Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Santoshanand Etc. Vinod Goel on 8 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
Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.)
Versus
1. Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @
Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit S/o Sh. Narendra Narain Verma R/o
Village Parsauni Kishun, PS Pipra, Distt. East Champaran, Bihar.
(Accused No. 1)
2. Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @
Misri Lal Yadav S/o Sh. Madhusudan Lal Yadav R/o Village Chikni
Phulka, PS Singheshwarsthan, Distt. Saharsa, Bihar. (Accused No. 2)
3. Ram Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi S/o Late Ram Dev
Dwivedi R/o Village & Post Dharharwa, PS Bela, Distt. Sitamarhi
(Bihar), presently resident of 31, National Park, Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
(Accused No. 3).
4. Ram Nagina Prasad @ Bhaiya S/o Late Mohan Prasad R/o
Kumarpara, Ichhapore, PS Noapara, Distt. 24 Parganas. (Discharged
on 21.1.1981)
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 1
5. Arteshanand Avadhoot @ Ratan Kumar @ Arjun Yadav S/o
Govind Yadav R/o Ukhadhi, PS Barbigha, Distt. Monghyer, Bihar.
(Died on 25.2.2004)
6. Ram Rup @ Ram Swarup S/o Sheonandan Sharma R/o Tehla PS
Kotwali, Gaya, Bihar. (Discharged on 21.1.1981)
7. Gopalji @ Krishna Mohan Singh S/o Late Baidyanath Prasad
Singh R/o Village & PS Chautham, Distt. Monghyer. (Accused No. 7)
FIR Nos. : RC-01/75, RC-02/75, RC-13/75 and RC-14/75.
PS : CBI/ACU-VI
U/s. : 120-B/302/307/326/324 IPC and Sec. 4 & 5 of
Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
Date of Institution : 01.07.1980
Arguments concluded : 12.09.2014
Date of decision : 08.12.2014
Judgment:
1. Based on circumstantial evidence and the statement of two
approvers namely Visheshwaranand @ Vijay @ Madan Mohan
Srivastava and Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass, supported by other
evidence collected during investigation, Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "C.B.I.") filed charge sheet
against the accused persons no. 1 to 7 and Vinayanand, Ram Kumar
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 2
Singh, Ram Aasrey Parsad, Vikram and Visheshwaranand before
Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 12.11.1975 (Ex.PW-151/D). In
the charge sheet, the prosecution kept Rudranand Avadhoot,
Shankaranand Avadhoot, Mahender Prasad Singh and Lakhan Pain in
column No. 2 and they were not sent for trial. On 27.10.1975, by a
common order, the court of CJM, Patna granted pardon to
accused/approver Visheshwaranand @ Vijay @ Madan Mohan
Srivastava and Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass in case no. RC-1/75,
was accepted by them on the same day. Accused Vinayanand
Avadhoot @ Jagdish @ Ram Mohan @ Anant Kumar was declared a
Proclaimed Offender on 10.7.1980 by the order of CMM, Delhi. The
Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna on 20.1.1976, declared
accused Ram Kumar Singh @ Surendra Kumar and accused Ram
Aasrey Prasad as Proclaimed Offenders.
2. By an order dated 17.12.1979 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India transferred this case to Delhi in Transfer Petition No. 69 of 1979
titled as "Attorney General of India vs. Santoshanand Avadhoot &
Others", which reads as under:-
"Heard Counsel.
We do not consider it necessary to examine
whether the allegations made by the CBI and the
State of Bihar against each other are true. That
would involve undertaking a needlessly protracted
inquiry the result of which may unconsciously
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 3
affect the course of trial. However, having regard
to the overall picture, which emerges out of the
rival pleadings of the CBI, and the State of Bihar
we are of the opinion that it is in the interest of
justice to transfer the case from the State of Bihar
to Delhi.
We accordingly direct that the committal
proceedings (Trial Case No.860/79, RC 1/75-CIA-
1 and RC 13 and 14/75 CIU/SPE) pending before
the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna, shall be
transferred to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Delhi. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Delhi shall complete the committal proceedings
within four weeks of the date of receipt of record
by him. If and after the proceedings are committed
to the Court of Sessions, the trial of the case shall
be held in Delhi. We direct in that behalf that the
case shall be tried by a Sessions Judge or
Additional Sessions Judge to be nominated by the
Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
We would like to make it clear that the fact that we
are transferring the case from Bihar to Delhi does
not mean and ought not to be construed to mean
that we have accepted as true any of the allegations
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 4
made by the parties against each other, particularly
the allegations made against the officers of the
Bihar State Government. We direct that the trial
shall proceed expeditiously. The Stay Order,
earlier granted by this Court, of the proceedings in
the Revision Application shall be discharged.
The approver shall be transferred from Danapur
Jail, Patna, Bihar, to the Central Jail in Delhi. We
direct that no officer of the CBI or any other Police
Officer shall visit or interview or in any other
manner contact the approver without the previous
permission in writing of the committal court or the
Sessions Court, as the case may be.
The Revision Application pending in the Patna
High Court shall be disposed of within two weeks
from today.
Five sealed covers which were produced by Dr.
L.M. Singhvi on behalf of the State of Bihar before
us may be returned to Dr. Singhvi."
3. The accused persons were committed by the court of learned
CMM, Delhi to Sessions Court on 23.5.1980. My Ld. Predecessor
discharged the accused no.4 Ram Nagina Prasad and accused no.6
Ram Roop @ Ram Swaroop, by an order dated 21.01.1981 and further
proceeded to frame charges against Accused No.1, 2, 3, 5 & 7. During
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 5
the pendency of the trial, accused no.5 Arteshanand Avadhoot @
Ratan Kumar @ Arjun Yadav has died on 25.2.2004. Now accused
no.1, 2, 3 and 7 are facing trial before this court.
4. On 02.01.1975, the then Railway Minister late Lalit Narain
Mishra arrived at Samastipur Railway Station, Bihar to inaugurate the
opening of a Board Gauge Railway Line from Samastipur to
Muzaffarpur. In the evening as soon as Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra
finished his speech and was to step down from the Dais, accused
Sudevanand threw a hand grenade, which exploded. This resulted into
death of Lalit Narain Mishra, Surya Narain Jha MLC (Bihar) and Ram
Kishore Prasad Singh, a Railway Clerk besides causing grievous
injuries to eight persons and hurt to eighteen persons. A case No.1/75
dated 02.01.1975 was registered with PS GRPS Samastipur. This case,
through notification dated 03.01.1975 issued by the Government of
Bihar, was transferred to C.B.I. for investigation. Accordingly RC-
1/75-CIU was registered with SPE, CIU, C.B.I., New Delhi. Initially,
local police of Patna investigated the case and subsequently
investigation was taken over by CID, Bihar and on 10.01.1975, the
investigation was taken over by C.B.I.
1) Factual Matrix
5. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that one Prabhat
Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti @ Baba, the then employee of
Jamalpur Workshop, Eastern Railway, founded Anand Marg
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 6
Parcharak Sangh on 09.01.1955. The followers of Anand Marg
regarded him as incarnation of God like Shiva and Krishna. The object
of the Anand Marg was to establish 'Sadvipra Raj', a government of
moralists. In order to achieve this, a cadre of full time workers known
as Avadhoots was created by Anand Murti. He also formed several
wings of the cult including Vishwa Shanti Sena (VSS) and the workers
of this organization were trained in use of arms with a view to
establish Sadvipra Raj by use of force, if necessary. Prabhat Ranjan
Sarkar @ Anand Murti was arrested on 29.12.1971 at Patna on the
charge of criminal conspiracy to annihilate such followers who had
defected from the organization. He was prosecuted along with other
accused on the charges of murder, conspiracy etc. in the Court of
Sessions at Patna. When Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti could
not secure his release in accordance with law, a false propaganda was
set afoot that he was being maltreated in jail, and to compel the
government for his release, two Anand Margies Divyanand and
Dineshwaranand committed self-immolation at Patna and Delhi
respectively in 1973. Messages purported to have been sent by P.R.
Sarkar from jail exhorted his followers to prove their bravery by
bringing him out of jail and not to rest until they kill their enemies.
Demonstrations and gheroas were organized for release of Prabhat
Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti. Having failed under law, a
Revolutionary Group was formed around July 1973 at Patna. This
group was joined by accused Vinayanand (P.O.), accused
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 7
Visheshwaranand (approver) and some others for securing his release
by pressurizing the Government by recourse to violent acts. Accused
Visheshwaranand (approver) and Vinayanand (P.O.) adopted
pseudonyms 'Vijay' and 'Jagdish' respectively. With a view to
disguise their identity, they also discarded their saffron robes, cut their
hair, and shaved their beard. The accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand,
Arteshanand (now deceased) and Aacharya Ram Kumar Singh (P.O.)
joined this group. In the latter half of 1973, a secret meeting was held
at village Trimohan, District Bhagalpur (Bihar), at the residence of
accused Aacharya Ram Kumar Singh (P.O.). In the meeting, it was
decided to liquidate one Madhavanand, who turned an approver in the
case of criminal conspiracy against Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand
Murti as the enemy no.1. Late Lalit Narain Mishra, the then Union
Railway Minister was considered to be the enemy no.2 and Abdul
Gaffoor, the then Chief Minister of Bihar was considered as puppet of
late Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra also came within the purview of an
enemy. Accused Santoshanand assigned certain specific duties
amongst the conspirators. Accused Vinayanand @ Jagdish (P.O.) was
to murder Madhavanand, accused Visheshwaranand @ Vijay
(approver) was to murder Abdul Gaffoor, accused Arteshanand and
Sudevanand were to kill other persons opposing the cult in the case
against Anand Murti.
6. In order to achieve the object, accused Ram Aasrey Prasad,
(P.O.) obtained five bombs and other accused Vinayanand,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 8
Visheshwaranand and Santoshanand procured arms and ammunitions
and handed over the same to one Gopalji R/o Village Chautham (A-7
in the charge sheet).
7. On 07.01.1974, an attempt was made on the life of
Madhavanand at the Collectorate, Patna where he was brought for
grant of pardon in the above said case where Anand Murti and others
were accused. Proclaimed Offender Vinayanand attempted to kill the
approver Madhavanand by throwing a live hand grenade on him but it
did not explode. After throwing a live hand grenade on him, accused
Vinayanand (P.O.) escaped and jumped into the River Ganga but was
apprehended while his other companions managed to escape. A case
no. 24 (1) 74 u/s 120-B/302/307 IPC was registered on the complaint
of Naik Chandi Mishra at PS Kotwali, Patna. This case was later on
transferred to C.B.I. vide RC-14/75 CIU. In July 1974, accused
Vikram (approver) joined the conspiracy and he brought three hand
grenades from Delhi to Bhagalpur in a packet, given to him by the
accused Santoshanand to be delivered to one Budheshawaranand
Avadhoot @ Tyageshwaranand @ Amar Singh (deceased). On
13.7.1974, Budheshawaranand was arrested at Maqbara (tomb),
Chhotti Khanjarpur (Bhagalpur), close to Anand Marg Primary School
at Bhagalpur for being in possession of a bag (jhola) containing three
hand grenades. However, Vikram (approver) escaped. A case u/s 25
and 27 Arms Act and section 3/5 of Explosive Substances Act was
registered against accused Budheshawaranand at PS Kotwali,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 9
Bhagalpur. Investigation of this case was transferred to C.B.I. vide RC
13/75 registered on 15.09.1975.
8. In furtherance of conspiracy, the conspirators planned the
murder of Late Lalit Narain Mishra, who was to arrive on 02.01.1975
at Samastipur Railway Station for inauguration of Broad Gauge
Railway Line from Samastipur to Muzaffarpur. The inaugural
function was to be held at Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway
Station on a grand scale. Entry to this function was regulated by
means of "passes/badges/invitation cards".
9. Prosecution alleges that the accused Ranjan Dwivedi (A-3),
active member of Anand Marg, reached Samastipur on or about
01.01.1975 by bus along with Santoshanand (A-1) and Sudevanand
(A-2). He managed to secure passes to enable himself, A-1 and A-2 to
gain entry to Platform No. 3. By this time, PW-2 Vikram (Approver)
had already reached Samastipur. A-1 had brought three hand grenades
with him. All of them entered the venue through the passes before the
arrival of Sh. L.N. Mishra. A-1, A-2 and PW-2 carried one hand
grenade each. Soon after Sh. L.N. Mishra arrived by a special train at
Samastipur Railway Station, all the above three i.e. A-1, A-2 and PW-
2 Vikram managed to reach close to the Rostrum from the Meter
Gauge side (Northern side) of Platform No. 3. Accused No. 2 threw a
live hand grenade on the Rostrum after the Railway Minister had
finished his speech, which exploded. This resulted in the death of
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 10
three persons namely Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister, Surya
Narain Jha, MLC (Bihar) and Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore, a
Railway Clerk besides causing grievous injuries to eight persons and
hurt to eighteen persons. While running away after the blast, Vikram
(PW-2) threw his unused hand grenade on the Meter Gauge Line near
Platform No. 3. Later the same was picked up by a boy of 10 years old
namely Rajender Sahu, a cousin of Mahadev Sahu, Assistant Accounts
Officer, North-Eastern Railway, Samastipur. He took it to his
residence in railway colony where it exploded accidentally causing
injuries to him as well as to his cousin. A-1, A-2 and PW-2 managed
to escape from the scene of crime unnoticed but were arrested
subsequently.
10. On 03.01.1975, a manuscript in the name of "Shashastra
Krantikari Chhatra Sangh" was allegedly in the handwriting of A-1
was found at UNI Office, Patna along with a printed leaflet. The
manuscript claimed that the blast at Samastipur on 02.01.1975,
resulting in the death of Lalit Narain Mishra, was the beginning of an
era of revolution. It also warned the Government that its repressive
measures would not succeed. A-1 made an extra judicial confession
before Sh. Raj Singh and Sh. Shiv Raj Singh about his involvement in
the incident dated 02.01.1975. During the course of investigation
number of incriminating documents were recovered from of accused
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 11
Gopalji (A-7) showing inter se association of accused persons and
certain transactions of procurement of arms.
2) Order on Charge and Charges framed
11. My Ld. Predecessor on 21.01.1981 discharged the accused Ram
Nagina Prasad and Ram Roop. He ordered to frame the charges
against accused namely A-1, A-2, A-3 and Arteshanand and A-7. My
Ld. Predecessor has framed eight charges in number and for the
convenience to understand the case I have given seriatim to the
charges as Charge No. 1 to Charge No. 8. The Ld. Predecessor
accordingly framed the charges on 21.01.1981 against the accused
persons. Charge No. 1 is framed against accused Santoshanand,
Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi, Arteshanand and Gopalji to the
effect that these accused persons along with proclaimed offenders
Ram Kumar and Vinayanand and Visheshwaranand approver
sometimes between September and November 1973 at Village
Trimohan (Ekchari), District Bhagalpur, Bihar agreed to do or cause to
be done illegal acts to wit, secure the release of Sh. Prabhat Ranjan
Sarkar @ Anand Murti by resorting to violent acts, by procuring arms
and ammunitions and by committing murders of Madhavanand, an
approver in a murder case against Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and others,
Sh. L. N. Mishra, the then Minister for Railways, Abdul Gaffoor, the
then Chief Minister of Bihar, Shri Puri and Sh. Hingorani, Officers of
CBI, Jail Doctor and Civil Surgeon, Patna, and accused Gopalji joined
the conspiracy later by holding meetings with the co-conspirators at
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 12
his house at Chautham and at his farmhouse at Tilihar, District
Monghyer and by collecting and keeping arms, ammunitions and hand
grenades, to accomplish the common design, and the accused Ram
Janam Dwivedi also joined the said criminal conspiracy, came to
Samastipur with accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand on
01.01.1975, and arranged three entry "Passes" for them and approver
Vikram to reach Dais on Platform No. 3 at Samastipur Railway
Station on 02.01.1975 and murder L.N. Mishra and thereby they
committed an offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section
120-B of IPC.
12. Substantive Charge No. 2 is framed against accused no. 3 Ram
Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at
Platform No. 3, Railway Station, Samastipur, he abetted accused
Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver Vikram in commission of an
offence to murder L. N. Mishra, which was committed in consequence
of his abetment when accused Sudevanand threw a live hand grenade
on the Dais, which got exploded and L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha
and Ram Kishore Parsad Singh Kishore were murdered, and thus
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with
section 109/112 IPC; and he on the said date and place abetted
Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver Vikram to throw a live hand
grenade on the Dais during inaugural function and thereby caused
grievous hurt to Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij
Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N. Parsad, Ajay Kumar, Kapil
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 13
Dev Narain Singh, Smt. Lalita Devi, and thus committed an offence
under Section 326 IPC read with section 112 IPC; and that he on the
said date and place abetted Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Vikram
approver to throw a live hand grenade on the Dais and thereby
voluntarily caused hurt to Jagan Nath Mishra, Rama Kant Jha, Jayant
Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram, Suresh Parshad Singh, Umesh Parshad
Singh, Bisheshwar Rai, Satender Parsad Singh, Parmanand Jha, Suraj
Chaudhary, Smt. Noor Jahan, Jamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narain
Mandal, Pramod Parshad, I.D. Sharma, Naval Kishore, P.R. Chopra
and C.S. Chaudhary and thus committed offence punishable under
Section 324 IPC read with section 112 IPC.
13. Substantive Charge No. 3 is framed against accused
Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri
Lal Yadav to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at about 05.30 PM at
Platform No. 3, Railway Station Samastipur, he did commit murders
of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha, Ram Kishore Prasad Singh
Kishore by throwing a live hand grenade on the Dais and thus by
intentionally causing their death and he thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC; that he on the said date, time
and place voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Ram Bhagat Paswan,
Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N.
Parsad, Ajay Kumar, Kapil Dev Narain Singh, Smt. Lalita Devi by
throwing a live hand grenade on the Dais and thereby he committed an
offence punishable under Section 326 IPC; and that he on the said
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 14
date, time and place voluntarily caused hurt to Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra,
Rama Kant Jha, Jayant Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram, Suresh Parshad
Singh, Umesh Parshad Singh, Bisheshwar Rai, Satender Parsad Singh,
Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudhary, Smt. Noor Jahan, Jamuna Prasad
Mandal, Suraj Narain Mandal, Pramod Parshad, I.D. Sharma, Naval
Kishore, P.R. Chopra and C.S. Chaudhary by throwing a live hand
grenade on the Dais and thereby committed offence punishable under
Section 324 IPC.
14. Charge No. 4 is framed against accused Santoshanand
Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar @
Vishwajit and Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @
Doctor @ Misri Lal Yadav to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at about
05.30 PM at Platform No. 3, Railway Station Samastipur, both of
them along with approver Vikram in furtherance of their common
intention caused murder of L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha and Ram
Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore by intentionally causing their death
when a live hand grenade was thrown on the Dais by Sudevanand and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with
section 34 IPC; and that both of them on the said date, time and place
along with approver Vikram, they all voluntarily caused "grievous
hurt" to Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan
Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N. Parsad, Ajay Kumar, Kapil Dev
Narain Singh, Smt. Lalita Devi when a live hand grenade thrown by
Sudevanand exploded on the Dais and thereby committed an offence
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 15
punishable under Section 326 read with section 34 IPC; and that both
of them along with approver Vikram on the said date, time and place
in furtherance of their common intention caused "hurt" to Dr. Jagan
Nath Mishra, Rama Kant Jha, Jayant Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram,
Suresh Parshad Singh, Umesh Parshad Singh, Bisheshwar Rai,
Satender Parsad Singh, Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudhary, Smt. Noor
Jahan, Jamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narain Mandal, Pramod Parshad,
I.D. Sharma, Naval Kishore, P.R. Chopra and C.S. Chaudhary, when a
live hand grenade thrown by Sudevanand was exploded on the Dais
and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 324
read with section 34 IPC.
15. Charge No. 5 is framed against accused (i) Santoshanand @
Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit, (ii)
Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri
Lal Yadav, (iii) Ram Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi (iv)
Arteshanand @ Ratan Kumar @ Arjun Yadav, (v) Gopalji @ Krishan
Mohan Singh to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at about 05.30 PM at
Platform No. 3, Railway Station, Samastipur, they along with Ram
Kumar and Vinayanand proclaimed offenders and approver Vikram in
pursuance of the criminal conspiracy voluntarily did commit murder
of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha, Ram Kishore Prasad Singh
Kishore by intentionally causing their death when a live hand grenade
was thrown at the Dais by Sudevanand and thereby committed offence
punishable under Section 302 read with section 120-B IPC; and that
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 16
on the same date, place and time, they all along with Ram Kumar and
Vinayanand proclaimed offenders and approver Vikram in pursuance
of the criminal conspiracy voluntarily caused "grievous" hurt to Ram
Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod
Sharma, B.N. Parsad, Ajay Kumar, Kapil Dev Narain Singh, Smt.
Lalita Devi when a live hand grenade was exploded by Sudevanand on
the Dais and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
326 read with section 120-B IPC; and that on the said date, time and
place, they all along with Ram Kumar and Vinayanand proclaimed
offenders and approver Vikram in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy voluntarily caused "hurt" to Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, Rama
Kant Jha, Jayant Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram, Suresh Parshad Singh,
Umesh Parshad Singh, Bisheshwar Rai, Satender Parsad Singh,
Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudhary, Smt. Noor Jahan, Jamuna Prasad
Mandal, Suraj Narain Mandal, Pramod Parshad, I.D. Sharma, Naval
Kishore, P.R. Chopra and C.S. Chaudhary when a live hand grenade
was exploded by Sudevanand on the Dais and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 120-B of IPC.
16. Substantive Charge No. 6 is framed against accused
Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @
Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit to the effect that between June and July,
1974 in Delhi, he was in possession of three live hand grenades and he
intended by means thereof to endanger human live or to cause injury
to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 17
live or cause serious injury to property and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908.
17. Substantive Charge No. 7 is framed against accused
Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri
Lal Yadav to the effect that he on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur was in
possession of a live hand grenade and he intended by means thereof to
endanger human life or to cause injury to property or to enable any
other person by means thereof to endanger live or cause serious injury
to property and thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
18. Substantive Charge No. 8 is framed against accused
Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @
Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at
Samastipur, he was in possession of three live hand grenades and he
intended by means thereof to endanger human live or to cause injury
to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger
live or cause serious injury to property and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908.
19. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 18
3) Gist of Prosecution Evidence
20. To prove its case prosecution i.e. C.B.I. examined the following
163 witnesses (161 plus witness No. 125A & 126A): -
Approver PW-1 Madan Mohan
Srivastava @ Aacharya Madan @ Kapalic @
Aacharya Visheshwaranand @ Vijay has been
an Anand Margi between 1964 to February 1974.
He is examined to prove the criminal conspiracy
hatched in October 1973 to kill (i) Madhavanand,
an approver in a case U/s 302 IPC against Anand
Murti, (ii) L.N. Mishra, (iii) Abdul Gaffoor, (iv)
Mr. Puri, (v) Mr. Hingorani, CBI, (vi) Jail Doctor
and (vii) Civil Surgeon of Patna.
Approver PW-2 Jaldhar Dass @ Vikram
@ Subir also an Anand Margi since 1965. He is
examined to prove his role in criminal conspiracy
since June 1974. He carried a letter and a packet
(containing three bombs) given to him by A-1 for
delivery to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur,
which was later seized by the police at a tomb in
Chhotti Khanjarpur on 13.07.1974.
Budheshawaranand was arrested. PW-2 escaped
and later participated along with others in the
crime to kill L.N. Mishra on 02.01.1975.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 19
PW-3 Mahinder Parshad Sahu -
eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975-
Identified a round object like motor of a fan picked
up by PW-4, his cousin. The object was a bomb
which exploded in the house of Mahadev Sahu.
PW-3 also sustained injuries.
PW-4 Rajinder Parshad Nayak -
eyewitness to the incident dated 2.1.1975. He is
examined to prove that this boy picked up the
bomb left by PW-2 on the railway track which
later exploded at the house of Mahadev Sahu. He
also suffered injuries.
