Telangana High Court
K.Narsimha Rao , Babulu vs The State Of Telangana on 17 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.8991 OF 2016
DATE: 17.04.2026
Between :
K Narsimha Rao @ Babulu
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 13 others.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
“…To issue any writ order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the
investigation being made by the respondents 2 to 5
th
herein in Crime No 234/2015 on the file of the 4
respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and
for a consequential direction to the respondents herein
to entrust the investigation in crime No 234/2015 to the
C.B.C.I.D……”
2
2.1. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that, the petitioner is the
father of the deceased, Lakshmi Sai, aged about 21 years, who was a
final-year B.Tech student residing in the hostel of the 6th respondent
college. It is the petitioner’s case that on 10.09.2019, he received
information from a lecturer that his son had allegedly committed
suicide. The petitioner alleges that there was an inordinate and
unexplained delay in communicating such vital information. Further, no
intimation was given to the petitioner’s daughter, who was studying in
the same institution.
2.2. Aggrieved by the circumstances, the petitioner lodged a
complaint, which was registered as FIR No. 234 of 2015. During the
course of investigation, a purported suicide note was produced.
However, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report
dated 09.12.2015 conclusively opined that the handwriting in the said
note did not belong to the deceased. Although the postmortem report
indicated that the death was due to hanging, the petitioner contends
that the same gives rise to serious contradictions when read in light of
the forensic findings and surrounding circumstances.
2.3. The petitioner further highlights several suspicious aspects,
including discrepancies in attendance records, delay in reporting the
incident, inconsistencies in postmortem findings, presence of injuries
3
inconsistent with suicidal hanging, and the physical improbability of the
alleged manner of hanging. It is specifically alleged that respondent
Nos. 8 to 14 were involved in the incident due to prior disputes.
According to the petitioner, the investigation conducted by the local
police is unfair, biased, lacking in transparency, and has resulted in a
complete loss of confidence.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
investigation is arbitrary, unfair, and violative of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which
encompasses the right to a fair and impartial investigation. It is argued
that material evidence, particularly the FSL report discrediting the
suicide note, has not been properly appreciated or acted upon. He
asserts that there are serious lapses and glaring inconsistencies in the
investigation, including contradictions in postmortem findings and
failure to reconcile material evidence. It is further contended that the
investigating agency has failed to discharge its statutory duty of
conducting a fair, unbiased, and transparent investigation, thereby
undermining the administration of criminal justice.
3.2. The surrounding circumstances strongly indicate the possibility
of foul play; however, the same has not been adequately investigated.
Due to these deficiencies and apparent bias, the petitioner has lost
4
complete faith in the local police. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
investigation be transferred to an independent and specialized agency
such as CBCID. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the
investigation in FIR No. 234 of 2015 is unfair and arbitrary, along with
directions for transfer of investigation and submission of periodic status
reports.
4.1. The respondents contend that the petition is devoid of merit and
that the investigation in Crime No. 234 of 2015 has been conducted
strictly in accordance with law. It is submitted that upon receipt of the
complaint on 10.09.2015, the case was registered under Section 174
Cr.P.C., and all necessary procedural steps were undertaken,
including, inspection of the scene of occurrence, conducting inquest
proceedings, seizure of material objects such as the alleged suicide
note and mobile phone, recording witness statements, photographing
the scene, conducting postmortem examination and sending viscera for
chemical analysis. The chemical analysis report confirmed the absence
of poison, and medical opinion indicated death due to hanging.
4.2. It is further submitted that although the FSL report indicated
mismatch in handwriting, specimen handwriting of suspects was
collected and forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory
(RFSL), which reaffirmed the earlier findings. The investigation also
5
revealed that the room was locked from inside and the deceased was
found hanging, supporting the theory of suicide. The respondents
argue that the allegations made by the petitioner are based on mere
suspicion without any substantive evidence. It is contended that there
are no exceptional circumstances warranting transfer of investigation to
CBCID and that interference by this Court is unwarranted.
5. Upon perusal of the material on record and careful consideration
of the submissions advanced by both parties, the primary issue that
arises for determination is whether the investigation in Crime No. 234
of 2015 suffers from infirmities or lack of fairness so as to warrant
transfer to an independent agency.
6. It is well-settled that a fair, impartial, and unbiased investigation
is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,
(1978) 1 SCC 248, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expanded the scope of
Article 21 to include procedural fairness. This principle has been
consistently reaffirmed in subsequent decisions. In Babubhai v. State
of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Supreme Court held that a tainted
or biased investigation vitiates the entire criminal proceeding. Similarly,
in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79, and Pooja Pal v.
Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135, it was held that transfer of
6
investigation to an independent agency is justified where the
investigation lacks credibility or where there exists a reasonable
apprehension of bias.
7. At the same time, the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, has
cautioned that the power to transfer investigation is extraordinary and
must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional
circumstances.
8. In the present case, the petitioner has pointed out significant
circumstances casting doubt on the fairness of the investigation,
particularly, the FSL report negating authorship of the suicide note,
alleged inconsistencies in postmortem findings, suspicious surrounding
circumstances suggesting possible foul play. These aspects prima
facie raise legitimate concerns requiring deeper scrutiny. While mere
loss of confidence in the investigating agency is not by itself sufficient,
such apprehension assumes significance when supported by objective
material indicating possible lapses.
9. On the other hand, the respondents maintain that all procedural
requirements have been duly complied with and that the investigation
was conducted from all possible angles.
7
10. Balancing these competing considerations, this Court is of the
view that although the investigation cannot be conclusively termed as
biased at this stage, the presence of material contradictions,
particularly the forensic findings, raises serious concerns regarding its
credibility and completeness.
11. In order to uphold the constitutional mandate of a fair
investigation under Article 21, this Court deems it appropriate to direct
reinvestigation by a special investigation agency.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the following
directions:
A. The Director General of Police may consider entrusting re-
investigation to Special Investigation Team (SIT) or Crime
Branch Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
B. SIT/CBCID shall conduct reinvestigation, and if necessary, a
de novo investigation in Crime No. 234 of 2015, in a fair,
impartial, and transparent manner, duly considering, the FSL
reports, alleged inconsistencies in medical evidence and other
discrepancies highlighted by the petitioner.
8C. The Investigating Officer shall prioritize the matter and complete
the investigation within a period of six (6) months.
D. The respondents shall submit a status/progress report before
the jurisdictional Magistrate detailing the steps taken in
furtherance of the investigation.
E. It is clarified that the investigation shall be conducted
independently, uninfluenced by any observations made in this
order, and strictly in accordance with law.
F. After filing the final result by the SIT/CBCID, the jurisdictional
Magistrate shall take up further course of action, in accordance
with law.
13. The Writ Petition is allowed with aforesaid directions. No order
as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 17.04.2026
MRKR
