Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRLIMINAL) NO. 29 OF 2008
Vikas Kumar Roorkewal ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
J.M. Panchal, J.
By filing this petition under Section 406 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973 (“The Code”, for short), the
petitioner, who is son of late Radhey Shyam and who is
also the first informant in the case relating to the murder
of his father, has prayed that the case titled as State Vs.
2
Aakash Tyagi and others being S.T. No. 6 of 2007
pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court, Haridwar (Uttrakhand) arising out of
crime No. 182 of 2006 and FIR No.169 of 2006 be
transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at
Delhi.
2. The background facts as projected by the petitioner
in the instant petition are as follows:-
Late Radhey Shyam was initially appointed
Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department of Uttar
Pradesh. In January, 2004 he was posted to look after a
project known as Upper Ganga Link Canal Project, under
which two rivers, namely, Ganga and Yamuna were to be
linked. It is claimed that because of his excellent track
record, efficiency and honesty, he was promoted to the
post of Superintending Engineer in November, 2005 and
was placed in charge of the said project, the total cost of
which was Rs.240 crores. The project was intended to
solve the long standing irrigation and drinking water
3
problems of western U.P. and also to provide a solution to
control floods. He was brutally murdered in cold blood in
broad day light in the afternoon of June 18, 2006 by
three persons at his residence located in his Camp 0ffice
at Roorkee (Uttarakhand). The petitioner, who claims to
be an eye-witness, has stated that he had chased the
accused but they had escaped and, therefore, he had
called the police and reported the matter to the police
immediately. The police on arrival at the place of the
incident had taken the deceased to the Government
Hospital where he was declared brought dead. On the
basis of the information given by the petitioner, the police
had registered an FIR No. 169/2006 on 18.6.2006. On
the same day post mortem on the dead body of the
deceased was conducted by the medical officers, on the
intervention of the District Magistrate (Uttarakhand).
The murder of Radhey Shyam, Superintending Engineer
of U.P. had sent shock waves throughout Uttarakhand
and U.P and in the engineering and bureaucratic
community and the incident was widely reported in the
4
newspapers.
3. Because of the high profile of the accused involved
in the murder of the deceased engineer, the Uttarakhand
police was found to be incapable/reluctant to investigate
the crime. Therefore, the State of Uttar Pradesh had
directed the Special Task Force along with Special
Operation Group to investigate the murder and to arrest
the accused. It may be mentioned that the Special Task
Force along with Special Operation Group appointed to
investigate the matter and to arrest the accused had
conducted large number of raids. All the arrests were
made by Special Task Force, Uttar Pradesh except one
which was effected by the Uttarakhand police on the
information of Special Task Force, Uttar Pradesh.
4. It is mentioned by the petitioner that large scale
corruption is prevailing in the Irrigation Department and
earlier two Junior Engineers were also murdered
brutally. It was reported that disputes concerning the
contracts which were entrusted and to be entrusted
5
under the project had emerged as the main reason for the
murders of these engineers including that of late Radhey
Shyam. The record shows that after investigation,
charge-sheet was filed and charges have been framed
against accused persons, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 9
in the Transfer Petition, under Section 302 read with
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial has
commenced in the Court of learned Additional District
Judge, Fast Track Court, Haridwar (Uttarakhand) and by
this time, one witness is already examined.
5. Grievance of the petitioner is that continuously
threats are being administered to his family including
him and other witnesses that they would meet the same
fate as that of the deceased, if they dare to depose before
the Court. The petitioner has mentioned that the first
eye witness examined in the court, who was the driver of
the deceased, has turned hostile because of the threats
6
given to him and the learned Judge presiding over the
trial could not do anything except being a passive
spectator. The petitioner claims that he along with his
wife was chased by the gang when they were enroute to
Haridwar to appear before the court on May 25, 2007,
and due to fear, they have not been able to appear before
the court on several dates.
6. The petitioner has mentioned that the other
witnesses who are yet to be examined are regularly
receiving/getting summons calling upon them to remain
present before the court to tender testimony, but they are
unable to appear and depose before the Trial Court at
Haridwar due to regular threats being administered to
them. It is also mentioned by the petitioner that his
mother on account of fear and threats has already left
Roorkee and is staying with brother of the petitioner in
Delhi and is thus unable to depose before the court at
Haridwar. What is claimed by the petitioner is that due
7
to the threats received by him, he and his wife who are
material witnesses have also started residing at Delhi.
7. The petitioner has mentioned that he has written
several letters/made applications and prayed the
competent authorities to take immediate action and to
provide security to him and other witnesses, but no
action has been taken.
8. What is mentioned in the petition is that in the
Dainik Jagran newspaper published on June 8, 2007 it
was reported that Sunil Rathi, responsible for murdering
the deceased is running his gang in Uttar Pradesh and
Uttarakhand from Dehradun Jail and has created wide
spread terror which would not permit fair trial
commenced in case of the murder of the deceased. The
petitioner has mentioned that the investigation by the
police is not impartial and has been influenced by
powerful people involved in the murder of the deceased.
It is also highlighted that the trial court also did not
make a serious effort to see that justice is done. Thus,
8
by filing the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed to
transfer the case pending in the court of learned District
Judge, Fast Track Court, Haridwar to competent court of
jurisdiction at Delhi.
9. The petition was placed for preliminary hearing
before the Court on May 1, 2008 and after hearing the
learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had ordered
notices to be issued to the respondents. On service of
notice, the State of Uttarakhand has filed counter
affidavit controverting the averments made in the
petition. It is mentioned in the reply that the accused
were arrested on different dates and proper investigation
was made in the case. And mobile phone used in the
incident, one pistol of 315 bore from Akash Tyagi,
cartridges, motorcycle having blue colour etc., were
ceased. In the reply it is mentioned that on interrogation
of Akash Tyagi and his co-accused other accused namely
Vineet Sharma @ Chinu Pandit was arrested and that the
accused are being tried for alleged commission of serious
9
offences. According to the reply affidavit Uttarakhand
police was capable to investigate the case and was not
reluctant to investigate but in view of allegations levelled
against local police investigating the case, the
investigation was handed over to special agency. By
filing reply, it is claimed by State of Uttarakhand that the
petition has no substance and the same should be
dismissed.
10. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the affidavit in
reply filed on behalf of the State Government.
11. The respondent No. 2, i.e., Kumar Gaurav has also
filed affidavit in reply mentioning inter alia that the
Transfer Petition is wholly misconceived and the
allegations leveled therein are baseless, vague and
incorrect and, therefore, the petition should be
dismissed. In the reply the respondent No. 2 has referred
to a decision of this Court in Abdul Nazar Madani Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2000 SC 2293, wherein it is held
that not only the convenience of the complainant alone
10
but convenience of the accused should also be taken into
consideration before ordering transfer of criminal case
from one State to another. The reply proceeds to mention
that the investigation is not yet complete and, therefore,
if the trial is transferred from Haridwar to any other
State, the same shall have adverse effect on the trial and
that there is every possibility that injustice and prejudice
would be caused to the accused. What is stated is that
the witnesses proposed to be examined on behalf of
accused would not be willing to travel to any other place
for tendering defence evidence and, therefore, transfer of
case would result into injustice to the accused.
According to the reply, the present case is a classic
example of trial by media and the petitioner who is
influential and had widely publicized the incident has
succeeded in falsely implicating the respondent No. 2 in
the case. The reply states that no ground is made out by
the petitioner to transfer the case from Court of Haridwar
to competent Court of jurisdiction at Delhi and therefore
the petition should be dismissed.
11
12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also
considered the documents forming part of the instant
petition.
13. From the record of the case it is evident that several
letters have been written and/or applications have been
made by the petitioner making grievances about the
threats administered to him and his family by the
accomplices of the accused. However, it is an admitted
position that no action, worth the name, is taken either
by the SSP, Haridwar or by Government of Uttarakhand
either to afford protection to the petitioner and his family
or to thwart such threats made by the accused and/or
their accomplices. It is relevant to notice that it was
claimed by the prosecution that the driver of the
deceased was an eye-witness and it is the case of the
petitioner that due to threats, he turned hostile. The fact
that the driver had turned hostile is not in dispute. The
fact that in spite of the receipt of several summons
12
neither the petitioner nor his wife nor his family members
nor other witnesses have been able to go to Haridwar to
depose before the Court is not denied by the State
Government. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept
the case of the petitioner that he and other witnesses
have not been able to respond the summons only
because of fear to their lives due to the threats
administered by the accomplices of the accused. There is
no manner of doubt that because of chasing of the
petitioner and his relatives by the accomplices of the
accused, they have not been able to attend the Court and
tender evidence. If this situation continues then the
prosecution would not be able to lead any evidence in
such a brutal murder case and the accused will have to
be acquitted. The record indicates that four accused
have been already enlarged on bail but neither the police
nor the State agency has taken any steps for the purpose
of getting their bail order cancelled.
