Procedural irregularity in consolidated trials: High Court sets aside convictions

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a trial court's conviction verdict in connected criminal cases after finding that evidence from separate trials was improperly consolidated.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma was of the opinion that the principles of a fair trial were violated in the process.

The Bench made it clear that procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings were not mere technicalities but essential elements for ensuring justice. The court observed that evidence and witness testimonies from separate trials were improperly combined, despite earlier orders mandating the trials to be conducted independently.

The Bench asserted such procedural irregularities had fundamentally compromised the right of an accused to an impartial and distinct adjudication.

Referring to the Supreme Court's precedent in the case of “A.T. Mydeen and another versus Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department”, the Bench asserted that evidence from one trial could not be used in another as it undermined the integrity of criminal proceedings.

The judgment is significant as it reaffirms that each trial is required to maintain its distinct identity, with witnesses being examined and evidence being considered independently.

The matter was placed before the Bench after Rewari Additional Sessions Judge in March 2006 convicted some of the accused and sentenced them to life for murder and other offences under Sections 148, 302, 324, 323, 201 of the IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act. Two of the accused were acquitted by the trial court.

The appellant-convicts contended procedural errors in the trial court’s judgment, arguing that evidence from separate trials was improperly consolidated. They claimed this violated their right to a fair trial, as witnesses were examined jointly in cases where trials had been earlier separated.

The appellants also relied on precedents asserting that evidence from one trial could not be used in another.

The state defended the trial court’s approach, arguing that the appellants had not objected to the procedural consolidation. The state claimed the evidence and judgment were appropriately based on facts and did not prejudice the appellants.

Taking up the matter, the Bench directed the trial court to conduct a fresh retrial while maintaining separate case numbers for each trial, ensuring the re-examination of witnesses independently, hearing arguments separately, and delivering judgments distinctly for each case.

The court further directed that the retrial must be completed within six months. The Bench also held that the revision petition seeking enhanced punishment and compensation for the victim's family filed by the complainant in the matter had turned infructuous following the quashing of the trial court's verdict.