Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present petition may be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

34. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

35. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce additional documentary evidence after conclusion of final arguments, thereby unfairly filling lacunae in its case. It is argued that Section 311 of the CrPC does not permit the introduction of fresh documentary evidence, and that the prosecution failed to follow procedure under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. It is further contended that the prosecution was aware of the missing document earlier but provided no justification for its delayed submission. The petitioner also asserts that new evidence cannot be introduced post-trial without due process. Accordingly, the impugned order is legally unsustainable and may be set aside.

68. The learned Trial Court has specifically noted that allowing the prosecution to introduce the complete screenshot would not result in any expense or material prejudice to the accused, except that he would no longer be able to rely on the technical flaw in the prosecution‟s case in his favor. The Court concerned further observed that in the absence of the complete copy of the document, the prosecution‟s case would suffer significantly, as the missing transaction number on the incomplete screenshot would prevent it from being linked to the alleged forged voucher. Thus, rather than prejudicing the accused, the absence of the complete document would lead to an inconclusive and incomplete assessment of evidence, ultimately affecting the proper adjudication of the matter.