VASANTH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the defacto complainant to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint one Mr.K.Kathiresan, practising Advocate at Madurai as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting trial in S.C.No.180/2016 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was that on 09.10.2015, her husband Muniyasmy was brutally murdered by the respondents 5 to 11 following a property dispute. A case was registered in Cr.No.275/2015 on the file of the fourth respondent and subsequently, the fourth respondent has filed a charge- sheet on 31.03.2016 against the respondents 5 to 11 for the offence punishable under Sections 150, 148, 341, 342, 294(b), 324, 326, 302 I.P.C r/w 149 I.P.C and Sections 201 and 202 I.P.C and based on the said charge-sheet, the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai has taken the case as P.R.C and committed to the Court of Sessions, Virudhunagar and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.180/2016 and made over to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar and the same is pending for trial. The respondents 5 to 11 are threatening the petitioner and other prosecution witnesses; that they are having money and muscle power; that specifically they have high-level political influence in the present ruling party and that the present Public Prosecutor will not conduct trial effectively for getting justice to the victim. The accused party will influence the Public Prosecutor through ruling party members. It is the further case of the petitioner that if the trial is going to be held without appointing the Special Public Prosecutor, the petitioner will not get justice. She got a consent letter from the Advocate Mr.K.Kathiresan, who is having above 10 years Bar experience for conducting the case in S.C.No.180/2016 as Special Public Prosecutor. Hence, the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 30.11.2017, requesting them to appoint a neutral and effective Public Prosecutor for conducting the case in S.C.No.180/2016, but, till date, there is no action on the said representation. Hence, she has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents 5 to 11.