1. Petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against him in S.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, wherein he is arrayed as accused No.1 and facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, Sections 25 (1) (B) and 27 of Arms Act and Section 8 (1) of A.P.P.S. Act.

2. The facts, in nutshell, are as follows:

On the basis of a complaint made by PW.1, the son of the deceased, a case in Crime No.43 of 1999 was registered and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet in the year 2001 against 23 accused, including the petitioner herein. Originally, the case was numbered as SC.No.825 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. After filing of the charge sheet, A2, A5 and A6 died in the interregnum, therefore, the case against them was abated. Since some of the accused were absent from attending the Court, the case against them was split up.

3. Accused Nos.4,7 to 12, 15, 16, 19 and 22 were tried in S.C.No.825 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Accused Nos.3, 13, 14, 17 and 18 were tried in S.C.No.531 of 2006 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, and some of the accused were tried in S.C.No.177 of 2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. Petitioner herein is being tried in the present S.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since S.C.No.825 of 2004, S.C.No.177 of 2005 and S.C.No.531 of 2006, in which the accused are alleged to have committed the offence along with the present petitioner, ended in acquittal, after due trial by the competent Court, on the ground that there was no evidence that the accused killed the deceased, the same benefit should be extended to the petitioner herein as there would be no purpose in proceeding against the present petitioner. He further submitted that the pendency of the case against the petitioner herein amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in the present complaint shall be quashed. He relied on the judgment in J. Rambabu v. The State 1992 APLJ (Cri) 183.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the acquittal of co-accused in a separate trial cannot be made basis for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner herein in the present S.C.No.2 of 2011, who is being separately tried. He also submitted that the petitioner herein has absconded himself from the year 1999 and after a lapse of ten years, he was arrested and now he is facing trial in S.C.No.2 of 2011, which is likely to be concluded within one month. He placed reliance on the judgment in Rajan Rai v. State of Bihar AIR 2006 Supreme Court 433, wherein it was observed that the judgment of acquittal rendered in the trial of co-accused persons is wholly irrelevant in the appeal arising out of trial of the appellant as the said judgment was not admissible under the provisions of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act. It was further observed that every case has to be decided on the evidence adduced therein. He further relied on the judgment in Kumari Rinki v. State of U.P. and Others 2009 Crl.L.J.990, wherein it was held that the acquittal of a co-accused in a separate trial cannot be made basis for quashing the proceedings against another co-accused who is being separately tried on the principle that each case has to be decided on the evidence adduced in that case. It was further held that the judgment of acquittal rendered in one case is not relevant in the case of co-accused separately tried inasmuch as sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act deal with relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency jurisdiction and therefore inapplicable to a