CBI admits witnesses being threatened in ex-minister murder trial

The CBI told the Supreme Court: witnesses are being pressured, one key witness is dead, and false cases are being filed against our own officers. The daughter and wife of a murdered former minister stood before the bench and said they could not get a fair trial in their own state — not because the law was weak, but because the ruling party's shadow fell too long over the courtroom in Kadapa. The handwritten petition, its pages worn from handling, was placed before the judges. The CBI officer's affidavit, detailing each threat, lay beside it. The bench fell silent as the agency admitted the extent of the interference.

Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, a former minister in Andhra Pradesh and uncle of the current Chief Minister Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, was found murdered in his house on the night of 14-15 March 2019. The case that followed would test whether a victim's family could force a trial away from political influence — and whether the Supreme Court would believe the CBI when it admitted its own investigation was being sabotaged.

When the investigation stalled

First, a state Special Investigation Team (SIT — a special police team for serious crimes) took over. Then it was reconstituted. Twice. No arrests that stuck. The investigation crawled to a halt after the Chief Minister's party came to power. The family watched, and waited. The file on the case, initially thin, grew no thicker with progress.

They approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati, which ordered the case transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The CBI moved quickly. It arrested five accused and filed chargesheets. But one suspect — a sitting Member of Parliament from the ruling party — was never arrested. The CBI told the Supreme Court that witnesses were being influenced, one key witness died mysteriously, another was reinstated to his job and stopped cooperating, and false complaints were filed against CBI officers themselves. The CBI's affidavit, signed by a senior officer, stated plainly: "witnesses are being pressured, one key witness is dead, and false cases are being filed against our own officers." The bench absorbed this admission in silence, the only sound the turning of pages.

The fear was reasonable, not imaginary

The deceased's daughter and wife — Suneetha Narreddy and her mother — filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights). They invoked Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Supreme Court's power to transfer a criminal case from one court to another). Their request: move the trial from the CBI Special Court in Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, to Hyderabad or Delhi.

Their argument was simple: the trial in Kadapa, within the Chief Minister's sphere of influence, would not be fair. The CBI substantially corroborated their allegations. The court applied the settled test from two precedents — Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N. (2000) 6 SCC 204 and Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal (2009) 6 SCC 260 — that the apprehension of unfair trial must be reasonable, not imaginary. The court held that "when the investigating agency itself corroborates allegations of witness intimidation, suspicious death of key witness, filing of false complaints against investigating officers, and political interference, the apprehension is reasonable and not imaginary." This verbatim excerpt from the judgment, read aloud in court, settled the matter. The judges did not need to search for a reason to intervene; the CBI had handed it to them.

A third precedent, Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) v. State of T.N. (2005) 8 SCC 771, was also cited. The court examined the procedural journey: the initial SIT investigation from 15 March 2019 that was reconstituted twice with no progress; the High Court petition that secured the transfer to CBI; the CBI investigation that resulted in chargesheets and arrests at the CBI Special Court, Kadapa; and finally the present writ petition under Article 32. The case number — Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169/2022 — was noted on the court's order sheet. The citation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 996, would soon be cited by other families in similar distress.

Why Article 21 gave the family standing

The bench — Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh — held that the family members of a murdered victim have a fundamental right to get justice as victims, and a legitimate expectation that the criminal trial is conducted in a fair and impartial manner, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. This right flows from Article 21 of the Constitution (the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a fair trial). The court's reasoning was clear: the daughter and wife, as victims under criminal law, were not mere spectators. They had invoked Article 32, and the court had the power under Section 406 of the CrPC to transfer the case. The court also cross-referenced Section 407 (the High Court's power to transfer cases) and Sections 164 and 161 of the CrPC (recording of statements and examination of witnesses by police), noting that the integrity of these procedural safeguards was at stake.

The court noted that the CBI had filed a supplementary chargesheet, but further investigation into the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence was still pending. The CBI needed to complete that investigation independently and in an unbiased manner. The court directed the agency to do so at the earliest. The smell of old paper from the case files, the weight of the chargesheets, the silence of the courtroom as the order was dictated — all of it underscored the gravity of the moment.

Balancing witness convenience against fair trial

The court had to balance two competing interests: the imperative of a fair trial, and the convenience of witnesses who would have to travel to testify. A large number of witnesses were to be examined. Transferring the trial to Delhi would have imposed significant hardship on them. Transferring it to Hyderabad — within the same region but outside the state of influence — struck the right balance. The court's ratio decidendi was precise: "While transferring a trial, the court must balance the imperative of fair trial against the convenience of witnesses. Where a large number of witnesses are to be examined, transfer to a proximate location (within the same region but outside the state of influence) is preferable to a distant forum."

The court ordered the trial arising out of RC-04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi to be transferred from the CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad. All relevant papers, including the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, were to be transferred. The operative order was dated 29 November 2022. The CBI was directed to complete further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence at the earliest, independently and in an unbiased manner.

What this means for victims seeking fair trials

This judgment clarifies that the family of a murder victim is not a passive spectator. They have standing to demand a fair trial under Article 21, and the Supreme Court will act when the investigating agency itself confirms that the trial atmosphere is poisoned. The test remains the same — reasonable apprehension, not imaginary fear — but the court will give weight to the CBI's own admissions. The precedent set in Abdul Nazar Madani and Amarinder Singh was applied, not diluted. The court found the apprehension well-founded and ordered the transfer, balancing witness convenience against the imperative of fair trial under Article 21.

THE PLAY: If you are a victim's family member and the investigating agency corroborates your fear of an unfair trial, approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 for transfer — the court will treat the agency's admission as strong evidence that your apprehension is reasonable.

The court ended where it began: with a murdered former minister, a family that refused to look away, and a CBI that told the truth about its own helplessness. The file, now transferred to Hyderabad, carries with it the hope of a trial that is fair — not because the law guarantees it, but because the Supreme Court ensured it.