New Delhi: The Supreme Court has decided that a separate trial must be carried out for the cross-case submitted by two parties involved in a violation, even if witness prosecution is the same for both parties, because the law prohibits consideration in one case for cross-case .
Blaming Madras HC for deciding two appeals arising from one incident and deciding on evidence recorded in one case, Judge Judge Dy Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagaratha said, “As far as the law of the Crusades of the cases concerned, each case must be decided on Own achievement and evidence recorded in one case cannot be used in the kasing.
“Justice Nath said,” Whatever the evidence available in the case record is only what must be considered.
The only caution is that the two trials must be done simultaneously or In terms of appeal, they must be heard simultaneously.
“In the case of customs spasms, there were two sets of defendants and trial courts had tried it separately and released the defendant.
However, when the income department applied for liberation, HC had considered both appeals simultaneously and punished people accused of both cases based on evidence in one of two cases.
The additional lawyer General Vikramjit Banerjee argues that as the same evidence in both cases, there is no prejudice that can be alleged by the defendant.
Refuse the argument and remain firm that each case must be heard separately, Bench said, “Is prejudice or not, in fact, still that HC made a legal mistake in handling evidence of a court arising from two separate trials.” SC said, just because seven The prosecution witness is the same in both cases, it does not mean that the evidence is identical and similar because in oral testimony, the examination in the examination and cross examination is equally important and relevant.
“Even if the seven examination witnesses in both cases, despite being examined in a different order, the same, there may be elements of the benefits obtained by accusations in each case depending on cross checks that can be done possible by the same advice or different advice,” He said.
“The same witness can be controlled differently in different trials on different accusations differently depending on the involvement or / and accuser errors like that,” said SC while fixing the attraction to the HC for consideration.
The bench said the mistake on any charges could not be decided based on any evidence, which was not recorded in front of him or the presence of his advocate and where he did not get a chance for cross examination, unless his case fell below the exception of the law.
, as mentioned above.
Separate trials must be for cross-case, SC rules
