1 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.28 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2009 Rukhmin d/o.Bhagwan Thorat, Age-30 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Mauj, Tq. Dist. Beed APPLICANT VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Ranjit Vaijinath Jadhav, Age-30 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Ghatsavali, Tq.Dist. Beed RESPONDENTS Mr.C.V.Thombre, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State Mr.S.S.Dixit, h/f. Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, learned counsel for respondent no.2. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 04/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present revision application, the petitioner/original complainant has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Lower Court dated 03/01/2008, on the application moved by the applicant through learned prosecutor for re-examination of the witness, which was not allowed by the Court below. 2. With the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for State and learned counsel appearing for the 2 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.28 of 2009 remaining respondents, I have examined the entire record, which is produced before this Court including the statement of the applicant herein recorded at the time of recording the complaint u/s. 154 of Cr.P.C., so also her supplementary statement recorded during the investigation. I have also perused the deposition of the complainant recorded during the trial. Her evidence in examination in chief is not contradictory to her statement recorded during the investigation, also not contradictory to the facts disclosed in the complaint. Considering this aspect, it can not be said that due to the force used by respondent no.2, she had changed her stand. The overall effect of the facts which she has disclosed in her examination in chief is the admissions given by her in her cross examination. Whenever evidence of the witness to be read and appreciated, it is to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal. If the evidence given by the complainant is not contradictory with the previous statement recorded during the investigation, this is not the fit case where her re-examination can be allowed. In view of this, the order impugned, passed by the learned Sessions Court, rejecting the application of re- examining the witness, finds no fault. In substance, criminal revision application sans any merits, and stands rejected. In view of this order, stay granted to the proceedings in the Lower Court, stands vacated. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/OCT.2011/cri.rev.28-09