HC nullifies convictions over procedural irregularities in consolidated trials

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a trial court's conviction in connected criminal cases, citing procedural irregularities in consolidating evidence from separate trials. The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma held that the principles of a fair trial had been violated, resulting in a compromise of justice.

The Bench emphasised that procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings are not mere technicalities but integral to ensuring justice. It observed that evidence and witness testimonies from separate trials had been improperly merged, despite earlier orders directing the trials to be conducted independently.

“Procedural irregularities have fundamentally compromised the right of the accused to an impartial and distinct adjudication,” the Bench stated. Referring to the Supreme Court's precedent in the case of AT Mydeen and another versus Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department, the Bench reiterated that evidence from one trial cannot be used in another, as this undermines the integrity of criminal proceedings.

The judgment underscores that each trial must maintain its distinct identity, with witnesses being examined and evidence considered independently.

The case originated from a March 2006 judgment by the Rewari Additional Sessions Judge, which convicted several accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder and other offences under Sections 148, 302, 324, 323, 201 of the IPC and provisions of the Arms Act. Two of the accused were acquitted in the same judgment.

The appellant-convicts challenged the trial court’s decision, arguing that evidence from separate trials had been improperly consolidated. They contended this violated their right to a fair trial as witnesses were examined jointly in cases that were meant to be tried separately. The appellants relied on legal precedents asserting that such procedural errors rendered the judgment invalid.

In defence, the state argued that the appellants had not objected to the procedural consolidation during the trial. It maintained that the evidence and verdict were appropriately based on facts and did not prejudice the appellants.

After hearing the arguments, the high court Bench directed the trial court to conduct a fresh retrial. It ordered the cases to maintain separate case numbers, ensuring witnesses are re-examined independently, arguments are heard separately, and judgments are delivered distinctly for each case. The court directed the retrial to be completed within six months.

Additionally, the Bench dismissed a revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhanced punishment and compensation for the victim's family, deeming it infructuous following the quashing of the trial court’s verdict.

The ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to fair trial principles and the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings.