The Supreme Court on August 12 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over and conduct further investigation into the daylight killing of Telangana lawyers Gattu Vaman Rao and PV Nagamani [Gattu Kishan Rao v. The State of Telangana].

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh observed that the matter warranted renewed scrutiny despite a chargesheet already having been filed.

The Court was hearing a petition by the father of one of the deceased, who alleged that the local police had conducted a biased and incomplete probe. The case stems from the February 17, 2021 murder of the husband-wife lawyer duo in Peddapalli district, as they were returning from Manthani Court. The petition asserted that the killings were linked to the couple’s history of public interest litigation petitions targeting political corruption, custodial deaths and police harassment

Central to the plea was a widely circulated video recording of Vaman Rao’s purported dying declaration, in which he allegedly named persons not included among the accused. The petitioner alleged that this key evidence was ignored in the original investigation. The Telangana High Court had earlier refused to order reinvestigation, noting that the police had already filed a chargesheet.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, told the Supreme Court that the omission of names from the dying declaration undermined the credibility of the probe.

The Court then exercised its suo motu powers to implead the accused as parties to the proceedings.

During an earlier hearing, the Court had directed the State to verify the authenticity of the video. A forensic report from the Telangana Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed it to be genuine. This finding prompted the Bench to examine whether the filing of a chargesheet barred a transfer of investigation.

It concluded that the circumstances justified further probe in the interest of justice. It directed the CBI to take over the case and file a final report.

While protecting the current accused from coercive action, the Court clarified that the agency would be free to arrest any other individuals found to be involved in the crime.