Sharon Murder Case: Kerala High Court Says Validity Of Final Report Can Be Decided By Trial Court

The Kerala High Court today said that the validity of the final report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Sharon Raj murder case shall be considered by the Trial Court.

The allegation is that the final report was prepared and submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who headed the special investigation team and not by an officer in charge of a police station as per Section 173 (2) of CrPC.

The Court was considering a petition moved by Greeshma, who allegedly poisoned Sharon Raj to weasel out of their romantic relationship. Her mother and maternal uncle are also arrayed as co-accused for allegedly abetting the crime and for destroying the evidence.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed thus:

“The main contention of the petitioner is that the final report filed in this case is not by a competent officer…..It is an admitted fact that the case is already committed and pending trial before the Additional Sessions Court- Trial For Abkari Act Cases, Neyyatinkara. In such situation, I am of the considered opinion that this point need not be considered by this Court at this stage. The petitioner shall file a petition before the Trial Court raising this point and the Trial Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”

The accused were charged under Section 364 (kidnapping or abducting to murder), 328 (causing hurt by poison), 302 (punishment for murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence and giving false evidence to screen offender), 203 (giving false information) and 34 (criminal act done in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC. The case was pending trial before the Additional Sessions Court- Trial For Abkari Act Cases, Neyyatinkara.

The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the validity of the final report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was submitted that as per Section 173(2), only an officer in charge of a police station could forward the final report to the Magistrate on completion of the investigation. It was submitted that the final report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was without jurisdiction and has to be quashed.

“The 1st respondent has no authority in-law to submit the final report in the abovecase. U/s.173(2) of the Crl.P.C. only an officer in charge of a police station can forward to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, a police report. Therefore, Annexure A1 final report submitted by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction, therefore, liable to be quashed by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court as providedU/s 482 of Cr. P.C.”, the petitioner submitted.

The petitioner also argued that the order of committal passed by the Magistrate was illegal as the case was committed to the Sessions Court without supplying copies of electronic evidence to the accused. It was argued that the Magistrate was duty bound to provide copies of electronic evidence, free of cost and without delay to the accused. The Court noted that all the grievances of the accused regarding non-supply of copies of electronic evidence can also be agitated before the Trial Court itself.

Earlier, Greeshma had moved before the High Court claiming that Courts in Kerala lacked jurisdiction to try the offence as the alleged offence took place in Tamil Nadu. The Kerala High Court disposed the matter by stating that the Trial Court can consider the issue of jurisdiction during the trial. The accused, Greeshma then appealed before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case from Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala to Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court dismissed the case stating that the issue of jurisdiction shall be raised during trial before the Sessions Court.

The accused were represented by Advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar.

Case title: Greeshma @ Sreekutty V The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

Case number: Crl.MC 9206/ 2023