S. 223 CrPC/S. 243 BNSS | Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Joint Trial In Criminal Cases

Interpreting Section 223 Cr.P.C (now Section 243 BNSS), the Supreme Court held that a joint trial is permissible where multiple accused are involved in offences arising out of the same transaction and a separate trial would be warranted only if the acts attributed to each accused are distinct and severable.

The Court laid down the following propositions regarding the joint trial:-

(i) Separate trial is the rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C; a joint trial may be permissible where the offences form part of the same transaction or the conditions in Sections 219 – 223 Cr.P.C. are satisfied, but even then it is a matter of judicial discretion;

(ii) The decision to hold a joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at the outset of the proceedings and for cogent reasons;

(iii) The two paramount considerations in such decision making are whether a joint trial would cause prejudice to the accused, and whether it would occasion delay or wastage of judicial time;

(iv) Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be imported into another, which may give rise to serious procedural complications if the trial is bifurcated; and

(v) An order of conviction or acquittal cannot be set aside merely because a joint or separate trial was possible; interference is justified only where prejudice or miscarriage of justice is shown.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing a plea by MLA Mamman Khan challenging the High Court's decision that upheld the trial court's order directing a separate trial against him in the 2023 Nuh violence case, in which six people were reportedly killed. Khan, along with other co-accused, had been booked for allegedly instigating the violence arising out of the same transaction.

Setting aside the High Court's ruling, the judgment authored by Justice R. Mahadevan held that the High Court erred in upholding the trial court's order for a separate trial of Khan. The Court noted that the trial court's reasoning was flawed, as there were no distinct facts, the evidence was inseparable, and no prejudice to Khan had been demonstrated to justify segregation. It further emphasized that when offences form part of the same transaction, a joint trial under Section 223 CrPC is appropriate, since the material and evidence collected pertain to the same alleged incident.

“In the present case, the evidence against the appellant is identical to that against the co-accused. Separate trials would necessarily involve recalling the same witnesses, resulting in duplication, delay, and the risk of inconsistent findings. The High Court, in affirming the segregation order, failed to appreciate these consequences and confined itself to the discretionary language of section 223 Cr.P.C without evaluating whether the factual circumstances justified such segregation. Therefore, we hold that the segregation of the appellant's trial, without any legally recognized justification, is unsustainable in law and violative of the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 21.”, the court held.

Cause Title: MAMMAN KHAN VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 904

Click here to read/download the judgment

Also From Judgment: 'Trial Can't Be Separated Only Because Accused Is MLA' : Supreme Court Quashes Direction To Segregate Trial Against Legislator