Kerala High Court refuses to halt trial against five accused in SFI leader Abhimanyu's murder

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to halt the trial against the five accused in the 2018 murder of Students Federation of India (SFI) leader Abhimanyu [Muhammed JI v State of Kerala & ors].

Justice G Girish dismissed the appeals filed by Muhammed JI (accused 1), Arif Bin Salim (accused 2), Bilal Saji (accused 4), Farokh Amani (accused 5) and Rajeeb PM (accused 6), against the session court's order refusing to defer the trial proceedings.

The High Court also rejected the challenge to the sessions court's refusal to direct the prosecution to furnish all witness statements and documents collected during the investigation, including materials that did not form part of the chargesheet.

Thus, it cleared the way for the sessions court at Ernakulam to proceed with the trial of the case.

The appeal arose from the proceedings in the murder case relating to Abhimanyu, an SFI leader and a student of the Maharaja's College, who was fatally attacked near the college campus in July 2018.

The prosecution alleged that the attack was carried out by members of the now banned Popular Front of India (PFI) and its student wing, Campus Front.

Before the Court, the accused argued that the investigation against several co-accused remained pending even after eight years and that going forward with the trial against only the charge-sheeted accused would result in a fragmented and unfair trial.

They argued that the prosecution had kept the investigation against the accused number 17 to 26 pending without filing a supplementary final report, despite those accused having been arrested and released on bail in 2018.

"Such inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency cannot be permitted to prejudice the petitioners, who are now being subjected to trial on an incomplete version of the case," the accused stated.

They further argued that they were entitled to access all materials collected during investigation, including documents and witness statements not relied upon by the prosecution, under Rule 19 (4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice.

According to them, withholding such material violated their right to a fair trial under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Hence, they sought deferment of the trial until the investigation against the remaining accused was completed.

However, the Court rejected these contentions and uphed the sessions court order in its entirety.

The accused were represented by advocates EA Haris, MA Ahmad Saheer, Muhammed Yasil, Aagi Johny and Ifra Iqbal.

[Detailed order awaited]