13
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on a decision of this Court in Himanshu Singh
Sabharwal vs. State of M.P. and others (2008) 4 SCR 783,
where this Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 has observed
as under: -
“14. "Witnesses" as Benthem said: are the
eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance
and primacy of the quality of trial process. If
the witness himself is incapacitated from
acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets
putrefied and paralysed, and it no longer can
constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may
be due to several factors like the witness being
not in a position for reasons beyond control to
speak the truth in the Court or due to
negligence or ignorance or some corrupt
collusion. Time has become ripe to act on
account of numerous experiences faced by
Courts on account of frequent turning of
witnesses as hostile, either due to threats,
coercion, lures and monetary considerations at
the instance of those in power, their henchmen
and hirelings, political clouts and patronage
and innumerable other corrupt practices
ingenuously adopted to smoother and stifle
truth and realities coming out to surface
rendering truth and justice, to become
ultimate casualties. Broader public and
societal interests require that the victims of the
crime who are not ordinarily parties to
prosecution and the interests of State
represented by their prosecuting agencies do
not suffer even in slow process but irreversibly
14
and irretrievably, which if allowed would
undermine and destroy public confidence in
the administration of justice, which may
ultimately pave way for anarchy, oppression
and injustice resulting in complete breakdown
and collapse of the edifice of rule of law,
enshrined and jealously guarded and protected
by the Constitution. There comes the need for
protecting the witness. Time has come when
serious and undiluted thoughts are to be
bestowed for protecting witnesses so that
ultimate truth is presented before the Court
and justice triumphs and the trial is not
reduced to mockery. The State has a definite
role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start
with at least in sensitive cases involving those
in power, who has political patronage and
could wield muscle and money power, to avert
trial getting tainted and derailed and truth
becoming a casualty. As a protector of its
citizens it has to ensure that during a trial in
Court the witness could safely depose truth
without any fear of being haunted by those
against whom he has deposed. Some
legislative enactments like the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in
short the 'TADA Act') have taken note of the
reluctance shown by witnesses to depose
against dangerous criminals-terrorists. In a
milder form also the reluctance and the
hesitation of witnesses to depose against
people with muscle power, money power or
political power has become the order of the
day. If ultimately truth is to be arrived at, the
eyes and ears of justice have to be protected so
that the interests of justice do not get
incapacitated in the sense of making the
proceedings before Courts mere mock trials as
are usually seen in movies.
15
15. Legislative measures to emphasise
prohibition against tampering with witness,
victim or informant have become the imminent
and inevitable need of the day. Conducts
which illegitimately affect the presentation of
evidence in proceedings before the Courts have
to be seriously and sternly dealt with. There
should not be any undue anxiety to only
protect the interest of the accused. That would
be unfair as noted above to the needs of the
society. On the contrary, the efforts should be
to ensure fair trial where the accused and the
prosecution both get a fair deal. Public interest
in the proper administration of justice must be
given as much importance if not more, as the
interests of the individual accused. In this
courts have a vital role to play.”
15. Above judgment clearly enunciates the importance
of witness in criminal trial. This is a case of murder of a
Superintending Engineer. There is no manner of doubt
that brutal assault was mounted on him which resulted
into his death. The son of the deceased is seeking
transfer of proceedings on ground of coercion and threat
to the witnesses as well as doubtful sincerity of the
investigating agency and prosecuting agency. In effective
cross-examination by public prosecutor of the driver who
resiled from the statement made during investigation
16
speaks volumes about the sincerity/ effectiveness of the
prosecuting agency. The necessity of fair trial hardly
needs emphasis. The State has a definite role to play in
protecting the witnesses, to start with at least in sensitive
cases. The learned Judge has failed to take participatory
role in the trial. He was not expected to act like a mere
tape recorder to record whatever has been stated by the
witnesses. Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of
the Evidence Act confers vast and wide powers on Court
to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role
in the evidence collecting process. However, the record
does not indicate that the learned Judge presiding the
trial had exercised powers under Section 165 of the
Evidence Act which is in a way complimentary to his
other powers. It is true that there must be reasonable
apprehension on the part of the party to a case that
justice may not be done and mere allegation that there is
apprehension that justice will not be done cannot be the
basis for transfer. However, there is no manner of doubt
that the reasonable apprehension that there would be
17
failure of justice and acquittal of the accused only
because the witnesses are threatened is made out by the
petitioner.
16. This Court, on various occasions, had opportunity
to discuss the importance of fair trial in Criminal Justice
System and various circumstances in which a trial can
be transferred to dispense fair and impartial justice. It
would be advantageous to notice a few decisions of this
Court with regard to the scope of Section 406 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. In Gurcharan Dass Chadha vs.
