JUDGMENT By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.7.2002 and 05.08.2002 respectively passed by Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 562 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the IPC, under section 25(A) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of the IPC, 3 years R.I. for the offence under section 25(A) of the Arms Act and R.I. for 3 years for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. It appears that the fardbeyan of one Nand Kishore Prasad was recorded by S.I. Rajiv Kumar of Sadar P.S. Hazaribagh on 15.4.1998 wherein the said Nand Kishore Prasad had stated that on 14.5.1998 at about 11.30 a.m. while he was working in his office, his elder daughter Bharti Bhushan informed him on telephone that somebody inflicted fire arm injury on his younger daughter Arti Bhushan at Khir Gaon metalled road situated near the Khir Gaon tank. On receiving aforesaid information, he rushed to the place of occurrence and from there he took his injured daughter to the hospital for treatment. He came to know that the person who had inflicted fire arm injuries, was chased by the police and other persons of the locality while he was fleeing away towards Mission hospital. He further states that in the hospital doctor declared his daughter dead. He further stated that his daughter Arti Bhushan had received injuries on chest and back. He then stated that while he was in the hospital the police brought the culprit in the hospital in injured condition. After seeing the said culprit, he identified him, as Sujit Kumar Tiwary @ Munna, who happens to be the younger brother of his son-in-law Shambhu Kumar. When he enquired about the reason for taking life of Arti, Sujit replied that Arti Bhushan had made complaint against him to his elder brother and because of that he was driven out from the house and he has taken revenge from Arti. It has been further stated that the informant came to know that Sujit Kumar Tiwary had also opened fire on police and other persons of the locality while they were chasing him and police also exchanged fire and Sujit Kumar Tiwary also received injury. It has been further stated that the informant came to know that Sujit Kumar Tiwary had also opened fire on police and other persons of the locality while they were chasing him and police also exchanged fire and Sujit Kumar Tiwary also received injury. When the police apprehended Sujit Kumar Tiwary, a pistol and dagger were recovered from his possession. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Sadar P.S. Case No. 200 of 1998 under section 302 of the IPC was registered and police took up investigation. 3. It appears that on the same day one Satyadeo Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of police had lodged another report with Sadar P.S. Hazaribagh, wherein he stated that on 14.5.1998 at 11.20 a.m. he received information on telephone that one criminal had injured a girl by inflicting fire arm injury near Khir Gaon, Pandey Tola. On receiving aforesaid information, he along with other police personnel immediately rushed to the spot. When he reached at Salim Tal situated at Barka Gaon Road, he came to know that the culprit who had inflicted injury on the girl while trying to escape has been surrounded at Bari Bazar, Gwala Toli by the people of the locality. When he arrived there on that information he was told that the culprit was hiding in bush in the boundary of Sudhir Bose’s house and had fired four times on the persons chasing him. When the informant started searching him, the culprit with an intention to commit his murder, had fired on him but he saved himself by taking shelter of a wall. Later on, the informant and other police personnel surrounded the accused and tried to apprehend him but again the culprit opened fire on them. In exchange, the informant fired thrice from his service revolver and thereafter the culprit was apprehended and overpowered. On interrogation, the culprit disclosed his name as Sujit Kumar Tiwary. On search, from the possession of aforesaid Sujit Kumar Tiwary, one country made pistol and one dagger were recovered and were seized in presence of the witnesses. The culprit had received bullet injury. He was brought to Hazaribagh Sadar hospital for treatment. On the basis of aforesaid written report of Satyadeo Singh, Sadar P.S. Case No. 201 of 1998 dated 14.5.1998 under section 307, 324, 323 IPC and 25(1-a) and 27 of the Arms Act was instituted. 4. The culprit had received bullet injury. He was brought to Hazaribagh Sadar hospital for treatment. On the basis of aforesaid written report of Satyadeo Singh, Sadar P.S. Case No. 201 of 1998 dated 14.5.1998 under section 307, 324, 323 IPC and 25(1-a) and 27 of the Arms Act was instituted. 4. It appears that both the cases were investigated separately and two separate G.R. Case bearing G.R. Case No. 872 of 1998 and 873 of 1998 were instituted. On completion of investigation, police submitted two separate charge sheets. At paragraph no. 5 of the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge had noticed that in Sadar P.S. Case No. 200 of 1998 the police had cited 12 witnesses in the charge sheet, whereas in the charge sheet of Sadar P.S. Case No. 201 of 1998, 10 witnesses were cited as witness. It was also noticed by learned Sessions Judge that in both the cases, none of the witnesses are common. After taking cognizance, the CJM, Hazaribagh committed both the cases to the court of Sessions by two separate order passed in the aforesaid G.R. Cases. After commitment S. T. No. 562 of 1998 was instituted on the basis of Sadar P.S. Case No. 200 of 1998 u/s 302 IPC and S.T. No. 564 of 1998 on the basis of Sadar P.S. Case No. 201 of 1998 under section 307, 324, 323 IPC and section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. 