timeline of events

• These appeals arise from a judgment dated 20 December 2019 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a batch of nine criminal appeals
• The High Court remitted the orders of acquittal and conviction arising out of two separate FIRs for fresh trial and directed that the proceedings arising out of both the FIRs be clubbed together under Section 223 CrPC and be tried together by one court
• The issue that arises for consideration is whether holding separate trials arising out of two FIRs warrants the direction of the High Court for a de novo trial
• FIR 96


  FIR registered on 27 November 2012 under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 328 and 34 of the IPC
• FIR 100


  FIR registered on 26 December 2012 against the appellant (SI Nasib Singh), Balwinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh alias Aman and Shinderpal Kaur for abetting the suicide of the prosecutrix
• FIR 187


  FIR registered on 31 December 2012 against Balwinder Singh, Gurpeet Singh and Shinderpal Kaur for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC
• A Special Investigating Team (SIT) was constituted by the ADGP (Crime) to enquire into the standard of investigation conducted by the appellant in the gang rape case registered as FIR 96 of 2012
• The SIT concluded that the investigation conducted by the appellant in FIR 96 of 2012 had loopholes
• The appellant was dismissed from the Police Department on 27 December 2012, but the dismissal was set aside on 11 April 2014, and the appellant was reinstated to the service
• On 15 January 2013, the appellant was implicated in respect of FIR 96 of 2012 concerning the gang rape of the prosecutrix and alleged offences under Sections 217, 218 and 120B of the IPC were added
• In regard to FIR 187 of 2012 registered for the offence under Section 306/34, the appellant was implicated following the addition of offences under Sections 217, 218 and 120-B IPC
• The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala acquitted the appellant - Nasib Singh on the ground that there was nothing on record to prove that he had conducted a tainted investigation
• The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala acquitted the appellant in the trial arising out of FIR 187 of 2012
• Nine appeals were filed before the High Court, including appeals against the conviction of the accused and appeals challenging the acquittal of the appellant
• The High Court remitted the judgments of conviction and acquittal dated 29 November 2014 and 29 January 2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge in the trials arising out of FIR 96 and FIR 187 and directed that trials be clubbed and tried together as provided under Section 223 CrPC
• Most of the witnesses in the proceedings arising out of the different FIRs are common


  They are just numbered differently
• The evidence in FIR 187 was produced during the trial in FIR 96


  Both the offences arising out of FIR 96 and FIR 187 are connected with each other
• The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix committed suicide because of the rape committed by the accused


  The evidence and facts arising out of both FIR 96 and FIR 187 must be tried together under Section 223 CrPC
• The High Court observed that Nasib Singh (appellant) was acquitted by the trial court in respect of offences arising out of FIR 96 and FIR 187 and the court must be slow to disturb it
• Though the evidence and the facts mentioned above this Court is of the view that both the alleged offences are connected with each other in such a way that a serious prejudice has been caused to both prosecution as well as defence by the separate trials in the said cases
• This Court feels that unless the evidence of both the FIRs is scanned together by the Court to arrive at final conclusion, it may lead to failure of justice
• Nasib Singh (appellant) was acquitted by the trial court in respect of offences arising out of FIR 96 and FIR 187
• The High Court observed that they should be slow in disturbing the acquittal of Nasib Singh, but when the entire scenario is taken into consideration and is viewed from the angle of failure of justice, these cases should be remanded back for retrial
• The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29 November 2014 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala arising out of FIR No. 96 dated 27 November 2012 was remitted
• The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29 January 2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala arising out of FIR No. 187 dated 31 December 2012 was remitted
• Nasib Singh is in appeal before this Court
• Leave has been granted
• Both sets of judgments - the judgment dated 29 November 2014 of the Additional Sessions Judge arising from FIR 96 alleging rape and the judgment dated 29 January 2015 arising out of FIR 187 alleging abetment of suicide were rendered by one and the same court and by the same judge
• The appellant was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge in both the Sessions Trials and no appeal was filed by the State against the order of acquittal
• The appellant who had been dismissed from service was reinstated
• Though Section 386(a) of the CrPC empowers the Appellate Court in an appeal from an order of acquittal to inter alia reverse such an order and direct that a further enquiry be made or that the accused be retried or committed for trial, the power to order a retrial is of an exceptional nature and none of the well-established grounds for the exercise of the power have been demonstrated to exist in the present case
• The order of the High Court remitting the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused and directing a fresh trial has caused serious prejudice to the appellant since the order of acquittal in his favour has also been set aside without any evaluation on merits and without cause or justification
• The judgment of the High Court would cause serious prejudice because two crucial witnesses PW20 - Head Constable Ranja Ram and PW17 - Head Constable Gurjeet Singh (who were part of the investigating team with the appellant) have died and their depositions in regard to the nature of the investigation conducted by the appellant would be wiped out where fresh evidence has to be adduced at the retrial
• During the course of the trial, PW2, PW12, PW17, PW21 and PW22 were examined and their evidence would demonstrate that the investigation has been properly conducted by the appellant
• The appellant is currently 65 years old. A de novo trial could cause severe distress to him
• Though the acquittal of the appellant was challenged by the mother of the prosecutrix, it is material to note that she has been declared hostile qua the appellant in the course of the criminal trial
• Section 218 of the CrPC postulates the general rule of separate trials for separate offences to which inter alia Section 223 CrPC, which provides when persons may be charged and tried together, is an exception
• The High Court in the present case has applied the provisions of Section 223(d) under which persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together
• A joint trial is not peremptory but lies at the discretion of the court
• Whether a joint trial should be held must be decided at the beginning of the trials