Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vinod Kumar Vinod Jain vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10150 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner is accused in S.C.No.48 of 2022, on the file
of the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Vijayawada, for
the offences under Sections 305, 306, 354, 354-A, 354-D, 509
and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 10 of the
Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In the
course of the trial, the petitioner has moved Crl.M.P.No.1027 of
2022, under Section 310 of Cr.P.C. for appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner to inspect the scene of offence and to
file a detailed report.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the suicide of the minor
girl, who had jumped off the apartment block, would have been
recorded in the C.C. Cameras, which were installed through-out
the apartment complex and the non-production of the C.C. T.V.
footage is affecting his defence in the case. The petitioner
submits that a local inspection of the scene of offence either by
the Court or by an Advocate Commissioner would place relevant
material before the Trial Court, in support of his defence in the
case. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court on
26.11.2022. The Trial Court took the view that the examination
and the cross-examination of various witnesses, which had been
completed, was sufficient for the Trial Court to appreciate the
facts of the case and in any event the question before the Trial
Court is to determine the reason due to which the victim had
taken the extreme step of committing suicide. The Trial Court
also considered the various judgments of various High Courts,
including the judgments of this Court, on the question of
whether an accused person can insist on such local inspection
and whether such local inspection should be done at the
instance and discretion of the Court.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of
dismissal has approached this Court by way of the present
Criminal Petition.
4. Sri M. V. V. R. Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the absence of
the C.C. T.V. footage showing the scene of offence including the
terrace and other parts of the complex, it would be necessary
that a local inspection is conducted so that the Trial Judge
would have the benefit of an impartial view of the entire matter.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that similar
application seeking production of C.C. T.V. footage had already
been dismissed by the Trial Court. He would submit that there
is no error or lacunae in the order of the Trial Court which
requires any interference from this Court.
6. A perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner and the
order of the Trial Court would show that the Trial Court had
considered all the issues raised by the petitioner. The arguments
of the petitioner before this Court, raised in the grounds, are
that the C.C. Cameras fixed in the apartment complex would
show whether the accused had at any stage harassed the
deceased girl. The further contention is that the First
Information Report (F.I.R) and suicide note was produced before
the Magistrate with a delay of 22 ½ hours and the version of the
P.W.-1 that the suicide note was found in the bed room of the
deceased should be proved through C.C. T.V. footage as a
conclusive proof.
7. These grounds are not in any manner relevant for a
request for conduct of local inspection at this point of time.
8. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason
to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and this Criminal
Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal
Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
21.12.2022
MJA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10150 of 2022
21.12.2022
MJA
