Case And Counter Case To Be Tried Together By Same Court Irrespective Of Nature Of Offence, Prosecutors Can't Be Same: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a fair trial in criminal cases involving cross-complaints necessitates both cases be tried together by the same judge to avoid prejudice.A bench of Justice K.Suresh Reddy and Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi relying on State of A.P. Vs. Mittapalli Sudhakara Reddy and others, wherein in the need for trying cross complaints by the same bench, held:“The necessity to try case and counter case together is so eminent. Otherwise it is likely to give rise to disastrous results. From the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred above, it is clear that in a case and counter case, both the cases should be tried together by same Court irrespective of nature of offence involved and they should be tried simultaneously one after the other. The learned Public Prosecutor in one case shall not act as a Public Prosecutor in the counter case. The evidence in one case cannot be looked into in the counter case, and judgment in both the cases shall be pronounced on the same day. The ratio behind is to avoid conflicting judgments, which may lead to disastrous results at times.”Marital disputes had arisen between a husband and wife in the year 2004. The fights intensified and in December 2004, the husband had a dispute with his father-in-law and others about his family affairs. After the argument, the husband was followed and beaten by his father-in-law and the others. When the husband's family members attempted to rescue him, they were also violently attacked by the group, and the mother who was trying to defend her son (husband) lost her life. Both families filed police reports against each other. Both cases were investigated and charge sheets were filed. The matters were taken by the Magistrate. The accused contended that the investigating agency with an intention to prejudice the Court tried both matters independently of each other. It was stated that although the Magistrate had found the complainants herein guilty of causing hurt with a dangerous weapon in the case preferred by the accused, this fact was suppressed when the case filed by the complainant herein was being tried by the Magistrate. They claimed that when the Magistrate was hearing the case filed by the complainants herein, the scene of the crime was shifted in the prosecution's version to avoid independent witnesses who were present at P.W.1's house, the original site of the altercation. It was vehemently argued that the prosecution has substantially improved the case, leading to the conviction of the accused herein; and a fair trial would ensue both cases being tried together. The court noted that during cross-examination when the complainant was confronted with a petition, filed by him, before the Revenue Authorities, wherein the present incident was narrated, and the scene of crime was shown as the house of the complainant. “We are of the opinion that the scene of offence was conveniently shifted to the thrashing floor of P.W-1 at a later point in time from the house of P.W-1, later during investigation, only to say no independent witnesses present as it is an isolated place, and to confine the case to the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 6, for the reasons best known to the prosecution party. Unfortunately the trial Court ignored this fact," the bench said.The Court found discrepancies in the prosecution's case: the change of location, failure to explain the defendants' injuries, and the lack of investigation into the counter case. This, the Court noted, raised doubts about the prosecution's narrative and made it unreliable. It said:“Therefore, we are of the opinion that an inference can be drawn that the prosecution suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence, and thus not presented the true version. The prosecution witnesses are lying on many material points. The above facts creating a reasonable doubt that they suppressed the truth about the genesis of 29 the incident, and came with a coloured version to implicate all the family members of the accused No.1” Thus, in the result, the appeal was allowed, the accused were directed to be released with immediate effect, and any fine amount paid was directed to be refunded. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 380/2009Counsel for appellants: Akula Sri Krishna Sai BhargavCounsel for respondent: A Bhaskara Chary, and PPClick Here To Read/Download Order

Case And Counter Case To Be Tried Together By Same Court Irrespective Of Nature Of Offence, Prosecutors Can't Be Same: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags