The Punjab and Haryana High Court in one of its recent judgement has held that there is no concept in criminal jurisprudence that if accused is found guilty in one case, he would be held to be guilty in other identical cases.
The Court's judgement came out during hearing of a case titled Krishan Lal @ Kishan Lal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Delhi) wherein it was held that any evidence recorded in an earlier case or any finding recorded against accused can not be ipso-facto imported in a current case.
The petitioner had approached the Court challenging order passed by CBI Special Judge wherein his appeal to transfer a criminal case against him to any other Court of competent jurisdiction has been dismissed.
His Learned Counsel has submitted before the Court that the present case (Krishan Lal @ Kishan Lal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Delhi)) against the petitioner, as well as another case (CBI v. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Others) regarding another murder, had arisen from a statement of Khatta Singh recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has appeared as a witness in both cases and while the petitioner has been convicted in the other case, the trial in the present case is still pending.
He further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is mainly based on the testimony of PW-Khatta Singh and since the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned while deciding the trial in another case has heavily relied upon the statement of aforesaid Khatta Singh and also on his statement recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is every likelihood that a similar opinion is likely to be formed in the present case based on testimony of aforesaid Khatta Singh who had been held to be reliable witness in the other case.
The Court on hearing upon the submission regarded the apprehension of the petitioner that the trial Court would be prejudiced against the accused more particularly since the entire case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of the same witness, whose testimony had found favor with the Court in an earlier case as 'misconceived'.
The Court held that there is no such concept in criminal jurisprudence that if an accused is found guilty in one case, he would be held to be guilty in other identical cases. Each case has to be established by the prosecution by leading evidence independently. Thus any evidence recorded in another case or any finding recorded against the accused therein can not be ipso-facto imported in the present case. It is only in accordance with settled principles of evidence that any such evidence or judgment may be held to be relevant.
It stated that the mere fact that the trial court found the testimony of Khatta Singh reliable in another case cannot lead to the conclusion that the trial Court would be influenced by the said fact while deciding the present case.
It assured that the Trial Court would examine all the facts and circumstances in the present case so as to reach an independent conclusion as regards the veracity of the statement of PW Khatta Singh.
The Court also discarded that contention that Rules 9 to 11 of Volume-III of High Court Rules and Orders, Chapter 26, Part-A are applicable in any way on the present scenario in both the cases.
The Bench thus dismissed the petition and observed,
"As far as Rules 9 to 11 of Volume-III of High Court Rules and Orders, Chapter 26, Part-A as reproduced above are concerned, Rule 9 would be applicable in a case where Presiding Officer happens to be related or known to either of the party which is not the case in hand. Rule 10 would be applicable in a case where the Presiding Officer has already formed a definite opinion pertaining to material issues against the accused. The present case arising out of RC8/2003 is altogether a different matter from the subject matter of RC10/2003 as both these cases pertain to two different murders."
The Bench further observed,
"Although one of the witnesses may be common in both the cases and whose testimony has been relied upon by Presiding Officer while deciding the other case arising out of RC-10/2003 but the said fact ipso-facto cannot be construed to mean that the Presiding Officer has already formed opinion about the veracity of the statement of the aforesaid witness in the present case. There is nothing on record to show that the Presiding Officer is prejudiced in any manner against the accused. As such the present case would not attract aforesaid Rule 10 or 11 (supra). Needless to mention it shall always be open to the petitioner to raise submissions at an appropriate stage before Trial Court so as to impeach the credibility of the aforesaid Khatta Singh. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The petition, as such, is sans merit and is hereby dismissed."
The petitioner was represented by Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Abhishek Sanghi and Ms. Kanika Ahuja, Advocates
The judgement has been delivered by Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill on 20-12-2019.
Read Judgement Here:
