Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. Appellant-Randhir Singh has preferred this appeal against acquittal of Hari Chand, Sant Ram, Prem Kumar @ Praveen, Naveen, Satpal and Sukhchain, who have been acquitted by the impugned judgment dated 26th February, 2011. The said acquittal arises from Sessions Case No. 53/2009 arising out of FIR No. 73/2003, Police Station J.P. Kalan under Section 307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).

2. The aforesaid FIR was registered after Randhir Singh and late Kehar Singh had filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 6th March, 2003, marked Exhibit PW-3/A, relating to the occurrence on 1st February, 2003. In the order dated 24th July, 2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate it was recorded that FIR No. 73/2003 had been registered on the basis of the complaint and investigation was in progress. Before the said date, the complaint had remained pending consideration and in an earlier order dated 9th July, 2003 it was noticed that injuries had been inflicted on the present appellant and his group by members of the respondent group. Reference was made to the MLCs of Kehar Singh and Randhir Singh. It was also recorded that it was a cross case, as FIR No. 9/2003 was already registered against the appellants herein and his group.

3. FIR No. 73/2003 (Exhibit PW-1/B) was registered on 19th July, 2003. Subsequently, upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 506 and 120B IPC. The charge sheet was committed for trial before the Sessions court. One Anil who had died in the occurrence was arrayed as an accused but the proceedings against him never got initiated as he had died on 7th February, 2003, i.e., even before the private complaint dated 6th March, 2003 was filed.

4. It is an accepted and admitted position that the present proceedings arise out of a cross case and the accused/respondents herein are the aggrieved party in FIR No. 9/2003, Police Station J.P. Kalan and the appellant herein Randhir Singh was/is an accused/convict in the said FIR. Trial in the two charge sheets arising out of the cross cases were held by the same Sessions court but evidence was separately recorded. Arguments were addressed in both the cases and separate judgments have been pronounced. Legal position as elucidated by the Supreme Court in cross cases, mandates that evidence should be recorded separately in the cross cases, except to the extent that witnesses of the prosecution which were/are common can be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other case. However, the cases should be disposed of simultaneously (see Harjinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 422). Further, while pronouncing two separate judgments, care should be taken that judgment in one’s case was/is not based upon evidence recorded in the other case (see Harjinder Singh (supra), Sudhir and Others versus State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 688 and Kuldip Yadav and Others versus State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 324). We have proceeded on the said basis.

5. The prosecution evidence in the present case relies upon ocular testimonies of Ajay Kumar (PW-2), Randhir Singh (PW-3), Kehar Singh (PW-5), Sube Singh (PW-6), Chattar Singh (PW-7) and Vinod Kumar (PW-8). One SI Sompal (Retd.) (PW-12) is also stated to be an eye witness. Presence of Ajay Kumar (PW-2), Randhir Singh (PW-3), Kehar Singh (PW-5) and Chattar Singh (PW-7) on the spot at the time of occurrence is de facto undisputed and cannot be challenged. They were accused in the cross case relating to the very same occurrence in which some of the respondent-accused had suffered injuries. On the question of motive and the cause of the fight between Sube Singh Group (the complainant in the FIR in question) and Ghisa Ram Group (the respondents in the present appeal), there is also no dispute or challenge. The cause was a small plot o