Calcutta High Court
Ranadhir Basu vs State Of West Bengal on 24 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)1CALLT179(HC)
JUDGMENT B.M. Mitra, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against a Judgment of conviction against accused appellant No. 1, namely, Ranadhir Basu, under sections 301, 302/120B and 201 of in dian Penal Code and for the offence under section 302 of in dian Penal Code, the accused appellant is sentenced to death and he has been further awarded a sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous Imprisonment for two years and, for the offence under section 201 of in dian Penal Code, the accused appellant is awarded a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to suffer imprisonment for a further period of one year.
2. So far as the accused appellant No. 2 Krishnendu Jana is concerned, he is convicted of an offence under sections 302/120B and 302/109 of in dian Penal Code and, for the offence under section 302/120B of in dian Penal Code, he Is sentenced to death and he is also sentenced for a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default, to suffer rlgourous imprisonment for a period of two years. The said appeal is directed against the Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st court, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) dated August 9, 1996. There are altogether two appeals before us, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 277 of 1996 and 257 of 1996. As such, both the appeals are taken up for hearing on contest.
3. So far as the factual matrix of the case is concerned, the accused Ranadhlr Basu stands charged under sections 302, 302/120B and 201 IPC and the accused Krishnendu Jana stands charged under sections 302/120B and 302/109 IPC on the accusation that they on and from January 21, 1991 at Messrs. Sclentronlc in dia situate at 24-A College Row, P.S. Amherst Street, Calcutta and at other places ultimately leading to the fateful in cident at premises No. 26 Brajanath Pal Street, P.S. Noapara. Dfstrlct-24-Parganas (North), agreed to perform an illegal act for commission of an offence for murdering four persons, namely, Sm. Sulekha Pal, Subhas Chandra Pal, Sm. Latika Pal and Sri Debendra Mohan Pal, all members of the same family, by Illegal means by way of administering different types of poison, namely, Mercuric Chloride, Chloroform, etc. and finally by administering Sodium Cyanide which was done in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with each other. On March 20, 1991 at premises No. 26 Brajanath Pal Street, as stated before, four persons died and it was alleged that offence of murder was committed by accused Ranadhir Basu which was aided and abated by accused Krishnendu Jana. The prosecution case, inter alia, is that on March 21, 1991 at about 00.15 hours the defacto complainant Rablndranath Ghosh of Goalpara heard some groaning sound punched with wall whereupon after listening to the sound the neighbours congregated at the site and they found Sudlpa Pal, daughter of Subhas Chandra Pat, lying in the ground in front of their house with hands tied on the back with the help of cloth mattress with which her legs and neck were also found to have been tied up. It was realised by the said neighbours that, the said Sudipa Pal was making such sound. After the neighbours assembled there, she was rescued from that condition. As no response was forthcoming from other members of the family, the matter was reported to the local police station. On arrival of the police, the defacto complainant along with others and the police personnel entered the house of Sub has Chandra Pal where it was detected that Debendra Mohan Pal, father of Subhas Chandra Pal, was lying dead in a ground floor room and his hands and feet were tied with copper wire connected with the plug point of the switch board of that room. In the first floor rooms of that house, the dead bodies of three other person, namely, Subhas Chandra Pal, his wife Sulekha Pal and his mother Lallka Pal were detected. Like the dead body of Debendra Mohan Pal, the other three dead bodies as mentioned were also found to be in the same condition being roped with copper wires connected with the plug point switch. The almirahs of first floor and ground floor rooms of that house were also found to be in open condition with articles lying in a disheavelled condition. It apparently appeared that the said three persons were killed by electrical shocks and an FIR was lodged over the incident reproducing the scenario of the crime. At first, the Sub-Inspector attached to the local police station took up the investigation which was subsequently transferred to the CID, West Bengal. The evidence collected through investigation revealed that the accused Ranadhir Basu, who had been coaching Sudipa Pal, an adolescent girl approximately of 15 years of age as her private tutor, was the kingpin behind the commission of the said offence for his personal gain and Sudipa was utilised as an accomplice in the commission of such offence. it appeared at the in itial stage of Investigation that Sudipa was harbouring some dissatisfaction about her mother because of her in terference with the way of life of her daugher and Sudipa used to give vent to her feeling before her private tutor Ranadhir Basu who in the meantime started enjoying her confidence by way of domination casting Its shadow over the mind of the said Sudipa. It apparently appeared that Ranadhir taking advantage of the situation utilised Sudipa to bringing an end to the life of her mother with the offer of lure of prosperity in her life under the guidance and help of her private tutor.
At the instance of the private tutor in the in itial stages, Sudipa went on in materialising the scheme for the purpose of execution of the plan so that the scenario of such murder could be properly enacted. Krishnendu Jana was alleged to have been utilised for the purpose of collection of poisons in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy. The said Krishnendu Jana Is a dealer in chemicals who runs a business under the name and style of "Sctentrontc India" at 24-A College Row, Calcutta who used to supply white arsenic, potassium permanganate which were found as per allegations. Apart from the same, Mercuric Chloride, Chloroform, Sodium Cyanide were also alleged to have been supplied by the said Krishnendu Jana and initially the experiment was conducted upon gulneapigs and white rats in order to test the potency of the said poison. The final experiment with Sodium Cyanide and Mercuric Chloride upon the gulneapigs became successful and on the fateful evening of 20th March, 1991 the accused No. 1 Ranadhir Basu with the assistance of the accused Sudipa administered the aforesaid cyanide poison with sweets and mercuric chloride with water at their residence and killed them. After commission of the murder by poison the accused Ranadhir with the assistance and/or connivance of accused Sudipa made the evidence of commission of offence of the murder to disappear with the in tention to exonerate the offenders. It appeared at the initial stage of the progress of Investigation that accused camouflaged the scene of crime to mislead Ihe in vestigation and went on giving in struction to Sudlpa not to divulge the truth for which the Identity of the offenders could not be discerned for a long time. Ultimately, the police arrested all the three offenders and on completion of in vestigation the police submitted charge-sheet under sections 302/120B/34/120B/201 IPC against accused Ranadhlr Basu and Sudipa Pal and under sections 302/120B/109 IPC against Krlshnendu Jana. A pardon was tendered to accused Sudlpa Pal and charges were framed against the other accused persons, namely, Ranadhir Basu and Krlshnendu Jana as indicated hereinbefore. The said charges were dented respectively by the concerned accused persons and they pleaded not guilty. The in stant trial began against Ranadhlr Basu and Krlshnendu Jana and no charge was framed against approver Sudipa Pal and the charge against her was kept in abeyance for future consideration. The case of the accused Ranadhlr and Krlshnendu briefly Is that they are innocent and the prosecution story Is absolutely false. There was total denial of the charges, in the backdrop of the same, the trial commenced where the accused appellants Ranndhir and Krishnendu had been facing the trial. It is necessary to keep in mind that Sudlpa Pal is also alleged to have taken part in the crime, but as she was given assurance of making a full disclosure of narration of facts as an approver, the pardon was tendered to her. As a result, she was not tried for the offence complained of.
