Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) The matter came-up for orders on application No.12007 dated 19.11.2013 filed by the accused-appellants under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for taking the original letters allegedly written by the prosecutrix to accused-appellant-Shri Hanuman and Video C.D. containing her recorded statement as additional evidence. Alongwith the application both the letters as well as Video CD have been filed. The question posed for decision of this Court in this application may be stated as below:- "Whether a statement made by a witness and evidence coming into existence subsequent to the judgment of the trial Court can be permitted to be produced as additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C." The facts and circumstances of the case in brief in which the aforesaid application has been filed and the question has been raised for decision of this Court are that accused-appellants were tried for the offences under Sections 366, 342, 376 (2) (g) and 323 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.1), Jaipur District (Jaipur) in Sessions 2 Case No.52/2010 and each of them was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced for the maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. For the incident of 21.02.2010 allegedly occurred at 7.00 p.m., FIR No.41/2010 came to be registered against the appellants at mid-night of 21.02.2010 and 22.2.2010. During trial statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 28.09.2010 as PW12. After trial the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 9.12.2010 found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences. Feeling aggrieved the appellants filed the appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. on 03.01.2011 and the same was admitted vide order dated 12.01.2011.
(2.) The application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was filed with the averments that after decision of the trial Court prosecutrix met the wife of accused-appellant-Shri Hanuman namely Smt. Kaushalya and infront of mobile camera she made a categorical statement to the effect that the appellants have not committed any offence with the prosecutrix and in fact on her call appellant-Hanuman met with her only for two minutes, but the villagers misunderstood their meeting and under their pressure she made incorrect statement before the trial Court. It was also stated in the application that the conversation between the prosecutrix and wife of the accused appellant-Shri Hanuman was recorded first in the mobile phone and later on it was converted and transferred in the 3 form of Video CD. It was also averred in the application that after the judgment of the trial Court the prosecutrix herself wrote two letters to the appellant-Shri Hanuman in Jail. The first letter was received by him on 8.6.2012 and the second on 30.10.2012. In both these letters the prosecutrix has written that she under the pressure of villagers made false and incorrect statement with regard to the incident by the appellants. It was also stated in the letters that accused-appellant- Shri Hanuman on her call came to meet her and there was no sexual relation between them but the villagers misunderstood their meeting and under their pressure she lodged false and frivolous FIR and she was forced to give a false statement before the Court. It has been prayed in the application that additional evidence in the form of aforesaid letters and Video CD is most relevant to resolve the controversy of the case and for just decision of the same.
(3.) Opportunity to file reply to the application was afforded to the respondent-State of Rajasthan, but the same was not availed.;