After Two Lawyer Brothers Were Murdered, Madras HC Moves Their Cases To The Same Judge’s New Court to prevent delay

The petitioner, the sole surviving brother of two men murdered in separate incidents in Thoothukudi, challenged the transfer of the Special Judge conducting the related trials under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The cases were pending as S.C. Nos. 62 and 63 of 2020 and S.C. No. 25 of 2023; the first murder trial was nearly complete, with the investigating officer remaining to be examined, and the second had been substantially completed.

Following his transfer to the Special Court at Tenkasi, the petitioner sought to quash the transfer or have the Judge continue the trials. The High Court ultimately treated the matter as one for transfer of the cases themselves.

Section 315 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 280 CrPC, requires the presiding Judge or Magistrate to record material remarks on a witness’s demeanour; Section 365 BNSS permits a successor Judge or Magistrate to act on evidence recorded by a predecessor, although the court noted that some impressions may not be fully captured in writing.

Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 447 BNSS (corresponding to Section 407 CrPC) empower the High Court to transfer a Sessions Case to secure the ends of justice.

The court considered CBI v. Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah, (2012) 10 SCC 545, and State v. Kalyan Singh, (2017) 7 SCC 444, as reflecting a policy favouring continuity of the trial judge, while expressly noting that those decisions did not lay down a ratio.

It distinguished Ganesan v. Inspector of Police, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 14654, which had declined to transfer a case to a transferred Judge who had recorded evidence substantially, and the Karnataka High Court authority relied on there, on the exceptional circumstances of these trials.

The Court considered these trials exceptional: they concerned two highly sensitive murders, were being conducted in prison premises, and had advanced substantially under the current Special Judge after earlier delays despite expeditious-trial directions.

Although Section 365 BNSS allowed a successor judge to rely on the recorded evidence, the Court reasoned that the original Judge’s direct observation of witnesses and familiarity with the proceedings favoured his completing the trials.

Since the administrative transfer had been made and the Chief Justice had declined to revisit it, the Court used its power under Section 447 BNSS to transfer the cases to the Special Court at Tenkasi, thereby preserving continuity without disturbing the Judge’s transfer.

The Court transferred S.C. Nos. 62 of 2020 and 25 of 2023 from the Special Court at Thoothukudi to the Special Court at Tenkasi, directed that the trials continue at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, and stated that P.V. Vasheeth Kumar should resume hearing them, preferably day to day, from the following week. His status as the transferred judicial officer was left undisturbed; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.