Allowed

Koya Sharath Sai v. State of Telangana and 29 Others

Telangana HC8 Dec 2021TRCRLP/8/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Transfer Criminal Petition sought to transfer a case concerning the death of the petitioner's father, allegedly killed by OCTL workers, from the Nalgonda court to the LB Nagar or another District Court. The court was assured of witness fear and non-appearance. The High Court accepted the prayer for transfer to ensure a fair trial.

What did the court decide?

The case in S.C.No.216 of 2019 was transferred from the District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, to the District and Sessions Court, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda district.

Koya Sharath Sai Vs State of Telangana and 29 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

TRANSFER CRI MINAL PETITION N o. 8 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ko_ya Sharath S.ui Occ. Student, Rio. Flat No-.l4, Venkatesh Enclave, 1/5 Ramannapet, Koritepadu, Guntur-522 007, Andhra pradesh.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶11

YgOW.q Jana Reddy, S/o Linga Reddy, Occ. OCTL worker, E.No. 1866, Fl/o. Pittampally Village of Kattangur Mandal.

¶12

Gaddam Srinivas Reddy,S/o Ramalinga Reddy, Occ. OCTL Worker, E.No. 1944, R/o. Narkeipally.

¶13

Gokarakonda Ramesh, S/o.Narayana.Occ. e.C. Threading inspector, E.No. 2346, Fl/o. Panagal Villageof Nalgonda Mandal.

¶14

Thodusu Venkatesh, S/o Yadaiah, Occ. OCTL worker, E.No. 2159, Ri/o Narketpally Village and Mandal.

¶15

Damera Shankar,S/o Yadaiah, Occ. OCTL worker, E.No. 2113, No Narketpally Village and [VIandal.

¶16

Thanda Lingaswamy, S/o Anjaiah, Occ. OCTL worker, E.No. 1S73, R/o. A.p lingotam Village of Narketpally Mandal.

¶17

B, Gogu Linga Swamy, S/o Sathaiah, Occ. OCTL worker, E.No. 2238, R/o. Chinna Narayanapuram Village of Narketpally t,4andal.

¶18

Shaik Hakeem, S/o Dastagiri, Occ. OCTL worker, E.No. 2197 , Rlo. Narketpally Village and lvlandal

¶19

10.{eniga Chandra Shekhar, S/o Krishnarah, Occ. IVlission operator at Joint tool, E.No. 1889, R/o. Narketpally Village and l\rlandal.

¶20

1'l . Orukanti Kristaiah, S/o Lingaiah, Occ. Threading lnspector, E.No. 484, F/o. A.p. Lingotam Village of Narketpally lVandal

¶21

1 2. J.Saidulu, S/o Mallaiah, Rl/o. lsmailpally, H/o. Duginvelly of Kattangur lr/andal, EC.No.'1956

¶22

13.M.Anjaiah,S/o lvledaboina Lactplah, Rl/o. H.No. 2-8211 , No. A.p. Lingotam Village of Narketpally Mandal, EC.No. 1 103

¶23

Kasani Venkateshwarlu, S/o Bixamaiah, Occ. Mechanical maintenance, E.No. 2210, Rt/o. Kapugallu Village of Kodada Mandal.

¶24

Kothapeta Saidachary, S/o Lingaiah, Occ. OCTL company tool joint operator,E.No. 1052, Fi/o. A.P. Lingotam Village of Narketpally tVlandat.

¶25

'16.Kasula Krishna Chary,S/oSambaiah, Occ. tool joint operator in B-1 section, E.No. 1750, Ryo. l/unnuram (N/) Sangem (D) Warangal Present. Narketpally.

¶26

lT.BandelaYadaiah,S/oshivaiah,occ'Q.C'controllerB-lsection,lsquilaVillage of RamannaPet^{lr,4 rndal.}

¶27

lS.Kanneboina^{Narsi iah,S/o Lingaiah, Occ g.uality.ControlOperator E'No 1866'} RJo. A.P. Lingotar^{r Village of Narketpally Manoal'}

¶28

19.Aleti Yadagiri,^{s/o Balaiah,Occ' QC operator' R/o Akkachelma' Nerlgonda'}

¶29

Kandula Srinu,Sk^{Mallaiah, Occ sectionB-1 operatortool 'joint company'} Fl/o. V,T ColonY,^{I lalgonda}

¶30

Doddi Varaprasar^{, S/o Mathus, Occ OCTL worker-,machineoperator' Fyo',.} '' ilrir,LrpJivirr"s i "t srrgrieiov vanoar of Medak district' prest:nt Gandhi Nagar, Nalgonda

¶31

22.MedaruouVenka^{achary, S/o Satyanarayana' Occ' Welding workt"r in A-1} section, Pylon^{co :ny, Nagarjunasagar'}

