UMAKANTH Vs. STATE BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused No. 1 in Cr. No. 0968/2010. After investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against accused No. 3 and the matter was committed to the Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 1012/2011. As the petitioner and accused No. 2 absconded, the Sessions Judge proceeded against accused No. 3 and vide judgment dated 03.12.2012, acquitted him. On tracing the petitioner, the respondent -police have now filed a split charge sheet in S.C. No. 1433/2014. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court and he is in judicial custody. He further submits that the prosecution is relying on the same set of evidence against the petitioner which they have relied on against accused No. 3. When the Sessions Court evaluated the evidence produced by the prosecution and acquitted accused No. 3, then the same benefit is to be extended to the petitioner. It is not shown to me as to what is the difference in the evidence against the petitioner.

(3.) IN view of the dictum of the Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of acquittal of other accused. Accordingly, the following: