Godman's appeal delay tactic rejected: SC says no to new evidence 8 years after crime
Asharam sought to summon a cop who wrote a book about the case, claiming a video proved the victim was tutored. The Supreme Court found no link and called the move a delay.
8
years.
Asharam sought to summon a cop who wrote a book about the case, claiming a video proved the victim was tutored. The Supreme Court found no link and called the move a delay.
A self-styled godman convicted of raping a minor tried to call a police officer as a witness in his appeal—because the officer wrote a book about the case. The Supreme Court just shut it down.
Eight years after the crime. A life sentence hanging over him. Asharam—known as Ashumal—saw a chance. A former Delhi police officer had written a book about the case. In it, he mentioned he had recorded a video of the crime scene on his mobile phone. Asharam's lawyers argued that this video had been shown to the victim to tutor her—to coach her on what to say. If that were true, the entire conviction could unravel.
The Supreme Court wasn't buying it. On April 17, 2023, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh set aside the Rajasthan High Court's order that had allowed Asharam to summon the officer as a witness. The court called the application a "dilatory tactic" and held that the proposed evidence was "misconceived both in fact and law." The bench's words hung in the air—the courtroom fell silent as the order was read out, the judge's voice steady, the file on the dais thin but decisive.
August 15, 2013 — the day the crime began
At his ashram—called a 'Kutiya'—in Jodhpur, Asharam allegedly sexually abused and raped a minor girl. The ashram's layout was simple: a cluster of rooms, a courtyard where followers gathered, and the Kutiya itself—a small hut-like structure where the godman held private audiences. Four days later, on August 19-20, the victim filed a complaint at the Kamla Market police station in Delhi. The complaint was registered as a Zero FIR (a first information report that can be transferred to the correct jurisdiction) at 2:50 a.m. The next day, August 21, the case was formally registered as FIR No. 122 of 2013 at the Mahila Pashchim police station in Jodhpur.
The trial took five years. On April 25, 2018, the Special Court under the POCSO Act (the law protecting children from sexual offences) in Jodhpur convicted Asharam. He was found guilty under multiple provisions: Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (rape by a person in a position of trust or authority), Sections 5(f)/6, 5(g)/6, and 8 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual assault), and provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The sentence: life imprisonment. The trial court's judgment ran into hundreds of pages, each one a weight on the godman's fate.
When the book became a weapon
Asharam appealed to the Rajasthan High Court. That appeal was pending when his lawyers filed an application under Section 391 of the CrPC (the power of an appellate court to allow new evidence). They wanted to summon Ajay Pal Lamba, a former Deputy Commissioner of Police who had written a book about the case. The book—its cover a stark design, the title promising an insider's account—claimed that Lamba had recorded a video of the crime scene on his phone. And that video, they argued, had been shown to the victim before she testified—tutoring her about the layout and details of the ashram. The defence team's argument was elaborate, but the book itself was silent on the crucial link: it nowhere stated that the video was shared with the investigating officer or shown to the victim.
The High Court allowed the application. The State of Rajasthan—the prosecution—challenged that order before the Supreme Court.
Why the court said no — three reasons
The Supreme Court found the application "misconceived both in fact and law." The bench's reasoning was crisp, the order read with deliberate finality. Here's why.
First, the factual gap. The book nowhere stated that the video was shared with the investigating officer or shown to the victim. Asharam's lawyers were asking the court to assume a chain of events that the book itself did not support. The prosecution never disputed that police officers were present at the crime scene on August 21, 2013—the day after the FIR was registered. So what exactly would Lamba's testimony add? The proposed evidence had no nexus to the factual issue in dispute—whether the video was used to tutor the victim.
Second, the trial court had already dealt with this. The argument that the victim had been tutored was raised and rejected during the trial. The trial court examined the evidence—the victim's testimony, the scene of crime, the statements of witnesses—and found no basis for the tutoring claim. Section 391 CrPC is not a backdoor to re-open issues that have already been decided. The Supreme Court emphasized that the discretion under Section 391 is more restricted than the power under Section 311 CrPC (the power to summon witnesses during a trial) and must be exercised with caution for "good and valid reasons" to prevent a failure of justice.
Third, the timing. The application was filed eight years after the crime. The Supreme Court noted that the right to a speedy trial—including a speedy appeal—is not just the accused's right. It is an obligation the court owes to society and to the victim. Applications that delay proceedings without good reason must be viewed with "heightened scrutiny." The bench observed that the application was a dilatory tactic, impeding the speedy disposal of the appeal. The smell of old paper in the courtroom seemed to underscore the passage of time—years that the victim had waited for finality, years that the convict had spent in incarceration.
Additional evidence in appeal — the rule
The court clarified the standard under Section 391 CrPC. The power to allow additional evidence at the appellate stage is more restricted than the power under Section 311 CrPC. At trial, the court has broader discretion to call any person as a witness if it appears necessary for a just decision. But in an appeal, the court must exercise caution. The evidence must be for "good and valid reasons" and must be necessary to prevent a failure of justice. It cannot be used to delay proceedings or to re-open matters already addressed at trial.
The court cited several precedents, including Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal (1966), Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016), Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2017), P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022), State of West Bengal v. Amiya Kumar Biswas (2004), and Ritesh Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010). The consistent thread across these judgments: additional evidence in appeal is the exception, not the rule. The court must ensure that the appellate stage is not turned into a second trial where new evidence can be introduced at will.
The bench also drew a distinction between the powers under Section 391 and Section 311 CrPC. While Section 311 allows a trial court to summon any person as a witness or to examine any person present in court if his evidence appears essential to a just decision, Section 391 is narrower—it is meant to fill gaps that could lead to a failure of justice, not to entertain fishing expeditions. The proposed evidence from Lamba, the court held, was inconsequential and did not meet this threshold.
The order — and what comes next
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and set aside the High Court's order dated February 10, 2022. It directed the High Court to take up Asharam's criminal appeal for expeditious hearing, noting that the convict has already suffered incarceration for nearly ten years. The court also clarified that its observations were limited to the issue of additional evidence and would not influence the High Court's decision on the merits of the appeal. The case—State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal—was disposed of, but the larger appeal remains pending.
The procedural journey of the case reflects its complexity: a Zero FIR registered at Kamla Market police station in Delhi on August 20, 2013; the formal FIR at Mahila Pashchim police station in Jodhpur the next day; a five-year trial culminating in conviction on April 25, 2018; an appeal pending before the Rajasthan High Court; and now, the Supreme Court's intervention on a narrow point of law. The provisions engaged include Section 391 CrPC (the primary interpretation target), with cross-references to Sections 311, 161, and 162 CrPC. The charged provisions—Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Sections 5(f)/6, 5(g)/6, and 8 of the POCSO Act—remain undisturbed by this order.
THE PLAY: An application under Section 391 CrPC for additional evidence in an appeal must show a direct nexus between the proposed evidence and a live factual dispute—a book mentioning a video is not enough if the book itself does not say the video was used to tutor a witness. The court's discretion is restricted, and dilatory tactics will be rejected with heightened scrutiny.
The book stayed on the shelf. The appeal moved forward. The question now: what will the High Court decide when it finally hears the case on its merits?