting the prosecution's stance, required thorough consideration. The Court concluded that the impugned order lacked proper application of mind and, therefore, set it aside. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was overturned, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh assessment of the need for additional evidence.
|
