2022 M L D 1589
Criminal trial---
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2) & 34---Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah, damiyah, causing hurt and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that the accused armed with sticks attacked upon the complainant and his daughter and both of them received injuries---Record showed that the challan of case was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, who tried the case and accused petitioners were convicted---Cross case was submitted before the Sessions Court which was tried and accused were acquitted---Complainant of said cross case filed acquittal appeal, which was partly allowed and case was remanded to the Trial Court---Trial in both the cases should have been conducted side by side by the Trial Court, as in such like cases, the prime question was the determination of aggressor and aggressed upon---Such a question could not be determined without analysis of the evidence of both the cases---Trial Court without conducting a trial in case under Ss. 324 & 34, P.P.C., had dealt with the trial of the petitioners in a haphazard manner and recorded their conviction and sentence, which exercise undertaken by the Trial Court was against the general practice in cases of counter versions---True that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was silent with regard to procedure to be adopted in the trial of counter cases, arising out of the same incident and it had not been laid down anywhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as an absolute rule that all charges and counter-charges must be tried by the same court, however, it was a salutary practice that two criminal cases relating to the same incident were to be tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day---Practical reasons for adopting such procedure was nothing but to staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case was before the court---To deter conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts and in reality, the case and the counter case were to all intend and purposes different or conflicting versions of one incident and finally to determine the question as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon---Petition was partly accepted, in circumstances and by setting aside the impugned judgments and the case was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for decision afresh.
0 Comments