Bahadur Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and another

Judgment

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) has been filed by the applicant, Bahadur Singh, seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated

13.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karanprayag, District Chamoli in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2023. By the said order, the learned appellate court rejected the applicant’s prayer to take additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C.

2. The factual matrix, briefly stated, is that the applicant was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karanprayag, on

16.06.2023 under Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and sentenced to undergo three years’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. During the pendency of the criminal appeal challenging the said conviction, the applicant moved an application under Section 391 CrPC on 27.08.2024, Criminal Misc. Application No.352of 2025, Bahadur SinghVs State of Uttarakhand - 1 Ashish Naithani J. seeking to examine the Editors of two Hindi daily newspapers“Rashtriya Sahara” and “Amar Ujala”in order to prove the alleged contradiction between the prosecution version of the leopard skin recovery and the version reportedly presented by the then Superintendent of Police, Chamoli, in a press conference held on 19.10.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the said newspaper reports demonstrate that the seizure allegedly took place from a vegetable truck rather than the public road near

Nandkeshri as alleged by the State. It is urged that permitting such additional evidence is essential for a just decision, and the appellate court erred in mechanically dismissing the application without proper consideration of its relevance.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed application and submitted that the defence had already produced the newspaper articles in original during trial and closed its evidence without moving any application to summon the Editors or correspondents of said publications. It is further submitted that the trial court considered the contents of the newspapers while delivering judgment, and the appellate court rightly found that the belated attempt to summon the Editors was not in the interest of justice, butinstead aimed at delaying the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Section 391 Cr.P.C empowers an appellate court to take additional evidence if it "thinks it necessary" for a just Criminal Misc. Application No.352of 2025, Bahadur SinghVs State of Uttarakhand - 2 Ashish Naithani J. decision. However, this provision is not a carte blanche to reopen the trial or fill gaps in the evidence which could have been filled at the appropriate stage. The power under Section 391 discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, only where the appellate court is satisfied that such evidence is essential for a just and proper adjudication.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajvinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2016) 14 SCC 671, reiterated that Section 391 CrPC cannot be invoked to enable an accused to improve upon a weak defence or to introduce evidence that was within his knowledge but was not produced despite opportunity. Similarly, in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, the Hon’ble Court held that the object of Section 391 is to ensure that justice is done and is not thwarted by some inadvertent omission on the part of either the prosecution or the defence.

8. In the present case, the record reveals that the defence had already produced the said newspaper reports in original before the learned trial court on 06.06.2023. However, the defence did not move any application to summon the Editors or reporters concerned for their examination. Moreover, the judgment dated

16.06.2023 passed by the trial court contains a detailed discussion on the evidentiary value of the newspaper reports, and the trial court recorded specific reasons for not placing reliance on the same.

9. The appellate court, while considering the application under Section 391 CrPC, has taken note of these facts and Criminal Misc. Application No.352of 2025, Bahadur SinghVs State of Uttarakhand - 3 Ashish Naithani J. recorded a categorical finding that the applicant had not shown why the Editors or correspondents could not have been summoned during the trial. The appellate court also noted that no formal steps were taken by the applicant to prove the veracity of the said reports or to corroborate their contents through direct evidence.

10. It is also pertinent to note that the application under Section 391 CrPC was filed more than one year after the filing of the appeal and appears to have been moved only when the appellate proceedings were reaching the stage of final hearing. The timing of the application supports the appellate court’s inference that it was more in the nature of a dilatory tactic than a bona fide attempt to bring crucial evidence on record.

11. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised with circumspection and only where it is shown that the impugned action is manifestly unjust or amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is not for this Court to reappreciate factual findings rendered by the appellate court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 391 CrPC, unless it is shown that such exercise of discretion was arbitrary or perverse.

12. In the case of Hamza v. Muhammedkutty (2013) 11 SCC 150, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, must ensure that there is a clear case of miscarriage of justice or abuse of process. No such case has been made out here. ORDER Criminal Misc. Application No.352of 2025, Bahadur SinghVs State of Uttarakhand - 4 Ashish Naithani J.

13. Having considered the totality of the material placed on record, this Court finds no legal or factual infirmity in the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karanprayag. The application filed under Section 391 CrPC was rightly rejected on the ground that the evidence sought to be introduced was neither fresh nor essential for a just decision of the case, and that the applicant failed to furnish any cogent explanation for not having examined the proposed witnesses during the trial.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Dated: 16.05.2025 (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Misc. Application No.352of 2025, Bahadur SinghVs State of Uttarakhand - 5 Ashish Naithani J.