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.)