Mere Assertion That Documents Are Necessary Is Not Enough; Accused Must Explain Relevance And Why Evidence Was Not Produced During Trial, Court Holds
Shimla, June 22: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the power to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 432 BNSS) cannot be invoked merely because a party seeks to strengthen its case after conviction. The Court observed that such power is to be exercised sparingly and only when additional evidence is genuinely necessary to prevent a failure of justice.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a petition filed by an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenging an order of the Sessions Court which had rejected his application for leading additional evidence in a pending criminal appeal.
Background
The petitioner had been convicted by the Trial Court for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment along with payment of ₹8 lakh compensation to the complainant. In default of compensation, he was directed to undergo an additional two months' imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the conviction, the accused preferred a criminal appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Sirmaur. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application under Section 391 CrPC seeking permission to place additional documents on record.
The accused contended that the documents could not be produced during trial due to bona fide reasons and communication difficulties with his counsel, as he resided approximately 500 kilometres away from the court where the trial was conducted. According to him, the documents were essential to establish that the amount mentioned in the cheque did not represent a legally enforceable debt.
Sessions Court Rejected Plea
The Sessions Court rejected the application, holding that the accused had actively participated in the trial and had ample opportunity to produce the documents earlier.
It observed that the power under Section 391 CrPC cannot be exercised to fill up gaps in the defence or to conduct a de facto retrial under the guise of additional evidence. Since the documents were admittedly within the knowledge and possession of the accused during trial, and no satisfactory explanation had been offered for their non-production, the request was declined.
High Court Examines Scope Of Section 391 CrPC
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that Section 391 confers wide discretionary powers upon appellate courts and does not expressly require proof of due diligence. It was submitted that the documents were crucial for proper adjudication and would demonstrate that the complainant had unilaterally added interest and failed to account for certain returned material.
The High Court, however, referred extensively to Supreme Court precedents explaining the scope of Section 391 CrPC.
The Court noted that while appellate courts possess the power to admit additional evidence, such jurisdiction is more restricted than the powers available to trial courts under Section 311 CrPC. The object is to secure the ends of justice and not to provide an unsuccessful party with a second opportunity to improve its case after judgment.
Additional Evidence Cannot Become A Retrial
Relying on decisions including Sukhjeet Singh v. State of U.P., State of Rajasthan v. Asharam, H.N. Jagadeesh v. R. Rajeshwari, and Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that additional evidence may be permitted only where:
- The evidence is necessary to avoid failure of justice;
- The party was prevented from producing it despite due diligence; or
- The facts came to light only during the pendency of the appeal.
The Court emphasized that Section 391 cannot be used as a mechanism to fill lacunae in the defence, reverse adverse findings, or conduct a retrial after conviction.
Mere Claim Of Relevance Insufficient
A significant aspect of the judgment is the Court's observation that a party seeking additional evidence must specifically explain how the proposed documents are relevant to the controversy.
Justice Kainthla noted that the accused had merely stated that the documents were "necessary" and that non-consideration would result in a miscarriage of justice. However, the application failed to explain how the documents would materially assist the appellate court in deciding the issues involved in the cheque dishonour case.
The Court held that a bare assertion regarding relevance cannot justify admission of additional evidence. The applicant must demonstrate the connection between the documents and the defence raised in the case.
Distance From Court No Ground For Additional Evidence
Rejecting the plea that the accused resided nearly 500 kilometres away from the trial court, the High Court observed that the petitioner had actively participated throughout the proceedings and had effectively conducted his defence during trial.
In such circumstances, mere geographical distance could not justify production of documents at the appellate stage.
Petition Dismissed
Finding no error in the Sessions Court's reasoning, the High Court upheld the order rejecting the application for additional evidence and dismissed the petition.
The Court concluded that the accused had failed to establish either the necessity of the documents or any valid reason for not producing them during trial. Consequently, no case was made out for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS).
Key Takeaway
The judgment reinforces that Section 391 CrPC is an exceptional provision intended to prevent failure of justice and not a tool for reopening concluded trials. Parties seeking additional evidence in appeal must establish both the relevance of the proposed material and the reasons why it could not be produced despite due diligence during trial.