Additional evidence in appeal: Section 391 CrPC permits further examination where it is needed for a just decision

Section 391 CrPC empowers an appellate court to take additional evidence when it is necessary for a just decision, and the provision is not limited to recalling a witness only for reference to an earlier statement under the Evidence Act. Delay by itself is not a complete answer where the appeal remains pending and no material prejudice or undue delay is shown. A later statement by an approver may still be considered if it bears on the truth of the matter, even if said to be outside the formal legal process. The text distinguishes cases where recall is impermissibly sought after full examination on a prior statement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to summon the approver for further examination in the pending appeal under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The earlier refusal was founded mainly on delay, but delay alone could not be treated as a complete answer where the appeals were still pending and the requested examination was not shown to cause material prejudice or delay. Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not confined to recalling a witness for reference to a prior statement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; it enables an appellate court to take additional evidence whenever it considers such evidence necessary for a just decision. The later statement made by the approver, though asserted to be outside the formal legal process, could not be ignored merely on that ground if it had a bearing on the truth of the matter. The facts were distinguishable from cases where recall was impermissibly sought after a witness had already been fully examined on a true previous statement.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon the approver for further examination was held to be erroneous, and the request for additional evidence was allowed.

---