Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
At this juncture, it needs to be mentioned that at the time when we proposed to re-examine C.W.1 and P.W.13 and to receive additional evidence both oral and documentary, Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant, in fact, raised an objection, on the ground that it would amount to filling up the lacunae in the case of the prosecution. That was rejected by us, by referring to Section 391 and 311 Cr.P.C. Section 391 Cr.P.C. states that if this Court feels the reception of additional evidence to be necessary, then, after recording its reasons, the Court has to take such evidence. Thus, the only bench mark is, whether such additional evidence in this case is necessary or not, to arrive at a correct conclusion. Since in the instant case the age of P.W.3 is very fundamental to do justice, we thought, receiving additional evidence in respect of the age of P.W.3 was absolutely necessary. As we have held already when we passed the interim order, now, we also hold that the action of this Court in receiving additional evidence by examining C.W.1 and questioning P.W.13 in exercise of our power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and in receiving Exs.C-1 to C-5 would not amount to filling up the lacunae in the case of the prosecution and, therefore, this argument is once again rejected.
Before parting with this case, we wish to say, that in this case, had the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who conducted the trial, or the trial Court been vigilant in discharging their obligations under the law in the right manner and in the right way, the valuable time of this Court would not have been wasted in examining two witnesses and by receiving additional evidence. We only expect that this case shall be taken as an eye-opener for the subordinate judiciary as well as the learned Public Prosecutors to realise their responsibilities so as to be vigilant to ensure that "Justice always triumphs".
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 04-08-2016
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
AND
MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
CRL.APPEAL No.269 of 2016
Subramaniam vs The State, rep.by The Inspector of Police,
Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL 170
