DATED THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016 BEFORE: THE...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30TH

DAY OF AUGUST 2016

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION No.18062 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

CONNECTED WITH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2549 OF 2016





IN W.P.No.18062 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Ms. Rita Reeni,

Daughter of Late Shri Anthonappa,

46 years,

(wrongly shown as 42 years

In the impugned chargesheet),

Occupation: Editor,

“Mathu Kathe”, Kannada Journal,

Address: “Sanchalana”,

NO.505, 18th Main,

Narayananagar, 1st Block,

Kanakapura Main Road,

Bangalore 560 062.

2

…PETITIONER

(By Shri B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate for

Shri Shyam Sundar M.S., Advocate)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka by

The Principal Secretary,

Ministry of Home Affairs,

Vidhan Soudha,

Bangalore City – 560 001.


The Director General of police,

Office of the DG,

Police Head Quarters,

Nrupathunga Road,



Yeshawanthapura Police Station,

Yeshawanthapura,

Bangalore City 560 022,

Represented by

Station House Officer.


Assistant Commissioner of Police,


Yeshawanthapura Sub-Division,

Yeshawanthapura,

Bangalore City 560 022.


3

The Commissioner of Police,

Office of C.P.,

Infantry Road,


6. Mr. Patrick Xavier,

Son of S. Raju,

Aged about 53 years,

Occupation: Procurator,

M/s. St. Peter’s Pontifical Seminary,

8th

Main, Malleshwram West,

Bangalore – 560 055.

7. The Management of

M/s. St. Peter’s Pontifical Seminary,

8th

Main, Malleshwram West,


Represented by its Rector/Procurator.

8. Mr. Bernard Moras,

Son of Late Francis Moras,

Aged bout 73 years,

Occupation: Archbishop of Bangalore,

Resident of Archbishop’s House,

No.75, Millers Road,

Benson Town,


9. Mr. K.L.Krishna,

Father’s name not known,

Major,

Occupation: Police Inspector and

Investigating Officer,

Yeshwanthapura Police Station,


4

10. Mr. M.L.Purushotham,


Major,

Occupation: Police Inspector and

Investigation Officer,

Yeshwanthapura Police station,


11. Mr. K. Sheshadri,


Major,

Occupation: Assistant Commissioner

Of Police,

Yeshawanthapura Sub-Division,


12. Mr. K.S.Tanveer,

Occupation: Police Inspector,

Central Crime Branch,

Murder and HBT Wing,

N.T.Pet,


13. Mr. Victor S D’Souza,


Aged major,

Occupation: Deputy Commissioner of

Police (Retired),

Advisor to the Police Commissioner

Of Bangalore, C/o. Office of

The Police Commissioner,

Infantry Road,


5

[respondent Nos.10,11 and 13 deleted

Vide court order dated 4.8.2016]

14. Mr. Sadashivamurthy,


Major,

Occupation: Former Director of

Prosecution, for the

State of Karnataka,

Presently the Special Public

Prosecutor in respect of

Crime No.157/2013,


Bangalore.

Residing at Apartment No.204,

2nd

Floor,

BG Residency, No.325,

6th

Main Road, BCC Extension,

Chandra Layout,


[respondent No.14 deleted

Vide court order dated 6.6.2016]

… RESPONDENTS

(By Shri P.M.Nawaz, State Public Prosecutor for Smt. R. Anitha

Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 5;

Shri X.M.Joseph, Advocate for RespondentNo.6;

Smt. Ransa Vasanthi B.L., Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 and 8;

Respondent Nos. 9 and 12 served;

Vide court order dated 4.8.2016 Respondent Nos.10, 11 and 13

deleted;

Vide Court order dated 6.6.2016 respondent No.14 deleted)

*****

6

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, praying to quash Annexure-A Charge Sheet

dated 17.6.2014 and Annexure- B Additional Charge Sheet dated

26.10.2015 filed under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal

Procedure in respect of Crime No.157/2013 of Yeshwanthapura

Police Station, Bangalore and the entire gamut of investigation

that has gone into the said Crime No.157/2013 for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B), read with Section

149 of IPC wherein in petitioner herein is shown as accused No.11

(in the additional Charge Sheet dated 26.10.2015) and etc;

IN CRL.P.No.2549 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Fr. Anbu John @ Deva Anbu John,

Son of Anthonappa,

Aged 41 years,

Parish Priest,

Sacred Heart Church,

Silvepura,

Bengaluru – 560 090.

…PETITIONER

(By Shri Chandrashekar R.P., Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka by

Yeshwanthapur Police Station,

Represented by

Ld. Special Public Prosecutor,


7

2. Patrick Xavier,

Son of S. Raju,


St. Peters Pontifical Seminary,

8th

Main, Malleshwaram West,


…RESPONDENTS

(By Shri Sadashivamurthy, Special Public Prosecutor for

Respondent No.1;

Shri X.M.Joseph, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the Chargesheet

and consequently the proceedings in Crime No.157/2013 of

Yeshwanthpur Police Station, Bangalore City, now pending in

C.C.No.27574/2015 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable

under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) read with 149 of IPC in

respect of this petition is annexed here with vide Annexure-C.


