The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the importance of simultaneous trials for case and counter-case to prevent conflicting judgments.

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMON ORDER:

These two Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of by this common order, since these two Criminal Revision Cases arise out of the case and counter case.

The Criminal Revision Case No.588 of 2010 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C ’) challenging the Judgment dated 18.01.2010, passed in S.C.No.181 of 2009, on the file of the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, for the alleged offences under Sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’).

The Criminal Revision Case (SR) No.29410 of 2010 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C ’, challenging the Judgment dated 18.01.2010, passed in S.C.No.182 of 2009, on the file of the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, for the alleged offence under Sections 307 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’

2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Mr. Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Judge erred in not attaching any importance to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are injured; erred in ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 who are witnesses to the incident; the case and the counter case were not heard in proper perspective and disposed of; even though the prosecution had proved the guilt of the respondent No.1 beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent No.1 and urged that the revision case may be allowed.

4. Per Contra, Mr. M.Siva Ram, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the learned trial Court having appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail came to correct conclusion and acquitted the respondent No.1 as he has not committed any offence. It is further contended that in fact, the petitioners were the aggressors, the counter case in S.C.No.182 of 2009 was wrongly ended in acquittal and urged to allow the Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010.

5. Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the learned trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence in both the cases and for the reasons mentioned in those Judgments, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused by name Yarlagadda Padda Raju, in S.C.No.181 of 2009 and the accused Nos.1 to 5 by names Yendru Veerababu, Yendru Sayanna, Yendru Venkatarao, Yendru Rambabu and Yendru Satyam in S.C.No.182 of 2009 and urged to dismiss these two revision cases as they are not maintainable.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgments in S.C.No.181 of 2009 and S.C.No.182 of 2009, passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, are correct, legal, and proper with respect to their finding, or judgments, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

8. Admittedly, the dispute in between the petitioners and respondent No.1 was dealt as case and counter. In a case and counter, the learned trial Court would conduct the trial simultaneously in the two cases one after the other and after the completion of evidence and on hearing of the arguments, would dispose of the two cases one after the other on the same day by finding who are the aggressors and who are at fault.

9. It is apposite to refer the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudhir and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh , [(2001) 2 SCC 688] , of which para Nos.8, 10, 12, 13, 16 and 17 reads as follows:

8. It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the sam