Kerala High Court dismisses transfer petition by accused in Shuhaib murder case

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the transfer of court petition filed by the accused in the alleged murder of S.P. Shuhaib, a Youth Congress leader from Kannur. 

The accused, including former DYFI leader Akash Thillenkery, had sought the trial proceedings before the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, to be transferred to any other court of a competent authority.

Justice C.S. Dias held that merely because a court passed an erroneous order, it did not warrant the transfer of a case. The court held that the test to transfer proceedings was not whether the impugned orders were correct, but whether the apprehension of an unfair trial was genuine and justifiable.

The court directed the sessions judge to ensure that both sides were afforded a full and effective opportunity to participate in the trial, including by suo motu reopening the evidence and permitting the counsel for the accused to cross-examine the witnesses and the accused to cooperate with the trial.

The petition was moved in the High Court after the Thalassery court dismissed the request of the accused to conduct witness examination in a question-and-answer format and subsequently withdrew the bail granted to the accused. The accused contended that they had lost faith in the trial court and apprehended that they might not get justice.

The court observed that the officers of the district judiciary worked “under a charged atmosphere” and were “constantly under psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks, more correctly, up to their nostrils.” It said that the trial court judges did not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every error, however gross it may look, should not be attributed to improper motive, the court stated.

Noting the petitioner’s apprehension of an unfair trial, the High Court observed that a judge needed to exercise their powers without any hint of partisanship and without appearing to frighten, coerce, confuse, or intimidate the witnesses or the parties. The Bench also quoted Socrates on the qualities required in a judge as “to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially.”

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.