Fresh scrutiny as court questions gaps in CBI probe into Vivekananda Reddy case
The Telangana High Court directed the CBI to file its counter on a petition seeking further investigation into the Vivekananda Reddy murder case, citing alleged lapses, unexamined conspiracy angles, and concerns over fairness of the probe.
Hyderabad: Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court on Monday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file its counter in a criminal petition raising serious concerns over the manner in which the investigation into the murder of former minister Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy has been conducted.
The matter has been posted to April 27. The petition, filed by Suneetha Narreddy, daughter of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, seeks comprehensive further investigation into what is alleged to be an incomplete and selective probe, particularly on aspects relating to a larger conspiracy, destruction of evidence and financial links.
Counsel for the petitioner, S. Goutham, submitted that despite multiple charge sheets, crucial angles remain unexamined, resulting in what was described as a fragmented and inconclusive investigation. It was argued that the right to a fair investigation, flowing from Article 21, cannot be compromised by a hurried or piecemeal probe.
A central plank of the petitioner’s case relates to the issue of prior knowledge of the death. It was pointed out that certain individuals, including former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, were allegedly informed about the death in the early hours of March 15, 2019, even before the news broke out. It was also contended that this unexplained early intimation constitutes a vital link in a case based on circumstantial evidence and ought to have been thoroughly investigated.
The petitioner further alleged that the investigation failed to properly examine the money trail involving unaccounted cash and jewellery allegedly linked to certain accused persons, as well as the non-recovery of the weapon used in the offence. It was also contended that several individuals named in the material on record were neither fully investigated nor arrayed as accused, despite indications of their involvement in destruction of evidence and post-occurrence events.
Serious lapses in the initial handling of the crime scene were also highlighted. The petition refers to departmental findings against J.Shankariah who was the first investigating officer for alleged misconduct, including failure to preserve the scene of offence, delay in registering the correct offence and possible suppression of material evidence at the inception of the case.
Another significant aspect raised was the alleged existence of a coordinated effort by the Accused to influence witnesses and manipulate the course of investigation. The petitioner relied on RTI responses and official communications to contend that multiple officers were involved in actions that could amount to obstruction of justice, warranting a deeper probe by the CBI.
It was also submitted that the scope of further investigation ordered earlier by the trial court was unduly restricted to a narrow issue relating to exchange of messages, leaving out broader questions concerning conspiracy, financial transactions and destruction of evidence. Appearing for the CBI, standing counsel Srinivas Kapatia sought time to place a detailed counter on record.
The court granted two weeks’ time for the same. Taking note of the submissions, the Court adjourned the matter to April 27 for further hearing.