BETWEEN:

Fr. A. Thomas,

Son of Arogyaswamy,

Aged 68 years,

Parish Priest,

Kristha Karunalaya Church,

Kanakapura Main Road,

Jaraganahalli,

Chunchaghatta Cross,

J.P.Nagar Post,


…PETITIONER

8

(By Shri C.H.Hanumantharaya, Advocate)

AND:



Represented by



2. Patrick Xavier,

Son of S. Raju,



8th



…RESPONDENTS


Respondent No.1;




and consequently the proceedings in Crime No.157/2013 of

Yeshwanthpur Police Station, Bangalore City, now pending in

C.C.No.27574/2015 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable

under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) read with 149 of IPC in

respect of this petition is annexed here with vide Annexure-C.


BETWEEN:

9

B.A.Anthony Prasad,

Son of Arulappa,


Residing at No.158,

2nd

Main, 3rd

Cross,

Near Bata Showroom,

Chamarajapet,


…PETITIONER

(By Shri Hashmath Pasha, Advocate)

AND:


Yeshwanthapur Police,


Represented by

Ld. Special Public Prosecutor.

2. Sri. Patrick Xavier,

Son of S. Raju,



No.61, 8th Main,

Malleshwaram West,


…RESPONDENTS


Respondent No.1;



of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire

proceedings C.C.No.27574/2015 on the file of XXIV Additional

10

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City which is arising

out of Crime No.157/2013 of Yashavanthapura Police Station,

Bangalore City for offences 302, 201, 120(B), 149 of IPC. As an

abuse of process of law vide Annexure-B.


BETWEEN:

Raphaelraj,

Son of Anthonappa,


Resident of No.68,

2nd

Main, 5th

Cross,

Deepanjalinagar,

Mysore Road,


…PETITIONER

(By Shri Chandrashekar R.P., Advocate)

AND:



Represented by



2. Patrick Xavier,

Son of S. Raju,


No.61, St. Peters Pontifical Seminary,

8th


Bangalore – 560 055,

11

Bengaluru City.

…RESPONDENTS


Respondent No.1;




and consequently the order of taking cognizance and further the

proceedings in Crime No.157/2013 of Yeshwanthpur Police

Station, Bangalore City, now pending in C.C.No.27574/2015 on

the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201

and 120(B) read with 149 of IPC, as far as the petitioner is

concerned.


BETWEEN:

Sri. I. Anthappa,

Son of Late Innasappa,


Residing at Clergy Home,

Archbishop’s House Campus,

No.75, Millers Road,


…PETITIONER

(By Shri Sachin V.R., Advocate)

AND:



12

Represented by



2. Sri. Patrick Xavier,

Son of S. Raju,


No.61, St. Peters Pontifical Seminary,

8th

Main, Malleshwaram West (PO),

Bengaluru – 560 055,

…RESPONDENTS


Respondent No.1;



of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash additional

Chargesheet dated 26.10.2015 filed under Section 173(8) of Code

of Criminal Procedure in respect of Crime No.157/2013 of

Yeshwanthpur Police Station, Bangalore and consequently the

proceedings C.C.No.27574/2015 presently pending on the file of

XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for

the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) read

with 149 of IPC, in respect of the petitioner herein.

These Petitions having been heard and reserved on

19.8.2016 and coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day,

the Court delivered the following:-

13

ORDER

These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the

petitioners are arrayed as the accused in the same criminal case.

2. The facts and circumstances leading up to these petitions

being filed are said to be as follows.

A complaint is said to have been lodged by one Patrick

Xavier on 1.4.2013, before the Yeshwanthpur Police Station about

the alleged murder of one Father. Thomas K. J., who was said to

be the Rector of the St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary, situate within

the jurisdiction of the said Police station. It was stated that the

complainant, the deceased and one Father G. Joseph had supper at

the Seminary and had remained together between 7.30PM and 9

PM. Thereafter, they are said to have retired to their respective

rooms for the night. It was said that at about 2.30 AM, the

complainant had heard loud screams outside and there was also

someone at his door trying to break open the same. The

complainant did not choose to open the door or investigate, as he

14

put down the commotion to miscreants having gained entry into

the premises and he was surprised that they were seeking to extort

money. It was only at 5 AM, he ventured to come outside to find

that the door to his office chambers had been damaged and he is

also said to have noticed blood stains outside his office and also

in front of the staff room which was adjacent and on the tarred

pathway. Once inside the room, he is said to have seen the dead

body of Fr. Thomas lying in a semi-nude state, with blood stains.

