The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ensuring a fair trial, preventing witness intimidation, and highlighting the participatory and proactive role of the trial judge and the duty of the public prosecutor to conduct the prosecution diligently.

1. The petitioner is father of late Sanjay Jandial alleged to have been brutally murdered on 2.5.2009 at Chabotra Bazar, Udhampur in the broad day light, by Shri Ankush Pandoh alias Munna and other three alleged arrayed as Respondents 2 to 5 to the present petition.

2. The occurrence led to registration of FIR No. 101 of 2009 at Police Station, Udhampur. The investigation was concluded as proved against the respondents 2 to 5 and accordingly charge sheet alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 302,34, 452, 212,109 and 120-B RPC read with sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act was presented before the Court at Udhampur and later committed to Sessions Court , Udhampur for trial. The respondents 2 to 5 / accused have been formally charged of the offences alleged in the charge sheet and a few witnesses have been examined.

3. The petitioner seeks withdrawal of case titled `State v. Ankush Pandoh and Ors.’ under sections 302, 34, 452, 212s, 109 and 120BRPC read with sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act from the files of Sessions Court Udhampur and its transfer to any other court of competent jurisdiction. The grounds for transfer of aforementioned case are that out of (sic) prosecution witnesses, five witnesses examined so far, have not supported the prosecution version despite the fact that all the witnesses were actually acquainted with the facts of the case. The prosecution witnesses examined so far with the exception of one witness, are said to have resiled from their earlier statement under section 164-A and 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of investigation. Two of the prosecution witnesses, namely Sunil Khajuria and Raj Mathur are said to have resiled from their statements recorded on examination-in-chief, during their cross-examination and also from their statements recorded under section 164-A, without prompting the Public Prosecutor to make an effort to subject the witnesses to cross-examination. The petitioner is aggrieved, that even the learned trial judge does not control the proceedings and ensure that true facts are brought on the file. It is pleaded that after one of the prosecution witness namely Surjeet Singh turned `hostile’ to the prosecution in the trial court, Shri Kewal Jandial, son of the petitioner and brother of the deceased contacted the witness on his cell phone No.8803203035 so as to know the circumstances in which witness had felt constrained to resile from his earlier statement; that Prosecution witness Surjeet Singh informed the said Kawal Jandial that he was threatened of dire consequences and threat was also extended to the lives of his children. The petitioner claims his son recorded the conversation and has placed on the file the Compact Disc (DC) wherein the conversation between the Prosecution witness Surjeet Singh and Kewal Jandial is recorded. The petitioner claims to have also made an application before the trial court voicing his reservation with regard to the fairness of the trial.

4. The Respondent-State has opted to stay neutral and not taken any stand on either side. Mr. A. H. Qazi, learned AAG has made a prayer that the matter may be disposed of on its own merits.

5. The Respondents 2 to 5, accused before the trial court though not initially arrayed as respondents to the present Criminal Transfer Application, were on 29-3-2010 impleaded as respondents 2 to 5 at their request as party respondents.

6. The respondents 2 to 5 resist the application on the grounds that the Special Public Prosecutor was appointed by respondent no.1 at the request of the petitioner and the petitioner after having got appointed a Special Public Prosecutor of his choice cannot be permitted to question his bona-fides or competence, to prosecute the case. The present petition is said to be aimed at delaying the case before the trial court and prolonging agony of the respondent/accused 2 to 5, who are behind the bars for last few months, The respondents have denied to have extended any th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document