Power of Appellate Court to take Additional Evidence not meant to fill Lacunae: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has fortified the principle that appellate courts cannot be used as a platform to rectify trial-stage negligence, ruling that parties cannot introduce evidence at the appellate stage which was well within their knowledge and possession during the original trial. The Bench clarified that the discretionary power of appellate court to take additional evidence is reserved for preventing a miscarriage of justice, not for rescuing litigants who failed to exercise due diligence.

Justice Sunil Beniwal presided over the matter, evaluating the limits of appellate intervention under the new criminal procedural framework. The Rajasthan High Court addressed a petition challenging an order that refused to allow a bank statement and other documents as additional evidence in a cheque dishonour case that had already resulted in a conviction.

Key Takeaways

Due Diligence Is Mandatory

Parties seeking to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage must prove they were prevented from doing so during the trial despite exercising due diligence.

No Remedy for Trial Lacunae

Appellate courts will not permit the introduction of documents that were within the knowledge of the party during trial but were omitted without sufficient justification.

Discretionary Power Scope

The power of Appellate Court to take additional evidence under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, specifically to advance justice rather than to improve a party's case.

Finality of Trial Proceedings

Litigants cannot revive or introduce arguments at the appellate stage that were available to them during the trial, ensuring the integrity of the primary fact-finding process.

Power of Appellate Court to Record Additional Evidence

The Rajasthan High Court emphasized that while appellate courts possess the authority to permit additional evidence, this power is not a tool for parties to improve upon their case after a conclusion has been reached by the trial court. The Bench noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to lead defense evidence and cross-examine the complainant during the trial proceedings which lasted several years.

The Bench observed that "The provision for taking additional evidence at the appellate stage is not intended to provide a party with an opportunity to fill up the lacunae left in its case during the course of trial or to introduce material which, despite being within its knowledge and possession, was not produced before the trial Court without any sufficient justification. The exercise of such power must be guided by the necessity of the evidence for a just decision of the case and not by the desire of a party to supplement or strengthen its case at a later stage."

Ratio

The power to record additional evidence at the appellate stage is an exception rather than a rule. It can only be invoked if the party was prevented from presenting evidence despite due diligence, if the facts came to light later, or if non-recording would lead to a failure of justice. It cannot be used to fill up deficiencies in evidence or improve a case where the material was already in the party's possession during the trial.

Background

The case arose from a complaint filed in 2014 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner was accused of borrowing Rs. 5,00,000 and issuing a cheque that was subsequently dishonoured. Following a trial, the petitioner was convicted on December 9, 2019, and sentenced to one year of imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 6,50,000.

During the pendency of the appeal filed in 2021, the petitioner moved an application in 2025 seeking to produce bank statements and documents related to another transaction involving one Hari Shanker. The petitioner claimed the cheque was misused and that the alleged loan amount was never credited to his account. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, dismissed the application, noting that no defense evidence was led during the trial and the documents were already known to the petitioner.

In its analysis, the Rajasthan High Court relied on the precedent set in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. ( "2024 INSC 63": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 443), which established that Section 391 of the CrPC (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) requires a showing of due diligence. Finding no cogent explanation for the delay or the failure to produce the evidence earlier, the Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6230/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:48013
Case Title: Bhairu Lal Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kotwani, Mr. Manoj Choudhary
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP, Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, AGA

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 25223