The procedure to be followed in conducting the trial and pronouncing the judgment in criminal cases involving a case and a counter case, as laid down by the Full Bench of the Court in State of Karnataka v. Hosakeri Ningappa.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

DR.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J. - Both these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dtd. 27/11/2019 passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Haveri (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Sessions Judge's Court') in S.C. No.35/2012 and S.C. No.38/2012.

2. Learned counsels from both side are physically present. Learned counsels from both side including the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State make a joint submission that admittedly, both the sessions cases have arisen from out of a case and a counter-case, though both the cases were shown to have been tried separately, however, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has heard the arguments together and has passed the common judgment which is not in accordance with the judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police -vs- Hosakeri Ningappa and another, reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509. With this, both side submit that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the Sessions Judge's Court with a direction to hear the final arguments afresh and dispose of both the cases on the line of guidelines in the above said Full Bench judgment of this Court.

3. The only point that arises for our consideration is,

Whether the impugned judgment ought to have been passed under two separate judgments as such, they deserve to be set aside and matter requires to be remanded?

4. The allegation of the prosecution in S.C.No.35/2012 which has arisen out of Crime No.163/2009 of Shiggaon Police Station is that on 29/8/2009, at about 10.00 a.m., all the accused, in furtherance of their common object, formed an unlawful assembly and entered into the land bearing Survey Number 62/2A of Shishuvinahal Village with an intention to destroy the crop grown there by C.W.1 and his brother. An altercation took place between C.W.1-complainant, his brother and the accused in which the accused making use of the deadly weapons inflicted multiple injuries upon the persons who restrained them from entering into their land and thus have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ' IPC ').

5. The summary of the prosecution case in S.C.No.38/2012, which has arisen from Crime No.164/2009 of the very same police station is that on the very same day i.e. 29/8/2009, at about 9.00 a.m., when C.W.4 to C.W.8 were said to have been reaping crop grown in the land of one Umesh Mallanagouda Marigoudar, all the accused, in furtherance of their common object, forming an unlawful assembly committed criminal trespass into the said land and committed rioting with deadly weapons like stone, handle of axe, iron rod and iron pipe and assaulted C.W.1, C.W.2 and C.W.4 and also abused them in filthy language, threatened them to their life inflicted injuries upon them and thereby have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Sec. 149 of IPC.

6. A perusal of the trial court records would go to show that the charges were framed separately in both the cases, the evidence were recorded by engaging separate prosecutors in both the cases, exhibits were marked separately and so also the material objects. However, even after observing that both the complaints lodged by each side was a complaint and counter complaint as such it was a case and a counter case, the Sessions Judge's Court proceeded to pass a common judgment which is impugned in these two appeals. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment, which was a judgment of conviction, convicting the accused in both the criminal cases for some of the offences, those accused have preferred these two appeals.

7. A perusal of the impugned judgment would go to show that in the very first paragraph of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that S.C. No.35/20