PW-5 Vishwanath Thakur, the then Sub-
Inspector, RPF, Samastipur. He is examined to
prove that he accompanied PW-6 Virender Kumar
Ojha to the quarters of PW-6, where accused
Ranjan Dwivedi came to meet PW-6, requesting
for train reservation for his Bhabhi (brother's wife)
and mother, and to prove the conversation between
accused Ranjan Dwivedi and PW-6. He identifies
accused A-1 and A-3 in the court.
PW-6 Virender Kumar Ojha, the then
Prosecuting Sub-Inspector of Railways - identifies
A-3; speaks that A-3 introduced A-1 and A-2 to
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 20
him and further speaks that A-3 requested for
arrangement of reservation of tickets for his sister-
in-law and mother in the presence of PW-5.
Further identifies A-1 and A-2 as found in the
civilian dress on the date of incident. Further
speaks about their presence in the venue at the
time of incident - speaks of having seen A-3
procuring three entry passes from a Congress
worker; handing over the same to A-1 and A-2 and
retaining one with him - he arranged reservations
as requested by A-3 as per the Requisition Slip
Ex.PW-6/A, containing the address of A-3 as C/o
V.K. Ojha (PW-6), PP RPF SPS - eyewitness to
the presence of A-1, A-2 and A-3 near the spot on
the date of incident till 4 PM - identifies the
Badges/Passes resembling Ex.P-8.
PW-7 Sh. A.R. Ghosh, a photographer of
CID, Bihar, on 07.01.1974 (relating to attack on
Madhavanand, at Collectorate Patna) took
photographs of the scene of the crime. Identifies
photographs Ex.P-4, negative of which is Ex.PW-
7/21. Secondly, he took photographs of the scene
of crime at Railway Station, Samastipur on
03.01.1975. The negatives are Ex.PW-7/23 to
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 21
Ex.PW-7/40 and photographs are Ex.PW-7/41 to
Ex.PW-7/58.
PW-8 Ct. Jai Kishan Singh, the then
Guard, Sadar Treasury, Patna - eyewitness to the
incident dated 07.01.1974 (relating to attack on
Madhavanand, at Collectorate Patna). He
identified the attacker through the photograph
Ex.P-4 (that of Vinayanand).
PW-9 Sh. Chandi Mishra, the then Naik
posted in Police Line, Gaya, a party in the escort
troop of Madhavanand - eyewitness to the incident
dated 07.01.1974 - identifies the photograph Ex.P-
4 as that of the attacker - speaks of rukka Ex.PW-
9/A based on which FIR No. 24 of 1974 Ex.PW-
92/A was registered with PS Kotwali, Patna.
PW-10 Kailash Singh - driver with Police
Lines, Gaya - eyewitness to the incident dated
7.1.1974; brought Madhavanand in the police jeep
no. BRB-1400 from Central Jail, Gaya to
Collectorate at Patna - identifies the photograph
Ex.P-4 as that of the person throwing the hand
grenade on Madhavanand.
PW-11 Raj Singh - an Anand Margi since
1967 - speaks of his acquaintance with A-1 since
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 22
1968/69 - speaks about extra judicial confession
made by A-1 before him on 20.03.1095 regarding
the attack on L.N Mishra at Samastipur, Railway
Station in which L.N Mishra died.
PW-12 Manohar Lal, the then LDC with
Chief Engineer, CPWD- an eyewitness to CBI
Officer obtaining specimen handwriting Ex.PW-
12/A to PW-12/E of A-2 on 5.8.1975, in the
presence of his colleague Sh. Uma Shankar.
PW-13 Shiv Raj Singh - Anand Margi - an
employee of IARI, Delhi - a close acquaintance of
A-1 who used to visit him in the hostel of IARI,
Pusa, Delhi - eye witness to A-1 handing over a
packet and letter to PW-2 to be delivered to
Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur.
PW-14 Prahlad Chander Dass, Manager
of Dalubabu Dharamshala, Bhagalpur. He has
been examined to prove the entry of stay dated
1.4.1974 in the Register Ex.PW-14/A in the name
of Ramesh Singh. He proved that photograph
Ex.P-3 to be of one Ramesh Singh who stayed
alone in the Dharamshala and left on 2.4.1975.
PW-15 Sukhdev Sahu - Anand Margi since
1968. He is examined to prove the fact that at the
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 23
instance of Aacharya Chitbhashanand, he allowed
stay of Amar Singh @ Budheshawaranand in June
1974 in his house at Village Purani, Distt. Saharsa,
Bihar - speaks of Amar Singh introducing PW-2 as
Subir Kumar on 04.07.1974 and both stayed in his
house - identifies PW-2 in the court as Subir
Kumar - proves the letters Ex.PW-15/A and PW-
15/B (recovered from Budheshawaranand from Ex.
P-7), which he had earlier given to Amar Singh.
He also identified Photograph Ex.P-3 as that of
Amar Singh (Budheshawaranand).
PW-16 Sh. Laxman Parsad is a Bar Man
of Republic Hotel, Patna since 1955 - speaks that
that Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, the then Chief Minister of
Bihar, used to visit their Hotel- speaks of PW-1
staying under the pseudonym of S.K. Gupta of
Karol Bagh, Delhi.
PW-17 Sh. Sudershan Banerjee another
employee of Hotel Republic, Patna - identifies the
writing and signatures of S.K. Singha, an
employee of Hotel Republic; to prove the copy of
the Bill Ex.PW-17/A, Ex.PW-17/A-1 Visitor's
Register Ex.PW-1/P and Voucher Ex.PW-1/R as in
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 24
the handwriting of Sher Khil, another employee of
their hotel.
PW-18 Gokhla Nand Sahai was the Officer
Incharge, PS Kotwali, Patna in January 1974. He
has been examined to prove receiving of
information regarding attack on Madhavanand
dated 7.1.1974. He dictated the statement of
Chandi Mishra (PW-9) to Sub-Inspector
Girijanand Ex.PW-9/A which was sent to PS
through ASI Durga Parsad for registration of the
case by endorsement Ex.PW-18/A bearing his
signatures.
PW-19 Sh. Purshottam Kumar is son of
the owner of Aadarsh Lodge, Indore. He is
examined to prove Visitors' Register Ex.P-5 of
their Lodge, containing entries dated 26.08.1973
Ex.PW-1/K and another entry dated 10.09.1973
Ex.PW-1/M in the name of visitor "Vijay Kumar"
bearing the signatures of the visitor at point
Ex.PW-1/N and Ex.PW-1/L. He is also witness to
the seizure memo Ex.PW-19/A by which PW-83
PW-83 Sh. M.P. Sharma, Inspector CBI seized the
register.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No. 25
(Note: This Vijay Kumar is none else but
approver PW-1)
PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmed - the Staff
Reporter, UNI, Patna Bureau, at the relevant time -
Examined to prove that on 03.01.1975, a
manuscript Ex.PW-2/B with a printed leaflet
Ex.PW-20/A which were found in his office. He
showed these documents to Bureau Chief PW-21
Dharya Nand Jha, also shown PW-22 on 4.1.1975.
These documents were seized by CBI in July 1975
vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B in the presence of
Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) and Dhaneshwar Singh. He
has been examined to prove that Chief of their
Bureau PW-21 Sh. Dharya Nand Jha was working
with him in the same office. PW-22 Sh. Chander
Mohan Mishra was Special Correspondent of
'Patriot' and 'Link' Papers at Patna.
PW-21 Sh. Dharya Nand Jha was the Bureau Manager, UNI, Patna, in the year 1975.
He has been examined to prove that he knew PW-
20 Farzand Ahmed, a staff reporter in their office. They knew PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra, Special Correspondent for 'Patriot' and 'Link'. He has been examined to prove the receiving of these CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 26 documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A in their office by PW-20 on 03.01.1975. On 3.1.1975, he had seen sarsari (cursory) look on these documents, which were given to him by PW-20 Farzand Ahmed. He asked him (PW-20) to keep these documents with him and next day these documents were shown to PW-22 Chander Mohan Mishra. He is also an attesting witness of the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B for taking these documents in possession from PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmed by CBI in his presence and that of Dineshwar Singh.
PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra was Journalist attached with Delhi paper 'Patriot' and weekly paper 'Link' in January 1975. He has been examined to prove that he knew PW-21 Dharya Nand Jha and the fact that on 4.1.1975, he found PW-20 Farzand Ahmed and PW-21 D.N. Jha available in their office when PW-20 Farzand Ahmed had shown him two leaflets Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A. He returned both the leaflets to PW-20 and prepared a report, which was published in the 'Link' weekly dated 12.1.1975 Ex.PW-22/A. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 27 PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar is the son of the owner of the Ashok Niketan @ Ashok Lodge, Patna - examined to prove that A-1 took a room on rent in their lodge, speaks of A-1 to write his name and address in the notebook Ex.PW-23/A at point PW-2/C with a pseudonym of Binod Kumar - seen A-2, Arteshanand and PW-2 addressing A-1 as "Boss" - identified A-1, A-2 and PW-2 in the court
- also speaks that A-1 used to wear hearing aid -
witness to the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-23/B which was prepared after taking into possession the said notebook Ex.PW-23/A by CBI.
PW-24 Ct. Shiv Balak Singh - eyewitness to the incident dated 13.07.1974 along with Sub- Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram. Speaks of the incident at Maqbara at Chhotti Khanjarpur where he found PW-2 and Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh -
further speaks of his chasing PW-2, who escaped - identifies PW-2 in the court - identifies material objects seized - three hand grenades Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13, one revolver Ex.P-14, two live cartridges Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16 and bag Ex.P-7. He also identified the photograph Ex.P-3 of the person apprehended, who gave his name to the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 28 police as Ramesh Singh @ Suresh Singh @ Suraj Prakash. (Note: the photograph is that of Budheshawaranand) PW-25 Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram was the Incharge of PS Brari, District Bhagalpur on 13.07.1974. He has been examined to prove the incident dated 13.7.1974 relating to Maqbara, Khanjarpur. He along with PW-24 Ct. Shiv Balak Singh went to Maqbara, Chhotti Khanjarpur Chowk and found two strangers; and on making enquiry he was not satisfied and one person carrying the bag threw it towards the other person, who again threw it towards the first man. He secured the first man and the bag fell down on the ground, and then he lifted it. PW-24 Ct. Shiv Balak Singh unsuccessfully chased the other man. He is also examined to prove recovery of bag Ex.P-7, three hand grenades Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13, one revolver Ex.P-14, two live cartridges Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16, two letters Ex.PW-15/A and PW-
15/B, 5 papers Ex.PW-25/A to Ex.PW-25/E, vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-25/F. He proved rukka Ex.PW-25/G and endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW-25/G1 and the photograph of the person CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 29 Ex.P-3 who was apprehended and stated that he has now died. He identified PW-2 Vikram, who was chased unsuccessfully by PW-24 Ct. Shiv Balak Singh.
PW-26 Sh. Narender Parsad Issar was the worker of Congress (I) in the year 1974-75. He is an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975. He is also examined to prove the occurrence of the explosion and injuries sustained by many persons including Railway Minister L.N. Mishra. He assisted Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and took him to Saloon. He also proved rough Site Plan Ex.PW-
26/DB.
PW-27 Sh. Paras Nath Singh was the Railway Guard, Narkatiaganj, District Champaran, Bihar, in the year 1975 - an Anand Margi since 1968 - speaks of PW-2 visiting him during 1974 and after January 1975 with a request to arrange for arms and ammunitions - Speaks of Vikram meeting Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80), Khub Lal and other Anand Margies - Vikram made an extra judicial confession before him that they were responsible for the bomb blast at Samastipur and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 30 throwing of hand grenade on Chief Justice at Delhi.
PW-28 Brij Nandan Parsad was the DIG, Darbhanga Range in the year 1974 - aware of the programs of the Minister - narrated the itinerary of the Minister - an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975 - also suffered injuries in the explosion.
PW-29 Sh. K.K. Dey was the Assistant Director in Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation Directorate. He has been examined to prove obtaining of specimen handwriting of accused Santoshanand on nine sheets Ex.PW-29/A in his presence and that of his colleague Sh. Naresh Kumar by CBI officers on 10.7.1975.
PW-30 Sh. W.R. Chopra was the official of Reserve Bank of India on 11.7.1975. He has been examined to prove that Sh. Sardari Lal of CBI obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Ranjan Dwivedi Ex.PW-30/1 to Ex.PW-30/14 and Ex.PW-30/55 to Ex.PW-30/57 in his presence and that of his colleague Sh. R.K. Jain.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 31 PW-31 Sh. I.C. Tiwari was the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 14.8.1975. He has been examined to prove obtaining of specimen writing of accused Sudevanand in his court, which are Ex.PW-31/A-1 to Ex.PW-31/A-3.
PW-32 Sh. Satnam Singh was the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 11.8.1975. He has been examined to prove obtaining of specimen handwriting of accused Santoshanand on three sheets, which are Ex.PW-
32/A-1 to PW-32/A-3.
PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal Prakash - Anand Margi since 1957 and Office Secretary of PBI (one of the wings of Anand Marg). He has been examined to prove the existence of various wings of Anand Marg Organisation, the purpose of the organization and to prove that accused no.1 was Editor of 'Prout' at D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. He knew Santoshanand; whose real name was Ghanshyam Parsad and his father's name was Narinder Narain Verma. He had seen Santoshanand writing & signing in English and Hindi. He identified him. He knew and identified CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 32 accused Ranjan Dwivedi and Gopalji. He identified that the documents Q-3 (Ex.PW-2/N= Ex.PW-33/A) and Q-2 (Ex.PW-2/B) & Q-1 (Ex.PW-2/C) to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. He deposed that PW-2 Vikram used to sell papers. He also proved the handwriting of accused Sudevanand on exercise book Ex.PW-
33/B to Ex.PW-33/D. He left Anand Marg in 1971.
PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra was the Junior Instructor in ITI of Indore. He joined Anand Marg in the year 1967. He has been examined to prove that he was given 'diksha' by Aacharya Visheshwaranand (PW-1) in 1967. He identified him in the court as Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan Srivastava and deposed that in the year 1973, Visheshwaranand asked him whether he could arrange arms and ammunitions. PW-1 gave him Rs.400/- to purchase a pistol or revolver in August 1973 and again visited him after 15/20 days, when PW-34 told him that he could not arrange the same and will send back the amount by money order.
PW-35 Sh. Umakant Chaudhary is a cousin of Sh. R.K. Singh Kishore (victim). He has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 33 been examined to prove the Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-35/B in respect of dead body of Sh. R.K. Singh Kishore, who succumbed to his injuries in Railway Hospital, Samastipur on 3.1.1975. He identified his photograph Ex.PW-35/A. PW-36 Sh. Baidyanath Parsad Sinha is owner of Baijnath Press at Bhagalpur. He is examined to prove that he was approached by 2/3 persons including Amar Singh, whose photograph he identified as Ex.P-3. They wanted to get a pamphlet printed from his press. He proved the proof Ex.PW-2/D (2 sheets) wherein Amar Singh made corrections at point 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'D1'.
PW-37 Sh. Virender Narain Poddar is a student and son of the owner of Ajay Printing Press, Samastipur. He is examined to prove that 100 Congress Sewa Dal Badges like Ex.P-9 (which is actually Ex.P-8 in the folder R-4) were printed in their press on 01.01.1975 for inaugural function to be held at Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975. The Badge Ex.P-8 was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-37/A. (On the request of accused no.1 and 2, another similar Badge was got CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 34 produced in the court from PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, an independent witness, in his cross-
examination, which was exhibited as Ex.PW-
57/DA (available in folder R-7). Ex.P-8 and Ex.PW-57/DA are similar in all respect and reads as under: -
काँ ेस सेवा दल सम तीपुर PW-38 Sh. Suresh Parsad was a Cycle Stand Keeper, r/o Doudpur, Shahpur, District Patna. He has come in the dock to prove that a Personal Search of Ghanshyam Parsad @ Jitender Kumar was carried on 17.06.1975 at 9.00 or 9.30 PM at Railway Station, Patna. He identified that person in the court, pointing out towards accused Santoshanand. At the time of his search, accused Santoshanand was wearing pant and shirt and not sporting beard or long hair. He also proved that the said accused was carrying a jhola (handbag). He identified and proved that the a Diary Book, other articles, Cash of Rs.3,921/- and some change and a Ticket of Punjab Mail were recovered from his personal search. Hearing Aid was recovered in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 35 a packet from the pocket of his pant. An Exercise Book Ex.P-22, copy of which is Ex.PW-38/E-1 to PW-38/E-72 was also seized from him. A Seizure Memo Ex.P-148 in summoned file of Session Case No. 9 of 1976, copy of which is Ex.PW-38/A was prepared in three sheets and bears his signatures. The person also gave his name as Santoshanand.
PW-39 Sh. Rajender Thukral was the officer of the State Bank of India in July 1975. He has come in the witness box to prove that DSP Sardari Lal obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his presence and that of his colleague Sh. B.K. Tuteja in July 1975. Those specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Ranjan Dwivedi are Ex.P-63 to Ex.P-66 and Ex.P-71 to Ex.P-76 in the summoned file of Sessions Case No.9/76 Photostat copies of which are Ex.PW-39/A and Ex.PW- 39/B. In his presence, specimen handwriting of accused Santoshanand was obtained by DSP Sardari Lal and that of Sh. B.K. Tuteja, which are Ex.PW-39/L-1 to Ex.PW-39/L-10.
PW-40 Sh. R.K. Ghai was the Head Reservation Clerk at Samastipur Railway Station.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 36 Prosecution has examined him to prove the Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A for reservation in the name of Sh. R. Dwivedi, M/o Dwivedi and Ms. Tara Devi. It bears his initials at point 'A'. He proved Seizure Memo Mark PW-40/A (which was later on exhibited as Ex.PW-54/A) by deposing that it bears the signatures of Sh. G. P. Gupta, (PW-54) Reservation Supervisor at Samastipur Railway Station. Later on, Sh. G.P. Gupta has also been examined as PW-54. (Reservation Slip Ex.PW-6/A is admitted by accused Ranjan Dwivedi).
PW-41 Sh. A.R.K. Sahai was the Inspector (Income Tax) in the Office of Commissioner, Patna - examined to prove obtaining of specimen handwriting of Ram Aasrey Parsad Ex.PW-41/A-1 to Ex.PW-41/A-7 and that of Gopalji Ex.PW-41/B- 1 to Ex.PW-41/B-10 by Sh. N.N. Singh of CBI in his presence and that of (PW-74) Sh. N.U. Ghani, Income Tax Inspector.
PW-42 Mahant Krishan Mohan Dass is a resident of Chhotti Khanjarpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar - eyewitness to - incident at Maqbara, Chhotti Khanjarpur, Bhagalpur - witness to the recovery of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 37 various articles including bag, three hand grenades, one country-made pistol, two letters etc. from the person, who was arrested by Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram and Constable Shiv Balak Singh. The person arrested told his name as Suresh (Budheshawaranand).
PW-43 Sh. B. Lal was the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Shimla. He has come in the witness box to prove his Expert Opinion/Report with regard to handwriting and signatures of accused persons.
PW-44 Sh. S.S. Vartak was the Principal, ITI, Chhindwara in the year 1974 who brought leave application dated 16.12.1973 of Manohar Darve on medical ground Ex.PW-44/A for the period from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973 without enclosing medical certificate. It was sanctioned as Earned Leave on 26.12.1973. He has been examined to corroborate the testimony of approver PW-1 that in or about 2 nd week of December 1973, Manohar Darve was brought to Patna by Sudevanand and Arteshanand to manufacture arms/revolver and they were not successful in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 38 getting revolver manufactured from Manohar Darve.
PW-45 Sh. Ishwar Chander Mishra is the nephew of Sh. Surya Narain Jha, who had died due to injuries suffered in the Samastipur bomb blast. He has been examined to prove injuries sustained by his 'foofa' (husband of father's sister) Sh. Surya Narain Jha in bomb blast at Railway Station platform, Samastipur on 02.01.1975 and later on he succumbed to his injuries on 04.01.1975. He also proved Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-45/A in respect of dead body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
PW-46 Sh. Ram Kishan Bankira was the Constable posted at GRP, Samastipur. He has been examined to prove that on 03.01.1975, the dead body of said Ram Kishore Parsad Singh Kishore was entrusted to him and Constable Dhood Nath with inquest papers to take the body to the Mortuary, Samastipur. The postmortem on his body was conducted on 4.1.1975. He identified the photograph Ex.PW-35/A of the deceased. He also identified the body before the doctor. After postmortem, he handed over the body to his relatives.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 39 PW-47 Krishan Kumar Shukla was the Travelling Ticket Examiner (Railways) on 03.01.1975 on Assam Mail from Kanpur to New Delhi. He is examined to prove the entries in respect of berth no. 2, 3 & 5 in Reservation Chart Mark PW-47/A and he found the persons mentioned therein travelling from Samastipur to New Delhi in Coach no. 3954. This document Reservation Chart has now been exhibited as Ex.
PW-47/A for the reasons mentioned at the relevant portion of the judgment.
PW-48 Sh. M.K. Gupta was the Assistant Engineer (Construction), Samastipur Railway, from December 1974 and January 1975. He has come in the witness box to prove that he got constructed a Rostrum on the platform between MG (Meter Gauge) and BG (Broad Gauge) Lines for inaugural function on 2.1.1975 and to prove that there was no tampering with the Rostrum till start of the function. He proved slips like Ext.PW48/A were issued before the function to the departmental persons. This slip was recovered from the coat pocket of deceased Ram Kishore Singh Kishore, a clerk of the Railway.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 40 PW-49 Sh. B.M. Gupta was the Deputy Director, Ministry of Works and Housing. He has been examined to prove the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-49/A by which documents and articles were recovered during search of accused Santoshanand in his presence and that of an officer of Archeological Department Sh. Chisti and ASI Kishori Lal at D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi by DSP Girdhari Lal of CBI. Santoshanand claimed to be Incharge there.
PW-50 Sh. R.L. Bhagat was Additional P.P. at Parliament Street Courts. He used to appear before the Court of Sh. M.K. Chawla, the then Additional Sessions Judge, in a case U/s 306/120- B IPC vide FIR no. 209/24.4.1973, PS Tilak Marg, decided on 7.4.1975 relating to self-immolation by Dineshwaranand, an Anand Margi. Santoshanand and another were proclaimed offenders and accused Ranjan Dwivedi used to appear for them in that case.
PW-51 Sh. N.G. Kundu was the Controller of Explosives, East Circle, Calcutta. He has come in the witness box to prove that on 04.01.1975 on requisition of ASP, Railway Police, he visited the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 41 Rostrum at Platform No. 3, Samastipur Railway Station. He again visited the place on 05.01.1975 and found some metallic splinters, remittance of igniters, etc. on the Rostrum. He proved his Preliminary Report Ex.PW-51/A. He also visited bungalow of Mahadev Sahu on 04.1.1975 and found remnants of explosive of same type, which exploded at Platform No.3, Samastipur, vide his Preliminary Report Ex.PW-51/D. PW-52 Sh. Jagdish Parsad Sinha was the ASI, GRP, Samastipur, in January and February 1975. He has been examined to prove Inquest Proceedings in respect of Ram Kishore Parsad Singh (Ex.PW-52/B), application Ex.PW-52/C submitted to CJM for post-mortem in respect of body of Ram Kishore Parsad Singh and Handing Over Memo Ex.PW-52/D about some articles kept in Malkhana, which were sealed with the seal of CFSL.
PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari was the Chief Public Relations Officer, North East Railways, in July 1974 to September 1977. He has been examined to prove the preparation of the inaugural programme to be held on 02.01.1975 for BG Lines CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 42 between Samastipur and Muzaffarpur by L.N. Mishra at 01.00 PM and his visits to Delhi to finalize the details of the function and publication of Invitation Cards and issuance of the advertisements. He is an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975 and narrated the same.
PW-54 Sh. Ganesh Parsad Gupta was the Reservation Supervisor (Railways), Samastipur in the year 1975. He has come in the witness box to prove the Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A for reservation bearing initial of Reservation Clerk Sh.
R.K. Ghai (PW-40). He has deposed that the
reservation for three railway tickets from
Samastipur to Delhi pertaining to accused Ranjan Dwivedi and his two family members. The Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A was seized by CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-54/A. He also deposed that one coach from Samastipur to New Delhi used to be attached with Assam Mail. (Reservation Slip Ex.PW-6/A is admitted by accused Ranjan Dwivedi).
PW-55 Sh. V.K. Dhakane, has retired as Deputy Assistant Comptroller from the Comptrollerate of Inspection and Immenuation, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 43 Karkoi in the year 1977. He remained posted in Ordinance Factory at Jabalpur as Technical Supervisor. He worked as Forensic Expert to prove the handwriting and signatures of Sh. G.V. Kaieho, the then Assistant Comptroller, on letters Ex.PW-51/H and PW-51/J in the year 1975.
PW-56 Sh. Umed Parsad Singh was the MLC, Bihar, in January 1975. He was on Dias at Platform no.3 of Railway Station Samastipur and an eyewitness to the incident dated 2.1.1975. He also sustained injuries.
PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, an independent witness, who had been a former teacher, ex-serviceman and social worker, is a resident of Bithan, PS Hassanpur, District Samastipur, Bihar. He was on the Dais of Platform no. 3 of Railway Station Samastipur and an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975. He also sustained grievous injuries. Prosecution has examined PW-37, who proved printing of "Congress Sewa Dal" badges/cards like Ex.P-8, however defence got produced in the court similar Badge brought by PW-57 in his cross-examination, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-57/DA. He deposed CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 44 about issuing of such Badges to him and eight persons who accompanied him on 02.01.1975 in order to make entry in the function.
PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar is a resident of Mohalla Mithanpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. He is an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975. At the time of incident, he was aged about 11 years.
He could come on the Dias since he was son of the then Incharge, GRP, Railway Station, Samastipur. He narrated the incident dated 02.01.1975. He sustained grievous injuries.
PW-59 Sh. Hari Narain Parsad was the Executive Magistrate at Khagaul, District Patna, Bihar, in January 1975. He has been examined to prove Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-59/A on the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister.
Inquest Proceedings were conducted on 3.1.1975 at Railway Hospital, Danapur in his presence.
PW-60 Sh. R.N. Rai was the Officer Incharge, Railway Station, Siwaan under the jurisdiction of SP, GRP, Muzaffarpur, in December 1974 and January 1975. He deposed that he escorted Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra in ring round duty to his Saloon in the Special CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 45 Train from Lahariya Sarai to Samastipur. He is an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975 and narrated that Sh. L.N. Mishra and DIG B.N. Parsad (PW-28) sustained injuries, Sh. L.N. Mishra was removed to Saloon at B.G. Lines in a Special Train and DIG B.N. Parsad (PW-28) was escorted to a vehicle outside the Railway Station. Special Train left Samastipur at 08.00 PM for Danapur and he travelled with the Minister in that Saloon. He came to know about the death of Sh. L.N. Mishra on 03.1.1975 at Barauni.
PW-61 Sh. Kesri Singh was the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Johari Bazaar, Jaipur. He handed over Saving Bank Account Opening Form and Specimen Signatures Card (Ex.PW-2/G and Ex.PW-2/H) in respect of Saving Bank Account No. 2638 in the name of Vikram Kumar to CBI officers vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-
61/1.
PW-62 Sh. Sachinder Krishan Chonbedar was the Assistant Station Master, Samastipur in January 1975. He has been examined to prove maintaining of two Registers i.e. Train Detention Register (Ex.PW-62/A) and Train Signal Register CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 46 (Mark PW-62/A) and that Special BG Train was on platform no.5 which was to go to Muzaffarpur and it was brought on line no.9 from line no.1 through West End. The Engine number mentioned at entry Ex.PW-62/A in the register, took the train to Danapur from Samastipur Railway Station and entry Ex.PW-62/B is mentioned in Train Signal Register as Mark PW-62/B. PW-63 Sh. D.K. Maharishi was the General Manager, Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur. He has been examined to prove that on 08.6.1975 vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-63/A CBI seized three documents i.e. Account Opening Form Ex.PW-2/E, Specimen Signature Card Ex.PW-2/F and Original Resolution Ex.PW-2/N, which were given by Anand Printers operated by Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand.
PW-64 Sh. K.K. Tripathi was the Joint Secretary (Finance) in the year 1975. He has been examined to prove consent of the Government of Bihar for investigation of the case no. 1, GRP Samastipur dated 02.01.1975 vide Notification Ex.PW-64/E dated 03.01.1975 and case no.1 PS Samastipur dated 02.01.1975 vide Notification CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 47 Ex.PW-64/D dated 03.01.1975 by SPE U/s. 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. He has also proved the consent of the Bihar Government to investigate the case no.24 of Patna Kotwali and case no. 71 of 13.7.1974 of PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur by Delhi Special Police u/s 6 of DSPE Act vide Notifications Ex.PW-64/A and Ex.PW-64/B both dated 13.9.1975. He also proved the Order Ex.PW- 64/C, which is the consent of the competent authority for prosecution of eight persons u/s 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act namely (i) Ram Aasrey Parsad; (ii) Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit; (iii) Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ram Chander @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri Lal Yadav;
(iv) Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass; (v) Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Vijay @ Madan Mohan Srivastava; (vi) Vinayanand Avadhoot @ Jagdish @ Ram Mohan @ Anand Kumar; (vii) Gopalji @ Krishan Mohan Singh and (viii) Ram Nagina Parsad @ Bhaiya.
PW-65 Vishwanath, the then Deputy SP, Samastipur, in January 1975. He is an eyewitness to the incident dated 2.1.1975 in which Sh. L.N. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 48 Mishra, Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and others sustained injuries. He proved carbon copy of his Report Ex.PW-65/A vide which he asked the Incharge, GRP, Samastipur for registration of the FIR U/s 120-B/307 IPC and U/s 3 & 4 Explosive Substance Act. In his re-examination at page no. 2136, he proved the original writing Ex.PW-65/B, which he gave to GRP, PS Samastipur for registration of the case.
PW-66 Major Dr. A.I. Lendkhy was commissioned in Army Medical Core in September 1974. He passed his M.B.B.S. examination in the year 1971. From Training School, Lucknow, he was sent to Medical College, Darbhanga on 01.01.1975 and remained there until 24.01.1975. He has been examined to prove that on 04.01.1975, he examined a person namely;
Surya Narain Jha at 08.00 AM in the hospital and found him dead. He made an endorsement Ex.PW-
66/A on the Bed Head Ticket.
PW-67 Sh. Ali Waris Khan, a resident of South Gandhi Maidan, Patna, to prove that the then Chief Minister of Bihar Abdul Gaffoor used to visit their house during the years 1973 and 1974.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 49 PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar -
Anand Margi since 1962. He was posted in Delhi as Finance Secretary (Press & Property) and Secretary of PFI having office at C-18, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi and thereafter at D- 41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. He knew Santoshanand, whose original name was Ghanshyam Parsad. He had seen Santoshanand writing and signing and identified his handwriting Ex.PW-2/B in Hindi and Ex.PW-2/C in English, Ex.PW-33/A in Hindi, writing Mark A-1 to A-72 in Kohinoor Exercise Book Mark P-22. He had also seen Vikram, who used to distribute the papers and saw him writing and signing. The original name of Vikram was Jaldhar Dass.
Vikram used to work at Ranchi and from there he brought Vikram to Delhi. He gave training to Vikram at Varanasi and identified Santoshanand and Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass in the court. He also identified Form Ex.PW-2/A, which is filled in the handwriting of Vikram and bears his signatures. He also proved other documents Ex.PW-2/E, Ex.PW-2/F, Ex.PW-2/G, Ex.PW-2/H, Ex.PW-2/J and Ex.PW-2/K to be in the handwriting of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 50 Vikram. He also identified accused Ranjan Dwivedi present in the court as he knew him due to his visits in their office at South Extension, Part- I, New Delhi.
PW-69 Sh. Shashi Nath Mishra (His testimony is not referred by either party). The testimony of this witness is otherwise not relevant for adjudication of the case.
PW-70 Sh. Madan Lal. His sister Phulwati was married to Ram Aasrey (Proclaimed Offender). Marriage of sister Kaushalya was fixed for 29th or 30th May 1975. One or two days prior to that, Puri Sahib and N.N. Sahai, officers of CBI, brought Ram Aasrey to their house in the presence of Banwari. At that time, his sister Phulwati brought out two boxes with her when Ram Aasrey took out one diary from one of the boxes and handed over the same to Puri Sahib and Note Book Ex.P-149, was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-
70/A. PW-71 Sh. Brindaban Pandey was the Assistant Jailor, Central Jail, Patna, in December 1974. He has been examined to prove Register Ex.P-150 of visitors to under trial prisoners in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 51 Central Jail, Patna, for the period from 14.5.1974 to 9.1.1975. He proved the filing of an application dated 16.12.1974 Ex.PW-71/DA by Ranjan Dwivedi and Ram Tanuk Singh to seek permission to interview Anand Murtiji. Sh. Anand Murti was confined to Central Jail, Patna. Vide order dated 16.12.1974 Ex.PW-71/A, the then Superintendent, Central Jail, Patna allowed interview in the presence of Assistant Jailor. He has proved the entry dated 17.12.1974 in the Register Ex.P-150 regarding interview of Ram Tanuk Singh and Ranjan Dwivedi with Anand Murti. He identified Ranjan Dwivedi (Ram Janam Dwivedi) in the court, who came for interview with Anand Murtiji on 17.12.1974. (This fact is admitted by accused Ranjan Dwivedi).
PW-72 Sh. Ram Chander Mishar is a resident of Samastipur in whose presence and that of Suraj Parshad Singh, articles like tarpaulin, durries, gaddas, masands, jajams, etc. were taken into possession by CID, Bihar Police on 4.1.1975 at the spot at Railway Station, Samastipur vide list Ex.PW-72/A. He identified those articles.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 52 PW-73 Sh. Shobha Kant Jha was a worker on Tea-Stall at Platform No.8 of Railway Station, Samastipur in January 1975. He has been examined to prove the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-73/A by which the articles from the spot like wooden sleepers, dari, etc. were taken into possession by CID, Bihar Police on 5.1.1975.
PW-74 Sh. M.U. Ghani was the Income Tax Inspector at Patna, who along with Sh. A.R.K. Sahai (PW41) went to CBI office on 2.6.1975. In their presence specimen handwriting of accused Ram Aasrey Parsad Ex.PW-41/A-1 to Ex.PW-
41/A-7 and that of accused Gopalji Ex.PW-41/B-1 to Ex.PW-41/B-10 were obtained by the CBI officer.
PW-75 Sh. R.N. Rai was the Executive Magistrate, Bhagalpur, Sadar. (Either party does not refer his testimony). The testimony of this witness is otherwise not relevant for adjudication of the matter.
PW-76 Sh. Pramod Parsad Singh was the Reader/Assistant in the court of S.D.O., Sadar, Bhagalpur. He handed over a file of court case of GR No. 815/72 to CBI Inspector vide Seizure CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 53 Memo Ex.PW-76/B, Handing over Memo Ex.PW-
76/A. The file contains two Powers of Attorneys, one Bail Bond and one Personal Bond Mark PW-
76/A-1 to A-4. (Either party does not refer these documents and testimony of PW-76). The testimony of this witness is otherwise not relevant for adjudication of the case.
PW-77 Sh. Ram Bahadur Deo. (Either party does not refer his testimony). The testimony of this witness is otherwise not relevant for adjudication of the matter.
PW-78 Sh. M.P. Dubey. (His testimony is not referred by either party). The testimony of this witness is otherwise not relevant for adjudication of the dispute.
PW-79 Sh. R.P. Mathur was the Manager, Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Jaipur. He handed over documents mentioned in Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/A on 14.5.1976 to PW-82 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, DSP, CBI. He handed over Account Opening Form Ex.PW-2/J. He also handed over Specimen Signature Card Ex.PW-2/K to another officer of CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/B. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 54 PW-80 Sh. Roop Nath Mishra - Anand Margi. He took diksha in 1958. He has been examined to corroborate testimony of approver Vikram (PW-2) that he tried to procure arms and ammunitions from him and PW-27 Sh. Paras Nath.
He is also examined to prove that he met Subir (PW-2) at the house of Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) at Narkatiaganj in the year 1974 after one and a half month of Dusshera. He identified Subir in the court by pointing towards PW-2 Vikram (approver). Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) at his residence introduced Subir to him (PW 80).
Thereafter, Subir visited PW-80 Roop Nath Mishra where Ram Aasrey met them and Ram Aasrey called Subir as Vikram at Chamua Railway halt.
They stayed at his house.
PW-81 Sh. Dev Narain Parsad is a local resident of Samastipur. He accompanied a CBI Officer to Ajay Printing Press and the Badge Ex.P-8 was seized from the owner of the press Sh.
Shiv Narain Poddar (PW-37) vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-37/A. PW-82 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh was Deputy SP, CBI in the year 1976. On 14.5.1976, he seized CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 55 Account Opening Form Ex.PW-2/J and copy of Statement of Account Mark PW-82/A in respect of Account No. 2775 in the name of Anand Printers operated by Vikram Kumar vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/A. He also took into possession copy of the Statement of Account Mark PW-63/A of account no.239 in the name of Anand Printers operated by Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-82/B. PW-83 Sh. M.P. Sharma was the CBI Inspector, New Delhi, in September 1975. He seized the Visitors' Register Ex.P-5 vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-19/A from Sh. Purshottam Dass (PW-19) of Aadarsh Hindu Lodge, Indore (M.P.), which was also known as Gujarati Lodge. This register contained entries of a visitor Vijay Kumar on 26.08.1973 and 10.09.1973. This Vijay Kumar is none as but PW-1.
PW-84 Sh. J.S. Bhagriya was the Inspector, CBI, Jaipur, in June 1976. He seized documents Ex.PW-2/E, Ex.PW-2/F, Ex.PW-2/N from Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-63/A. He also seized document Ex.PW-2/K vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 56 79/B from Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Jaipur. He also seized documents Ex.PW-2/G and Ex.PW-
2/H vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-61/A from Kesri Singh of Union Bank of India, Jaipur.
PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, the then MP in the year 1975, is an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975. He was present on the munch (Dais) at the Platform No.3 of the Railway Station, Samastipur. He sustained grievous injuries on his both legs and admitted in Dr. Nawab's Clinic, Darbhanga. He narrated the incident dated 02.01.1975.
PW-86 Sh. Rameshwar Sen was the Incharge, PS GRP, Samastipur, on 02.1.1975. He has been examined to prove that he received the handwritten Rukka Ex.PW-65/B on 02.1.1975 at 08.00 PM. He recorded his endorsement Ex.PW-
86/A on Report Ex.PW-65/B sent to him by PW-
65 Sh. Vishwanath, the then Dy. S.P., Samastipur. He proved the FIR Ex.PW-86/B, which was correctly written by him in his own handwriting bearing his signatures.
PW-87 Sh. Sidh Nath Ram was the ASI/Incharge, PS Khagaul, District Patna in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 57 January 1975. He received information on 03.01.1975 at 3.00 AM to the effect that Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra had been admitted in Railway Hospital, Danapur with injuries because of bomb blast. He visited there between 9 AM and 10 AM. Doctor told him at about 9.30 AM about the death of Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra.
He remained in Operation Theater from the time since his reaching the Railway Hospital until the doctor gave him information about the death of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He is examined to prove the Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-59/A on the body of L.N Mishra in the Recovery Room of Railway Hospital, Danapur in the presence of witnesses and to prove the fact that on the direction of District Magistrate, Patna, the dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra was handed over to his relatives without postmortem examination.
PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha was the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur in January 1975. He has been examined to prove that from 01.01.1975 to 25.01.1975, all the doctors in Government Service in Bihar including him himself were on cease work (strike). He received CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 58 information on 02.1.01975 about the bomb blast. On humanitarian grounds, he went to Sadar Hospital to attend injured persons. He examined DIG B.N. Parsad, MLC Sh. Surya Narain Jha, another MLC, whose name he did not recollect and one boy Ajay Kumar (PW-58). He conducted postmortem examination on the body of Ram Kishore Parsad Singh on 04.01.1975.
PW-89 Rameshwar Parsad Yadav.
Neither party referred his testimony, which is otherwise not relevant for adjudication of the case.
PW-90 Sh. Dalip Rai was the Special Inspector, Police Station, Azamgarh. He stated that the record of Criminal Case No. 160 dated 16.2.1973 U/s 380 IPC PS Kotwali, Azamgarh was not traceable.
PW-91 Sh. Parsu Ram Singh, who remained employed and resided at Chautham from 1972 to 1978 with one Murariji. He has been examined to prove that he knew accused Gopalji @ Krishan Mohan Singh resident of Chautham and he identified him in the court. He is also examined to prove that CID Officers carried out a search in the house of Gopalji at Village Chautham on CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 59 17.05.1975 at about 5.00 AM. Several items were recovered from his house in his presence and that of Neel Mohan Singh vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-
91/A. He identified his signatures on the Seizure Memo. Gopalji was present when the search was carried out. Gopalji was arrested after completion of the search. He deposed that during house search of Gopalji, 8 brass Badges bearing letters VSS Ex.P-150 to Ex.P-157, cloth Badges Ex.P-158 to Ex.P-173, brass badges Ex.P-174 to Ex.P-176, white metal badges Ex.P-177 to Ex.P-178, his Gun License Book Ex.P-185 and a book in English Ex.P-186 were found and seized. There were numerous papers including diaries, copies, letters and loose papers, which were found in a tin box Mark A-1. He identified some of the documents like Ex.PW-33/A (Ex.PW-2/M), Ex.PW-33/B, Ex.PW-43/F, Ex.PW-68/DA, two telegrams Ex.PW-1/S and Ex.PW-1/O, which were found in the said tin box and seized after the search. He identified his signature at point A and that of other witness Neel Mohan Singh at point B on Ex.P-185, English Book Ex.P-186 and other documents CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 60 recovered from there. He proved arrest of Gopalji on that day after search.
PW-92 Sh. G.N. Singh was the Second Officer in PS Kotwali Patna in March 1973 till May 1974 when he became Incharge, PS Kotwali Patna. He has been examined to prove that he received information about bomb blast at Patna Collectorate and visited the spot along with ASI Rameshwar Parsad Singh, ASI Durga Parsad Singh and SI Gokhla Nand Sahai. He has also proved the statement of Chandi Mishra Naik (PW-
9) Ex.PW-9/A and endorsement thereon Ex.PW-
18/A in the handwriting of Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-18) and FIR Ex.PW-92/A. He remained Investigating Officer of the case initially.
PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta was the Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur in January 1975. He has been examined to prove that in those days Dr. T.D. Nandi, Dr. N.N. Sharma, Dr. A. Sen, Dr. P.C. Gupta, Dr. N. Banerjee and Dr. K.M. Sinha were working in the Hospital and he had seen them writing and signing. He proved various Bed Head Tickets of the injured persons of Samastipur Bomb CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 61 Blast, brought in the hospital on 02.1.1975. Those Bed Head Tickets are consisting of Ex.PW-93/A of Ram Kishore Parsad Singh, Ex.PW-93/D of Ram Vinod Sharma, Ex.PW-93/E of Brij Mohan Sharma, Ex.PW-93/F of Kapil Deo Narain Singh, MLA, Ex.PW-93/G of Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Ex.PW-93/H of Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP, Ex.PW-93/J of P.R. Chopra, General Manager, Railways, Gorakhpur, Ex.PW-93/K of Naval Kishore Singh, Ex.PW-93/L of Suresh Parsad, Advocate, Ex.PW-93/M of Pramod Parsad, Ex.PW-93/N of Rama Kant Jha MLC, Ex.PW-
93/O of Suraj Narain Mandal, Ex.PW-93/P of Jamuna Parsad Mandal, Ex.PW-93/Q of Smt. Noor Jahan Begum, Ex.PW-93/R of Baleshwar Ram, MLA, Ex.PW-93/S of Sh. J. Banerjee, Signal Inspector, Samastipur, Ex.PW-93/T of Satender Parsad Singh, Ex.PW-93/U of Suresh Chaudhary, Ex.PW-93/V of Bisheshwar Rai, Ex.PW-93/W of Parmanand Jha, Ex.PW-93/X of Rajender s/o Sh.
M.D. Sahu and Ex.PW-93/Y of Dr. I.D. Sharma.
He also proved Death Certificate of Ram Kishore Parsad Singh Ex.PW-93/B and Memo as Ex.PW-
93/C.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 62 PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha was the Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur in January 1975. He has been examined to prove that he accompanied Dr. P.C. Bhalla, Chief Medical Officer to Darbhanga on 02.01.1975 in the jeep in the Morning and then by Special Train from Darbhanga to Samastipur and to prove Special Train stopped at Platform No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur. At about 6.00 PM, he heard Chief Security Officer shouting and calling for CMO. He is also examined to prove the injuries suffered by Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra in the incident of Bomb blast dated 02.1.1975 and to prove injury chart Ex.PW-94/A. PW-95 Dr. Mahender Nath Sharma was the Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, Samastipur in the year 1975. He is examined to prove that he was also present at Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975 at the time of the incident in question; he gave first aid to some persons on the munch (Dais) itself with the assistance of Dr. K.M. Sinha and arranged to send injured persons to the Railway Hospital, Samastipur. Doctors examined injured Ram CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 63 Bhagat Paswan, Smt. Lalita Devi, Ram Kishore Parsad Singh Kishore and Kailash Pati Sinha in his presence and their injuries were found grievous. He is also examined to prove the Injury Report of Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra Ex.PW-95/A with forwarding letter Ex.PW-95/B. He handed over Bed Head Tickets of injured persons Ex.PW-93/W, Ex.PW-93/H, Ex.PW-93/B, Ex.PW-93/U, Ex.PW-93/T, Ex.PW-93/S, Ex.PW-
93/R, Ex.PW-93/G, Ex.PW-93/F, Ex.PW-93/Q, Ex.PW-93/E, Ex.PW-93/D, Ex.PW-93/P, Ex.PW-
93/O, Ex.PW-93/N, Ex.PW-93/M, Ex.PW-93/L, Ex.PW-93/X, Ex.PW-93/Y, Ex.PW-93/K, Ex.PW-
93/J and Ex.PW-93/A to Sub-Inspector of CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-95/C. PW-96 Sh. Sadanand Jha is an Advocate.
He is examined to prove his Vakalatnamas Ex.PW-
96/A & Ex.PW-96/B on behalf of Aacharya Budheshawaranand. These Vakalatnamas were filed before Executive Magistrate, Bhagalpur and SDO, Bhagalpur, respectively in proceedings under Section 107 Cr. PC. He also proved the Bail Bond Ex.PW-9/C furnished by Budheshawaranand.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 64 PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab is a retired Principal, Medical College, Darbhanga, in January 1975. He has been examined to prove the injury report of Master Ajay Kumar (PW-58) vide Operation Notes Ex.PW-97/A. He is also examined to prove that C.S. Chaudhary and Suraj Narain Jha were treated as outdoor patient. He deposed that B.N. Parsad DIG, Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Kapil Deo Narain Singh, MLA, Bihar, Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP, were also examined and treated by him.
PW-98 Sh. Mohinder Nath Singh is the person, whose revolver was allegedly stolen by Din Pal Rai, Advocate (DW-24).
PW-99 Sh. Ram Chander Mishra is another nephew of Surya Narain Jha. He deposed that Surya Narain Jha was his foofa. He is examined to prove that Surya Narain Jha was brought in an Ambulance in an injured condition. Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Dr. Shambhu Nath Chaudhary and Dr. Ansari treated him and thereafter, he was shifted to Dr. Nawab's Clinic. He was treated there also and then he was shifted to Darbhanga Medical College, where he died on 4.1.1975 at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 65 about 07.00 PM. He is also examined to prove that on their request, his dead body was handed over to them without postmortem examination.
PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar was the Senior Lecturer, Department of Surgery in Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga. He has been examined to prove the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-100/A with Notes Ex.PW-100/A-1 to PW-
100/A-3 and Ex.PW-100/B-1 to B-5 in respect of Surya Narain Jha, MLC. He deposed that he was the neighbor of Surya Narain Jha, and the treatment was given to Surya Narain Jha in Janta Clinic of Dr. Nawab's Clinic. He was shifted to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, where he was operated upon by him and Dr. A.H. Ansari (PW-123). He deposed that Surya Narain Jha had died after operation due to injuries caused in the bomb blast.
PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender was the Medical Officer, AM Central, Lucknow. He joined Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital on 01.01.1975. He is examined to prove the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-101/A of Surya Narain Jha, who was admitted in serious condition. After CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 66 taking permission of his seniors, he permitted operation by Dr. Sarkar and admitted the patient.
PW-102 Sh. Adeshwari Parsad Sinha was the Assistant Station Master, MG Lines, Samastipur in the year 1975. He is examined to prove that down passenger Special Train came from the Lahariya Sarai side and reached Railway Station Samastipur at 5.12 PM with Rattan Lal as its driver vide entry in the Register Ex.PW-102/A and Ex.PW-102/B. PW-103 Sh. I.P. Sharma has been Inspector, CBI. He is examined to prove that he arrested accused Santoshanand at Railway Station, Patna on 17.6.1975 and seized various items vide Personal Search Memo Ex.P-148. This Personal Search Memo Ex.P-148 is in the summoned file, copy of which is Ex.PW38/A. It was prepared in the presence of two public witnesses Suresh Parsad (PW-38) and Dev Kumar. Accused gave his name as Jitender Kumar, then Ghanshyam Parsad and then Santoshanand. At that time, he was wearing shirt & pant. He had small hair on his head. He was not sporting beard and moustaches. He was carrying a jhola and some books in his hand.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 67 From his personal search, one 2nd class Railway Ticket from Patna to Howrah, one hearing aid, currency worth Rs.3,921/- and some change of Rs.2.38, besides spectacles were recovered and from jhola of accused Santoshanand, pants, shirts, chaddar, soap case, some books and one wrist watch were recovered. Correct/true copy of Ticket is Ex.P-20; Ex.P-18 is packet; Ex.P-19 is hearing aid; which were recovered from his personal search. He recovered a Kohinoor Exercise Book available Ex.P-22 in the summoned file and copy of which is Ex.PW-38/E-1 to PW-38/E-72.
PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh was the Professor and Head of Department (Surgery), Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga in January 1975. He is examined to prove that in January 1975 due to strike by the government doctors, he along with the other doctors was running a Janta Clinic in Dr. Nawab's Clinic. He also proved the injuries of patients Ajay Kumar (PW-58), B.N. Prasad (PW-28) vide Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-104/A and of Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, M.P. (PW-85) vide Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-104/B. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 68 PW-105 Sh. Dass Narayan Sharma has been examined to prove stay of Manohar Darve in his building at Patna in December 1973 for 2/3 days.
PW-106 Sh. S.A.A. Razvi, was the Sub-
Inspector and Officer Incharge PS Lahariya Sarai, Darbhanga. He is examined to prove that postmortem on the body of Surya Narain Jha was dispensed with by the Superintendant of Police on the request of relatives, friends and sympathizers of Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
PW-106A Kameshwar Prasad Sinha, was the Assistant Sub Inspector PS Lahariya Sarai on 4.1.1975. He is examined to prove that he prepared Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-45/A in respect of the dead body of Surya Narain Jha and that the postmortem on his body was dispensed with by District Magistrate and Superintendant of Police on the request of wife and relatives of Surya Narain Jha.
PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi was the Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Samastipur, in January 1975. He came in the dock to prove that he examined injured persons of Bomb blast on CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 69 2.1.1975 and to prove the injuries of those persons. He proved Bed Head Tickets of such persons:-
(i) Ram Kishore Parsad Singh Bed Head Ticket No.3598 Ex.PW-93/A with his endorsement Ex.PW-107/A, (ii) Bineshwar Ram, MLA vide Bed Head Ticket No.3595 Ex.PW-93/R, with his notes Ex.PW-107/B, (iii) Sh. Naval Kishore Singh vide Bed Head Ticket No.3596 Ex.PW-93/K with his notes Ex.PW-107/C, (iv) Sh. Rama Kant Jha vide Bed Head Ticket No.3599 Ex.PW-93/N with his writing Ex.PW-107/D, (v) Ram Vinod Sharma vide Bed Head Ticket No.3600 Ex.PW-93/D with his writing Ex.PW-107/E and F, (vi) Ram Bhagat Paswan vide Bed Head Ticket No.3584 Ex.PW-
93/H with his writing Ex.PW-107/G, (vii) Parma Nand Jha vide Bed Head Ticket No.3586 Ex.PW-
93/W with his writing Ex.PW-107/H, (viii) Sh.
Bineshwar Rai vide Bed Head Ticket No.1535 Ex.PW-93/B with his writing Ex.PW-107/J, and
(ix) Sh. J. Banerjee vide his Bed Head Ticket No.3883 Ex.PW-93/S with his writing Ex.PW-
107/K. Later on Ram Kishore Parsad Singh succumbed to his injuries.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 70 PW-108 Sh. Arun Chander Dass: Neither party referred his testimony during the arguments.
PW-109 Sh. Mohan Kumar Jha, a distant relative of Sh. L.N. Mishra, who is an eyewitness to the incident at Samastipur Railway Station dated 2.1.1975. He travelled with the Railway Minister from Lahariya Sarai to Samastipur.
PW-110 Sh. S.S. Pachauri was the Assistant Medical Engineer, Samastipur Division during the months of December 1974 and January 1975 with Railways. He has come in the witness box to prove that he examined the Engine of the Special Train on 2.1.1975, which was to carry Railway Minister L.N. Mishra from Darbhanga to Samastipur and that Railway Minister travelled in Saloon from Railway Station, Lahariya Sarai at 4.10 PM and reached Samastipur at 5.10 PM. He also proved that on reaching Special Train at Platform No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur, Railway Minister alighted from the train, which remained stationed there for about 10 minutes and then, it was moved on giving of signal by the Station Master and special B.G. train left Samastipur between 7.30 PM and 8.00 PM.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 71 PW-111 Sh. Surinder Vikram Singh had worked as an Accountant and Manager (Administration) with M/s Shabnam Engineering and Foundry Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur. He knew accused Ranjan Dwivedi @ Ram Janam Dwivedi who had worked as Executive Assistant to the Director (Incharge). There he saw Ram Janam Dwivedi writing and signing. He identified the writing of accused Ranjan Dwivedi in Diaries Ex.P-124, ExP-127 and ExP-123 in the summoned file of RC-11/1975 and Photostat copies of which are Q-15, Q-15A, Q-15B, Q-15C, Q-15D (Ex.P-
124), Q-20 (Ex.P-127), Q-14, Q-14A and Q-13A (purse diary Ex.P-123). (Later on Accused Ranjan Dwivedi admitted the diaries and his writing therein).
PW-112 Dr. Rohini Raman Ganguli was the Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital in January 1975. She is examined to prove that due to strike in the form of "Cease Work" by doctors, they were giving treatment in Nawab's Clinic. On 03.01.1975, she operated upon Kailash Pati Singh and treated him. She also CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 72 treated Kapil Deo Narain Singh and proved the Bed Head Ticket of Kailash Pati Singh Mark PW-
112/A and Bed Head Ticket of Kapil Deo Narain Singh Mark PW-112/B. PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai is an eyewitness to the incident dated 2.1.1975 at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur and occupied chair in 3rd row on the Dais and garlanded L.N. Mishra. He saw 30/35 persons on the Dais. Those persons include Jagan Nath Mishra, Rama Kant Jha, Baleshwar Ram, Y.P. Mandal, Surya Narain Jha, Ram Vinod Sharma, Ram Sukumari, Ram Naresh Singh, Suresh Parsad Singh, Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate and Kapil Deo Narain Singh. The function was presided over by Sh. Baleshwar Ram, who welcomed the Railway Minister; and after finishing of speech by L.N. Mishra, when he took turn and moved 2-3 steps, he heard some sound and saw smoke appeared there. He lifted Ram Vinod Sharma in an injured condition and handed over him to others to remove him to the hospital.
He proved in cross-examination, printing of Congress Sewa Dal Badges as he discussed this issue with Rama Kant Jha and Baleshwar Ram and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 73 Railway Authorities permitted Sewa Dal Workers to be present with Sewa Dal Badges.
PW-114 Dr. Bhupender Parsad Singh, is the then Demonstrator in Anatomy, Darbhanga Medical College, in January 1975. He has appeared in the witness box to prove that the doctors of Bihar Health Services and Indian Medical Association were on general strike and patients were admitted in emergency in Janta Clinic. He handed over the Register Mark PW-
97/A and three Bed Head Tickets of Ajay Kumar, Kapil Deo Narain Singh and Kailash Pati Singh to a CBI Officer vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-114/A. PW-115 Sh. Laxmi Narain Vishnu Dutt Kumar is a witness to the search carried out at the house of Ranjan Dwivedi. (Accused Ranjan Dwivedi did not come present on the day, witness was examined and identity of accused was not disputed.) The witness identified the Diary Ex.P- 127, Anand Marg Diary Ex.P-124 and Pocket-
cum-Purse Diary Ex.P-123 in the summoned file of Session Case No.9/76 (RC-11/1975) and pages bearing writing Q-20 (Ex.P-127), Q-15, Q-15A, Q-
15B (Ex.P-124), Q-13, Q-13A, Q-14 and Q-14A CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 74 (Ex.P-123) were signed by him. These diaries were seized vide Seizure Memo Mark P-137 and copy of Search List is Ex.PW-115/B. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-East Railway Divisional Hospital, Samastipur is an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975 at Platform No.3 of the Railway Station, Samastipur. On direction of Dr. M.N. Sharma, he came to Hospital and supervised medical aid. He himself also treated some of the patients. He proved Bed Head Ticket of Brij Mohan Sharma Ex.PW-93/E bearing his own handwriting on the said Bed Head Ticket at point 'E', Bed Head Ticket No.3588 Ex.PW-93/G of Kailash Pati Singh, Bed Head Ticket No.3605 Ex.PW-116/A of Smt. Lalita Devi Sinha, Bed Head Ticket No.3604 of Mahender Sahu, nephew of M.D. Sahu Ex.PW-16/B, Bed Head Ticket No.3603 of Rajender S/o M.D. Sahu Ex.PW-93/X, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-90/K of Nawal Kishore Singh, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/L of Suresh Parsad Singh, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/M of Pramod Parsad, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/O of Suraj Narain Mandal, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 75 93/P of Yamuna Parsad Mandal, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/F of Kapil Deo Narain Singh, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E of Satender Parsad Singh and Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/U of Suraj Chaudhary.
All these patients were examined and treated by him.
PW-117 Sh. Chander Nath Mukherjee is the Assistant Jailor, Central Jail, Patna from November 1974 to March 1975. He proved the Jail Register Ex.P-150 having entry dated 17.12.1974 Ex.PW-71/C vide which Ram Tanuk Singh and Ram Janam Dwivedi had an interview with Sh.
P.R. Sarkar in the Central Jail, Patna, in view of the order of Superintendent, Central Jail Ex.PW- 71/A. PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha was the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer, (Surgery), Danapur Railway Hospital, Patna in January 1975. He is examined to prove Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra arrived at Railway Station, Danapur and they were taken to Railway Hospital, Danapur. Sh. L.N. Mishra was kept in recovery room. He examined L.N. Mishra at Danapur and recorded his injuries which L.N. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 76 Mishra suffered vide Indoor Ticket Ex.PW-118/A. He was present in the Operation Theater throughout during the operation until the death of Sh. L.N. Mishra in the Operation Theater itself. Prof. (Dr.) R.V.P. Sinha, Dr. U.N. Sahi (Prof.), Dr. Major Mohinder Singh and Dr. P. B. Parshad were the Surgeons who operated upon Sh. L.N. Mishra.
He and four other doctors assisted them. The operation notes were prepared in his presence by Dr. M. L. Singh. Three Anesthetists were present during the operation. Sh. L.N. Mishra was complaining of severe pain in the abdomen all over when he was examined by him and Professor (Dr.) R.V. P. Sinha. He also proved Indoor Ticket Ex.PW-118/E of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. He is also examined to prove the treatment given to Sh. L.N. Mishra and that the patient (L.N. Mishra) was declared dead at 9.30 AM on 3.1.1975.
PW-119 Sh. Deo Chand, UDC Income Tax on 7.12.1971. Neither party referred his deposition during arguments.
PW-120 Sh. Umesh, Deputy S.P.: Neither party referred his deposition during arguments.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 77 PW-121 Sh. P.K. Mishra, the then Sub-
Inspector in CIU Branch of CBI: Neither party referred his deposition during arguments.
PW-122 Sh. L.P. Tiwari was Inspector PS Kotwali, Patna in July 1973. He is examined to prove about demonstration at the residence of the then Chief Minister Abdul Gaffoor by Anand Margies at Patna on 27.7.1973 vide copy of Station Diary dated 26.7.1973 Ex.PW-122/A and DD Ex.PW-122/B. PW-123 Dr. A.H. Ansari, the then Chest Surgeon, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga, has been examined to prove that he examined Surya Narain Jha on 02.01.1975 and 03.01.1975 and the patient died on 04.01.1975.
PW-124 Sh. K.N. Tiwari, Inspector of Police with CBI at Shilong in January 1975, has been examined to prove obtaining of specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Krishan Mohan Singh @ Gopalji at Patna. Specimen handwriting and signatures are Ex.PW-41/B-1 to Ex.PW-41/B-10. These were obtained in the presence of Sh. A.R.K. Sahai and Sh. M.U. Gunny.
He also proved the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 78 signed by PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmed, PW-21 Sh.
D.N. Jha and Dineshwar Singh. By this Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B, a manuscript in Hindi bearing title "SASHATRA KRANTIKARI CHHATRA SANGH- PRESS SAMAGRI" (one sheet) and one leaflet of Shashastra Krantikari Sangh were seized from Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20).
PW-125 Sh. Suraj Parsad: Neither party referred his deposition during arguments.
PW-125A Dr. M. Mohanti was Assistant Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Danapur on 2nd January 1975. He has been has been examined to prove the fact that both L.N. Mishra and J.N. Mishra were brought to Railway Hospital, Danapur by ambulance & he examined Dr. J.N. Mishra vide Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-118/E. He, as an Anesthetist, remained present in the Operation Theater throughout the operation of L.N. Mishra; and his notes Ex.PW-125/A. PW-126 Sh. R.P. Sinha, Inspector, CBI in the year 1975 at Patna has been examined to prove that on 4.8.1975, he seized the Railway Reservation Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-54/A. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 79 PW-126 (now numbered as PW-126A) Sh.
Maheshwar Parsad has been examined to prove that he had worked with PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava in the office of SDO, PWD, Lahariya Sarai, from the year 1961 to 1975. He had seen him writing and signing and to identify handwriting and signatures of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava on Visitor's Register Ex.P-5 as 'Vijay Kumar' at point Ex.PW-1/L and Ex.PW-
1/N and to identify handwriting and signatures of PW-1 on sheet of Hotel Republic, Patna as 'S.K. Gupta' Ex.PW-1/Q, Ex.PW-1/P (Q8) and Cash Voucher Ex.PW1/R (Q-9).
PW-127 Sh. Jayant Banerjee, the then Signal Inspector, Samastipur Railway Station, in January 1975, who is an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975. He proved that he was at Dais on Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975 at 5/5.15 PM and a blast took place at the end of the speech by the Railway Minister and he jumped out of the Dais and suffered injuries on his person and he was removed to the hospital by the staff.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 80 PW-128 Sh. Prem Kumar Srivastava:
Neither party referred his deposition being irrelevant.
PW-129 Narinder Nath Singh, the then Inspector, CBI, Patna on instructions of Chief I.O. Sh. H.L. Ahuja remained associated with the investigation of this case from March 1975 to November 1975. He proved the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-129/B vide which he seized one voucher Ex.PW-1/R from Sh. Clifford Boile, Manager of the Hotel Republic. He also proved obtaining of specimen writings and signatures on 15 sheets Ex.PW-1/W-1 to PW-1/W-15 of Madan Mohan Srivastava on 22.9.1975 in the office of Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Darbhanga in the presence of RBP Yadav, the PA to Superintendent Engineer.
PW-130 Sh. H.P. Singh, the then Deputy SP (Economic Offence Branch), CBI, who received written orders from Joint Director, CBI to assist Chief Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja and remained associated with the investigation of this case from 10.1.1975 to April 1975. He is examined to prove Bed Head Tickets of Ajay CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 81 Kumar, Kailash Pati Singh, Kapil Deo Narain Singh, MLA from Dr. Upinder Prasad Singh, Demonstrator, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-114/A and to prove seizure of Bed Head Ticket of Sh. Surya Narain Jha vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-130/A from the Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital.
PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh, Deputy SP of CBI, New Delhi, remained associated with the investigation of the case from 08.01.1975 to 29.8.1976. He proved seizure of two copies of pamphlet "Shashastra Kranti Hamara Rasta" from Baijnath Printing Press, Bhagalpur Ex.PW-36/A vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-36/B; Seizure of Badge Ex.P-8 from Ajay Printing Press vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-27/A; and seizure of Note Book Ex.PW-23/A from Ashok Niketan, Patna vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-23/B. PW-132 Sh. B.R. Puri, Deputy SP, CBI, New Delhi, remained associated with the investigation of the case from May 1975 to September 1975. He also remained associated with investigation of the case RC No.11/1975 pertaining to the attack on the then Chief Justice of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 82 India Sh. Ray. He is examined to prove seizure of Note Book Ex.P-149 from accused Ram Aasrey Parsad Singh vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-70/A;
and carrying out search in the house of Ranjan Dwivedi in RC-11/75 and seized three Diaries vide Seizure Memo Ex.P-137 in summoned file, Photostat copy of which is Ex.PW-115/B dated 6.7.1975. The seized diaries are Pocket-cum-Purse Diary Ex.P-123, Anand Marg Diary Ex.P-124 and Table Diary Ex.P-127. The writing Mark Q-13, Q-
13A, Q-14 and Q-14A were in existence in Purse Diary Ex.P-123 at the time of seizure. Ex.PW-
43/AA-194 is Photostat copy of Q-13 and Q-13A, Ex.PW-43/AA-195 is Photostat copy of Q-14 and Q-14A. The writing Mark Q-15, Q-15A, Q-15B, Q-15C and Q-15D existed in Anand Marg Diary Ex.P-124 in addition to other writing at the time of its seizure. The Photostat copy of Q-15 and Q-
15A is Ex.PW43/AA-197, of Q-15B and Q-15C is Ex.PW43/AA-198 and of Q-15 D is Ex.PW43/AA-
199. Writing Q-20 was existing in Table Diary Ex.P-127 in addition to other writing at the time of seizure. Its Photostat copy is Ex.PW-43/AA-200.
He is also examined to prove seizure of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 83 Reservation Chart Mark PW-47/A of 2-tier and 3- tier of 85-4P Assam Mail, on 02.01.1975 and reaching New Delhi on 03.01.1975 vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-132/A. PW-133 Purshottam Narain Shukla, the then Deputy SP, CBI has been examined to prove that on 17.6.1975, he along with Inspector I.P. Sharma (PW-103) arrested Santoshanand Avadhoot at Railway Station, Patna and searched his person and seized his personal belongings regarding which a Seizure Memo was prepared.
At that time, accused Santoshanand was in civilian dress and was not wearing the clothes of Avadhoot. He identified him in the court.
PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, the then Inspector, Intelligence Bureau/Special Branch, Bihar Police Head Quarter at Patna, took over investigation of the case vide FIR no.24 (1 of 1974) PS Patna Kotwali, from Sub Inspector Girija Nandan Singh (PW-92). He deposed about arrest of approver PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand on 29.4.1975 by him from the house of Deputy SP C.D. Parsad where Dy. SP Jata Shankar Khan of Intelligence Branch, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 84 Darbhanga after arrest brought him on 28.04.1975. He is also examined to prove recording of statement of Madan Mohan Srivastava and seizure of two sheets of Visitors' Register bearing entries Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q, Bill Book Ex.PW-
17/A vide Seizure Memo dated 3.5.1975 Ex.PW-
134/A of Hotel Republic, Patna, where Madan Mohan Srivastava stayed under assumed name of Shankar Kumar Gupta (S.K. Gupta). He carried out search in the house of Gopalji at Chautham on the night intervening 16th and 17 th May 1975 in the presence of witnesses Neel Mohan Singh and (PW-91) Parsu Ram Singh; and recovered documents and articles vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A. The documents recovered from house search of Gopalji include Slip Ex.PW-2/M, Manuscript Ex.PW-33/D, Ex.PW-43/F, Copy of Telegram Mark PW-91/A-5, Telegrams Ex.PW-
1/S and Ex.PW-1/O. PW-135 Sh. Girija Nandan Parsad. He is the person, at whose house Vikram, Santoshanand, Sudevanand stayed on the night of 1.1.1975. His examination in chief was recorded on 11.07.1984 and at the request of Defence Counsel, his cross-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 85 examination was deferred. He did not appear thereafter.
PW-136 Sh. Akhilesh Parsad: Neither party referred his deposition during arguments.
PW-137 Sh. S.K. Ghosh, the then Inspector, CBI, remained associated with the investigation of the case relating to murder of Sh. L.N. Mishra with effect from 25.1.1975. On 8.2.1975 from Sh. J.P. Sinha (PW-52), ASI GRP Samastipur, he collected several articles viz. Pillow, bed sheet, smeared with blood stains, burnt bed sheets, cotton mattresses, tarpaulin etc. and put in a hessian cover, stitched and sealed and then put in wooden box. Document Ex.PW-52/D was prepared.
PW-138 Sh. R.P. Malhotra was the Deputy Comptroller of Explosive from 1972 to 1976 at Calcutta. He examined remnants of exploded hand grenade at Collectorate, Patna relating Case no. 24 dated 7.1.1974 PS Patna Kotwali and proved the Report Ex.PW-138/C. He examined three hand grenades relating to incident dated 13.7.1974 at tomb, Khanjarpur District Bhagalpur and proved Report Ex.PW-138/A and Ex. PW-138/B. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 86 PW-139 Sh. Bipin Bihari Singh, the then Section Officer, District Board, Samastipur, visited the spot at Railway Station, Samastipur on 5.1.1975 & prepared the Draft Plan Ex.PW-139/A. On 7.1.1975, he visited house of Sh. M.D. Sahu and prepared Site Plan Ex.PW-138/B. PW-140 Sh. Alok Nath Chatterjee, the then Sub Inspector who carried three articles given to him by Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) in Patna Kotwali in case FIR no.24/74 to Controller of Explosives at Esplanade, Calcutta on 6.4.1974 along with covering letter and delivered against the Receipt Ex.PW-140/A. PW-141 Mr. Richard Amrinder Biswas, Dy. S.P. Patna: Neither party referred his deposition during arguments.
PW-142 Sh. Sarju Pa rsad Verma, the then Incharge PS Samastipur in January 1975 inspected the house of Mahender Sahu. He is examined to prove that FIR no. 1 of 1975 Ex.PW-142/B PS Samastipur, which was registered in Police Station on his rukka Ex.PW-142/A, and he investigated the case and handed over the investigation to CID, Bihar.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 87 PW-143 Sh. Ram Naresh Parsad had worked as Advertisement Manager of newspaper "Vishwabandhu" from the year 1972 to 1976. He deposed that photograph of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor used to be printed in the newspaper sometimes and Sh. N.N. Verma (father of Santoshanand) was a part time worker with this newspaper "Vishwabandhu" during this period.
PW-144 Sh. Sudershan Singh, was the Constable with PS Barari, District Bhagalpur and on 16.1.1975, he took one sealed parcel of grenades from Bhagalpur to Calcutta and deposited the same with Explosive Officer at Calcutta.
Sealed parcel was given to him by Sh. Ram Aadhar Ram, Incharge, Police Station, Barari.
PW-145 Sh. Khusheshwar Singh was the Mukhiya of village Akhtiarpur Khajuri, Distt.
