Sudipa Mahanti Sannigrahi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3715 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sudipa Mahanti Sannigrahi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 August, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                               ( 2025:JHHC:24662 )




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Cr. Revision No. 556 of 2025

Sudipa Mahanti Sannigrahi, aged about 47 years, wife of Sumanta
Sannigrahi, daughter of Sukumar Mahanti, resident of Sector 4-C, B.S. City
Quarter No. 2027, P.O. and P.S. Sector-4, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand
                                                 ...... ... Petitioner
                             Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Sumanto Sannigrahi, son of Sujoy Chandra Sannigrahi,
3. Sujoy Chandra Sannigrahi, son of late Ram Lal
4. Smt. Bela Sannigrahi, wife of Sujoy Chandra Sannigrahi
All are residents of House No. 116E, Krishnapuri, Boaring Road, P.O. and
P.S. Krishnapuri, Patna, Bihar
                                                ..... ...       Opposite Parties
                          --------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Mr. Virat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 : Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Advocate

------

05/ 21.08.2025: Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Shashi Verma, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 127/2024 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Bokaro whereby an application filed by the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 for admitting additional evidence has been allowed and the document which is a judgment filed by the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 is marked as Exhibit-E, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bokaro.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is wife of the O.P. No. 2 and she has instituted C.P. Case No. 173/2013 against the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 under section 498A I.P.C read with section 34 of I.P.C. He submits that the said case was tried and the learned trial court has delivered judgement on 06.07.2024 whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 have been held guilty under section 498A I.P.C. read with section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 500/- each with default clause. He further submits that against the said judgment O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro and during pendency of the said appeal O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 filed application dated 15.05.2025 before the learned Appellate Court for admitting additional evidence which is certified copy of judgment of Matrimonial Case No. 342 of 2015 dated 12.01.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. He then submits that said document has been allowed to be marked as Exhibit-E with objection however the learned court has not given any reason of admitting the said additional evidence in

( 2025:JHHC:24662 )

view of that the case of the petitioner has been prejudiced and to buttress this argument he relied in the case of "Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujrat and Another" reported in (2024) 4 SCC 453. He refers to para 9 of the said judgment which is as under:-

"9. It is apposite to mention that the learned first appellate Court, i.e., the Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar had taken note of the fact that during the trial, the appellant examined the witness of the Bank of Baroda in support of his defence but not a single question was put to the said witness regarding genuineness or otherwise of the signatures as appearing on the cheque in question."

4. Relying on the above judgment he submits that the learned court has passed the order illegally and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that Section 391 Cr.P.C. is corresponding section of 432 of BNSS, 2023 and by way of placing the said section she submits that learned appellate court is having power to allow the additional evidence in presence of both sides and condition precedent is that appellate court has to give reason. She submits that the learned appellate court has given reason and the petitioner was also heard in deciding the said petition and in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

6. Mrs. Shashi Sharma, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the learned court has rightly passed the impugned order. She submits that in the trial court the point of divorce was already argued however the said judgment was not on the record. She submits that said judgment was handed over to the conducting lawyer namely late L.P. Singh however he was not able to file the same and it has later on transpired and in view of that the said judgment was filed. She submits that in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order.

7. The document which has been marked, has been brought on record by way of additional evidence which is judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 342/2015. The certified copy of the said judgment has also been obtained in the year, 2017 and from the trial court judgment it appears that both sides were knowing about the divorce granted by the said judgment.

8. It is well known that if judgment of trial court or any court certified copies are said to be public document. The learned court has given the reason in the impugned order that the document is relevant and necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the present appeal. It appears that learned court has thought that the document is necessary to decide said appeal and reasons have been provided which is mandatory under section 432 of BNSS, 2023.

9. Looking into said impugned order it further transpires that the petitioner was also heard at the time of passing of the said impugned order and thereafter the said document has been marked as Exhibit-E with objection.

( 2025:JHHC:24662 )

10. It is well known that by catena of judgements rendered by the High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court that power to record additional evidence should only be allowed when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that non-recording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.

11. Looking into Section 432 of BNS, 2023, it transpires that if the Court thinks necessary the additional evidence can be taken at the appellate stage.

12. It is well known that if the appellate court finds that certain evidence is necessary in order to enable it to give a correct finding, it would be justified in taking action under relevant section i.e. Section 432 of BNSS, 2023.

13. The primary object of that section is the prevention of guilty man's escape through some careless or ignorance proceeding before the court or vindication of an innocent person who has been wrongfully made accused. Where the appellant court thought some carelessness or ignorance have omitted to record the circumstances essential to elucidation of truth, the exercise of power under that section is desirable. If the appellate court thinks that it is necessary in the interest of justice to take additional evidence it shall do so. There is nothing in the provision limiting it to the cases where has been merely some formal defect. The matter is of discretion of the appellate court. The High Court can exercise the power suo motu.

14. In view of above discussions the Court finds that the learned court has given reason that it is necessary with regard to deciding the appeal. The petitioner was also heard in deciding the said judgment.

15. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ajitsinh Chehuji (supra) has been passed in the facts and circumstances of that case and it is well known that judgments are applicable to the facts and circumstances of each case.

16. What has been discussed hereinabove, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such this criminal revision petition is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-A.F.R.