Madras High Court Directs Murder Trial To Be Conducted Inside Jail Premises Considering Life Threat To Accused And Witnesses

The Madras High Court recently directed the trial of a murder case to be conducted inside the prison premises keeping in mind the life threat to the accused and the victims in the case. Noting that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary remedies, the court added that its powers were not fettered and could be used in extraordinary situations. “Hence, this Court feels that this is an extraordinary circumstances of the present extraordinary case, the constitutional Court has power to mould the Law so as to serve the needs of time in order to achieve a harmonious adjustment in human relations by elimination of social tension and conflict by adopting the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012(1)SCC10 [Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab],” the court observed. Justice KK Ramakrishnan was hearing an appeal by one Sutherson against the rejection of bail by the Special Court in Thoothukudi. The allegation against Sutherson was that he was involved in the murder of one Muthukumar, a practicing advocate in the Thoothukudi and the Tirunelveli Bar Association. It was alleged that due to business rivalry and other property disputes, a group of persons had murdered the defacto complainant and the deceased’s brother Shivakumar. Since the deceased Muthukumar had challenged the bail petitions of the accused in the case, they conspired to murder Muthukumar and Sutherson had assisted them in carrying out the murder. Sutherson submitted that the only evidence against him was the confession statement of one of the co-accused and transfer of amount from his bank account to some other accused in the case. He submitted that the same was not sufficient to invoke the conspiracy charge against him and that he had no previous antecedents and was even a Gold medalist in engineering. He thus contended that he had made the bank transactions innocently and thus sought bail. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor and the de-facto complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail and submitted that there were a number of incriminating materials against Sutherson. It was submitted that there were telephonic conversations made with the accused before and after the occurrence and even two witnesses had spoked about the conspiracy made by Sutherson with other accused. Considering the strong materials available against Sutherson, the court was not inclined to grant him bail. The court also noted that most of the accused in the case had previous cases against them which were grave in nature. Thus, the court opined that Sutherson’s relationship with them was itself a strong circumstance to deny bail. The court also took note of the fact that on the of the eyewitnesses to the earlier case ie, Muthukumar was already murdered and there was a life threat the defacto complainant also. The court also noted that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act emphasised on providing adequate protection to the victims and witnesses and considering the fear psychosis that the witnesses were presently experiencing, the court did not find it fit to grant bail. The court added that though Sutherson had been confined in the jail for a long time, that itself was not a groud to grant him bail in the present circumstances when there is reasonable apprehension of potential threat to the witnesses. However, the court also observed that dismissal of bail petition alone did not serve purpose. The court noted that as per a report by the trial judge, the accused were not cooperating with the trial even though there were specific instructions to complete the trial within a specific period. Thus, considering the fact that judge was not in a position to conduct the trial in a peaceful manner and the report by the Superintendent of Police relating to threat to life of witnesses and chances of retaliation, the court deemed it fit to direct the trial to be conducted in the prison premises. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.Anandhapadmanabhan Senior Counsel for M/s. APN Law Associates Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor For R1, Mr.A.Robinson For R2 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 322 Case Title: Sutherson v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another Case No: Crl.A.(MD).No.494 of 2023Click here to read/download the judgment

Madras High Court Directs Murder Trial To Be Conducted Inside Jail Premises Considering Life Threat To Accused And Witnesses

Upasana Sajeev

Tags