- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Rana Singh under Section 341, Cr.PC against the order dated 10.8.2007 passed by AJC -XI, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 1/2007 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 168/2001.
(2.) BEFORE coming to the merit of the present appeal, the admitted facts on record are relevant for proper appreciation of the merit of the appeal. The appellant Rana Singh is facing trial under Section 302, IPC registered as Sessions Trial No. 168/2001. PW 9, Renu Kumari was examined by the prosecution on 19.5.2003. After this on 18.6.2004 co -accused Munna Rai @ Shatrughan Rai filed a petition that said Renu Kumari was actually Surekha Kumari and she may be prosecuted for giving false evidence. When the trial Court denied to entertain such petition, Cr. Appeal No. 1761/2004 was preferred before this Court, which was disposed of with direction to make enquiry and proceed in accordance with law. The trial Court accordingly conducted enquiry and passed the impugned order discussing the materials available before it at length holding that the appellant failed to make out that Renu Kumari has impersonated Rekha Kumari @ Surekha Kumari as witness in this case.
(3.) IT has come in the impugned order that the Hazri of said Renu Kumari was filed on 12.5.2003 and on 19.5.2005 she was cross -examined by the defence. However no petition was filed when she was examined that she was not Renu Kumari rather Rekha Kumari @ Surekha Kumari said to be sister of the deceased. The prosecution has asserted that she was produced by the police and examined by the concerned APP as Renu Kumari as per identity and there is nothing to show that she was not Renu Kumari. Learned trial Court has further mentioned that when this witness was produced on 12.5.2003, the petition filed on behalf of other accused persons namely Sanjeev Kumar @ Guddu and Bablu Kumar Chaurasia @ Dilip Kumar Chaurasia did not mention that Renu Kumari has been impersonated by Rekha Kumari @ Surekha Kumari.;