MS. RITA REENI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the petitioners are arrayed as the accused in the same criminal case.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading up to these petitions being filed are said to be as follows. A complaint is said to have been lodged by one Patrick Xavier on 1.4.2013, before the Yeshwanthpur Police Station about the alleged murder of one Father. Thomas K. J., who was said to be the Rector of the St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary, situate within the jurisdiction of the said Police station. It was stated that the complainant, the deceased and one Father G. Joseph had supper at the Seminary and had remained together between 7.30PM and 9 PM. Thereafter, they are said to have retired to their respective rooms for the night. It was said that at about 2.30 AM, the complainant had heard loud screams outside and there was also someone at his door trying to break open the same. The complainant did not choose to open the door or investigate, as he put down the commotion to miscreants having gained entry into the premises and he was surprised that they were seeking to extort money. It was only at 5 AM, he ventured to come outside to find that the door to his office chambers had been damaged and he is also said to have noticed blood stains outside his office and also in front of the staff room which was adjacent and on the tarred pathway. Once inside the room, he is said to have seen the dead body of Fr. Thomas lying in a semi -nude state, with blood stains. He also found on entering the Rector's office chamber, that a cupboard and a safe locker had been broken open and ransacked. Hence the complaint of what was apparently a murder and robbery. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime no.157/2013 was said to have been registered for offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). It is said that accused nos.1 to 5 were implicated after investigation and on the basis of oral statements of some of the witnesses. Accused nos.1 and 2 were said to have been arrested on 21.3.2014 and accused no.3 on 20.3.2014. Accused nos.4 and 5 are said to be absconding. It is stated that there was an ongoing agitation by several Kannada Christian activists seeking primacy for Kannada Christians in the Catholic Churches in Karnataka and in particular, there was a demand to make the St. Peter's Seminary, a Kannada institution. And that the membership of non -Kannada linguistic groups in the Catholic Churches in Karnataka to be kept to a minimum. In that background, the deceased, being a non - Kannadiga and believed to be an adversary of the Kannada Christian activists, it was sought to be theorized that it was the said group which had masterminded and engineered the murder. It is claimed that this theory was strongly projected by the non - Kannada Christian members of the congregations, mainly Malayalam, Tamil and Konkani speaking Christians. It was alleged that it included such important persons, as K.J.George, an erstwhile minister of the present Government in Karnataka, the Archbishop of Bangalore - Bernard Moras and a retired Deputy Commissioner of Police, - V.S. D'Souza, among others. A charge sheet was said to have been filed against accused nos.1 to 5 as on 17.6.2014, for offences punishable under Sections 302,201,149 read with Section 120 (B) IPC. Cognizance was said to have been taken on the said Charge Sheet and a case was registered in SC 1439/2014, on committal to the Court of Sessions. It was alleged in the charge sheet that accused nos.1 to 5 had walked into the St.Peter's Pontifical Seminary at about 11 PM on 31.3.2013 and the Security guard at the gate was sent away to have a drink by the accused and that the guard had remained absent till about 2 AM on 1.4.2013, when the murder is said to have taken place. As it was the firm belief of the present petitioner and others, who supported the Kannada Christian group, that the accused had been unfairly and without any basis implicated, are said to have embarked on the task of unveiling the truth and to save the accused no.1 to 5 from false prosecution, by taking recourse to all legal means available, including campaigns, meetings and writings. It is claimed that they drew support from various quarters and their agitation for fair play and justice is said to have brought pressure on the government and the Church itself. The Archbishop himself is said to have threatened Fr. Selvaraj that he would be defrocked if he continued with the said agitations. It is alleged that at the instance of respondents no.13 and 14 in WP 18062/2016, the police officers, arrayed as respondents no.9 to 12, are said to have brought unrelenting pressure on the petitioners herein and others by visiting them and also calling upon them to attend enquiry sessions and seeking to recover documents and alleged incriminating material from the petitioners. This, it is claimed, only further strengthened their resolve to fight for the freedom of the accused and they are said to have intensified their agitation. This circumstance, it is said, led to the police filing an additional charge sheet dated 26.10.2015, on 24.11.2015, naming these petitioners as accused no.6 to 12 , for the same offences as alleged against Accused no. 1 to 5. It is that which is under challenge in these petitions. Accused no. 8 is said to have died recently.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate, Shri B.V.Acharya, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner in WP 18062/2016, would contend that there is a gross misuse of law in the prosecution seeking to file an additional charge sheet after nearly three years of the incident seeking to implicate the petitioner and others. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC', for brevity), does not enable the investigating agency to implicate persons at its whim and fancy at indefinite points of time. It is pointed out that the additional charge sheet is filed on the basis of alleged material that was available even prior to filing of the original charge sheet and therefore, it is evident that the additional charge sheet is only to stifle the petitioner and others from speaking out against the injustice being caused to accused no. 1 to 5 . It is contended that the additional charge sheet is clearly engineered to prevent the petitioners from carrying on their legitimate campaign against the powers that be in the Church, by targeting the Kannada Christian fraternity, of whom the petitioners are identified as their unnamed leaders, is evident from the undue attention that has been bestowed on the petitioners by the investigating agency apparently at the behest of the non - Kannada groups, including the concerned respondents. It is sought to be highlighted that the additional charge sheet does not disclose any basis warranting the same as it is based on material that was available at the time of filing the original charge sheet. The conduct of the complainant is particularly questioned. Shri Acharya would point out that after the complainant, who was admittedly in the next room where the deceased was said to have been murdered and when he was woken up by the commotion of loud screams and his room door being allegedly sought to be broken open, the fact that he had not chosen to alert the police or seek help, when he had access to five telephones in his room, is inexplicable. He was one of the last persons to see the deceased alive and also the first to discover his dead body. He also stood to gain by the death of the victim, as he was likely to be the next Rector of the Seminary, but he has been presumed to be innocent in spite of his odd response to the incident, which is highly suspicious and would possibly make him, along with his accomplices, the perpetrator of the crime. It is hence emphasized that there is no material to implicate the petitioners either in the main charge sheet or the additional charge sheet, indicating their direct or indirect participation in the perpetration of the alleged crime.