Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1827 (PNJ)

Rajesh Jain v. State of Punjab

2016-08-01

A.B.CHAUDHARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner for leading additional evidence. I have perused the reasons given in the impugned order. Undoubtedly, there have been several attempts by the petitioner to delay the proceedings; firstly in the trial court and thereafter before the appellate court and the same have been noted down by appellate court. The petitioner wanted to have some other report dated 28.82015, after he was convicted, as additional evidence which could not be done. The trial took place for about 12 years and at any rate the appellate court has given reasons, which are to the following effect:- “... Even Dr. R.S. Grewal was also examined as CW-3. When these two witnesses appeared in the witness box, not even a single suggestion was given that the MLR prepared by Dr. Manmohan Singh is forged and fabricated document or it has been tampered. Now by moving an application to some Advisor to the Govt. of Punjab, the applicant has taken the opinion that the medical examination is wrong and the MLR by Dr. Manmohan Singh is forged and fabricated document, though there is no suggestion to Dr. Manmohan Singh when he appeared in the witness box that he has tampered with the MLR or that he has prepared forged and fabricated MLR showing the wrong injuries. This report was obtained by the appellant/applicant by moving complaint against Dr. Manmohan Singh and R.S. Grewal in the year 2015 i.e. after around 14 years of the medical examination of injuries on Rajesh Mehta. The power granted under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to the appellant court to take additional evidence is exceptional power against the general rule and only that evidence can be taken by the appellant court which is necessary for the disposal of the case efficaciously. ...” 2. I fully agree with the appellate court rejecting the application for leading additional evidence. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the revision petition.