4. In this criminal trial, there are altogether 45 witnesses on the side of Ihe prosecution and, apart from their oral testimony, this court has come across the oral testimony of the approver Sudipa Pal who figured as P.W. 2 and there has been placement of many documents which had been exhibited in this case. P.W. 2 appears to be an eye witness to the incident resulting in termination of life of four persons and she narrated in detail the diabolical act of cold blooded murder as a result of which the entire family Is almost extinguished from the scene of life barring P.W. 2, namely, Sudlpa hereself. It is necessary to refer that Sudlpa was initially an accused in the case and the police on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against her and also against Ranadhlr and Krishnendu on December 20, 1991. When the investigation of the case was in the process and it was progressing, Sudlpa made a confessional statement which was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 11.10.91. It, however, appears from the materials on record that on 13-1-92 the accused Sudipa Pal submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore for grant of pardon to her. In (hat application she gave an assurance of making a full and true disclosure of the entirely of circumstances within her knowledge relating to the commission of offence and in consideration of said application and after examination of the applicant, the learned SDJM under order dated 15.1.92 tendered pardon to Sudlpa under section 306 Cr.PC on being satisfied that she was going to make a full and complete disclosure of facts. The said order was passed in connection with G.R. Case No. 1326 of 1991 and relevant case record of the Magistrate was marked as Exhibit 151. The order dated 15.1.92 as aforesaid shows that Sudipa accepted pardon on that date. It is necessary to refer to the provisions of section 306 Cr.PC in its entirety and full and true disclosure of facts may be made to the Magistrate for trial. The moment an accused is pardoned, the said accused will be presumed to discharge his or her onus and becomes a witness. It has been observed in the order of sentence Itself that--"Therefore, by the tender of pardon and acceptance of the same, Sudipa Pal has ceased to be and accused and has become a witness for the prosecution, her only obligation being that there should be full and true disclosure by her throughout the proceeding".
5. Mr. Dilip Kumar Datta, learned counsel for the accused appellant No. 1, has submitted before this court that provisions of section 306(4)(a) Cr.PC has not been complied with. According to him, there arc certain mandatory requirements which are envisaged under the said provisions but are not being compiled with. In support of the said submissions, Mr. Dalta has relied on the case of Suresh Ch. Bahri v. State of Bihar, reported 1995 SCc (Criminal) 60. It has been contended by placement of the aforesaid decision that the provision contained in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 306 Cr.PC is of a mandatory nature and not merely directory and, therefore, non-compliance of the same would render the committal order illegal. It has been further pointed out by Mr. Dutta that the examination of the approver at two stages has been provided for and if the said mandatory provision is not complied with, the entire proceeding would be vitiated. A further reference has been made by Mr. Datta to the case of A. Devendran v. State of Tamilnadu, reported 1998 SCC (Criminal) 220. Special attention of ours has been drawn from a portion of the said cited decision that the procedure enacted in sub-section (4) (a) of section 306 Is in tended to provide a safeguard to an accused inasmuch as the approver has to make an evidence at the preliminary stage before the committal order and thereby the accused becomes aware of the evidence against him and, further, such evidence of approver can be shown as untrustworthy during trial when the approver makes no contradiction from or to his earlier version. But still when the legislature in section 307 has made specific reference to only such condition and not to other procedures in section 306, it would not be a rule of interpretation as a whole though even sub-section (4) of section 306 would also be applicable in such a case.
6. This court is alive to the proposition as elucidated by the apex court and has understood the pith and substance of the same. Before dealing with this aspect in detail, it is worthwhile to refer to other provisions referred by Mr. Datta, namely when Mr. Datta has submitted that evidence of the approver has been recorded in his chamber and not in court and to that an exception has been sought to be taken by Mr. Datta. Mr. Datta has submitted and complained that the same has been recorded behind the back of the concerned accused persons and no opportunity was given to cross-examine them. In order to assess the said contentions raised by Datta, a probe is necessary with regard to the factual position as emanating from the records. It appears that in itially the 2nd court of Additional Sessions Judge, North 24-Parganas detected that approver Sudipa Pal who had accepted pardon granted by the learned Committing Magistrate to her under section 306(1) Cr.PC had not been examined by any witness under section 306(4) Cr.PC nor was any opportunity given for the cross-examination of the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, North 24-Parganas passed Order No. 8 dated 28.3.92 for remitting the case to the trial court. In terms of the provisions of section 209 read with section 306 (4) and (5) the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his afforesald order directed production of the accused Ranadhir Basu and the approver Sudlpa Pal who were then in Jail custody before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. At the material point of time there was also direction for appearance of accused Krishnendu Jana who was then at the court below before the said Magistrate. Being aggrieved by that order the accused No. 1 Ranadhir Basu preferred Criminal Revision No. 1526/92 and accused No. 2 preferred criminal revision No. 1527/92 respectively before the High Court which were disposed of by the order dated 14.7.1992. In the said order it was directed that the Committing Magistrate would record the evidence of the approver Sudipa and at the time of examination of the approver by the learned Committing Magistrate, an opportunity would be required to be given to the accused for cross-examination. The lower court record, particularly Exhibit '151' reveals as to what had happened thereafter. In view of the High Court's order, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore fixed 4th November, 1992 for examination of the approver Sudipa under section 306 of Cr.PC and the said order was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 24th September. 1992 in presence of the approver Sudlpa Pal, accused Ranadhir Basu and the accused Krishnendu Jana.
7. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate examined the approver Sudlpa Pal under section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded her evidence in part and fixed 9th November 1992 for further examination of the approver. Exhibit '151' bears a sufficient testimony about the recording of evidence of Sudipa in terms of section 306(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure and directed supply of copies of the approver's evidence so recorded by him, to the accused in order to enable them to cross-examine the approver. It appears from the order dated 25th November, 1992 passed by the learned Committing Magistrate that on 25th November, 1992 copies of the evidence of the approver having been supplied to the accused the learned Magistrate fixed 9th December, 1992 for cross-examination of Sudlpa Pal. When cross-examination of the approver was taken up none appeared for the accused Ranadhir Basu to cross-examine Sudlpa while the learned lawyer appearing for accused No. 2 Krishnendu declined to cross-examine the approver. Exhibit '151' lends credence to such finding being recorded in the Impugned judgment under challenge. PW 31, viz., M.M. Ghosh, the learned Committing Magistrate in his examInation-in-chief has deposed that he recorded accused Sudipa Pal's confessional statement (Ext.'7') under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure and granted pardon to her taking her as an approver and also recorded her statement (Ext. '8') under section 306(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Ext. '8' having been recorded by P.W. 31 after the passing or order No. 8 dated 28th March, 1992 by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, North 24-Parganas and of the order dated 14th July, 1992 by the High Court. There are sufficient material to draw an in ference that the approver was examined in terms of section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Exhibit '8' cannot but be regarded as the approver's evidence and recorded under section 306(4) of Code of Criminal dealing with the procedure it has been observed that the court in cludes a Judge in chamber. Even a reference in this contest may be made to the provisions of section 327 of Code of Criminal Procedure which in terms of sub-section (2) and the proviso empowers the court to hold a proceeding in camera in respect of trial with regard to a charge under section 376 of the in dian Penal Code and under the ancilliary proceedings. Even otherwise, in terms of proviso super-added to section 327(1) a Presiding Judge or Magistrate, if he thinks fit at any stage of an enquiry or trial he can order the same to be held in camera.
8. Jail can also be declared as a court. Even in terms of notification Issued with regard to the prosecution and proper conduct of trial in respect of terrorist activities, a court can be allowed to commence its proceeding even in jail which has been provided for. It Is well-known that the trial court has not been specifically defined in the definition column of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Dutta, in this context has referred to the definition of section 3 of the Evidence Act where court includes all Judges and Magistrates and all persons except Arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. Even a cursory glance be made with regard to the provisions of section 20 of in dian Penal Code where the expression 'Court of Justice' tends to denote a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone. If the same Is construed to be a judicial act on the part of the Magistrate and in view of the aforesaid decision and also the dictionary meaning of the term 'court', this court does not feel impressed by the argument of Mr. Dutt that chamber Is not a part of the court when that itself Is situated within the premises of the court itself.
Procedure Is viewed from the perspective of its totality. Much has been sought to be suggested by Mr. Dutta because of a purported reference by P.W. 31 that he does not examine the approver separately as a witness under section 306(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The said cryptic comment cannot be taken into account in Isolation which has to be perceived in the perspective of a later statement made by the said P.W. when in cross examination he has stated that "it is not a fact that I did not examine Sudipa Pal as a witness under section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure". This court Is required to re-concile if there is any apparent discrepancy in the statement coming in examination-in-chief with that of cross-examination in the background of light being radiated from Exhibit '8' which Is distinguishable from Exhibit '13'. When Exhibit '8' has shown the light of the day then in the perspective of the same the factual scenario sets at rest the academic question sought to be raised by Mr. Dutt and so far as the legal necletles are concerned, this court cannot doubt the efficacy of the same provided they are to be fitted in with factual matters.
9. Now coming back to the other question as to wether chamber Is a court. A reference may be made to the general meaning of the word 'court' in its overall connotation of the nomenclature as laid down in strouts Judicial Dictionary, Vo. I, 5th Edn. Page 578 where it has been laid down that--'Court means Judge in chamber with regard to procedure'. It has been contended by Mr. Maltra the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that section 306(4) comes within the purview of the procedural law as laid down in the field of criminal adjudication. Even a reference may be made about the same connotation as expounded by Lord Denning in M.K. Harkness v. Bells Asbestos & Engineering, 1967 (2) Q.B. 32 where in a section dealing with the section dealing with the procedure it has been observed that court includes a Judge in chamber. Even a reference in this context may be made to the provisions of section 327 of Cr.PC which in terms of sub-section (2) and the proviso empowers the court to hold a proceeding in camera in respect of trial with regard to a charge under section 376 of in dian Penal Code and under the ancillary provisions. Even otherwise, in terms of the proviso super-added to section 327(1) a Presiding Judge or Magistrate, if he thinks fit at any stage of an enquiry or trial he can order the same to be held in camera. Jail can also be declared as a 'court'. Even in terms of Notification issued with regard to the prosecution and proper conduct of trial in respect of terrorist activities a court can be allowed to commence Its proceeding even in Jail which has been provided for. It Is well-known that the term 'court' has not been specifically defined in the definition column of Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Dutta in this context has referred to the definition of section 3 of the Evidence Act where court in cludes all Judges and Magistrates and all persons except Arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. Even a cursory glance be made with regard to the provisions of section 20 of 1PC where the expression 'court of justice' tends to denote a Judge who is empowered by law to act Judicially atone. If the same Is construed to be a judicial act on the part of the Magistrate and in view of the aforesaid decision and also the dictionary meaning of the term 'court', this court does not feel Impressed by the argument of Mr. Dutta that chamber is not a part of the court when that itself is situated within the premises of the court Itself.
