RUKUMANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State.

(2.) The relevant facts for deciding this revision are that the case of rape is going on against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the trial court. In the said Session Trial, evidence of the prosecutrix Smt. Rukumani Devi as PW-1 was recorded and she has been cross examined at length by the defence side. When the prosecutrix was being cross examined, the accused persons moved an application in the trial court and played the impugned C. D. in the trial court with the permission of the court and asked the prosecutrix as to whether the said C. D. had her voice or not. The prosecutrix was cross examined regarding her voice allegedly recorded in the impugned C. D. and she denied the same. It means that she clearly told in cross examination that voice recorded in the said C. D. was not her voice. The trial court at that stage allowed the application of the accused persons vide order dated 24.4.2009 and fixed the date for recording voice of the prosecutrix.

(3.) The order dated 24.4.2009 was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1778 of 2009 Smt. Rukumani Devi Vs. State of U. P. and others. This Court while deciding the aforesaid revision vide order dated 5.5.2009 observed:-