New Delhi: Alleged harassment of CBI officers, intimidated key witnesses, refusal to record statement of one and mysterious death of another – these are some of the main reasons why the Supreme Court on Tuesday transferred the probe into the death of a former Andhra Pradesh (united) minister. Kar di YS Vivekananda Reddy Telangana
Justice MR Shah-led bench, which ordered the transfer, said, “As per the established position of law, justice should not be done, but it is seen that justice has been done.”
The bench specifically noted present Andhra Chief Minister Y. Jaganmohan Reddy, who after coming to power opposed the CBI probe into the alleged murder of his uncle.
The court took note that before becoming the chief minister in May 2019, Jaganmohan Reddy himself had filed a petition before the state high court seeking a CBI probe.
But he withdrew this petition when he became Chief Minister and instead, opposed his cousin’s petition in the High Court, seeking a probe by a central agency.
Jagan’s cousin and daughter of Vivekananda Reddy had approached the High Court with a request to transfer the probe into her father’s death to the CBI. He did this after the Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the state did not make any progress in the investigation.
Despite protests from the state government, the High Court directed the CBI to take over the investigation into the murder.
Following the order, the CBI registered two cases, including one probing the larger conspiracy behind the murder.
While the agency made arrests in the murder case, it could not proceed further in the “larger conspiracy” case due to alleged harassment of its officers. An FIR was lodged by the local police against the CBI, which was later stayed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Following these incidents, the wife and daughter of the deceased minister again approached the High Court with a request that the trial be transferred outside Andhra Pradesh.
It will be in the interest of justice, he said. He sought transfer from the CBI Court in Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad or New Delhi.
The High Court, however, rejected his plea on the ground that the CBI was still probing the “larger conspiracy” angle.
After this both of them moved the apex court.
Family says no free and fair trial in Andhra Pradesh
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the family, pointed to several incidents which raised questions about the integrity of the investigation in Andhra Pradesh.
Luthra submitted that even though the “involvement” of MP YS Avinash Reddy was established, he was not arrested.
The petitioners argued that Reddy played a key role in destroying evidence as well as spreading fake news. He was identified as a suspect. Luthra told the top court, “The state and other influential people are trying to influence the investigation.”
The senior advocate also referred to a frivolous complaint filed against the CBI officials for sabotaging the investigation.
The petitioners also argued that several witnesses and the accused were constantly threatened, and that a key witness had died under unclear circumstances.
Luthra established a “reasonable apprehension” that a trial in Andhra Pradesh would not be fair or free.
Center accepts, states oppose
Additional Solicitor General of India KM Nataraj, who appeared for the CBI, said that the incidents indicated that the witnesses were being influenced and harassed.
Nataraj said that the two star witnesses were already under police protection and – given the false FIRs against CBI officers – it was unlikely that an investigation in Andhra Pradesh would be free and fair.
Senior advocate S.K., appearing for Andhra Pradesh. Niranjan Reddy strongly opposed the transfer petition.
Reddy said there was no threat to the lives of the accused or the witnesses. He said that in the last three years no one approached the legal authorities citing threat to their lives.
He relied on several Supreme Court rulings, which held that the apprehension of not getting a fair trial was not sufficient reason for a transfer, and that it must be “reasonable and not fanciful”.
Andhra Pradesh said the trial should not be shifted to avoid the “difficulty” of 250 witnesses in the case.
However, the apex court overruled the state and transferred the case to the CBI court in Hyderabad.
Justice should not only be done, it should also be seen to be done
In its order allowing the transfer, the top court referred to the threats received by two key witnesses, who were provided police protection on the orders of the trial court. This was apart from the CBI officers allegedly facing harassment at the hands of the local police.
Justice Shah’s bench further noted that a witness, who was required to record his statement under Section 164 before the Magistrate, did not appear.
This witness had expressed willingness to record the statement but later claimed before the media that he was being pressurized by the CBI to record the statement. Sakshi later died under mysterious circumstances.
The court learned that another witness had refused to record his statement as he had been re-appointed by the government. It appears that he voluntarily testified because he was under suspension.
In such circumstances, the court said, a free and fair trial would not be possible.
The bench said, “The petitioners being the daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamental right to justice as victims and have a legitimate expectation that the criminal trial is conducted in a fair and impartial manner and is not influenced by any extraneous considerations “
To ensure that witnesses face less harassment, the case was transferred to neighboring Telangana instead of New Delhi.
Read also: Piece of paper has more value than person in ‘flesh and blood’: High Court asks CBSE to set record