IPC And Special Act Offences Can Be Tried Together While Taking Separate Evidences In Both Trials: Allahabad High Court
The Court clarified that while offences arising from the same transaction under both the IPC and a special enactment may be tried together, the evidence recorded in one trial cannot influence the findings in the other.
Justice Shree Prakash Singh, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that where two separate trials arise out of the same transaction, both can be conducted simultaneously before the same court. However, the trials must remain independent, and the evidence recorded in one cannot prejudice or influence the other.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the maintainability of proceedings arising from two separate trials, one concerning offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the other under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh, while delivering the judgment, observed that “the procedure for trial is particularly and exhaustively provided under Cr.P.C., including the appeals against such judgments and orders passed in such trials, and this answers the question that if there are two separate trials, one with respect to charges in a special act and another simply in IPC, both can be tried together while taking the separate evidences in both the trials and without being prejudice to each of the evidences placed thereof.”
Advocate Dinesh Kumar Tripathi appeared for the appellants, while Dr. V. K. Singh, Government Advocate, represented the State.
Background
The appeal arose from two separate trials against the appellants based on the same set of allegations, one involving charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the other under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Both matters were heard together by the Special Judge for convenience; however, separate judgments were delivered for each trial. The appellants challenged the maintainability of the appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., contending that since one of the trials involved offences under the SC/ST Act, the entire matter should be appealable only under Section 14-A of the said Act.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined the procedural framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and the scope of Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act to clarify the principles governing joint trials.
It noted that while the law permits trying IPC and special enactment offences together before the same judge, both trials must maintain procedural independence. Each case must be decided solely based on the evidence recorded in that trial without allowing any influence from the proceedings in the other.
The Court also discussed several Supreme Court precedents, including Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. (1990), which held that cross-cases or related trials should be conducted by the same judge for consistency but decided separately to avoid evidentiary prejudice.
Similarly, reliance was placed on Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab (2022) and A.T. Mydeen v. Asst. Commissioner, Customs Dept. (2022), reiterating the principle that each trial is independent, even when arising from the same incident.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that appellate remedies also remain distinct. While convictions under the SC/ST Act must be challenged under Section 14-A of the Act, IPC convictions are appealable under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. This ensures procedural clarity and safeguards the accused’s rights under both frameworks.
Conclusion
Dismissing the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, the Court held that the appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. was valid and maintainable for offences under the IPC, even though a separate statutory remedy existed for challenging findings under the SC/ST Act.
Accordingly, the appeal was admitted for hearing, and the matter was listed for further consideration.
Cause Title: Dwarika & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:48621)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocate Dinesh Kumar Tripathi
Respondents: Dr. V. K. Singh, Government Advocate, assisted by Advocate Shivendra Singh Rathore