He also found on entering the Rector's office chamber, that a

cupboard and a safe locker had been broken open and ransacked.

Hence the complaint of what was apparently a murder and

robbery.

On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime no.157/2013

was said to have been registered for offences punishable under

Sections 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter

referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity). It is said that accused nos.1

to 5 were implicated after investigation and on the basis of oral

statements of some of the witnesses. Accused nos.1 and 2 were

15

said to have been arrested on 21.3.2014 and accused no.3 on

20.3.2014. Accused nos.4 and 5 are said to be absconding.

It is stated that there was an ongoing agitation by several

Kannada Christian activists seeking primacy for Kannada

Christians in the Catholic Churches in Karnataka and in particular,

there was a demand to make the St. Peter's Seminary, a Kannada

institution. And that the membership of non-Kannada linguistic

groups in the Catholic Churches in Karnataka to be kept to a

minimum. In that background, the deceased, being a non-

Kannadiga and believed to be an adversary of the Kannada

Christian activists, it was sought to be theorized that it was the

said group which had masterminded and engineered the murder.

It is claimed that this theory was strongly projected by the non-

Kannada Christian members of the congregations, mainly

Malayalam, Tamil and Konkani speaking Christians. It was

alleged that it included such important persons, as K.J.George, an

erstwhile minister of the present Government in Karnataka, the

16

Archbishop of Bangalore - Bernard Moras and a retired Deputy

Commissioner of Police, - V.S. D'Souza, among others.

A charge sheet was said to have been filed against accused

nos.1 to 5 as on 17.6.2014, for offences punishable under Sections

302,201,149 read with Section 120 (B) IPC. Cognizance was said

to have been taken on the said Charge Sheet and a case was

registered in SC 1439/2014, on committal to the Court of

Sessions.

It was alleged in the charge sheet that accused nos.1 to 5

had walked into the St.Peter's Pontifical Seminary at about 11 PM

on 31.3.2013 and the Security guard at the gate was sent away to

have a drink by the accused and that the guard had remained

absent till about 2 AM on 1.4.2013, when the murder is said to

have taken place.

As it was the firm belief of the present petitioner and others,

who supported the Kannada Christian group, that the accused had

been unfairly and without any basis implicated, are said to have

embarked on the task of unveiling the truth and to save the

17

accused no.1 to 5 from false prosecution, by taking recourse to all

legal means available, including campaigns, meetings and

writings. It is claimed that they drew support from various

quarters and their agitation for fair play and justice is said to have

brought pressure on the government and the Church itself. The

Archbishop himself is said to have threatened Fr. Selvaraj that he

would be defrocked if he continued with the said agitations.

It is alleged that at the instance of respondents no.13 and

14 in WP 18062/2016, the police officers, arrayed as respondents

no.9 to 12, are said to have brought unrelenting pressure on the

petitioners herein and others by visiting them and also calling

upon them to attend enquiry sessions and seeking to recover

documents and alleged incriminating material from the petitioners.

This, it is claimed, only further strengthened their resolve to fight

for the freedom of the accused and they are said to have

intensified their agitation. This circumstance, it is said, led to the

police filing an additional charge sheet dated 26.10.2015, on

24.11.2015, naming these petitioners as accused no.6 to 12 , for

18

the same offences as alleged against Accused no. 1 to 5. It is that

which is under challenge in these petitions. Accused no. 8 is said

to have died recently.

3. The learned Senior Advocate, Shri B.V.Acharya,

appearing for the counsel for the petitioner in WP 18062/2016,

would contend that there is a gross misuse of law in the

prosecution seeking to file an additional charge sheet after nearly

three years of the incident seeking to implicate the petitioner and

others. Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’, for brevity), does not

enable the investigating agency to implicate persons at its whim

and fancy at indefinite points of time.

It is pointed out that the additional charge sheet is filed on

the basis of alleged material that was available even prior to filing

of the original charge sheet and therefore, it is evident that the

additional charge sheet is only to stifle the petitioner and others

19

from speaking out against the injustice being caused to accused

no. 1 to 5 .

It is contended that the additional charge sheet is clearly

engineered to prevent the petitioners from carrying on their

legitimate campaign against the powers that be in the Church, by

targeting the Kannada Christian fraternity, of whom the

petitioners are identified as their unnamed leaders, is evident from

the undue attention that has been bestowed on the petitioners by

the investigating agency apparently at the behest of the non-

Kannada groups, including the concerned respondents.

It is sought to be highlighted that the additional charge sheet

does not disclose any basis warranting the same as it is based on

material that was available at the time of filing the original charge

sheet.

The conduct of the complainant is particularly questioned.

