AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (2) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prejudiced the appellant in his trial for the alleged murder of Lauwa. The counsel in this connection emphasised that the appellant's acquittal in those cases on the plea of self-defence would also serve as conclusive proof of his plea of self defence in the present trial, It may, however, be said in fairness to the appellant's counsel that he did not invoke the principle of autrefois acquit underlying Section 403, Cr.P.C. which is now also embodied in Article 20(2) of the Constitution. No serious attempt was made before us to take us through the evidence in this case in order to sustain the plea of private defence on the existing record, and rightly so, because on appeal under Article 130 of the Constitution it is not practice of this Court to repress or re-evaluate evidence for considering the correctness of the conclusions of the High Court on questions of facts. 2. The first information report in this case was lodged by Viswa Nath, P.W.4, who seems to be the person with whom the trouble originated. According to this report Chandra Bhal, Manuwa and Suresh went to his house at 11.00 on the night between the 19th and 20th March 1964, Chandra Bhal armed with a gun and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accused came to the house of the complainant. There was exchange of hot words and the complainant was threatened with life. Suresh accused gave a lathi blow to the complainant whereupon he and other inmates of the house raised alarm which attracted Har Narain; Bhagirath and others The complainant ran where upon Chandra Bhal accused fired two gun shots which injured Har Narain, Bhagirath and Raj Narain. Manuwa accused gave a lathi blow to Har Narain after he had fallen down. The accused chased the complainant and when he reached near the house of Madari, he was challenged by the accused and threatened with life. The complainant did not stop with the result that Chandra Bhal again fired gun shots injuring Jagannath, Sheo Prakash and Maiku, Mahabir also became a victim of gun shots and subsequently expired. The complainant then fled away and it was at this state that the common intention of beating or killing Vishwa Nath came to an end inasmuch as Vishwa Nath complainant was out of scene at that state.... 4. The other transaction stated when the accused proceeded further from the house of Madari.... When the accused proceeded further, they met Lauwa who chastised 'Chandra Bh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fence by the confusion which is likely to result from lumping together in a single charge distinct offences and from combining several charges at one trial. There, are, however exceptions to this general rule and they are found in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. These exceptions embrace cases in which one trial for more than one offence is not considered likely to embarrass or prejudice the accused in his defence. The matter of joinder of charges is however, in the general discretion of the court and the principle consideration controlling the judicial exercise of his discretion should be to avoid embarrassment to the defence by joinder of charges. On the appellant's argument the only provision requiring consideration is Section 235(1) which lays down that if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person then he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. This exception, like the other exceptions merely permits a joint trial of more offences than one. It neither renders a joint trial imperative nor does it bar or prohibit separate trials. Sub-section (2) of Section 403 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the two courts below on the appreciation of evidence it is quite clear that Lauwa was killed at a considerable distance from the place of occurrence in the other trials and the present offence was not committed during the course of the same transaction in which the other offences were committed. On appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution it is not the practice of this Court to interfere with conclusions of fact and no special ground has been made out for departing from this settled practice. 8. This tikes us to the argument founded on the principle of issue-estoppel. This Court considered this aspect in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1). In that case reference with approval was made to the following passage from the decision of the Privy Council in Sambasivam v. Federation of Malaya (2). The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the parson acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties 10 the adjudication. The maxim 'res judicata ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....different charges. The assault on Tikam in fulfilment of the common object of the unlawful assembly was over when the unlawful assembly proceeded to the house of Tikam to loot it. The new common object to beat Puran was formed at a time when the common object in respect of Tikam had been fully worked out and even if the two-incidents could be taken to be connected by unity of time and place (which they were not), the offences were distinct and required separate charges. The learned Sessions Judge was right in breaking up the single charge framed by the magistrate and ordering separate trials. In this view the prior acquittal cannot create a bar in respect of the conviction herein reached. In Manipur Administration v. Thokchom, Bir Singh (7) and again in Piara Singh v. The State of Punjab (8) this Court approvingly referred to the principle underlying the decision in Pritam Singh's case (1) but on facts that principle was held not to have been attracted. In England the Court of Criminal Appeal in R.V. Conally (9) dealing with the submission as to "issue-estoppel" without considering it necessary to decide whether it availed an accused person in that country, observed that for....