TRILOCHAN KAPOOR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has moved an application under section 391 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for placing further documents as evidence on record. It is pleaded that the appellant had taken a stand that he is suffering from mental illness at the time of alleged commission and even during the trial. It is further averred that the appeal was filed in consultation with his wife as the learned counsel who prepared the memo of appeal was not satisfied with the appellant's behavior. When the counsel for the appellant was preparing the case for final argument, his wife also informed the counsel that the day when exhibit-17 was allegedly prepared, the appellant was mentally unfit, and she had taken him to a doctor. The counsel for the appellant advised the appellant's wife to find out the relevant document. On doing so, she discovered the medical certificate dated 23.05.2012 and discharge certificate dated 26.05.2012 annexed and marked as Annexure-A collectively to the application. It is stated that the documents are relevant and goes to the root of the case. Consequently, the application for leading additional evidence.

(2.) A reply has been filed by the State-respondent contesting the application and stating that the appellant has failed to establish how these documents are necessary.

(3.) Mr. B. Sharma learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that a perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that the learned Trial Court has heavily relied upon exhibit-17 against the appellant. He also took this court through the various records of the case. He, therefore, submits that these two documents are necessary, and the application may be allowed. Mr. Sudesh Joshi learned Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent submits otherwise. It is submitted that although the appellant's wife was examined as a defense witness, during the trial she did not depose that on the day of execution of exhibit-17 the appellant was in fact admitted to the hospital. It is his submission that the scope of Section 391 Cr.P.C. is limited to permitting additional evidence when the court finds it necessary and not to fill the lacunae in the case. In support, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajvinder Singh v. State of Haryana (2016) 14 SCC 671 is referred to.