Shri Acharya would point out that after the complainant, who was

admittedly in the next room where the deceased was said to have

been murdered and when he was woken up by the commotion of

20

loud screams and his room door being allegedly sought to be

broken open, the fact that he had not chosen to alert the police or

seek help, when he had access to five telephones in his room, is

inexplicable. He was one of the last persons to see the deceased

alive and also the first to discover his dead body. He also stood to

gain by the death of the victim, as he was likely to be the next

Rector of the Seminary, but he has been presumed to be innocent

in spite of his odd response to the incident, which is highly

suspicious and would possibly make him, along with his

accomplices, the perpetrator of the crime.

It is hence emphasized that there is no material to implicate

the petitioners either in the main charge sheet or the additional

charge sheet, indicating their direct or indirect participation in the

perpetration of the alleged crime.

4. Shri Hasmath Pasha, counsel appearing for accused

no.12 would contend that the only allegation found against the

said accused is to the effect that he had participated at a

21

procession and rally along with others protesting against

oppression by outsider Christian elements who were dominating

over and crushing the local Kannada Christian populace of the

Church. Therefore, it is highly imaginative to have implicated the

said accused as being involved in the commission of any crime, in

the absence of any incriminating material.

5. Shri C.H.Hanumantharaya, Counsel appearing for

accused no. 7 would contend that a case of circumstantial

evidence is sought to be made out against the petitioner, as if on

an after thought. The alleged motive attributed to the petitioner

does not even raise a flicker of suspicion. The petitioner was

definitely a part of a large group of individuals espousing a cause

for over a decade and a half. The demands were to have a

separate Seminary for the Kannada speaking Christians within the

premises of the St.Peter's Pontifical Seminary among other

demands. The ways and means adopted were above board and

legally acceptable. The agitation had drawn widespread support

from other organizations as well. The involvement of the

22

petitioner in the said movement could not be linked to the murder.

The post of Rector held by the deceased did not take within its

fold the reigns of power of the Seminary. Nor did he hold any

power over the properties of the Seminary. The only power

vested in the office was of caring for the discipline of trainees who

came to the Seminary, their education and the day to day care and

maintenance of the Seminary. The death of the Rector in no way

has advanced the objective of the continued agitation of the

Kannada speaking Christians of the Church. They are only

projected in a poorer light and the accusation against the petitioner

is a case in point. It is pointed out that there is not much variance

in the contents of the main charge sheet and the additional charge

sheet, implicating the petitioner and others. In the absence of any

incriminating material and suspicion alone being the criteria to

allege a motive cannot form the substance of a serious accusation

of murder, and hence seeks quashing of the proceedings against

the petitioner.

23

6. The State has opposed the petitions and has contended

that the Sessions Court has framed charges and recorded the pleas

of Accused no.1 to 3, as on 6.4.2016. The date for the trial was

set on 23.8.2016.

That after the first charge sheet was filed on 17.6.2014,

investigation was continued and a further report was submitted

against accused nos.6 to 12, as contemplated under Section 173(8)

of the CrPC, as on 24.11.2015. And that the same is pending in

case no.CC 27574/2015. The proceedings had been stayed by this

court on 6.4.2016.

The statement of objections goes on to narrate the several

incidents where there were instances of the petitioners having

participated in agitations and other incidents of having created

disturbances, to highlight certain demands and grievances and in

the course of which, utterances made of seeking vengeance

against the deceased victim, who had been characterized as an

opponent to their cause, all of which was supported by statements

of witnesses to such incidents. It is thus contended that there was

24

abundant material to indicate that the petitioners were

instrumental in having committed the murder of the deceased.

It is stated that from the call details of the cell phones of the

said accused no.6 to 12, it was evident that they were in constant

touch with each other. This according to the prosecution is

evidence of their active machination to commit the murder of the

deceased.

It is claimed that the petitioners were found to be associated

with the following associations, namely, the Karnataka Kannada

Christian Dharma Gurugala Balaga (KKCDGB), the Akhila

Karnataka Catholic Christian Kannada Sangha (AKCCKS) and

the Karnataka Catholic Christian Kannada Sangha (KCCKS),

which was evident from documents said to have been seized

during the course of investigation. That accused no.11 was the

editor of a Kannada magazine known as 'Maathu Kathe' , which is

paper that is a staunch supporter of the petitioners. And that

accused no.12 was an office bearer of the Santha Josephra

Snehabhivrudhi Sangha. It is alleged that accused no.7 to 9 had

25

taken part in meetings at which it was resolved that they would

strive to take over the St. Peter's Seminary. And in this regard had

drawn the support of accused no.10 and 12, who were said to be

the office bearers of the above said organizations.