Samastipur. He has been examined to prove the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-145/A for seizure of pieces of bomb exploded at the house of Mahadev Sahu in his presence.
PW-146 Inspector Nageshwar Parsad Singh had worked with Deputy SP S.K.N. Singh and identified his writing on the case diary of Case CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 88 Diary of GRP Case no. 1/75 relating to murder of L.N. Mishra. In the Case Diary, statement of (PW-
65) Vishwanath Singh, Deputy Superintendant of Police, Samastipur is recorded in the hands of Deputy Superintendant of Police S.K.N. Singh. In his cross-examination, he admitted his statement ExPW-65/DA as correct.
PW-147 Clifford Boile, the then Manager of the Hotel Republic Patna, from January 1975 to June 1976 has been examined to prove the record of their Hotel which was seized by CBI vide Seizure Memo dated 19.9.1975 Ex.PW-129/B and to prove the voucher, bill and visitor's book which bear his signatures. He proved sheet of Visitor Register Ex.PW-1/P, cash voucher Ex.PW-1/R and Bill contained in Bill Book Ex.PW-17/A. He handed over cash voucher Ex.PW-1/R to Bihar Police Officer.
PW-148 Sh. Pushpender Kumar
Banerjee, Stenographer to Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Samastipur, who brought record of FIR No. 1 (1)/75 dated 2.1.1975. Since he only brought the record of FIR in a packet with the seal of the court of CJM, Samastipur for the purpose of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 89 filing only in this court, his statement was recorded without oath. His statement was not referred during the course of arguments by both the sides.
PW-149 Sh. Ram Pujan Singh, the then constable GRP Samastipur in January 1975 took two sealed packets and two open letters from Officer, PS Samastipur to Controller of Explosive, Calcutta against receipt Ex.PW-138/D and Ex.PW- 138/E. PW-150 Major Prabhash Chander Dass, the then Captain posted at Danapur (Bihar and Orissa Sub Area) who visited the Collectorate Compound, Patna on 07.01.1974 and examined the site and found a live hand grenade fitted with base plug and not having a pin. He got cleared the place and called for some sand bags. Hand grenade was destroyed. The blast was loud. He found some splinters of hand grenade and a broken spring and base plug.
PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja, the then DSP, CBI was the main Investigation Officer of the case, who took over investigation in the case with effect from 10.1.1975.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 90 PW-152 Sh. K.D. Upadhaya, ASI, GRP Samastipur, who brought the special diary for the period from 3.12.1974 to 14.1.1975 of GRP Samastipur and FIR Register for the period from 8.11.1974 to 2.4.1975.
PW-153 Sh. Kamal Bandhu, was the then Ahlmad of the court. Neither the Prosecution nor the Defence referred his testimony being not relevant to the facts in issue.
PW-154 Sh. Yasser Arafat, Inspector of CBI. Neither the Prosecution nor the defence referred his testimony being not relevant to the facts in issue.
PW-155 Sh. Harish Goyal, Inspector, CBI Neither the Prosecution nor the defence referred his testimony being not relevant to the facts in issue.
PW-156 Sh. Naresh Kumar, ASI, CBI.
Neither the Prosecution nor the defence referred his testimony being not relevant to the facts in issue.
PW-157 Sh. Prashant Kumar, Assistant with Finance Department, Government of Bihar.
Neither the Prosecution nor the defence referred CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 91 his testimony being not relevant to the facts in issue.
PW-158 Sh. Lalit Khullar, Sub Inspector, CBI. Neither the Prosecution nor the defence referred his testimony being not relevant to the facts in issue.
PW-159 Sh. Sudhanshu Kumar Sinha identified signatures and handwritings of his father Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) on documents Ex.PW-159/A, Ex.PW-159/B, Ex.PW-159/C and Ex.PW-159/D. PW-160 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Deputy GEQD, Shimla. He has given his expert opinion that Search Memo Ex.PW-91/A bearing signature/handwriting of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha tally with his specimen's signature/handwriting.
PW-161 Sh. Rameshwar Sharma has been Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar. (Either party did not refer his testimony).
4) Court Witnesses
21. On the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the following CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 92 Court Witnesses were examined and gist of their evidence is as under:-
CW-1 Sh. K.P. Sinha, S.P. (Rural) Patna did not bring the tape of conversation between Rehman, Jailor, Samastipur and Arun Kumar Mishra recorded during investigation as he had handed over the same to Sh. I.C. Dwivedi, the then DIG, CBI on 26.3.1975.
CW-2 Sh. Jiya Lal Arya, the then District Magistrate, Samastipur is an eyewitness to the incident of 2 nd January 1975. He was behind the Dais. He took Sh. L.N. Mishra to Saloon where doctors were there. Invitees were permitted to sit on Dais and police officials regulated entry. Danapur is about 90 KM. from Samastipur.
CW-3 Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra, brother of Sh. L.N. Mishra is also an eyewitness to the incident as Samastipur dated 02.01.1975. He also suffered injuries in the bomb explosion. He does not know even if postmortem on the body of his brother was conducted or not. He has joined politics in 1968. He was Irrigation Minister in Bihar Government. He has been thrice Chief CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 93 Minister of Bihar and once Minister in Central Government.
CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta is the then Additional Private Secretary of Lalit Narain Mishra in 1974-75. He accompanied L.N. Mishra and his brother Jagan Nath Mishra from Delhi to Patna by Air. From Patna, they went by State aircraft to Darbhanga and from there by train to Samastipur. At Samastipur, Sh. L.N. Mishra got down from Saloon and went to venue and he himself remained in Saloon, as they were to go to Muzaffarpur. He heard a loud noise and found L.N. Mishra and J.N. Mishra were being brought in injured condition. Dr. Bhalla immediately started treating Sh. L.N. Mishra. They decided to go to Danapur by same train. The decision to take Saloon to Danapur was taken by Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. Dr. Bhalla did not tell about any serious injury. Sh. L.N. Mishra did not complain of any abdominal pain in his presence during journey. Son-in-law Sh. C.S. Jha (now deceased) of Sh. L.N. Mishra and eminent Surgeon Dr. Sahi got in the rail at Patna and examined Sh. L.N. Mishra.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 94 He had worked with L.N. Mishra since 1965. The political work area of Mishra was State of Bihar.
CW-5 Sh. Baleshwar Ram, aged 78 years, a local leader, who presided over the meeting as per desire of L.N. Mishra is also an eyewitness. He suffered 44 splinters in the body. He became unconscious and found himself in Railway Hospital, Samastipur and then taken to Patna at his residence.
CW-6 Sh. Partap Singh, aged 72 years, retired Chief Engineer, NE Railway was standing at a distance of 30/35 feet in front of Dais at the time of Samastipur incident, and he heard a blast. Injured persons were removed to Railway Hospital and other places.
CW-7 Sh. Jwala Partap Singh, Officer Incharge, Chhapra GR Police in 1975, was deputed to escort Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra up to Dais and back. He along with other officers was there in plain clothes. He suddenly heard an explosion, which he thought to be bursting of a cracker but found to be a bomb. He and other officers removed Sh. L.N. Mishra to Saloon. He had no information of any threat to L.N. Mishra.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 95 CW-8 Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur, he was initially arrested on 8.2.1975. He made a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr. PC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He was released on bail on 05.6.1975 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur under Section 167 (2) (a) of the Cr. PC. Subsequently, on application of Investigating Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur on 20.11.1975, discharged him from the case. He claimed that he made confessional statement under pressure of police.
CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra, he was also initially arrested on 8.2.1975. Investigating Officer filed an application for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC. On 15.4.1975, CW-9 filed an application that he does not want to make any statement. He was released on bail on 14.6.1975 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur under Section 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC.
Subsequently, on application of Investigating Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur on 20.11.1975 discharged him also.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 96
5) Defence Witnesses
22. In support of their case, the accused persons examined following defence witnesses: -
DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot.
He has been examined to demolish the case of the prosecution that there were different wings of Anand Marg and to support claim of accused Ranjan Dwivedi that "SS" written by him in his diary denotes Sectorial Secretary.
DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand Avadhoot. He is examined on the same lines of DW-1.
DW-3 Aacharya Keshwanand Avadhoot.
He has been examined to state the purpose of Rally at Boat club, New Delhi and to support the defence of accused Ranjan Dwivedi that "SS" stands for Sectorial Secretary.
DW-4 Sh. Rajeshwar Chaubey. He is married to sister of accused Ranjan Dwivedi and thus closely related to him. Ranjan Dwivedi examined him to support his explanation with regard to his scribblings in the diary that DW-4 conveyed the consent of brother of accused Ranjan Dwivedi settled in America for marriage of Ranjan Dwivedi with a foreign girl Ms. Pateresia. He CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 97 deposed that Ranjan Dwivedi started living with him since January 1973 until September 1974, & Ranjan Dwivedi has been junior with Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate. They did not help PW-6 Virender Kumar Ojha when he came to Delhi for treatment of his wife in AIIMS Hospital.
DW-5 Sh. Bhartendu Sharma. He has been examined to state that the Book "Who killed L.N. Mishra" is the publication of 1979. It is a compilation of several articles by different authors.
DW-6 Sh. Narender Singh, Senior Court Assistant posted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been examined regarding copies of the affidavits Ex.DW-6/A to Ex.DW-6/E filed in before said Transfer Petition of the present case.
DW-7 Aacharya Ramanand Avadhoot.
The defence examined him to elicit that Baba/Anand Murti was poisoned in the jail on 12.02.1973.
DW-8 Sh. Tara Chand Jain. The defence examined him to dispel the prosecution's case that Vikram (PW-2) remained posted at Anand Marg Printing Press at Jaipur and opened three bank accounts in different banks. However, DW-2 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 98 corroborated the statement of PW-2 Sh. Vikram that they were having joint account in the name of M/s. Anand Printers with Jaipur Central Co- operative Bank, M.I. Road, Jaipur and he testified that they were running a press under the name and style of M/s. Anand Printers of Anand Marga. Vikram Kumar (PW-2) was posted there as Press Manager from 1972 to 1974.
DW-9 Sh. Sushil Kumar Verma has been examined by accused Santoshanand to repel the prosecution case that his father Narender Narain Verma was working in the editorial staff of newspaper "PRADEEP" published from Patna from where accused Santoshanand brought a photograph of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister of Bihar.
DW-10 Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then Private Secretary of late Sh. L.N. Mishra from 1964 till his death, has been examined by accused Sudevanand to discredit the testimony of prosecution witnesses that there was no threat to the life of late Sh. L.N. Mishra, prior to 2.1.1975. However, DW-10 has expressed his unawareness of receiving wireless CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 99 messages dated 30.12.1974 and 25.12.1974 regarding any attempt to kill late Sh. L.N. Mishra.
DW-11 Dr. Aruneshwar Parsad: The defence has examined Chief Medical Superintendant, East Central Railway Hospital, Danapur. However, both the accused persons as well as the prosecution did not refer his testimony, as the same is not connected to facts in issue.
DW-12 Sh. R.J.M. Pillai, Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, who brought the unsigned copy of the opinion given by Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India Mark PW- 151/DQ = Mark DW-12/A (Folder R-57) and copy of report of Secret Inquiry dated 24.10.1978 Ex.DW-12/B submitted to the then Chief Minister by Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40).
DW-13 Sh. Chanchal Kumar, Secretary to the Chief Minister of Bihar, Patna. He did not bring the summoned record from the Secretariat of the Chief Minister. Both the accused persons as well as the prosecution did not refer his testimony, since his testimony did not touch the facts in issue.
DW-14 Sh. Mahender Narain Singh,
Chairman, Lok Adalat, Supaul and retired
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 100 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chhapra, has been examined by accused Gopalji to demolish the prosecution case that he is a resident of village Chautham and search was carried out by the prosecution at village Chautham.
DW-15 Sh. Harender Kumar Singh, a resident of village Trimohan, PS Kahalgaon, has been examined by the defence to cut the case of the prosecution that criminal conspiracy was hatched at the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar Singh (Proclaimed Offender) in October 1973.
DW-16 Sh. Arun Shourie the then Executive Editor of Indian Express and writer of the introduction of the Book Ex.DW-5/B "Who killed L.N. Mishra?" has been examined by the defence to suggest that there is a different angle to the story put forth by the prosecution. The story sought to be put forth through this witness is purely based on hearsay evidence. He suggested the names of perpetrators of the crime as mentioned by DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai in his report. Sh. Sahai has mentioned the names of Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8), Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9) and Shiv Shankar @ Vishwakarma. It was also CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 101 suggested through the witness based on the report of DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai that these perpetrators were acting concertedly at the behest of one Sh. Ram Bilas Jha, who in turn was a stooge of Sh. Yashpal Kapoor. It is also suggested through this witness based on report of DW-40 that said Sh. Yashpal Kapoor was allegedly at loggerheads politically with Sh. L.N. Mishra, who was enjoying the political influence with the then Prime Minister, to eliminate the said L.N. Mishra for political gains.
DW-17 Sh. Manmohan Bhatkal, who is the printer of the Book Ex.DW-5/B "Who killed L.N. Mishra?" has been examined to state that they have printed the book as per the manuscript.
DW-18 Sh. Harish Kishore Shaiy, the then Under Secretary Home, Government of Bihar in the year 1979, when he filed his affidavit Ex.DW- 6/E on behalf of State of Bihar before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
DW-19 Sh. Mahender Singh was an active member of the Anand Marg Organization. He has been examined by the defence to state that he used to take interest in organization for opening school CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 102 and Dharam Parchar etc. His testimony neither has been referred during the course of arguments by the Ld. Defence Counsel nor does the same touch the facts in issue.
DW-20 Dr. Ashok Kumar Thakur conducted ECG of late Sh. L.N. Mishra before he was operated upon. He has been examined by the defence to state that his ECG was normal before the operation. He was not a memb er of the team of the doctors, who operated upon late Sh. L.N. Mishra at Railway Hospital, Danapur.
DW-21 Sh. Niranjan Dev, resident of village Bitia, District West Champaran, Bihar, who is the son of late Sh. Khoob Lal, whose name was referred by PW-27 Sh. Paras Nath Singh and PW- 80 Sh. Roop Nath Mishra in their respective statements. He has been examined by the defence to depose that some Anand Margies used to visit his father at his shop, but they did not visit their home.
DW-22 Sh. Rajender Narain Dash, the then Home Secretary, State of Bihar, has been examined by the defence. He was out of Bihar in the first week of January 1975 at the time of bomb CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 103 blast. At the time of arguments his testimony was neither referred by the defence nor by the prosecution.
DW-23 Sh. Chander Mohan Singh @ Rattanjee, of village Chautham, has been examined by accused Gopalji to demolish the case of the prosecution that Gopalji had residential house in village Chautham or farmland (Kamath) in village Tilihar and Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) had deposed at the instance of his employer Sh.
Murariji, who had been on inimical terms with Gopalji.
DW-24 Sh. Deen Pal Rai, Advocate of Azamgarh has been examined to discard the prosecution case that he had supplied one revolver to PW-1.
DW-25 Sh. Vijay Kumar Mishra, who is son of late Sh. L.N. Mishra, has been examined by the defence to state that his father had no enmity with Anand Marg or its followers.
DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, who brought a printed copy of the Report Ex.DW-26/1 of One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 104 Justice K.K. Mathew. He also brought Interim Report-1 Ex.DW-26/2, Interim Report-2 Ex.DW-
26/3 and Final Inquiry Report Ex.DW-26/4 of Shah Commission of Inquiry. He also brought the statement of Sh. D. Sen, the then Director, CBI before the said Commission of Inquiry.
DW-27 Sh. Kamal Dyani, Director, PMO could not bring the summoned record which was not found traceable despite best efforts. As such, his deposition was not referred to.
DW-28 Sh. Dhanik Lal Singh, of village Tilihar has been examined by accused Gopalji again to deal out the case of the prosecution that the accused Gopalji had a farmhouse (Kamath) in village Tilihar.
DW-29 Sh. Maleshwar Parsad Singh, resident of village Chautham, has been examined by accused Gopalji to state that Gopalji has been a resident of village Burail and not of village Chautham, as claimed by prosecution. He deposed that Leel Mohan Singh was his brother but cannot identify his signatures.
DW-30 Sh. Prabhat Kumar Singh,
Assistant, Arms Licensing Department,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 105 Collectorate, Saharsa, has been examined by accused Gopalji to prove his Gun Licence Ex.DW-
14/C was issued at the address of Village Chautham.
DW-31 Sh. Ghutran Jha @ Laxmi Kant Jha, a servant of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA, has been examined by the accused Gopalji to belie the case of the prosecution that Gopalji was arrested from his residence at Chautham after carrying out the search on 17.05.1975. The witness stated that Gopalji was arrested from the flat of his uncle Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA at Patna.
DW-32 Sh. Krishna Kumar Singh, of village Chautham has been examined by accused Gopalji to show that in his presence no search was taken out in the house of maternal grandfather (Nana) of accused Gopalji.
DW-33 Sh. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Circle Inspector, Block Beldaur, Khagaria, has been examined by accused Gopalji to prove that the farmhouse (Kamath) at village Tilihar was washed away in the flood of Kosi River in the year 1972-
73 and to prove his Report Ex.DW-28/2. He gave CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 106 this report Ex.DW-28/2 on hearsay version of some unknown village persons.
DW-34 Sh. D.P. Ojha, the then
Superintendant of Police, Samastipur from
February, 1973 to 1975, has been examined by the accused persons to prove that he also investigated the case initially in relation to Bomb blast at Samastipur; that he arrested and interrogated Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur, Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra and Sh. Shankar Shah. He has also been examined to prove that on direction of Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai, DIG (DW-40), he visited Danapur Jail in the year 1978 to meet Vikram and on his direction, the statement of Vikram was tape recorded by the Jailor.
DW-35 Sh. Sudhendhu Bhushan Dass, Assistant in the office of Sub-Divisional Office, Supaul, who brought the original Electoral Roll of 1975 of village Burail, who filed the copy thereof as Ex.DW-35/1, which bears entry no. 1253 in the name of Krishan Mohan Singh. He has been examined by accused Gopalji to prove that he is a resident of village Burail.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 107 DW-36 Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, has been examined by accused Santoshanand to demolish the case of the prosecution that the disputed writing Q1 to Q3 are written by the same person that is Santoshanand, who's admitted/specimen writing are marked A-1 to A-72 and S-1 to S-44.
DW-37 Sh. Pranavanand Avadhoot, the then Office Secretary of Anand Marg Organization during the year 1971 to 1975 at Patna, has been examined by the accused Santoshanand that during the period from December, 1974 to first week of January, 1975, he (accused Santoshanand Avadhoot) was at Patna. In this manner, accused Santoshanand has taken the defence of Alibi.
DW-38 Sh. B.N. Srivastava, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, has been examined by accused Gopalji that the writing including figure work Q-1 and Q-2 on Search Memo Ex.PW-91/A has not been written by the writer of specimen writing S-1 to S-3 namely Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-
134).
DW-39 Sh. Alok Chaturvedi, Resident Commissioner, Government of Bihar, posted in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 108 Delhi, who brought the original Report dated 24.10.1978 Ex.DW-40/A of Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-
40).
DW-40 Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai (the then DIG, CID Bihar from 01.01.1975 to November 1975) has been examined to aver that after submitting the charge sheet by CBI, on directions of the then Chief Minister, he conducted a top-secret inquiry and gave his Report 24.10.1978 Ex.DW-40/A (also Ex.DW-12/B) to the then Chief Minister. According to DW-40, accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case and suspected that the crime dated 02.01.1975 was committed by Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8), Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9), Sh. Shiv Shankar @ Vishwakarma, Sh. Ram Bilas Jha and Sh. Yashpal Kapoor.
DW-41 Sh. Bhupender Narain Singh, has been examined by accused Gopalji to depose that on 17.05.1975, Gopalji was taken away by the police from the flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA at Patna. Accused Gopalji through this witness want to repel the case of the prosecution that a search was carried out at the house of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 109 Gopalji at Village Chautham and after the search, he was arrested there and taken to the police station.
DW-42 Sh. Samrender Narain Singh, a cousin brother of accused Gopalji, has been examined by him, again on the point that accused Gopalji was taken away by the police from the house of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA at Pa tna.
DW-43 Sh. Deepak Jain, another Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, who has been examined by accused Gopalji that the writing Q1 and Q2 on the Seizure Memo dated 17.05.1975 Ex.PW-91/A does not match with the specimen handwriting of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha.
23. I have heard Ld. Special Public Prosecutor Sh. N.K. Sharma and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate, Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate, Sh. Ashwani Kumar Bali, Amicus Curiae for accused Santoshanand, Sh. Feroz Ahmed and Sh. R.S. Sharma, Advocates for accused Sudevanand, Ms. Sima Gulati and Sh. Anuj Kumar, Advocates for accused Gopalji and accused Ranjan Dwivedi in person at length. I have carefully perused the material available on the record. Certain basic and rudimentary aspects argued by the learned Defence Counsel which are pure questions debatable in law are being taken up at the threshold for adjudication.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 110
6) Defect in charge- effect
24. It is argued by ld. Defence Counsel that as per the case of prosecution, Vinayanand, Arteshanand and Ram Kumar have not participated in the crime at Samastipur on 02.01.1975 and only the accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Vikram approver have participated there. However, they pointed out that while framing the charges under Sections 120-B & 302 IPC with regard to the incident dated 2.1.1975 for throwing hand grenade on the Dais at Platform No.3, Samastipur Railway Station to kill L.N. Mishra the names of Vinayanand, Arteshanand and Ram Kumar are also mentioned to suggest that their participation in the said crime. Nevertheless, there is no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel as admittedly, it is nowhere the case of the prosecution that Vinayanand, Arteshanand and Ram Kumar have participated in the crime dated 02.01.1975 along with Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and approver Vikram. This is mentioned neither in the charge sheet nor in the order dated 21.01.1981 by which the point of charge was decided by my Learned Predecessor. The Ld. Defence Counsel merely pointed out the defect in the charge framed against the accused persons during the course of their respective arguments; they did not submit how this prejudiced their defence or the course of trial. The law governing the subject is that no technical formula of words but the substance, whether the matter was explained to the accused and whether accused understood as to what he was being tried for is to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 111 be considered and nothing more. This is so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhoor Singh and another. Vs. State of Punjab 1974 SCC (Crl.) 664. Further, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Prema S Rao and Another Vs. Yadla Siriniwas Rao & Others 2003 (1) SCC 217 that Section 215 allows the criminal court to ignore any error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, if the accused was not, in fact, misled by such error or omission in framing the charge, and it has not occasioned a failure of justice. Section 215 Cr. PC provides that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
25. The information about involvement of persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Vikram approver in the crime at Railway Station, Samastipur had already been conveyed to accused persons. In the circumstances, when the defence has failed to point out as to how the trial has prejudiced them, this court is unable to sail with the defence that the clerical error in the charge occasioned any failure of justice to the accused persons in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhoor Singh & in K. Prema S Rao (supra).
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 112
7) Clubbing of Investigations
26. As per the case of the prosecution, on 7.1.1974 an attempt was made on the life of Madhavanand at Collectorate, Patna regarding which an FIR No. 24/1974 (Ex.PW-92/A) was registered with PS Kotwali, Patna and when the matter was assigned to C.B.I., they registered an FIR vide RC-14/1975. They further submitted that regarding incident at Tomb (Maqbara), Khanjarpur dated 13.7.1974, an FIR No.71 dated 13.7.1974 was also registered with PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur and when the matter was assigned for investigation to C.B.I., they registered an FIR vide RC-13/1975. Regarding the incident dated 02.01.1975 at Railway Station, Samastipur, GRP Samastipur Railway Station lodged an FIR no.1/1975 dated 02.01.1975 and when the matter was assigned to C.B.I., they registered an FIR vide RC-1/1975. Regarding the explosion of the hand grenade at the house of Sh. Mahadev Sahu, an FIR no.1/75 dated 02.01.1975 was registered with PS Samastipur, Bihar and when the matter was assigned to C.B.I., they registered an FIR vide RC-2/1975. Regarding all these four matters, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a common charge sheet before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 12.11.1975. It is testified by the Investigation Officer PW- 151 H.L. Ahuja at page no. 3559 of his statement that after discussion with the C.I.D., Bihar and local police officers, the investigations of both these cases bearing no. RC-1/1975 & RC-2/1975 were amalgamated on 10.1.1975 itself. At page no.3581 of his statement, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 113 Sh. H.L. Ahuja further deposed that he received the copies of FIRs RC-13/1975 & RC-14/1975 on 15.9.1975 at Delhi; and he amalgamated investigations of these two FIRs with the investigation of RC-1/1975 on 15.9.1975.
27. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there is no such procedure in the "Cr. PC." authorizing an Investigating Officer to consolidate the investigation of the cases and that too without permission of the concerned judicial Magistrate. They argued that for this reason, the accused have been grossly prejudiced as this illegality goes to the root of the matter; and on this ground alone, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted. Per contra it is submitted by the Ld. Special PP that the investigations into such inter-twined facts, which are sequential like separate levers in the chain necessarily makes the investigating agency to look into with a broader spectrum. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy which was hatched at the roof of the house of Ram Kumar at village Trimohan, an attempt was made on the life of Madhavanand who was an approver in a murder case against Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti @ Baba, head of Anand Marg Organization. An FIR No. 24/74 was registered with PS Kotwali Patna. It is also the case of the prosecution that arms were got collected and some hand grenades were being carried out from Delhi to Bhagalpur by Vikram (PW-2) on asking of accused Santoshanand to execute the criminal conspiracy hatched at Trimohan. As directed by Santoshanand, those hand CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 114 grenades were delivered to Budheshawaranand and they were carrying the same in a Jhola (bag) when Budheshawaranand was apprehended at said Tomb at Khanjarpur & Vikram ran away and an FIR No. 71 dated 13.07.1974 was registered at PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur. In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, a hand grenade was thrown at the Dais of Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975, which led to murder of the then Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra and two more persons, and several persons were injured. An FIR No. 1 of 1975 with PS GRP Samastipur was registered. As per the case of the prosecution, the approver Vikram dropped the hand grenade at the railway track at Samastipur Railway Station, which was picked up by PW-4 Rajinder Parshad Nayak, who took it to the house, and he had shown it to his cousin PW-3 Mahinder Parshad Sahu and the hand grenade exploded in their house. An FIR No. 1 of 1975 was registered with PS Samastipur. All these incidents have taken place in pursuant to deep-rooted criminal conspiracy and admittedly, there is no bar in the Cr. PC that investigation officer cannot consolidate the investigations of these cases and file a common charge sheet. The similar point has come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (SC) : 2010 (9) SCC 567 and relevant Para 28 of the judgment reads as under :-
"28. The submission on behalf of the appellants that two crimes bearing Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000 could not be clubbed together, has also no merit CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 115 for the simple reason that if the cases are considered, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in which the two incidents occurred, taking into consideration the evidence of drivers and conductors/cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first incident and the evidence of C. Ramasundaram V.A.O., (PW.87), we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first occurrence. The damage caused to the public transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge sheet could not be filed (See: T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2001(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 436 : (2001) 6 SCC 181)."
28. Though it is not an illegality and there is no bar in the "Cr. PC"
from clubbing the investigations of the connected cases, yet it should have been brought to the notice of the court at the initial stage of trial by the accused persons if they felt aggrieved by the action of the investigation officer. It is held by our own Hon'ble High Court in Dr. R.R. Kishore vs. C.B.I. (2006) 3 JCC 1758 (Para 28 and 29) that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 116 where cognizance is taken on the basis of an illegal investigation; no objection is taken at the initial stage; trial proceeds to its conclusion and results in conviction, the same can be set aside only if it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Relevant Para 28 and 29 reads as under:-
"28. After examining the aforesaid decision of the Privy Council as well as of the Supreme Court, the following principles emerge:-
1. If cognizance is taken on the basis of such an illegal investigation and no objection is taken at the initial stages and the trial proceeds to its conclusion and results in conviction then the same can be set aside only if it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
2. However, if the illegal investigation is brought to the notice of the Trial Court at the initial stages then the court ought not to proceed with the trial and be a mute spectator to the illegality and contravention of a mandatory provision but should direct reinvestigation so that defect in investigation is cured.
29. It follows that if, at the initial stage of trial, the illegality of investigation is brought to the notice of the court and yet the Trial Court CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 117 continues with the trial then, such proceedings would be liable to be set aside by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction........"
29. For the foregoing reasons and the case law discussed above, the following points emerge inexorably on record: -
(a) That clubbing of investigations is not
specifically barred under Cr. PC;
(b) That the case law recognizes the clubbing of
investigations pertaining to the same genre of events culminating into a triable offence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Muniappan's case (supra)
(c) It is worthwhile to note that initial meeting of mind resulting into conspiracy hatched at the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan, and deliberation, carrying of similar intentions, consensus among the parties, their conceiving the common intention to liquidate the defector of their cult Sh. Madhavanand, and the acts done in pursuance of achieving the goal to get released the "Cult Head" by means unknown to law, have led the accused persons in the overt acts of collecting the arms and ammunitions, like hand grenades, pistols and subsequent events, like attempt on life CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 118 of Madhavanand at Collectorate, Patna (FIR No. 24/1974, PS Kotwali, Patna) are all sequential facts sprouting from the ill conceived intentions for which four separate FIRs were registered. In this case, the first FIR No. 24/1974, PS Kotwali, Patna deals with an attempt on the life of Madhavanand, the defector of the cult, pursuant to the conspiracy in a larger goal and this attempt on his life is the starting point of an overt act. The second FIR No. 71/1974 dated 13.07.1974, registered with PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur, pertained to carrying of hand grenades and arms by Budheshawaranand @ Tyageshwaranand @ Amar Singh (since deceased) and Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass @ Subir (PW-2) as a second event arising from the same conspiracy. This is further followed by the most macabre event in which the then Union Railway Minister Late Sh. L.N. Mishra, one MLC Sh. Surya Narain Jha and a railway clerk Sh.
Ram Kishore Singh Kishore were disincarnated and resulting into grievous injuries to eight persons and causing hurt to 18 persons. Consequently, an FIR No. 1/75, PS GRP, Samastipur Railway Station was lodged on 02.01.1975. The 4th FIR CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 119 No. 1/75, PS Samastipur dealt with an explosion of a hand grenade at the house of an innocent railway employee in the railway colony adjoining the Railway Station, Samastipur resulting into injuries to two siblings of the railway employees.
(d) Needless to say that as per case of prosecution, incident dated 02.01.1975 vide FIR No.1/75 PS GRP Samastipur, explosion had taken place due to the grenade flung by A-2 in pursuance to conspiracy & another carried by PW-2 (approver), which could not be used, and dropped by him on railway track while fleeing and A-1 could not use his grenade as one flung by A-2 exploded. These facts cannot be looked at, investigated or understood in isolation. Hence, from the progression of investigation conducted separately was later on rightly felt by IO PW-151 to club them to project a wholesome picture and not a piecemeal investigation, which would have clashed with the collection of facts resulting into futility. Therefore, considering the progression of the case, sequence of events for achieving the end result to put the crime into justice, it was most expedient, warranted and wanted in the ends of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 120 justice to consolidate the investigations of all the afore said four FIRs. Hence, I see no reason to reject the charge sheet per se on this ground.
(e) The defence had never objected to or pointed out this defect, as now argued by them, at the time of framing the charges. I do not see any specific prejudice having been caused to any of the accused during the course of trial.
8) Effect of Pardon
30. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that pardon has been granted to PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Aacharya Madan @ Kapalic @ Aacharya Visheshwaranand @ Vijay and to PW-2 Jaldhar Dass @ Vikram @ Subir by a common order dated 27.10.1975 by the court of CJM, Patna in FIR bearing no. RC-1/1975 but they have not been granted pardon in other three cases. It is also argued that the accused in all four FIRs are different persons. As per the case of the prosecution, PW-2 joined the criminal conspiracy in the year 1974 whereas the alleged criminal conspiracy was hatched at village Trimohan in October 1973, and this order of pardon cannot be treated for three other FIRs. For this reason, the Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the statement of approvers PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be looked into by this court. It is to be kept in mind that the investigating officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja has already amalgamated the investigation of two cases of RC-1/1975 (FIR No. 1/75 dated 2.1.1975 PS GRP, Samastipur) & RC-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 121 2/1975 (FIR No. 1/75, PS Samastipur) on 10.01.1975, the day he took over the investigations on behalf of C.B.I. Subsequently on 15.9.1975, he amalgamated the investigation of FIRs no.RC-13/1975 (FIR No. 71/1974 PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur & RC-14/1975 (FIR No. 24/1974 Patna Kotwali) with RC-1/1975. After amalgamation of investigation of all the four cases and subsequent to filing of the common charge sheet, the order of pardon was granted by Ld. CJM, Patna on 27.10.1975 and for that reason, Ld. CJM has mentioned the number of main case RC-1/1975 in the title of its order. So, there is no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that statement of approvers PW-1 and PW-2 in cases other than RC-1/1975 is not relevant.
31. There is also no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava (PW-1) was arrested only in the case registered vide FIR No. 24/1974 (RC-14/1975) and not in other 3 cases and accused Vikram (PW-2) was not arrested in the present case. They argued that accused Vikram (PW-2) was arrested in a case registered in New Delhi for attack on the then CJI Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Ray and only production warrants were issued in the case vide FIR No.1/1975 (RC-1/1975) and he was not arrested in any of these four cases.
32. Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava was already released on bail on 08.05.1975 in Patna Kotwali case vide FIR No. 24/1974. On 12.05.1975, his confessional statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr. PC.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 122 He was granted pardon on 27.10.1975 and as such there was no occasion for the Investigation Officer to take him in custody under u/s 306 (4) (b) of Cr. PC.
33. So far as approver Vikram is concerned, he was arrested on 24.07.1975 in a case of attack on the then CJI Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Ray and turned approver. Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently urged that accused Vikram was not at all arrested in this case and order of pardon is per se void ab initio. This court has ventured to peruse the entire old voluminous record of this case and found that there is no force in the argument. Record reveals that during the investigation, Sh. H. L. Ahuja moved an application in the present case before CMM, Delhi on 12.08.1975. The accused Vikram was produced in RC-11/1975 (A.N. Ray's case) and the court directed that he be produced before Sh. R.D. Aggarwal IV ACMM, Delhi for necessary action. On the same day, he was produced before the court of Sh. R.D. Aggarwal, ACMM, Delhi and accused Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass was remanded to judicial custody in the present case and was directed to be produced on 14.08.1975. He was again produced before the said court of ACMM, Delhi on 14.08.1975 at 4.30 PM and he was further remanded to judicial custody for 2 days and directed to be produced on 16.08.1975. On 16.08.1975, he was again produced before the said court at 10:15 AM and he expressed his desire to make confession in the present case. The court cautioned him and gave him time to think it over. The court of ACMM, Delhi recorded his part CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 123 statement on that day. The statement of Vikram was completed on 18.08.1975, which is Ex.PW-2/L. This statement of Vikram was ordered to be sent in sealed cover to Special Magistrate (CBI) Patna. (All these proceedings are available in File No. is R-43-5.) It is, thus, clear that before making confessional statement, the accused Vikram was taken into custody by the court and after recording his statement by ACMM, Delhi, he was granted pardon on 27.10.1975 by CJM, Patna.
34. To sum up the contention of the defence to attack the order granting pardon to PW-2 is based on the following grounds: -
(a) that grant of pardon in one case RC-1/1975 cannot be read in evidence in other three cases.
(b) that the grant of pardon in RC-1/1975 is itself illegal as he was never arrested prior to grant him pardon in the present case.
While dealing with the above said arguments, it is to be delineated that: -
(i) the investigations of RC-1/1975 and RC-
2/1975 were clubbed/amalgamated by the
Investigating Officer on 10.01.1975.
(ii) the investigation of RC-13/1975 and RC-
14/1975 were clubbed with RC-1/1975 by the
Investigating Officer on 15.09.1975.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 124
(iii) the Judicial Record found in File No. R-43-5 dispels all the doubts as regards the arrest of Vikram (approver). Firstly, he was arrested and produced before the Ld. ACMM, Delhi on 12.08.1975, and later on, 16.08.1975 when he expressed his desire to confess. Following the judicial norms in taking down the confessional statement, the Ld. ACMM had adjourned the matter for 14.08.1975 and 16.08.1975. His confessional statement was completed on 18.08.1975.
After delineating the above said facts, it is needless to say that the order of granting pardon to approver Vikram is fully in consonance with the procedure laid down under Section 164 and Section 306 of the Cr. PC and this court does not find any illegality therein. Further, the argument that the Vikram was not arrested at all in the present case falls to the ground for the facts mentioned hereinbefore revealed through the judicial record. The second leg of argument that the granting of pardon in one case be not read as evidence in other cases does not appeal to the common prudence since the investigations of all the four FIRs mentioned hereinbefore were amalgamated by the investigating officer. The essence of confessional statement seeking pardon covers the entire gamut of events. Thus, this court finds no CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 125 tenable grounds to strike at the root of prosecution on the above contentions of the defence.
9) Whether the pardon to PW-1 is tainted?
35. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Aacharya Visheshwaranand Avadhoot could not have been made an approver in this case as he had filed an application for grant him bail claiming innocence on 03.05.1975 through one Sh. Radha Raman Prasad, Advocate. The Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out that in his bail application, it is pleaded by PW-1 that he is quite innocent and had been falsely implicated and arrested on 30.04.1975 with incorrect and baseless allegations and the court has already granted bail to other co-accused persons. (This bail application is available at page no.186 of Folder R-4). A perusal of the relevant record reveals that this bail application was not signed by PW-1. It bears only signatures of his counsel. The court of CJM, Patna granted him bail vide order dated 08.05.1975. (This bail order is available at page no.81 of Folder R-9). In the order granting bail, it is, inter-alia, mentioned that accused Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Vijay had been produced from police custody. He submitted to the court of CJM, Patna that no ill treatment was given to him. The investigating officer filed memo of evidence against him (PW-1) and it was noted by the court of CJM, Patna that the main accused Vinayanand, who was arrested at the spot, had already been CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 126 granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court and as such, PW-1 was ordered to be bailed out by the court of CJM, Patna.
36. In this regard, ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampal Pithwa Rahidass v. State of Maharashtra 1994 SCC (2) 685. The Ld. Defence Counsel argued that approver must not exculpate himself from the crime and if he participates in crime, only then he can be an approver. I have gone through the judgment in Rampal Pithwa Rahidass (supra). The judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defence is distinguishable. PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava did not sign the application filed for bail on his behalf and it is merely signed by Sh. Radha Raman Prasad, Advocate. In his cross- examination, he has stated that the said application was moved by his father and maternal uncle and not by him. This application appears to have been filed before the court by the counsel Sh. Radha Raman Prasad in a routine manner and it is drafted in a standard formats, which is filed by any Advocate on behalf of the accused in every criminal case. This application has been filed four days after his arrest on 03.05.1975 as he was admittedly arrested on 30.04.1975. It is common prudence that in the anxiety to get enlarged on bail, every accused under incarceration pleads in his bail application firstly that he is innocent and secondly he is falsely implicated. Mere assertion as such cannot be believed as biblical truth without trial. In the judgment Rampal Pithwa Rahidass (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Defence CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 127 Counsel, the approver Ram Charan was arrested on 07.07.1984 in some other case to touch a cycle parked on the side of the road u/s 379/511 IPC and during interrogation, as per prosecution, approver Ram Charan disclosed having participated in a decoity on a highway. The complainant of that case u/s 379/511 IPC did not say that any attempt was made to steal his cycle. The approver was not produced by the investigation officer before the Magistrate to record his statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. While accused Ram Charan was in police custody, another accused Murari died in police custody on 10.07.1984 and within a few days of his death, he made confessional statement of his own. After more than 2 years of his arrest, he submitted an application seeking bail from judicial lock-up pleading therein that he was being forced to become an eye witness in the case though he knew nothing about crime and the bail was declined. Suddenly, of his own on 01.04.1987, accused Ram Charan filed an application to become an approver and to make disclosure of all the facts about which he had stated in his earlier application dated 17.01.1987, where he pleaded that he knew nothing. Even in his application dated 01.04.1987 he, inter-alia, stated that persons against whom the case for dacoity and murder have been filed were responsible for murder and that "I was only looking after their clothes". In these circumstances, coupled with many others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that his testimony is not worthy of acceptance.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 128
37. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel is quite distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, u/s 306 Cr. PC., an accomplice may be "any person"
supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence, and with a view to obtain evidence of such person, the Magistrate may grant him pardon at any stage of investigation or enquiry or trial, subject to his making a full and true disclosure within his knowledge relating to the offence. At the cost of repetition, this court is to concisely state that: -
(i) The bail application is not the conscious effort of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Aacharya Visheshwaranand Avadhoot and the same cannot be the basis for grant or refusal of pardon.
(ii) As already concluded the stereo-type language employed by an Advocate, that too instructed by relatives of the incarcerated person who stated that the accused is innocent cannot in my view invalidate the rights open to any accused seeking pardon under Section 306 of the Cr. PC.
(iii) Even if bail application is taken at the face value, the mere assertion that the applicant was innocent cannot nullify his right to invoke the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 129 protections guaranteed under Section 306 of the Cr. PC.
38. One cannot oblivious of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the administration of criminal justice, Law of Precedents alone has no much relevance; criminal case cannot be decided in colour of precedents unless facts and circumstances in a cited case are in pari materia in all respects with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In his regard, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh alias Photti v. State of A.P. AIR 2004 SC 4545 that unless and until the facts and circumstances in a cited case are in pari materia in all respects with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it would not be proper to treat an earlier case as a precedent to arrive at a definite conclusion. The relevant Para of the judgment reads as under:
"11. A reading of the above judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants does indicate that this Court in the said cases held that certain acts as found in those cases did not indicate the sharing of common intention. But we have to bear in mind that the facts appreciated in the above judgments and inference drawn have been so done by the Courts not in isolation but on the totality of the circumstances found in those cases. The totality of circumstances could hardly be ever CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 130 similar in all cases. Therefore, unless and until the facts and circumstances in a cited case is in pari materia in all respects with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it will not be proper to treat an earlier case as a precedent to arrive at a definite conclusion."
39. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. R.L. Vaid and others AIR 2004 SC 4269 and relevant Para 5 reads as under :-
"5. .....There is always peril in treating the words of a judgment as though they are words in a Legislative enactment and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by merely placing reliance on a decision is not proper. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut out the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches, said Lord Denning, while speaking in the matter of applying precedents....."
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 131
40. Same principle of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao and another vs. State of A.P. AIR 2004 SC 132 and relevant Para of the judgment reads as under:-
"9. Each case, more particular a criminal case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive......"
41. Similar view has been taken by our own Hon'ble High Court in Sukhvinder Singh Sandhu vs. C.B.I. 2010 (3) JCC 2324 that it is settled law that it is the statutory provisions which govern the trial and the court has to act in accordance with various provisions of Cr. P.C. The judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court are given in facts and circumstances of each case. Judgments are not to be read as a statute. Each case represents its own problem adjudicated upon by the court and unless and until the High Court and Supreme Court lay down a general principle of law to be followed by the courts below, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 132 the judgments would have to be considered as adjudication of the particular issue before the court.
42. Thence for the clear disposition of law on the subject, I am making it clear that no sanctity can be attached to the workings in the bail application of approver for the following reasons: -
(a) In Rampal Pithwa (supra), it was held that bail application of approver as having been made conscientiously since it was in his own handwriting claiming himself as innocent.
(b) That in the instant case, bail application on behalf of PW-1 was moved at the behest of relatives of the approver.
(c) Such application at the behest of relatives of approver was moved in a routine manner, following a standard format, normally used by the practicing lawyers on criminal side. Such an application cannot be treated as done conscientiously by the PW1 himself.
(d) I have already delineated the facts and position of law to hold that no sanctity can be attached to the wordings in the bail application only to defeat the true purpose of a remorseful accused, who wants to unscramble the truth before the Temple of Justice.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 133
10) Effect of Non-examination of Magistrate
43. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the confessional statement of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay and the ACMM, Delhi, who recorded the confessional statement of PW-2 Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass u/s 164 Cr. PC, have not been examined to prove that they voluntarily made their respective statements. Thus, the Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the order of pardon granted to PW-1 and PW-2 is of no avail to the prosecution and consequently, the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be looked into. However, this argument of Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati is devoid of any merit in view of Section 80 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under: -
"80. Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence - Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence, or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 134 Court shall presume - that the document is genuine; that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken."
44. PW-1 testified that Ex.PW-1/X is his statement, which he made on 12.05.1975 in the court of SDM Sh. B.K. Derhgawan and bears his signatures at points A and B. He confirmed that he had given this statement (Ex.PW-1/X) voluntarily without any pressure or inducement. In his cross-examination, PW-1 testified that his statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC was recorded from 8.30 AM to 12.30 PM. This was not recorded by putting question to him and he admitted on his own. On 12.05.1975, he was shown his statement by Ld. CJM and asked him whether it was correct. He saw his statement and admitted the same to be correct. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 testified that before recording his statement on 12.05.1975, he was not told that he had been made an approver. On 27.10.1975, when he appeared before CJM, Patna, he was told that he was given pardon and made an approver. When he appeared before the CJM, he was alone and later on, he came to know that one Vikram had also been produced before CJM. He signed as Madan Mohan Srivastava since the CJM had written his name as Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand. He denied the suggestion that his statement CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 135 recorded u/s 164 of the Cr. PC was not shown to him or read out to him on 27.10.1975. He has also denied the suggestion that he accepted the pardon blindfolded under pressure of the police. He asserted that the Magistrate had explained him the meaning of conditional pardon and asked him if his statement was correct and truthful and would be ready to state the facts truly and correctly in future. He has also denied the suggestion that he was persuaded to make a statement before the Magistrate or was tutored later on for making further statement in the court.
45. The statement of PW-1 dated 12.05.1975 Ex.PW-1/X (is available in the Folder R-4), reveals that this statement was recorded by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna authorized by CJM, Patna regarding the offence committed at Patna Collectorate premises on 07th day of January, 1974 at about 10.30 AM. The SDJM, Patna has also complied with the mandatory requirement of section 164 (4) of the Cr. PC.
46. PW-2 further deposed that after his arrest, he was brought to Delhi on 28.07.1975 and was lodged in Tihar Jail. A Magistrate in Delhi recorded his statement in the month of August 1975. The Magistrate told him his designation. He (PW-2) had given that statement before the Magistrate voluntarily and willingly. As far as he recalled, his statement was recorded two days after his production before the Magistrate. On first occasion, his statement was recorded CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 136 in the case regarding throwing of a bomb on Sh. A.N. Ray and then after a gap of one day, his statement was recorded in the present case. It was probably a holiday on the day of gap. His statement was read over to him. He has signed his statement on every page after seeing it which is at Ex.PW-2/L. The writing at Point A on Statement Ex.PW- 2/L is in his handwriting and then he signed at point B with a date under it. (This statement of the approver PW-2 is available in Folder R-43-5). The record reveals that his statement was recorded by Sh. R.D. Aggarwal, 4 th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 16.08.1975 and 18.08.1975. On 16.08.1975, the learned ACMM, Delhi after asking the accused, satisfied himself that there was no threat or inducement to Vikram and he was not under any coercion. The learned ACMM recorded the statement from 01.15 PM to 04.15 PM which was read over to Vikram and he signed on each page in Hindi by putting the date 16.08.1975 beneath his signatures on each page. He has written in his own handwriting in Hindi that he had heard the statement which is correct and he will make the remaining statement on 18.08.1975. On the adjourned date also, Vikram stated that in the jail he has not talked to any police official or jail officer or employee or he wants to complete his statement made by him on 16.08.1975. His statement was recorded in pre-lunch and post lunch sessions. Vikram has signed on all the pages in Hindi and beneath his signatures he has put the date as 18.08.1975. In the end, at point A and B in his own handwriting, he has written in Hindi that he has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 137 heard his statement, which is correct and true and he has given his statement voluntarily. He has again signed after certifying his statement on 18.08.1975. The Ld. 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi has also complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 164 (4) of the Cr. PC., which is again signed by accused Vikram in English with date 18.08.1975.
