Transfer of Trial: Supreme Court Orders Transfer of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy Murder Case to Hyderabad CBI Court (29 November 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2022
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a criminal trial be transferred to ensure a fair and impartial process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case concerning the murder of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy. The court ordered the transfer of the trial from Kadapa to Hyderabad, acknowledging the petitioners’ apprehensions about potential bias and witness intimidation. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, brother of the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, and uncle of the current Chief Minister, Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy. The incident occurred on the night of March 14-15, 2019, at his residence. Initially, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed by the State Government. However, the petitioners, including the daughter and wife of the deceased, along with Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, then in opposition, filed petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking a transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Following the State Assembly elections on April 11, 2019, Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy became the Chief Minister on May 30, 2019. Subsequently, the SIT was reconstituted twice with no progress in the investigation. This led the petitioners to approach the High Court again for a transfer to the CBI. However, Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy withdrew his petition, and the State also opposed the transfer. Despite this, the High Court transferred the investigation to the CBI.

After the CBI took over, there was progress, with five accused being arrested and chargesheets filed. However, the petitioners alleged that Y.S. Avinash Reddy, a Member of Parliament from the ruling party, who was named as a suspect for destruction of evidence, was not arrested. They also claimed that state authorities were attempting to shield him and his associate. Furthermore, a false complaint was filed against CBI officers, which stalled the investigation. The petitioners argued that witnesses were being threatened, and a fair trial was not possible in Kadapa.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the State Government formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the murder. Dissatisfied with the lack of progress, the petitioners and Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy filed petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking a transfer of the investigation to the CBI. Although Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy later withdrew his petition and the State opposed the transfer, the High Court ordered the transfer to the CBI.

The CBI took over the investigation, filed chargesheets and supplementary chargesheets. However, the High Court also directed further investigation into the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence. During this further investigation, a false complaint was filed against the CBI officers, which led to a stay order from the High Court. The CBI officers, fearing further harassment, halted the investigation.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which deals with the recording of confessions and statements. The court also considers Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and the concept of a fair trial as a necessary component of this right.

The judgment also refers to Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which deals with the power of the High Court to transfer cases and Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which deals with the power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases.

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, is also mentioned, under which protection was granted to some witnesses in the case.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the trial should be transferred due to threats to witnesses, potential influence by state authorities, and the risk of an unfair trial in Kadapa. They contended that key witnesses were under threat, with one witness dying under suspicious circumstances and another refusing to give a statement after initially agreeing. They also highlighted the false complaint against CBI officers, which stalled the investigation.

The CBI supported the petitioners’ claims, acknowledging the influence on witnesses and the threats to CBI officers. They submitted that several witnesses were being influenced by the accused and his associates. The CBI also confirmed that two star witnesses were under police protection due to life threats.

The respondents, including the State of Andhra Pradesh, opposed the transfer. They argued that the apprehension of an unfair trial was not reasonable and that no real threat to the witnesses or the accused had been established. They also submitted that transferring the trial would cause hardship to the numerous witnesses and prejudice the accused. The respondents also pointed out that some witnesses had already been granted protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

The innovativeness in the argument by the petitioners was that they were able to successfully highlight the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of a key witness and the subsequent reluctance of another witness to provide a statement, which bolstered their claim of a hostile environment for a fair trial.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the apprehension of the petitioners that there may not be a fair trial and that there may not be any independent and fair investigation with respect to further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence at the scene of incident is imaginary and/or has no substance at all.
2. Whether the trial should be transferred to ensure a fair and impartial process.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the transfer of the trial from the CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad. The court also directed the CBI to complete the further investigation into the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence in an independent and unbiased manner.

The Court viewed the authorities as follows:

• Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N., (2000) 6 SCC 204: The Court followed the principle that the purpose of a criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice and that the apprehension of not getting a fair trial should be reasonable.
• Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of T.N., (2005) 8 SCC 771: The Court followed the principle that the apprehension of not getting a fair trial should be reasonable and not imaginary.
• Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal, (2009) 6 SCC 260: The Court followed the principle that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done and that the apprehension must be reasonable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the trial was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The court acknowledged the real and present danger to witnesses, as evidenced by the suspicious death of one witness and the reluctance of another to testify.
• The court considered the fact that the CBI officers were facing threats and harassment, which could impede a fair investigation.
• The court recognized the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system and ensuring a fair trial, which it believed was not possible in the current circumstances at Kadapa.
• The court emphasized that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done, which necessitated the transfer of the trial to a more neutral venue.

The sentiment analysis indicates that the court was most heavily influenced by the need for a fair trial and the threats to witnesses, while the fact-law ratio shows that the court gave slightly more weight to the factual circumstances of the case than to legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the circumstances warranted a transfer to ensure a fair trial. The Court considered that the witnesses were under threat, the CBI officers were under pressure, and there was a need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

The Court also considered alternative interpretations. One alternative was to not transfer the case and allow the trial to continue in Kadapa. However, the Court rejected this alternative because it would not have ensured a fair trial. The Court also considered transferring the trial to New Delhi, but decided against it due to the large number of witnesses, opting instead for Hyderabad.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. The Court also considered the right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

The decision was reached by considering the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and the relevant legal principles.

The court stated, “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.”

The court also noted, “As per the settled position of law, justice is not to be done but the justice is seen to have been done also.”

Additionally, the court observed, “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.”

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the need to transfer the trial. There were no dissenting opinions.

The implications for future cases are that the Supreme Court has set a precedent for transferring trials when there is a reasonable apprehension of an unfair trial due to witness intimidation or influence by state authorities.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it reaffirmed the existing principles of fair trial and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The trial in the Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy murder case has been transferred from Kadapa to Hyderabad.
• ✓ The CBI has been directed to complete the further investigation in an independent and unbiased manner.
• ✓ The judgment underscores the importance of a fair and impartial trial, free from external influences.
• ✓ The case highlights the Supreme Court’s willingness to transfer trials to ensure justice is not only done but also seen to be done.
• ✓ This decision sets a precedent for transferring cases where there is a reasonable apprehension of witness intimidation or influence by state authorities.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh is transferred to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad.
• All relevant papers, including chargesheets and supplementary chargesheets, are to be transferred to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad.
• The CBI is directed to complete the further investigation on the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence independently and in an unbiased manner.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a criminal trial can be transferred to another location if there is a reasonable apprehension that a fair trial is not possible at the original location due to threats to witnesses, influence by state authorities, or other factors that could compromise the integrity of the judicial process. The Supreme Court reiterated that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces the existing principles of fair trial and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the trial in the Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy murder case from Kadapa to Hyderabad reflects its commitment to ensuring a fair and impartial trial. The court acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns about witness intimidation and potential influence by state authorities, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. The transfer of the trial and the direction to the CBI to complete the further investigation independently and in an unbiased manner are crucial steps towards upholding the integrity of the judicial process.