S.391 CrPC | Party Who Wasn't Diligent At Trial Can't Seek To Produce Additional Evidence At Appeal Stage : Supreme Court

A party who was not diligent in producing evidence at the trial stage of a criminal case cannot seek to produce the same in appeal, held the Supreme Court.

The Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that the power to record additional evidence at the appellate stage should not be exercised in a routine and casual manner. Such a power shall only be exercised when non-recording of the evidence may lead failure to justice.

“At the outset, we may note that the law is well-settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that nonrecording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.”

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the refusal of the Appellate Court to accept additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in the appeal filed by the accused against his conviction in a cheque dishonour case. The appellant wanted to produce the evidence of a handwriting expert regarding the signature at the appellate stage.

Noting that the power under Section 391 can only be exercised only if the appellant was prevented from presenting such evidence in trial despite due diligence, the Court noted that the accused had not taken any efforts to disprove his signature at the trial stage. No question was put to the witness from the bank regarding the genuineness of the signature. Also, the cheque was returned not on the grounds of any discrepancy in the signatures.

"...we are of the view that if at all, the appellant was desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and a request could have been made to summon the concerned Bank official in defence for giving evidence regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque," the Court observed.

Also from the judgment- S.138 NI Act | If Accused Is Disputing Signature On Cheque, Certified Copy Of Specimen Signature Can Be Procured From Bank: Supreme Court

Case Details: AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 64

Click here to read the judgment