We now deal with the case of the other appellants. The
submission advanced by Shri Tulsi that the subsequent judgment will
operate as issue estoppel is not correct. First and foremost the
offences are different and distinct. The rule regarding issue estoppel
relates to admissibility of evidence in subsequent proceedings which
is designed to up-set a finding of fact recorded on the previous
occasion and mandates that the finding so rendered on earlier occasion
must operate as issue estoppel in subsequent proceedings. It makes it
impermissible to lead any such evidence at a subsequent stage or
occasion. The attempt on part of Mr. Tulsi is just the opposite. He
seeks to rely on the finding at a subsequent stage to up-set a finding of
fact recorded on a previous occasion. The law on the point was
succinctly stated by this Court in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel
v. State of Gujarat (2012) 7 SCC 621 in following words:
“23. This Court has time and again explained the
principle of issue estoppel in a criminal trial
observing that where an issue of fact has been tried
by a competent court on an earlier occasion and a
finding has been recorded in favour of the accused,
such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res
judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the
trial and conviction of the accused for a different
or distinct offence, but as precluding the
acceptance/reception of evidence to disturb the
finding of fact when the accused is tried
subsequently for a different offence. This rule is
distinct from the doctrine of double jeopardy as it
does not prevent the trial of any offence but only
precludes the evidence being led to prove a fact in
issue as regards which evidence has already been
led and a specific finding has been recorded at an
earlier criminal trial. Thus, the rule relates only to
the admissibility of evidence which is designed to
upset a finding of fact recorded by a competent
court in a previous trial on a factual issue…”
We therefore reject the submission.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1041-1042 of 2008
Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu & Anr. V State Of Punjab
Citation;(2015)6 SCC308
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Print Page
submission advanced by Shri Tulsi that the subsequent judgment will
operate as issue estoppel is not correct. First and foremost the
offences are different and distinct. The rule regarding issue estoppel
relates to admissibility of evidence in subsequent proceedings which
is designed to up-set a finding of fact recorded on the previous
occasion and mandates that the finding so rendered on earlier occasion
must operate as issue estoppel in subsequent proceedings. It makes it
impermissible to lead any such evidence at a subsequent stage or
occasion. The attempt on part of Mr. Tulsi is just the opposite. He
seeks to rely on the finding at a subsequent stage to up-set a finding of
fact recorded on a previous occasion. The law on the point was
succinctly stated by this Court in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel
v. State of Gujarat (2012) 7 SCC 621 in following words:
“23. This Court has time and again explained the
principle of issue estoppel in a criminal trial
observing that where an issue of fact has been tried
by a competent court on an earlier occasion and a
finding has been recorded in favour of the accused,
such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res
judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the
trial and conviction of the accused for a different
or distinct offence, but as precluding the
acceptance/reception of evidence to disturb the
finding of fact when the accused is tried
subsequently for a different offence. This rule is
distinct from the doctrine of double jeopardy as it
does not prevent the trial of any offence but only
precludes the evidence being led to prove a fact in
issue as regards which evidence has already been
led and a specific finding has been recorded at an
earlier criminal trial. Thus, the rule relates only to
the admissibility of evidence which is designed to
upset a finding of fact recorded by a competent
court in a previous trial on a factual issue…”
We therefore reject the submission.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1041-1042 of 2008
Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu & Anr. V State Of Punjab
Citation;(2015)6 SCC308
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
