Separate criminal trials require appellate review on each trial record; evidence from another trial cannot substitute for the record.

In separate criminal trials arising from the same offence, an appellate court must decide each appeal only on the evidence recorded in that particular trial. Evidence from another trial cannot be treated as substantive material, even if the prosecution witnesses are common, unless a specific statutory exception applies. The accused's right to a fair trial and cross-examination remains central, and differences in examination, cross-examination, and documentary proof mean records of separate trials are not interchangeable. The Supreme Court therefore held that a common judgment based only on the evidence from one trial for both appeals was unsustainable and had to be set aside, with each case requiring fresh consideration on its own record.

---

---

Issues: Whether evidence recorded in one separate criminal trial could be relied upon by the appellate court while deciding appeals arising from another separate trial concerning the same offence; and whether the High Court could sustain a common conviction by considering only the evidence from one of the trials.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of criminal trial emphasises that evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused or his pleader, subject only to recognised exceptions. The provisions relating to recording of evidence and its use, together with the rule of relevancy of prior evidence, do not permit evidence from a different trial to be treated as substantive material in another case unless the statutory conditions are satisfied. The right of an accused to a fair trial and to cross-examine witnesses is a valuable safeguard, and the appellate court must decide guilt or innocence only on the record of the particular case before it. The evidence in one trial, even if the prosecution witnesses are common, cannot be assumed to be identical for another trial because sequence of examination, cross-examination, and proof of documents may differ. The special exceptions for use of earlier evidence or confession are confined to their own statutory limits and do not justify the course adopted by the High Court.

Conclusion: The High Court's common judgment, based on evidence from only one trial for deciding both appeals arising out of separate trials, was unsustainable and had to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matters required fresh consideration by the High Court on the record of each separate trial, with all questions of law and fact left open.

Ratio Decidendi: In criminal proceedings arising from separate trials, an appellate court must decide each appeal only on the evidence recorded in that particular trial, and evidence from another separate trial is not admissible or usable except within the narrow limits expressly provided by statute.

---