Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36864
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
SMT. AMBIKA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 15791/2020
SAJITH KUMAR V., SHRI.VIVEK A.V., SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH, SMT.APARNA CHANDRAN, SMT. SEETHA S., SRI.K.V.SOHAN
The court established that heinous murders warrant the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor under government guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Arms Act - Section 27 - Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor - The petitioner, a victim in a murder case, sought the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor following the rejection of her request by the Government. The court found that the case fell within the category of heinous murder as per government guidelines. The court set aside the prior rejection and directed reconsideration of the application. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(B) Guidelines for Appointment - The court emphasized that the nature of the crime, being gruesome and shocking to the community, warranted the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor under the stated guidelines. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s son was murdered during an attack while traveling on a motorcycle, leading to a request for a Special Public Prosecutor to ensure a fair trial.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the case met the criteria for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor and directed the Government to reconsider the application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the case fell within the guidelines for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the heinous nature of the crime justified the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, aligning with the community's expectation for justice.
Result: The Writ Petition is disposed of with directions for reconsideration of the application.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the victim in S. C. No.505/2018 pending on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda (for short ‘the trial court’). Her son was murdered in broad daylight at 12.55 pm on 12.11.2017. Immediately after the incident, Ext.P2 FIR was registered. After the trial, the final report was filed against seven accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act . The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty.
2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application before the 1st respondent requesting to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor namely, Adv. T. C. Krishnanarayanan to conduct the trial. The 1st respondent rejected Ext.P3 application as per Ext.P5 order mainly on the ground that the case does not fall within the purview of Ext.P7 guidelines issued by the Government for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor. On receipt of Ext.P5, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to the 1st respondent to review Ext.P5 order. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31187/2019 challenging Ext.P5 order. This Court as per Ext.P8 judgment set aside Ext.P5 and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application in the light of Ext.P7 Circular. The respondents challenged Ext.P8 before the Division Bench of this Court. This Court as per Ext.P9 judgment directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations / principles in the judgment in Writ Appeal and Ext.P7 guidelines issued on behalf of the State Government. Thereafter, the 1st respondent rejected Ext.P3 application as per Ext.P1 order.
The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
3. I have heard Sri. Sajith Kumar V., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. Ext.P7 guidelines issued by the Government of Kerala deals with the appointment the Special Public Prosecutor. Clause 3(b) of Ext.P7 enumerates the categories of cases which shall ordinarily be considered for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. In Ext.P5 as well as in Ext.P1, the stand taken by the Government is that the case on hand does not fall within any of the categories of cases mentioned in clause 3(b) of Ext.P7. Clause 3(b)(i) deals with the following categories of cases;
“cases such as heinous murder or kidnapping or rape particularly of minor and which are gruesome in character shocking the collective conscience of the community at large.”
5. In Ext.P8 judgment, the Single Bench of this Court found that the case on hand falls within the condition No.(i) in Clause 3(b) of Ext.P7. The Single Judge also found that it is a fit case where a Special Public Prosecutor could be appointed. In Ext.P9 judgment, in fact Ext.P8 judgment was not set aside. But the Division Bench set aside Ext.P5 communication rejecting the request of the petitioner for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and the Government was directed to take a fresh decision on Ext.P3 application given by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P7 guidelines.
6. Ext.P2 is the FIR. The prosecution allegation as per Ext.P2 is that, on 12.11.2017 at 12.55 pm, while the defacto complainant and the deceased were travelling on a motor cycle, the accused with the intention to kill them came in a car armed with deadly weapons such as sword, hit against the motor cycle driven by the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant and the deceased fell on the road, the accused gave cut injuries to the defacto complainant repeatedly, murdered the deceased and caused grievous injuries to the defacto complainant. No doubt, going by the prosecution case, it is a heinous murder which is gruesome in character and shocks the conscience of the community at large. It is a case that falls under Clause 3(b)(i) of Ext.P7. Hence, Ext.P1 is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to take a fresh decis
