PARTY IN PERSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.1414 of 2013 of Changanassery Police Station for offences punishable under sections 376, 377, 506(i) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The allegation was that, first accused brutally raped the defacto complainant. Thereafter, when it was complained to his mother/second accused, she was criminally intimidated by the second accused. On the basis of the FIS lodged, crime was registered and on completion of investigation, final report was laid. Cognizance was taken by the Sessions Court, Kottayam as S.C.No.153 of 2016. Thereafter, contending that, accused had threatened her on various occasions, an application was filed as Tr.P(Crl).No.112 of 2018 before this Court for transfer of the case from Kottayam Sessions Court to another Court of competent jurisdiction. By order in the above transfer petition, case was transferred to Sessions Court, Ernakulam. After the transfer, it was numbered as S.C.No.56 of 2019 and is pending before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. In the meanwhile, petitioner approached this Court in O.P(Crl).No.228 of 2020 for a direction for early disposal of the Sessions case and this Court directed the Sessions Court to dispose of S.C.No.56 of 2019 by December 2020.

(3.) Petitioner claiming that she was not satisfied with the performance of the Public Prosecutor and alleging that, he did not bring to the notice of the Court the grievances of the petitioner and that, accused were granted bail without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to raise objections, victim/petitioner approached the Government for appointment of a Special Prosecutor under section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. Ext.P1 is the representation submitted by the petitioner. She contended that, she was a rape victim and she finds it extremely difficult to pursue the proceedings and justice can be dispensed with only by the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. It was claimed by her that, she was not satisfied with the performance of the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case and that, she wants a lawyer of considerable standing to effectively pursue the prosecution. She claimed that a lawyer whom she knew and who is a retired District Judge has consented to be the Special Prosecutor. He was appointed as Public Prosecutor in another case also. The above application filed by the petitioner before the Government was pending consideration for quite sometime. Hence, she approached this Court by filing an original petition for a direction for early disposal of the above application. By order in O.P(Crl).No.228 of 2020, Government was directed to dispose of it as expeditiously as possible. Records reveal that, pursuant to that, the opinion of the Director General of Prosecution was sought and by Ext.P5, he opined that, no Public interest was involved for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor and that the request made by the petitioner did not satisfy Ext.P6 guidelines laid down by the Government for appointment of Special Prosecutor in accordance with Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. By Ext.P7 order, Government rejected her request holding that claim made by the petitioner did not fall within Ext.P6 guidelines.