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, 1973 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. 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, he was of unsound mind and hence, could not have been tried and convicted in this matter; and such a relevant fact had not been considered by the Trial Court. In support of this plea, the applicant sought to rely upon, amongst others, the OPD Reports dated 12.07.2011 and 19.07.2011 along with the Medical Store Bill dated 12.07.2011; and to examine the doctor who had attended on him and prescribed the medicines as also the chemist who had supplied such medicines. Though the High Court expressed that the appeal was remanded back but, issued 3 directions that the Trial Court shall get the evidence recorded after giving shortest possible dates and thereafter, the file shall be returned along with additional evidence.
Appeal is remanded back with the directions to learned Trial Court to take on record the additional evidence and documents as mentioned in the subject application, under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dated 23.01.2020. 4 Thereafter, the file shall be sent back to this Court along with additional evidence recorded.” Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the complainant-appellant has argued that the order dated 20.02.2014, as referred to by the High Court in the order impugned, was indeed considered and affirmed by this Court in the order dated 12.10.2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos. Learned counsel would submit that in the order dated 20.02.2014, the application so made was duly considered by the Trial Court and then, the same was dismissed with reference to the deposition of witnesses examined for the purpose.
In both the aforementioned Medical Reports, and also, the statement made before the trial court by the two court witnesses, respondents had been considered to be fit to face the trial.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that in the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the Trial Court as also the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by this Court, only the aspect as regards the mental capacity of the applicant–respondent No.1 to face the trial came to be considered and pronounced upon but, his mental capacity at the time of incident and his capacity to know the nature of his acts definitely remains a question for consideration and hence, the High Court has not committed any error in allowing evidence to be adduced in that regard before the Trial Court. It is also noticed that in the earlier round of proceedings, the High Court set aside the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the Trial Court and issued directions for examination of respondent No.1 from the specialist/medical board. In the given set of facts and circumstances, when the 8 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. Secondly, if at all any further evidence was considered requisite, in the totality of circumstances of the present case and nature of plea sought to be raised, such evidence could have been taken by the High Court itself or by directing the registry to do 9 the same, of course, after recording specific reasons therefor. 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. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the interim arrangement made by the High Court in its order dated 15.09.2022 during the pendency of the appeal shall continue until the first date of appearance of the parties before the High Court i.e., 10.01.2023. 12 ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-C S U
P R E M E C O U R T
O F
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/courts-jurisdiction-in-re-appraising-arbitrators-findings/
I N D
I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). No 453/2019 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
LAKHAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/contrary-directions-in-issuance-of-letter-of-intent/
VERSUS AMARJEET SINGH & ANR.
Case Title: LAKHAN SINGH Vs. AMARJEET SINGH (2022 INSC 1327)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002191-002191 / 2022
