Point of Law: It is well settled that, One is required to consider entire evidence as a whole with other evidence on record.

JUDGMENT :

1. Criminal Appeal No.441/2015 is filed by the accused No.1 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.94/2002 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, convicting the him for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506(ii), 341 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Criminal Appeal No.1055/2015 is filed by the injured victim-K.G.Prema/P.W.3 against the order of acquittal dated 24.03.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.81/2003 on the file of the very same Court i.e., Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, acquitting accused Nos.1 to 15 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 427, 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 r/w Section 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.441/2015 and for the appellant/victim in Criminal Appeal No.1055/2015 contended that, evidence of prosecution witnesses includes examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not considered and discussed the cross-examination portion of prosecution witnesses and thereby, the entire judgment passed in S.C.No.94/2002 is vitiated. He further contended that S.C.Nos.94/2002 and 81/2003 are case and counter cases. If judgment in one case is set-aside on the ground of non consideration of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the matter is remanded, the judgment in the other case also has to be set-aside and matter has to be remanded, since it is a case and counter case. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police vs. Hosakeri Ningappa and another reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509.

3. Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor contended that both the Sessions Cases were conducted by the same Sessions Judge, one after the other, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Hosakeri Ningappa's case, supra. However, while passing the judgment in S.C.No.94/2002, the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that, if judgment in S.C.No.94/2002 is set-aside and remanded on the ground that the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses has not been considered, then, the judgment in S.C.No.81/2003 also has to be set-aside and the said matter also has to be remanded, since, they are case and counter cases.

4. Sri Vasanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 to 8 and 10 to 16 in Criminal Appeal No.1055/2015 has not disputed the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has not at all considered the cross-examination portion of all the prosecution witnesses in Sessions Case No.94/2002. He fairly submits that, if this Court is not convinced, the matter has to go back for reconsideration by the learned Sessions Judge and consequently, Sessions Case No.81/2003 also has to be remanded, since they arise out of common incident.

5. In view of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in ignoring the cross-examination portion of prosecution witnesses while passing the judgment in S.C.No.94/2002, when both S.C.Nos.94/2002 and 81/2003 arise out of common incident, as case and counter case, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, only with regard to non-consideration of cross-examination portion of prosecution witnesses, in S.C.No.94/2002.

7. A careful perusal of the judgment in S.C.No.94/2002 depicts that, the learned Sessions Judge while considering the