Supreme Court Allows Additional Evidence in Cheating Case: Brig. Sukhjeet Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: January 24, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 67
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.
Can an appellate court allow additional evidence in a criminal case where the accused claims crucial documents were not presented during the trial? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving allegations of cheating and fraud against a retired Brigadier. The court’s decision highlights the importance of ensuring a fair trial and the power of appellate courts to consider additional evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The case revolves around a Regimental Welfare Trust of the Scinde Horse Regiment, which owned agricultural land in Uttar Pradesh. In 1975, Respondent No. 2 was in possession of 50 acres of this land as a thekedar (tenant). In 1989, a new trust deed was executed, and a resolution was passed to sell the trust land. Following this, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was made with Respondent No. 2, Shri Hargursharan Singh, and other purchasers. Shri Hargursharan Singh paid Rs. 100,400 as earnest money on 03.07.1991 for 40 acres of land. However, the sale did not materialize.

Shri Hargursharan Singh filed a First Information Report (FIR) on 21.12.1991, alleging that despite receiving the earnest money, the accused individuals did not execute the sale deed and had not obtained permission from the court for the sale. A similar FIR was also filed by one Shri Fateh Singh. Consequently, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused, including the appellant, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant and other accused individuals filed applications to quash the FIRs and summoning orders, but the High Court only quashed the charges under Section 406 and 120-B of the IPC. The High Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the appellant and another accused. Subsequently, charges were framed, and the trial commenced. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The appellant then filed a criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, along with two applications under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to introduce the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and Resolution No. 112 as additional evidence. The Sessions Judge rejected these applications. The High Court also dismissed the appellant’s application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in question is Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the power of an appellate court to take additional evidence. This section states:

“391. Appellate court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken .—(1) In dealing with any appeal under this chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate. (2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal. (3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken. (4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry.”

Additionally, Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. outlines the powers of the appellate court, including the power to reverse a conviction, order a retrial, or alter the sentence.

Arguments

The following are the arguments from both sides:

Appellant’s Arguments

• The appellant, a retired Brigadier and Maha Vir Chakra awardee, was a trustee authorized to sell the trust land. He did not receive any money from the complainants.
• The second Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and Resolution No. 112, which authorized the sale, were on record but were not formally proved due to a lapse.
• In a related case (Crime No. 315-A of 1991), the same Trust Deed and Resolution were proved, leading to the appellant’s acquittal.
• The Appellate Court should have exercised its power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. to allow the additional evidence.
• The FIR was a result of malicious prosecution by the complainant, as previously observed by the Supreme Court in another case.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly.
• Allowing additional evidence would lead to a fresh trial.
• Even if the Trust Deed is accepted, it would not serve any purpose, as the contents of the document need to be proved.
• The appellant did not obtain prior permission from the District Judge for the sale of the land.
• The application under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. was filed after a delay of nine months.
• The appellant has not presented a clean copy of the Trust Deed before the court.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Sessions Judge committed an error in not exercising power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. to permit the appellant to lead additional evidence.
2. Whether the High Court committed an error in not exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

• Rajeswar Prasad Misra vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1965 SC 1887: This case clarified that appellate courts have wide discretion to allow additional evidence if it is necessary for justice. The court noted that additional evidence is necessary not merely when it is impossible to pronounce a judgment but when justice would fail without it.
• Rambhau and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 4 SCC 759: This case reiterated the wide discretion available to appellate courts under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that additional evidence should not prejudice the accused or change the nature of the case.
• Parminder Kaur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2010) 1 SCC 322: AIR 2010 SC 840: This case was cited by the appellant to show that the complainant has a history of malicious prosecution.

Statutes

• Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers the appellate court to take additional evidence.
• Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section outlines the powers of the appellate court.

Authority Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Court directed the Appellate Court to allow the appellant to present the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and Resolution No. 112 as additional evidence and to permit the appellant to lead oral evidence to prove the contents of the Deed. The Court also directed the Appellate Court to complete the exercise within six months.

Treatment of Submissions

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The authorities cited by the Court were used to reinforce the principles of justice and the wide powers of the appellate courts to ensure a fair trial.

• Rajeswar Prasad Misra vs. State of West Bengal [AIR 1965 SC 1887]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that appellate courts have wide discretion to allow additional evidence if it is necessary for justice. The Court stated that additional evidence is necessary not merely when it is impossible to pronounce a judgment but when justice would fail without it.
• Rambhau and Another vs. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 4 SCC 759]*: The Court used this case to reiterate the wide discretion available to appellate courts under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that additional evidence should not prejudice the accused or change the nature of the case.
• Parminder Kaur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2010) 1 SCC 322: AIR 2010 SC 840]*: This case was used to highlight the complainant’s history of malicious prosecution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by the need to ensure a fair trial and prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasized that the Trust Deed and Resolution were crucial to understanding the case and that the appellant should be given an opportunity to prove these documents. The Court also noted the lapse on the part of the appellant’s counsel and the fact that the same documents were accepted in a related case leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

Sentiment Analysis

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the arguments that the application was delayed and that it would lead to a fresh trial, but it rejected these arguments. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. is to ensure justice and that the appellate court should not hesitate to exercise its power to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The Court also noted that the High Court was incorrect in its assessment of the case, particularly regarding the delay and the alleged malafide motive of the appellant. The Court highlighted that the appellant had been convicted and had a right to take all steps to secure justice.

The Court stated, “The endeavour of all Courts has to reach to truth and justice.” and further stated, “When Statute grants right to appeal to an accused, he has right to take all steps and take benefit of all powers of the Appellate Court in the ends of the justice.” and also stated “Present is a case where it was due to lapse on the part of the appellant and his counsel that the second Trust Deed, which was basis for taking steps for sale of the land could not be proved.”

The Court held that the appellate court had failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. and that the High Court had erred in upholding the order of the appellate court.

Key Takeaways

• Appellate courts have wide discretionary powers under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. to allow additional evidence to ensure a fair trial.
• The power under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised to prevent a miscarriage of justice, even if it means taking additional evidence at a later stage.
• Lapses on the part of the counsel should not prejudice the accused, especially when crucial documents are involved.
• Courts must consider all relevant evidence to ascertain the truth and ensure justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Appellate Court to:

• Accept the certified copy of the Trust Deed dated 18.10.1989 and the Resolution No. 112.
• Permit the appellant to lead oral evidence to prove the contents of the Deed.
• Complete the exercise within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
• Decide the Criminal Appeal expeditiously thereafter.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the powers of appellate courts to admit additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. The ratio decidendi of the case is that appellate courts should exercise their discretionary powers under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. to allow additional evidence when it is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. This decision emphasizes that the pursuit of justice should be the primary concern of the courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brig. Sukhjeet Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh underscores the importance of ensuring a fair trial and the role of appellate courts in rectifying errors that may lead to injustice. By allowing the appellant to present additional evidence, the Court has reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring that all relevant facts are considered before a final decision is made.