The Kerala High Court has ordered the State Government to reconsider its denial of a Special Public Prosecutor for the 2017 murder of RSS worker Anand, allegedly by CPIM members. Emphasizing the case’s heinous nature, the Court instructed a fresh decision based on legal guidelines. The State previously rejected the request but must now comply within a month.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to reconsider its refusal to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the 2017 gruesome murder of RSS worker Anand in Thrissur. Anand was hacked to death in broad daylight, allegedly by CPIM workers, in an attack that shocked the conscience of the community.
Setting aside the State’s rejection of the Petitioner’s request, the Court emphasized that such “heinous murder, gruesome in character,” warrants careful legal proceedings. The Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath ordered the State to re-evaluate the decision in accordance with the guidelines for SPP appointments, stating:
“No doubt, going by the prosecution case, it is a heinous murder which is gruesome in character and shocks the conscience of the community at large…The 1st respondent is directed to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
The Petitioner, Anand’s mother, had earlier sought the appointment of Advocate T.C. Krishnanarayanan as the SPP. However, the State Government rejected the request, claiming the case did not meet the criteria under Clause 3(b) of the guidelines for appointing an SPP.
The Court referred to the guidelines, noting that Clause 3(b)(i) includes
Read Also: CLAT 2025 Question Errors | Law Aspirant Files An Appeal In Delhi HC Challenging Single Judge’s Verdict
“cases such as heinous murder or kidnapping or rape, particularly of minors, which are gruesome in character, shocking the collective conscience of the community at large.”
The Court concluded that Anand’s murder met these conditions.
The Prosecution alleged that the incident occurred while Anand and the complainant were traveling on a motorcycle when they were attacked with deadly weapons. The accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Although the State appealed the Single Bench’s decision, the Division Bench upheld it. Despite these directions, the State once again rejected the request for appointing the SPP.
The High Court clarified that the rejection contradicted its earlier directives, stating,
“It is a case that falls under Clause 3(b)(i) of Ext.P7. Hence, Ext.P1 is set aside.”
Advocate Sajith Kumar V. represented the Petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor Seetha S. appeared for the State.
The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, instructing the State to take action within a month, ensuring justice in this brutal case.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES