RANDHIR SINGH Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANJIV KHANNA, J.: Appellant -Randhir Singh has preferred this appeal against acquittal of Hari Chand, Sant Ram, Prem Kumar @ Praveen, Naveen, Satpal and Sukhchain, who have been acquitted by the impugned judgment dated 26 th February, 2011. The said acquittal arises from Sessions Case No. 53/2009 arising out of FIR No. 73/2003, Police Station J.P. Kalan under Section 307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).

(2.) THE aforesaid FIR was registered after Randhir Singh and late Kehar Singh had filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 6th March, 2003, marked Exhibit PW -3/A, relating to the occurrence on 1st February, 2003. In the order dated 24th July, 2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate it was recorded that FIR No. 73/2003 had been registered on the basis of the complaint and investigation was in progress. Before the said date, the complaint had remained pending consideration and in an earlier order dated 9 th July, 2003 it was noticed that injuries had been inflicted on the present appellant and his group by members of the respondent group. Reference was made to the MLCs of Kehar Singh and Randhir Singh. It was also recorded that it was a cross case, as FIR No. 9/2003 was already registered against the appellants herein and his group.

(3.) IT is an accepted and admitted position that the present proceedings arise out of a cross case and the accused/respondents herein are the aggrieved party in FIR No. 9/2003, Police Station J.P. Kalan and the appellant herein Randhir Singh was/is an accused/convict in the said FIR. Trial in the two charge sheets arising out of the cross cases were held by the same Sessions court but evidence was separately recorded. Arguments were addressed in both the cases and separate judgments have been pronounced. Legal position as elucidated by the Supreme Court in cross cases, mandates that evidence should be recorded separately in the cross cases, except to the extent that witnesses of the prosecution which were/are common can be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other case. However, the cases should be disposed of simultaneously (see Harjinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 422). Further, while pronouncing two separate judgments, care should be taken that judgment in one's case was/is not based upon evidence recorded in the other case (see Harjinder Singh (supra), Sudhir and Others versus State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 688 and Kuldip Yadav and Others versus State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 324). We have proceeded on the said basis.