SC dismisses plea against quashing of charges in 2013 rector's murder case

Karnataka government made the plea against the order quashing the criminal case against a group of Kannada Christian activists in the case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea by the Karnataka government against the order quashing the criminal case against a group of Kannada Christian activists in the 2013 sensational killing of Father K J Thomas of Bengaluru's St Peter's Pontifical Seminary.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J K Maheshwari also rejected a petition by Bengaluru's St Peter's Pontifical Seminary against a High Court's order of August 30, 2016, that had set aside the criminal proceedings against the accused, named in supplementary charge sheet after about two years delay.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for the appellant while the accused were represented by advocate Sanjay M Nuli and others.

In its plea, the state government contended letting off the accused would prejudice the case against the other five accused, named in the main charge sheet.

According to the prosecution, the Father-Rector was killed on April 1, 2013, following a rivalry between the deceased and members of Kannada Christian activists, who wanted primacy for them in Karnataka's Catholic Churches, against their fellow believers speaking Malayalam, Tamil, and Konkani.

The state government contended the HC was wrong in not considering the statements of witnesses Balraj, Father John Abraham, resident professor, Jon Bosco, and Dolphy D'Cunha, disclosing the complicity of the accused.

In its plea, the Church also pointed out Abraham and D'Cunha claimed that just two days prior to the murder, accused no 7 to 12 had participated at a massive rally and had made speeches denigrating the non-Kannada members of the Church. They allegedly quoted from the Holy Bible, the ominous sentence: 'It is better that, one man dies for the people than that the whole nation perishes'.

The HC had set aside the proceedings against the accused, saying the case against the main accused, itself was on the basis of circumstantial evidence and, the case against the other accused stood even more diluted.