1. Writ petition under Article 32 seeking transfer of murder trial and investigation to another state due to alleged witness tampering and state interference. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1213
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Suneetha Narreddy and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2022
Decided On : 29-11-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of Constitution. If criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking confidence of public in the system.
Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of Constitution. If criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking confidence of public in the system.
Subject
Transfer of Trial - Transfer of Trial Due to Apprehension of Bias
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 406 – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 32 – Transfer of murder case – Petition seeking transfer of trial from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to CBI Special Court, Hyderabad or CBI Special Court, New Delhi – For transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done – Court has to see whether apprehension alleged is reasonable or not – Apprehension must not only be imaginary, but must appear to court to be a reasonable apprehension – It is apprehended on behalf of petitioners that star witnesses/witnesses are having life threat perceptions and that some of witnesses are already influenced – It is apprehended that there is every likelihood that there may not be a fair and impartial trial and even further investigation on issue of larger conspiracy for murder and destruction of evidence at scene of crime because of influence on part of accused and State machinery – Right to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation that criminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner and uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations – Under the circumstances, this is a fit case to transfer trial and further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence to State other than State of Andhra Pradesh – Looking to large number of witnesses to be examined during trial and no hardship is caused to those witnesses, instead of transferring trial to New Delhi, it may be transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad. (Paras 6, 8, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the daughter and the wife of the deceased-Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, seeking transfer of trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad or CBI Special Court, New Delhi, and also to direct the CBI for duly completing investigation in the aforesaid FIR in a time bound manner.
Findings of Court:
Trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC- III/New Delhi from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh is hereby ordered to be transferred to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad. All the relevant papers including charge-sheet/supplementary Charge-sheet are now to be transferred to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad. The CBI is also directed to complete further investigation/investigation in the aforesaid FIR on the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence, as observed by the High Court earlier, at the earliest.
Result : Writ Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Jesal Wahi, AOR Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M Nataraj, ASG Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv Mr. K.V.Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Mr. R. Krishnaamorthi, Adv. Mr. Mohit Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Gosoami, Adv. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR Mr. Nepal Singh, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Venkatesh Rajput, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Rohit Rao. N., Adv. Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv. Ms. Ekta Pradhan, Adv. Ms. Anushka Singh, Adv. M/S. Veritas Legis, AOR Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, AOR Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Jesal Wahi, AOR Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M Nataraj, ASG Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv Mr. K.V.Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Mr. R. Krishnaamorthi, Adv. Mr. Mohit Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Gosoami, Adv. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR Mr. Nepal Singh, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Venkatesh Rajput, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Rohit Rao. N., Adv. Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv. Ms. Ekta Pradhan, Adv. Ms. Anushka Singh, Adv. M/S. Veritas Legis, AOR Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, AOR Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege state influence and witness threats preventing fair trial; respondents contend threats are imaginary and transfer would cause undue hardship to witnesses and accused. (Para 6 )
3. Court found reasonable apprehension of unfair trial based on suspicious witness death, witness intimidation, and harassment of investigating officers by state machinery. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Transfer of criminal trial is permissible where there is a reasonable, non-imaginary apprehension that a fair and impartial trial is not possible. (Para 7 , 8 , 14 )
5. Trial transferred to CBI Special Court, Hyderabad, with directions to the investigating agency to complete the investigation into the larger conspiracy independently. (Para 15 )
6. What is the legal standard for transferring a criminal trial to another court?
A transfer is permissible when there is a reasonable, not imaginary, apprehension that a fair and impartial trial cannot be conducted. The court must ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. How does the right to a fair trial relate to the Constitution of India?
A free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If a trial is biased or unfair, it undermines judicial fairness and shakes public confidence in the criminal justice system. (Para 14 )
8. What factors may constitute a reasonable apprehension of an unfair trial?
Reasonable apprehension may arise from evidence of witness intimidation, suspicious deaths of key witnesses, and the use of state machinery to harass investigating officers through false complaints to stall proceedings. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the daughter and the wife of the deceased - Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, seeking transfer of trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad or CBI Special Court, New Delhi and also to direct the CBI for duly completing the investigation in the aforesaid FIR in a time bound manner.
2. Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the incident pertains to the mysterious death of late Shri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, the brother of late Shri Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy (former Chief Minister of the united State of Andhra Pradesh) and uncle of Shri Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the opposite leader at the time of the incident.
2.1 It is submitted that the deceased was brutally murdered on the intervening night of 14-15/03.2019 in his house. It is submitted that the then State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT). However, subsequently, petitioner No. 2 and Shri Y. Jaganmohan Reddy filed petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for transfer of investigation to the CBI. It is submitted that thereafter the elections to the State Assembly were held on 11.04.2019 and Shri Y. Jaganmohan Reddy became the Chief Minister and took oath on 30.05.2019. Thereafter, the SIT was re-constituted twice, but there was no progress in the investigation and therefore petitioner No. 1 was constrained to approach the High Court to transfer the investigation to the CBI. However, Shri Y. Jaganmohan Reddy withdrew his petition for transferring the investigation to the CBI and the State also opposed such transfer. However, the High Court was pleased to transfer the investigation to the CBI.
2.2 It is submitted that thereafter and after the CBI took over the investigation, there was substantial progress and in the course of time, five accused have been arrested and the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet have been filed. It is submitted that however, though in the charge-sheet, the role of one Y.S. Avinash Reddy, who is a sitting Member of Parliament from the ruling party in Andhra Pradesh came to light and he was mentioned as a suspect and he played a key role in the destruction of the evidence and spreading false news that the deceased died due to heart attack, the said Y.S. Avinash Reddy has not yet been arrested and the State authorities and the influential people in the State are using all kinds of tactics to scuttle the investigation with the aim to shield the said Y.S. Avinash Reddy and his close associate D. Shiv Shankar Reddy (A5). It is submitted that not only that, a false complaint came to be filed against the officers of the CBI and the CBI officers were constrained to approach the High Court against the said complaint and the High Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings. It is submitted that however the investigation has been stalled due to the pendency of the complaint and the CBI officers leaving Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that thereafter the CBI officers have not resumed investigation anticipating more false complaints at the behest of the accused and interference by the State authorities if they resume investigation by travelling to Andhra Pradesh.
2.3 It is submitted that the people involved in the crime, with the aid and active participation of the State authorities and influential people in the State are making conscious efforts to scuttle the investigation and protect the culprits by influencing the witnesses, the investigation, and the judicial process.
2.4 It is submitted that the lives of the key witnesses and accused, specially one Shaik Dastagiri (A4) and one Ranganna (PW-61) are in danger. It is submitted that one of the key witnesses has died in a suspicious manner.
2.5 It is submitted th
