Court emphasizes accused's right to fair trial and victim's right to speedy justice, dismisses plea by accused seeking stay of trial pending investigation against co-accused
In a significant judgment dated October 13, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C. Jayachandran, dismissed a petition filed by accused nos. 24 and 25 seeking to keep the trial against accused nos. 1 to 16 in abeyance until the completion of investigation and filing of final report against themselves and other co-accused. The petitioners, implicated in a high-profile murder case registered as Crime No. 1548/2018 at Central Police Station, Ernakulam, contended that proceeding with the trial against the principal accused in their absence would prejudice their case, as evidence such as seizure of an autorickshaw, forensic materials, and witness testimonies would be recorded without their presence.
The court meticulously analyzed the petitioners' arguments, which included claims that crucial evidence related to the autorickshaw used by the main accused to flee the crime scene and forensic reports would be recorded without them, potentially disadvantaging their separate trial. The petitioners also highlighted the delay in investigation and sought directions to expedite the probe and to defer the trial against the principal accused.
Rejecting these contentions, the court held that criminal trials must ensure evidence is recorded in the presence of the accused, as mandated by Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The evidence recorded against accused nos. 1 to 16 cannot legally be used against the petitioners in their separate trial unless statutory exceptions apply, such as under Section 299 CrPC (corresponding to Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which applies only when an accused absconds without prospect of immediate arrest-conditions not present here. Similarly, reliance on Section 33 of the Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 27 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) was found inapplicable as preconditions like the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in prior proceedings were unmet.
The court further distinguished the roles of the accused: while accused nos. 1 to 16 were directly involved in the murder and infliction of injuries, accused nos. 17 to 26, including the petitioners, were alleged only to have conspired to aid the principal accused's escape and to have harbored them. This distinction justified separate trials, especially since combining the trials would prolong proceedings and delay justice.
Importantly, the court underscored the victim's right to a speedy trial, referencing previous court orders directing completion of the Sessions Case No. 1068/2018 within a fixed timeframe. The trial was scheduled for eighteen consecutive days starting October 15, 2026. Interference at this late stage would disrupt the trial schedule and contravene earlier judicial directions. The court observed that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any clear legal injury or prejudice from proceeding with the trial.
The judgment also cited binding precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in A.T. Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department (2022), emphasizing that evidence recorded against one accused in a criminal trial is confined to that accused and cannot be used against co-accused in separate trials unless exceptions apply. Additionally, the court referenced Essar Teleholdings Limited v. CBI (2015), which recognized that joint trials are not obligatory, especially where they would cause undue delay or prejudice.
The mother of the victim, who had been impleaded in the case, supported the prosecution's stance, stressing the need to adhere to timelines and ensure justice is not delayed.
Consequently, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial against accused nos. 1 to 16 shall proceed as scheduled and the investigation against accused nos. 17 to 26 should continue independently without causing postponement of the main trial.
This ruling reinforces crucial legal principles safeguarding the rights of the accused to a fair trial in their presence, the inadmissibility of evidence from separate trials against co-accused without statutory exceptions, and the imperative of timely justice for victims.
Bottom Line:
Criminal trial - Accused against whom investigation is still pending cannot seek stay of trial against other accused on the ground of possible prejudice - Evidence recorded in separate trial against other accused cannot be used against them unless statutory exceptions apply - Victim's right to speedy trial also relevant - Prayer to keep sessions trial in abeyance rejected.
Statutory provision(s): Section 273 CrPC, Section 299 CrPC, Section 33 Evidence Act, Section 335 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Section 27 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
Najeeb v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997220
