Transfer of Criminal Trial – Fair and Independent Trial – Petition pertaining to the mysterious death of uncle of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh – Writ petition filed by the daughter and the wife of the deceased seeking transfer of trial and direction to the CBI for duly completing the investigation in time bound manner – Apprehension of petitioners that star witnesses/witnesses were having life threat perceptions and that some of the witnesses were already influenced and that justice will not be done and/or there shall not be a fair trial – Held: Justice is not only to be done but the justice is seen to have been done also – Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Art.21 of the Constitution – CBI/investigating agency stopped further investigation due to apprehension of harassment and filing of frivolous/false complaint – There was a reasonable apprehension that there shall not be any fair investigation so far as the further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence was concerned – One of the key witnesses initially volunteered to give his statement, thereafter he did not turn up to get his statement recorded and thereafter he died under mysterious circumstance – Petitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamental right to get justice as victim – 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 – Trial ordered to be transferred to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad – Constitution of India – Arts. 21 and 32. Allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. From the facts, it emerges that one of the key witnesses 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 died under mysterious circumstances. Considering these 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 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, This Court is 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. [Paras 12 and 13][754-E-H; 755-A]
2. As per the settled position of law, justice is not only 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, This Court is of the opinion that instead of transferring the trial to New Delhi, it may be transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad. The trial 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. [Paras
14 and 15][755-B-E]
Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal (2009) 6 SCC
260 : [2009] 9 SCR 194 – followed.
Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N. (2000) 6 SCC 204 : [2000] 3 SCR 1028; Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of T.N. (2005) 8 SCC 771 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 556- referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.