IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.41058 of 2008
1. Janardan Prasad @ Janardan Srivastava, Son of late Rudal Prasad
2. Bijay Kumar Srivastava @ Bijay Srivastava
3. Binay Kumar Srivastava @ Binay Srivastava
4. Ajay Kumar Srivastava @ Ajay Srivastava
All three ( 2 to 4) sons of Janardan Srivastava @ Janardan Prasad.
5. Sima Devi, Wife of Bijay Kumar Srivastava
6. Sabita Devi, Daughter of Janardan Prasad
7. Umrawati Devi, Wife of Janardan Prasad
8. Sarita Sinha, Daughter of Janardan Prasad
All of Mohalla Nai Basti Mahadewa, PS Siwan Muffasil, District Siwan ---- Petitioners
Versus
State Of Bihar --- Opposite Party
-----------
2 28.7.2011 Heard the parties.
The petitioners had earlier filed a
case under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian
Penal Code. The informant of the present case
i.e. Siwan Muffasil PS Case No. 109 of 1996 is
the tenant of the house of the petitioners.
Apparently there is a dispute between them.
The allegation in the First Information Report
is that all the petitioners which includes the
entire family entered into the lane leading to
the house of the informant and threw Acid
through a window which seriously injured the
son and daughter of the informant. The
Investigating Officer in this case has retired
and, therefore, the petitioners have filed an
application under Section 310 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Section 310 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure envisages that after due
2
notice to the parties, the Court may order for
inspection of any place when an offence is
alleged to have been committed, or any other
place which it is in his opinion is necessary
to view, for the purpose of properly
appreciating the evidence given at such inquiry
or trial. It is further provided that the
memorandum will be part of the proceedings.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that it is not possible
that at 9.30 p.m. in the night in the township
of Siwan, persons will enter in such a manner
and commit an offence of this nature. It is
submitted that it is improbable that the Acid
could have been thrown from the window in such
a manner as to injure the son and daughter to
such an extent.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party submits that the place of
occurrence has now changed. There are two
options for the Court, either to give an
opportunity to the petitioners to exhibit the
case diary which indicates the place of
occurrence or the Court may order local
inspection to determine whether it is probable
that an occurrence could have been taken place
3
in the manner it did, as it would be in the
interest of justice to determine this question.
In the result, I direct that the Fast
Track Court No. I at Siwan (concerned Court) to
follow either process suggested above in
Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2000. In case the
Court below orders local inspection, the date
may be fixed in presence of the person who is
to inspect and in presence of the parties. The
inspection should be done by the present
Officer Incharge of the Police Station who
would be in a better position to appreciate the
facts and record the place of occurrence in
this case. The said inspection should be done
within a period of two months on receipt of a
copy of this order. Counsel for the
petitioners is directed to produce a copy of
this order within a period of one month.
This application is disposed of with
the aforesaid observations.
Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)