Separate trials for offenses arising from the same transaction violate procedural principles, necessitating correction to avoid miscarriage of justice. Identity of victims must be established with admissible evidence to support convictions.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them vide two judgments, both dated 30.01.2019 in S.C.Nos.186 of 2017 and 185 of 2017, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Vellore, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred Crl.A.Nos.228 and 229 of 2019. As both the Sessions cases arise out of offences committed in the course of the same transactions, both appeals are taken up together, heard and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3......

(i) The prosecution case broadly is that the appellants had kidnapped one Bhimsingh and his son on 12.10.2014 at about 11.00 a.m., in a TATA Sumo car and caused the deaths of the said Bhimsingh and his son Manoj by forcing Bhimsingh (father) to have liquour mixed with poisonous substances and thereafter causing the death of the son by injecting his neck with a vacuum syringe and, strangulating him to death.

(ii) However, since the bodies of the father and son were found in two different places and were found by the Village Administrative Officers incharge of those places, separate FIRs in Cr.Nos.156 of 2017 and 157 of 2017, were registered by the respondent police. During the course of the investigation, it appears that the investigating officer had realised that both murders were committed in the course of the same transaction and the 2^nd charge under Section 364 of the IPC, which states that both were kidnapped for committing murder, confirms the same. However, the respondent had committed a procedural irregularity by filing separate final reports in respect of the murder of the father and the son. The trial Judge conducted the trial separately but simultaneously and rendered the Judgment on the same day.

(iii) Though the nature of evidence in both cases is very much similar, the witnesses examined in the two cases are slightly different. The procedure adopted by the respondent police is palpably wrong and opposed to Part-B of Chapter XVII of the Cr.P.C., relating to the joinder of the charges.

(iv) In a very similar case in K. Thoosimuthu and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others , 2019 (2) LW(Crl) 655, this Court held that by virtue of Section 223 (d) of the Cr.P.C., the murders, which have been committed in the course of the same transaction, that are related to one another in point of purpose and constitute one continuous action, ought to be tried jointly. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows:

“29. This Court has to squarely blame the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, who is supposed to have identified that the case squarely falls under Section 223(d) of Cr.P.C. Even, if the prosecution has committed a mistake, it is for the trial Court to have rectified that mistake. The trial Court ought to have taken both the Final Reports and brought the case under Section 223(d) of Cr.P.C. and framed common charges against the accused persons and conducted a single trial in this case. A Sessions Judge is supposed to know this fundamental principle of joinder of charges and the manner in which, the trial has proceeded in this case really shocks this Court. It is not known as to why, all of a sudden the trial Court, which was proceeding further conducting a simultaneous trial, stopped the trial in one case and proceeded with the trial in the other case and