Criminal revision against rejection of an application to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage after conviction. The High Court allowed taking of the declaration suit and the complainant's statement, directing the appellate court to decide the appeal considering these documents within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:24615]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 523/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Firoz Khan |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. | Ansarul Hak Mansuri | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
A.R. Choudhary, PP |
| Mr. | D.K. Godara with | |
| Mr. | O.P. Sangwa,for respondent NO.2 |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
29/05/2024
The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.07/2019, by which the application filed by the petitioners under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for taking further evidence at the appellate stage was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh vide order dated 19.09.2018 has convicted the petitioners and thereafter the respondent No.2
[2024:RJ-JD:24615]
[CRLR-523/2024]
(2 of 3)
filed a declaration suit on 25.02.2024 before the learned Family Court, Chittorgarh, in which some new facts have been mentioned by the respondent No.2 and the statement of respondent No.2Anisha (PW-1) has been recorded on 26.07.2023, therefore, these two documents may be taken on record for just decision of the case.
Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners. It is also submitted that when the trial Court convicted the petitioners, then at the appellate stage it is not required to produce the documents in the Court, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.
Since these two documents i.e. declaration suit and statement of respondent No.2 Anisha (PW/1) were filed by the respondent No.2 after passing the order of conviction, against the petitioners, by the trial Court and the said documents are very much essential for decision of the said matter.
Therefore, the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Chittorgarh, while rejecting the application of the petitioners with regard to taking the documents on record to the extent of declaration suit as well as statement of respondent No.2, is hereby allowed. The petitioners are directed to produce the documents i.e. declaration suit and statement of respondent No.2 (PW/1) before the concerned appellate Court and the appellate Court is directed to decide the case of the petitioners after considering the documents i.e. declaration suit and
(3 of 3) [CRLR-523/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:24615]
statement of respondent No.2 (PW/1) as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.
In view of above, the revision petition is disposed of. Stay petition is also decided accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
189-Ishan/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should take on record a declaration suit and the respondent's statement (PW-1) under Section 391 Cr.P.C. after conviction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammed Abbas
Abdul Sattar
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Anisha D/o Hisamudhin
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
