The division judge bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice M.M. Shah of the apex court in the case of Suneetha Narredy & Another Vs The Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors held that it is 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.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the present writ petition is filed by the daughter and the wife of the deceased under Article 32 of the constitution of India. In order to direct the CBI for duly completing the investigation in the FIR in a time bound manner.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the deceased was brutally murdered and thereafter, the special investigation team was constituted. However, subsequently the petition was filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for transfer of investigation to the CBI. It was also submitted that when Shri Y. Jaganmohan Reddy became the Chief Minister and took oath. 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. It was also submitted that 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. The CBI officers were forced to go before the High Court to contest the bogus charge that had been filed against them, and the High Court was happy to halt all further proceedings, it is said. In addition, it is claimed that a fraudulent complaint was filed against the CBI officers. However, it is asserted that the inquiry has slowed down because the complaint is still pending and the CBI agents have left Andhra Pradesh. It is argued that since then, the CBI officers have not resumed their investigation because they fear receiving additional false complaints at the instigation of the accused and interference from the State authorities if they do. It was also submitted that the perpetrators of the crime are making deliberate efforts to thwart the investigation and protect themselves by influencing the witnesses, the investigation, and the legal system with the assistance and active participation of State authorities and influential people in the State.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that in light of the observations of the high court, 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. 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. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgement titled Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal and submitted that the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry/trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court relied upon the judgments titled Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N, and Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of T.N. It was held that 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, the 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. Further, 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.
CASE NAME- Suneetha Narredy & Another Vs The Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors
CITATION- WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) NO.169/2022
CORUM- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice M.M. Shah
DATE- 29.11.22
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments