MALEEDU VENKANNA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(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.