BALBIR versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 26-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BALBIR 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 26, 1999 
) 
[K.T. THOMAS, A.P. MISHRA AND 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 223 : 
C 
Joint trial-Two cases-One instituted on private complaint and the 
other on police report-Accused did not raise a contention before tria•I court 
that joint trial of both the cases be ordered-Effect-Held: Such a contention 
cannot be raised at any later stage-Criminal Trial. 
Joint trial-Decision on-Duty of court-Procedure-Two cases-One 
D instituted on private complaint and the other on police report-Two 
diametrically divergent versions without anything in common except that the 
murdered person was the same-Held: The two trials should be separately 
conducted one after the other by the same court before the same Judge-
Judge should take care to confine his judgment in one case only to the 
E evidence adduced in that particular case-If more than one public prosecutor 
are available in the same station, the prosecutor who prosecutes ofl'e case 
should avoid prosecuting the other case-Penal Code, 1860, 
S. 302-
Criminal Trial. 
Joint trial-Scope of-"Committed in the course of the same 
F transaction"-Meaning of-Two cases-One instituted on private complaint 
and the other on police report-Clubbing and consolidation a/-
Permissibility of-Held: Impermissible-In such a situation the two cases 
should be tried by the same Judge but not consolidated 
Penal code, 1860: 
G 
Section 302-Two cases-Before same court-One instituted on private 
complaint and the other on police report-Allegation of criminal compiracy 
to rescue the real culprits-Private complaint case approved by court but 
police case rejected-Accused arraigned by police acquitted-Val.idity-
Held: Court should be absolutely certain that the police version is false, 
H fabricated and accentuated by sinister motive-Court should also be 
120 
• 
BALBIR v. STA TE OF HAR Y ANA 
121 
absolutely certain that the police officials and the real culprits entered into A 
a criminal conspiracy to rescue the mur<ierer-Unless such a degree of 
satisfaction is reached, a criminal court cannot conclude that prosecution 
initiated on a private complaint has succeeded in proving the guilt of the 
:-;,~. 
accused beyond all reasonable doubt-In the circumstances of the case, 
accused in private complaint acquitted 
B 
Words and Phrases: 
"Committed in the course of the same transaction "-Meaning of-In 
the context of S.223 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
One 0 was shot dead at the bus stand and PW-4 (nephew of the deceased) c 
lodged a complaint at the police station accusing the appellant and his brother 
as the persons who shot at the deceased. During the investigation it was found 
that the appellant was not the culprit and instead one G was discovered to 
-f 
have shot at the deceased. G was accordingly charge-sheeted and the case 
was committed to the Court of Sessions. 
D 
In the meanwhile, PW-4 filed a private complaint before the Magistrate 
alleging that the real culprits were the appellant and his brother and that the 
police investigation was totally misdirected at the influence of the real culprits. 
The Magistrate, on receipt of the complaint, committed that case also to the 
court of Sessions. 
E 
The trial against G and the appellant and his brother were conducted 
as two separate Sessions cases before the same Sessions Judge. The appellant 
did not raise any contention before the Sessions Court that a joint trial of 
both the cases must be ordered. The Sessions Judge pronounced separate 
judgments iii both the cases, acquitting G and convicting the appellant under F 
Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court confirmed the conviction 
of the accused. Hence this appeal 
On behalf of the appellant-accused it was contended that the cases 
against the appellant and G should have been consolidated together for a joint 
trial under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. When the trial in the case began before the Sessions Court 
the appellant did not make any contention that a joint trial of both the cases 
must be ordered. Having not done so the appellant cannot raise such a H 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A contention on that score at any later stage. (126"8] , 
2. The two versions of the cases-one instituted on a police report and 
the other instituted on a private complaint~are diametrically diverg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.