ORDER :

1. This revision application is filed by the petitioner – accused challenging an order passed below Exhibit-57 by the Sessions Judge, Surendranagar dated 13.09.2022 in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2019, whereby his application filed under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") came to be rejected, refusing relief to frame common charge in two different sessions cases and proceed de novo against him.

2. The petitioner – accused is alleged to have committed murder of one Bhavikaben as also Suryaben – mother of Bhavikaben, in two different incidents in a time gap of 1 ½ hours at different places for which two different offences have been registered, one in Joravarnagar Police station, District: Surendranagar and another in Wadhvan Police station by the Police officer concerned in both the cases.

2.1 After the police investigation in both the cases, police authority filed charge-sheets and both the cases were differently numbered and being tried, maybe in one Court. However, after framing of the charges on 26.03.2021 and seven witnesses examined in both the sessions cases, the petitioner – accused has come out with this application before the Court not raising such plea even at the time of investigation, submission of charge-sheets or even framing of the charge and after examination of even six of the witnesses.

3. Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner – accused, submitted that after committing murder of Bhavikaben, from whom he had borrowed money and since she was demanding the same and repeatedly taking cudgels with him, the incident, as aforesaid registered at Joravarnagar Police station occurred and in the same transaction, as alleged by the prosecution, according to the submission of learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, mother of Bhavikaben was also assaulted and she had succumbed to her injuries instantaneously. Therefore, he has submitted that the accused is common in both the cases, victim being daughter and mother but both were lending money to him, and thereafter demanding the same, and therefore, as alleged by the prosecution, both have been eliminated, it can be termed to have been caused in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, and therefore, both cases should have been tried as one case.

3.1 On the ground of prejudice argued before the trial Court at the time of hearing of application Exhibit-57, it is submitted that if in one case he is given benefit of doubt, his defense in another may be prejudiced, as similar such witnesses who are examined in an earlier case would be going to be examined in another case and there may appear different evidence in that case. Therefore, it is submitted that application Exhibit-57 submitted by the petitioner – accused requesting the Court to permit common charge for both the cases and proceed de novo against him in one trial is required to be granted.

3.2 In support of his submission learned advocate for the petitioner – accused has relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M.S. Sheshappa vs State Of Karnataka, reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 3372 for a proposition that the acts in both the cases are so connected with each other so as to form the same transaction, and that a continuous thread runs through the acts complained of, and therefore, joint trial of both the cases should be ordered as one case and it should start de novo.

3.3 Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner – accused, has further relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ms. P. v. State of Uttarakhand and another, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2022, more particularly drawing attention of the Court to para 17 and 20 thereof, wherein Supreme Court has relied on its earlier decisions on the issue of ‘same transaction’ interpreting Section 220 of “the Code” for the proposition that the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximi