SC Clarifies Joint Trial Rules: Same Transaction, One Trial
September 16, 2025
Supreme Court Clarifies Joint Trial Rules Under Section 223 CrPC / Section 243 BNSS: Same Transaction, One Trial
Court says joint trial allowed if offences come from the same incident; separate trials only when acts are distinct
Ruling overturns High Court decision in Nuh violence case; lays down five guiding principles for future cases
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi, September 16, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark judgment clarifying when multiple accused persons can be tried together in criminal cases. Interpreting Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — now replaced by Section 243 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — the Court ruled that a joint trial is permissible when offences arise from the same transaction, and that separate trials should only be ordered if the acts are clearly distinct and separable.
The ruling came from a two-judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, which overturned a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that had upheld a lower court’s order for a separate trial in the 2023 Nuh violence case.
Background of the Case
The case involved Mamman Khan, a legislator accused of instigating violence in Nuh, Haryana, in 2023 — an incident in which six people were killed. The trial court had ordered a separate trial for Khan, even though the charges against him were linked to the same chain of events as those against other accused persons.
The High Court upheld this decision, but the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the trial court’s reasoning was flawed. The apex court noted that the evidence against Khan was inseparable from the evidence against the co-accused, and that holding separate trials would lead to duplication of witnesses, delays, and the risk of inconsistent verdicts.
Five Key Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court
The Court set out five guiding principles for deciding whether a joint trial should be conducted:
- General Rule is Separate Trials — Under Section 218 CrPC, the default rule is that each offence should be tried separately.
- Joint Trials Allowed in Certain Cases — Sections 219–223 CrPC (now Sections 239–243 BNSS) allow joint trials when offences are part of the same transaction or meet specific statutory conditions. However, this remains a matter of judicial discretion.
- Decision Should Be Taken Early — The choice between a joint or separate trial should generally be made at the start of proceedings, with clear reasons recorded.
- Two Main Considerations — Courts must assess:
- Whether a joint trial would cause prejudice to the accused.
- Whether it would lead to delay or waste of judicial time.
- Evidence Cannot Be Imported Between Trials — Evidence from one trial cannot automatically be used in another. Separate trials for the same incident can create serious procedural complications.
The Court also clarified that a conviction or acquittal cannot be overturned solely because a joint or separate trial was possible. Intervention is justified only if prejudice or miscarriage of justice is proven.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling is significant for several reasons:
- Clarity for Lower Courts — Trial courts now have a clear framework for deciding whether to conduct joint trials, reducing arbitrary decisions.
- Efficiency in Criminal Justice — Joint trials can save time and resources when multiple accused are linked to the same incident.
- Protection of Accused Rights — The Court emphasised that joint trials should not be ordered if they would unfairly prejudice an accused person.
Legal experts say the judgment strikes a balance between judicial efficiency and fair trial rights.
The Nuh Violence Context
The Nuh violence case involved communal clashes that spread across Haryana in 2023. The prosecution alleged that Khan, along with other accused persons, played a role in inciting the violence. The Supreme Court found that the charges, evidence, and witnesses were common to all accused, making a joint trial the logical choice.
Justice Mahadevan, writing for the bench, observed:
“In the present case, the evidence against the appellant is the same as that against the co-accused. Separate trials would require recalling the same witnesses, leading to duplication, delay, and the risk of inconsistent findings.”
Impact on Future Criminal Trials
The judgment will likely influence how courts handle cases involving riots, conspiracies, and organised crime, where multiple accused are often charged for acts forming part of the same transaction.
For example:
- Riots or mob violence — where several people are accused of participating in the same incident.
- Fraud or corruption cases — involving multiple accused in a single scheme.
- Terrorism or organised crime cases — where acts are part of a coordinated plan.
In such cases, joint trials can ensure that all evidence is considered together, preventing fragmented and potentially contradictory verdicts.
Section 223 CrPC vs Section 243 BNSS
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC in 2023, retains the substance of Section 223 in its Section 243. Both provisions allow joint trials when:
- Offences are committed in the course of the same transaction.
- The accused are charged with the same offence committed in the same incident.
- The offences are so connected that separate trials would be impractical.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation applies equally to both provisions, ensuring continuity in the law despite the procedural code change.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Nuh violence case is more than just a ruling on one incident — it is a guiding precedent for all future cases involving multiple accused in the same transaction. By laying down clear principles, the Court has provided a roadmap for trial courts to follow, ensuring that justice is both efficient and fair.
ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES
SC Warns Against Misuse of Criminal Law, Quashes FIR
Kerala HC to Send Case Updates via WhatsApp from Oct 6
SC Upholds Tender Sanctity, Bars Post-Bid Corrections
SC: No Counterclaims After Issues Framed or on Co-Defendant
SC: Beggars’ Homes Are Constitutional Trusts, Ensure Dignity