10. So far as the absence or denial of opportunity for cross-examination of the accused Is concerned, the same plea does not appear to be sound because of the facts resonant with the sound from the storehouse of records which dispel any sort of speculative argument on academic basis. Accordingly, we do not consider it to be some such question of pivotal controversy. The said question has become tinctured with facets of facts and in the light of mixed complexion of facts and law the question is answered. However, we appreciate the tenor of argument advanced by Mr. Dutt which Is of some significance in the academic field.
11. Now this court Is at the gateway of making entry into the factual domain of the case. Before embarking into a Journey with regard to the factual domain of the case. Before embarking into a Journey with regard to the factual domain of the case, this court Is not unmindful of a legal postulate expounded by Mr. Maitra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with regard to the role of an approver when he has pinpointed that his role is to be assessed in the light of his dejure presence and defac to participation to facilitate the offence. Mr. Mallra has travelled long and he has referred to a number of cases starting from Barmdra's case reported in AIR 1925 PC which are followed up by cases and and he has also laid special stress on a recent decision of the apex court . We need not have to generalise the proposition as laid down in the catena of decisions where we note A consistency about the role to be performed by an approver. In this case, the approver's evidence has to be tested and this court may not be required to salvage with further legal question as to whether it is required to be corroborated or not. A reference may be made in this context to a decision cited by Mrs. Debjani Sengupta to the case of Ram Narayan v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1973 Cr LJ 914 where it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that conviction does not become illegal merely because it is based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, section 133 of the Evidence Act read with illustration (b) of section 113 requires that the court should seek as a rule of prudence for corroboration which must connect or tend to connect the accused with the crime charged on material particulars. The court should first evaluate the previous evidence and if the same is found un-inspiring and unacceptable then corroboration would be futile and unnecessary. A further reference was made to the case of Niranjan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1996 SCC (Crl.) 939 where it has been held by the Supreme Court that the approver must satisfy double test of reliability and corroboration of material particulars on facts. The evidence of approver relating to the role of the appellant in committing murder of the deceased remain uncorroborated. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under section 302 Is not sustalnable. We are not unmindful of such legal proposition before making further prove with regard to the factual controversy of the facts of the case.
12. Mr. Maitra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor of course, referred to a decision of Chonampara Chellappan v. State of Kerala where the Supreme Court has laid down that law is well-settled that the court looks with some amount of suspicion on the evidence of an accomplice witnesses which is tainted evidence and even section 133 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that evidence of an accomplice witness should not be accepted unless corroborated.
13. A further reference was made to the case of Ravinnder Singh v. State of Haryana where the Supreme Court has opined that--"an approver Is a most unworthy friend, if at all, and he, having bargained for his immunity must prove his worthiness for credibility in court. This test is fulfilled, firstly, if the story he relates in volves him in the crime and appears in trinsically to be a natural and probable catalogus of evidence that had taken place. Secondly, once that hurdle is crossed the story given by the approver so far as the accused on trial is concerned must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Certain clinching features of in volvement disclosed by an approver ascertaining directly to an accused, if reliable by the touchstone of other in dependent credible evidence would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based.
14. It Is well known that court is not required to pursue corroboration from other minutes particulars and there may be some erring omission which will not vitiate the credibility of the version of an approver as laid down in the case of Tribhuban Nath v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1973 SC 450. Similar view has been expressed even earlier in the case of Sarivar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SC 67 where it has been opined that count shall naturally reluctant to act on the tainted evidence of an approver unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. One need not have to search for corroboration from minor particulars or in cidental details.
15. A further reference may be made to the case of Dagdu & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra where it has been laid down and a caution has been expressed by the apex court that it Is necessary to understand that what has hardened into a rule of law is not that the conviction Is illegal if it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but that the rule of corroboration. must be present to the mind of the Judge and that corroboration may be dispensed with only if the peculiar circumstances of a case make it safe to dispense with the same.
16. From the FIR and on the arrival of police the fact is known that four persons were found killed in the particular house. They are all inter-related by close relationship. It appears to be very strange as to how all the members of a particular family met with same ill fate excepting the approver figuring as PW 2. PW 2's evidence is that accused Ranadhir Basu in conspiracy with Krishnendu Jana murdered them, viz., all those four persons in a row by administering Cynide poison. On the afternoon of the day when the tragedy took place it came out from the evidence of PW 2 that Ranadhir came to the house of the deceased person. The story as narrated was that on an earlier occasion Ranadhir Basu came with new garments, viz., trouser and shirt presented to him on the prior festival of the pujas of the earlier year for which a Jokular statement was made by the mother of PW 2, viz., Sulekha Pal as to why he had not come there with the sweets. On the said pretext on the evening of the fateful day the said accused No. 1 brought out some sweets, viz., five 'Kalo Jams' and '100 Gms. of Sitabhog' which is another form of indigenous sweet made of rice found in the local area, Sudipa was asked to put in poison viz., Sodium Cynide and Mercuric Chloride by piercing each and every item of 'Kalo Jam' and she was asked to mix the said poison with Sitabhog. After the mother of PW 2 Sulekha came out after evening bath from the bath room and she dressed herself she was offered two kalojams in a plate and she was forced to take or.e because of pursuation by accused No. 1. One Kalo Jam was put on the right palm of Sulekha and she was made to take the same from her own palm and she was alleged to have been offered a glass of water mixed with such poison. She in good faith took the sweet and gulp the water from the said glass and she fell unconscious. At that point of time it was realised that her husband, viz., the father of PW 2 Subhas Chandra Pal was about to come through the stair. Sudipa was immediately asked to keep a plate of sweets ready for her father for the purpose of consumption, as otherwise, it might be detected by him. Sudipa has followed the instructions of Ranadhir and she kept the plate on the table. The father of PW 2 Subhash Chandra Pal took the sweets and the glass of water. As soon as he consumed the same he was found to be behablng in a peculiar manner which made the daughter PW 2 upset. Then Sudipa enquired that the plan was to remove her mother but not the father but why her father was sought to be roped in the tragedy a prompt reply came from Ranadhir that ihere was no time to ponder by way of reassessment of the situation as otherwise, they would be exposed to serious risk and death would be inevitable for them. Sudipa became un-nerved and she was made to change her dress and she was asked to move away to the house of an aunt, viz., the wife of Ranadhir at a close distance from her house. In the meantime, situation has developed when her grand parents met with same fate at the behest of accused No. 1. Then as the story goes it is revealed that on her return she found that the dead bodies were wrapped with electrical wires which were plugged to the switch in order to give an Impression to the witnesses that it was the resultant effect of electric shock. Thereafter, accused No. 1 insisted on PW 2 that she would be roped in with a part of the cloth and her hand and neck would be tied up with chair where she was made sitted. She was given further lesson that after some time from his departure from the house she was asked to groan with wale to attract the attention of the neighbours.
