IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH, KOHIMA BENCH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAKHETO SEMA
Mr. Reny Wilfred – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And Ors. – Respondents
Tr.P.(Crl.)/1/2022
Decided On : 25-04-2023
TRANSFER OF CASE - Criminal Procedure - Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 354, 376, 511 of IPC; Sections 8 & 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 - The court analyzed the provisions of Section 407 of the CrPC, which allows for the transfer of cases when there is a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done. The court emphasized that mere allegations of threat or public sentiment do not suffice; there must be concrete evidence of a real threat to the accused's safety or the integrity of the trial. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias or danger, leading to the dismissal of the transfer petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Commissioner, was accused of molesting two minors, leading to a case registered under IPC and POCSO Act. The petitioner sought to transfer the case from the Special Court (POCSO) in Tuensang, citing threats to his life and a prejudiced trial due to public protests and media coverage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of a real threat to his life or a prejudiced trial. The protests and media coverage were deemed normal responses to serious allegations, and the court noted that the petitioner had previously attended court proceedings without incident.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a reasonable apprehension of not receiving a fair trial if the case remained in Tuensang, and whether the transfer of the case was warranted under Section 407 of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for a transfer to be granted, there must be a reasonable apprehension of injustice, not merely speculative fears. The court emphasized that public protests and media coverage do not inherently threaten the fairness of a trial.
Final Decision: The petition for transfer was dismissed, and the Special Judge (POCSO) Tuensang was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAKHETO SEMA
Heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Angami, learned P.P. for the State respondent No.1. Also heard Ms. Apila Sangtam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 & 3.
2. The present petition has been filed under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking for transfer of State Crime Police Station (SCPS) Case No. 04/2021 under section 354/376/511 IPC r/w section 8 & 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 (corresponding to G.R No. 58/2021) from the Special Court (POCSO) Tuensang, Nagaland, to any other Special Court (POCSO) within the State of Nagaland.
3. The case in brief is that the respondent No. 2 & 3 on 28/07/2021 lodged the FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Noklak Police Station, Nagaland, alleging that the petitioner who was then serving as the Deputy Commissioner, Noklak, had molested them while they were working in the residence of the petitioner.
4. That based on the complaint, the Noklak P.S Case No. 08/2021 U/S 354/511/376 IPC r/w Section 8 & 10 POCSO Act was registered against the petitioner on 01/08/2021. However, for effective monitoring of the case, the Police Headquarter (PHQ), Nagaland, Kohima, constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising of the Police Officers namely, i) Smti. Roopa M, IPS, DIG (CID/HR & SJ), Nagaland, Kohima as Team Leader, ii) Smti. Achetla Ao, Commandant 2nd NAP Bn. Alichen as SIT Member, iii) Smti. Tingbem Thomsong, UBI, SIT Member and I/O of the case and iv) Shri. I.Yongkongtoshi, UBSI, DEF Tuensang as SIT Member. The case was thereafter re-registered as SCPS Case No. 04/2021 u/s 354/376/511 IPC r/w section 8 & 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.
5. That the petitioner was granted interim pre-arrest bail by the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench on 26/11/2021 and the same was made absolute on 20/01/2022. On completion of the investigation of the case by the Police, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner on 02/12/2021 u/s 354A/354B IPC and u/s 10 & 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and submitted in the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Tuensang, Nagaland. In the charge-sheet, the investigation reveals that the alleged molestation occurred in between 03/02/2021 to 06/02/2021 and the respondent No. 2 & 3 were minors aged 17 & 14 years respectively.
6. That the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Tuensang, thereafter on 25/03/2022 fixed the case for consideration of the charge and on which date the petitioner appeared before the Court along with the learned counsel and denied the charges. It is only consequent thereto that the petitioner has filed the present petition praying for transfer of the case.
7. Mr. A. Zho, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the alleged incident and even before the filing of the FIR, the petitioner has received life threatening called from an unknown person from Mobile No. 9362725134, however no action has been taken by the Police at Noklak to track/ascertain the identity of the unknown caller. Mr. A. Zho also submits that even before the FIR was registered by the Police in the case a misleading news was telecast in the Hornbill T.V on 30/07/2021 stating that the Police has registered the FIR against the petitioner. Such misinformation, the learned counsel submits was broadcast to instigate the public and to harm the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that on 03/08/2021, the Khiamniungan Menyiu Hoikam (hereinafter referred to as ‘KMH’), i.e. the Khiamniungan Tribe Women Organization took out a protest rally at Noklak town against the petitioner and the same was widely published in the Hornbill T.V as well as in the local media. Mr. A. Zho further submits that on 10/08/2021, the KMH took out a mass protest rally demanding stern action against the petitioner and also called upon His Excellency the Governor of Nagaland for immediate intervention in the matter. Such protest was telecast in the Hornbill T.V channel. It is also submitted that on 17/09/2021 there were reports in t
Maguni Charan Behra (Prof) -versus-State of Arunachal Pradesh & Others
Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi & Another -versus-Mrs. Rani Jethmalani
Usmangani Adambhai Vahora -versus-State of Gujarat & Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between transfer of investigation and transfer of a proceeding at the stage of investigation, and the exercise of inherent powers u....
Point of Law : An order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about proper conduct of the trial. The power has t....
The State's transfer of a criminal case without authority under applicable laws violates the right to a fair trial, necessitating judicial intervention.
The court established that a mere allegation of bias or apprehension of injustice is insufficient for transferring a case; there must be reasonable and substantiated grounds for such a request.
Point of Law : An order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about proper conduct of the trial. The power has t....
The principle that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done, and the threshold of reasonable apprehension of bias in a criminal case.
Allegations of bias against a judicial officer require substantial proof; mere suspicion is insufficient to justify case transfer under Section 447 of the BNSS.
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.