Suneetha Narreddy vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) NO.169/2022

Suneetha Narreddy & Another …Petitioners

Versus

The Central Bureau of Investigation and Others …Respondents

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva

Court, New Delhi, and also to direct the CBI for duly completing the Date: 2022.11.29 17:18:12 IST Reason:

investigation in the aforesaid FIR in a time bound manner.

1

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

2 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 chargesheet and the

supplementary chargesheet have been filed. It is submitted that

however, though in the chargesheet, 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

3 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 (PW61) are in

danger. It is submitted that one of the key witnesses has died in a

suspicious manner.

2.5 It is submitted that one of the witnesses who initially agreed to give

his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been subsequently scared

and he has been taken back on duty and thereafter he has refused to

give his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that

therefore all pressure tactics are being adopted not to further investigate.

It is submitted that as the witnesses are under threat, the petitioners are

apprehending that they may not get justice and therefore it is prayed to

transfer the trial either to New Delhi or Hyderabad.

4 2.6 It is further submitted that even some witnesses are provided with

special security considering life threat perception to them. It is submitted

that therefore the petitioners have reasonable apprehension that there

shall not be any fair and independent trial if the same is continued at CBI

Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.

3. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has

appeared on behalf of the respondent -CBI. A counter affidavit has been

filed on behalf of the CBI.

3.1 It is submitted that in light of the observations made by the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati, further investigation of the case is

still continuing on the issue of larger conspiracy for murder and

destruction of evidence at the scene of crime.

3.2 Now so far as the allegation of the applicants on

influence/inducement/threat to the witnesses and the false and frivolous

complaints against the officers of the CBI/investigating agency is

concerned, it is submitted that the events unfolded during the course of

investigation do indicate that several witnesses in the case are being

influenced at the behest of the accused D. Siva Shankar Reddy (A5) and

his close associates. It is reported that three star witnesses are already

suspected to have come under the influence of A5 and other

conspirators.

5 3.3 It is submitted that in the course of investigation, one K.

Gangadhar Reddy, a criminal and a close associate of the accused D.

Siva Shankar Reddy (A5) himself had approached CBI and thereafter his

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It is submitted that

he volunteered to give the statement to the learned Magistrate.

Therefore, the investigating officer of CBI, to get his statement recorded

before the learned Court, filed an application and vide order dated

27.11.2021 the learned Court nominated the learned Judicial Magistrate

(First Class), Jamalamudugu to record the statement of K. Gangadhar

Reddy under section 164 Cr.P.C. However, on 29.11.2021, the said K.

Gangadhar Reddy did not attend the court of JMFC, Jamalamudugu to

give his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that on the

contrary he gave a statement before the media that he is being

pressurised by the CBI to give statement. It is submitted that thereafter

the said K. Gangadhar Reddy had died under suspicious circumstances

on 9.6.2022 in his house. It is submitted that one another witness,

namely, J. Shankaraiah was suspended for dereliction of duty in

connection with the incident and whose statement was earlier recorded

under section 161 Cr.P.C. was to appear for recording his statement

under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however, he has been warned over and

initially he did not appear for recording his statement pursuant to the

order dated 30.09.2021. However, thereafter his suspension came to be

6 revoked on 6.10.2021 and he was reinstated in service and therefore

thereafter he is not appearing for recording his statement under section

164 Cr.P.C.

3.4 It is submitted that two star witnesses are already under the police

protection, considering the life threat perception to them. Therefore, it is

submitted that there are all possibilities of influencing the witnesses

and/or tampering with the evidence and there shall not be a fair further

investigation on the larger conspiracy as the officers of the

CBI/investigating agency are also pressurised and given threats and

even false FIR is filed against them.

4. Shri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on

behalf of the State and has opposed the present petition. We have heard

Shri Kapil Sibbal and Shri Guru Krishnakumar, learned Senior

Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective

respondents/impleaders, who are opposing the present writ petition.

The present petition is also opposed by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent No.4. A counter affidavit is also filed on behalf

of respondent No.4.

4.1 While opposing the present petition, learned senior

counsel/counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/impleaders

7 have vehemently submitted that the present petition for the reliefs sought

may not be entertained.

4.2 It is submitted that the primary contentions of the petitioners are in

relation to witnesses being influenced and threat to lives of accused

No.4 – the approver and other witnesses. It is submitted that no real

threat perception to either the life of the accused or to the witnesses has

been established by the petitioners. It is submitted that more than three

years have passed since the murder of the deceased has happened, but

none of the witnesses or accused has approached the police, CBI or

Courts and alleged any threat to life.

4.3 It is submitted that in fact to witnesses, namely, Shaik Dastagiri

and Ranganna have already been granted protection by the Sessions

Court under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

4.4 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Amarinder

Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal, (2009) 6 SCC 260, it is submitted that

as observed and held by this Court, the apprehension of not getting a

fair and impartial enquiry/trial is required to be reasonable and not

imaginary.

4.5 It is submitted that relief of transfer of trial sought in the present

petition has a direct bearing on the right of defence of the accused.

