Point of Law: Prayer for transfer can be allowed only when there is a well-substantiated apprehension that justice will not be dispensed impartially, objectively, and without any bias.

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity) with a prayer to transfer S.C.No. 461/2022 from the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge - I, Mavelikkara to any other court in the State.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that they reasonably apprehend that they will not get a fair trial if the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge - I, where the case is presently pending, is permitted to proceed with the case.

3. The contentions of the petitioners are as under :

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 15 in S.C.No. 461/2022 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara. They are accused of having committed the murder of Adv. Renjith Sreenivasan, a practicing lawyer at Alappuzha. They face indictment for having committed offences punishable under Section 120B, 143, 147, 148, and 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC.

4. The circumstances highlighted by the petitioners to seek transfer of the proceedings are as under:

a) Though the case was posted for trial on 1.3.2023, certain prosecution records were not furnished to the accused, which include clone copies of CCTV footage, forensic reports, etc. Though this Court deferred the trial till 15.3.2023, the learned Sessions Judge posted the case on 15.3.2023 and issued summons to the witnesses. An unwanted urgency is being shown by the learned Sessions Judge.

b) On March 15, 2023, the accused were summoned before the court, at which point they were instructed to remove their face masks. Subsequently, CW1—the deceased's mother, a 72-year-old woman who stands as the prosecution's key eyewitness—was invited to approach the accused's dock. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded to call each of the accused by name, requesting that they raise their hands in turn. This procedure was employed to enable CW1 to identify each defendant accurately. The above questionable procedure raises significant concerns regarding the impartiality of the learned Sessions Judge.

c) On that very day, the learned Sessions Judge issued a warning, stating that should the witness encounter any difficulty in identifying the accused, they would be summoned to the vicinity of the witness stand. On the same day itself, Sri Wakarul Islam, the counsel who was appearing for all the accused, submitted Annexure-A3 detailing the events of the court proceedings wherein he raised his apprehension.

d) The charge was read over to the accused on 12.12.2022. On 31.3.2023, on which day the case was posted, the learned Sessions Judge informed the counsel that certain clerical errors had crept into the court charge and the same had to be corrected. The learned counsel appearing for the accused was not informed beforehand that there were material changes in the charge. However, on 31.3.2023, the learned Sessions Judge read over an amended charge, which contained material changes. The accused were not heard on the amended charges.

e) Even before the trial, copies of the FSL reports were not furnished to the accused. In the said circumstances, the accused Nos. 6, 10, and 15 filed a petition under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. requesting that copies of the FSL report be supplied to the accused. The said application was rejected, and the accused were directed to apply for a certified copy. The accused had to approach this Court and file Crl.M.C.No. 3349/2023 and this Court passed an interim order on 20.4.2023 recording the undertaking of the ADGP that copies of the report of the Forensic Science Lab would be furnished. Though the said order was produced and free copies of FSL reports were sought, the learned Sessions Judge, after mentioning that there is no direction to supply free copies, treated Annexure-A9 memo as an application, and only one certified copy of the FSL report was issued. The rest of the accused were not furnished with copies.

f) The trial commenced on April 17, 2023. PW1 was called to the stand, and upon the prosecutor's request t