tried to a conclusion, but, the judgment shall be withheld till the conclusion of trial in the other case. However, after recording evidence in both the cases and after completing other formalities, the Judge shall proceed to simultaneously dispose of both the cases by separate judgments taking care that the judgment in one case is not based on the evidence in the other case. But, in the case on hand, in the first crime no.22 of 2006, the incident of rape of the victim girl by A1 in that crime had taken place much earlier to the incident in the second crime no.23 of 2006. Therefore, the cases in the two crimes cannot be equated to a case and a counter case in true sense of those terms. Further, the appellants in the pending appeal for reasons best known to them did not file the F.I.R., the charge sheet and other records in Cr.no.23 of 2006 in the session case against them and they did not even choose to file the said documents, as defence documents during their examinations under section 313 of the CrPC. One more important aspect to be considered is that as per the submissions now made before this court, the CC 147 of 2009 taken on file, pursuant to the charge sheet filed in cr.no.23 of 2006 was settled before the Lok Adalat Bench at Armoor on 11.02.2010 on voluntary compounding of offences. On this ground alone, the revision case is liable to be dismissed. I have gone through the orders impugned. The court below had observed that the victim girl (PW1), the doctor and the investigating officer and all other relevant witnesses were sufficiently cross-examined during the course of trial and that the aspect as to whether witnesses have to be treated hostile or not is a matter within the discretion of the public prosecutor and that for the purposes mentioned by the accused/appellants, none of the witnesses need be recalled, particularly, when the matter is at the stage of appeal and that the appellants could not show that the record in the other crime is relevant for disposal of their criminal appeal. Further, the court below had considered in detail, the various aspects and had given adequate and sustainable reasons on various aspects while recording findings for not acceding to the requests for adducing additional evidence or ordering retrial. For the aforementioned reasons and for the reason that no valid and sufficient grounds are made out either for receiving additional evidence or for ordering retrial, this Court finds that there is no merit in the criminal revision
