(1.) The petitioner is an organisation represented by its president, approaching this Court seeking directions against the respondents to prepare a 'witness protection programme' for protection of the witnesses in crime no.746/2018 of Kuravilangad Police Station. Inter alia, the petitioner seeks direction to arrange protection to the witness listed in the charge sheet on an emergent basis.
(2.) It is mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioner had already approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.2977/2018, seeking identical reliefs. One among the reliefs sought for in that case was to provide protection to the witnesses with respect to above said crime. It is stated that, an interim order was obtained in that case to ensure protection of the witnesses. But, no copy of such an order is produced along with this writ petition. It is mentioned that, the said writ petition was closed consequent to arrest of the accused in crime no.746/2018. The petitioner had produced Ext.P1 judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C).No.29781/2018, which is not the case stated to have filed by them earlier. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the judgment in W.P.(C) No.2977/2018 is not produced, despite the statement that a relief identical to one prayed herein was granted through an interim order in that case. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29781/18 is yet another organisation. Ext.P1 judgment would indicate that, this court had recorded an assurance made by the Director General prosecution on behalf of the State Government and on behalf of the investigating agency, that the police will provided round the clock protection at the place were the victim and the two major witnesses in the case are currently staying. It was specifically mentioned that the Police have not received any complaints with respect to any harassment or threat met out by the victim or the witnesses. It was ensured that, if any such complaint is there, the same will be attended by the Police authorities. This Court had also recorded the assurance that, any possibility of inducements or threat to other witnesses who are also to be questioned, is also being taken into account by the investigating officers. Evidently, on recording the assurances made by the Director General Prosecution, this Court observed that,
(3.) First of all, we may point out that the petitioner organisation cannot be permitted to sue for an identical cause when it is revealed that an earlier writ petition filed by them (W.P.(C) No.2977/2018) was closed in view of Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioner has no case that after Ext.P1 judgment there occurred any specific instance of threat or intimidation to the victim or to the witnesses in Crime no.746/2018, which was reported to the investigating agency. Nor the organisation had a case that any of the witnesses suffered any such threat or intimidation, with respect to which the police had failed to take appropriate action, despite the same was reported. The only instance pointed out by the petitioner organisation is about the death of one of the witnesses in the case. There is no material available to raise any reasonable suspicion about the death of the said witness, as an unnatural death. Statement in the writ petition is only to the effect that, news regarding the death of one of the key witnesses is creating an apprehension in the mind of the victim and other witnesses inside the convent, where they are staying, especially in the wake of the alleged hostile attitude which the Mother Superior of the convent and her supporting nuns are keeping against them. But the petitioner organisation has not revealed the basis for raising the allegation that the victim and the witnesses are keeping such an apprehension in their minds. If the victim or any of the witnesses in the case has any such apprehension about any alleged threat or intimidation, they will be at liberty to approach the investigating agency or any other authorities in the state police. By virtue of the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment, the police is bound to take appropriate steps as assured before this court, in such circumstances. We do not think that this court can take cognisance based on the mere allegation raised by the petitioner organisation, that such an apprehension exists in the mind of the victim and the witnesses.