Point of Law : Subject Sessions case may invade the privacy and dignity of the victim, though 'no more', this being a case of brutal rape, followed by murder.

ORDER :

Jayachandran, J.

This application is preferred under Rule 129 of the Kerala High Court Rules by a stranger seeking issuance of certified copies of the judgment and other documents in S.C No.662 of 2016 of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner claims that his name was included in the list of defence witnesses, but was not examined. The purpose stated in the application is to prefer a criminal revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction dated 12-12-2017 in the above sessions case, on the premise that the convicted accused is not the real culprit, that he was made a scapegoat in order to save the real culprits and that a de-novo investigation is to be conducted.

2. Heard Sri.C.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Ambika Devi, learned Special Government Pleader (Women and Children), who filed an objection and opposed the application seriously. Perused the records.

3. Section 129 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 is extracted hereunder :

“129. Application for copies by Strangers.- Application for copies for records by persons not parties to the proceeding shall be allowed only by order of the Court, obtained on a duly verified petition, setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required. But copies of judgments and decrees can be granted to all persons prepared to pay the prescribed fees for the supply of such copies.”

(underlined for emphasis)

4. Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982 is also extracted hereunder :

“226. Application for copies by strangers.- Except in the case of judgments, applications for the grant of copies of any proceedings or documents by a stranger to the proceeding shall be allowed only by order of the Court obtained on a petition duly verified setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required.”

(underlined for emphasis)

5. It is clear from the Rules extracted above that, insofar as strangers are concerned, their entitlement for copies of records, except judgments, is subject to an enabling order by the court, on a verified petition setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required. The word “only” occurring in Rule 129 of the High Court of Kerala and Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala extracted above underscores the rigour in the matter of issuing certified copies to strangers. Besides, both the rules speak of the requirement to set forth the purpose for which copy is required, which implies that the court which makes an order directing issuance of copy should be satisfied of the purpose for which certified copy is sought for.

6. Coming to the facts, the purpose stated by the petitioner to seek certified copies of the judgment and other records in S.C No.662 of 2016 is that he proposes to prefer a criminal revision petition to set aside the judgment of conviction, since the accused convicted is not the real culprit and he was made a scapegoat to save the real culprits. The petitioner would specifically state that he seeks a de-novo investigation. To add force to his locus, the petitioner also avers that he was witness no.2 in the list of defence witnesses, but was not examined in the court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel, we are neither convinced of the reason set forth in the petition; nor of the petitioner's locus. We take note that an appeal has already been preferred by the convicted accused challenging the judgment of conviction. While espousing his cause/innocence in the said appeal, the accused can also point out the serious flaws, if any, in the investigation, leading to an innocent person being prosecuted, at the cost of the real culprit and can seek further investigation. The appellant/accused does not stand in need of any aid/assistance in this regard from the petitioner/stranger. That apart, upon hearing the appeal, if this Court is satisfied that a further investigation is required in the matter, an order to that effect is well-nigh within our powers.

8. As regards petitioner's locus al