Sunil Kumar vs State
1999 Latest Caselaw 631 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. By this petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26.10.1998 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi in S.C. No. 203/96 framing charge under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioner.

2. A short conspectus of the case is that the petitioner along with the accused persons Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Lakshmi Chand, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar were charge-sheeted under Sections 147/148/302/149 IPC.

Trial of the case against the petitioner and Lakshmi Chand proceeded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. due to their abscontion during the trial. However, by the judgment dated 19.1.1998, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi of the offences charged under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. After the said judgment, the petitioner surrendered himself before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and sought his discharge on the ground that the other ac-

cused persons stand acquitted of the offences charged under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. Rejecting the said prayer, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed a charge under Sections 302/34 IPC against the petitioner.

3. The question thus is as to whether in the face of the judgment of acquittal the petitioner should still be permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial. In Sat Kumar Vs. State of Haryana , it was held that there is no rule of law that if the Court acquits some of the accused on the evidence of a witness raising doubt with regard to them the other accused against whom there is absolute certainty about his complicity in the crime based on the remaining credible part of the evidence of that witness must be acquitted. (See also Har Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ; Makan Jivan Vs. State of Gujarat ; Mohd.

Moin Uddin Vs. State of Maharashtra 1971 SCC (Cri) 617. But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence.

4. On perusal of the judgment of acquittal dated 19.1.1998, it appears that the deceased Balwan Singh met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries sustained by him has not been disputed by the accused persons. The evidence against the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eye witnesses, namely, Karan Singh (PW-2) and Smt. Asha Rani (PW-5) (wife of the deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex.PW- 13/A) of the deceased Balvan Singh. Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Eliminating the evidence of the said eye witnesses, there remains the dying declaration (Ex. PW-13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh, which has been disbelieved by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It would, therefore, appear that the accused persons, namely, Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Thus, the evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trail only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the charge and the proceedings thereunder are quashed.