IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr P(Crl) No. 37 of 2007()
1. KUNJAMMA VARGHESE, AGED 72,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. BRIGHTY, D/O. LATE VARGHESE,
3. SAMSUN, S/O. SAM MATHEW, AGED 24,
4. KUNJUMON, S/O. NANU, AGED 54,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/03/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Tr.P.(Cri) NO. 37 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a prosecution, inter
alia, under Secs.120B and 364 of the IPC. Her deceased son
is the 1st accused. The alleged incident took place as early as
in 2002. S.C.No.439/04 is pending before the Assistant
Sessions Court-II, Palakkad. The court has not framed
charges yet, it is submitted. The petitioner, in these
circumstances, has come to this Court with a prayer that the
case may be transferred from the court at Palakkad to any
competent court at Thiruvalla or Pathanamthitta.
2. What is the reason? The only reason urged is that
the petitioner is old and sick and that, in these circumstances,
to cater to the needs of justice, there may be a direction for
transfer of the case. Such transfer is not likely to
inconvenience the 65 witnesses cited by the prosecution or
the co-accused. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the
transfer may be directed as prayed for.
3. I am not satisfied that sufficient grounds exist to
Tr.P.(Cri) NO. 37 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
justify the prayer for transfer. Venue of the trial cannot be
decided merely on the basis of the convenience of one of the
accused persons. The jurisdiction legitimately is that of the
court at Palakkad. Even the averments in the transfer petition
show that a number of witnesses to be examined are from
Palakkad, of course, some of them are coming from different
places also. But this, according to me, is not a sufficient ground
by themselves to direct transfer as prayed for.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is old and sick. She is not able to move about. She
does not dispute her identity. None of the witnesses is there to
implicate her directly and she is arrayed only as one of the
conspirators . In these circumstances, I do not find any reason
for the court to insist on the personal appearance of the
petitioner on all dates of trial. The petitioner can certainly
apply to be exempted from personal appearance making it clear
that she does not intend to dispute her identity in the trial. The
learned Assistant Sessions Judge must pass appropriate orders
on such application. Unnecessary insistence on personal
Tr.P.(Cri) NO. 37 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
appearance of the petitioner, needless to say, should not be
made by the court.
5. With the above observations, this transfer petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
HO
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge