The court emphasized that retrial should only occur in exceptional cases, not for ordinary procedural lapses, to ensure fairness in trials.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. In all these appeals, the appellants before this Court have challenged the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court ordering for re-trial. They were in total 8 accused persons in the incident. Accused 2 and Accused-8 have passed away during the trial itself and one was acquitted i.e. Accused-7 (Muthuramalingam @ Korangu, appellant in Criminal appeals @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.9447-9454/2022) by the Trial Court and the other remaining 6 accused persons, who have filed appeal(s) before the High Court. In other words they were only five accused who have filed their appeal(s) against their conviction and sentence before the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the cases emanated from two different FIRs bearing Crime Nos.53/2006 & 54/2006 registered with the Police Station Abiramam, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307 r/w 34, 395 r/w 397, 302 r/w 34 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and as there were two different incidents, two different trial took place though the accused persons were common in both the cases. The trial which the accused persons had faced was in Sessions Case Nos.28/2007 & 27/2007 under Sections 120(B), 307 r/w 34, 395 r/w 397, 302 r/w 34 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The result of the trial we have already referred above.

3. Now, the High Court while hearing the appeal(s) against conviction of the 5 accused persons who were so convicted and sentenced, came to the conclusion that there ought to have been one single trial instead of two different trials and because there have been two different trials, it has resulted in acquittal of Accused No.7 and therefore the High Court inter-alia passed the following order:

“18.In the cases on hand, the conduct of separate trials had not only resulted in documents being interchanged, but also vital documents have not been produced. The complaint in S.C.No.28/2007 is the foundation for the charge in S.C.No.27/2007. Unfortunately, the said complaint has not been produced. The finger print reports have been interchanged. These procedural irregularities, in our opinion, should not result in an undue advantage to the accused. If it results in undue advantage to the accused, the trial cannot be said to be a fair trial. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the trial Court must be directed to conduct a joint trial of the two sessions cases which would by and large cure technical defects in the trial. We are conscious of the fact that the trial will be delayed, but we have no other choice, but to direct a joint trial if we are to ensure a fair trial. The prejudice caused to the accused could be minimized or mitigated by directing the trial Court to enlarge them on bail. Since we are remitting the matter for a joint trial, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. Whatever little discussion we have made on the evidence is only to show as to how the failure on the part of the trial Court in not conducting a joint trial, had affected the trial of the two sessions cases. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the judgments of the trial Court in both theses cases.

19. Accordingly, all the criminal appeals will stand allowed and the judgments in S.C.Nos.27 and 28 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, are set aside and both the sessions cases will stand remitted to the trial Court for a joint trial with a direction to the trial Court to conduct a joint trial of both the cases. Considering the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2006 and the trial was concluded in the year 2020, we direct the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records from this Court. It is made clear that the accused persons shall co-operate with the trial Court in concluding the trial within th