17. Then the neighbours assembled before the house in question and after entering into the house they were shocked to see Sudlpa being tied by a part of the cloth. Thereafter, they were taken to the rooms where they found other inmates of the house lying dead. It appears that all the other inmates barring Sudlpa were found dead in different rooms of the house. PW 1 Rabindra Nath Ghosh lodged an FIR vide Exhibit '6' on 21st September, 1991 at about 12-15 a.m. which would be appearing from Exhibit '6'. As per the recitals made in the FIR that he was accompanied by other neighbours adjoining the house, viz., Shlbaji, Swapan Ghosh. Ananta Ghosh. Tapan Bhawal and many others. On getting in formation the police also arrived at the scene. A reference may be made in this context to Exhibit '1A', (2A' '3A', '3B', '4A' and '4B' of the photographs taken of the dead body of the said four persons. A reference may also be made to the version of the approver, viz., PW 2 wherefrom it appears that she had stated--"my father, mother, grand-father and grand-mother were murdered on 20th March, 1991 at about evening time in our house. At that time I was in our house. The accused Ranadhir Basu in conspiracy with others murdered them by administering Cynlde Poison". A further reference may be made to PW 2's statement to the effect that--"Ranadhir took the sweet packet from the dressing table and handed over one kalo Jam mixed with poison on my mother's palm in her presence. It appears from her further statement that when her grand-mother came up on the first floor Ranadhir gave her one Kalo Jam to her hand and her grandmother on pressing that Kalo Jam in her mouth asked for water. It was also narrated by the said girl that her rather after her return in the evening from usual work was offered a plate of sweets mixed with poison and a glass of water and succumbed to the effect of consumption of the said sweets. It appears from the statement of the said PW 2 that she left for the residence of Ranadhir which Is at a close distance and on her return she enquired about her grandfather. The reply came promptly from Ranadhir that her grandfather suffered the same fate like the other three members of the family meaning that all the four were dead. A mention may be made about the evidence of PW 3. 4, 5 and 6 which testified to the effect' about the incident of the unfortunate death of all the four persons in the family. Apart from the oral testimony, we come accross galore of documentary evidence and a reference may be made to Ext. '4' which is the packet of sweets with poison. On top of the same a reference may be made about two glass philes which were mentioned in Exhibit 'X51/1'. There is also mention about the Cholroform bottle which appear from the material exhibit '5' reflected from Exhibit '103' viz., the seizure list. Even a reference can be made to Exhibit '19' which makes a mention of the seizure of electrical copper wires. Even the said facts emanate from Ext. '8' which Is the recording of the version of PW 2. Even the learned Judge in the impugned Judgment has made a reference that under instruction of Ranadhir Basu PW 2 prepared soap water in the seized aluminium bucket (marked Mater Exhibit 'X51/1'). Even a further reference can be made to Exhibit 'XXIX' viz., the half burnt note book and the totality of exhibits together as reflected from the seizure list tend to indicate in the light of the version of PW 2 together with other corroborating oral testimony of the other witnesses about such tragic in cident leading to death of four persons in a row in the family. Even PW 10 the photographer has been examined who has taken the photographs which are bunched together as Exhibits '2A', '2B' and '2C'. Therefore, the totality of evidence does not leave for any scope of doubt about the commission of the act of tragedy leading to the death of four persons Jn the family.
18. It appears further from the evidence of PW 34, namely, R.N. Dey Roy that he held post-mortem examination of the four dead bodies on 21st March, 1991. PW 34's major postmortem findings common to the four dead bodies appears to be consistent with a case of Cynlde Group of poison which are reflected from special reference as delienated therein. It appears that there are in dication of deeply congested presence of Larynx and Trachoea mixed with blood. Tongue also appears to be deeply congested and corroded at placed. Aesophagus shows evidence of corrosion and congestion. Even in stomach of the dead bodies there was notable colour with corrosion at places. There has been a reference from Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi and also from the book of J.B. Mukherjee on Forensic Medicine and Toxicology and HWV Cox has been referred to and according to the observation of the learned Judge the above-noted post-mortem report and Its appearance tallies with the case of a Cynlde poison but at the same time no poison having been detected in the vicera of any of the dead persons. It has been observed that after a lapse of a short period even if there be intake of poison inside the body it is subject to decomposition. Autopsy finding have been described by the learned Judge of the trial court could be taken to be due to Cynide group of poison. Even Modi has observed that even when analyst fails to detect Cynide death may nevertheless have been due to poisoning by Hydrocyanic. Even PW 40 has quoted various authority in support of his proposition that long interval can cause erosion of the effect of poison which appears from page 716 of Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology by HWV Cox, 6th Edn. 1992. Even after taking into account of the opinion of Dr. Rabindra Basu, P.W. 40 whose name has been referred to at an earlier stage this court cannot be oblivious of his opinioln and about the factum of death due to Cynlde group of poison. A reference maybe made to the wearing materials of one of the accused, namely, Ranadhir Basu which was mentioned in the seizure list being marked as Ext. 'XX2'. There can be further reference made about the material Ext. '5' namely, Chrolo form bottle which Is mentioned in Ext. 103 namely, the seizure list. Even on top of It, it appears that electric copper wires which were sought to be fitted to the dead bodies were recovered and mentioned in the seizure list and the same was marked as Ext. 'XIX'. Even a reference can be made about the alibi offered by Ranadhir in Justification of the offer of the sweet to Sulekha because of his registration in Cost Accountancy and even from the bag belonging to Ranadhir Basu, his identity card and registration card were recovered being respectively marked as Ext. 'LXXIX' and 'LXXX'. Therefore, as in dicated hereinbefore, it appears that there are other documentary materials tn support of an in ference being drawn about the materials used by accused No. 1 in collusion or in conspiracy with Sudlpa at the time of administration of poison to several dead bodies. It is also not out of context to make reference at this Juncture that at the point of interagnum when Sudlpa left in the evening on that crucial date after commission of murder of three persons next to the house of Ranadhir and after her return from the said house at a belated stage she found him over taken with anger because of her delay in returning back. After her return Sudlpa made enquiry as to what had happened to her grand-father and she was intimated that the grandfather also met with the same fate and during the period when the grandfather met with the same fate there does not appear to be presence of any other person in the house. Therefore, the totality of evidence, namely, oral and documentary lend credence to the suggestion about the factum of the commission of death by administration of poison on the evening when initially two persons, namely Sudlpa and Ranadhir were there in the house and at a later stage Ranadhir was alone to be found when death occurred of the grandfather of Sudipa by administration of poison.
