Supreme Court on Joint Trials and Separate Trials under CrPC

 

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.