Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With Trial Court's Order For In-Camera Proceedings In Koodathayi Murder Case

The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the order of the trial court that directed proceedings to be held in-camera in the trial for the murder of Roy Thomas, where his wife Jolly Joseph is the prime accused.

A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said,

"Unless the applicant is able to show that prejudice has been caused on account of the order directing in-camera proceedings to be held, this Court ought not, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, interfere with the satisfaction exercised by the trial Judge" 

Jolly Joseph is the prime accused in the infamous Koodathayi murders that garnered a lot of media attention. She has been accused of murdering six of her family members over a span of 17 years primarily using cyanide. She has been charged with killing members of her family including her first husband Roy Thomas with the motive to take control of the family property.

The Sessions Court had ordered the trial proceedings in the murder of her husband be held in-camera. The challenge to the in-camera proceedings was dismissed, and hence the first accused approached the High Court challenging the order of the Sessions Court.

The case of the petitioner was that the in-camera proceedings had been ordered for no specific reason and that it was preventing the junior advocates, interns and the media from entering the court and attending the proceedings.

The court opined that even though open court is the rule and in-camera proceedings are the exception, under Section 327 (1) of the Cr.PC, if the presiding officer is satisfied that the trial needs to be conducted in-camera he/she may order for the same. The court noted that the Jolly herself had complained about the media intrusions to her privacy and the agony it was causing her. She had requested the court below to take appropriate action in this regard. The Court noted that the trial court was satisfied that the absence of in-camera proceedings would cause prejudice to the accused.

“When such a request came up before the court the learned judge deemed it fit to direct the trial to be held as in-camera. Viewed in that perspective this court is of the opinion that the presiding judge was wholly justified in directing the trial to be held as in-camera.” the court said.

The court also addressed the contention raised by Adv B A Aloor that holding in-camera proceedings is preventing access to the trial for the junior lawyers and interns attached to his office who want to learn the nuances of advocacy. The court dismissed this contention of the counsel for the petitioner, observing that the junior lawyers and interns are not essential stakeholders in the trial:

"The criminal trial is primarily intended to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The victim and the accused are the main stakeholders. The Prosecutor and the defence counsel apart from the Investigating Officer and the Presiding Judge are the remaining and perhaps secondary stakeholders, whose roles are specified and are also crucial to the conduct of a trial. The other junior lawyers of the Bar and the law interns cannot be treated as persons interested or as essential participants in the trial of an individual case, even if their presence would be conducive to the future of the profession. Moreover, when the Judge is satisfied that the absence of in-camera proceedings will lead to prejudice to the accused or the victim, the interest of the junior members of the profession or that of the law interns will have to yield to the former. Prejudice to the junior lawyers of the profession and the law interns is in fact an abstruse reason to challenge the order directing the holding of trial in-camera."

Directing the counsel for the petitioner to the participate in the trial, the court concluded:

"it must be observed as a tailpiece that the obligation of an Advocate is certainly to the client which he represents and when the client requires professional expertise for the conduct of a trial, an Advocate must adhere to such obligations and participate in the trial wholeheartedly"

Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 144

Click here to read/download order