Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2246

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, SANDEEP JAIN, JJ.
Rajendra And Another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 10492 of 2024, Criminal Appeal No. 10576 of 2024
Decided On : 01-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rajrshi Gupta, Santosh Kumar Shukla
For the Respondents: Aditya Kashyap, Anshul Kumar Singhal, G.A., Mayank Kumar Singh

The court emphasized the necessity for separate judgments in cross-cases to uphold the principles of fair trial and independent evaluation of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302/34 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 372 - Common judgment in multiple sessions trials - The court found that the learned court below erred in passing a common judgment for separate sessions trials arising from the same case, violating principles of fair trial. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that cross-cases should be tried separately by the same judge without influence from each other. (Paras 6, 9, 11)

(B) Fair Trial - The principle of a fair trial requires that evidence in cross-cases must be considered independently, and judgments must not be influenced by the proceedings of related cases. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from a common judgment convicting certain accused in a murder case while acquitting others in related trials, leading to claims of procedural error in the lower court's handling.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the common judgment due to procedural errors, emphasizing the need for separate judgments based on independent evidence.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of a common judgment in separate trials and adherence to fair trial principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the learned court below's common judgment was erroneous and violated established principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding the handling of cross-cases.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments against the common judgment and procedural errors. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
3. supreme court's guidance on handling cross-cases. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. conclusion and orders regarding appeals and bail. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant.

2. Present appeal arises from a common judgment and order dated 10.10.2024 passed by Ms. Indu Dwivedi, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 1148 of 2015 (State v. Raghurag, Chahatram, Bijendra and Rajendra). That sessions trial emerged from Case Crime No. 1118A of 2006, under Section 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad. The said judgment and order is also common to two other sessions trial namely Sessions Trial No. 387 of 2007 (State v. Rakesh) and Sessions Trial No. 810 of 2013 (State v. Rishi), both arising out of Case Crime No. 1118 of 2006, under Section 307 and 385 I.P.C., P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad (against accused-Rakesh) and under Section 307, 384 and 385 I.P.C. (against accused-Rishi). Learned Court below has convicted the appellants-Raghurag, Chahatram, Bijendra and Rajendra (in S.T. No. 1148 of 2015). It has acquitted the accused persons Rakesh and Rishi in Session Trial No. 387 of 2007 (State v. Rakesh) and Sessions Trial No. 810 of 2013 (State v.Rishi), respectively.

3. The above common judgment and order has given rise to four appeal proceedings, three on behalf of the convicted accused and one on behalf of the informant in Case Crime No. 1118 of 2006 whereby the accused persons Rakesh and Rishi have been acquitted. Details of the appeal filed are as under :

S.No. Appeal No.		Party Name	Sessions Trial
1.	Criminal Appeal No. 10492 of 2024	(Rajendra and Chahatram v. State of U.P.)	S.T. No. 1148 of 2015 (State v. Raghurag, Chahatram, Bijendra and Rajendra)
2.	Criminal Appeal No. 10576 of 2024	(Raghuraj v. State of U.P.)	-do-
3.	Criminal Appeal No. 10731 of 2024	(Bijendra v. State of U.P.)	-do-
4.	Criminal Appeal u/S 372 Cr.P.C. No. 668 of 2024	(Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., Rakesh and Rishi)	S.T. No. 387 of 2007 (State v. Rakesh) and S.T. No. 810 of 2013 (State v. Rishi).

4. As to the proceedings conducted by the learned court below, undoubtedly evidence was received separately in Sessions Trial No. 1148 of 2015 (State v. Raghuraj and 3 others). On the other hand, initially, proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 387 of 2007 (State v. Rakesh) and Sessions Trial No. 810 of 2013 (State v. Rishi), both arising from Case Crime No. 1118 of 2006 were conducted independently. Later, the two sessions trial were consolidated and Sessions Trial No. 810 of 2013 was made the lead case. Evidence was received in that. To the above extent, there is nothing to doubt the proceeding. What transpired after evidence had been adduced, is of no concern in these appeals.

5. Submission is, the learned court below has fallen in error in passing a common judgement and order in the three sessions trial namely Session Trial No. 1148 of 2015 (State v. Raghuraj and 3 others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1118A of 2006 against Raghuraj, Chahatram, Bijendra and Rajendra and the two other sessions trial namely Sessions Trial Nos. 387 of 2007 and 810 of 2013, arising from Case Crime No. 1118 of 2006 against the other set of accused namely Rakesh and Rishi.

6. The procedure adopted by the learned court below is described, manifestly erroneous and wholly impermissible in law. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nathi Lal and others v. State of U.P. , 1990 Supp SCC 145 , as consistently followed in Sudhir and others v. State of M.P , (2001) 2 SCC 688, State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (dead) and others, (2003) 9 SCC 426, as considered and appli