KANTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. while seized of an appeal preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the findings of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/petitioner herein by the learned trial Court for hers having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC, besides also being seized of another appeal preferred at the instance of the accused/petitioner herein for hers having stood convicted by the learned trial Court for hers having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of the IPC, was during the pendency of both the aforesaid appeals also seized of an application preferred at the instance of the accused/appellant/petitioner herein under Section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, for the reasons recorded therein was constrained to dismiss the application preferred before it.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has contended with much fervour before this Court that the application for local inspection as preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin was not dismissible as unwarrantably done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin. He contends on the strength of the provisions of Section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are extracted herein after, that the visit of spot or the visit of the site of occurrence was imperative for adjudging the veracity or the truth of the genesis of the prosecution version. The provisions of Section 310 read as under: - -