Ranchhod Amba vs State

Shah, C.J.—This application in revision is directed against an order in appeal of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, whereby he confirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant Ranchhod Amba u/s 325, I.P.C. by the First Class Magistrate of Jam-Kandorna, and acquitted accused 2 Manji Amba of an offence u/s 323, I.P.C. The complainant Ratna Kala and the accused belong to the same village Dadar, and the complainant''s case was that as he was returning to the village from his field in a cart in the evening of 15th November 1951, the accused accosted him and picking up a quarrel, dealt a blow of an iron-shod stick but he dodged the blow and it fell on his wife Panchi who was in the cart. Ranchhod gave two more stick blows on Panchi''s arms and Manji accused 2 who came up in the meantime, also struck Panchi and the complainant with a bamboo stick. Panchi was examined by the Medical Officer at Jam-Kandorna next morning when it was found that the ulna of her right hand was fractured. A complaint was then lodged with the police u/s 325, I.P.C. The accused Ranchhod on his part also filed a complaint against Ratna, Panchi and Ganda Kala, brother of Ratna, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. in the Court of the First Class Magistrate Jam-Kandorna on the same day. The facts relating to the hearing of the two complaints as stated by the applicant are as follows. The Magistrate sent Ranchhod''s complaint to the police for enquiry and after receiving the report of the police issued process against Ratna and Ors. . That case was criminal case No. 18 of 1952, whereas the case arising from Ratna''s complaint was case No. 187 of 1951. The learned Magistrate, Mr. Guhya, recorded part of the prosecution evidence in case No. 187 of 1951 and was succeeded by Mr. H.P. Vora. The present applicant having asked for a de novo trial, Mr. H.P. Vora recorded the prosecution evidence afresh in case No. 187 of 1951 and he also recorded evidence in the other case. The latter having been completed first, the Magistrate proceeded to deliver judgment and acquitted the accused of that case, viz., Ratna, Pancha and Ganda Kala. Mr. H.P. Vora was transferred and was succeeded by Mr. Dolarrai Vora. The present accused did not ask for a de novo trial, and the Magistrate therefore proceeded with the case from the stage where it was left, and after recording defence evidence gave a judgment convicting both the accused.

The first objection of Mr. Kirpal Singh who appears for the applicant is that the two cases being counter cases arising from the same occurrence, should have been tried by the same Magistrate, one after the other, and the judgment should have been pronounced at the same time in both the cases, and that the failure to observe this procedure has prejudiced the applicant, and therefore his conviction should be set aside. Now there is no statutory provision on the point raised, and there is no objection in law to two cross cases being tried separately or by two separate judges. However it is most desirable that such cases should be tried by the same judge or magistrate. The two cases should be heard one after the other and judgment in the first case should be postponed till after the conclusion of the second case, and the judgment should then be pronounced separately in each case. See - ''Banappa Kallappa v. Emperor AIR 1944 Bom 146 (A); - Paladugu Lakshminarayana and Others Vs. Tadiboyina Suryanarayana, and - ''Ujagar Singh v. Emperor AIR 1936 Lah 356 (C). At the same time it was pointed out in Banappa''s case that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and their Lordships did not suggest that the procedure which they recommended should be invariably followed in the trial of counter cases arising out of one and the same incident. The same view was taken in - Krishna Pannadi Vs. Emperor, . In that case there were two counter cases and the learned Judge concluded the hearing of one case and pronounced judgment convicting the accused, and upon that the Public Prosecutor withdrew the other case in which the accused was the complainant. A retrial was ordered because the accused was not given the opportunity which he expected would be given him of examining all his evidence in defence, and it was for that reason that the High Court intervened. The facts of the present case are otherwise and here it is not the applicant''s grievance that an opportunity was denied to him of examining all his evidence. The rule deducible from the above reported cases is that where there are two counter cases arising from the same occurrence, the proper procedure is that both the cases should be tried by the same judge or magistrate one after the other and that the judgment should be pronounced after the conclusion of the second case. At the same time the question will still remain whether by reason of such a procedure not having been followed the accused has been prejudiced and the High Court will not ordinarily interfere in revision unless a prejudice has been caused to the accused.

Now applying this test to the facts here, the hearing of case No. 187 of 1951 was delayed because the present accused had asked for a de novo trial. Even so, the learned Magistrate Mr. H.P. Vora should not have gone on with the hearing of case No. 18 of 1952 and should not have pronounced judgment in that case. However the hearing of case No. 187 of 1951 was concluded by Anr. Magistrate who succeeded Mr. Vora, and there was therefore no scope for the succeeding Magistrate having been influenced by the impression his predecessor had formed of the other case, or having been prejudiced on that account. After hearing all that Mr. Kirpal Singh had to say we are not satisfied that any prejudice has been caused to the applicant by reason of the fact that the other case was decided first. The fact that no plea of prejudice was made in the appeal suggests that the plea is an afterthought. On the merits of the case, the evidence clearly establishes that the applicant Ranchhod Amba did cause grievous hurt to Bai Panchi by breaking her ulna bone and the trial Magistrate as also the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal were right in relying upon the evidence of Panchi and of Ratna. Two of the prosecution witnesses Samji and Lala had turned hostile and obviously therefore their evidence had to be discarded. The third witness Hansraj being at some distance at the time of the occurrence could not have been an eye witness, and his evidence has been disbelieved by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. All the same there is no reason why the evidence of the complainant and his wife should not be accepted, and the lower Courts were right in rejecting the suggestion made on behalf of the accused that the fracture might have been caused either by a fall or due to an ulcer. The latter was altogether improbable and the former is not borne out by the evidence. Therefore there can be no doubt that the fracture was caused by blows of the iron-shod stick dealt by the applicant to Bai Panchi. There are thus no reasons for interference in revision and this application is accordingly dismissed. The applicant will surrender to his bail and serve out the rest of the sentence. Bail bond to be cancelled.