2005 (10) TMI 610 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Zealous efforts and fabrication of evidence by the State machinery.
2. Statements by the Chief Minister pre-empting a fair trial.
3. Payment of solatium to the widow of the deceased.
4. Registration of false cases against co-accused.
5. Threats to advocates defending the accused.
6. Freezing of the Mutt's bank accounts.
7. Criminal cases against journalists and prominent personalities.
8. Questionable conduct of the Special Investigating Team (SIT).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Zealous Efforts and Fabrication of Evidence by State Machinery:
The petitioner alleged that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Shri Prem Kumar showed great zeal and made extraordinary efforts to secure the conviction of the accused, including procuring and fabricating false evidence. The court noted instances where the SIT's actions were questionable, such as the incident on 11.4.2005, where an inspector whispered to a witness, prompting him to make a false allegation against the defense counsel. This conduct was seen as an attempt to demoralize and intimidate the defense counsel, impacting their ability to defend the accused properly.

2. Statements by the Chief Minister Pre-empting a Fair Trial:
The petitioner contended that the Chief Minister's statements on the floor of the House and to the press pre-empted a fair decision in the criminal trial. However, the court was not impressed by this contention, noting that the statements were made in the context of the investigation revealing the involvement of the petitioner, which had already generated significant publicity. Therefore, this was not considered a ground for transferring the case.

3. Payment of Solatium to the Widow of the Deceased:
The petitioner argued that the payment of Rs.5.00 lakhs by the Chief Minister to the widow of the deceased before the completion of the investigation indicated undue interest by the State in securing a conviction. The court acknowledged this payment and its wide publicity but did not explicitly state that this alone warranted a transfer of the case.

4. Registration of False Cases Against Co-accused:
The court noted that false cases were registered against 16 co-accused under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (Goudas Act) to ensure they remained in custody even after being granted bail. The High Court had quashed these detention orders, finding no material to show that public order was disturbed by the murder of Sankararaman.

5. Threats to Advocates Defending the Accused:
The court found substantial evidence of threats and intimidation against the advocates defending the accused. Instances included false allegations against senior counsel Shri K.S. Dinakaran and the registration of criminal cases against junior lawyers, which were seen as attempts to demoralize and intimidate the defense team. This created an atmosphere where the defense lawyers could not perform their duties without fear, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

6. Freezing of the Mutt's Bank Accounts:
The court noted that the SIT had frozen 183 bank accounts of the Mutt and associated trusts, paralyzing their activities. The High Court had already held this action as ultra vires Section 102 Cr.P.C. and illegal. The court found this action indicative of the State machinery's intent to put pressure on the petitioner and co-accused, further supporting the need for a transfer.

7. Criminal Cases Against Journalists and Prominent Personalities:
The court observed that criminal cases were lodged against journalists and prominent personalities who criticized the arrest of the petitioner, indicating the State's intolerance towards dissent. This was seen as creating a climate of fear, further justifying the transfer of the case to ensure a fair trial.

8. Questionable Conduct of the Special Investigating Team (SIT):
The court found the conduct of the SIT, particularly Shri Prem Kumar, to be biased and aimed at securing a conviction by any means. This included prompting witnesses to make false allegations against defense counsel and freezing the Mutt's accounts without proper justification.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner and co-accused had a reasonable apprehension of not receiving a fair trial in Tamil Nadu due to the actions of the State machinery. Therefore, the trial was transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, to ensure justice is served impartially.