P.C. Borooah, J.
1. Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 1085 of 1970. 1086 of 1970 and 1087 of 1970 are taken up together for hearing. In all the three cases the petitioners and opposite parties are identical.
2. By three separate orders all dated 19.11.70 passed by Sri S.K. Acharva Magistrate, first class. Suri in G.R. Cases Nos. 1130 of 1968. 1131 of 1968 and 1132 of 1968. petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 and the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 31 in the three Rules were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial under Sections 147 and 302. I.P.C. in three separate cases.
3. All the three cases arose out of an incident which occurred in the early morning of 28.12.68. According to the prosecution, the petitioners and the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 31 took one Fani Muchi to Amajola Atchala and tied him to a Post of the Atchala. The accused opposite party No. 3 Nani Gopal struck a blow on the face of Fani and asked him to name his associates who took part in a theft along with him. Fani gave out the names of the deceased Nafar Muchi and Dipak Baneriee as his associates. Some of the petitioners and members of the opposite parties who are the accussed in the aforesaid cases went to the house of Nafar Muchi and dragged him to the Atchala at Amajola. Some of the accused Dersons caught hold of Dipak Baneriee and took him to the Atchala at village Ranipathar. Thereafter Nafar and Fani were also brought to the Atchala at Ranipathar. The accused persons assaulted Dipak Baneriee with a lathi. Dipak fell down. Thereafter. Fani Muchi and Nafar Muchi were also belaboured with lathis. The opposite party No. 9 Pranab Mukheriee threw some liquid substance on the faces of Fani. Nafar and Dipak as a result of which fumes of smoke camp out. As a result of such assault Fani and Nafar died and Dipak was in a dying condition. Dipak was subsequently sent by the police to Panchra Hospital where he died. In G.R. Case No. 1130 of 1968 the first information report was lodged by one Sm. Rashi Dasi wife of the deceased Nafar Muchi. In G.R. Case No. 1131 of 1968 Rambilas Das the uncle of the deceased Fani. lodged the first information report and in G.R. Case No. 1132 of 1968 Sm. Digbasana Ghoshal. grandmother of Dipak Baneriee lodged the first information report. All the three first information reports were lodged at 20.30 hours at Khairasole police station. Police took up investigation and submitted charge sheets in all the three cases against the petitioners and the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 31 under Sections 148/149/ 364/302 I.P.C. and these persons were duly committed to the Court of Session on the charges under Sections 147 and 302 I.P.C. as aforesaid.
4. Mr. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the three Rules, has submitted that all the three murders were committed in the course of the same transaction. Although three different first information reports were lodged the investigation was one in all the three cases and documents supplied to the accused persons under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in all the three cases were identical. Even the orders of commitment in all the three cases are identical. According to Mr. Ghosh as the incident out of which the three cases arose were out of the same transaction, it is fit and proper and in the interests of justice and in order to avoid prejudice to the accused persons, all the three cases should be tried together. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State in these Rules, have also supported Mr. Ghosh's arguments.
5. Under Section 235 Cr.P.C. if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person he may be charged with and tried in one trial for every such offence. There is no doubt that all the murders were committed in the course of the same transaction and since all the accused persons in all the three cases are the same there is no reason why public time and money should be wasted in trying these accused persons for offences committed in the course of the same transaction in three different trials. Moreover, there is also the question of prejudice to the accused. The accused might have to disclose their defence in one trial and it is possible that the prosecution might fill up any lacuna in the sub-sequent trials.
6. In the circumstances aforesaid and in the interests of justice. I am of the view that all the three cases should be tried together. I accordingly order that Sessions Cases Nos. 35 of 1970. 36 of 1970 and 37 of 1970 be tried together.
7. The Rules are, accordingly made absolute.