Trial Court Passes Common Verdict Against Multiple Accused By Reviewing Order For Separate Trial In Murder Case, Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Conviction

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the conviction in a murder case against multiple accused persons wherein the Trial Court gave a common verdict after reviewing its earlier order directing to try them separately.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "when the earlier passed order by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, on 02.07.2001, wherebys, the trial qua co-accused Davender was ordered to be separated from the trial, as became entered upon other seven co- accused, rather remaining unchallenged, wherebys, it acquired binding and conclusive effect. Resultantly the said was impermissible for being reviewed, even for no protest becoming made by the defence counsel to the application, as filed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Contrarily, with the learned trial Judge while allowing the said application, whereto, no protest was made by the learned defence counsel, thus has impermissibly reviewed the earlier order dated 02.07.2001, vide which the trial in Sessions case titled as State Vs. Davender was separated from the trial entered qua Sessions case titled as State Vs. Avtar Singh and Others."

The Court highlighted that the Trial Court reviewing its order wherein directions were issued to try the accused persona separately is "grossly impermissible".

These observations were made while hearing a batch of appeals against conviction in a murder case wherein accused persons Kartar Singh, Sube Singh, Phool Singh, Samar Singh and Devender were convicted for life imprisonment under 302 read with 149 IPC and under other provisions of IPC and Arms Act.

Speaking for the bench Justice Thakur noted that evidence from the trial of one accused was "improperly consolidated" and applied in the trial of anothers.

Reliance was placed on Apex Court's decision in A.T.Mydeen and Another Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department, to underscore that evidence recorded in a criminal trial against any accused is confined to the culpability of that accused only and it does not have any bearing upon a co-accused, who has been tried on the basis of evidence recorded in a separate trial, though for the commission of the same offence.

While setting aside the conviction order, the Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court and directed to try the accused persons separately by assigning a separate case number.

The Court also clarified that a separate judgments should be pronounced after conducting a separate and distinct trial.

Title: Devender v. State of Haryana [along with connected matters]

Mr.VinodGhai,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate

Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate for the appellant(s) (in CRA-290-DB-2006 and CRA-392-DB-2006).

Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant(s) (in CRA-421-DB-2006).

Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRR-1591-2006).

Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate (Amicus Curiae). for respondent No. 7 (in CRR-1591-2006)

Mr. Anas Ahmed, Advocate for respondent No. 8 in CRR-1591-2006. 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 05

Click here to read/download the order