Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Santoshanand Etc. Vinod Goel on 18 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD GOEL, DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI-110032.
Sessions Case No. 01/2006
Unique case ID No. 02402R0000061980
FIR Nos. RC-01/75, RC-02/75, RC-13/75 and RC-14/75.
Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.)
Versus
Santoshanand Avadhoot etc.
18.12.2014
Present: Sh. N.K. Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
with Inspector Yasir Arafat.
Convict Santoshanand produced from judicial custody
with Ms. Sima Gulati & Sh. A.K. Bali, Amicus Curiae.
Convict Sudevanand produced from judicial custody with
Sh. R.S. Sharma and Sh. Feroz Ahmad, Advocates.
Convict Ranjan Dwivedi produced from judicial custody
with Sh. R.S. Sharma and Sh. Feroz Ahmad, Advocates.
Convict Gopalji produced from judicial custody with Ms.
Sima Gulati & Sh. Anuj Kumar, Advocate.
Order on Sentence:-
1.On 08.12.2014, accused Santoshanand Avadhoot, Sudevanand Avadhoot, Ranjan Dwivedi and Gopalji have been held guilty by this CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 1 court. I have heard the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor, accused persons and their respective counsels on the quantum of sentence.
2. Briefly to recapitulate, that accused Santoshanand Avadhoot, Sudevanand Avadhoot, Ranjan Dwivedi and Gopalji have been held guilty for hatching conspiracy to eliminate one Madhavanand, Sh. L. N Mishra, Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, Sh. Puri, Sh. Hingorani, Jail Doctor and Civil Surgeon, Patna under Section 120-B of IPC under Charge No.1.
3. While giving findings under Charge No. 3 accused Sudevanand Avadhoot has been held guilty under Section 302 IPC for murder of Sh. L.N Mishra, Surya Narain Jha and Sh. Ram Kishan Singh Kishore. He has also been held guilty under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to seven persons Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma, B. N Prasad, Ajay Kumar and Smt. Lalita Devi. He is also convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, Sh. Rama Kant Jha, Sh. Jayant Banerjee, Sh. Baleshwar Ram, Suresh Prasad Singh, Umesh Prasad Singh, Bisheshwar Rai, Satender Prasad Singh, Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudhary, Smt. Noor Jahan, Jamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narayan Mandal, Pramod Prasad, Naval Kishore, P.R. Chopra, C.S Chaudhary and Kapil Dev Narain Singh.
4. Under Charge No.5 Santoshanand Avadhoot, Sudevanand Avadhoot, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Gopalji have been held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC for causing murder CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 2 of Sh. L.N Mishra, Surya Narain Jha and Sh. Ram Kishan Singh Kishore. They have also been found guilty under Section 326 read with Section 120-B IPC for causing grievous hurt to above said seven persons. I also held them guilty under Section 324 read with Section 120-B IPC for causing hurt to above said 18 persons.
5. While adjudicating Charge No. 6, I have held Santoshanand Avadhoot guilty while in possession of explosive substance of special category in Delhi under Section 4 (b) of Explosive Substances of Act 1908.
6. While giving findings on Charge No.7, Sudevanand Avadhoot was found guilty under Section 4 (b) of Explosive Substances of Act 1908.
7. Santoshanand Avadhoot has also been held guilty while in possession of explosive substance of special category in Samastipur under Section 4 (b) of Explosive Substances of Act 1908.
8. It is argued by the Ld. Special PP that the offence committed by the convicts are of very grave nature and having possessed explosive substance of special category which caused death of three persons, grievous hurt to seven persons and hurt to eighteen persons be given exemplary punishment. He further pleaded that no leniency should be given to accused persons.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 3
9. It is submitted by the convict Santoshanand and his amicus curiae Sh. A.K. Bali that he is more than 75 years of age and he has been suffering from several old age related ailments. He has been a Monk, though he is a Bachelor of Technology. He has been facing the trial for the last 35 years. The Ld. Amicus Curiae has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Superintendant of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini and Ors, (1999) 5 SCC 253 and placed on record synopsis. He prayed for lenient view.
It is submitted by the convict Sudevanand and his counsels Sh. Feroz Ahmed and Sh. R.S. Sharma, Advocates that he is about 78 years of age and has been suffering from several diseases. He has recently been operated upon Coronary Angioplasty to widen an artery found blocked in G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi through Central Jail, Delhi and has placed on record the photocopy of the discharge summary. He also prayed for a merciful approach in awarding sentence.
The convict Ranjan Dwivedi assisted by Sh. Feroz Ahmad and Sh. R.S. Sharma, Advocates submitted that he has faced a long trial of more than 35 years and now he is aged 66 years. He had already suffered two brain strokes. However, he submitted that he will not claim any mercy and left everything to the almighty and his destiny.
The convict Gopalji with his counsel Sh. Anuj Kumar, Advocate submitted that he is 72 years of age and has been suffering from several ailments including urological and neurological problems. He argued that he had suffered a long protracted trial. He has a son of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 4 young age and daughter of marriageable age and has been looking for a suitable match. His family members are entirely dependent upon him. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nalini's case (supra) and has placed on record synopsis and photocopy of his prescriptions. He prayed that a lenient view may be taken.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of the parties.
11. Section 302 IPC attracts punishment with death or imprisonment for life, in addition to liability to pay fine. Section 326 prescribes punishment for imprisonment for life with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. However, Section 324 IPC invites imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or both. So far as the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B is concerned, this is by itself is a substantive offence and whoever is a party to the criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. Under S. 4 (2) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, convict can be inflicted with rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years with fine.
12. Here it is advert to refer to Sub Section 3 of Section 354 of Cr. PC, which provides that when conviction is for an offence punishable CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 5 with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence. Therefore, the only interpretation of the Section which comes out is that for the offence punishable with life imprisonment or death, life imprisonment is the rule and awarding death is an exception since special reasons are to be assigned.
13. Almost, four decades have elapsed after the incident. To assess the economic status of the offenders, further enquiry is dispensed with in this case for the following reasons:-
a). The two of the convicts namely Santoshanand and Sudevanand are already initiated into Monkhood. By their very appearance and having given up the material world but guided by misdirected passions towards their cult head, they are in this quandary. Convict Santoshanand was also provided Amicus Curiae by this court.
Therefore no further enquiry is required to assess the viability of their status to pay the compensation.
b) The other convict Ranjan Dwivedi is an advocate by profession. His income as stated by him is only limited and by onerous exercise contingent upon many circumstances, the same could meet his both ends meet to maintain his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 6 needs and that of his family. Moreover, as the trial of this case is already more than 34 years old, and in case this court proceeds to inquire about his capacity to pay, it will further protract the disposal of the case. Therefore, by dispensing with the enquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case as regards the capacity of the convict to withstand heavy fines so as to re-compensate the victims U/s. 357 Cr. PC, the beneficial provision of Section 357A of Cr. PC is invoked.
c). Fourth convict Gopalji is from Bihar and if a detailed enquiry into his economic status is now ordered to assess his capabilities to pay the compensation, the matter would get further protracted, the incident having happened four decades ago. This court cannot also afford to wait such reports from the State of Bihar since that may take much more time, as regards this convict also. Hence, the same is dispensed with. The State Government of Bihar under Section 357-A of Cr. PC is bound to pay compensation to the victims and their dependents as the offence took place in the State of Bihar.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 7
14. The next question is whether the convicts are to be awarded death sentence or life imprisonment and whether the present case can be termed to be a rarest of the rare case.
15. The law with regard to awarding of death sentence of life imprisonment has been summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the judgment titled as Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 2745 in Para No. 24 which reads as under:-
"24. Guidelines emerged from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 684 were noticed by this Court in Machhi Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 412 : 1983 (3) SCC 470. In the said case the Court observed:
38. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh case, 1980 (2) SCC 684 will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh case (supra):
"(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the `offender' also require to be CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 8 taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the `crime'.
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.
39. In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following questions may be asked and answered:
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 9 even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
40. If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid proposition and taking into account the answers to the questions posed hereinabove, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so."
