Heinous Murder Gruesome In Character; Shocked Conscience Of Community: Kerala HC Directs Reconsideration Of State's Refusal To Appoint Special PP In RSS Worker Murder Case
The Kerala High Court has directed reconsideration of the State's refusal to appoint a special public prosecutor in the RSS worker’s murder case after observing that such “heinous murder” which is “gruesome in character” shocks the conscience of the community.
Anand, an RSS worker was hacked to death in November 2017 in Thrissur District of Kerala, allegedly by CPIM workers.
The Court set aside an order issued by the State Government rejecting the Petitioner’s request for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the gruesome murder of her son in “broad daylight”. The Court directed the State to take a fresh decision on the matter within the purview of the guidelines issued by the Government for the appointment of SPP.
A Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath directed, “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…The 1st respondent is directed to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
Advocate Sajith Kumar V. represented the Petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor Seetha S. appeared for the State.
The Petitioner is the mother of the deceased Anand. According to the Prosecution, the incident occurred while the Petitioner’s son and the de facto complainant were travelling on a motorcycle. The Accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked them after hitting their vehicle with a car. The deceased was murdered, and the de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries.
After the trial, the final report was filed against seven Accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty.
The Petitioner had submitted a representation requesting the appointment of Advocate T.C. Krishnanarayanan as the SPP. The State Government rejected the application stating that the case did not meet the criteria under Clause 3(b) of the guidelines for appointing an SPP.
The Petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court in a Writ Petition. The Single Bench set aside the Order of the government and directed reconsideration. The State, however, appealed this decision in a Writ Appeal, but the Division Bench upheld the Single Bench’s Order.
Despite these directions, the State Government once again rejected the request for appointment by the Petitioner.
The High Court noted that the guidelines issued by the Government of Kerala dealing with the appointment of the SPP enumerated the categories of cases which can be considered for the appointment of a SPP. Clause 3(b)(i) dealt 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.”
Referring to the FIR and the Prosecution’s case, the Court stated that the murder’s brutal and shocking nature met with the conditions under Clause 3(b)(i). It observed that the “It is a case that falls under Clause 3(b)(i) of Ext.P7. Hence, Ext.P1 is set aside.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Ambika v. The State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:95858)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sajith Kumar V., Vivek A.V., Godwin Joseph and Aparna Chandran
Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Seetha S.; State Attorney Government Pleader K.V. Sohan
