In an unprecedented move, the Madras High Court, under the purview of Justice KK Ramakrishnan, has directed that a trial be conducted within the confines of a prison. This extraordinary decision was prompted by the looming threats to the life of the accused, witnesses, and the prevailing hostile environment surrounding the case.
The court elucidated,
“In the present case also, the extraordinary circumstances demand the extraordinary remedy. According to this Court, the extraordinary remedy that would satisfy the present case situation is the commencement and conclusion of the trial in both cases within the jail premises.”
It’s worth noting that the practice of conducting trials in jail isn’t novel. Both the Supreme Court and various High Courts have endorsed this approach, especially in situations where threats to the accused, witnesses, and a hostile environment are evident. This provision is sanctioned by Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), which corresponds to the old Section 352 in the former Cr.P.C.
The case at the center of this decision involves the deceased, P.K. Muthukumar, a practicing advocate in the Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli Bar Association. Muthukumar and his brother, P.K. Shivakumar, had actively opposed bail applications for the accused in Shivakumar’s murder. Consequently, the accused allegedly conspired to eliminate Muthukumar, viewing him as a hindrance to obtaining bail. Muthukumar tragically lost his life in an attack on February 22, 2023, in Thoothukudi.
Charges were subsequently registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution argued that the appellant had a hand in facilitating bail for one of the accused through financial means, substantiated by evidence like bank transactions and phone records. Despite the appellant’s assertion that the primary evidence against him was the confessions of co-accused, the Trial Court denied his bail application, leading to the appeal before the High Court.
The High Court, highlighting the pervasive fear among witnesses, decided against granting bail. The court observed,
“The SC/ST(POA) Act specifically emphasizes the need to provide adequate protection to the victim and witnesses. In this case, the appellants and other accused eliminated one of the witnesses in the earlier case. Further, there is a continuous threat to the defacto complainant as well. The police also registered another case for criminal intimidation against the defacto complainant. As of now, all the witnesses are living in fear. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail.”
The court leaned on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Chaman Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh to delineate the factors to be considered when granting bail. After assessing that all these criteria were met in the case, the court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to bail.
Given the unique circumstances, the court emphasized that merely dismissing the appeal wouldn’t suffice. With the accused still incarcerated without bail and witnesses under perpetual threat, a special remedy was deemed necessary, leading to the decision to conduct the trial within the prison premises.
The case is titled: Sutherson vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police.