SP Shuhaib
Later, the trial court cancelled the bail bonds of all 18 accused and remanded them to judicial custody despite their presence in court. A report submitted by the sessions judge stated that, though the prosecution had cited 142 witnesses, only one had been examined in full. The petitioners challenged the manner in which the trial court conducted the chief examination of witnesses, alleging that a prosecution witness appeared to have been tutored and gave a parroted version of the incident. The defence sought to have the witness’s evidence recorded in a question-and-answer format, but the request was rejected. Counsel for the accused then refused to cross-examine the witness, following which the trial court recorded that there had been no cross-examination. The HC later set aside that order. The report attributed the derailment of the trial to unnecessary objections raised by the defence. It stated that the prosecution witness appeared frightened and distressed, and that he was assured of protection and his confidence was restored before he resumed his testimony.
Kochi : The high court has dismissed the petition filed by Akash M V alias Akash Thillankery, the first accused in the 2018 Shuhaib murder case, along with Rajil Raj and Jithin A, the second and third accused, seeking transfer of the trial from the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thalassery, to another competent court.
The judge must take both the prosecution and defence along, the court said, adding that the ultimate goal was for truth to triumph. The HC held that there was no legal infirmity in the sessions judge’s decision to refuse to record the witness’s evidence in question-and-answer form. It also observed that an erroneous order, by itself, was not a ground to transfer a case. The relevant test was whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the apprehension that a fair and impartial trial may not be had was reasonable, genuine and justifiable. The court also observed that a judge must exercise judicial powers without encroaching on the role of counsel, and without any hint of partisanship or appearing to frighten, coerce, confuse or intimidate witnesses or parties. It cautioned courts against motivating witnesses, as this could send a wrong message to the accused that the court was against them. The bench further directed the trial court to reopen the evidence, allow the defence to cross-examine the witnesses and expedite the trial.