K PERUMAL Vs. CHITHANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and the revision case raise a point of the procedure to be followed where there are two cases on the same set of facts, one arising out of a police report and the other on a private complaint, and one of them involving more or less accused and witnesses than the other some of them being common to both.

(2.) ON the night of 3rd June 1963, a man named Natarajan was stabbed and killed on the spot at Viswanathaperi. During the occurrence, three other persons, who claim to be eye-witnesses thereto, were also injured, namely K. Perumal and E. Chinnammal, P. Ws. 2 and 4 respectively, and one Rakkammal. After investigation the police filed a charge-sheet on 29th June 1963, prosecuting only accused 2 for an offence under S. 302 I. P. C. for the murder of Natarajan. K. Perumal (P. W. 2) on the ground that the police had omitted accused 1 and 3 to 7, filed a private complaint in the Sub-Magistrate's court, Tenkasi, implicating those accused and accused 2 and charged them for different offences under S. 302, the same section read with S. 149, and Ss. 147, 148, 323 and 324 I. P. C. But these cases were separately enquired into by the Sub-Magistrate, Tenkasi, and ended in separate committal orders. Before the court of Session, Tirunelveli also, the trials were held separately with two separate judgments both resulting in the acquittals of all the accused. It appears that the witnesses common to both the cases were formally examined in the both the courts below separately in the two cases in addition to the other witnesses exclusive to each of those cases. P. W. 2 has preferred an appeal under s. 417 (3) Cri. P. C. from the Sessions judgment arising out of the private complaint and a criminal revision case against the other judgment referable to the police report.

(3.) ON behalf of the accused, their learned counsel, Mr. Srinivasagopalan, raised an objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the two simultaneous trials, like the enquiries, were illegal and that in view of the acquittal of accused 2 in the police case, the trial in the other case was barred. He submitted that if the trial, arising from the private complaint, was itself illegal, no appeal therefrom would lie under S. 417 (3) Crl. P. C. Before we consider the appeal and the revision cases, on the merits, we should consider first this legal objection.