Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.), MVC v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Background
The appellant, a retired, decorated Army Brigadier and trustee of a regimental welfare trust, was convicted of cheating in connection with a failed land-sale transaction with a complainant who had paid earnest money toward trust land. After conviction, he sought to place on record a Trust Deed and a trustee Resolution, documents already referenced in the trial court's own judgment but never formally proved at trial, and to lead oral evidence proving them. The Sessions Judge (as Appellate Court) rejected this request, and the Allahabad High Court upheld that rejection, calling it a belated and malafide delaying tactic.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Section 391 Cr.P.C. gives an Appellate Court wide discretion to take additional evidence whenever necessary to avoid a failure of justice, and that this power is not restricted to any fixed formula. It found both of the High Court's stated reasons for refusal, that the application was filed too late, and that it was malafide, to be factually unjustified, noting the appellant had applied the very next day after conviction and that an identical Trust Deed had already been proved and led to an acquittal in a parallel case arising from the same transaction. The Court set aside both the Appellate Court's and the High Court's orders, allowed the applications, and directed that the appellant be permitted to lead at least one witness to prove the Trust Deed, with the pending criminal appeal to be decided expeditiously thereafter.
Lesson Learnt
An appellate court's discretion to admit additional evidence exists precisely to prevent injustice from an earlier lapse by counsel: a request to prove a document already referenced in the trial record cannot be dismissed as "delay tactics" without the court actually examining why the evidence matters.