Birendra Sonkar @ Biru Sonkar And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

This revision has been preferred for quashing the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in S.T. Case No.387 of 2012, arising out of Kadma P.S. Case No. 196 of 2010, whereby the petitioner's application for hearing and pronouncing of judgment in (S. T. No. 387 of 2012 and S.T. No.114 of 2017) simultaneously, has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that S.T. Case No.114 of 2017, has arisen out of Kadma P.S. Case No.197 of 2010 which was lodged by the petitioners. The petitioners are adducing evidence in the said case. That a counter case being Kadma P.S. Case No.196 of 2010 was lodged by the accused party and S.T. No.387 of 2012 has arisen out of the counter case. That the petitioners faced the trial in S.T. No.387 of 2012 and on conclusion of the evidence the case is posted for judgment. It is submitted that since the counter-case was lodged by the petitioners and the trial was in progress accordingly, the petition was filed in the court below to pronounce the judgment in both the cases one and after another, but the court below has rejected the prayer without appreciating the prescribed procedure as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Nathi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1990 (Supp) SCC 145; and followed in the case of Sudhir & Orther Vs. State of M.P, (2001) 2 SCC 688.

Learned APP has not opposed the submission.

Heard. It goes without saying that different versions of the same incident resulting into two criminal cases are described as "case and counter case" or "cross cases". The procedure prescribed in cross-cases is that both the cases must be tried separately and independently by the same judge and decided on the basis of evidence led in the cases without being influenced by the materials and evidence led in the other case.

The procedure as per guidelines laid down, is that first the evidence should be recorded in one case and both the parties must be heard but judgment should not be pronounced. Immediately, thereafter, the other case should be taken up for recording of evidence. Once the hearing is complete in both the cases, the cases should be decided simultaneously by separate judgments. If, the above referred procedure is followed then the major concern of fair trial to both the parties will be adequately addressed.

The rationale behind the suggested procedure is that the accused should not be punished when his case is pending before the court. A close look at the procedure and the objective behind it would clearly suggest that it is expected of the judge that he should makeup his mind regarding guilt or otherwise of the parties on the basis of the "entire case" and just not on the basis of the case of the parties in each individual case. The other objective of the mandated procedure is that avoidance of chances of conflicting decisions can only be achieved, if decision is taken on the basis of "whole case" and not as two independent cases.

In view of the propounded objective and the settled principle it will be just and proper for the case to decide both the cases together, as per the guidelines enumerated in Nathi Lal's case(supra).

Taking into account the well-settled principles and the procedure to be followed, it is evident that the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the court below is not accordance to the prescribed procedure, hence it is not sustainable and is, hereby, set aside.

The court below shall conclude the evidence in S.T. Case No.114 of 2017, and the petitioner shall cooperate in expeditious trial of the case. Thereafter, the court below shall hear the arguments in both the cases and pronounce the judgment in both the cases.

With the said direction this revision is allowed.