16. In Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris and others v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 (3) SCC 625, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the case is one of the rarest of the rare cases and the relevant Para reads as under: -
"45. These principles have been applied in various judgments of this Court thereafter and it is unnecessary to multiply the cases here. Whether the case is one of the rarest of the rare cases is a question which has to be determined on the facts of each case. Suffice it to mention that the choice of the death sentence has to be made only in the rarest of the rare cases and that where culpability of the accused has assumed depravity or where the accused is found to be an ardent criminal and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 10 menace to the society and; where the crime is committed in an organised manner and is gruesome, cold-blooded, heinous and atrocious; where innocent and unarmed persons are attacked and murdered without any provocation, the case would present special reason for purposes of sub- section (3) of Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down in Allauddin Mian & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 5, that unless the nature of the crime and circumstances of the offender reveal that criminal is a menace to the society and the sentence of life imprisonment would be altogether inadequate, the Court should ordinarily pass a lesser punishment and not punishment of death which should be reserved for exceptional case only. Considering the cumulative effect of all the factors, like the offences committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, the young age of the accused, the possibility of reform and rehabilitation, etc. the Court may convert the sentence into life imprisonment.
18. Now while turning to the facts of the case, all convicts were staunch followers of a cult founded for establishment for a moralist society. The cult had conceived an Utopian world based on high ideals and great virtues. While accomplishing the cherished goals, the cult came across varied opinions, sometimes diametrically opposite CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 11 dogmas. The cult had would not digest the divergent opinions and had fallen to a dark path. He himself was got in cobweb and was arrested in a murder case of one of his defectors of his cult, though he was later on acquitted by the appellate court. Since, he could not secure his enlargement on bail even up to Apex Court, his followers coming under the spell of misadventure, had resorted to revolutionary methods by taking law into their own hands with arms and ammunitions. They were guided by the passion and also became blindfolded to achieve the misunderstood targets. They entertained an idea that by causing a big jolt in the establishment by the acts of terror, the Government would be buckled under their pressure to release their Guru/cult head. Under such indoctrination, they chose the important personalities in the establishment as the obstacles to be removed. With these false ideas, the convicts have resorted to the misadventure.
19. Here it would be relevant to quote Father of Our Nation Mahatma Gandhi:-
"I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and Non-violence are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try experiments in both on as vast a scale as I could."
"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 12
"My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God. Non-violence is the means of realising Him."
"Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being."
20. Nelson Mandela went to jail believing in violence, and 27 years later he and his colleagues had slowly and carefully honed the skills, the incredible skills, that they needed to turn one of the most vicious governments the world has known into a democracy. And they did it in a total devotion to non-violence. (Scilla Elworthy).
21. Instead of following our father of nation, who was inspired by the eternal saying Ahinsa Paramo Dharma and Satyamev Jayate, the convicts have chosen the different attribute namely violence which is not the Dharma. However, I find that this is not a cold blooded murder and convicts do not bear trace of any personal animosity with the victims. They do not appear to be the menace to the society. Crime was committed by them during prime of their youth about 40 years ago. Now they are elderly figures and this is a period of self- introspection. There is every possibility of their reformation. Therefore, this is not a rarest of the rare case where the capital punishment is invited.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 13
22. In view of this discussion, this court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served with the imposing of the following punishments on the convicts:-
Charge No.1: Offence under Section 120-B IPC:
i) Convict Santoshanand is awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
ii) Convict Sudevanand is awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
iii) Convict Ranjan Dwivedi is awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
iv) Convict Gopalji is awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
Charge No.3: Offence under Section 302/326/324 IPC:
i) Convict Sudevanand is awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 IPC.
Convict Sudevanand is awarded imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 326 IPC.