The following incidents are highlighted to demonstrate that

the said accused no. 6 to 12 had a definite design in achieving

their goal and since the deceased was an impediment, he had been

brutally murdered at their instance and active conspiracy.

a) On 17.2.2000, at about 10.30a.m., the members of

KKCDGB led by accused no.2 Father William Patrick, accused

no.7, Father A.Thomas and the members of AKKCCS led by

accused no.10 Raphaelraj, accused no.11 Rita Reeni and others,

forcibly entered the premises of St.Peter’s Pontifical Seminary

and pounded violently on the doors of the auditorium where a

meeting of Board of Bishops was in progress. The reason was to

disrupt the meeting and to press for their demands to convert the

premises of St.Peter’s Pontifical Seminary into a Seminary

exclusively for Kannada speaking Christians. The pounding on

26

the door of the auditorium was so violent and forceful that it

appeared to the delegates that the door might break. Fearing this,

the doors of the auditorium were opened. Immediately, the

intruders are said to have barged into the meeting hall and started

shouting slogans and stalled the meeting for about two hours.

Accused no.7 Father A.Thomas was extremely violent and he is

said to have rushed to assault the then Archbishop, Most

Rev.Ignatius Pinto. But, the then Rector and now the Bishop of

Mysore Most. Rev.Dr.Thomas Vazhapilly is said to have

prevented accused no.7 Father A.Thomas from doing that act and

rescued the Archbishop. Their behaviour that day has been

described as resembling those of “hired Goondas” in a civil plaint

filed by the deceased, Father K.J.Thomas in 2000.

b) On 29.6.2000, which was the Seminary day and was also

the Golden Jubilee Year of the priesthood of Father Legrand, an

iconic French Priest, who is said to have taught at the Seminary.

The staff members and students had assembled in the Chapel of

the Seminary to attend the Holy Mass scheduled to be held at

27

11.15AM. At about 10.30AM, accused no.2 Father William

Patrick, accused no.7 Father A.Thomas, Accused no.8, Father

C.Selvaraj @ Chasara (now dead) and other members of the

AKKCCS arrived there and demanded that they, as per the

Seminary practices, be allowed to read out a memorandum during

the Holy Mass which was not permitted. Despite the pleadings by

the students and other priests, Accused no.2, Father William

Patrick and his associates went ahead with the reading of the

memorandum in the chapel. Their violent conduct was

completely unbecoming of Roman Catholic Priest. It not only

hurt the sentiments of the teaching staff and the students, but also

defied the sanctity of the chapel in the words of the murdered

Rector, Father K.J.Thomas.

c) Following these incidents of violence and as per the

instructions of the then Archbishop, Most Rev.Ignatius Pinto, the

deceased Father K.J.Thomas, in his capacity as the then

Procurator of the St.Peter’s Pontifical Seminary, is said to have

filed a civil suit in OS 5183/2000 requesting the City Civil Court

28

to grant injunction against Accused no.2 Father William Patrick

and his associate priests namely, accused no.7 Father A.Thomas,

late Father Stany Baptist, accused no.8 Father C.Selvaraj (now

dead), Father I.Joseph, Father Fathiraj, Father Santiago, Father

Arulappa and all members of the “Karnataka Kannada Catholic

Priests Conference” and represented by its Vice-President,

accused no.7 Father A.Thomas, restraining them in any manner

from interfering in the activities, affairs and functioning of the

Seminary. This court is said to have ordered status-quo. The

order of status-quo remained in force from 3.8.2000 to

14.10.2004. Through this order, the aforesaid persons including

accused no.2 Father William Patrick, accused no.7 Father

A.Thomas, Accused no.8 Father C.Selvaraj, Father I Joseph,

Father Fathiraj, Father Santiago, Father Arulappa were kept away

from the premises of the Seminary. The said suit filed by the

deceased Father K.J.Thomas against accused no.2, Father William

Patrick and others created great anger and resentment against the

deceased.

29

d) Subsequently, at periodical intervals, accused no.2

Father William Patrick, accused no.7 Father A Thomas, accused

no.8 Father C.Selvaraj @ Chasara (now dead), Father

Barthalomew and their associates visited the office of the

deceased Rector Father K.J.Thomas, and threatened him saying

that they would wreak vengeance on him for having involved

them in litigation.

e) During October 2010, a group led by accused no.1-

Raphaelraj, General Secretary of AKKCCS and another associates

visited the Seminary and met the deceased Father K.J.Thomas and

demanded to permit them to hoist a “Kannada flag”, in front of

the Seminary on 1st November 2010. They also submitted a

petition in this regard. Similarly, the group led by accused no.2

Father William Patrick, accused no.7 Faterh A Thomas, accused

no.8 Father C Selvaraj @ Chasara, Father Barthalome, Father

Sagayaraj and other members of the KKCDGB visited deceased

Father K.J.Thomas in the Seminary and demanded to permit them

to hoist Kannada flag in front of the Seminary. The deceased

30

Father K.J.Thomas told them that he would discuss the matter

with the Staff Council of the Seminary and also with the

Archbishop and inform them about the decision. Accused no.10

Raphaelraj and RTO Chandru and two others are said to have

come and met the deceased Father K.J.Thomas expressing their

firm decision to hoist the Kannada flag.

f) On 31.10.2010, a big group led by accused no.2 Father

William Patrick, accused no.10 Raphaelraj, RTC Chandru and

other members of the AKKCCS entered into the premises of

St.Peter’s Pontifical Seminary, and forcibly erected a flag hole.

