Karnataka HC Directs Supply Of English Copy Of Chargesheet Written In Kannada To Men Accused Of Threatening HC Judges Who Delivered Hijab Verdict

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the State government to provide English-translated copies of the charge sheet filed against two accused who are accused of threatening the judges of the Karnataka High Court, who delivered the Hijab Verdict.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna disposed of the petition filed by accused R Rahamathullah and Jamal Mohamed Usmain @ Jamal Mohamed S, after the prosecution submitted that it would provide an English translated copy to the accused and their counsel A Velan.

The accused had moved the High Court after their application before the trial court under section 207 CrPC seeking translated copies of the chargesheet which was in Kannada language, came to be rejected. It was claimed they do not understand, read or write the Kannada language and thus should be furnished with the translated copies.

Advocate Velan, appearing for the petitioners also filed a personal affidavit stating that he himself is not well conversant with reading and writing in Kannada and he can only speak Kannada.

Reliance was placed on the Apex court's decision in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708, wherein it was held that if required and if the accused would prove they are not able to understand language deposed in the charge sheet, supplying of translated version would become necessary.

Following this the court said “As one of a situation is projected before the court and one of a solution is given by the SPP. In the peculiar facts the petition stands disposed directing the state to provide translated copies of the charge sheet and material appended to the chargesheet in English language to the counsel for the petitioners.”

The petitioners are committee members of the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath. He had addressed a small gathering of the general public at Madurai in which he was accused of making an inflammatory speech regarding the controversial Hijab verdict. Consequently, an FIR was registered against him in Madurai. The petitioner was duly arrested and later released on bail.

Meanwhile, the video of the impugned speech was widely circulated and one Sudha Kathwa filed a complaint against the petitioner in Karnataka. On the strength of this complaint, a second FIR was registered in Karnataka at the Vidhana Soudha police station for offences under Sections 506(1), 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c), 505(1)(b), 153A, 109, 504, 505(2) of IPC and 13 & 15, 16 & 18 of UAPA.

Appearance: Advocate A Velan

Case Title: R RAHAMATHULLAH & ANR AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 6589/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 342