Kerala High Court Refuses To Defer Trial In Ranjith Sreenivasan Murder Case, Says Supplementary Chargesheet Against Conspirators Can Be Filed Later

The Kerala High Court recently refused to defer the trial of 15 persons who are accused of murdering BJP leader Ranjith Sreenivasan on account of political rivalry. The accused are said to be the Socialist Democratic Party of India/Popular Front of India (SDPI/PFI) workers.

The accused persons allegedly had gathered in an unlawful assembly and committed Sreenivasan's murder with deadly weapons like hatchets and hammers in December 2021. 

The investigation officer last year submitted the final report against accused 1 to 15 who allegedly committed the murder. Accused Nos.16 to 35, the petitioners who approached the high court, allegedly participated in the larger conspiracy which led to the murder. However the investigation officer reserved the liberty to submit an additional chargesheet after completing the investigation against them.

The plea filed by Accused 16 to 35 challenging the “split-chargesheet” filed by the investigation officer was dismissed by a single bench of Justice K Babu.

The court in this matter was of the view that there is no illegality in investigating officer's submission of a final report against the persons accused of the principal offences and submitting of a supplementary charge sheet, after completing the investigation against the remaining accused, at a later stage.

Senior Advocate S Sreekumar, argued on behalf of the petitioners that a “split-chargesheet” is not permitted under the Cr.PC and that sending accused 1 to 15 to trial without the final report against accused 16 to 35 would cause prejudice to the latter. Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu appearing for the de facto complainant contended that joinder of charges with accused 1 to 15 could not be allowed as no chargesheet had been filed against 16 to 35 so far.

Additional Director General of Prosecution Gracious Kuriakose contended that as the investigation against the petitioners was yet to be completed, a chargesheet against them could be submitted at a later stage.

The court considered two issues in this matter.

Firstly, whether the trial could be deferred so that all the accused persons could be tried jointly as the offences committed by all the accused form part of the same transaction. The court in the regard was of the view that such deferral cannot be allowed:

“The offences in the present case were committed in the course of the same transaction. What is important is that no final report or chargesheet as provided in Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted against the petitioners. There is no charge, as referred to in Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against them. The contention of the petitioners is based on the possibility that the Investigating Officer may submit a final report against them. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners that the trial of accused Nos.1 to 15 be deferred has no foundation”

Secondly, the court considered whether Magistrate could take cognizance of the offences alleged against accused 1 to 15, when the prosecution has proposed the submission of a supplementary chargesheet against the remaining accused.

The court while considering the powers of the investigating offer under Section 173 of the CrPC (Report of police officer on completion of investigation), concluded such a “split-chargesheet” was permissible:

“In a case where many persons commit a number of offences in pursuance of a conspiracy, and the investigating agency completed the investigation against the accused who allegedly committed the principal offences pursuant to the conspiracy and the investigation against those who are involved in the conspiracy is yet to be completed, the investigating agency may submit a final report or chargesheet against the persons with respect to whom the investigation is completed and the Court concerned is competent to take cognizance of the offences based on the final report. After collecting sufficient materials the investigating agency may later submit a supplementary chargesheet against the remaining accused. This power can be deduced from Section 173 of Cr.P.C.”

Case Title: Haris and Others V State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 134

Click here to read/download judgment