19. Now we shall come for the analysis of different facets of controversy in the case, viz., first about presence of Ranadhir at the time of commission of offence and as to how far the evidence of Sudlpa has been corroborated by the version of other witnesses. We can refer to the evidence of PW 26, viz., one Samiran Chakrabory who is a neighbour of the adjoining house and his specific version is that on the said date also the privaie tutor came to coach her at about 6-15/6-30 during the evening waring a while shirt, a black coloured pant and a bag of Khaeri colour. A further reference may be made to the version of PW 22 namely, one Smt. Sumita Pal, whose version is to the effect that at about 6/6-30 p.m. Ranadhir Bose came to coach Sudlpa and Sudipa also returned to her residence before that time. At about 8-15 p.m. while the said witness was witnessing a programme of'Chitrahar' in the T.V. Programme and at about 8-40 p.m. he discovered that the residence of Debendra Mohan Pal is in complete darkness and the said position remained till 9-30 p.m. Therefore, the presence of Ranadhir at the house in the evening at about 6/6-30 p.m. stands corroborated by the version of the corroborating witnesses.
20. As in dicated earlier, we are conscious that there are certain important facets of the controversy involved in this proceeding. We now propose to unfurl a chapter relating to the relationship between the teacher and the taught, namely, between the tutor Ranadhir and the student Sudlpa. It appears from the evidence of PW 2 that she has been under the sway of influence of her private tutor Ranadhir, the accused No. 1. In itially though she was used to be coached at the residence of the tutor along with other students but, thereafter, the tutor agreed to offer his services for a considerable period in the evening almost four times in a week. During the period of coaching, the tutor is to project a rosy picture of the future of the student. The student is to complain of the ill-behaviour to her mother. The teacher Is to Impress upon the student that she should not hesitate to get over any obstacle coming in the way of her achievement of success in life. In that process the teacher earned the confidence of the student. The same stood in the form of pecuniary advantages being obtained by the student from time to time and the student-used to secretly pass over monetory help to the teacher not only in cash but also parting with ornaments. As the tutor was not in a financially solvent condition, therefore, the said financial assistance rendered by the student came in the way of readymade solution of the problem of financial constraint of the teacher. The teacher also started feeling obliged to the student because of the rendition of financial assistance by her. The same is followed by free and unrestricted acqualntence between the teacher and the taught and in splte of disparity of age between the two, the teacher started giving the student company outside the teaching hours. The teacher started giving company to the student during hours of the day at different places of sight seeing in or around the City of Calcutta and also Is to accompany her in different cinema halls to witness cinemas. Even the teacher in this way prevailed on the student. The said student Sudlpa faired well in the Madhyamlk Examination but she could not appear in the first terminal of the Higher Secondary Examination. She started absenting from the school and even on the pretext of attending school, she started roaming about with the teacher. The teacher was also found repeatedly absent from his attendance in his school as a teacher as a result of which, he used to get a very meagre amount because he was forced to take leave without pay. Even in certain months he did not attend for more than handful of days to the school. A reference may be made in this context to the respective attendance register of the student and the teacher which are marked as Exhibit '62' and Exhibit '61'. The teacher was not in financially solvent situation and it became strange that how he could afford to remain contest with such meagre in take of remuneration because of habitual absence from attendance to the school. There appears to be a parity with regard to absence as reflected from the comparative scrutiny between Ext. '62 and Ext. '61' which are respectively the attendance register of the teacher and the taught. In the said sojourn of familiarity the teacher succeeded in kindling a spirit of in fatuation in the mind of the taught and the teacher was found behaving Improperly with the student crossing the limits. Even on occasion Ranadhir was found touching different parts of the body of Sudipa which was objected to by her mother Sulekha. Even Sudipa was taken to task by her mother and there are also rumours in the locality about such familiarity between the teacher and the student. The teacher also started giving narration from different novels about the relationship between male and female and she was made to realise the element of Importance of sex relationship in life. The teacher, viz., Ranadhir did not stop there. As the mother of Sudipa emerged as an obstacle, he used to suggest to Sudipa that she should remove her from the scene of life. Even autosuggestion was sought to be given that the mother Suleka should be taken on the edge of a hill top and she should be thrown away from there. Thereafter, suggestion came that fifty Campose Tablets should be converted into powder and the same should be mixed with water with the extract of boiled water containing juice of boiled lizard. According to his suggestion the same would be effective but Sudipa could not accede to such request. Thereupon, Ranadhir Is to refer to the books of Chemistry and used to suggest that some poison should be purchased and it should be mixed with sweets to be offered to the mother. In fact, accused No. 1 succeeded in implementation of his plan, as a result of which mother succumbed to the experiment. It was preceded by experiment made oh the Gunne-PJg and after having been satisfied -about the efficacy of the poison the same was administered to the mother. Sudtpa was given the Impression that the plan was to do away with the life of her mother but ultimately the scenario was enacted in a manner leading to the death of sequence of events resulting in commission of act of murder of her father and grand-pa rents. The same could be achieved because of the in timate relationship developed between the teacher and the taught and we found corroboralion of the same from the evidence of other witnesses. A reference can be made to the deposition of PW 25, viz., one Smt. Purnima Pal and her deposition was to the effect that her delay in returning home from the College was due to her visit to her friends. It was further told by the said PW that she came to know from one Chhabl Pal her husband's elder brother's daughter that she found Sudlpa to loiter near Dharmatolla with an elderly man. Even a reference can be made to PW 24, viz., Jagadlsh Dutta's version, who said that some time in the early part of March, 1991 he was called to the residence of Sudipa by Debendra Nath Pal when he was informed by Sudipa's mother that there was some illicit relationship between Ranadhlr and her daughter. A further reference to evidence of PW 5 viz., Durga Rani Pal would go to show that she heard local people gossiping to effect that Sudipa would marry Ranadhir Babu. Another reference of PW 7 viz., one Subrata Bhawal is to the effect that he saw Sudipa being accompanied with Ranadhlr at Barrackpore Bus Stand where he used to go occasionally for witnessing cinema. The same further gets corroboralion from the evidence of PW 8 viz., one Goutani Chakl who said that on some occasion he saw Sudipa along with accused Ranadhlr at Barrackpore about 2/3 months before the incident. A further reference to the version of PW 22 viz., one Smt. Sumtta Pal deposed to the effect that Aloka Bose, the wife of Ranadhlr informed that she did not go to the school but she accompanied Ranadhlr and moving with him from one place to another. Even her evidence was to the effect that accused No. 1 came to the residence of Sudipa at about 6/6-30 p.m. on 20th March, 1991 Sudipa returned home from the school and, thereafter, after taking her meal she again went out from the residence and returned thereafter. Therefore, the said relation is corroborated by the evidence of others as aforementioned.
