The court emphasized the need to consider whether conducting a joint/separate trial would prejudice the defence of the accused or cause judicial delay, and highlighted the importance of examining common witnesses simultaneously in both cases to avoid prejudice to the accused.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul and set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.814 of 2012, dated 15.06.2022, consequently, conduct single trial on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul.)

1.The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.814 of 2022 in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2022, dated 15.06.2022 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, in dismissing the petition filed under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in both the cases in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2022 and in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2022 pending on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul.

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent has registered two FIRs in Crime No.766 of 2021 on 19.11.2021 and in Crime No.767 of 2021 on 20.11.2021; that the respondent, after investigation, has laid final reports, in the first case in Crime No.766 of 2021 on 11.0.2022, for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC and under Sections 9(f), 10 and 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 against the first petitioner/first accused and under Section 506(i) IPC and under Sections 16 r/w 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 as against the second petitioner/second accused and in the second case in Crime No.767 of 2021 on 20.11.2021, for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC and under Sections 9(f) r/w 10 and 18 of POCSO Act against the first petitioner/first accused and under Section 506(i) IPC and under Sections 16 r/w 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 as against the second petitioner/second accused and that the cases were taken on file as stated above.

4. It is also not in dispute that charges have already been framed in both the cases; that the trial in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2022 has already been commenced and that the other case in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2022, is pending for trial.

5. The petitioners have filed the above petition under Section 219 Cr.P.C, seeking orders for joint trial of both the cases Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2022 and Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2022.

6. The main contention of the petitioners is that the alleged occurrence in both the cases had taken place within three months time; that out of total witnesses in both the cases, 12 persons are common in both; that the statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C of the said 12 witnesses reveal the same facts and that both the cases are to be tried jointly, else it would prejudice the petitioners.

7. The respondent Police has filed a counter statement raising objections that joint trial is not feasible, on the following grounds:

* the witnesses 1 to 4 in both the cases are different persons;

* the charges levelled against both the accused in both cases are also different;

* except six witnesses, all other witnesses cited in both the cases are different persons.

8. The learned Sessions Judge after enquiry, has passed the impugned order, dated 15.06.2022, dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have come forward with the present Criminal Revision.

9. The learned trial Judge has assigned a reason that in POCSO cases, the victims name will not be recorded explicitly in the deposition and that if joint trial is ordered, recording of chief and cross-examination with respect to both victims will confuse the petitioners as well as the prosecution.

10. I find absolutely no merit in the said contention. The learned trial Judge can very well refer the victim girls as victim No.1 and 2 or as X and Y or as victim in Special S.C.No...., if there arises a need to refer the victims of both cases in the very same deposition. As such, there need not be any confusion in referring the victim girls. It is pertinent to note that the victims' identity should not be disclosed in the evidence as well as in the judgment in POCSO cases, b