Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1476 (AP)

MALEEDU VENKANNA v. State Of A. P.

2002-12-17

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2002
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are accused in S. C. No. 10 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC No. 1), khammam. They were being tried for certain offences. Durng the course of the trial, the prosecution marked Ex. P13, which is a sketch showing the topography of the scene of offence. The petitioners filed Crl. M. P. No. 186 of 2002 under Section 310 of Cr. P. C. , seeking local inspection of the scene of offence by the Presiding Officer. The same was rejected through orders dated 16-11-2002. Hence, the Revision. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Veera Reddy, submits that ex. P13 does not depict the correct ground situation and that there are several discrepancies in the depositions of the relevant witnesses, with reference to Ex. P13. He submits that the Trial Court will be in a proper position to appreciate the evidence if only a personal inspection of the scene of offence is undertaken and that there was no justification in rejecting the application. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is in the discretion of the court below to undertake local inspection and no party can claim it as of right. He contends that it is always open to the petitioners to lead such evidence as they intend to, to establish the discrepancies, if any. ( 4 ) SECTION 310 of Cr. P. C. confers power upon the Judge or Magistrate, as the case may be, to undertake local inspection of the scene of offence, at any stage of the proceedings, if in their opinion, it is necessary to do so, for properly appreciating the evidence. Such inspection has to be undertaken after issuance of notice to the parties. The result of such inspection shall be made into record of memorandum and the same shall form part of the record. By its very nature, such inspection is to be usually voluntary by the concerned presiding Officer, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances before him. It is true that the parties to the proceedings can make an application for causing such local inspection. Even in such cases, the outcome of the application depends on the satisfaction of the Judge or Magistrate. No party can claim such inspection as of right. It is true that the parties to the proceedings can make an application for causing such local inspection. Even in such cases, the outcome of the application depends on the satisfaction of the Judge or Magistrate. No party can claim such inspection as of right. ( 5 ) IT is also settled principle of law that the record of memorandum prepared after inspection cannot be used for preparation of the background for appreciating the evidence of witnesses. Such preparation is to be made by the parties themselves, by leading evidence in the form of examination of their own witnesses or cross-examination of witnesses examined by the opposite party. ( 6 ) LOCAL inspection by the Presiding officers is not at all a step in the criminal proceedings in the normal parlance. It has to be undertaken in exceptional cases where the Presiding Officers feel it proper and imperative. The reason is not far to seek. In most of the cases, by the time the cases come up for trial, the scenes of offence undergo substantial changes. What is to be established before the Court is the state of affairs that existed as on the date of occurrence of the offence. Very rarely, the circumstances continue to exist in the same manner and form as on the date of occurrence of the offence as well as by the time the case is taken up for trial. Indiscriminate local inspections are prone to be taken advantage by the interested parties to present a different picture from the one that existed as on the date of offence. It is for the Courts to examine and consider the feasibility of undertaking such inspections, having regard to the totality of the circumstances. ( 7 ) IN State of U. P. v. Het Ram, AIR 1976 SC 2124 , the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the learned judges of the High Court have undertaken local inspection. Inasmuch as the result of such a inspection had an impact on the findings recorded by them, the question arose as to whether such inspection shall be said to be the one under Section 539-B of cr. P. C, 1898 (which is the same as Section 310 of Cr. P. C. , 1973 ). Inasmuch as the result of such a inspection had an impact on the findings recorded by them, the question arose as to whether such inspection shall be said to be the one under Section 539-B of cr. P. C, 1898 (which is the same as Section 310 of Cr. P. C. , 1973 ). Having observed about the feasibility of change of circumstances, the Supreme Court observed as under:"we have no doubt that the procedure adopted by the Judges in visiting quite a different place, on a date and time unconnected with the time of the alleged incident, for the purpose of deciding whether the witnesses could identify the assailants in the darkness, was quite illegal and it was not permissible for them to dispose of the case on the basis of their own findings without regard to the evidence, which was already on the record. " ( 8 ) COMING to the present case, the only contention on behalf of the petitioners was that there were certain contradictions as to the existence of the scene of the offence as presented in Ex. P13. PWs. 3 and 4 are the owners of the lands adjacent to the scene of offence. They were extensively examined with reference to the scene of offence. The Trial Court observed that on behalf of the petitioners herein, much was elicited in the cross-examination of the said witnesses. The Court recorded finding that in view of the evidence before it, it is not necessary to undertake local inspection. That being the situation, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Trial court and the Revision is accordingly dismissed.