21. So far as financial help from the usufructs of sale of ornaments parted by Sudipa are concerned we find corroboratlon of the same from the evidence of some of the witnesses. A reference may be made to the evidence of PW 13 Dilip Kumar Karmakar that one customer, namely, Mantu Dasgupta introduced accused Ranadhir and requested him to give loan of money on keeping some gold ornaments, namely gold ring due to financial distress. The gold chain was mortgaged on 22.12.90 which was subsequently sold on 6.5.91 and the same was signed by accused Ranadhlr in presence of the said PW in Ext. 28 and Ext. 28/1. Gold chain mortgaged on 13.1.91 was sold on 16.6.91 which was also written and signed by accused Ranadhir which would be visible from Ext. 28/2 and Ext. 28/3. This is in tune with the version of P.W. 2 that during the last part of 1990 and from the first part of 1991 and on 20.3.91 Ranadhir used to demand heavy amount of money to Sudlpa which could not be met and to meet his demand she had to hand him over her ornaments like gold neck chains and rings.
22. Now we turn to the chapter of conspiracy. Even we find from the evidence of PW 2 that in fact Ranadhir handed over 50 Campose tablets and some Ayurvedic tablets made to powder in a small vessel and she was asked to administer the same to her mother. Even, a reference was made for user of different types of Cyanide to be effectively used to the mother and she was told that she could not wait any longer and take Immediate steps to remove the mother from the world. Even a reference may be made to the version of PW 5, namely Sm. Durgarani Pal whose evidence was to the effect that before 20/22 days of the incident she saw two guineapigs in the house of Sudlpa but she did not see them about 6/7 days before the in cident. A reference may be made to the evidence of PW 28, namely, one Salyacharan Ghosh who Identified Ranadhir Basu being accompanied by CID Officers. The first evidence was to the effect that the said Ranadhir Basu came to the laboratory on two occasions. On the first occasion, he went to purchase Guineapigs and on the second he went to purchase two girgitis (lizard). Even a further reference to the evidence of PW 23 would indicate that he was in the habit of taking loans and he did not use to return the same and the same was required for him for the purpose of hatching up the conspiracy and for giving proper company to the PW 2 so that she could be kept in good humour. Therefore, there Is not only corroboration but also the evidence of other witnesses tends to give reference to an inference about indication of a conspiracy being hatched up between PW 2 and accused No. 1 but ultimately PW 2 slipped out of his hands to turn out to be an approver. PW 2 seeins to have realised at a belated stage that she has been landed in a perilous region at the point of no return. Our attention has been drawn in the said perspective to a number of decisions as mentioned earlier. Therefore, there Is ample corroboration not only about commission on of offence but also relationship of admiration and submission between the teacher and the taught and also of conspiracy entered between the two, namely, Ranadhir and Sudlpa. The same has resulted in the act of committing murder resulting in deaths of four persons of a family in a row.
