HANUMAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter came-up for orders on application No.12007 dated 19.11.2013 filed by the accused-appellants under Sec. 391 Crimial 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:-

(2.) The application under Sec. 391 Crimial 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.