(1.) These applications are filed by the appellant under Sections 294, 391 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for and admit the documents marked in a connected case. More than 40 accused persons were allegedly involved in a rape case where the victim was aged 16 and odd years but below 18 years, which is popularly known as Suryanelli case. Excluding those accused who were absconding, the other accused were tried in SC No. 187 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Suryanelli Court), Kottayam, and many of them were convicted and sentenced. One of the absconding accused, namely, Dharmarajan was arrested later and the case against him was tried in SC No. 241 of 2001 and he was convicted and sentenced. The accused persons filed separate appeals before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence. A Division Bench of this Court heard the Criminal Appeals and acquitted all the accused except Dharmarajan. The Division Bench awarded a lesser sentence to Dharmarajan. The State filed appeals before the Supreme Court. The victim also filed appeals before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court and remanded the Criminal Appeals for fresh disposal.
(2.) In SC No. 241 of 2001, Exts. X2 to X7, X12 and X13 were marked on the side of the defence. In Criminal Appeal No. 877 of 2002 filed by Dharmarajan against his conviction and sentence in SC No. 241 of 2001, a document was marked at his instance as Ext. C2. The prayer in these applications is to call for the aforesaid Exts. and to admit the same as part of documents in Criminal Appeal No. 604 of 2000 arising out of SC No. 187 of 1999.
(3.) The application is very vehemently opposed by the learned Director General of Prosecution. He contended, that Section 391 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable to documentary evidence and the said Section applies only in respect of oral evidence. He relied on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jugal Kishore v. Roshan Lal, 1999 CrLJ 2296.