23. Now we turn our attention to the case of the accused No. 2 Krishnendu Jana who runs a shop as a Chemist. It Is revealed from the evidence of PW 2 that she came to know about Krishnendu Jana after a reference was made about him by Ranadhir Basu that he would be a fit person to supply him with materials which would help him to achieve his purpose. Accordingly, as per version of PW 2, she went to the shop of Krishnendu Jana being accompanied by Ranadhir Basu and she was made to sit outside the room where Krishnendu was found sitting. Sudlpa saw Ranadhir talking to Krishnendu through the window glass but it was not possible for her to hear the conversation. Thereafter, it appears from her evidence or deposition that she was made to believe that Krishnendu had agreed to supply him the requulred poison and also the chloroform. Thereafter, Ranadhir reported to Sudlpa that he had got the same from Krishnendu and he wanted to apply the same on the rats but the same did not prove to be effective. Then the version of PW 2 was to the effect that Ranadhir complained to Krishnendu that the materials were sub-standard and they were ineffective. Ranadhir was stated to have been assured by Krishnendu to have fresh poison brought from Zoological Garden at Allpore Zoo. It does not appear from evidence that any witness was produced from the said Allpore Zoo or any version was found to be forthcoming as to who has supplied the poison at a subsequent stage to Krishnendu. The further story was that the poison was obtained allegedly from some source known to Krishnendu and experimented to the gulneapigs and the same appeared to be successful. There was no corroborative evidence as to the experimentation made on the courtyard of the house of the accused No. 2. It appears that the source is not indicated from evidence as to from where the said poison was obtained or as to who had supplied the poison. It was also not forthcoming from any independent source as to under what circumstances and under what pretext the services of Krishnendu were utilised to have the poison. So far chloroform, mercuric chloride and other accessories are concerned, they are ordinarily available in a shop of Chemist. So far as Sodium Choloride is concerned, the source of Its availability is not made transparent nor the explanation or alibi suggested to Krishnendu was found to be made available on evidence from the version of in dependent witnesses. This court has made an in depth search of all the materials on record and it Is of opinion that there Is very scanty material not worthy of mention from which any inference can be drawn basing its reliance on the corroborative version of an in dependent witness or circumstantial evidence about sustainabitlly of the commission of offence of abetement under section 109 IPC. It is abudantly clear that on the death of the said four persons as mentioned, the accused No. 2 was nowhere in the picture nor was he found at the site. There was no mention even by PW 2 that accused No. 2 was intimated on a priority basis about the date of the commission of the act and the purpose of the act excepting hearsay evidence of PW2. From accused No. 2 there is no other evidence worthy of consideration on which we can arrive at an inference beyond any shadow about the sustainabillty of the offence of accused No, 2 with regard to charge under section 109 IPC. In absence of abetement being established, accused No. 2 cannot be pinned down with reliability of charge either of conspiracy or commission of offence under section 302 IPC. Therefore, the charge of section 302 IPC read with section 109 IPC does not appear to be sustainable for want of proper base for foundation. It Is worthwhile to mention in this context as to how far we can make any reliance on the hearsay version of an accomplice with regard to a third accused. We are not oblivious of the provisions of section 60 of the Evidence Act which postulates that oral evidence is there. It refers to a fact which can be seen or which can be treated as witness of an evidence who said that he saw it or it refers to a fact or its evidence of a witness that he heard it or refers to a pereceplion by any other source or by any manner that he perceived it by any other manner. Therefore, the evidence on record does not satisfy the in gredients of section 60 or pre-requlsite conditions of section 60 not being fulfiled where grouping to other appeartenent evidence which also does not inspite our confidence. Even we are conscious of our limitation in view of the presumptive effect of section 114 of the Evidence Act and we are conscious that while making a presumption an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he has corroborated any material particulars. The same has been couched in the legal languge as being engrafted in section 114 illustration (b) of Evidence Act for which we have reference to Supreme Court decisions at the very beinntng in the present judgment in order to make ourselves abrest of the ratio of law as enunciated by (he apex court. Therefore, viewed in the light of section 60 read with Illustration (b) of section 114 of Evidence Act, avaliable materials of the connected proceeding against accused No. 2 Krishnendu Jana do not in spire our confidence and we cannot, as such, uphold the conviction and sentence passed by trial court against accused No. 2. As such. In presence of our doubts being cleared beyond any shadow of doubt, we cannot sustain the conviction of accused No. 2 Krlshnendu Jana in respect of offence under section 302/120B and 302/109 1PC and, as such, the said sentence and conviction are set aside. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 1996 stands allowed and the Judgment under appeal Is set aside so far as accused No. 2 Krlshnendu Jana Is concerned.
24. In velw of our foregoing discussions with regard to culpability of offence of accused No. 1, namely, Ranadhir Basu, who is convicted of the offence under section 302, 302/120B and 201 1PC and for commission of offence under section 302 IPC and we hold accused No. 1 guilty of the commission of the said offence. Now we are to consider the question of propriety of holding the death sentence meted out to accused No. 1 by the trial court. In this context, a reference may be made to the reported decision of Mohan & Ors. v. State of Tamilnadu & Ors. In AIR 1998 SC where the apex court has observed that aggresive circumstances on the part of the accused Mohan and Gopl clearly administer their depressed slate of mind and the brutality with which they took the life of young boy for loss of money. A further reference may be made to the case of Govindaswami v. State of Tamilnadu, reported in 1998 Criminal Law Journal 2913 and in paragraph 19 of the said judgment reliance was placed with regard to the principles laid down by the apex court for imposing death sentence in case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab where certain criteria are laid down as guidelines, viz. (1) there Is no provocation for the act given to the accused (2) it Is proved beyond doubt that it was a pre-meditated one (3) there is no mental derailment for the accused to kill five human beings one after another and they were killed during the course of their sleep. The nature and manner in which the accused committed five murders is found to be of gruesome offence as of cold blooded murder. In the in stant case, there is murder leading to death of four persons in a row completely wipplng out the family save and except the lone surviving accomplice. It is observed in the aforesaid Judgment of 1998 Criminal Law Journal 2913 where the apex court after consideration of the fact that there was no extenuating or mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant and if in spite of the same death sentence Is commuted to life Imprisonment then the court would be yielding to spasmodic sentiment, unregulated benevolence and misplaced sympathey. It Is wortwhlle to remember the vibrant expressions of the apex court that it Is not desirable to consider the circumstances of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal in two separate wider terms. In a sense to kill Is lo be cruel and therefore all murders are cruel but such crulty may vary in degree of culpability and it Is only when the culpability may cease to exist. Life Imprisonment is the rule and death Is an explanation. A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates reslstence to taking a life through lost instrumentality though ought not to be done save Jn the rarest of the rare cases when the alternative option is there.
25. The facts in the connected caseJeadtng to the projection of a scenario gives us a glimpse of commission of calculated murder of four persons to wipe out the family with the design of avarice. The same is not only cruel but also calculated with sinister design. This court feels pained to come across such rarest of rare cases where we find that our existence in a civilised society is tinctured with frailties of human nature where human values of life are made a casualty at the altar of the design of crusader against all virtues of co-operative in stinct of human existence in civilised society. Accordingly, we are constrained to confirm the award of death penalty given to accused appellant No. 1 and, as such, conviction and sentence awarded to Ranadhlr Basu of the offence under sections 302, 302/120B and 201 and also for the offence under section 302 IPC are hereby confirmed and we approve of the award of death penalty meted out to accused No. 1 Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1996 stands dismissed on contest.
26. Criminal Appeal No. 257/96 dismissed
27. Criminal Appeal No. 277/96 allowed S.K. Tiwari, J.
28. I agree.