Power of hc when further evidence r found in acquittel case.

Dear Transquality

As per section 167 of Evidence Act 1872

167. No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence.- The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision.

Sir,

As a victim is it possible to file a case against prosecution for the blunder comitted by the police during the investigation and quash the FIR and charge framed based on the investigation.

And request the court to order the prosecution for a fresh trial.

Whether HC is havinng power to override section 167 to render the true justice and hence meet the objective of criminal justice.

Whether Section 167 bars meeting the true justice in the real cases?

Victim might be severely suffering because of the carelesness comitted by the prosecution in such case what could court do in such cae.

What could be the true objective of section 167 of Indian evidence act?

Is it trying to shut the mouth of the suffering victim.

Sir,

Whether section 167 can be split into twop parts.

PART 1 Main Part

No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence.-The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case,

PART 2 Condition for approving Main Part.

if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision.

In such cases Where appellate court feels the evidence as substantial and may vary the decission rendered by the trial court. 

can the appellate court order for allowing the new evidence?

Read the attached judgement

HC has limited power in such cases. Supreme Court as a custodian of the constitution, can ensure justice, regardless to nature of irregularity/omission/new evidence.