STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus ASHARAM @ ASHUMAL

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus ASHARAM @ ASHUMAL

The High Court erred in allowing the Section 391 Cr.P.C. application to summon and examine the former DCP on the basis of his book stating he had filmed the scene, because the prosecution's case already accepted police presence at the scene on 21.08.2013 and the book did not assert the video was handed to the Investigating Officer or shown to the victim; additionally, the discretionary power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. must be exercised cautiously and only where failure of justice would result without the additional evidence.

Parties
Appellant: State of Rajasthan; Respondent: Asharam @ Ashumal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2023 / Appeal Against High Court Order Dated 10.02.2022 Allowing an Application Under Section 391 Cr.p.c.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment dated 10.02.2022 set aside
Legal Topics
Section 391 Cr.p.c., Section 311 Cr.p.c., Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage, Recall of Witnesses, Right to Speedy Trial
Criminal Procedure Evidence Criminal Law Section 391 Cr.p.c. Section 311 Cr.p.c. Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage Recall of Witnesses Right to Speedy Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Rajasthan

Appellant

Asharam @ Ashumal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2023 / Appeal Against High Court Order Dated 10.02.2022 Allowing an Application Under Section 391 Cr.p.c.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. should be permitted to summon and examine a former DCP alleged to have recorded a video of the scene of crime on his mobile phone
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in directing summoning of the author (DCP) on the basis of statements in a book
  3. 3 Comparative scope and exercise of discretion under Sections 311 and 391 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in allowing the Section 391 Cr.P.C. application to summon and examine the former DCP on the basis of his book stating he had filmed the scene, because the prosecution's case already accepted police presence at the scene on 21.08.2013 and the book did not assert the video was handed to the Investigating Officer or shown to the victim; additionally, the discretionary power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. must be exercised cautiously and only where failure of justice would result without the additional evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment dated 10.02.2022 set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 10.02.2022 allowing the Section 391 Cr.P.C. application is set aside
  • High Court directed to take up the criminal appeal for expeditious hearing