Point of Law; even if one case is triable by Magistrate, there is no bar to get it tried along with the counter case triable by Court of Sessions.

JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

The effect of not trying case and counter case or cross case one after the other by the same Court, is the issue involved in this case. In order to appreciate the same, it would be necessary to refer to few facts.

2. Originally, seven accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 326, 323 r/w. Section 149, Section 324 r/w. Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 326 r/w. Section 149 I.P.C in Sessions Case No.132 of 2007. By its Judgment dated 16.05.2012 learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle acquitted the accused of all charges.

3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused, is that on 16.05.2006 at about 5.00 P.M., in front of the house of A.1 at Mittavandlapalle Village, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly, caused the death of one M. Reddeppa Reddy by beating him with stones and sticks on his head indiscriminately. In respect of this incident, a case in Crime No.26 of 2006 of Peddamandyam Police Station came to be registered. After completing the investigation, a Charge Sheet came to be filed which was taken on file in P.R.C.No.02 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thamballapalle and then committed to the Court of Sessions which was tried as Sessions Case No.132 of 2007 [present case].

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to them. As the offences are triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle and disposal in accordance with law.

5. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 30 and got marked Exs.P1 to P31 and M.Os.1 to 12. After the closure of the Prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which they denied. In support of their plea, the accused examined D.W.1 [A.7] and got marked Exs.D1 to D8. Taking into consideration the above aspect coupled with other circumstances, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

7. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused mainly submits that the entire prosecution case has to be viewed with suspicion since the genesis of the incident is suppressed. According to him, when the investigating agency is aware about two cases being registered out of a single incident, every effort should have been made by the Investigating Officer to get both the cases tried simultaneously. He further submits that even on merits, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and no effort was made to examine any independent person though number of villagers were present. He also contends that there are number of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses, which goes to the root of the matter. He mainly referred to the evidence of P.W.17, an injured eye witness, who gives a different picture of the incident in question. Taking us through the judgment of the counter case namely that the prosecution has failed to prove, who the aggressors are, he would contend that the manner of acquittal in the said case is sufficient to throw out the present case.

8. On the other hand, Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that no prejudice would be caused to the accused herein due to failure on the part of the prosecution i