SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Mohd. Akhtar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jammu & Kashmir - Respondent
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 85 of 2018
Decided On : 09-07-2018
Court Directions - Criminal Trial - Ranbir Penal Code - In-camera trial - Witness protection - Special care for juvenile - District Jail, Gurdaspur, Punjab - Security for trial Judge and Public Prosecutor - High Court jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
The court issued directions for the transfer of a criminal trial from Kathua to Pathankot, under the Ranbir Penal Code, with provisions for in-camera trial, witness protection, and special care for the juvenile accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial should proceed in-camera and directed the transfer of accused persons to District Jail, Gurdaspur, Punjab, with provisions for their relatives to visit and for the security of the trial Judge and Public Prosecutor.
Issues: Transfer of criminal trial, in-camera trial, witness protection, transfer of accused persons, security for trial Judge and Public Prosecutor, High Court jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for an in-camera trial, witness protection, and special care for the juvenile accused, and directed the transfer of accused persons to District Jail, Gurdaspur, Punjab, with provisions for their relatives to visit and for the security of the trial Judge and Public Prosecutor.
Final Decision: The court issued directions for the transfer of the trial, in-camera trial proceedings, transfer of accused persons to District Jail, Gurdaspur, Punjab, and jurisdiction of the High Court for matters arising from the trial.
ORDER
This Court on 07.05.2018 had passed an elaborate order and issued the following directions:-
"(i) The matter that has been committed to the court of the District & Sessions Judge, Kathua, shall stand transferred to the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Pathankot situate in the State of Punjab;
(ii) The District & Sessions Judge, Kathua shall send all the materials relating to the charge-sheet and other documents in sealed covers through special messengers with the assistance of the police force to the transferee court;
(iii) The transferee court shall proceed under the Ranbir Penal Code as that applies to the State of Jammu & Kashmir;
(iv) The statements of the witnesses that have been recorded in Urgu language, as accepted by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, shall be translated to English so that the transferee court does not face any difficulty in conducting the trial;
(v) The State of Jammu & Kashmir shall provide requisite number of interpreters as directed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pathankot so that the deposition of the witnesses can be properly recorded and translated copies thereof can be provided to the accused persons;
(vi) It shall be the duty of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to transport the witnesses to Pathankot and provide all other necessary facilities, including food, etc. so that the witnesses do not face any difficulty;
(vii) The accused persons shall also be similarly treated so that they do not feel that solely because they are accused persons, they are presumed to be guilty, for it is the settled principle that they are innocent till they are found guilty;
(viii) The learned District & Sessions Judge, Pathankot shall himself take up the trial and not assign it to any Additional Sessions Judge;
(ix) The learned District & Sessions Judge, Pathakot shall fast-track the trial and take it up on day-to-day basis so that there is no delay in trial;
(x) The examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of witnesses shall be in a continuous manner and for no reasons whatsoever the same shall be deferred;
(xi) The State of Jammu & Kashmir is granted liberty to appoint the Public Prosecutor for prosecution of the case;
(xii) The trial shall be held in camera so that the witnesses feel protected and the accused persons feel safe;
(xiii) As this Court is monitoring the matter, no court shall entertain any petition pertaining to this case; and
(xiv) The juvenile, who is facing the trial, shall be dealt with in accordance with law and he should be given all special care and protection as per the command of the law."
2. Today, when the matter was called, Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shoeb Alam appearing for the State of Jammu and Kashmir has filed a Status Report with regard to the progress of the investigation and the trial. The Report indicates that the charge-sheet has been filed and some witnesses have been examined. It is submitted by Mr. Naphade that though this Court had directed that the trial should be held in-camera, the said objective is frustrated inasmuch as the seven accused persons have engaged as many as 51 advocates. Be that as it may, our direction that the trial shall be held in-camera, shall remain undisturbed. We would only direct the learned trial Judge to ensure that the proceedings in the court room are held in-camera so that only the accused, their lawyers, the public prosecutor and his team and the concerned court staff are allowed to remain present and assist the court during the trial. It means the courtroom proceedings are converted to proceedings in-camera.
3. It is further submitted by Mr. Naphade that certain aspects are still under investigation and the investigating agency is acting with quite promptitude for filing supplementary charge-sheet. He has apprised us that the supplementary charge-sheet shall be filed within six to eight weeks.
4. Certain other aspects have also been mentioned in the Status Report. However, Mr. Naphade would submit, he d
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.