Additional evidence in appeal under Section 391 CrPC is exceptional and cannot be used to fill defence lacunae.

Section 391 CrPC permits additional evidence in appeal only as an exception, where it is necessary to secure the ends of justice, cure an irregularity, or prevent failure of justice, and not to fill gaps in the defence. The accused sought to adduce further evidence but did not properly plead that specimen signatures were necessary or that refusal would cause failure of justice. Since adequate opportunity had already been available at trial, no defence evidence had been led, and the alleged forgery was not raised in the Section 313 statement, the appellate court's refusal to allow additional evidence was not illegal or perverse.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to lead additional evidence in appeal under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether rejection of the application by the appellate court suffered from illegality or perversity.

Analysis: The power under Section 391 is an exception to the general rule that an appeal must be decided on the evidence already on record. It may be invoked only where additional evidence is necessary to secure the ends of justice, to remove an irregularity, or to prevent failure of justice, and not for filling lacunae in the case. The application before the appellate court did not contain a proper pleading that the specimen signatures were necessary or that refusal would result in failure of justice. The accused had already been given adequate opportunity during trial, yet no defence evidence was led, and the alleged forgery of signatures was not taken as a plea in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The application under Section 391 was maintainable in law, but the accused failed to make out a case for its exercise on the facts. The appellate court committed no illegality or perversity in rejecting the request for additional evidence.

---