ISSUE:
Whether the Sessions Court was correct in conducting two separate trials for the same offence based on two contradictory versions of the incident?
Whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained when the police investigation had exonerated him and implicated another accused?
RULE:
When two contradictory prosecutions arise from the same offence, they cannot be merged into a single trial unless they form part of the same transaction. The requirement of "same transaction" under criminal procedure necessitates a commonality of purpose, cause and effect, or continuity of action, which was absent in this case.
A conviction cannot be sustained merely because of a private complaint when the official investigation exonerates the accused. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the official investigation was false or manipulated to shield the real offender. Without such certainty, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.