High Court Error - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court must examine the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC. Permission to adduce such evidence cannot be granted unless the case sought to be established is already pleaded. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on this legal principle. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, Iqbal Ahmed and another, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.02.1995 against the defendant, Abdul Shukoor. The plaintiffs claimed they had agreed to purchase the defendant's house property for ₹10,67,000, having paid ₹5,00,000 as advance. They pleaded that they had sold their own immovable properties to arrange the funds for this purchase and were always ready and willing to perform thei...

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, ruling that the allegations contained specific details of dowry demands with dates and particulars, which prima facie disclosed offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court clarified that factual defences like misrepresentation are to be adjudicated at trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by the first appellant, Krishnakant Kwivedy, against the respondents for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that negotiations for the marriage between the second appellant (Kwivedy's daughter) and the fifth respondent broke down due to dowry demands. Specific allegations w...

Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, due to serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The investigation was deemed unfair because the investigating officer suppressed affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-7) that favored the accused, and failed to conduct further investigation based on these affidavits. The Court found it unsafe to convict solely on PW-4's testimony given the suppressed material. Facts Of The Case: Sakhawat and Mehndi, appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, appealed a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad dated October 9, 2018, which upheld their conviction for offenses under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I...