High Court · 2025

CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2025CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRICRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025andCRL MP(MD)Nos.3760, 3770 and 3771 of 2025 CRL RC(MD)No.361 of 2025:1.C.Nepoleon2.Daniel Raj ... Petitioners / Petitioners / Appellants/Accused 1 & 2Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Inspector of Police,South Police Station,Thoothukudi District.(Crime No.1088 of 2010) ... Respondent / Respondent / Respondent /ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in Crl.M.P.No.3271 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2023 against C.C.No.276 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivaikundam, and set aside the same.CRL RC(MD)No.362 of 2025:C.Nepoleon ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Appellant/1st Accused Vs.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Inspector of Police,South Police Station,Thoothukudi District.(Crime No.1057 of 2011) ... Respondent / Respondent / Respondent /ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in Crl.M.P.No.3275 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2023 against C.C.No.277 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivaikundam, and set aside the same.CRL RC(MD)No.363 of 2025:C.Nepoleon ... Petitioner / Petitioner / 1st Appellant/1st Accused Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Inspector of Police,Thoothukudi South Police Station,Thoothukudi District.(Crime No.733 of 2010) ... Respondent / Respondent / Respondent /ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in Crl.M.P.No.3272 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2023 against C.C.No.285 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivaikundam, and set aside the same.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025In all cases:For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lenin KumarFor Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. side)ORDERThese Criminal Revision Cases have been preferred challenging the impugned orders passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in Crl.M.P. No. 3271 of 2023 in Crl.A. No. 19 of 2023, Crl.M.P.No.3275 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.20 of 2023 and Crl.M.P. No. 3272 of 2023 in Crl.A. No. 21 of 2023, dated 01.03.2025, arising out of C.C. Nos. 276 of 2017, 277 of 2017 and 285 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Srivaikundam.2. Factual Background:The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. Nos. 276 of 2017, 277 of 2017 and 285 of 2017. After full trial, they were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Srivaikundam, for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, besides fine. Aggrieved, they preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 19 to 21 of 2023 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. Pending appeals, they filed petitions 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025under Section 391 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to adduce additional evidence, namely the statements and documents of one Mary Bamini and others, including copies of earlier complaints, orders, and medical records. The case of the petitioners is that Mary Bamini, a vital witness, could not be examined during trial owing to her chronic illness and hospitalisation. It was contended that her testimony and documents, including earlier complaints, petitions under Sections 200 and 451 Cr.P.C., and orders of this Court, would establish that the jewels shown as recovered from the accused were in fact seized from her house by police through illegal means and later altered to suit the prosecution version.3. Contentions of the Petitioners:The jewels allegedly recovered from the accused were in fact seized from Mary Bamini’s house by the police on 10.03.2012, without proper seizure mahazar, photographs, or videography. The recovery memo (Form 95) submitted by the investigating officer was returned by the Trial Court due to inconsistencies in particulars. The jewels were 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025later re-submitted after alteration. Mary Bamini had filed several complaints and petitions before the police and this Court, including Crl.O.P. No. 14981 of 2012 and Crl.O.P. No. 10634 of 2021, asserting her ownership of the jewels. Her neighbours, Lakshmi and Saravanan, in C.C. No. 87 of 2014, had also supported her version of forced entry and seizure by police. Since she was aged about 65 years, suffering from diabetes, hypertension, and had undergone amputation of her toes, she could not appear before the Trial Court. Hence, her testimony is necessary at the appellate stage to establish the truth. The petitioners therefore sought permission under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to adduce her evidence along with the connected documents.4. Contentions of the Prosecution:The petitions were filed only to protract the appeal proceedings and to fill up lacunae in the defence case. The jewels seized were those of PW1 Nagarajan, the de facto complainant, and not of Mary Bamini. The documents relied upon by the petitioners had already been the subject of adjudication in earlier proceedings, including C.C. No. 87 of 2014, and related petitions before the Sessions Court and this Court. All those petitions were dismissed. The petitioners and Mary Bamini, being close relatives, are colluding to create false evidence. The Trial 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025Court had already considered the contradictions in the prosecution case, and therefore, no fresh evidence was necessary at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions holding that the documents were irrelevant and that the petitions were vexatious.5. Legal Position:Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the appellate Court to take further evidence if it is necessary in the interest of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held as under:• In Rambhau v. State of Maharashtra1, it was observed that the power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.• In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat2, it was emphasised that discovery of truth is the guiding principle of the justice delivery system.• In Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell3, the Court held that 1(2001) 4 SCC 7592(2006) 3 SCC 3743(1999) 6 SCC 1106/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025additional evidence cannot be permitted merely to fill up lacunae, but may be allowed if it is necessary to arrive at a just decision.Thus, while considering an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., the appellate court must balance two principles:(i) Preventing miscarriage of justice by allowing necessary evidence.(ii) Preventing abuse of process by disallowing attempts to fill up lacunae or delay proceedings.6. Analysis:Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and the records, this Court finds:The documents sought to be produced by the petitioners are mainly connected to earlier proceedings initiated by Mary Bamini against the police, which had already been adjudicated and dismissed. The Sessions Court has rightly noted that the documents and statements relied upon by the petitioners have little relevance to the charges framed against them in C.C. Nos. 276 and 285 of 2017. The recovery of jewels in the present case has already been considered during trial, and contradictions, if any, were open to be argued in appeal. The delay and infirmities alleged in seizure are issues of 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025appreciation of evidence, which the appellate court can examine on the existing record, without requiring additional evidence. The attempt to introduce statements from C.C. No. 87 of 2014, which ended in dismissal, appears to be an afterthought, intended to reopen concluded issues and prolong the appeal. This court has also taken notice of the fact as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said Mary Bamini has passed away.7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in dismissing the applications filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have not made out any exceptional circumstance to permit additional evidence at the appellate stage.8. Accordingly, all these Criminal Revision Cases fail and are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 10.07.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : YesSml8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025To1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.2.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi District.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J., Sml CRL RC(MD)Nos.361 to 363 of 2025 10.07.202510/10