HEMLATA JINDAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under S.482 CrPC , prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for transfer of Session Trial No. 62 of 2018, titled State vs. Jai Prakash and others , pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, to any other court in the State of Himachal Pradesh, preferably at Shimla.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that on the statement of one Shri Jagdish Chand, recorded under S.154 CrPC , FIR No. 57, dated 7.9.2018 under Ss. 302, 506, 201, 120B and 34 IPC and S. 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 came to be registered at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. Respondents No. 2 to 4, who have been found to be involved in the alleged crime in the investigation, are behind the bars. After completion of investigation, Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law. Material available on record reveals that learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan is in the process of recording statements of prosecution witnesses. Petitioner, who happened to be the wife of late Kidar Singh Jindan, who was allegedly murdered by respondents No.2 to 4, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for transfer of aforesaid session trial from the court of learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan to any other competent court in the State of Himachal Pradesh, preferably at Shimla, on the ground that since respondents Nos. 2 to 4 belong to District Sirmaur, she apprehends threat to her life in case session trial is permitted to continue in the court at Nahan. It has been further averred in the petition that the eye- witnesses, who are yet to be examined, are being threatened by respondents Nos. 2 to 4. In paragraph 7 of the petition, petitioner has averred that whenever witnesses walk on the road in Shillai, strangers not only follow them but extend threats that in case they depose against respondents No.2 to 4, they would face dire consequences. Petitioner has further averred that whenever witnesses come to the Court for getting their statements recorded, supporters and relatives of respondents No.2 to 4 come in a mob with the intention to harm and terrorize the witnesses, so as to dissuade them from narrating true facts to the Court.

(3.) Careful perusal of the reply filed by respondent No.1 reveals that prosecution witnesses are being examined by learned Court below in the aforesaid case. Reply further reveals that the Police has not only provided protection to the family of the deceased at her native place rather, witnesses of the case have been also provided adequate Police protection. Moreover, it has been categorically stated in the reply that no complaint, if any, ever came to be lodged at the behest of the petitioner, with regard to the alleged threats, if any, extended to her and her family members by respondents Nos. 2 to 4.