JUDGMENT 1. - During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal by which the appellants have challenged the conviction by the trial court by Judgment dated 27.3.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, district Karauli in Sessions Case No. 4/96 whereby the accused appellants were convicted as under: Offence Sentence Fine/ln default Chuttan s/o Gulab under section 366 IPC5 years RI Rs. 500/- / 3 months SI under section 376 IPC7 years RI Rs. 500/- / 3 months SI under section 120-B IPC6 months RI - under section 344 IPC3 years RI Rs. 200/- / 2 months SI Pyarelal S/o Gulab under section 366/120B IPC5 years RI Rs. 500/- / 3 months SI under section 376 IPC7 years RI Rs. 500/- / 3 months SI under section 120-B IPC6 months RI------- under section 343 IPC1 years RI Rs. 200/- / 2 months SI 2. Now the appellants have filed an application under section 391 Cr.P.C. by which they have sought directions from this court to permit them to lead evidence in respect of documents i.e. affidavit of prosecutrix Smt. Dhampoori dated 8.9.95 as well as the document executed by the prosecutrix's second husband Gendilal, certified copy of which have been tendered during the course of hearing have been permitted to be taken on record and marked as Exb. C. 1 and Exb. C. 2. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that despite exercise of due diligence the said documents could not be made available earlier to them during the pendency of trial and these documents have recently come to their notice only after their conviction. It has further been contended that Section 391 Cr.P.C. permits the appellants to request the appellate court for such directions as may be necessary with regard to the additional evidence which earlier could not be led by them during trial. He has further contended that there is no bar to the appellate court for issuance of such directions as may be necessary in the interest of justice and in the interest of fair trial of the accused who has earlier been convicted consequent upon the non availability of the aforesaid documents. He has further contended that there is no bar to the appellate court for issuance of such directions as may be necessary in the interest of justice and in the interest of fair trial of the accused who has earlier been convicted consequent upon the non availability of the aforesaid documents. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that it shall not tantamount to filling of lacuna or lapse in evidence and no prejudice will be caused to the prosecutrix if the accused appellants are allowed to lead additional evidence while greater prejudice will ensue as regards non-denial of the same. 4. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following Judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Rajeshwar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal & Another AIR 1965 SC 1887 , Raghunandan v. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 463 and AIR 1978 SC 59 Bir Singh v. State of U.P. . 5. In the matter of Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. The State of West Bengal (supra), the Apex Court observed as under: "The Code does not make any difference between the ambit of an appeal from an order of acquittal and gives power to appellate court to direct recording the additional evidence appropriately with cases if the ends of justice so demand not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment but there would be failure of justice without it. The power has to be exercised sparingly and only in suitable cases. There are no restrictions on the powers of the appellate court in directing recording of evidence particularly in cases where an appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging his conviction by the trial court." 6. The above view has been fortified by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Raghunandan v. State of U.P (Supra). The Legislative mandate under section 391 Cr.P.C. also envisages a duty upon the appellate court to permit recording of additional evidence in appropriate cases where interest of justice so demands. I am of the view that in the matter of giving direction regarding recording of additional evidence a different yardstick is to be applied in appeals against conviction than in appeal against acquittal. 7. I am of the view that in the matter of giving direction regarding recording of additional evidence a different yardstick is to be applied in appeals against conviction than in appeal against acquittal. 7. In the instant case since, it was circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, and they have shown sufficient cause to tender the document by way of evidence before the trial court for which no permission has been sought during the pendency of the appeal. In my view in all fairness, they should be permitted to lead additional evidence since no prejudice would be caused to the State whereas greater prejudice would be caused to the appellants if they are deprived of the opportunity to lead additional evidence. Similar view was taken by Delhi High Court in the matter of Tokh Ram v. The State & Others 1982 Cri.L.J. 1966 . 8. As a result of the above discussion, the application is allowed and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun in Sessions Case No. 4/96 on 21.8.99 and shall make available the additional evidence (Exb. C1 & C2) before him. The appellants are at liberty to make an application for examination of the witnesses in accordance with law and after recording the additional evidence of the appellants within a period of eight weeks from the date they appears (i.e. on 21.8.99) transmit back the record to this court which is hereby directed to be sent herewith in view of the appeal which is pending. 9. The Registry is directed to transmit the entire record to the trial court as directed above.Application For Additional Evidence Allowed. *******