Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. In Padam Singh vs. State of U.P.5, the Court held that when the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused at the time of occurrence or in the course of the same transaction, the Court can draw an inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and has, thus, not presented the true version.

21. In Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P. and others,6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where the first case relates to an offence triable by Court of Sessions, whereas the other counter case was triable by a Court of Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to the Court of Sessions under Section AIR 2000 SC 361 (2001) 2 SCC 688 CPK, J & Dr. KMR, J 228(1) Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Magistrate shall transfer a case to Sessions Judge under Section 323 Cr.P.C. though the second case does not contain any charges which are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pressed the need to conduct simultaneous trial in case and counter.

22. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mishrilal (Dead) and others7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the need for simultaneous trial of case and counter, held that omission to do so will lead to Miscarriage of Justice. It would be appropriate to extract paragraph No.8 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

"8. In the instant case, it is undisputed, that the investigating officer submitted the challan on the basis of the complaint lodged by the accused Mishrilal in respect of the same incident. It would have been just fair and proper to decide both the cases together by the same court in view of the guidelines devised by this Court in Nathilal's case (supra). The cross-cases should be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of the offence involved. The rational behind this is to avoid the conflicting judgments over the same incident because if cross cases are allowed to be tried by two courts separately there is likelihood of conflicting judgments. In the instant case, the investigating officer submitted the challan against both the parties. Both the complaints cannot be said to be right. Either of them must be false. In such a situation, legal obligation is cast upon the investigating officer to make an endeavour to find out the truth and to cull out the truth from the falsehood. Unfortunately, the investigating (2003) 9 SCC 426 CPK, J & Dr. KMR, J officers has failed to discharge the obligation, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice."

23. In Golla Sankaraiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh8, a Division Bench of Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh after referring to the judgments of Supreme Court, held the need to conduct a simultaneous trial in case and counter cases. The Court held as under:

"14. The principle underlying such a requirement is not difficult to discern. It needs to be noted that when a case and a counter case are filed in relation to an incident, same individuals answer the description of victims in one case, and of accused, in another case. Whatever be the permissibility of the same individual playing the role of a plaintiff and defendant in the suits filed in relation to the same subject matter, almost irreconcilable situations emerge when they figure as victims and culprits, in relation to one and the same incident, in two different cases.