Hon’ble Surendra Kumar, J.—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. 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 v. Ram Wakil and others, under Sections 376 and 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.

3. 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 proyed 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.

4. The order dated 24.4.2009 was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1778 of 2009 Smt. Rukumani Devi v. 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.

Accordingly, revision is allowed. Order dated 24.4.2009 is set aside. However, the accused may move for recording the voice of the prosecutrix when he enters into the defence.”

5. Thereafter, the prosecution adduced complete evidence. After recording statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the case was fixed for defence evidence. It is at the stage of the defence evidence, the prayer to direct the prosecutrix for recording her voice for comparison of the same with voice recorded in the alleged C.D. was made by the accused. It was at the same stage, the prosecutrix moved an application dated 22.4.2010 vide Paper No. 143-Kha stating therein that Session Trial is fixed for defence evidence and she has been summoned as witness on the request of the defence side whereas her evidence being prosecutrix has already been recorded as PW-1 and she has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence side. She has been cross-examined regarding the impugned C.D. and she has already denied her voice in the alleged C.D. The defence wants to cross-examine her again relating to her voice in the said C.D. By moving the application Paper No. 143-Kha, she has prayed that she may be discharged as defence witness. It is a case in which the prosecutrix has been examined in chief and cross-examined and after closure of the prosecution evidence when the case entered at the defence stage, an application was moved by the defence side to summon her as defence witness to cross-examine her regarding the voice in the alleged C.D. At the same time, the ac