02 & 03 17-06-2025 Ct. No.34 b.das CRM (DB) 279 of 2025 In the matter of :Shankar Prasad @ Sankar Singh ….. petitioner. with CRM (DB) 348 of 2025 In the matter of :Bishnu Sharma @ Vishnu @ Chicku ….. petitioner. Mr. Shataroop Purakayastha Mr. Jagriti Bhattacharya Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty …for the petitioner in CRM (DB) 279/2025. Mr. Subhasish Pachhal …for the petitioner in CRM (DB) 348/2025. Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Sr. Adv. …Amicus Curiae. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP. Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee Ms. Suparna Chatterjee …for the State in CRM (DB) 279/2025. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP. Mr. Joydeep Roy Mr. Mainak Gupta …for the State in CRM (DB) 348/2025. Written argument submitted on behalf of the petitioner in CRM (DB) 279 of 2025 is taken on record. Heard learned counsels for the parties and the amicus curiae. The fact of the case has been elaborately recorded in the order dated 29th April, 2025. 2 It is submitted on behalf of both the parties that the present proceeding wherein the lady has been arraigned as a victim as well as an accused cannot continue since no oath can be administered to the lady as an accused under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Oaths Act except as a defence witness. Learned counsel for the State has suggested that the trial is required to be split and two separate proceedings initiated for trial. In the present proceeding being ST No.229/2023, charges have been framed against the victim lady along with the co accused under Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. By the same order, charges have been framed against the co accused under Section 363/465/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act. It appears that the victim lady has been termed as an accused as well as the victim in the proceeding. This Court concedes to the submission of the State that the trial is required to be split and two separate proceedings initiated. The alleged incident of rape of the victim lady and selling out of the child by her and other co accused may have occurred contemporaneously but cannot be said to be part of the same transaction. The victim lady cannot 3 be proceeded against as an accused and also made to depose as victim in the same proceeding. In view of the above, the Prosecution is directed to take necessary steps before the learned trial Court so that the trial can be split up and two separate proceedings initiated, one for the alleged offence under Section 363/465/120B of the Indian Penal Code and the other under Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The earlier proceeding be initiated against the accused persons except the victim lady and the later proceeding against the victim lady along with the co accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the authority in Abdul Razak @ Abu Ahmed vs. Union of India reported in 2021 0 Supreme (Ker) 610 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that trial of offences which are part of the same transaction cannot be split up. In the case in hand, since both the offences are not part of the same transaction though may have been committed around the same time, the ratio decidendi of the judgment referred to is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4 With the above direction and observation, the matter is disposed of. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. ( Suvra Ghosh, J. )