- (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. This criminal revision has been filed by the prosecutrix Smt. Rukumani Devi against the order dated 15.5.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Aligarh, in Session Trial No. 965 of 2007 State Vs. Ram Wakil and others under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh whereby the application 143-Kha moved by the revisionist for discharging her to give the sample of her voice to the voice expert has been dismissed.
(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:- "It is altogether a different matter as to whether the lady was being compelled to record her voice or not in the present case, but it is sure that the stage at which the order for recording her voice was given was not the proper stage of trial. The prosecution evidence was going on, the prosecutrix had denied her voice in the C. D. and, therefore, the appropriate stage for controverting her was the stage of defence. Accordingly, the order for recording the voice of the witness during the continuance of the prosecution evidence cannot be said to be proper.;