Facts
The petitioner, the de facto complainant, challenged the dismissal of her application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to adduce additional evidence in her appeal against the acquittal of her husband and in-laws in a prosecution arising from Crime No. 12 of 2008.
Source reference: pp. 1–3, paras. 1–2The proposed documents included her marriage invitation, her daughter’s birth certificate, and records relating to other criminal proceedings.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2(c)The trial court had acquitted the accused, including on the grounds that the validity of the petitioner’s marriage had not been established and that the prosecution had not proved the alleged injuries.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, para. 2(b)The appellate court dismissed the application because the documents were available at trial and the petitioner had not sufficiently explained their relevance or why they were not produced earlier.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2(d)Issues
1. Whether the appellate court was justified in dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to receive additional evidence.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Law Applied
Section 391 Cr.P.C. empowers an appellate court to take or direct the taking of additional evidence where it considers that evidence necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8The court stated that this power cannot be used to fill a party’s evidentiary lacuna or to provide a second opportunity to prove a case after the party has had the opportunity to do so at trial.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Reasoning
The court found that the marriage invitation and birth certificate would serve no useful purpose because neither was disputed, and their production would not resolve the trial court’s doubts concerning the validity of the marriage.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6The other records related to criminal cases predating the marriage and were not shown in the petitioner’s affidavit to be relevant to the dispute arising after the marriage.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 7The court also noted that the appeal had been pending since 2022, the application was filed only in 2026, and the delay was not properly explained.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8It therefore found no basis to conclude that receiving the documents was necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Holding
The court held that the appellate judge committed no error or illegality in dismissing the Section 391 Cr.P.C. application.
The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 9Acts & Sections Cited
5 provisions across 4 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Indian Penal Code, 18602
Dowry Prohibition Act, 19611
Original Court PDF
SanthalakshmivsAlangaram
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
