Crl. Rev.no. 1347 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev.no. 1347 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 23-08-2011 Sarabjit Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Balwinder Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.K.Verka, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.B.S.Goraya, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Sr. DAG, Punjab MAHESH GROVER, J This petition is directed against the order dated 9.5.2011 vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C praying for permission to adduce additional evidence has been declined by the Appellate Court before whom the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction was pending. The petitioner suffered a conviction in the year 2008 and preferred an appeal alongwith which he made an application for permission to adduce additional evidence by invoking powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The prayer was declined by the learned Trial Court by noticing that the petitioner had been given numerous opportunities to adduce his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the power under Section 391 Cr.P.C can be invoked and exercised by the Appellate Court if it is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. He has relied Crl. Rev.no. 1347 of 2011 (O&M) 2 upon cases titled as Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana reported as 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 970, M/s Hindustan Food Products India vs State of M.P. And another reported as 2008(2) RCR (Crl.) 825 and Umesh vs. State of Rajasthan reported as 2004 (4) RCR (Crl.) 785. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a case titled as Gave Dei vs. Subasini Dei and another 1998 Crl.Law Journal 3071 to contend that the petitioner never took up the plea that he is now intending to take and thus the prayer has been rightly declined by the learned Appellate Court. I have considered the matter and have evaluated the contentions that have been raised before this Court. The prayer of the petitioner is that he was not present on the date of occurrence and to substantiate such a plea he has sought the permission of the Court to adduce additional evidence so as to produce the records of the office where he was present on the date of such occurrence. The aforesaid plea which the petitioner proposed to take up was thus the plea of alibi to evade the prosecution story against him. But if his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is seen then except for mere denial he has not taken the plea of alibi. There is no qualified denial by the petitioner whereas such a plea ought to have naturally occurred to a person who is accused of the commission of an offence and who was naturally expected to deny the involvement in such an occurrence by pleading a just and a fair excuse. The petitioner was offered numerous opportunities during the trial but he did not rake up this plea of alibi at any stage of the trial. There is indeed no doubt that the powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C are vast enough so as to enable the Court to permit the production of such an evidence if it Crl. Rev.no. 1347 of 2011 (O&M) 3 appears to it to be just for the enhancement of the fair trial and proper adjudication of the case. But if the same power is invoked to fill up the lacuna left in the case either on account of casual intent or on account of oversight then exercise of such a power is likely to result in prejudice to atleast one of the parties. The Court is therefore required to take a holistic view of the situation before it exercises its power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. The conduct of the person who has been accused of the commission of any offence is thus of paramount importance in understanding the distinction between the truthfulness of the plea and the falsity thereof. As observed earlier a person who is accused is expected to come out with the natural version which is the most truthful to him and it is for that purpose that when the entire material of the prosecution is put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C, his side of the story should flow from him as naturally as is expected of a truthful person. The proceedings before a criminal Court are not like a revolving door that defence pleas can be taken up at any stage or altered at will. The petitioner never took up this plea of alibi and at this belated stage when he is already confronted with a conviction permitting of such a plea to come in through back door would be defeating the ends of justice. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. August 23, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge