Priest murder case: Karnataka HC quashes appointment of Special Public Prosecutor at complainant's request

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the appointment of Sadashiva Murthy as a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in a case concerning the murder of a Christian priest, on finding that the appointment was made at the request of the complainant (a seminary) [Father Elias Daniel & Ors v Department of Internal Administration (Police Services].

Justice Suraj Govindaraj also noted that the SPP's legal fees were being paid by the complainant.

In these circumstances, the judge found that the apprehensions of bias raised against such an SPP appointment by the accused were reasonable.

The Court, however, clarified that it is not doubting the integrity or the credentials of SPP Murthy.

"In answering this, this Court casts no doubt at all on the integrity of the Special Public Prosecutor. It is guided only by the settled rule that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, and, as is often said, even Caesar's wife must be above suspicion," it said.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mukul Dalal v Union of India, to emphasise that justice could be distorted if the State appoints SPPs based on the complainants' wishes in criminal cases.

"It (Supreme Court) held that it is not proper to accept that a Special Public Prosecutor should be appointed every time an application is made. It further held that there may be cases where a powerful complainant starts a proceeding to victimise his opponent, and that to allow such a request would result in a travesty of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that the primacy given to the Public Prosecutor under the scheme of the Code has a social purpose, which would be lost if such appointments were made merely on the request of a private complainant," it said.

The matter concerned the 2013 murder of Father Daniel KJ, a rector at Saint Peter's Pontifical Seminary. Some of the accused facing trial in the case had raised complaints about the conduct of the SPP.

Notably, the SPP had initially been appointed in 2014 at the request of the seminary, which was the complainant in the case. In 2020, he was removed from this position following a letter objecting to his appointment. However, it later came to light that the letter was sent by one of the accused in the case, without disclosing that she is also among those facing trial.

This prompted the Archbishop of Bengaluru to urge the State to re-appoint Sadashiva Murthy as the SPP in the case in 2022. While the request was initially rejected, in 2023 Murthy was re-appointed the SPP. The seminary was also directed to pay Murthy's legal fees, which the seminary agreed to do.

This was challenged by some of the accused before the High Court.

By its August 5 ruling, the Court quashed the notification re-appointing Murthy as the SPP.

Among other reasons, the Court noted that the re-appointment notification did not contain any reasons, rendering it arbitrary.

"The re-appointment, coming after removal and after rejection, called for recorded reasons of a higher order. None are available," it said.

The Court furhter noted that since the seminary (complainant) had agreed to bear the expenses of SPP Murthy, it would raise reasonable apprehensions about the fairness of the trial.

"The fact that respondent No.6 (seminary) has agreed to bear the remuneration, together with the direction allowing that remuneration to be paid directly by respondent No.6 to the Special Public Prosecutor, creates an advocate-client relationship and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, so as to affect the fairness of the trial, thereby rendering the appointment illegal," the Court said.

The Court also noted that Murthy had previously represented the Archbishop of Bengaluru, who is connected to the seminary, in a 2019 case.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the concerns raised by the accused about whether Murthy's appointment as the SPP could affect the fairness of the murder trial were not unfounded.

"Looking at the matter as a whole, namely the first appointment, the later removal, the express rejection of re-appointment on 17.03.2023, and then the re-appointment of the very same person, read together with the direct payment by the complainant and the earlier appearance for the Archbishop connected with the Seminary, a reasonable apprehension of the denial of a fair and impartial trial stands established," it held.

Howeber, the Court rejected a plea by the petitioners asking that they be notified before the appointment of a new SPP.

"Since the accused has no right to choose or to object to the prosecutor, the question of notifying or hearing the accused before the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor does not arise, whether in the present case or as a general rule," the Court explained.

Senior Advocate MS Shyam Sundar and Advocate Dr Vandana PL appeared for the petitioners (accused).

High Court Government Pleader Shamanth Naik appeared for the State,

Advocate Melanic Sabastian appeared for Sadashiva Murthy.

Advocate CS Pradeep represented the seminary.

[Read Order]