Supreme Court: The bench of M.R. Shah, and M.M. Sundresh JJ., allowed transfer of the trial pertaining to the mysterious death of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, from Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) Special Court, Andhra Pradesh to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad. He was the brother of Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy (former Chief Minister of the united State of Andhra Pradesh) and uncle of Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, the present Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the opposite leader at the time of the incident in 2019.
Factual Matrix of the case
Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy was brutally murdered in his house in March 2019. The State Government had constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate the murder, however, there was no progress in the investigation, resultant to which the petitioner approached the High Court to get investigation transferred to the CBI. During the course of investigation by CBI, 05 (five) accused were arrested and charge sheeted.
Submission of the Petitioners
It was alleged that one of the key suspects Y.S. Avinash Reddy, who also happens to be the sitting Member of Parliament from the ruling party in Andhra Pradesh and his close associate D. Shiv Shankar Reddy are being shielded from arrest by the influential people in the State and State Authorities.
A successful attempt to stall the investigation was made by lodging a fallacious complaint against the CBI Officers who were constrained to approach the High Court. The investigation of the matter has not been able to reinstitute since then.
It was further contended that the key witnesses and 02 (two) accused in the case, fear for their life as one of the key witnesses died in a suspicious manner. Some of the witnesses have been provided special security by the Sessions Court as there is reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, resultantly not being able to have a fair and independent trial. Few witnesses have also been subdued and pressured into not giving statement under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
Submission of the Respondents
While opposing the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it was contended that there is no real-life threat to the accused and witnesses and the transfer of the trial will have a direct bearing on the right of defence of the accused.
It was further submitted that there are more than 250 witnesses yet to be examined, therefore the transfer of the trial to another State will cause undue hardship to them.
Issue
Whether the apprehension of the Petitioner of not getting a fair and impartial trial and inquiry is reasonable or not?
Court Analysis
The Court referred to Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 6 SCC 204 wherein it was held that any party can seek transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 CrPC and anywhere in the country under Section 406 CrPC where it feels that holding a fair and proper trial would be conducive. Further, the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises.
The Court went onto emphasise on the Principles of Administration of Justice stating that Justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done and free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court observed,
“The petitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamental 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.”
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was of the view that the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial trial and inquiry was reasonable and not based on conjectures and surmises so far as further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence is concerned. Therefore, opined that the present case be transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad
[Suneetha Narreddy v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1637, decided on 29-11-2022]
*Judgment by: Justice M.R. Shah
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate and Jesal Wahi, Advocate, for the Petitioner;
Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate and Guru Krishnakumar, Senior Advocate, for the Respondent.