BINU K V Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUMBASSERY THORUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in S.C.No.459 of 2016 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Court (Cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence Against Women and Children), Ernakulam is the petitioner herein.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that the petitioner herein sexually abused a minor girl aged 14 years. Crime No.1379 of 2015 was registered. After investigation, final report was laid and the Court framed charge for offences punishable under section 366A IPC and 7, 8, 11(v) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The trial of the case commenced on 04.03.2017 with the examination of the victim as PW1. Petitioner alleged that the victim was tutored and even in the chief examination, she was struggling to reproduce the version fed by the prosecution. It was alleged that learned Judge allowed the prosecutor to virtually prompt the witness and she only had to shake her head in approval. It is further stated that learned counsel for the petitioner objected to this back door entry of depositions, which the witness had not deposed. The learned Judge not only turned down his objections, but even refused to record the objections. Learned Judge allegedly stepped into the shoes of the prosecutor and when the prompting also failed to work with the witness, the Court ordered a break and asked the prosecutor to teach her properly. Thereafter, she was taken to the prosecutor's office and again tutored. It was alleged that learned counsel for the petitioner kept on objecting and requesting to record atleast his objection but, was not approved by the learned Judge. It was further alleged that, in cross examination, learned Judge kept on disallowing material questions and recorded twisted versions of depositions. Thereafter, learned Judge cut short the cross examination and closed it. It is further stated that when the certified copy of the deposition was obtained, petitioner found that things that did not happen were seen recorded in the deposition, including that the witness was crying. In the above circumstance, petitioner is stated to have filed an application dated 01.06.2017 for recalling the witness and also to advance hearing. Those applications were dismissed holding that there was no urgency.

(3.) Contending that the above facts disclose that there cannot be a fair and impartial trial before the learned Judge and justice will only be done if the case is transferred from the present court to any other Court, petitioner sought for transfer of the case. It was further stated that the petitioner is highly prejudiced and his right for a fair trial was also vitiated.