Accused no.2 Father William Patrick hoisted a Kannada flag

without the permission of the then Rector, the deceased Father

K.J.Thomas. Some of the staff members of the Seminary

requested the deceased Father K.J.Thomas to intervene and to stop

the depredations of the intruders. Father K.J.Thomas openly

expressed his helplessness and further replied to them that he was

mortally afraid of accused no.2 Father William Patrick and his

associates. In his own words, “If I go and stop them my blood

31

will be shed”. These very words were heard by several members

of the Seminary, who met him on that day. Subsequently, the

Seminary authorities started hoisting the Kannada flag on their

own on 1st November every year.

Reliance is placed on the statements of CW-100 and CW-

117, to the effect that they were told by the deceased on several

occasions that the members of the above mentioned organizations

had expressed that he was a hurdle in their path to achieving their

goals and that he feared for his life. And he had also said to have

mentioned that since he had filed a civil suit against several of the

accused, on the instructions of the Archbishop, on behalf of the

Seminary restraining them from interfering with its affairs, it had

further incensed the said accused persons and their hatred towards

him was palpable.

It is further contended that the accused were hopeful of their

sympathiser, one Fr. Lourdu Prasad, a member of the teaching

faculty at the Seminary and also a member of the KKCDGB,

mentioned above would be nominated as the Rector, in the place

32

of the deceased. But since the deceased had been again re-

nominated for a further period from 2012- 2015, the accused could

not stomach the same and were waiting for an opportunity to

eliminate the deceased from the scene.

It is further alleged that the statements of CW- 120, CW-

121 and 122, disclosed that accused no.12 had held meetings

with the other accused and had made representations to the higher

echelons of the Church, which clearly demonstrated their close

association and common intention and particularly the mens rea.

It is pointed out that when there was an important meeting

of the Board of Bishops, an august body of the Church, the

accused had distributed hand bills proposing to disturb the

conclave and in this regard, the deceased had approached the

police to provide protection against the accused from disturbing

the meeting, which had again angered the accused against the

deceased.

It is claimed that just two days prior to the commission of

murder, accused no.7 to 12 had participated at a massive rally and

33

had made speeches denigrating the non- Kannada members of the

Church and are said to have quoted from the Holy Bible, this

ominous sentence: 'It is better that, one man dies for the people

than that the whole nation perishes.' This was an utterance by a

Jewish high priest with reference to Jesus Christ, who was

perceived then as a threat to their domain and was said to be a

justification for the Jews killing Christ.

It is further claimed that the statements of CW- 126, CW-

127 to CW -130 would reveal that accused no.6, a Parish priest

was a close friend of accused no.1 and 2 and that they were

constantly visiting and staying with him and as accused no.6 was

an active member of the KKCDGB, he had accommodated

accused no.7, 8 , 2 and others to hold meetings at his residence to

chart out their plan to carry out their long term plans apart from

eliminating the deceased.

It is contended that the large number of criminal cases

instituted against many of the accused persons over the years, is a

34

further testimony to their certain involvement in the commission

of the murder of the deceased victim.

7. On a consideration of the above contentions and from an

examination of the material on record, particularly, the charge

sheets, namely, the Charge sheet filed as on 17.6.2014 , which is

after a period of more than one year and two and a half months

from the date of the alleged incident, and the charge sheet dated

26.10.2015, actually filed on 24.11.2015, which is after more than

two and a half years after the incident, implicating the present

petitioners, a summarized comparison of the two charge sheets

would indicate that there is little difference between the two. This

comparative chart would disclose this glaring circumstance.

First Charge Sheet

During February 2000 the office bearers

i.e. the members of ‘Karnataka Kannada

Christa Dharma Gurugala Balaga’ held

meetings; A2-Fr. William Patric and A1

Fr. Elias Daniel were part of it and

decided to work towards taking over the

properties and administration of

Seminary.

Second Charge Sheet

During February 2000 the

office bearers i.e. the

members of ‘Karnataka

Kannada Christa Dharma

Gurugala Balaga’ held

meetings; A7 – Fr. A

Thomas, A8-Fr C Selvaraj

A9- Fr.I Anthappa, A2- Fr.

William Patrick and A1 Fr.

35

Then the Balaga Established Contacts

with likeminded Akhila Karnataka

Kannada Catholic Christara Sanga – led

by Raphaelraj and the Santa Josephara

Snehabhivrudhi Sangaha.

