LAKHAN SINGH versus AMARJEET SINGH & ANR

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 06-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 820
820
LAKHAN SINGH
v.
AMARJEET SINGH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2191 of 2022)
DECEMBER 06, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – Additional
evidence in criminal appeal – When impermissible – Respondent
no.1-accused was convicted u/s 302, IPC and sentenced to life –
Conviction and sentence challenged by respondent before High
Court, also filed application for recording of evidence in respect of
his plea of unsoundness of mind – Application allowed, Trial Court
was directed to take on record the additional evidence and documents
and to send the file back along with additional evidence – On appeal
by complainant, held: Evidence regarding mental condition of the
respondent was already on record – He also got himself examined
as DW-2 to put forward the aspect of his mental incapacity – Facts
and conclusions in the orders passed by the Trial Court and by
Supreme Court were available before the High Court – While dealing
with the appeal, it ought to have examined the material on record
before taking a decision as to whether any further evidence was
required in the matter or not – Deciding the application for
permission to lead additional evidence in the appeal without hearing
the parties on merits and without examining the record and the
reasoning that prevailed in the Trial Court, cannot be countenanced
– Further, if at all any further evidence was considered requisite, it
could have been taken by the High Court itself or by directing the
registry to do the same, after recording specific reasons therefor –
Impugned order set aside – Criminal appeal restored for
reconsideration of the High Court on merits – Application filed by
respondent also restored – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 84.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – Scope of – Held:
Proposition of taking additional evidence in a criminal appeal
cannot be adopted as a matter of course by the Appellate Court –
Appellate Court could take a considered decision on the prayer for
adducing additional evidence in appeal only after the appeal itself
has been heard on merits and not before.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2191 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2022 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.A. No.1828 of 2020 in Crl. A. No. 453
of 2019.
Tanmay Mehta, Lakshya Gupta, V. K. Sidharthan, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Roshan Santhalia, Ms. Suruchi Jaiswal,
P.V. Yogeswaran, Ms. Vishakha,. Raghav Sharma, Akshit Pradhan, Ms.
Shruti Agarwal, Ms. Janhvi Prakash,. Kartik Dey, Gurmeet Singh Makker,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. By way of this appeal, complainant of the criminal case arising
from FIR No. 211 of 2011 has questioned the order dated 29.03.2022
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.A. No. 1828
of 2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 2019, whereby the High Court
allowed an application moved by the accused-applicant (appellant before
the High Court-respondent No.1 herein) with reference to Sections 311
and 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 and directed the Trial
Court to take on record the additional evidence and documents, as
mentioned in the subject application; and to send the file back along with
additional evidence.
3. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the
said appeal bearing No.453 of 2019 has been filed by the applicant-
respondent No.1 against the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2018
and order on sentence dated 19.12.2018, as passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, West Delhi in relation to FIR No. 211
of 2011, whereby he was convicted of the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and was sentenced to
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1 lakh.
1 ‘CrPC’, for short.
2 ‘IPC’, for short.
LAKHAN SINGH v. AMARJEET SINGH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
4. Looking to the nature of order passed by the High Court and
the order proposed to be passed by us herein, narration of all the factual
aspects is not necessary. Suffice it to notice for the present purpose that
while challenging the judgment and order leading to his conviction and
sentence, the applicant-respondent No. 1 submitted before the High Court
that on the date of incident, h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.