Convict Sudevanand is awarded imprisonment for three years under Section 324 IPC.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 14
Charge No.5: Offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, under Section 326 read with Section 120-B and under Section 324 read with Section 120-B against all four convicts.
i) Convict Santoshanand is awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Convict Santoshanand is also awarded imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 326 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Convict Santoshanand is also awarded imprisonment for three years under Section 324 read with Section 120-B IPC.
ii) Convict Sudevanand is awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Convict Sudevanand is also awarded imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 326 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Convict Sudevanand is also awarded imprisonment for three years under Section 324 read with Section 120-B IPC.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 15
iii) Convict Ranjan Dwivedi is awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Convict Ranjan Dwivedi is also awarded imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 326 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Convict Ranjan Dwivedi is also awarded imprisonment for three years under Section 324 read with Section 120-B IPC.
iv) Convict Gopalji is awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Convict Gopalji is also awarded imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 326 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Convict Gopalji is also awarded imprisonment for three years under Section 324 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Charge No.6: Offence under Section 4 (2) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
i) Convict Santoshanand is awarded ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 16
Charge No.7: Offence under Section 4 (2) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
i) Convict Sudevanand is awarded ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
Charge No.8: Offence under Section 4 (2), Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
i) Convict Santoshanand is awarded ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Order on compensation to the victims: -
23. In the recent times, the victimology and rehabilitation has taken roots in the criminal administration of justice of our country. The law is also codified in this aspect and Section 357 and 357A deals with the subject. Furthermore the codes of law in this country are well guided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the mandate, this court proposes to deal with the aspect of granting compensation to the victims. Before adverting to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it would be profitable to refer the details of the victims:-
A. Details of the persons died:
i) Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra, age 53 years, Union Minister for Railways, Government of India.
ii) Sh. Surya Narain Jha, MLC, Darbhanga.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 17
iii) Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore, age 35 years, clerk, Department DEN, Samastipur Railway, S/o Sh. Kailash Bihari Singh, R/o; Village Meghaul, PS Cherea Bararpur, Begusarai.
B. Victims suffered grievous hurt:-
i) Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP, age 43 years, S/o Late Chhatu Paswan, R/o VPO Madhuban, District Darbhanga, Bihar.
ii) Sh. Kailash Pati Singh, age 43 years, Advocate, Kashipur, Samastipur.
iii) Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, age 30/34 years, S/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma, R/o; Vill. Bithan, PS Hassanpur, District Samastipur, Bihar.
iv) Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma, age 42 years, R/o; Village Jitwanpur, Samastipur.
v) B. N. Prasad, DIG, Darbhanga Range.
vi) Sh. Ajay Kumar, age 12 years, S/o Sh.
Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, C/o O.C. Samastipur, GRP, R/o; Mohalla Mithanpura, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
vii) Smt. Lalita Devi Sinha, W/o Sri Sarda Prasad Sinha, age 43 years, Village Payagapapar (Paijawa CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 18 Barh), PS Barh, District Patna, Bihar C/o Rajendra Prasad, Driver, GHZ.
C. Persons suffered hurt:-
i) Sh. Kapil Dev Narain Singh, MLA, age 56 years, R/o; Mehinddi Nagar.
ii) Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, age 38 years, S/o Sh. Ravinandan Mishra, Minister for Power and Irrigation, Government of Bihar.
iii) Sh. Rama Kant Jha, MLC, age 43/48 years, Village Sonupur, near Rubhaghat, Rosra Samastipur.
iv) Sh. Jayant Banerjee, signal inspector, age 33 years, S/o Sh. J.D. Banerjee, C/o DSTE/SPJ, North Eastern Railways, R/o; 223A, Railway Stadium Colony, Gorakhpur.
v) Sh. Baleshwar Ram, MLA (Ex. Minister), age 45 years, S/o Sh. Bathu Ram, R/o; 52-B. S.K. Puri, Patna Bihar.
vi) Sh. Bisheshwar Rai, age 28 years, R/o VPO Bahadurpur (Samastipur).
vii) Sh. Suresh Prasad Singh
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 19
viii) Sh. Umesh Prasad Singh, S/o Late Jai Mangal Prasad Singh, age 35 years, R/o; Village Mor, PS Mukam, District Patna, Bihar.
ix) Sh. Parmanand Jha, age 42 years, R/o; Village Hararri, via Shanjharpur (Madhubani).
x) Sh. Jamuna Prasad Mandal, MP, age 60 years, Samastipur.
xi) Sh. P.R Chopra, General Manager, age 53 years, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
xii) Sh. Satender Prasad Singh, age 30 years, R/o; Village Nayanagar, Samastipur.
xiii) Sh. Suraj Chaudhary, age 60 years, R/o; Village Chhatauna, Samastipur.
xiv) Smt. Noor Jahan Begum, age 35 years, R/o; Village Bhirha, Rosra, Samastipur.
xv) Sh. Suraj Narain Mandal, Advocate, age 45 years, R/o; Village Dal Singh Sarai (Samastipur).
xvi) Sh. Pramod Prasad, age 23/32 years, working as A-2 Signaller, North Eastern Railway, RASM/SPJ, Samastipur.
xvii) Sh. Naval Kishore Singh, age 38 years, R/o; Village Dhovgama, near Kalyanpur (Samastipur).
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 20
xviii) Sh. C.S Chaudhary
xix) Sh. Mahender Prasad Sahu, nephew of M.D. Sahu, age 19 years, (s/o Vishwanath Prasad Sahu), Village Dariyapur, PS Naubatpur, District Patna.
xx) Sh. Rajender Sahu, S/o Sh. M.D Sahu, age 10/11 years, C/o ADAO, SPJ. C/o Mahender Prasad Sahu, Assistant Accounts Officer, Railway, Samastipur, R/o; T-34, Samastipur, Bihar.
Award of compensation U/s. 357A of Cr. PC:
24. By a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reported cases of Kawal Pati Vs. State of U.P., 1995 (3) SCC 600, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Vs. State of Bihar, 1991 (3) SCC 482, Chairman Railway Board Vs. Chandrimadas 2000 (2) SCC 465, Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa, 1993 (2) SCC 746, Khatri Vs. State of Bihar, 1981 (1) SCC 623 and Union Carbide Vs. Union of India, 1989 (1) SCC 784, it is held that "victim of a crime or his kith and kin have legitimate expectation that the State will punish the guilty and compensate the victim".
25. To understand the powers and jurisdiction of this court, it would be profitable to advert to section 357A of Cr. PC in order to award compensation or to merely recommend to the District Legal Service Authority, Patna (Bihar) the amount of compensation payable to the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 21 families of the deceased victims and the injured/or their legal heirs/dependents. Section 357A of Cr. PC reads as under: -
357A. Victim compensation scheme.--(1) Every State Government in co-ordination with Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered lose or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the Victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.
(4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependents CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 22 may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation.
(5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the District Legal Services Authority, shall, after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months.
(6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit.
26. This section 357A of Cr. PC came up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ankush Vhivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, and the Apex Court has held that under Section 357-A of Cr. PC the court is empowered to direct the State to pay compensation to the victims in such cases where compensation awarded U/s. 357 of Cr. PC is inadequate or the case CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 23 ends in acquittal or discharge. The relevant Para of the judgment reads as under:-
"42. The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code brought about in 2008 focused heavily on the rights of victims in a criminal trial, particularly in trials relating to sexual offences. Though the 2008 amendments left Section 357 unchanged, they introduced Section 357A under which the Court is empowered to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim in such cases where "the compensation awarded under Section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the case ends in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated." Under this provision, even if the accused is not tried but the victim needs to be rehabilitated, the victim may request the State or District Legal Services Authority to award him/her compensation. This provision was introduced due to the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India in its 152nd and 154th Reports in 1994 and 1996 respectively."
"62. While the award or refusal or compensation in the particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 24 Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation. It is axiomatic that for any exercise involving application of mind, the Court ought to have the necessary material which it would evaluate to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. It is also beyond dispute that the occasion to consider the question of award of compensation would logically arise only after the court records a conviction of the accused. Capacity of the accused to pay which constitutes an important aspect of any order under Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure would involve a certain enquiry albeit summary unless of course the facts as emerging in the course of the trial are so clear that the court considers it unnecessary to do so. Such an enquiry can precede an order on sentence to enable the court to take a view, both on the question of sentence and compensation that it may in its wisdom decide to award to the victim or his/her family.