Significant acts to take over

administration / brow beat members of

Churches not affiliated to them

1. On 17/2/2000 at 10.30 am members

of Balaga that included A2- William

Patrick and members AKKCCS entered

forcibly the seminary premises where

meeting of Board of Bishops was going

on and raised slogans that Seminary is

exclusively for kannada speaking

Christians.

Elias Daniel were part of it

and decided to work towards

taking over the properties

and administration of

Seminary.

Then the Balaga Established

Contacts with likeminded

Akhila Karnataka Kannada

Catholic Christara Sanga –

led by A10- Raphaelraj and

the Santa Josephara

Snehabhivrudhi Sangaha –

led by A12 – Anthony

Prasad. Took the Help of

A11 – Reeta Rini.

Significant acts to take over

administration / brow beat

members of Churches not

affiliated to them

1. On 17.2.2000 at 10.30

am members of Balaga that

included A2 – William

Patrick, A7- Fr. A Thomas

and members AKKCCS

A10 – Rapheal Raj, A11

Reeta Rini entered forcibly

the seminary premises

where meeting of Board of

Bishops was going on and

raised slogans that Seminary

is exclusively for kannada

speaking Christians.

36

2. On 29.6.2000 During Holy Mass in

the Seminary at 11.15 am; A2- Fr.

William, and members of AKKCCS

read out memorandum during holy

mass-

2. On 29.6.2000 During

Holy Mass in the Seminary

at 11.15 am; A2-Fr.

William A7- A Thomas, A8

– Fr.C. Selvaraj and

members of AKKCCS read

out memorandum during

holy mass-

3. Following this – Fr. K.J.Thomas

filed civil suit in O.S.No.5183/2000

before City Civil Court seeking to grant

Injunction against A2 – William, A7 –

Fr. A Thomas, A8 – Fr.C.Selvaraj, Fr I

Joseph, Fr Fathiraj, Fr Santiago, Fr

Arulappa and restraining them from

interfering in the activities, affairs and

functioning of the Seminary; Order to

maintain Status quo m remained from –

2000 to 14.10.2004 – there was anger

among the Balaga members.

3. Following this – Fr.

K.J.Thomas filed civil suit

in O.S.No.5183/2000 before

City Civil Court seeking to

grant Injunction against A2

– William, A7 – Fr. A

Thomas, A8 – Fr.C.Selvaraj,

Fr I Joseph, Fr Fathiraj, Fr

Santiago, Fr Arulappa and

restraining them from

interfering in the activities,

affairs and functioning of

the Seminary; Order to

maintain Status quo m

remained from – 2000 to

14.10.2004 – there was

anger among the Balaga

members.

4. Periodically A2 Fr. William, and

others visited the office of K.J.Thomas

and stated that they would wreak

vengeance-

4. Periodically A2 Fr.

William, A2 – Fr. A

Thomas, A8 Fr. Selvaraj –

visited the office of

K.J.Thomas and stated that

they would wreak

vengeance-

5. During October 2010 – members of

AKKCCS wished to hoist Kannada flag

on November 1 2010-; Also, A2-Fr.

5. During October 2010-

A10 of AKKCCS wished to

hoist Kannada flag on

37

William urged to hoist Flat-

On 31.10.2010 big group led by Fr.

William, Raphael hoisted the kannada

Flag; Thereafter the Authorities started

to hoist from then on.

6. Apprehensions were expressed by Fr.

Thomas to Fr John and Fr. Choury

Moses.

November 1 2010-; Also,

A2-Fr. William – A7-Fr

Thomas, A8-Fr.C.Selvaraj

urged to hoist Flag-

On 31.10.2010 big

group led by Fr. William,

A10- Raphael – A2- hoisted

the kannada Flag;

Thereafter the Authorities

started to hoist from then on.

6. Apprehensions were

expressed by Fr. Thomas to

Fr John and Fr. Choury

Moses.

7. During February 2012 when Annual

meeting of Board of Bishops was held

inside seminary – Balaga office bearers-

A2-Fr William and others met board of

bishops – expressed their views that

seminary must cater to the needs of

students from Karnataka. In the same

meeting Fr. K J Thomas was

reappointed as Rector from 2012 to

2015.

7. During February 2012

when Annual meeting of

Board of Bishops was held

inside seminary – Balaga

office bearers- A2-Fr

William, A7-Fr Thomas, A-

8-Fr C Selvaraj, met board

of bishops – expressed their

views that seminary must

cater to the needs of students

from Karnataka. In the

same meeting Fr. K J

Thomas was reappointed as

Rector from 2012 to 2015.

8. In the month of July 2012 the

Vatican authorities appointed three

member committee that included

Archbishop of Guwahati, Auxilary

Bishop of Bombay, Bishop of Pune, to

study the demands of the Kannada

8. In the month of July 2012

the Vatican authorities

appointed three member

committee that included

Archbishop of Guwahati,

Auxilary Bishop of Bombay,

38

associations.

