IMPORTANT POINT
Where the complainant has reasonable apprehension that fair and impartial trial cannot be held before a particular court, the case deserves to be transferred.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 407 – Incident of 1995 – Respondent 3 ex MLA – 21 witnesses examined, 24 yet to be examined – 16 witnesses including official witnesses turning hostile – Several criminal cases pending against Respondent 3 – Appellant fearing for her life and apprehending that fair impartial trial not possible at Hosur – Seeking transfer of the case – Appellant’s apprehension held reasonable – Case transferred to Salem. (Para 16, 17, 24)
       (2000) 6 SCC 204 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       One N.C.Chandrashekran, husband of the appellant herein, was alleged to have been murdered at Hosur Bus Stand (Tamil Nadu), as he was an eye witness to the earlier murder of his deceased brother (N. C. Raman) murdered in 1992.
       In the year 1997, one Ramachandran, son of Marappa, a different person than respondent no. 3 (Ramachandran son of Thimmaiya), along with another accused surrendered before the Magistrate. Thereafter, first Charge-sheet was filed against the said Ramachandran son of Marappa and in the year 2012, the complainant who is the present appellant herein, gave a representation to the concerned Police Station indicating that the original accused viz. Ramachandran son of Thimmaiya (respondent no. 3 herein) was not arrested and in his place, Ramachandran son of Marappa (an alleged imposter) was shown as an accused. Therefore, she requested that the original accused Ramachandran son of Thimmaiya (respondent no. 3) be arrested and tried.
       Thereafter, on 30-4-2015, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed, against the present Respondent No.2, Ramachandran son of Thimmaiya (respondent no.3) along with two accused Police officials who were alleged to have actively connived in suppressing the identity of the true accused.
       The Appellant apprehended threat to her life and sought transfer of Sessions Case No.81 of 2016 from Additional Sessions Court, Hosur to Principal Sessions Court at Salem, Tamil Nadu.
       The High Court while rejecting such a request on the ground that the transfer may not be a solution for ameliorating the apprehensions of the Appellant, as such apprehension may continue even after a transfer, but granted liberty to the appellant to approach the concerned jurisdictional police seeking necessary protection for the purpose of deposing evidence.
       Finding of the Court:
       The apprehension of the complainant – appellant that there is no possibility for conduction of fair and impartial trial at Hosur is reasonable.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

N. V. RAMANA, J.

1. Leave granted.

Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 2018 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1878 of 2018)

2. This Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1878 of 2018 is filed, being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court, wherein it has rejected the prayer seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.81 of 2016 from Hosur to Salem in Tamil Nadu.

3. The brief facts of the case, including its genesis, which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the case are that in the year 1992, one N. C. Raman, who was alleged to be the head man of Nagamangalam village, was murdered by certain persons. The aforesaid case was registered, as Crime No. 302 of 1992, before the jurisdictional police station. In the context of the aforesaid case N.C.Chandrashekran, husband of the appellant herein, was alleged to have been murdered at Hosur Bus Stand (Tamil Nadu), as N.C.Chandrashekran was an eye witness to the earlier murder of his deceased brother (N. C. Raman).

4. Accordingly, a First Information Report, being FIR No.614 of 1995, dated 15-8-1995, was initially registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] at Hosur Police Station but after the death of deceased (N.C.Chandrashekran), Section 307 was altered into Section 302 IPC. In the year 1997, one Ramachandran, son of Marappa, a different person than respondent no. 3 (Ramachandran son of Thimmaiya), along with another accused surrendered before the Magistrate with reference to FIR No.614 of 1995. Thereafter, first Charge-sheet was filed against the said Ramachandran son of Marappa and in the year 2012, the complainant who is the present appellant herein, gave a representation to the concerned Police Station indicating that the original accused viz. Ramachandran son of Thimmaiya (respondent no. 3 herein) was not arrested and in his place, Ramachandran son of Marappa (an alleged imposter) was shown as an accused. Therefore, she requested that the original accused Ramachandran son of Thimmaiya (respondent no. 3) be arrested and tried.

5. In the context of the representation, the police investigated into the matter and found that certain police men were involved in the active concealment of the real accused. Thereafter, on 30-4-2015, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed, against the present Respondent No.2, Ramachandran son of Thimmaiya (respondent no.3) along with two accused Police officials who were alleged to have actively connived in suppressing the identity of the true accused. It was brought to our notice that further investigation was carried out and proceedings before the Sessions Court have been inordinately delayed. After filing the supplementary Charge-sheet, the Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Sessions Court at Hosur in Sessions Case No.81 of 2016.

6. Learned senior counsel, Mrs. Indira Jaising, appearing on behalf of the Appellant has vehemently contended that said accused Ramachandran son of Thimmaiya (respondent no. 3 herein) was earlier an M.L.A. from the Thalli Constituency and there are about 14 criminal cases pending against him. He is alleged to be a very influential and was being an impediment for the witnesses to depose freely.

7. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Appellant drew our attention to the fact that one of the witnesses filed a Criminal Original Petition No.8000 of 2017 before the Madras High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking expeditious completion of the trial, accordingly, on 14-6-2017, the High Court has directed the trial court to complete the trial within a period of six months. In this context she argues that, even though such directions were passed by the High Court, the Trial Court has not yet completed the trial. Thereafter, the Appellant apprehended threat to her life and sought transfer of Sessions Case No.81 of 2016 from Additional Sessions Court, Hosur to Principal Sessions Court at Salem, Tamil Nadu.

8. The High Court by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 457

IMPORTANT POINTWhere the complainant has reasonable apprehension that fair and impartial trial cannot be held before a particular court, the case deserves to be transferred.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the complainant has reasonable apprehension that fair and impartial trial cannot be held before a particular court, the case deserves to be transferred.