Fair trial requires chance to rebut fresh evidence; reliable eyewitness and documentary proof can sustain convictions despite minor discrepancies.

When a court exercises its power to call and examine fresh evidence in a criminal case, fairness and natural justice require that the accused be given a reasonable opportunity to rebut that material; refusal to permit defence evidence in answer to it is a serious procedural infirmity. The Court also noted that concurrent findings based on reliable eyewitness, injured-witness and contemporaneous documentary evidence will not be disturbed merely because of minor discrepancies or unproved objections to recovery evidence. On the record, the challenge to the prosecution case failed, and the convictions and sentences were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, after examining additional witnesses under its power to call evidence, was bound to afford the accused an opportunity to rebut that evidence. (ii) Whether the prosecution case was vitiated by the challenge to the recovery of cartridges and the remaining evidentiary objections so as to warrant interference with the convictions.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, after examining additional witnesses under its power to call evidence, was bound to afford the accused an opportunity to rebut that evidence.

Analysis: The power to summon or examine witnesses for the just decision of the case is wide, but its exercise must conform to fairness and natural justice. Where fresh evidence is brought on record against the accused, the accused must be allowed a reasonable chance to meet it, because the right to rebut is integral to a fair trial. Refusal to permit defence evidence in answer to such material causes serious prejudice and amounts to a procedural infirmity.

Conclusion: The refusal to give the accused an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence was erroneous and contrary to fair procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution case was vitiated by the challenge to the recovery of cartridges and the remaining evidentiary objections so as to warrant interference with the convictions.

Analysis: On the evidence accepted by the trial court and supported by the record, the eyewitness testimony was found reliable and was corroborated by prompt lodging of the first information report and by the injured witness. The documentary material prepared contemporaneously by the investigating officer supported the finding that live cartridges were recovered at the spot, and the contrary suggestion was not established. The Court also held that minor discrepancies and omissions did not shake the core prosecution version or displace the concurrent findings of fact.

Conclusion: The challenge on merits failed and the convictions were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not fit for interference, and the convictions and sentences remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: When a court invokes its power to call fresh evidence in a criminal case, the accused must be given a fair opportunity to rebut that evidence; however, concurrent findings of fact supported by reliable ocular and documentary evidence will not be disturbed merely on minor discrepancies.

---