Bishop of Pune, to study the

demands of the Kannada

associations.

9. A2- William Patrick and others

prepared a representation in their letter

heads and handed it over to the

committee on 17.7.2012. The said

representations depict the mens rea.

-NIL-

9. A12- Anthony Prasad and

members of Santha

Josephara Sangha had

meetings with A2- William

Patrick, A7- Fr Thomas, A8-

Fr Chesara-, A9 Fr I

Anthappa and prepared a

representation in their letter

heads and handed it over to

the committee on 17.7.2012.

The said representations

depict the mens rea.

(Representations Culled

Out)

10. From 20.2.2013 to 22.2.2013 there

was annual meeting of the Board of

Bishops in the Seminary-

On 19.2.2013 handbills were distributed

to public that there is a protest on

20.2.2013-

On 20.2.2013 Members of AKKCS

raised slogans- Arch Bishop met them

and said he would forward their

demands to the Vatican.

10. From 20.2.2013 to

22.2.2013 there was annual

meeting of the Board of

Bishops in the Seminary-

On 19.2.2013 handbills were

distributed to public by A10-

Rapheal raj- that there is a

protest on 20.2.2013-

On 20.2.2013 Members of

AKKCS raised slogans-

Arch Bishop met them and

said he would forward their

demands to the Vatican.

11. Further many Representations were

given to the Roman Catholic Religious

11. Further many

Representations were given

39

authorities, Ambassador of Vatican to

India, Board of bishops, Archbishop,

etc.,

to the Roman Catholic

Religious authorities,

Ambassador of Vatican to

India, Board of bishops,

Archbishop, etc.,

12. –NIL-

12. On 29.3.2013 at 11 am a

group led by A10- Rapheal

Raj, A12 Antony Prasad,

A11-Reeta Reeni gathered at

Town Hall and Protested.

A2-William, A7-Fr Thomas,

A8-Fr Chasara, A9 Fr I

Anthappa were participants.

13. Conspiracy hatched along with their

associates by A1 and A2 at Kengeri and

other Places to commit the murder.

13. – NIL -

14. On 31.3.2013 A1 to A5 went inside

the Seminary at 11 pm. The offence

took place between 11 pm and 2 pm.

14. –Nil-

31.3.2013 murder took

place.

15. –NIL-

15. The Arch Bishop

promulgated a legislation

relating to usage of

languages in the churches of

Archdiocese Bangalore on

12.4.2015. The supporters

of the accused persons burnt

the circulars on 26.4.2015 in

front of Church at

Gudadahalli and St Joseph

Church at Bangalore.

40

It is well settled by a series of decisions of the Apex court

that cognizance cannot be taken unless there is atleast some

material indicating the guilt of the accused. (See: R.P.Kapur v.

State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCR 388, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal

(1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335, Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdary, (1992) 4

SCC 305, Raghubir Saran (Dr) vs. State of Bihar, (1964)2 SCR

336, State of Karnataka vs. M.Devendrappa, (2002)3 SCC 89 and

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haque,

(2005)1 SCC 122.

And as laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case

supra, where the allegations made in the first information report or

the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence

or make out a case against the accused. Or when the

uncontroverted allegations made in the First Information Report

or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused. Or when a criminal proceeding is manifestly

41

attended with mala fides or where the proceeding is maliciously

instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite the accused due to private and

personal grudge, the High Courts could exercise power under

Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, to

quash the proceedings.

In the case on hand, when the case sought to be made out

against accused no.1 to 5 itself was on the basis of circumstantial

evidence, the case against the petitioners who are sought to be

arrayed as accused no.6 to 12 (accused no. 8 is dead) the case

against them stands even more diluted. This is especially so when

it is noticed that the additional statements of witnesses referring to

the association of the present petitioners with accused no.1 to 5

does not by itself make out a case against the accused. Even very

strong suspicion on the basis that the petitioners had a long

standing ill-will against the deceased, would not justify their

arraignment as accused in the case. Nor the fact that they had

42

closely associated with accused no. 1 to 5 over time, would make

out a case against them of the offences alleged.

Further, the half-hearted initiation of the proceedings

against the petitioners, after considerable lapse of time, when the

statement of witnesses on which reliance was placed in presenting

the additional charge sheet, was already available when the main

charge sheet was filed, is yet another circumstance that would

militate against the proceedings being initiated against the

petitioners.

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the proceedings

initiated against the petitioners in Crime no.157/2013 of the

Yeshwanthpur Police Station and now pending in case no. CC

27574/2015 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bangalore, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nv*

DATED THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016 BEFORE: THE...

Documents

Transcript of DATED THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016 BEFORE: THE...