The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling on criminal procedure, has held that when two separate trials—one concerning offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and another under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—are conducted jointly, the appeal against the judgment in the IPC case is maintainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Justice Shree Prakash Singh clarified that the appellate procedure for each case is governed by the specific statute under which the trial was conducted, and a joint trial does not merge these distinct appellate pathways.
Case Background
The decision came in a criminal appeal filed by Dwarika and another, challenging the judgment and order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2018. The appellants were convicted under Sections 307, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
This sessions trial was heard jointly with another case, S.C./S.T. No. 108 of 2016, which arose from the same incident but involved charges under Sections 302, 307, 325, 304, and 506 of the IPC, as well as Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act. Although the trials were conducted together by the same judge, separate judgments were pronounced for each case.
Arguments of the Parties
The court heard arguments from Sri D.K. Tripathi for the appellants, and Dr. V.K. Singh, Government Advocate, assisted by Sri Shivendra Singh Rathore for the State. Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh and Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats appeared as counsel for the informant.
During the hearing, the counsel for the informant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. It was argued that since the IPC case was tried alongside a case under the SC/ST Act, any appeal must be filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, 1989, which provides a special procedure for appeals. The informant’s counsel pointed out that they had already filed an appeal under the SC/ST Act seeking enhancement of the sentence, and therefore, the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable.
The counsel for the appellants contended that since the conviction was in a Sessions Trial conducted under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., the appeal was correctly filed under the same code.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The High Court framed the central legal question: “Whether if joint trials of same transaction of an offence concluded and if in one of those comes under the Special Act, whether the appeal of such joint trial shall run as per the provisions prescribed under the Special Act or the procedure envisaged in ‘Code, 1973’ for filing an appeal against such trial?”
Justice Singh began the analysis by referring to the established principles for joint and cross-case trials. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nathi Lal Vs. State of U.P. (1990), which laid down the procedure for trying cross-cases. The Apex Court had held that a single judge must try both cases one after the other, reserve judgment in both, and then pronounce two separate judgments. Crucially, the Supreme Court mandated, “In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into.”
The High Court observed that this principle indicates that the basis for conviction in each case must be the separate evidence recorded in that specific trial.
The court also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Nasib Singh Vs State of Punjab (2022), which reiterated that statutory provisions do not make a joint trial imperative nor do they prohibit separate trials.
Further, relying on A.T. Mydeen and Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department (2022), the court noted the settled law that “each case has to be decided on its own merit and the evidence recorded in one case cannot be used in its cross-case.”
The judgment then turned to Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Cr.P.C. Section 4(2) provides that all offences under any law other than the IPC shall be tried according to the Cr.P.C., but “subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.” Section 5 saves the effect of any special or local law.
The court highlighted that Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act begins with a non-obstante clause (“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”), which provides an exclusive remedy for filing an appeal under that special act.
Synthesizing these principles, the court reasoned that the procedure for trial and the procedure for appeal are distinct. While two cases arising from the same transaction can be tried jointly for convenience, this does not mean the appellate remedies provided under different statutes are merged. The court stated, “…if there are two separate trials, one with respect to charges in an special act and another simply in I.P.C., both can be tried together while taking the separate evidences in both the trials… but, so far as further challenge of the outcome of those trials are concerned that can be heard jointly, in an appeal, but, in the separate provision prescribed as per the law.”
Decision of the Court
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the trial concluded for charges under a special act is appealable under the provisions of that special law, while the outcome of a trial for charges under the IPC is appealable under the Cr.P.C.
“In view of the foregoing reasons, this court finds that the trial which is concluded for the charges under an special act, will be appellable in the given provisions in special law, and the other outcome of the trial, for the charges under the I.P.C., is appellable under Cr.P.C.,” the court ruled.
Consequently, the preliminary objection was dismissed, and the criminal appeal filed under the Cr.P.C. was held to be maintainable. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on admission and the bail application.