8 4.6 It is further submitted that in the present case the

chargesheet/supplementary chargesheet have been filed. It is submitted

that there are more than 250 witnesses to be examined and therefore if

the trial is transferred to Delhi and/or outside the State of Andhra

Pradesh, it may not only cause undue hardship to those witnesses but in

fact may also prejudice the accused and therefore there may not be

chances of a fair trial.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

The present petition pertains to the mysterious death of late Y.S.

Vivekananda Reddy, the brother of late 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. The present petitioner

No.1 Dr. Suneetha Narreddy is the daughter of the deceased. She is a

Doctor by profession. The present petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the daughter and wife of the

deceased, 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

9 to direct the CBI for duly completing the investigation in the aforesaid

FIR in a time bound manner.

6. It is apprehended on behalf of the petitioners that star

witnesses/witnesses are having life threat perceptions and that some of

the witnesses are already influenced. Therefore, it is apprehended that

there is every likelihood that there may not be a fair and impartial trial

and even further investigation on the issue of larger conspiracy for

murder and destruction of evidence at the scene of crime because of the

influence on the part of the accused and the State machinery.

7. In the case of Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N., (2000) 6

SCC 204, in paragraph 7, it is observed and held as under:

“7. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 CrPC. 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. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition …..”

7.1 Similar view has been expressed in the case of Jayendra

Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of T.N., (2005) 8 SCC 771. 10

8. It is true that as per the settled position of law and even as

observed and held by this Court in the case of Amarinder Singh

(supra) 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. It is also observed in the said decision that it is one of the

principles of administration of justice that justice should not only be done

but it should be seen to be done. As observed by this Court in the

aforesaid decision, however, the Court has to see whether the

apprehension alleged is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not

only be imaginary, but must appear to the court to be a reasonable

apprehension.

9. Now let us consider whether the apprehension that justice will not

be done and/or there shall not be a fair trial, is reasonable or not.

The deceased was murdered on 14-15/03/2019 in his house. The

then State Government constituted a SIT. Subsequently, petitioner No.2

and Y. Jaganmohan Reddy (the present Chief Minister) filed petitions

before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for transfer of investigation to

CBI. That thereafter the allegations to the State Assembly were held on

11.04.2019 and the said 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

11 therefore petitioner No.2 was constrained to approach the High Court for

transfer of investigation to CBI. However, in view of the changed

circumstances, Y. Jaganmohan Reddy withdrew his petition to transfer

the investigation to CBI and the State opposed such transfer. However,

the High Court was pleased to transfer the investigation to the CBI and

that is how the CBI took over the investigation. During the course of

investigation, the CBI filed chargesheet/supplementary chargesheet.

However, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, further

investigation by the CBI on the issue of larger conspiracy of murder and

destruction of evidence at the scheme of crime is still continuing. During

the course of further investigation on the larger conspiracy, an FIR

against the officers of the CBI is filed which has been stayed by the High

Court. It appears that therefore apprehending harassment and filing

false/frivolous complaints, the CBI/investigating agency stopped further

investigation. Therefore, there is a reasonable apprehension that there

shall not be any fair investigation so far as the further investigation on

larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence is concerned.

10. Even two key witnesses, namely, Shaik Dastagiri and Ranganna

are already given the police protection under the Witnesses Protection

Scheme, 2018, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Sessions

Court, considering the life threat perception. Even in the response to the

12 present petition, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has

also produced the orders passed by the competent authority granting

police protection to two witnesses.

11. As observed hereinabove, one of the witnesses who was to record

his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not appeared for recording

of his statement, though initially he volunteered to given the statement

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The reason seems to be that thereafter his

suspension order has been revoked and he has been taken back on

duty.

12. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it emerges that one of the

key witnesses, namely, K. Gangadhar Reddy, though initially he

volunteered to give his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the CBI

submitted an application to record his statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C., thereafter he did not turn up to get his statement recorded and

on the contrary he made a statement before the media that he was

being pressurised by the CBI. That thereafter he has died under

mysterious circumstances.

13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be

said that apprehension on the part of the petitioners being daughter and

wife of the deceased that there may not be a fair trial and that there may

not be any independent and fair investigation with respect to further

13 investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence at the

scene of incident is imaginary and/or has no substance at all. 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. Under the

circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to transfer the

trial and further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of

evidence to the State other than the State of Andhra Pradesh.

14. As per the settled position of law, justice is not to be done but the

justice is seen to have been done also. As per the settled position of

law, free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If

the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness

and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the

confidence of the public in the system. However, at the same time,

looking to the large number of witnesses to be examined during the trial

and no hardship is caused to those witnesses, we are of the opinion that

instead of transferring the trial to New Delhi, it may be transferred to CBI

Special Court at Hyderabad.

15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present

writ petition is allowed. The trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-

14 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 chargesheet/supplementary

chargesheet are now to be transferred to the CBI Special Court,

Hyderabad. The CBI is also directed to complete the 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 and it goes without saying that it must be done

independently and in an unbiased manner.

……………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; …………………………………….J. NOVEMBER 29, 2022. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

15