Victims lost faith in court, says prosecutor

• HC takes serious note of the allegation, says it cannot be taken lightly
• Asks whether it is counsel, victims or State’s perception
• Seeks Attorney General’s assistance in the case
• Adjourns the case to March 10
• CS asked to explain State’s stance on the issue

Hyderabad: After nearly nine days of hearing, the Tsunduru massacre case on Tuesday took a curious turn with Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) informing the bench that the victims and their relatives had lost ‘faith in the court’ (read bench).

Taking a serious note of the allegation pointing it out as a very serious insinuation that cannot be taken lightly, a division bench of the AP High Court presided over by Justice L Narasimha Reddy sought the presence and assistance of the Attorney General in the case.

The bench was dealing with appeals filed by those convicted and some revisions filed by the complainants questioning the orders of acquittal and the quantum of sentence in many of the cases. In its order, the bench of Justice Narasimha Reddy and Justice MSK Jaiswal pointed to the happenings before the court this far. It is pointed out that initially the Special Public Prosecutor B Tarakam had pointed out that there was also an appeal filed by the State and they all be heard together. The State appeals are, however, filed with over 1,389 days delay – nearly four years. The bench took note of the fact that with notices not yet served on the parties it would take a long time and, in the meanwhile, the appeals filed way back in 2007 cannot be kept pending. With the senior counsel filing an affidavit stating that the parties ‘had lost confidence’ the bench wondered how this was possible mid-way of the case, and how any case would reach a finality.

The bench pointed out that the case had about 289 accused and over 100 victims, the matter would never reach finality if such applications were to be entertained. The bench wondered whether the lack of confidence was that of the Special Public Prosecutor or of the victims, it was pointed out that it was of the parties. When the judge asked for the names, senior counsel Tarakam informed the court that he would have to ascertain their names. The bench then wondered how he swore to the affidavit without the names being known to him. The bench also wondered if the version was that of the State or of the Special PP. “Where does the forum shopping stop?” the bench wondered.

The bench also pointed out to the law on the subject that made clear that the PP was not the counsel of the victim. “Prosecution not persecution” is the task of the PP, the bench pointed out. Earlier, the bench also called for the State Public Prosecutor Vinod Kumar Deshpande and even the State Advocate General Sudershan Reddy to confirm the stance of the State. It was made clear by the said law officers that the stated stance of the Special Public Prosecutor was not the stance of the State. Adjourning the matter to March 10, the bench also wanted the Chief Secretary to spell out the stance of the State government on the issue.