LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

State of Rajasthan vs Asharam @ Ashumal

SLP (Crl.) · 2023 INSC 383Decided 17 Apr 2023
SLP (Crl.) No. 2044 of 2022

Background

Asharam @ Ashumal was convicted by a trial court in 2018 of serious sexual offences against a minor, including under the POCSO Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment. While his appeal against conviction was pending before the Rajasthan High Court, he applied under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to bring in fresh evidence: a book written by a former police officer that mentioned he had recorded a mobile phone video of the crime scene. Asharam argued this suggested the victim had been shown the video and "tutored" on how to describe the scene before her formal statement was recorded. The High Court allowed the application and directed that the former officer be summoned as a court witness, and the State of Rajasthan challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding it was based on conjecture rather than sound legal reasoning. It found nothing in the officer's book actually claiming the video was ever shown to the victim or handed to the investigating officer, so it was irrelevant to the tutoring allegation. The Court clarified that the discretion to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage under Section 391 CrPC is narrower than a trial court's power under Section 311, and should be used only when necessary to prevent a genuine failure of justice, not to reopen and relitigate settled factual findings, especially eight years after the incident and after lengthy trial-court examination of witnesses. It directed the High Court to hear the pending appeal expeditiously, given Asharam's lengthy incarceration, without being influenced by the Supreme Court's observations.

Lesson Learnt

An appellate court's power to admit new evidence after a trial verdict is meant to prevent a genuine failure of justice, not to give a convicted person a second chance to re-examine already-tested witnesses on speculative grounds; courts must guard against such applications being used merely to delay appeals.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case