In Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana [2025 INSC 1113], the Supreme Court clarified the principles governing whether multiple accused involved in offences arising from the same transaction should face a joint trial or separate trials.
The General Rule and Exception
The Court held that Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (equivalent to Section 243 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)) permits a joint trial in such scenarios.
A separate trial would only be warranted if the specific acts attributed to each accused are clearly distinct and separable.
Guidelines for Deciding on Joint vs. Separate Trials
Relying on the principles reiterated in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab (2021), the Court laid down the following guidelines:
- Separate Trial is the Norm: While Section 218 CrPC prescribes separate trials as the general rule, a joint trial is permissible if the conditions under Sections 219-223 CrPC are met (e.g., offences forming part of the same transaction). However, the decision remains a matter of judicial discretion.
- Timing of Decision: The decision to hold a joint or separate trial should ideally be made at the outset of the proceedings for cogent reasons.
- Paramount Considerations: The two main factors guiding this decision are:
- Whether a joint trial would cause prejudice to any accused.
- Whether a separate trial would lead to undue delay or wastage of judicial time.
- Evidence Cannot Be Imported: Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be used in another. Bifurcating a trial midway can lead to serious procedural complications.
- Setting Aside Orders: An order of conviction or acquittal will not be set aside merely because a joint or separate trial was possible. Interference by an appellate court is justified only if actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.
This ruling reinforces the court’s discretion while emphasizing the need to balance the accused’s right to a fair trial against the efficiency of the judicial process.
