Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order on Additional Evidence in Murder Case: Lakhan Singh vs. Amarjeet Singh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: December 6, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 1345

Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Can a High Court order additional evidence on issues already decided by a trial court and affirmed by the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, setting aside a High Court order that had allowed additional evidence on the mental state of an accused. This case highlights the importance of finality in judicial proceedings and the limitations on appellate courts reopening settled issues.

Case Background

The case stems from a criminal case where Amarjeet Singh (Respondent No. 1) was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, West Delhi, for an offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Amarjeet Singh appealed the conviction to the High Court of Delhi, arguing that he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident and therefore could not have been tried or convicted. He sought to introduce additional evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies, to support his claim.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in its order dated 29.03.2022, allowed Amarjeet Singh’s application to present additional evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies, related to his mental state at the time of the incident. The High Court reasoned that this evidence was crucial to the case and went to the root of the matter, specifically referencing Section 84 of the IPC, which deals with the defense of unsoundness of mind. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to record the additional evidence. This order was challenged by the complainant, Lakhan Singh, in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions:

• Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section allows a court to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, at any stage of any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under this Code.
• Section 391 of the CrPC: This section empowers an appellate court to take further evidence or direct it to be taken if it deems necessary. It 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.”
• Section 330 of the CrPC: This section deals with the procedure when a person is found to be of unsound mind and incapable of making their defense.
• Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section provides a general exception for acts done by a person of unsound mind. It states:
  
  “84. Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”

Arguments

Appellant (Lakhan Singh)’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the High Court’s order was not in conformity with the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 12.10.2015, which had affirmed the Trial Court’s finding that the accused was fit to face trial.
• The appellant submitted that the issue of the accused’s mental capacity at the time of the incident and during the trial had already been considered and concluded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
• The appellant contended that the High Court should not have allowed additional evidence on the same aspects.

Respondent (Amarjeet Singh)’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the previous orders only considered his mental capacity to face trial, not his mental state at the time of the incident.
• The respondent contended that his capacity to understand the nature of his acts at the time of the incident was a separate issue that needed to be considered.
• The respondent submitted that the High Court’s decision was just and proper and served the cause of justice.

The State, represented by the learned ASG, assisted the Court by referring to the provisions of Sections 311, 391, and 330 of the CrPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing additional evidence on the mental state of the accused, when the same issue had already been considered by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the High Court’s order was in conformity with the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 12.10.2015.

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:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on its previous order dated 12.10.2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1345-1346/2015* to emphasize that the issue of the accused’s mental capacity had already been settled.
• The Supreme Court referred to Sections 311, 391, and 330 of the CrPC and Section 84 of the IPC to discuss the powers and limitations of the courts in dealing with additional evidence and the defense of unsoundness of mind.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the issue of the accused’s mental capacity had already been considered by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have allowed additional evidence on the same issue, especially without examining the existing record and the reasoning of the Trial Court. The Court also noted that the High Court failed to consider the Supreme Court’s previous order on the matter.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court should have examined the existing material on record before deciding on the application for additional evidence. The court emphasized that the procedure adopted by the High Court was not in accordance with the principles of law and that the appellate court should not take additional evidence as a matter of course. The court also pointed out that the High Court should have either taken the additional evidence itself or directed the registry to do so, after recording specific reasons.

The Court quoted from the judgment: “In the given set of facts and circumstances, when the evidence was indeed taken for the purpose of dealing with the plea put forward on behalf of the applicant-respondent No.1; and a specific view was taken by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by this Court with reference to the evidence available on record, we find it difficult to approve the approach of the High Court in permitting further evidence of the same nature to be adduced and for that purpose, sending the matter to the Trial Court.”

The Court also stated: “The procedure as adopted in the present matter is difficult to be approved, more particularly when specific evidence as regards mental condition of the applicant–respondent No.1 is already on record and then, it is also seen that the aspect of his mental incapacity was sought to be put forward by respondent No.1 himself by entering into witness-box and getting himself examined as DW-2.”

The Supreme Court further noted: “The proposition of taking additional evidence in a criminal appeal cannot be adopted as a matter of course by the Appellate Court and in fact, the occasion for the Appellate Court to take a considered decision on the prayer for adducing additional evidence in appeal could arrive only after the appeal itself has been heard on merits and not before.”

Key Takeaways

• An appellate court should not allow additional evidence on issues that have already been considered by the trial court and affirmed by a higher court.
• Appellate courts must examine the existing record and reasoning of the trial court before considering an application for additional evidence.
• The power to take additional evidence in a criminal appeal should not be exercised as a matter of course.
• The High Court should have either taken the additional evidence itself or directed the registry to do so, after recording specific reasons.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 29.03.2022 and restored Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 2019 for reconsideration by the High Court in accordance with the law. The Court also restored the application, Cr.M.A. 1828 of 2020, which may be considered at an appropriate stage by the High Court. The parties were directed to appear before the High Court on 10.01.2023. The interim arrangement made by the High Court was to continue until the first date of appearance of the parties before the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should not allow additional evidence on issues that have already been considered by the trial court and affirmed by a higher court, without examining the existing record and reasoning of the trial court. This reaffirms the principle that appellate courts should not reopen settled issues without sufficient justification and that the power to take additional evidence should be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the procedure that appellate courts should follow when considering applications for additional evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Lakhan Singh vs. Amarjeet Singh & Anr. sets aside the High Court’s order allowing additional evidence on the mental state of the accused. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have reopened an issue that had already been decided by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. This judgment reinforces the importance of finality in judicial proceedings and the limitations on appellate courts in reopening settled issues. The matter was remanded back to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

Category

✓ Criminal Law

✓ Criminal Procedure

✓ Section 391, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

✓ Evidence

✓ Additional Evidence

✓ Indian Penal Code, 1860

✓ Section 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Can a High Court allow additional evidence in a criminal appeal?

A: Yes, a High Court can allow additional evidence in a criminal appeal under Section 391 of the CrPC, but this power should be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. The High Court must record its reasons for allowing additional evidence and should consider the existing record and reasoning of the trial court.

Q: What happens if the issue for which additional evidence is sought has already been decided by the trial court and affirmed by a higher court?

A: If the issue has already been decided by the trial court and affirmed by a higher court, the appellate court should not allow additional evidence on the same issue unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The appellate court should not reopen settled issues without sufficient justification.

Q: What is the significance of Section 84 of the IPC in this case?

A: Section 84 of the IPC provides a general exception for acts done by a person of unsound mind. The accused in this case sought to introduce additional evidence to argue that he was of unsound mind at the time of the incident, thereby invoking the protection of Section 84. However, the Supreme Court found that the issue of mental capacity had already been considered and decided by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Q: What does it mean for an issue to be “settled” in a court of law?

A: When an issue is “settled” in a court of law, it means that a court has made a final decision on that issue, and that decision should not be reopened unless there are compelling reasons to do so. This principle of finality is important for ensuring that judicial proceedings are efficient and that parties can rely on the decisions of the courts.