¶32

23.Donala Upender^{leddy,S/o ram Reddy,OccMachine operatorir process} -" fi;;, R/5. (ono , t<in6ni Gudem Villaie of Kethapallv Mandal'

¶33

Gundala Nagesh^{S/o Lingaiah, Occ. Machine} .operator^{in process group'} FL/o. Pamanagun^{lal Village of Kattangur Mandal'}

¶34

M.Anjaiah,^{Fl/o A P Lingotam Village of Narketpally Mandal'EC'No'1053}

¶35

26.Ganji Ramakrish^{ta, Rl/oA.P Lingotam Village of NarketpallyMandal' EC'No'} 1795

¶36

27.Kotha -' ti"irt,iii" Chandraie ocrr^I , r.r-u*"6uriy, @^{Chandra Reddy,S/o} EC.N'". 2022,No.^{L-ate Malla Reddy'} Gummat-abavi. H/o^OccWelding Vanipakala village of Chityal^Vlandal.

¶37

Ravula Lingaiah Ravula Lingaiah )^{Linga Reddy,S/o Ram Reddy} @Ramaiah'^{Occ Quality} '" lrltii,fr"ii"|" iioCiL Narketpallv' lrltii,fr"ii"|" iioCiL Narketpallv' iioCiL Narketpallv' Narketpallv' EC.No t0+5, R/o Gummalabavi'R/o Gummalabavi'Gummalabavi'

¶38

Ravula Lingaiah Ravula Lingaiah )^{Linga Reddy,S/o Ram Reddy} @Ramaiah'^{Occ Quality} '" lrltii,fr"ii"|" iioCiL Narketpallv' lrltii,fr"ii"|" iioCiL Narketpallv' iioCiL Narketpallv' Narketpallv' EC.No t0+5, R/o Gummalabavi'R/o Gummalabavi'Gummalabavi' H/o Vanipakala ' 'itlage^{of Chityaltr/andal}

¶39

Bova Krishnaiah^{S/o Yettaiah, R/o. H No'5-47/4, New S C Colony' Near} Naigonda Schoc ,^{Narketpally. EC.No 391'}

¶40

Boppidi Upende Boppidi Upende Upende^{Reddy,S/o Boppidi Venkat Reddy'Occ OCTL worker'OCTL worker'}

¶41

Boppidi Upende Boppidi Upende Upende^{Reddy,S/o Boppidi Venkat Reddy'Occ OCTL worker'OCTL worker'} "- Ec:fi; idaz, n ,.2-ii"iaiui a.ilal.,m, Nellabanda Nakrekal lVandal

¶42

...Respondents^{& Accused No'A'1 to A'29}

¶43

PetitionunderSection40TofCR.PC,prayingthatinth€)circumstances stated in the^{affidavit'iled therewith,the High Courlmay be pleased to transferthe} casescNo.2l6rf20lg,fromthefileofTheDistrictand:SeSSionSCourt, N;1S"";; to the^{Cour at L.B. Nagar in Ranga Reddy District or to any other District} andsessions Court t(^{conduct th; trial of the case as the Honourable Court.}

¶44

t.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶45

Petition under 3ection 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in st} pport of the petition, tne High^Court Tay^{be ple.ased to stay all} further^proceedingsi iihe above bessions^{Case SC.No.216 of 2o1g''pendingon} the file of the PrinciPt I District and Sessions^{Court,Nalgonda.}

¶46

This Petition :oming on for^{hearing, uponperusingthe Memorandum} of Grounds of^Cri ninal Petition and^{upon hearingthe arrJumentsofSri} Srinivasa Rao^Pachv a, Advocate for^{the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor(TG)} on behalf of the^Res oondent No.1^{and of Sri Sakinala Ravi Kumar, Advocate,for} Respondent^{No.2 to} ,0.21

¶47

The Court made the ollowing: ORDER

¶48

¶49

THI HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGAT{TI

¶50

¶51

, /

¶52

Tr.Cri.P.No. 8 of 2O2O

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

This Transfer Criminal Petition is fi1ed seeking to transfer the case in S.C.No.216 of 2Ol9 from the file of District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda to the Court at L.B.Nagar in Ranga Reddy district or to any other District and Sessions Court to conduct trial of the case.

¶55

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is the son of the deceased and his father was killed on 18.2.2O16 by the accused who were working as Labour in OCTL Company, Narkatpalli at the relevant point of time and the petitioner was arrayed as L.W. 1 1 in the said case. It is stated that the offence took place on 78.2.20276 and the matter underwent several adjournments as the witnesses were not coming forward to attend the court as they are anticipating threat in the hands of the accused. In fact, summons were issued by the learned Sessions Judge to L.Ws.l and 2 and in spite of receiving summons, due to fear of accused, witnesses did not turned up to give evidence and the learned Judge by order dated 20. 11.2019 issued bailable warrants to L.Ws. 1 and 2 and the case was adjourned to 28.1.2O2O and again on that day also, L.W.1 was absent and therefore the matter was adjourned to 12.2.2020 and again on that day also, fresh bailable warrants were issued to L.W.1 and the matter was^posted ro 6.3.2020.