State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 1418, this Court held as
under: -
“A case is transferred if there is a reasonable
apprehension on the part of a party to a case
that justice will not be done. A petitioner is
not required to demonstrate that justice will
inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he
shows circumstances from which it can be
inferred that he entertains an apprehension
and that it is reasonable in the circumstances
alleged. It is one of the principles of the
administration of justice that justice should
not only be done but it should be seen to be
done. However, a mere allegation that there is
apprehension that justice will not be done in a
18
given case does not suffice. The Court has
further to see whether apprehension is
reasonable or not. To judge the
reasonableness of the apprehension the state
of the mind of the person who entertains the
apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is
not all. The apprehension must not only be
entertained, but must appear to the court to
be a reasonable apprehension.”
In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi vs. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4
SCC 167, this Court has observed as under: -
“Assurance of a fair trial is the first
imperative of the dispensation of justice and
the central criterion for the court to consider
when a motion for transfer is made is not the
hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a
party or easy availability of legal services or
like mini-grievances. Something more
substantial, more compelling, more
imperilling, from the point of view of public
justice and its attendant environment, is
necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power
of transfer. This is the cardinal principle
although the circumstances may be myriad
and vary from case to case. We have to test the
petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone
bearing in mind the rule that normally the
complainant has the right to choose any court
having jurisdiction and the accused cannot
dictate where the case against him should be
tried. Even so, the process of justice should
not harass the parties and from that angle the
court may weigh the circumstances.”
19
In K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police (2004) 3
SCC 767, this Court held as under: -
“Free and fair trial is sine qua non of
Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law
that justice should not only be done but it
should be seen to have been done. If the
criminal trial is not free and fair and not free
from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal
justice system would be at stake shaking the
confidence of the public in the system and woe
would be the rule of law. It is important to note
that in such a case the question is not whether
the petitioner is actually biased but the
question is whether the circumstances are
such that there is a reasonable apprehension
in the mind of the petitioner.”
In Abdul Nazar Madani vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 6
SCC 204, this Court observed as under: -
“The purpose of criminal trial is to
dispense fair and impartial justice
uninfluenced by extraneous considerations.
When it is shown that public confidence in the
fairness of a trial would be seriously
undermined, any party can seek the transfer of
a case within the State under Section 407 and
anywhere in the country under Section 406
Cr.P.C. The apprehension of not getting a fair
and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be
reasonable and not imaginary, based upon
conjectures and surmises. If it appears that
20
the dispensation of criminal justice is not
possible impartially and objectively and
without any bias before any court or even at
any place, the appropriate court may transfer
the case to another court where it feels that
holding of fair and proper trial is conducive.
No universal or hard-and-fast rules can be
prescribed for deciding a transfer petition
which has always to be decided on the basis of
the facts of each case. Convenience of the
parties including the witness to be produced at
the trial is also a relevant consideration for
deciding the transfer petition. The
convenience of the parties does not necessarily
mean the convenience of the petitioners alone
who approached the court on misconceived
notions of apprehension. Convenience for the
purposes of transfer means the convenience of
the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses
and the larger interest of the society.”
17. From the averments made in the petition it is
evident that the accused belong to powerful gang
operating in U.P. from which State of Uttarakhand is
carved out. The petitioner has been able to show the
circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred
that it has become difficult for the witnesses to safely
depose truth because of fear of being haunted by those
against whom they have to depose. The reluctance of the
witnesses to go to the court at Haridwar in spite of
21
receipt of repeated summons is bound to hamper the
course of justice. If such a situation is permitted to
continue, it will pave way for anarchy, oppression, etc.,
resulting in breakdown of criminal justice system. In
order to see that the incapacitation of the eye-witnesses
is removed and justice triumphs, it has become
necessary to grant the relief claimed in the instant
petition. On the facts and in the circumstances of the
case this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice
would be served if transfer of the case from Haridwar to
Delhi is ordered.
18. For the foregoing reasons the petition succeeds.
The case titled as State Vs. Akash Tyagi & Others bearing
ST No. 6 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned First
Fast Track Court / A.D.J., Haridwar, Uttarakhand
arising out of Crime No. 182/2006 and FIR No.169 of
2006 is hereby transferred to competent Court of
jurisdiction at Delhi. The investigating agency, the
prosecution agency, the State of Delhi as well as State of
22
Uttarakhand and the learned Judge to whom the trial of
the case may be made over, are directed to take
appropriate steps for protecting the witnesses and to
ensure that the trial concludes as early as possible and
without any avoidable delay. The Transfer Petition
accordingly stands disposed of.
.....................................J.
[J.M. Panchal]
.....................................J.
[H.L. Gokhale]
New Delhi;
January 11, 2011.