Chander Bhan vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The challenge in revision here is to the order of the trial Court allowing the application of the prosecution for production of additional evidence.

The case as set up by the prosecution was that on the midnight of December 6, 1984, the complainant Sube Singh saw his son being beaten by the petitioners in the house of the petitioner Chandru. When he sought to enquire why his son was being beaten, he was threatened and asked to go away. He then ran to his mohalla and came back with Krishna and Hukam Chand but did not find his son there at that time. He was told by the neighbours that his son had been taken to the hospital at Ganaur. When he went to that hospital he did not find his son there but was told by the doctor that his son had been referred to the hospital at Sonepat and at Sonepat he learnt that his son had been sent to Rohtak. The next morning i.e. December 7, 1984, he came to known that his son had died. It is in respect of this incident that the petitioners were arrested and chargesheeted and were standing trial for offences under Sections 148, 304, 342 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The additional evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution consists of the first information report of December 7, 1984, registered at Police Station Ganaur, under Section 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code, at the instance of the petitioner Ram Kishan.

This application for the additional evidence has been moved after all the prosecution evidence has been led, statements of the accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, recorded, and infact even the defence now stands concluded. It was a day after the defence had closed their case that this application was moved. The application has, thus, admittedly been filed at a belated stage and it is on this ground that the main objection to its being permitted was founded. The other contention raised being that the additional evidence cannot be allowed merely to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case.

The power conferred upon the court under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to admit additional evidence is indeed wide and there can be no manner of doubt that such additional evidence can be allowed to be adduced at any stage of the trial, if such evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in such cases. Each case has necessarily to be seen in the context of its own facts and circumstances. Seen in this light, no exception can indeed be taken to the permission granted by the trial Court to the prosecution, to bring on record the additional evidence as prayed for. This evidence is clearly of great relevance and on the face of its appears to be essential for arriving at a just decision of the case. The impugned order of the trial Court, thus, warrants no interference in revision. This order is hereby accordingly upheld and affirmed and this petition is thus dismissed. It is, however, clarified that after recording this additional evidence the trial Court shall afford further an opportunity to the petitioners to lead their defence.