The Kerala High Court on Monday asked the State government to respond to a petition moved by K.K. Jayachandran, Idukki CPI(M) district secretary, and A.K. Damodrana, former secretary, challenging the Thodupuzha Sessions Court order allowing the prosecution plea to arraign them as accused in the Anchery Baby murder case.
The Thodupuzha Sessions Court passed the order last month while dismissing a petition filed by Electricity Minister and another accused M.M. Mani seeking to discharge him from the case. Anchery Baby, Senapathy Mandalam president of the Youth Congress in Idukki, was shot dead in 1982. All the nine accused in the case registered by the Santhampara police were acquitted by the Thodupuzha Sessions Court in 1985 for want of evidence. The case was reopened following the speech by Mr. Mani on May 25, 2012 at Manakkad, Thodupuzha. In his speech , he said that the party had systematically liquidated political rivals in the district. P.N. Mohandas, CPI(M) Udumbanchola local committee secretary in 1982, who was arraigned as the third accused in the case, gave a statement under Section 164 before the Adimaly Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly that Mr. Mani, who was then the CPI(M) Idukki district committee member , and Mr. Jayachandran, the then Udumbanchola area secretary, had plotted the murder. The prosecution’s plea to list former CITU Idukki district secretary A.K. Damodaran as accused was also allowed by the sessions court.
In their petition, Mr. Jayachandran and Mr. Damodaran pointed out that the Sessions Court went wrong in invoking Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code to implicate the petitioners in the case. The witnesses relied upon by the sessions court had not made any statement about the alleged conspiracy between the petitioners to commit the offence. There was no material on record evidencing the involvement of the petitioners. They also pointed out that the Supreme Court had affirmed the acquittal verdict of the Thodupuzha Sessions Court. Therefore, the case which was concluded and had attained finality, could not be reopened subsequently. Besides, in the final report, there was no allegation that the petitioners were party to the alleged conspiracy. The order of the sessions court, therefore,was without jurisdiction.
Eom.
