Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence, dated 31.01.2001, made in S.C.No.210/98, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore. 2. Charges were framed by the Sessions Court, as against A1 and A2 under Sections 147, 348, 302 r/w 149 IPC, and as against A3, A4 and A5 under Sections 147, 302 IPC, and as against A6 under Section 201 IPC. .3. Suspecting that the deceased Saravanan could have stolen the gold chain and cash Rs.1,500/- belongs to the first respondent/A1, on 26.01.1998, at about 1.30 p.m., the deceased was brought to "Delight Shoe Mart", Arcot Town, Vellore, belongs to the first appellant, then the appellants/accused, assaulted him with hands severely all over his body and as his condition was bad, they admitted him in the C.M.C.Hospital, Vellore, stating his name as Sivakumar, subsequently, the injured was pronounced dead by the Doctor, hence, the appellants/accused ran away from the Hospital. Based on the above averments, the aforesaid charges were framed against the accused. Subsequently, it is seen that A6 was also arrayed as accused in this case and for A6, charge was framed under Section 201 IPC. 4. The trial court convicted and sentenced A3 to A5 under Sections 323 and 348 IPC, A1 and A2 under Sections 348 and 323 r/w 149 IPC and A6 under Section 201 IPC. Against which, accused A1 to A6 have preferred this appeal before this court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would contend that the 6th Appellant, A6 was subsequently arrayed as accused, after the evidence was closed, but the trial court without conducting de novo trial, impleaded 6th appellant and according to him, the procedure as contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not followed and hence, the common judgment rendered by the court below is erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that while the 6th appellant herein was arrayed as accused number 6. The chief examination of all the prosecution witnesses were over, but without conducting fresh chief examination, the 6th appellant was permitted only to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, whereby the opportunity of seeing the demeanor of the prosecution witnesses at the time of adducing chief examination, denied for the 6th appellant. .6. It is seen from the records that the 6th appellant was arrayed as A6, only after the prosecution evidence was closed. .6. It is seen from the records that the 6th appellant was arrayed as A6, only after the prosecution evidence was closed. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would not be a reasonable opportunity to the 6th appellant, as he was permitted only to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, without providing opportunity to see the demeanor of the witnesses, as chief examination is also equally important in a trial. Therefore, I am of the considered view that as far as the 6th appellant is concerned, the prosecution witnesses have to be examined afresh and opportunity should be given for the 6th appellant, to cross examine the witnesses. As the court below has delivered a common judgment, so far as it A1 to A5 and A6, I am of the view that the court could have split up the case of A1 to A5 and deliver the judgment separately. As far as the 6th Appellant, A6 is concerned, it could have conducted the trial afresh, in order to provide reasonable opportunity to the 6th appellant to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. I am of the view that it would not be proper, at this stage, to discuss the case on the merits of the judgment rendered by the trial court at this state. 7. The learned Government Advocate has not disputed the legal aspect that the case has to be remitted back to the trial court, to split up the case and dispose them, according to law, in view of Section 319 (4) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In the result, I find it reasonable to set aside the common judgment and remit back the same to the trial court with the following directions: a) The trial court is directed to split up the case, so far as it relates to the appellants 1 to 5, who are A1 to A5 and proceed with the same, based on the evidence already recorded, as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, and dispose the same according to law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without considering the split up case relating to 6th appellant/A6. b) So far as the case, as against, 6th appellant is concerned, the trial has to be conducted. b) So far as the case, as against, 6th appellant is concerned, the trial has to be conducted. Afresh’, as contemplated under Section 319 (4) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as far as the split up case is concerned, the same has to be disposed, according to law, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.