Transfer of cases under Section 407 Cr.P.C. requires compelling circumstances, not mere assertions of overlapping motives, to ensure fair trial.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary and exceptional. The power to transfer a criminal case is intended to secure the ends of justice, and not to afford a litigant a perceived tactical advantage or to facilitate a roving consolidation of trials on the mere assertion of overlap.

2. It is equally settled that transfer cannot be ordered on bald apprehensions, conjectures, or on a generalized plea of “conflicting judgments”. The petitioner must demonstrate circumstances of a real and reasonable nature, indicating that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had, or that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or that the transfer is otherwise expedient for the ends of justice.

3. The present petition, though couched as a transfer request, essentially rests on the premise that the “motive” in one case is said to be linked with the “motive” in another. The question is whether such linkage, in the facts pleaded, satisfies the threshold for interference under Section 407 Cr.P.C.

4. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in S.C.No.25 of 2022, pending on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi District.

5. The case in S.C.No.25 of 2022 arises out of Crime No.110 of 2022, registered for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 302, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC , along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

6. The prosecution allegation, in substance, is that on 29.05.2022 at about 5.30 p.m., Accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked one Shanmugaraj, a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, with deadly weapons, causing his death, and that the complaint was lodged by the brother of the deceased, namely Suresh. The petitioner further states that an earlier murder case relating to the death of one Sathyamoorthi on 29.05.2020 was registered as Crime No.163 of 2020 on the file of Arumuganeri Police Station for the offence under Section 302 IPC , and that the final report therein is pending trial as S.C.No.388 of 2025 before the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai District.

7. The petitioner contends that since the motive projected in S.C.No.25 of 2022 is allegedly rooted in the earlier incident, both cases should be tried by the same Presiding Officer, failing which there is a likelihood of conflicting judgments. The petitioner also seeks stay of both trials pending disposal of this petition.

Case of the prosecution:

8. In so far as S.C.No.25 of 2022 is concerned, the prosecution case is founded upon a specific occurrence on 29.05.2022, involving a distinct victim (Shanmugaraj), specific overt acts attributed to the accused, specific weapons, and a set of witnesses who speak to the occurrence, its immediate aftermath, and the surrounding circumstances.

9. The alleged motive of retaliation, as projected by the prosecution, is only one component of the case. The core adjudicatory exercise in a murder trial remains the proof of the occurrence, identity of assailants, participation, intention, and the evidentiary worth of ocular and/or circumstantial materials placed by the prosecution.

10. In so far as S.C.No.388 of 2025 is concerned, it pertains to a different occurrence on 29.05.2020, different victim (Sathyamoorthi), different crime number, and different accused const