Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The revisionists after the conclusion of the aforesaid trial vide judgement and order dated 22.08.2023, pressed their petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was pending before this Court and this Court disposed of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 22868 of 2016 vide order dated 07.11.2023 whereby applicants were directed to move an appropriate application for discharge before the trial court with a direction that the trial court shall decide the said application within two months. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 07.11.2023, the revisionists filed application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. wherein they categorically stated that on the basis of the identical evidence on which they are to be tried, the trial of the main accused Taudeen and other two co-accused (identically placed to that of the revisionists) had already been concluded vide judgement and order dated 22.08.2023 wherein accused have been acquitted, therefore now there is no occasion for the trial court to proceed with the trial against the revisionists and as such they are liable to be discharged from the charges levelled against them. The revisionists in their application for discharge categorically stated that the charge-sheet has been filed against the present revisionists on the identical charges, identical evidence has been relied on and same witnesses are sought to be produced who were produced in the trial of the main accused and two other accused i.e. Special Trial No. 1000066 of 2015, therefore once the main accused and other two co-accused have been exonerated from the charges vide judgement and order dated 22.08.2023, the revisionists are also liable to be discharged from the charges levelled against them.

16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. I have also perused the contents of the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 2800039 of 2016 and the judgement and order dated 22.08.2023 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 1000066 of 2015.

17. This Court takes note of the fact, in categorical terms, that the State has not disputed that one Taudeen (main accused) and two other co-accused i.e. Gyasuddin and Safia alias Shafiqun Nisha (identically placed to that of the present revisionists) have already been tried for identical charges, on the basis of identical evidence and on the testimonies of the identical witnesses related to Case Crime No. 554 of 2015 and the trial had been concluded vide judgement and order dated 22.08.2023 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 1000066 of 2015 whereby accused have been exonerated from the charge.

20. This Court is of the view that if for the same case crime number, two separate trials are conducted and in the first trial on the basis of the identical charges, on identical evidence and on the basis of the testimonies of the identical witnesses, few accused have been acquitted from the charges by the judgement passed in the first trial then the trial court while dealing with the second trial for other accused on the identical charges, on the identical evidence and on the basis of the testimonies of the identical witnesses cannot say that the judgement rendered in the first trial shall not be the part of the record of the other connected second trial.

22. This Court is also of the view that once for identical charges and on the basis of the identical evidence based on the testimonies of the identical witnesses, co-accused of the same case crime number have been acquitted from the charges then if other co-accused are permitted to be tried by the trial court without there being any new evidence on record, there would be one and the only one conclusion i.e. their acquittal from the charges, as such allowing to proceed the second trial would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.