Back
Rejects Transfer Plea in Acid Attack on Lawyer, Orders
The recently dismissed a filed by two accused persons seeking to shift the trial of an acid attack case from Gajapati to Berhampur, citing alleged obstruction by the local bar. Instead, Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra ordered an to ensure fairness and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Background: Acid Attack on Elderly Lawyer
The case concerns a brutal acid attack on a 64-year-old lawyer, P. Rama Rao, a member of the in Gajapati district. The incident occurred in when unidentified miscreants threw acid at him after he opened his door. Following investigation, a was filed and trial commenced before the at Paralakhemundi as S.T. Case No.41 of .
The accused—Dakoju Venkat Rao and D. Satish—filed a before the High Court, arguing that the local bar members were hostile and obstructing the trial. , representing the petitioners, submitted that the presence of numerous bar members in court created a “scary atmosphere” prejudicing a . He also claimed financial hardship if they had to engage lawyers from Visakhapatnam.
Plea for Transfer and Counter-Arguments
Opposing the petition, the State relied on a written instruction from the Registrar of Civil Courts, Gajapati. The Registrar stated that out of 25 prosecution witnesses, six had already been examined, and delays were due to non-appearance of other witnesses—not bar obstruction. The Registrar further noted that the petitioners were represented by local advocates and that no resolution of non-cooperation had been passed by the bar.
Counsel for the informant—the then Secretary of the Bar Association—also refuted the allegations, emphasizing that acid attack cases must be tried expeditiously as mandated by the in . A transfer to Berhampur, he argued, would inconvenience local witnesses and delay the trial.
Court's Ruling: Transfer Denied but Ordered
After considering the rival submissions, Justice Mishra found no merit in the transfer plea. The Court observed that the Registrar’s report and the informant’s objection contradicted the petitioners’ claims of obstruction. However, acknowledging the sensitive nature of the case—where the victim is a lawyer and the accused face a hostile atmosphere—the Court deemed an appropriate.
The judgment quoted:
“In view of the sensitiveness of the issue involved in S.T. Case No.41 of , and the concern of the accused persons, as detailed above, this Court is of the view that an of the proceeding would be a just and proper course to mitigate the grievance of the accused persons in the present .”
The Court directed the to adopt in-camera proceedings and conclude the trial at the earliest. It also invoked the ’s directives in Shaheen Malik and v. Mir Usman alias Ara alias Mur Usman Ali () to ensure of witnesses and strict timelines.
Key Observations and Directives
The High Court issued specific directions to the and the trial court:
-
To the Bar Association: The President and Secretary were directed to “ensure smooth trial of S.T. Case No.41 of and not to create any kind of hindrance by the Bar Members… in order to ensure timely disposal.”
-
To the Trial Court: The Sessions Judge was asked to comply with the High Court’s circular dated , which fixes timelines for acid attack cases: framing of charges within 15 days of , completion of trial within six months, and strict adherence to judgment delivery timelines.
-
For Expedited Proceedings: The Court quoted extensively from Mir Usman , emphasizing that examination of witnesses must be continued day-to-day, no adjournments without recording special reasons, and that non-cooperation by counsel should be dealt with firmly—including potential .
Conclusion and Implications
The was disposed of with the trial remaining in Gajapati. By ordering an , the High Court balanced the accused’s right to a fair hearing with the victim’s security and the need for swift justice. The ruling reinforces the principle that acid attack cases must be prioritized and that trial courts must take proactive measures to prevent intimidation or delay.
The High Court also directed urgent communication of the order to the President of the Bar Association and the Sessions Judge for compliance. The case now proceeds under the watchful eye of the higher judiciary, with clear timelines and a closed-door setting to ensure justice is neither delayed nor denied.
