Satyawati v. The State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. Present application has been filed by the appellant/mother of the victim under Section 391 Cr.P.C. seeking leave of this Court to place on record the additional evidence, namely, video of the incident site taken by the brother of the deceased, copy of the representation made to the DCP seeking change of the Investigating Officer, bank statement showing 2019:DHC:6831-DB withdrawal of Rs.[6] lakhs in cash to prove that the money was given at the time of the marriage of the deceased for purchase of a car, prescription from Max Hospital to show that PW-5-elder brother of the deceased was occupied with the treatment of his daughter and hence could not personally go to invite the in-laws of the deceased despite it being his own son’s ‘Naamkaran Ceremony’ as well as a copy of the attendance register to show that on 02nd April, 2012, PW-5-elder brother of the deceased took a half day leave to attend the rally where demand for Rs.50,000/- was made for the elections.

2. At the outset, Mr.R.K.Saini, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant states that he is confining his prayer to production of the video of the incident site taken by the brother of the deceased. He states that its production would facilitate the Court in reaching a just and fair conclusion. He also states that the brother of the deceased had requested the Additional DCP vide letter dated 26th November, 2012 to incorporate the photographs and video taken by him on his mobile phone as a part of the chargesheet.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused states that the present application is an effort to introduce new facts which have been raised for the first time at the stage of appeal. He submits that the present application is highly belated and it is an attempt to cover up the lacunae in the case of the prosecution. He emphasises that the appellant/applicant had engaged a private counsel to represent her on all dates of hearing.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajeswar Prasad Misra Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 1887 as well as in Rambhau & Anr.Vs. State of Maharashtra; (2001) 4 SCC 759 and Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine 72 has held that an order under Section 391 Cr.P.C. must not ordinarily be made if a party has had a fair opportunity to lead evidence and has not availed of it unless the requirements of justice dictate otherwise.

5. Having perused the present application as well as the paper book, this Court finds that the appellant/applicant, who is the mother of the deceased, as well as PW-5 – Mr.Prashant Singh, elder brother of the deceased and PW- 18 – Mr.Nishant Singh, younger brother of the deceased had appeared before the Trial Court regularly. In fact, the statement of the appellant as well as PW-5 and PW-18 were recorded over a long period of time. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the family members of the deceased including an appellant/applicant have had ample opportunity to bring to the notice of the Trial Court the evidence, now sought to be brought on record by way of the present application.

6. It is pertinent to mention that none of the aforesaid witnesses had even whispered in their depositions about the so-called additional evidence in their possession. Further, no reason has been given in the present application as to why the said additional evidence was not brought to the notice of the Trial Court during the trial, particularly when they had been appearing before the Trial Court regularly.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed. MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J DECEMBER 10, 2019 KA