A.C. Goyal, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 6.8.01, passed by learned Special Judge (Communal Riots) Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 9/2001, whereby the application moved on behalf of the accused petitioner under Section 391 Cr.RC. was dismissed.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the complainant respondent No. 2 Smt. Manju Lata lodged a report at Mahila Police Station, Jaipur, against her husband Manish Kumar and three other accused persons on 16.6.1991, with the averments of dowry demands and beating. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed under Sections 498 A, 323 and 354 IPC against the four accused persons. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. Thereafter the accused petitioners were examined as provided under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution evidence. The accused petitioners Manish Kumar and Ram Chandra examined themselves as defence witnesses and thereafter the learned A.C.J.M. No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated 22/3/2000, convicted and sentenced all the accused petitioners under Section 498 A IPC to undergo one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further undergo one months' simple imprisonment, one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo seven days simple imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. The accused petitioner Shri Suman was also convicted and sentenced with one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 354 IPC. Against this judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 9/2001 filed by the accused petitioners is pending in the Court of Special Judge (Communal Riots), Jaipur.
(3.) An application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the accused petitioners on 8.9.2000 with the averments that the complainant wrote a letter which was produced in the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 22.2.1991, and in that letter the complainant admitted her relations with one Govind. The complainant was cross-examined on this point but that letter could not be produced before the trial court on account of mistake. The complainant filed a complaint also on 27.5.1993, in the Court which was sent to concerned Police Station for investigation and F.R. was submitted after investigation. Thus the complainant is in habit of filing false complaints, therefore, these two documents should be taken on record. Learned Appellate Judge, vide order dated 9.8.2001, dismissed this application on the ground that both the documents were in possession of the accused petitioners and the complainant was cross-examined in detail and thus both the documents could have been produced during the trial and therefore, at this stage the accused petitioners can not be allowed to produce these documents.;