Kerala HC Refuses to Stall Campus Murder Trial While Investigation Against Harbouring Accused Continues

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to pause the 2018 Government College stabbing death trial, holding the accused had no basis to claim prejudice from the split charge sheet.

Justice G. Girish, sitting singly at the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, on 14 July 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by five of the accused in S.C No.1068/2018, a Sessions Court case arising from the fatal stabbing of a degree student at a Government College in Ernakulam in the early hours of 2 July 2018. The petitioners wanted the trial kept in abeyance until the police completed their investigation against accused Nos.17 to 26 — persons alleged to have harboured the principal accused — and filed a separate final report against them. The Court found no sustainable ground for such a stay, characterising the demand as an attempt to delay a trial that the High Court had already directed be disposed of on a time-bound basis.

The 2018 Campus Stabbing and the Split Final Report

The prosecution case, as recorded in the judgment, traces the incident to a dispute over wall-writings promoting rival student organisations inside a Government College in Ernakulam. Accused Nos.1 to 16, alleged to be activists of Campus Front, are said to have hatched two interlocking criminal conspiracies: one to unleash violence in the campus to facilitate their organisation's entry into student politics there, and a second, more immediate conspiracy to physically attack activists of the Students' Federation of India (SFI) who were writing on the compound wall of the College.

In pursuit of that second conspiracy, the accused are alleged to have arrived at the campus armed with a knife, punching block, wooden rod, and a sword stick, among other weapons. The first accused is alleged to have identified the victim; the ninth accused caught hold of him; and the tenth accused thrust a knife into the victim's left chest. The victim died at the spot. Several others were injured in the same assault.

The first tranche of the final report, filed on 24 September 2018, arraigned accused Nos.1 to 16 for the conspiracies and the violence of 2 July 2018. The report noted that a separate final report would follow against accused Nos.17 to 26 for allegedly harbouring the principal accused and helping them evade arrest. That second report had not been filed by the time the writ petition came before the High Court in 2026.

Prior Court Directions and the Sessions Court Dismissal

The victim's mother had separately filed O.P.(Crl.) No.920/2024 before the High Court, complaining that the trial was being protracted. After obtaining a report from the Sessions Judge on the time needed for disposal, the High Court directed S.C No.1068/2018 to be disposed of within nine months from the date of receipt of the judgment in that original petition.

Separately, two among the yet-to-be-charge-sheeted accused (Nos.17 to 26 group) had filed W.P.(Crl.) No.498/2025, seeking a direction to the investigating agency to expedite their investigation and file a final report. In that writ petition, the High Court passed a judgment on 5 June 2025 directing the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible.

Against this backdrop, as the Sessions Court was about to frame charges against accused Nos.1 to 16, the first accused filed a petition before the Sessions Court seeking an order to call for the complete final report from the Investigating Officer only after the investigation against the remaining accused was completed. The Sessions Judge dismissed that petition on 15 June 2026. The five petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

What the Petitioners Sought

Before the High Court, the petitioners prayed for four reliefs. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents (the Station House Officer, Ernakulam Central Police Station, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police) to complete the investigation against accused Nos.17 to 26 within a time frame fixed by the Court. They also sought a declaration that continuing the trial against accused Nos.1 to 16 while the investigation against accused Nos.17 to 26 remained incomplete would be violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In addition, they sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Sessions Court order dated 15 June 2026 (Exhibit P7), and a direction dispensing with the filing of translations of vernacular documents.

The petitioners' core argument was that being compelled to face trial on a “piecemeal basis” while investigation against co-accused was ongoing would cause them gross prejudice and violate the principles of fair trial. They further contended that the prosecution might use materials gathered during the investigation against accused Nos.17 to 26 to the detriment of accused Nos.1 to 16.

The Court's Reasoning on Prejudice and the Nature of the Allegations

Justice Girish rejected the prejudice argument by examining the nature of the charges against the two sets of accused. The final report against accused Nos.1 to 16 is confined to the two criminal conspiracies and the physical assault of 2 July 2018. The allegations against accused Nos.17 to 26 are confined solely to harbouring the principal accused and aiding their escape. The Court held that there is a “marked distinction” in the nature of the allegations against the two groups, and that materials collected in the investigation against the harbouring accused could not, by any stretch of imagination, cause prejudice to the trial of the principal accused.

The Court found the argument that the prosecution might use such materials against accused Nos.1 to 16 to be “totally unfounded” given this clear distinction. The charges that accused Nos.1 to 16 are called upon to answer relate entirely to the conspiracies and the violence of 2 July 2018, not to any act of harbouring or abetment of escape.

On the broader demand to keep the trial in abeyance, the Court was direct: it described the petitioners' demand as an attempt to procrastinate the trial in S.C No.1068/2018. Since the High Court had already issued a direction in O.P.(Crl.) No.920/2024 for time-bound disposal of that case, the Sessions Court was bound to comply with that direction. Placing the trial in abeyance pending the investigation against accused Nos.17 to 26 would run contrary to that existing judicial direction and had no sustainable legal basis.

Outcome

The High Court dismissed W.P.(Crl.) No.983/2026 in its entirety. No relief was granted on any of the four prayers. The Sessions Court, Ernakulam remains bound by the earlier direction in O.P.(Crl.) No.920/2024 to dispose of S.C No.1068/2018 on a time-bound basis.