¶56

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the incident had taken place on La.2.2016, till date, the learned^Sessions Judge did not commence the trial and the witnesses^{are scared of the} accused and they are hesitating to^go to Nalgonda to^{give evidence,} hence, the learned counsel seeks to transfer the^case from^Nalgonda

¶57

)

¶58

District Court tc Ranga Reddy distrrct Court or to any other District and Sessions Court. In support of his contentions, the learnecl counsel for petitioner place I reliance on the judgments of the Apr:x Court in Sarasamma alir s Saraswathiyamma v. State, represented by Deputy Supirinteadent of Pollce and othersr and Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Utta :akhand and others2.

¶59

ln Sarasa mma alias Sarasutathig arzma,s case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Co rrt at paragraph 24 held as under:

¶60

"As.1 _rstice should not only be done, but also seem to have been done, it would be necessarjr that the trial should take place in a fair a,d transparent marner, wherein there should be no element of bias or witness tampering. As the appellant has clearly mac e out a case for transfer, we are inclined to accept the prayer soul ht by the Appellant in this case. Accordinglv, the case being SC lo. 1 of 2Ol3 pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Hos rr is directed to be transferred to principal Sessions Court at Sz lem, Tamil Nadu. Further the trial court is directed to conduct th trial in an expeditious manner and uninfluenced by any observr tions made herein."

¶61

In Vikos A umar Roorkewal,s case, the Hon,ble Supreme Court at

¶62

paragraphs 22, '. 3 ard 24 held as under:

¶63

zz, tne n :cessity of fair trial hardly needs emphasis. The State has a defir ite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at lear t in sensitive cases. The learned Judge has failed to take partici ;atory role in the trial. He was not expected to act like a mere tap, recorder to record wltatever has been stated by the ,uvitnesses. iection 3ll of thc Code and Section 165 of the Evider.rce A t confers v.tst and u,iclc powers on Coltrl lo clicit all ll('cessill', ratcriirls l:r, plaling an activc rol<, in tlrt. cr.idcr.rct, collccting 1: ocess. I-lowcvcr, tltc record ciocs not inclicatc ttLat the lcarnecl .l rr lge presiding the trial had exercisccl powcrs undcr Scction 165 of tht' Evlrlt.ncc At t rvlrich rs in a ,"r ar complimenlarv to his othcr l)owe^rs.

¶64

'^{(zorg) z} scc::g

¶65

'1zort;^z scc rzs

¶66

¶67

¶68

It is true that there must be reasonable apprehensiorr on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be clone a'd mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done cannot be the basis for tralsfer. However, there is no manner of doubt that the reasonable apprehension that there would be failure of justice and acquittal of the accusecr onry because the witnesses are threatened is macle out by the petitioner.

¶69

This Court, on various occasions, had opportunity to cliscuss the importance of fair trial in Criminal Justice System and various circumstances in rvhich a trial can be transl,erred to dispense fair ancl impartial justice. It would be a.h,antageous to notice a felv decisions of this Court rvith regarcl to the scope rl1. Section 406 of Cocle of Criminal proceclure.,,

¶70

Hence he submits that in the interest of justice, the case mav be transferred.

¶71

On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondents stares that it is only the apprehension of the petitioner and nothing has been placed on record to show that the respondents have threatened the petitioner. He further submits that all the respondents are labourer and they are not factionists and it is very difficurt for them to travel from Nalgonda to L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy district and the petitioner has not made out any case for transfer of case from Nalgonda District Court to Ranga Reddy District Court. He submits that if the Court is inclined to transfer, the same may be transferred to Miryalaguda District and Sessions Court instead of L.B.Nagar Court.

¶72

Admittedly, the incident had taken place on lB.2.2Ot6 and so far the trial has not commenced. Even as per the case status, which is liled before this Court dated 20.1 I.2}lg, 28.1.2O2O and 72.2.2O2O, it appears that LW.1 was absent and bailable warrants were also issued, which strengthens the case of the petitioner that witnesses were not

¶73

¶74

coming forward t,^, give evidence. The trial shall always be conducted in a fair and trans larent manner and the witnesses must be able to appear before the Court to give evidence without any fear or threat.

¶75

In the fact r and circumstances basing on the material placed before the Court, this Court deems it appropriate to transfer the case in S.C.No.216 of 2)19 from the file of District and Sessi<>ns Judge, Nalgonda to the District and Sessions Court, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda district. This t ansfer criminal petition is accordingly all,rwed. The

¶76

miscellaneous pe itions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶77

SD/. N.CHANDRA^{SEKHAR RAO} ASSISTAI{T^REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// (a,,

SEC;TION OFFICER

To,