Evidence of One Trial Cannot Be Used in Another: Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Convictions in Murder Case

Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing the convictions and sentences of several appellants due to procedural violations involving the joinder of two separated trials. A bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Hon’ble Justice Sudeepthi Sharma ruled that the trial court’s decision to pass a common verdict for two trials that were earlier separated violated principles of fair trial and procedural law. The judgment was remanded to the trial court with specific directions to conduct the two trials separately.

Quoting the Supreme Court in A.T. Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department (Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2021), the High Court observed, “The culpability of any accused cannot be decided on the basis of any evidence which was not recorded in his presence or in the presence of his pleader, and for which he did not get an opportunity for cross-examination.”

The case stemmed from an FIR registered on September 9, 1998, alleging that eight accused, including Devender, Phool Singh, and Sube Singh, attacked the complainant Bhupinder Singh and his uncle Nand Lal, leading to the death of Nand Lal. The accused were charged under Sections 148, 302, 324, 323, and 452 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 120-B IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The trial court initially separated the trials due to the absence of one accused, Devender, an army personnel. Separate sessions cases were conducted under the titles State v. Devender and State v. Kartar Singh and Others, with distinct prosecution witnesses examined in each case. However, upon an application under Section 311 CrPC filed by the prosecution, the trial court allowed evidence recorded in one trial to be used in the other. The two trials were effectively merged, and a common judgment of conviction was passed on March 28, 2006.

The appellants challenged the trial court’s judgment, arguing that the joinder of separated trials and the reliance on shared evidence violated their right to a fair trial.

The High Court held that the trial court’s decision to merge the separated trials and pass a common verdict was a gross procedural irregularity. Justice Sureshwar Thakur emphasized that the earlier order of separation of trials, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, on July 2, 2001, had become final and binding. The trial court lacked the jurisdiction to review or undo that separation order, even with the consent of the defense counsel.

The court noted that the principles of separation of trials are essential for ensuring fairness in criminal proceedings. Justice Thakur observed, “The trial court was bound to ensure that the prosecution witnesses cited in one session case stepped into the witness box only in that session case. Separate trials must lead to separate appraisals of evidence, and separate judgments must be delivered.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in A.T. Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department, the High Court reiterated, “The evidence of one trial cannot be read in another trial. The distinctiveness of evidence is paramount, as the right to a fair trial encompasses the accused’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in their respective trials.” The court further clarified that even if the same witnesses were cited in both trials, their testimonies had to be recorded separately, with separate cross-examinations, as the roles and culpability of the accused in each trial could differ.

The bench also rejected the State’s contention that the defense counsel’s no-objection to the application under Section 311 CrPC validated the trial court’s decision. “Consent of the defense counsel cannot validate an otherwise illegal procedure that undermines the accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial,” the court remarked.

Allowing the criminal appeals, the High Court quashed the common judgment of the trial court and remanded the cases for fresh proceedings. The court directed the trial court to ensure that prosecution witnesses testify only in their respective trials. It further ordered the trial court to assign separate session case numbers to the trials titled State v. Devender and State v. Kartar Singh and Others, hear arguments separately, and deliver distinct judgments for both cases within six months.

The court emphasized that separate judgments were necessary to maintain the integrity of the trial process, stating, “The joinder of trials, despite an earlier separation order, resulted in a gross misappraisal of evidence and vitiated the fairness of the proceedings.”

Insofar as the criminal revision petition (CRR-1591-2006), filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentences, was concerned, the High Court dismissed it as infructuous in light of the quashing of the trial court’s judgment.

The judgment reinforces the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused is entitled to a fair trial. By holding that evidence recorded in one trial cannot be used in another and that separated trials must lead to separate verdicts, the High Court reaffirmed the sanctity of procedural fairness. The ruling also underscores the importance of judicial adherence to procedural mandates, even in cases involving multiple accused arising from a common FIR.

Date of Decision: December 4, 2024