5. On perusal of order dated 14.6.1999 of S.T. No. 562 of 1998, we find that learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh had amalgamated S.T. No. 564 of 1998 because the said case was pending in his court and the same related to the occurrence which led to S.T. No. 562 of 1998. It appears from the record that after amalgamation, a composite charge was framed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh under section 302,307 IPC, 27 and 25(a) of the Arms Act. From the charge .framed in the aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 562 of 1998 it appears that the charge for the offence under section 302 was framed with respect to an offence which took place at Khir Gaon on Sirka Pucci Road near Khir Gaon Talab for murder of Arti Bhushan, whereas the charge under section 307 was framed for attempt to commit murder of Stayadeo Singh at the same place. On perusal of the aforesaid two FIRs, it is clear that the murder of Arti Bhushan took place at Khir Gaon on Sirka Pucci Road near Khir Gaon Talab, but the attempt to commit murder of Satyadeo Singh and other was alleged on a different place i.e. in the bush within the boundary of the house of one Sudhir Bose situated at Bari Bazar, Gwal Toli. Thus, it appears that even after amalgamation, the charge had not been framed properly. 6. Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows:- 218. Separate charges for distinct offences.-(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person. 2. Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223. On reading the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. 7. In this connection reference can be made to the well recognized commentary of Sarkar on Criminal Procedure, 7th Edition at page 703. It has been made clear that criminal cases like civil suit cannot be amalgamated and tried together except within the limits as to the joinder to charges allowed by the Code. 8. In the instant case, on perusal of record of Sessions Trial No. 562 of 1998, we find that there is no application by the accused-appellant seeking analogous/amalgamated trial of the said two cases. 9. As noticed above, S.T. No. 562 of 1998 and 564 of 1998 relates to different offences. S.T. No. 562 of 1998 is under section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Arti Bhushan which took place at Khir Gaon on Pucci Road near the Khir Gaon Talab, whereas S.T. No. 564 of 1998 relates to attempt on the life of Satyadeo Singh ASI, which took place in the bush lying in the boundary of the house of Sudhir Bose situated at Bari st Bazar, Gwal Toli. The motive of two offences are also separate. The offence for the murder of Arti Bhushan took place because she made complaint against the appellant with his elder brother, whereas the 2nd offence i.e. attempt to murder on Satyadeo Singh took place because the appellant was being chased by the police . The time of occurrence of both the cases are different. Offence in S.T. No. 562 of 1998 was committed at 11 to 11.15 a.m. whereas the time of the offence in S.T. No. 564 of 1998 is 12 noon. Thus, we find that both the cases are distinct and have not been committed in same transaction. Under the aforesaid circumstance as per section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is incumbent upon the trial court to frame separate charges in both the cases and every such charges shall be tried separately. 10. It is well settled that the joint trial of charges for distinct offences, not committed in the course of the same transaction, is an illegality. From the impugned judgment, we find that the learned defence counsel had specifically raised this point that no charge has been framed in S.T. No. 564 of 1998. This goes to show that the accused-appellant has been prejudiced. We also find from the impugned judgment that no finding has been recorded by the court below on the charges of offence under section 307 IPC. 11. Thus, we find that the court below while amalgamating the two Sessions Trial and trying them together committed serious illegality and irregularities which cannot be cured at the appellate stage. Since the court below committed incurable illegality by jointly trying the aforesaid two sessions trial, after amalgamating them against the mandate of law, we find that this illegality is not saved by the provision of section 465 and the same has occasioned prejudice to the defence and failure of justice.. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The case is remitted back to the court below with a direction to frame charge in S.T. No. 562 of 1998 and 564 of 1998 separately and hold separate trial in both the aforesaid sessions trial. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The case is remitted back to the court below with a direction to frame charge in S.T. No. 562 of 1998 and 564 of 1998 separately and hold separate trial in both the aforesaid sessions trial. The trial court is further directed to hold trial on day to day basis and conclude the same within six months positively as the accused is in custody since long.