27. Recently, in Suresh Vs. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/1091/2014, decided on 28.11.2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the object and purpose of Section 357A, which CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 25 was incorporated by amendment Act No. 5 of 2009 is to enable the court to direct the State to pay compensation to the victims where the compensation U/s. 357 was not adequate or the case ended in acquittal or discharge. The relevant Para No. 12 and 46 of the judgment reads as under:-
"12. It would now be appropriate to deal with the issue. The provision has been incorporated in the Cr. PC vide Act V of 2009 and the amendment duly came into force in view of the Notification dated 31st December, 2009. The object and purpose of the provision is to enable the Court to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim where the compensation under Section 357 was not adequate or where the case ended in acquittal or discharge and the victim was required to be rehabilitated. The provision was incorporated on the recommendation of 154th Report of Law Commission. It recognises compensation as one of the methods of protection of victims. The provision has received the attention of this Court in several decisions including Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra......................"
"14............On being satisfied on an application or on its own motion, the Court ought to direct grant CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 26 of interim compensation, subject to final compensation be determined later. Such duty continues at every stage of a criminal case where compensation ought to be given and has not been given, irrespective of the application by the victim. At the stage of final hearing it is obligatory on the part of the Court to advert to the provision and record a finding whether a case for grant of compensation has been made out and, if so, who is entitled to compensation and how much. Award of such compensation can be interim. Gravity of offence and need of victim are some of the guiding factors to be kept in mind, apart from such other factors as may be found relevant in the facts and circumstances of an individual case......."
28. In view of the judgments of Apex Court in Ankush (supra) and Suresh (supra), this court can direct the State Government to pay compensation to the victims and legal heirs. Thus, it is obligatory for this court to return a finding on the aspect of quantum of compensation to the victims of the bomb blast that occurred on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur, Bihar. For the reasons mentioned in Para No. 13 of this order, I have dispensed with the enquiry into the capacity of convicts.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 27
29. The Government of Bihar has notified "The Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011" U/s. 357A of Cr. PC and in the schedule, the maximum compensation for loss of life is provided Rs. 1,00,000/- only and for grievous hurt Rs.25,000/- only. There is no provision for providing compensation for causing the hurt to the victim. The Government of NCT of Delhi has also notified "Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2011" and as per the schedule, for loss of life minimum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and maximum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been prescribed. For simple loss or injury to child victim is prescribed to be Rs.20,000/- only. There is no clause of providing compensation for grievous hurt to any person or hurt caused to other than the child.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh's case (supra) found that 25 out of 29 State Governments have notified "Victim Compensation Schemes" and since enactment of Section 357A, the award of compensation has not become a rule and interim compensation, which is very important, is not being granted by the Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that there is need to consider upward revision in the scale for compensation and pending such consideration to adopt the scale notified by the State of Kerala in its scheme, unless the scale awarded by any other State or Union Territory is higher. The relevant Para No. 13 & 14 of the judgment reads as under: -
"13. We are informed that 25 out of 29 State Governments have notified victim compensation CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 28 schemes. The schemes specify maximum limit of compensation and subject to maximum limit, the discretion to decide the quantum has been left with the State/District legal authorities. It has been brought to our notice that even though almost a period of five years has expired since the enactment of Section 357A, the award of compensation has not become a rule an interim compensation, which is very important, is not being granted by the Courts. It has also been pointed out that the upper limit of compensation fixed by some of the State is arbitrarily low and is not in keeping with the object of the legislation.
"14. ................................. We are also of the view that there is need to consider upward revision in the scale for compensation and pending such consideration to adopt the scale notified by the State of Kerala in its scheme, unless the scale awarded by any other State or Union Territory is higher. ......................"
31. The Government of Kerala has notified "Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014" in Kerala Gazette on 25.02.2014 and in the schedule, the maximum compensation in case of death is provided up to Rs.5,00,000/-, in case of fracture/dislocation maximum up to Rs. 1,50,000/-, major injuries not specified otherwise maximum up to Rs.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 29
50,000/- and for minor injuries not specified otherwise maximum up to Rs.25,000/-. There is a note at the bottom of the schedule that if the victim is 14 years or less the compensation shall be increased by 50% more than specified.
