INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Nasib
Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 924, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the concept of Joint Trials and Separate
Trials as enshrined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The
facts of the case are not necessary for the purposes of this show and hence,
the same are not being discussed here.
IMPORTANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
Briefly speaking, the Court discussed Sections 218
to 223 of CrPC.
S. 218 provides that there shall be a separate
charge and trial for every distinct offence committed by a person and charges
may be tried together if it is not likely to cause any prejudice to such
accused person.
S. 219 provides that a person may be charged and
tried together for up to three offences having same amount of punishment that
have been committed within the same year.
Further, S. 220 provides that a person may be charged
and tried together for multiple offences if such offences are connected by a series
of acts that are part of the same transaction.
Similarly, S. 221 provides that a person may be charged
and tried together for multiple offences even if it is doubtful that which of the
several offences could be proved in the facts of a case.
S. 222 provides that if a person is charged with an
offence and later on, it is found out that he has committed a minor or a lesser
offence in respect of same set of facts, then such person may be convicted of
the minor offence even if he has not been charged with that minor offence.
And S. 223 provides that persons accused of the
same offence or similar offences with respect to the same transaction, may be
charged and tried together.
That was all about the legal provisions. Now, let us
peruse the pertinent observations by the Court with respect to Joint Trials and
Separate Trials under CrPC.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court observed that on conducting
joint and separate trials, the trial court should apply a two-pronged test,
namely,
(a) Whether conducting a joint/separate trial will
prejudice the defence of the accused? and/or
(b) Whether conducting a joint/separate trial
would cause judicial delay?
Secondly, according to the Court, “the
possibility of conducting a joint trial will have to be determined at the
beginning of the trial and not after the trial based on the result of the
trial. The Appellate Court may determine the validity of the argument that
there ought to have been a separate/joint trial only based on whether the trial
had prejudiced the right of accused or the prosecutrix.”
Thirdly, the Court explained that “Section
218 provides that separate trials shall be conducted for distinct offences
alleged to be committed by a person. Sections 219 - 221 provide exceptions to
this general rule. If a person falls under these exceptions, then a joint trial
for the offences which a person is charged with may be conducted. Similarly,
under Section 223, a joint trial may be held for persons charged with different
offences if any of the clauses in the provision are separately or on a
combination satisfied.”
Fourthly, the Court noted that a separate trial is
usually not contrary to law even if a joint trial could have been conducted,
unless it is proved that the separate trial caused a miscarriage of justice.
Fifthly, the Court discussed that “a
conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside on the mere ground
that there was a possibility of a joint or a separate trial. To set aside the
order of conviction or acquittal, it must be proved that the rights of the
parties were prejudiced because of the joint or separate trial, as the case may
be.”
Sixthly, the Court cited the case of Chandra
Bhal v. State of U.P., (1971) 3 SCC 983, wherein following important
points were jotted down: -
a. S. 223 “neither renders a joint trial
imperative nor does it bar or prohibit separate trials.”
b. The question of joint trial or separate trial “is
required to be determined by the trial court at the beginning of the trial and
it is not to be determined on the basis of the result of the trial.”
c. When a plea of joint trial is made before the
Appellate Court, “clear prejudice must be established as having been
caused as a result of the separate trial.”
Seventhly, the Court cautioned that “a de
novo trial should be a matter of last resort only when such a course of action
becomes so desperate and indisputable.” According to the Court, “an
order of retrial wipes out from the record the earlier proceeding” and
it is a “replay of the whole laborious exercise… by bringing down all the
persons to the court once again for repeating the whole depositions.”
And lastly, the Court emphasized that where it is not
demonstrated and proved that separate trial led to a miscarriage, there it
cannot be held that holding of separate trials was contrary to law.
ENDING REMARK
Those were the observations by the Court. I hope
that the nature and the scope of Joint Trials and Separate Trials enshrined
under CrPC is clear by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment