JUDGMENT K.N. Sinha, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
2. It is alleged that applicants Prem Kumar alias Munna Rai and Chunnu Rai are accused in case crime No. 128 of 2003 under Sections 323/325/504/506 Indian Penal Code. The report was lodged on 15.6.2003 and charge sheet was submitted against all the accused. At the time of framing of the charge, the trial court found applicant No. l to be of 18 years of age and applicant No. 2, 13 years of age and they were juvenile on 13.6.2003 (date of occurrence). The trial court separated the case of the applicants and the trial of rest of the accused proceeded. The prosecution examined two witnesses of fact who turned hostile and none of them gave statement against the accused facing trial. Consequently, the trial court acquitted the co-accused on 2.3.2005. On the strength of acquittal of co-accused, the present application has been filed for acquittal of other accused as well.
3. I have perused the copy of the judgment, which has been filed along with supplementary affidavit. The judgment shows that Harakh Rai and Hridayananad had faced trial and case of applicants Prem Kumar and Chunnu Rai was separated on the ground of there being juvenile. The prosecution examined Dinesh Sharma (PW-1) and Harikesh Sharma (PW-2). Both the witnesses were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution version. Both the witnesses are injured. They have denied the involvement of co-accused and applicants in the commission of the offence. The judgment shows that Harakh Rai and Hridayanand were acquitted. The F.I.R. shows that besides non-applicants Harakh Rai and Hridayananad the present applicants were also accused. The judgment shows that case of present applicants was separated.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the given circumstances, the principle of stare decisis is applicable and conviction of present applicants cannot be procured. The judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (51) ACC 955) Pradeep @ Bhondu @ Bantoo v. State of U.P. has been relied upon in which reliance was placed on Diwan Singh v. State reported in 1965 (2) ACC 118. In the case of Diwan Singh (supra), it has been held:
"If two persons are prosecuted though separately, under the same charge for offences having been committed in the same transaction and on the basis of the same evidence, and if one of them is acquitted for whatever may be the reason and the other is convicted, then it will create an, anomalous position in law and is likely to shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice."
5. It is settled view that, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash the proceedings of the trial taking into account the principle of stare decisis. Whenever, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. In such matters, it is always advisable to terminate the proceedings at the stage of discharge.
6. In the present case, the injured witnesses have not supported the prosecution case nor named the applicants as assailants. If they are put to the trial the same evidence would be repeated and after wasting the precious time of the trial court, the result would be the acquittal.
7. Consequently, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Case No. 2132-A of 2004 State v. Prem Kumar Rai and Ors., police station Baghauch Ghat, district Deoria is hereby quashed. The applicants, if on bond, need not surrender and the surety bond/personal bond shall stand discharged.