Court directs expeditious completion of trial with strict adherence to Supreme Court timelines; local Bar Association instructed to ensure smooth trial process
The Orissa High Court on September 11, 2026, delivered a significant judgment in the case of Dakoju Venkat Rao and Another versus State of Odisha, addressing the accused's plea to transfer their acid attack trial from Parlakhemundi to Berhampur. The petitioners alleged obstruction, intimidation, and lack of cooperation by the local Parlakhemundi Bar Association, claiming these factors compromised their right to a fair trial.
After a detailed examination of the facts, the Court rejected the transfer petition, citing a lack of substantive evidence supporting claims of obstruction or intimidation by the local Bar members. The Registrar of Civil Courts at Gajapati reported smooth ongoing proceedings without any external pressure, and the informant, a former Secretary and current President of the Parlakhemundi Bar Association, denied any Bar resolution against representing the accused.
The Court noted that defense counsel included local advocates from Parlakhemundi as well as lawyers from Visakhapatnam, which is geographically closer than Berhampur, undermining arguments related to financial and logistical hardships if the trial were transferred. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that transferring the case could cause trial delays, especially as most prosecution witnesses hailed from the local area, making attendance in Berhampur challenging.
Recognizing the sensitivity of the acid attack case, particularly because the victim is an advocate and local Bar member, the Court acknowledged the accused's apprehension about the trial atmosphere. To address this, the Court directed that the trial be conducted in-camera to protect the fairness of proceedings and enable the accused to defend themselves effectively. The Sessions Judge of Gajapati was instructed to expedite the trial, ensuring the remaining witnesses, including the victim, are examined promptly.
In line with the Supreme Court's directives in Shaheen Malik v. Union of India (2026), which mandates time-bound disposal of acid attack cases, the Orissa High Court reiterated stringent timelines: charges must be framed within 15 days of the charge sheet filing, the trial completed within six months, and judgment delivered promptly. The local Bar Association's President and Secretary were tasked with ensuring no hindrance occurs during the trial.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman case for the expeditious examination of witnesses, discouraging unnecessary adjournments, and managing non-cooperation by counsel effectively. The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing the rights of the accused with victims' rights and public interest in timely justice.
This verdict highlights the judiciary’s nuanced approach in handling sensitive criminal cases involving legal professionals, emphasizing procedural fairness, victim protection, and strict adherence to judicial timelines.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of sessions trial on allegation of obstruction, intimidation and non-cooperation by local Bar was refused in absence of supporting material; however, considering sensitivity of acid attack case and apprehension of accused regarding fair trial atmosphere, High Court directed in-camera trial, smooth conduct of proceedings and expeditious conclusion in terms of Supreme Court directions.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
Dakoju Venkat Rao v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2982633