32. For the aforesaid reasons, this court having dispensed with the enquiry, is of the considered opinion that the scheme framed under the Kerala Government is the appropriate one to be followed in the circumstances as acclaimed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). Hence, I proceed to grant the compensation U/s. 357A Cr. PC as under:-
1. A notional compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lacs only) each towards the deaths of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Sh. Surya Narain Jha and Ram Kishore Singh Kishore, payable to their legal heirs.
2. In the case of victims of grievous injuries a notional compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only) each is recommended to each of the seven victims.
3. In case of the victims suffering simple hurt, a notional compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each is recommended for eighteen victims of blast at Railway Station Samastipur and two victims at quarters of Mahadev Sahu.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 30
Order regarding disbursement:-
33. All the victims hail from different places. The incident occurred almost forty years ago. This court is not equipped with the quick data, where with all, as regards the names & addresses of legal heirs of three dead, victims suffering injuries, whether they are alive or not, their addresses and the supportive infrastructure to identify and locate such victims or their legal heirs.
34. In these circumstances, District Legal Service Authority, Patna (Bihar) shall conduct proper enquiry U/s. 357A of Cr. PC for the purpose of identifying legal heirs of three dead, the victims suffering injuries, their legal heirs in case where injured having died and to disburse compensation amounts upon proper identification, and satisfaction, to them or their heirs as the case may be.
35. That the notional compensation shall be paid by the State of Bihar under the victim compensation scheme formulated in pursuance of Section 357-A of Cr. PC. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar shall make available the funds to the DLSA, Patna.
36. The DLSA, Patna Bihar may take such measures so as to bring it to the notice of the victims of the incident and their legal heirs regarding their entitlement to receive the compensation by this order. They may issue proper advertisement including by way of releasing the information to the public through the print and electronic media at the cost of the State of Bihar and such information should be CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara) Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 31 published at least three times in a span of three weeks in the vernacular media.
37. The amount shall be disbursed within 60 days to the victims preferably in their account with any nationalised bank or post office by ECS or RTGS upon proper identification and shall take acknowledgement of such payments.
38. The prosecution agency i.e. CBI and District Collector, Patna shall assist DLSA, Patna in the matter of identifying the legal heirs of dead and victims of injuries.
Order under Section 452 Cr. PC:-
39. It is hereby ordered that the material objects Ex. P-138 to Ex.P-140 (remnants of grenade), Bag Ex.P-7, three defused grenades Ex.P-11 to Ex. P-13, two cartridges Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16, Pillow Ex.P-33, Bed Sheets Ex.P-34 & Ex.P-35, Tarpaulin Ex.P-37, Wooden Sleepers Ex.P-38 to Ex.P-41, Iron pieces Ex.P-42 to Ex.P-44, Newspaper Ex.P-45, Thread Ex.P-46, Exhibits Mark A to H (relating to venue of crime at Railway Station) and Exhibits Mark A to E (recovered from the quarters of Mahadev Sahu) produced during the trial be destroyed as of no value after the appeal period is over. If the appeal is filed, the same be preserved. However, the revolver Ex.P-14 be confiscated to the State of Bihar.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 32
40. Copies of Judgement dated 08.12.2014 and of this order be supplied to each of the convicts free of cost today. One such set be also be supplied to CBI. Copy of today's order be also sent to Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, The Secretary, DLSA, Patna and District Collector, Patna for compliance.
41. Before parting with the file, this court with consternation is to observe that Jailor, Jail Superintendant, Jail Doctors, Officers of CID Bihar and High Officers of the establishment had heaped threats, unlawful pressure and torture on the approver PW-2 Vikram during his judicial custody while he was in Danapur Jail. This court is conscious of the fact that these officers must have now retired owing to the lapse of long period. This court would have ordered action against them in accordance with law in polluting the course of justice but for their retirement and lapse of time.
Announced in the open court today.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Delhi.
Dated: 18.12.2014 (Vinod Goel)
District & Sessions Judge
Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Order on sentence & compensation D&SJ (Shahdara)
Dated 18.12.2014 Page No. 33