Surendra Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record.
(2.) THE applicant by way of filing this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has sought to quash the entire proceedings including cognizance order dated 16.12.2005 arising out of charge sheet in Case No. 1884 of 2006 (case crime No. 839 of 2004), under Sections 302,307 IPC and 25/27/30 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that one of the co -accused Omendra has been tried and acquitted in S.T. No. 48 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 5, Mainpuri vide judgment and order dated 1.12.2006. He has further contended that since co -accused has been acquitted for the reasons that the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution version, there is no chance of case resulting into conviction of the applicant and if the case is allowed to continue against him it will only be a sheer formality and wastage of valuable time of the court and, therefore, the applicant has claimed that he be afforded the benefit of principle of "stare decisis" and the proceeding against him should be dropped. Reliance has been placed on the several decisions rendered by Single Judge of this Court.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned A.G.A. has contended that judgment and order of acquittal of co -accused Omendra rendered in S.T. No. 48 of 2005 arising out of same prosecution is wholly irrelevant in the case of the present applicant who is to be tried subsequent to earlier one. Much emphasis has been made on the non -admissibility of the judgment of acquittal in the present trial in view of Sections 40 to 44 of Indian Evidence Act. He has further contended that the case of the present accused applicant has to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of his trial. He has relied upon the view expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Rajan Rai Versus State of Bihar,, 2006 (1) SCC (Crl), 209, S.P.E. Madras Vs. K.V. Sundaravelu, : AIR 1978 SC 1017, K.G. Prem Shankar Vs. Inspector of Police & another, XLV 2002 ACC 920 (SC) and Karam Singh Vs. State of M.P. : AIR 1965 SC 1037. He has further relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Km. Rinki Vs. State of U.P., XLV 2008 ACC 476. It has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court as follows: The inference that is deducible from discussion of the above decisions that the judgement of acquittal rendered in the trial of other co accused is wholly irrelevant as the said judgement would not be admissible under the provisions of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act. It also leaves no manner of doubt that every case has to be decided on the evidence adduced therein and therefore, the case of the petitioner has to be decided on the basis of evidence which may be adduced during the course of trial.;