Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 672 (MP)

Manish Singh v. State Of M. P.

2016-08-08

S.K.PALO

body2016
ORDER : Mr. G. S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A. R. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Heard. 2. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to set aside the order dated 22-2-2016 and to order local inspection as prayed by the petitioner in Sessions Trial No. 164/2012. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner and other accused persons are charged for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 164/2012 trial of which is in progress. After the evidence of Deepti Singh wife of the deceased Pawan Kumar Singh (PW-3) and Brajesh Singh, the brother of the deceased (PW-5) and Smt. Urmila Devi (PW-7) Vimal Shrivastava, investigating officer (PW-15) have been examined. The petitioner and other accused persons moved an application under section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the Court to inspect the spot, on the ground that PW-3 and PW-5 have narrated in their testimony that they were on the rooftop of their house. When the incident took place on the road they could see the incident. They denied the suggestion that from the rooftop, the place of incident is not visible. Therefore, the spot inspection is necessary to ascertain the correctness of the evidence. Learned trial Judge, vide order dated 22-2-2016 refused to allow the application. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel argued that purpose of section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to order local inspection and if the same is not allowed, the purpose of section 310 will be frustrated. 5. At the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposing the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order is reasonable and no interference is called for. 6. Section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the l Judge/Magistrate to make local inspection and not a local inquiry. An inspection is permitted only for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence in the case and it cannot be allowed to assume the character of evidence. Local inspection is done usually after the evidence is closed and if the Court feels that for the purpose of appreciation of the evidence and to know the exact topography etc. the local inspection may be necessary. Local inspection is done usually after the evidence is closed and if the Court feels that for the purpose of appreciation of the evidence and to know the exact topography etc. the local inspection may be necessary. Local inspection can be made only for the purpose of appreciating the evidence of the case and it cannot be used for preparation of the background for appreciating of the witnesses in the case. The preparation of the background to appreciating the evidence, is not the same thing “as properly appreciating the evidence” contemplated under the section. If the impressions gained on local inspection of controversial matters are allowed to get in without being tested by cross-examination, there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice resulting therefrom. 7. In view of the preceding factual and legal analysis, impugned order dated 22-2-2016 does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.