47. PW-1 has testified that he attended the court of CJM, Patna on 27.10.1975. On that day, he was granted Pardon by the court. He accepted the Pardon vide his acceptance Ex.PW-1/Y voluntarily. PW- 2 has testified that he accepted the order of Pardon Ex.PW-1/Y by his writing Mark-X in his hand and bears his signature with date as 27.10.1975. He was not given any promise nor was put under pressure by any person. The order of Pardon dated 27.10.1975 passed by the court of CJM, Patna in RC-1/75 under Section 120-B/302/307 IPC is available in Folder R-65 and this order of Pardon was accepted by PW-1 and PW-2.
48. This point as to whether the Magistrate, who has recorded the statement of a person under Section 164 of the Cr. PC is to be examined during trial to depose the factum of recording of the statement of such person, has come up for interpretation before the Privy Council as also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been consistently held that the Magistrate is not required to appear during trial to depose since presumption is attached under Section 80 of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 138 Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This question first came up before the Privy Council in the year 1936 in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor (PC) 1936 AIR (PC) 253 and the relevant Para of the judgment reads as under:-
"11. As a matter of good sense, the position of accused persons and the position of the magistracy are both to be considered. An examination of the Code shows how carefully and precisely defined is the procedure regulating what may be asked of or done in the matter of examination of accused persons and as to how the results are to be recorded and what use is to be made of such records. Nor is this surprising in a jurisdiction where it is not permissible for an accused person to give evidence on oath. So with regard to the magistracy: it is for obvious reasons most undesirable that Magistrates and Judges should be in the position of witnesses in so far as it can be avoided. Sometimes it cannot be avoided, as under
section 533, but where matter can be made of record and therefore admissible as such, there are the strongest reasons of policy for supposing that the legislature designed that it should be made available in that form and no other. In their CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 139 Lordships' view it would be particularly unfortunate if Magistrates were asked at all generally to act rather as police officers than as judicial persons; to be by reason of their position freed from the disability that attaches to police officers under Section 162 of the Code; and to be at the same time freed, notwithstanding their position as Magistrates, from any obligation to make records under section 164. In the result they would indeed be relegated to the position of ordinary citizens as witnesses and then would be required to depose to matters transacted by them in their official capacity unregulated by any statutory rules of procedure or conduct whatever. Their Lordships are, however, clearly of opinion that this unfortunate position cannot in future arise because, in their opinion, the effect of the statute is clearly to prescribe the mode in which confessions are to be dealt with by Magistrates when made during an investigation, and to render inadmissible any attempt to deal with them in the method proposed in the present case. The evidence of Mr. Vasisht should therefore in the opinion of their Lordships, have been rejected by the Court. The admission in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 140 evidence of Mr. Vasisht's memorandum, such as it was, is a minor point. It does not appear to have been used by him merely to refresh his memory, but to have been put in as a document. This is of no great importance, because if the oral evidence was allowed, perhaps no more mischief was done by the admission of the memorandum; but it has always to be remembered that weight, or apparent weight, is lent to oral testimony by a written version of it closely related in time to the events described, and it is an additional objection to the proceedings under review that such a record as this should have been admitted in evidence."
49. Then, this question came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh Versus The State of Punjab, 1952 AIR (SC) 214, and the relevant Para of the judgment reads as under: -
"28. Now, the certificate of the Committing Magistrate endorsed on the deposition sheet states that the deposition was read out to the witness and that the witness admitted it to be correct. The Court is bound to accept this as correct under Section 80 of the Evidence Act until it is proved to be untrue. The burden is on the person seeking to displace the statutory presumption and if he CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 141 chooses to rely on the testimony of a witness which the Court is not prepared to believe the matter ends there. The duty displacing the presumption lies on the person who questions it. The Court is, of course, bound to consider such evidence as is adduced but it is not bound to believe such evidence nor is there any duty whatever on the Court to conduct an enquiry on its own. There is nothing in this point. But we again wish to discountenance the suggestion that the Committing Magistrate should have been examined to prove the truth of his certificate and we endorse the remarks we made in 'Kashmera Singh v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh', Cri Appeal No. 53 of 1951 (SC), based on the decision of the Privy Council in 'Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor', AIR 1936 PC 253 AT P. 258, regarding the undesirability of any such practice.
29. But even if the fact be true that the deposition was not read over, that would only amount to a curable irregularity and, as the Privy Council observed in 'Abdul Rehman v. Emperor', AIR 1927 PC 44 at pp. 46, 47, in the absence of prejudice which must be disclosed in an affidavit which CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 142 shows exactly where the record departs from what the witness actually said, there is no point in the objection. The object of the reading over prescribed by Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to enable the witness to change his story but to ensure that the record faithfully and accurately embodies the gist of what the witness actually said. Therefore, before prejudice can be substantiated on this score, it must be disclosed by affidavit exactly where the inaccuracy lies."
50. Thereafter, this question again came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh and others, 1964 AIR (SC) 358, and the relevant Para of the judgment reads as under: -
"7. In Nazir Ahmed's case, 63 Ind App 372 the Judicial Committee observed that the principle applied in Taylor v. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch. D 426 to a Court, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, applied to judicial officers making a record under Section 164 and, therefore, held that the magistrate CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 143 could not give oral evidence of the confession made to him which he had purported to record under Section 164 of the Code. It was said that otherwise all the precautions and safeguards laid down in Sections 164 and 364, both of which had to be read together, would become of such trifling value as to be almost idle and that "it would be an unnatural construction to hold that any other procedure was permitted than that which is laid down with such minute particularity in the sections themselves."
8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch D 426 is well recognized and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. A magistrate, therefore, cannot in the course of investigation record a confession except in the manner laid down in Section 164. The power to record the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 144 confession had obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of it made in the manner laid down. If proof of the confession by other means was permissible, the whole provision of Section 164 including the safeguards contained in it for the protection of accused persons would be rendered nugatory. The section, therefore, by conferring on magistrate the power to record statements or confessions, by necessary implication, prohibited a magistrate from giving oral evidence of the statements or confessions made to him."
51. This question again came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madi Ganga Vs. State of Orissa, 1981 AIR (SC) 1165, and the relevant Para of the judgment reads as under: -
"With regard to the confessional statement made to the Magistrate his submission was that it should have been excluded from the evidence as the Magistrate was not examined to prove it.
5. We desire to express no opinion on the question whether the extra-judicial confession made to P.Ws. 2 to 5 is barred under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. It is unnecessary for us to say CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 145 anything on this question, since we are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge was wholly wrong in excluding and the High Court was certainly right in acting upon the confessional statement made to the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has put to the accused all the necessary questions to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary. He has also appended the necessary certificate. We do not accept Shri Jain's submission that the learned Magistrate should have been examined as a witness. Section 80 of the Evidence Act makes the examination of the Magistrate unnecessary. It authorises the Court to presume that the document is genuine, that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken are true and that such confession was truly taken in accordance with law. Shri Jain submitted that if the Magistrate had been examined as a witness, the accused might have been in a position to show, by cross-examination that the confession recorded by the Magistrate was not voluntary. The Magistrate has appended a certificate that he was satisfied that the confession was voluntary. No circumstance has been brought out in the evidence justifying the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 146 calling of the Magistrate as a witness. We do not think that the circumstances of the case justify any comment on the alleged failure of the prosecution to examine the Magistrate as a witness.
52. Having discussed the settled position of law as above, this court does not see any ground to discard the prosecution case for non- examining the Judicial Magistrates, who had recorded the confessional statements of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Aacharya Visheshwaranand Avadhoot and PW-2 Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass @ Subir, since;
(i) Section 80 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 attaches judicial sanctity to all such court records and statement made on oath at any stage of investigation or trial.
(ii) Such statements cannot be ignored unless and until the defence point out that the same were involuntary.
(iii) Non-examination of Magistrate would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution as held in Nazir Ahmed by Privy Council, and in Singhara Singh's case (supra), Bhagwan Singh's case (supra) and in Madi Ganga's case (supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court and mandate of law to be culled out as done above.
(iv) The confessional statements per se carry the due certificates of the Magistrates recording the confessions as required by CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 147 law. The SDJM, Patna after recording the statement of PW-1 has certified that he believed the confession to have been made voluntarily and the same was read over to him and he has admitted the same to be correct. Similarly, 4 th ACMM, Delhi had after recording the statement of PW-2 has certified that he believed the confession to have been made voluntarily and the same was read over to him and he has admitted the same to be correct.
11) Whether PW-1 was induced?
53. Ms. Sima Gulati, Ld. Counsel for accused Gopalji argued that the approver PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand was induced of his reinstatement after about 11 years of his termination from service and as such, his confessional statement and consequent statement made in the court cannot be relied upon. She argued that PW-1 was working in the office of Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Darbhanga, from where he resigned in the year 1964 and he was arrested on 29.04.1975 and the Superintendent Engineer on 30.04.1975 communicated his reinstatement to him. PW-1 has applied vide application Ex.PW-1/C in March 1964 for permission to leave the station. He also sent a telegram Ex.PW-1/D dated 16.3.1964 for extension of leave. He submitted his resignation letter dated 15.04.1964 Ex.PW-1/E. She argued that PW-1 was granted bail on 08.05.1975 and his confessional statement u/s 164 Cr. PC on application of the investigating officer was recorded on 12.05.1975 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 148 and he rejoined the service on 13.05.1975 and he was granted pardon by the CJM, Patna on 27.10.1975. She argued that application for reinstatement is pre-dated and does not bear any date and stamp of receiving in the office. She argued that in his application, PW-1 has mentioned that he remained moving from one place to another and later on filed a false medical certificate to the effect that he was suffering from a mental disease 'melancholia' from 1964 to 1974.
54. Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal : 2002 (7) SCC 334 wherein it has been held as under :
"28. That brings us to another angle i.e. acceptability of the confession. Section 24 of the Evidence Act interdicts a confession if it appears to the court to be the result of any inducement, threat or promise in certain conditions. The principle therein is that confession must be voluntary. It must be the outcome of his own free will inspired by the sound of his own conscience to speak nothing but the truth.
30. In Words and Phrases by John B. Saunders, 3rd Edn., Vol. 4, p. 401, "voluntary" is defined as:
"The classic statement of the principle is that of Lord Sumner in Ibrahim v. R., 1914 AC 599 :
(1914-15) All England Reporter Rep 874 : 111 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 149 LT 20 (PC), (AC at p. 609) where he said, "it has long been established as a positive rule of English criminal law that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to be a voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority. The principle is as old as Lord Hale".
However, in five of the eleven textbooks cited to us support is to be found for a narrow and rather technical meaning of the word "voluntary".
According to this view, "voluntary" means merely that the statement has not been made in consequence of (i) some promise of advantage or some threat, (ii) of a temporal character, (iii) held out or made by a person in authority, and (iv) relating to the charge in the sense that it implies that the accused's position in the contemplated proceedings will or may be better or worse according to whether or not the statement is made. R.V. Power, 1914 AC 599 : (1914-15) All Er Rep 874 : 111 LT 20 (PC) (All England Reporter at pp. 454, 455), per Cantley, V."
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 150
55. To buttress her arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel also referred another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aloke Nath Dutta vs. State of West Bengal 2007 (12) SCC 230 and relevant Para 86 and 87 of the judgment read as under:-
"86. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession;
(iii) corroboration.
87. This Court in Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan [(1978) 3 SCC 435] stated the law thus:
"22. This confession was retracted by the appellant when he was examined at the trial Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code on June 14, 1975. It is well settled that a confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt. Therefore, when in a capital case the prosecution demands a conviction of the accused, primarily on the basis of his confession recorded Under Section CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 151 164 Criminal Procedure Code, the Court must apply a double test:
(1) Whether the confession was perfectly
voluntary?
(2) If so, whether it is true and trustworthy?
Satisfaction of the first test is a sine quo non for its admissibility in evidence. If the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise such as is mentioned in Section 24, Evidence Act, it must be excluded and rejected brevimanu. In such a case, the question of proceeding further to apply the second test does not arise. If the first test is satisfied, the Court must before acting upon the confession reach the finding that what is stated therein is true and reliable. For judging, the reliability of such a confession or for that matter of any substantive piece of evidence there is no rigid canon of universal application. Even so, one broad method, which may be useful in most cases for evaluating a confession, may be indicated. The Court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 152 case. If on such examination and comparison, the confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it may be taken to have satisfied the second test."
56. The Ld. Defence Counsel has cited another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu 2005 (11) SCC 600 on the same point and Para 8 of the judgment reads as under :-
"8. Law regarding confessions We start with the confessions. Under the general law of the land as reflected in the Indian Evidence Act, no confession made to a police officer can be proved against an accused. 'Confessions' - which is a terminology used in criminal law is a species of 'admissions' as defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. An admission is a statement - oral or documentary, which enables the court to draw an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is trite to say that every confession must necessarily be an admission, but, every admission does not necessarily amount to a confession. While Sections 17 to 23 deal with admissions, the law as to confessions is embodied in Sections 24 to 30 of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 153 the Evidence Act. Section 25 bars proof of a confession made to a police officer. Section 26 goes a step further and prohibits proof of confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 24 lays down the obvious rule that a confession made under any inducement, threat or promise becomes irrelevant in a criminal proceeding. Such inducement, threat or promise need not be proved to the hilt. If it appears to the court that the making of the confession was caused by any inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority, the confession is liable to be excluded from evidence. The expression 'appears' connotes that the Court need not go to the extent of holding that the threat etc. has in fact been proved. If the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence adduced make it reasonably probable that the confession could be the result of threat, inducement or pressure, the court will refrain from acting on such confession, even if it be a confession made to a Magistrate or a person other than police officer....."
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 154
57. PW-1 testified about his personal details i.e. his application for employment, resignation and re-employment. Ex.PW-1/A is application submitted by him to his employer dated 19.08.1974 addressed to Superintendant Engineer, Darbhanga Circle, to the effect that he was appointed as a Correspondence Clerk and joined circle office on 8.8.1961 and remained on duty till 15.03.1964 and due to family problems he left home and remained moving from one holy place to another and he has no source of subsistence to give relief to his old parents and he being the only son came to his senses and came back to his parents and he may be allowed to join duty. He deposed that he had submitted a reminder Ex.PW-1/G in connection with his reinstatement to the Superintendent Engineer which was received in the receipt section at serial no. 7276 dated 19.09.1974. He received an office order from Superintendant Engineer on 30.04.1975 to join service and at that time he was not present in his house and he received the letter only on his return to home on 13.05.1975 when he was relieved from the court of SDM, Patna as he was attending his court date for his statement which was completed on 12.05.1975 under Section 164 Cr. PC and he gave his joining report Ex.PW-1/B on 13.05.1975. PW-1 further testified that Ex.PW-1/X is statement, which he made on 12.05.1975 in the court of SDM Sh. B.K. Derhgawan and bear his signatures at point A and B and he gave his statement voluntarily without any pressure or inducement. He attended the court of CJM, Patna on 27.10.1975 when pardon was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 155 granted to him and he accepted the pardon voluntarily vide his acceptance Ex.PW-1/Y.
58. It is elicited in his cross-examination that in the note Ex.PW- 1/DD, it was mentioned that one Udit Narain Mishra, Clerk, who was posted at Khagaria under the jurisdiction of Superintendant Engineer, was reinstated after a gap of 6/7 years and his case was cited as a precedent to recommend his appointment. In the cross-examination, PW-1 further replied that he personally submitted application Ex.PW- 1/A in the office of Superintendant Engineer at Lahariya Sarai. He further clarified that there was no dispute with the parents except that he was not agreeable for marriage at that time as proposed by them. It was on this account that he mentioned that Ex.PW-1/A, the reason of leaving home was a family trouble. It is further elicited in his cross- examination that the endorsement Ex.PW-1/DD dated "04.10" in the file Ex.P-1 is in the handwriting of Sh. R.P. Verma, Superintendant Engineer. It was not his fresh appointment and he would have been barred by age, had it been a fresh appointment. His services were regarded "as continuing", but pay for the period of his absence and increment for that period were not given to him. He has denied the suggestion that this would be allowed on the conditions of his making statement as desired by CBI.
59. I have perused the Service Book of PW-1 (which is available in folder R-26) and at page no. 44, there is an application submitted CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 156 by PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava addressed to Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Darbhanga dated 19.08.1974 Ex.PW-1/A to the effect that he was mentally disturbed. He pleaded therein that to save him and his parents from starvation he may be allowed to join the services. This application was duly received in the office of Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Darbhanga, at Serial No.6428 on 26.08.1974 with the seal of the office. Ex.PW-1/G is the reminder dated 17.9.1974 as per which he again requested Superintendent Engineer to join services and this has been received in the office of Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Darbhanga at serial no.7276 on 18.9.1974 with the seal of the office. By office note Ex.PW-1/DD dated 04.10.1974, there is reference of reinstatement of a previous employee after about six years of termination of his service. There are various office notes for recommendations in favour of PW-1 vide Ex.PW-1/DD (Dated 4.10.1974) and other office notes and formal approval was issued on 12.4.1975. He was appointed on 30.04.1975 as per office note at Ex.PW-1/H. He received this communication on his return to home on 13.5.1974 after recording his statement u/s 164 Cr. PC on 12.5.1975. He submitted his joining report Ex.PW-1/B on 13.5.1975. However, his application for reinstatement was allowed vide orders Ex.PW-1/H as per the service book on 12.4.1975 yet his case was recommended on 04.10.1974 vide office note Ex.PW-1/DD and some other office notes of subsequent dates.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 157
60. The argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-1 has mentioned in the letter for reinstatement that he was moving from one holy place to another which cannot be believed. After considering the statement in his cross-examination that PW-1 having mentioned "Ashram" as symbolical meaning, the argument does not sound to any reason. He further testified in his cross-examination that as the Government was not going well with Anand Marg, he did not mention that he had joined Anand Marg and symbolically mentioned that his parents had become old in his application Ex.PW-1/A.
61. The above said facts including the dates of submitting application dated 26.8.1974 for reinstatement received in office on 26.08.1974, reminder dated 17.09.1974, office note and consequential communication of his reinstatement clearly shows that PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava had applied for his reinstatement long before he was arrested. It was almost nine months after his prayer for reinstatement, his case was also recommended for reinstatement on 04.10.1974 as per office notes Ex.PW-1/DD and other office notes, and appointment order was issued on 12.04.1975. It clearly reflects that the recommendation of reinstatement was already issued by the concerned appropriate authority even much before his arrest. Therefore, the arguments that PW-1 was induced to turn an approver after his arrest with a luring is highly improbable and is nothing but a figment of imagination by the accused persons with sole purpose to save their skin and mud-slinging the PW-1 and prosecuting agency.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 158 The alleged allurement also falls on the ground since the C.B.I. being the investigating agency under a separate enactment does not have any administrative control or in remote sense to influence the policy decisions of a different state namely the State of Bihar. Therefore, it cannot be said that C.B.I. had any role in the reinstatement of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava.
12) Evidentiary Value of Approver/Accomplice
62. This case is based on statement of two approvers namely (i) Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay (PW-1) and
(ii) Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass (PW-2). Therefore, it is necessary to find out the legal position regarding law on accomplices/approvers.
63. It is appropriate to refer to Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 along with Illustration (b) to Section 114 which read as under:-
"133. Accomplice - An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice."
Illustration (b) to Section 114.
(b) That an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars."
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 159
64. An approver is a person, who has actively participated in the crime, and facts which are known to approver cannot be known to other persons. He is the best person to tell the facts but his evidence requires corroboration in material particulars which depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
65. Dealing with the scope and ambit of the above-noted two provisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 599 has held that both the sections are part of one subject and have to be considered together. It has further been held: (Para 7) "The combined effect of Sections 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114, may be stated as follows:
According to the former, which is a Rule of law, an accomplice is competent to give evidence and to the latter, which is a Rule of practice it is usually unsafe to convict upon his testimony alone. Therefore, though the conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice cannot be said to be illegal yet the courts will, as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particulars."
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 160
66. The very same principle was reiterated in Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra etc. v. K. S. Dalipsinghji and another, (1969) 3 SCC 429 and it was held: (Para 21).
".... The combined effect of Sections 133 and 114, Illustration (b) is that though a conviction based upon accomplice evidence is legal, the Court will not accept such evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars. The corroboration must connect the accused with the crime. It may be direct or circumstantial. It is not necessary that the corroboration should confirm all the circumstances of the crime. It is sufficient if the corroboration is in material particulars. The corroboration must be from an independent source. One accomplice cannot corroborate another."
67. Both the sections have also been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura 2011 (9) SCC 479 in the following words (Para No. 11 & 12):-
"11. Though a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an approver, yet the universal practice is not to convict upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated in material particulars. The evidence of an approver does not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 161 differ from the evidence of any other witness save in one particular aspect, namely, that the evidence of an accomplice is regarded ab initio as open to grave suspicion.
12. If the suspicion which attaches to the evidence of an accomplice be not removed, that evidence should not be acted upon unless corroborated in some material particulars; but if the suspicion attaching to the accomplice's evidence be removed, then that evidence may be acted upon even though uncorroborated, and the guilt of the accused may be established upon the evidence alone."
68. Very recently, these provisions came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(1) SCC 10, which laid down the following principle:-
"18. An accomplice is a competent witness and conviction can lawfully rests upon his uncorroborated testimony, yet the court is entitled to presume and may indeed, be justified in presuming in the generality of cases that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of an accomplice unless the evidence is corroborated in material particulars, which means that there has to be some independent witness tending to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 162 incriminate the particular accused in the commission of the crime. (Vide: Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 Supreme Court 54; and Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 637).
21. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the deposition of an accomplice in a crime who has not been made an accused/put to trial, can be relied upon, however, the evidence is required to be considered with care and caution. An accomplice who has not been put on trial is a competent witness as he deposes in the court after taking oath and there is no prohibition in any law not to act upon his deposition without corroboration."
69. The approver is not required to prove entire prosecution story or even all the material particulars and if such a view is adopted, it would render evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous. This is so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 and Para 7 reads as under :-
"It would not be right that expect that such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story or even all the material particulars. If such a view is adopted it would CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 163 render the evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous. On the other hand, it would not be safe to act upon such evidence merely because it is corroborated in minor particulars or incidental details because, in such a case, corroboration does not afford the necessary assurance that the main story disclosed by the approver can be reasonably and safely accepted as true."
70. In Bhubon Sahu v. The King, (AIR 1949 PC 257), it was observed that the rule requiring corroboration for acting upon the evidence of an accomplice is a rule of prudence. However, the rule of prudence assumes great significance when its reliability on the touchstone of credibility is examined. If it is found credible and cogent, the Court can record a conviction even on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. On the subject of the credibility of the testimony of an accomplice, the proposition that an accomplice must be corroborated does not mean that there must be cumulative or independent testimony to the same facts to which he has testified. At the same time, the presumption available under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is of significance. It says that the Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in "material particulars".
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 164
71. Section 133 of the Evidence Act expressly provides that an accomplice is a competent witness and the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In other words, this section renders admissible such uncorroborated testimony. Nevertheless, this Section has to be read along with Section 114, illustration (b). The latter section empowers the Court to presume the existence of certain facts and the illustration elucidates what the Court may presume and make clear by means of examples as to what facts the Court shall have regard in considering whether or not maxims illustrated apply to a given case. Illustration
(b) in express terms says that accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. The Statute permits the conviction of an accused based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but the rule of prudence embodied in illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act strikes a note of warning, cautioning the Court that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be believed unless corroborated in material particulars. In other words, the rule is that the necessity of corroboration is a matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such corroboration must be clearly present in the mind of the Judge. (See Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420.)
72. Although Section 114 illustration (b) provides that the Court may presume that the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated, "may" is not must and no decision of Court can CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 165 make it must. The Court is not obliged to hold that he is unworthy of credit. It ultimately depends upon the Court's view as to the credibility of evidence tendered by an accomplice.
73. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of T.N. v. Suresh and another 1998 SC 1044 has laid down the following principle:-
"Thus, the law is not that the evidence of an accomplice deserves outright rejection if there is no corroboration. What is required is to adopt great circumspection and care when dealing with the evidence of an accomplice. Though there is no legal necessity to seek corroboration of accomplice's evidence it is desirable that Court seeks reassuring circumstances to satisfy the judicial conscience that the evidence is true."
74. In Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri v. State of Jharkhand : 2007 (12) SCC 630, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it and the relevant extract is as under: -
"26. First, it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 166 evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. As Lord Readings says -
'Indeed, if it were required that the accomplice should be confirmed in every detail of the crime, his evidence would not be essential to the case, it would be merely confirmatory of other and independent testimony.'
27. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.
28. Secondly, the independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime. This does not mean that the corroboration as to identify must extend to all the circumstances necessary to identify the accused with the offence. Again, all that is necessary is that there would be independent CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 167 evidence, which will make it reasonably safe to believe the witness's story that the accused was the one, or among those, who committed the offence. The reason for this part of the rule is that - "a man who has been guilty of a crime himself will always be able to relate the facts of the case, and if the confirmation be only on the truth of that history, without identifying the persons, that is really no corroboration at all ...... It would not at all tend to show that the party accused participated in it."
29. Thirdly, the corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal. I say this because it was contended that the mother in this case was not an independent source.
30. Fourthly, the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 168 of his connection with the crime. Were it otherwise, "many crimes which are usually committed between accomplices in secret, such as incest, offences with females' (or unnatural offences) 'could never be brought to justice". [See: M.O. Shamsudhin vs. State of Kerala 1995 (3) SCC 351.
31. The above position was highlighted in K. Hashim vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2005(1) SCC
237."
Thus, the statements of approvers PW-1 and PW-2 may be safely looked into but subject to their reliability and prudent test of corroboration of material particulars, of course to believe uncorroborated testimony also based on the circumstantial evidence that is presented by the prosecution. At the same time the court cannot ignore the guidelines under the above Supreme Court rulings that an accomplice need not stand the test of proving each and every circumstance, since the chain of events that follow the material particulars corroborated would speak for itself. "It would not be right that expect that such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story or even all the material particulars. If such a view is adopted it would render the evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous" (Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh- supra).
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 169
13) Prelude to criminal conspiracy, Anand Marg - founder - wings - objects.
75. Now I shall proceed to examine the evidence placed on record to arrive at the adjudication of the charges, for which, this court filed that the subject may be divided under different captions for the purposes of understanding the case of the prosecution and that of the defence.
76. PW-1 deposed that he remained associated with Anand Marg from the year 1964 to February 1974. He joined Civil Defence (Urban Home Guard) as a part time worker in the year 1962 and at that time Sh. S.N. Srivastava was S.P. and one Sham Lal Dass was the Company Commander. Both of them were the followers of Anand Marg. Sh. Munshi Singh, Hawaldar, who was working there, was also an Anand Margi and he used to give training in Urban Home Guard. Sh. S.N. Srivastava and Sham Lal Dass influenced him with the philosophy of Anand Marg and he learnt Sadhna from Sham Lal Dass. He along with Sham Lal Dass was taken to Muzaffarpur to attend Dharam Chakra and to meet Anand Murti. On 15.3.1964, he met Prakashanand Avadhoot, P.A of Anand Murti and then he met Anand Murti whose real name was Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (P.R. Sarkar) and followers used to call him Guru/Marg Guru/Anand Murti. He sat before him and Anand Murti shut his eyes and pulled his ears. On the direction of Anand Murti, he confessed to his bad deeds and Anand Murti asked him to enlist three lac people in the field of Anand Marg.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 170 He became full time worker by submitting an application to Prakashanand Avadhoot. He addressed his application to General Secretary, Anand Marg. He was Sh. P.K. Chatterjee. He sent a telegram for one-month leave to his employer. He went to Jamalpur. He stayed for 3 or 4 days in the Ashram of Anand Marg. At the instance of P.K. Chatterjee, General Secretary, he went to Anand Nagar where he stayed for 3 or 4 days. Then he was sent to Patna in the office of PFI (Progressive Federation of India) which is a wing of Anand Marg. Vishokanand Avadhoot was the Chief Secretary of PFI. He remained there for two or three months. He was made Tatvik and Aacharya of Anand Marg. He was appointed Provincial Secretary of PFI of M.P. in August 1964 and was sent to Bhopal. Sh. Bharat Bhushan Aggarwal was the Organizing Secretary at Bhopal. From Bhopal, he went to Jabalpur. He met Arteshanand there (he was present in the court). Thereafter, he was sent to Banaras for training in Sewa Dharam Mission, a wing of Anand Marg Organization. From Banaras, he came to Jamalpur. There he received Kapalik Diksha from Anand Murti in the year 1965. For that purpose, he brought two human skulls from Ganga River and Diksha as Avadhoot was given to him by Prakashanand on behalf of Anand Murti. From that night, he started wearing saffron clothes and was rechristened as Aacharya Visheshwaranand Avadhoot. As an Avadhoot, he was to wear lungi, kurta, a turban of saffron colour and one has to sport long beard and moustaches and carry a kirpan in his hand. He went to Indore where CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 171 they started publishing monthly and fortnightly papers/magazines of PFI to propagate the teaching of PFI & Anand Marg. He testified that Voluntary Social Service @ Vishwa Shanti Sena (V.S.S.) is a Para Military Wing of Anand Marg and Aacharya Ram Aasrey of Arrah was the Chief Trainee Organizer of V.S.S. PW-1 participated in V.S.S. Camp and he used to give training. He was appointed Area Commander of VSS. State of Maharashtra, M.P., Rajasthan and Gujarat were put under his supervision. His Headquarters was at 20, Ulta Mount Road, Bombay. His duties were to select volunteers and give them training and to materialize Anand Marg programme. He remained Area Commander of V.S.S until 1970. In the year 1970, a camp was held in Gaya (Bihar) and he fell ill and remained on bed for six months. From there, he went to Ranchi in May 1971 to attend Dharam Maha Chakra- a congregation of devotees held twice in a year addressed by Anand Murti. From Ranchi, he came to Ludhiana and then to Delhi. At Delhi, Aacharya Santoshanand Avadhoot (Accused No.1), whose original name was Ghanshyam and whose father was working for "PRADEEP and Vishwabandhu" published from Patna, was working for the organisation. He knew Santoshanand even before. From Ranchi, he was transferred to PBI (Proutist Block of India), a political wing of Anand Marg. Then he was posted at Anand Marg Primary School, Bilaspur. He worked there at Bilaspur until August 1972, when he was transferred to Jabalpur as Principal, Anand Marg Primary School and worked there until July 1978. In CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 172 February 1973, he was called in Delhi for Rally at Boat-Club for pressing release of Baba. He was arrested. After his release, he went from Delhi to Jabalpur. It was impressed upon in the mind of workers that Anand Murti was seriously ill so that the followers work with renewed zeal. He deposed that Headquarters of Anand Marg was at Patna. ERAWS (Education Relief and Welfare Section) was another wing of Anand Marg. He went back to Ranchi from where he was transferred to political wing of Anand Marg known as Proutist Block of India and made Incharge of Sholapur and Kolhapur diocese. He deposed that there was also a Revolutionary Group of Anand Marg. He identified all accused persons i.e. accused no.1 Santoshanand, accused no.2 Sudevanand, accused no.3 Ranjan Dwivedi and accused no.7 Gopalji in the Court correctly.
77. In his cross-examination, PW-1 further testified that he stated before the Magistrate that Anand Murti caught him by his ear and asked him to confess his faults and when confronted with his previous statement, it was not found recorded. He did not remember whether he stated before the Magistrate that as "punishment", he was asked by Anand Murti to enroll three lacs persons in the Organisation and when confronted with his previous statement, the word "punishment" was not found mentioned. Simply because in his previous statement there is no mention that Anand Murti caught his ear or that the word "punishment" is not mentioned, PW-1 cannot be said to have made any improvement as it was a matter of detail and elaboration. Here it is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 173 relevant to mention that in his cross-examination, the defence has not discredited the original name of A-1 as Ghanshyam. The defence did not shatter his deposition that the father of A-1 was working in the editorial staff of newspapers "PRADEEP" and "Vishwabandhu". As such the testimony of PW-1 on the other points goes unrebutted and the same are not demolished in the cross-examination and therefore, the testimony of PW-1 cannot be discarded in so far as the facts deposed regarding the organisation - founder - objects - the role of PW-1 in it and the different wings the organisation. The competency of the witness to identify A-1, A-2, A-3 & A-7 was never questioned.
78. Thus it is evident from the testimony PW-1 that there was an organisation called Anand Marg, and Sh. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (P.R. Sarkar), the head of the organization, used to be called as Guru/Marg Guru/Anand Murti by his followers. PW-1 joined Anand Marg in 1964. He was appointed Provincial Secretary of PFI in August 1964. He remained posted at various places namely Bhopal, Jabalpur, Banaras, Jamshedpur, Ranchi, Ludhiana, Indore on various posts in Anand Marg including Area Commander of VSS. He was posted as Principal, Anand Marg Primacy School and worked there until July 1978. In 1973, he was called in Delhi for attending Rally at Boat- Club for pressing release of Baba. He was arrested there and after his release, he went from Delhi to Jabalpur. There were five wings of Anand Marg i.e. (i) PFI (Progressive Federation of India), (ii) Sewa Dharam Mission, (iii) Voluntary Social Service @ Vishva Shanti Sena CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 174 (VSS) a Para military wing, (iv) ERAWS (Education Relief and Welfare Section) and (v) Political Wing PBI (Proutist Block of India). There was a Revolutionary Group of Anand Marg. It also comes out from his statement that original name of accused no.1 Santoshanand was Ghanshyam and his father was working in editorial staff of paper "PRADEEP" & "Vishwabandhu" published from Patna and he knew accused no.1 Santoshanand prior to that. PW-1 was rechristened as Aacharya Visheshwaranand in the year 1965 after he took Diksha as Avadhoot. It also comes out from the testimony of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava that after he took Diksha in the year 1965, he started putting on saffron clothes. As an Avadhoot, he started wearing lungi, kurta, a turban of saffron colour and sporting long hair, beard and moustaches and carrying a kirpan.
79. A close reading of his testimony reveals that this witness had withstood searching and elaborate cross examination at the hands of the accused and nothing is elicited to discard his testimony which is accurate on every count concerning the subject in discussion. It is note-worthy to mention that the accused could not smash his testimony as regards his long association with Anand Marg.
80. PW-2 Jaldhar Dass @ Vikram @ Subir, another approver, deposed that he originally belonged to Village Trar, District Bhagalpur. He had studied up to 11th standard. In the year 1965, he CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 175 met Aacharya Pashupatiji, a Pracharak of Anand Marg and took Diksha from him. Sh. P.R. Sarkar, referred to as Anand Murti, was supreme head of Anand Marg organization. He was also known as Baba/Marg Guru. He deposed that full time training as Anand Margi used to be imparted in the institution Sewa Dharam Mission, a branch of Anand Marg, located at Banaras. He went to Banaras under the direction of Pashupatiji for getting training as a full time worker of Anand Marg towards the end of 1968. There, he met Aacharya Prakashanand and after one week, he filled up a Form Ex.PW-2/A, which is in his own handwriting and bears his signatures at points A & B. Copy of this form was sent to his guardian. He remained there for about 4-5 months after receiving training. Until then his name was Jaldhar Das and after conclusion of the training, he was rechristened as Vikram. The handwriting and signatures of PW-2 on Form Ex.PW- 2/A have been identified by PW-68.
81. PW-2 further testified that Prakashanand informed him that Anand Murti had rechristened him as Vikram. At that time, Headquarter of Anand Marg was at Ranchi. Prakashanand at the conclusion of the training gave him a closed envelope addressed to Vishokanand, PA to Anand Murti, for being delivered at Ranchi. On reaching Ranchi, he delivered the envelope to Vishokanand. He stayed there (at Ranchi) for 3-4 days and then he was given posting order for Chinsura (WB) as Press Manager of Anand Marg Printing Press in June/July 1969. He deposed that he remained there until the end of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 176 1969, when he received telegram from Aacharya Advetanand from Ranchi whereby he was called to Ranchi. Aacharya Advetanand (PW- 68 Sudhir Kumar Basedar) was Finance Secretary of Proutist Forum of India, a wing of Anand Marg, and its headquarter was located at D- 41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. The posting of Advetanand was at New Delhi but at that time, he was at Ranchi. He stayed at Ranchi for a day or so when Advetanand brought him to New Delhi. On the ground floor of D-41, South Extension, Part-1, there was a printing press and on the first floor, there was office of Proutist Forum of India. A newspaper by the name of Prout and a magazine "Education and culture" used to be published from this premises. 1st Floor of Building was also used for boarding and lodging. Advetanand introduced him there at New Delhi to Santoshanand. (The witness correctly identified accused Santoshanand in the Court). He further testified that Santoshanand was working as Editor of the newspaper Prout and magazine "Education and culture". All the workers including Santoshanand used to practice Sadhna on the first floor and once a week, Dharam chakra used to be held in the building. Anand Margies coming from other districts used to participate therein. Accused Santoshanand used to attire in the same dress in which he appears in the Court. PW-2 deposed that Santoshanand earlier sported long beard, long hair, wears saffron colour turban, saffron colour kurta and Tehmad and waist band. He (PW-2) met accused Ranjan Dwivedi and Sudevanand in South Extension building. (The witness has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 177 correctly identified both the accused Ranjan Dwivedi and Sudevanand in the Court). PW-2 further deposed that Sudevanand also used to appear in the similar clothes in which he is clad now (as on the date of deposition). He deposed that Sudevanand had posting as Anand Margi Avadhoot in UP and Ranjan Dwivedi was from Bihar and he used to live in Delhi in that building for 2-3 days and sometimes only for 2 hours and Santoshanand lived there permanently in the said building.
82. It is also found in his testimony that accused Santoshanand used to write in his presence and he can identify his writing and signatures. He stayed there with Santoshanand up to end of the year 1972, when he (PW-2) was posted at Jaipur as Press Manager of Anand Printers. During 3 years' stay at D-41, South Extension, he used to work on the press and distribute publications. He used to compose the writings of Santoshanand. One Dhaneshanand, who was living in D-41, South Extension, was the Chief Secretary of Proutist Forum of India. At the end of year 1972, he was posted at Jaipur as Press Manager of Anand Printers belonging to Anand Marg Organisation. He received this order from the Head Office at Ranchi through Sh. Dhaneshanand. He went to Jaipur and remained posted there until June 1974. In between, he came to Delhi in April 1973, when a Rally was organized in Delhi to demand release of Anand Murti, who was confined in Patna Jail at that time. He came there at D-41, South Extension-1 at the end of June 1974. He was directed to join Delhi Printing Press until Jaipur Press was repaired. He came to D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. There CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 178 he met Dhaneshanand, Chief Secretary had told him that Jaipur Printing Press was out of repair and substantial amount was required for putting it into the working order. At that time, Santoshanand was not found there. He came to know that police was searching Santoshanand after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand at Purana Quilla, New Delhi. Dineshwaranand prior to his death used to come to D-41, South Extension, New Delhi. After one or two days of his reaching there, at the end of June 1974, accused Santoshanand met him in the market of South Extension-I, New Delhi. At that time, Santoshanand was wearing pant, shirt and he got his haircut. He was putting a hearing aid in his ear. He was sporting short moustaches. His beard was shaven.
83. In his cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he had taken Diksha when he was in 9th Class and at that time he would be 15 or 16 years of age. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that a copy of Application Form (Ex.PW-2/A), which was filled up at Banaras in the beginning of 1969, was sent to his parents. He also admitted the suggestion of the defence that he stayed in Delhi for 2 ½ or 3 years, when he came from Ranchi. He was sent to Jaipur for being appointed as Manager of the Press. He further testified that he worked as Manager with the Printing Press of Anand Marg at Jaipur. The press went out of order in March 1974. He used to maintain accounts of all the expenses on working this press. He admitted the suggestion of the defence at Page No. 91 that he came to Delhi in 1969 and remained CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 179 there up to the end of 1972. In his further cross-examination, PW-2 testified that the Press at Jaipur was already registered in the name of Anand Marg and declaration had already been given before he went there. He was not aware whether such declaration had to be given every year. It was a small printing press and such formalities could be spared. He has denied the suggestion that he was not the Press Manager at Jaipur. The local committee of Anand Marg by a Resolution had authorized him to operate the bank account. The joint account was in his name and that of Tara Chand (DW-8), which was opened with an initial deposit of Rs.100/-.
84. While going through the deposition of PW-2, I found that his examination-in-chief is recorded from Page No. 1 to 29 (running Page No. 145 to 173) on 28.04.1981, 29.04.1981, 30.04.1981 and 22.05.1981 and he has been cross-examined at length on several dates by the Defence Counsel separately from 22.05.1981 to 13.11.1981 from Page No. 29 to 338 (running Page No. 173 to 483). The defence has confronted the witness with his several statements, which are consisting of (i) Ex.PW-2/DA, which is the statement made by PW-2 before the court of Ld. ASJ in A.N. Ray's case, (ii) Ex.PW-2/DB, which is the statement of PW-2 under Section 161 of Cr. PC recorded on 10.08.1975 by Sh. B.R. Puri in A.N. Ray's case, (iii) Ex.PW-2/DC, which is the statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 164 Cr. PC in A.N. Ray's case, (iv) Ex.PW-2/DD is a two page copy of the statement of PW-2 recorded on 24.07.1975 & 25.07.1975 under CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 180 Section 161 Cr. PC in FIR No. 71 of 1974 known as Bhagalpur case,
(v) Ex.PW-2/DE is the statement of PW-2 recorded on 09.08.1975 under Section 161 Cr. PC by Sh. B.R. Puri in Samastipur Bomb Blast case, (vi) Ex.PW-2/DF is the statement of PW-2 recorded in the Committal Court i.e. CMM, Delhi on several dates from 21.04.1980 to 07.05.1980, (vii) Ex.PW-2/DK is the statement of PW-2 dated 24.07.1975 under Section 161 Cr. PC in DIR Case, PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur No. 50/71 75, (viii) Ex.PW-2/L, which is a statement under Section 164 Cr. PC of PW-2 recorded in this case on 16.08.1975 and 18.08.1975 by the court of Sh. R.D. Aggarwal, the then Ld. ACMM, Delhi, and (ix) Transcriptions Mark-Z and Mark-1 of alleged tape- recorded statement of PW-2 dated 30.09.1978 at Danapur Jail between PW-2 and the Jailor. The defence has mainly confronted PW-2 in his lengthy cross-examination with his statements, which were recorded prior to his making his confessional statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC on 16.08.1975 and 18.08.1975 in this case and tape-recorded statement dated 30.09.1978. The statement Ex.PW-2/DD was recorded on 24.07.1975 and 25.07.1975, when he was arrested in Bhagalpur case vide FIR No. 71/1974. This is a cyclostyled copy. Ex.PW-2/DK is a handwritten copy of statement under Section 161 Cr. PC recorded by the IO dated 24.07.1975 in DIR Case of PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur in case NO. 50/71 75. Ex.PW-2/DB is the copy of the statement dated 10.08.1975 under Section 161 Cr. PC in A.N. Ray's case. Ex.PW-2/DE is a statement dated 09.08.1975 under CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 181 Section 161 Cr. PC in Samastipur Bomb Blast case. These four statements Ex.PW-2/DD, Ex.PW-2/DK, Ex.PW-2/DB and Ex.PW- 2/DE of PW-2 are thus recorded by the police officer much before confessional statement by PW-2. Ld. Defence Counsel have confronted these statements to PW-2 in order to project that there are improvements in the statement of the approver and hence his testimony is not believable. Here it is profitable to refer Section 161 of Cr. PC. Under sub-section 1 of Section 161, Investigation Officer or designated police officer may examine orally "any person" supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Under sub-section 2, "such person" shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than the questions, the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. PW-2 was an accused in DIR case, PS Kotwali case, A.N. Ray's case and in the present case and as such, he could not have answered the questions of the police officer/investigation officer, being incriminatory. Admittedly, such statement of PW-2 had not led to any discovery of any fact or article, within the meaning of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a "witness" may be cross-examined as to his previous statement made "by him" in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to the matter in question, without such writing being shown to him or being proved. It is relevant that while understanding the scope of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 182 confrontation/cross-examination of a "witness" (not an accused), the statements may be put to him without showing to same to him. It is very much necessary to understand that all the statements of PW-2 at Ex.PW-2/DD, Ex.PW-2/DK, Ex.PW-2/DB and Ex.PW-2/DE recorded by the police officer/investigation officer, after arrest of PW-2 in the capacity of a suspect and an accused. Therefore, these statements do not stand in the same footing and definition of a "witness" as laid down under Section 161 of Cr. PC, so that they may be confronted in cross-examination under Section 145 Cr. PC. At the time of recording these statements, he was not a witness of the prosecution. At the time when PW-2 made these statements before the police in Bhagalpur case or in DIR Bhagalpur case or in A.N. Ray's case or in the present case, he was not knowing that he would be granted pardon one day and that might be the reasons for some omissions in those statements under Section 161 of Cr. PC. In this regard, reference can be given to a judgment of Apex Court in Madan Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab 1970 (2) SCC 733 and relevant Para 8 reads as under:-
"There was also nothing to show that the approver in his statement before the Magistrate, who passed the order granting him pardon, had not mentioned the names of the appellant and the said Danesh Kumar and had not referred to the roles played by them as deposed to by him in the Trial Court. It was possibly because no such omission was found CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 183 in his statement before the Magistrate that the refusal by the Trial Judge to bring on record the omission in the police statement was not relied on the High Court. It may be that when the approver gave his police statement he did not know that he would be granted pardon and possibly for that reason had not come out with all the facts known to him and he did so while he was making his statement before the Magistrate as he knew by then that he would be tendered pardon on condition that he would disclose all the facts known to him. The omission in the police statement, therefore, by itself would not necessarily have rendered his evidence unreliable. In considering whether the approver's evidence passed the test of reliability, the Court would have to consider whether taken as a whole and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case it was a credible version or not. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case proved before the Trial Court, we think that despite the said omission, the approver's version was credible."
Therefore, the defence could not have confronted PW-2 with these statements Ex.PW-2/DD, Ex.PW-2/DK, Ex.PW-2/DB and Ex.PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 184 2/DE. Even otherwise, the improvements thus pointed out by the learned Defence Counsel by referring the same are explanatory in nature, though per se the same could not be looked into under law. The statements Ex.PW-2/DD, Ex.PW-2/DB, Ex.PW-2/DE, Ex.PW- 2/DK and Ex.PW-2/L are available in R-43. Ex.PW-2/DA is available in R-30. Ex.PW-2/DC is available in R-32. Ex.PW-2/DF is available in R-56).
85. There is yet another statement of Vikram (PW-2), which was tape-recorded by the Jailor Haider Ali of Danapur Jail on 30.09.1978 and transcription whereof are Mark-Z and Mark-Z-1, which were filed on behalf of State of Bihar by their counsel during the trial before my Ld. Predecessor. Subsequently, the cassette in which the conversation of Vikram was tape-recorded is also placed on record. The tape was played in the court and PW-2 Vikram admitted his voice in the cassette, however he has explained in his detailed cross-examination that he used to be tortured by the Jailor and Doctor D. Ram of the Jail and police officers of CID Bihar. He has also explained that he was given a prepared statement and on their asking he was made to rehearse of speaking from the prepared statement under coercion. He has also explained that he had written letters to CBI and CJI. However, one inland letter Ex.PW-2/DG and two letters written on the pages of a notebook Ex.PW-2/DH and Ex.PW-2/DJ have been placed on record in original along with the envelopes. These letters are sent to DSP, CBI, New Delhi informing them of the torture meted out to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 185 him and to pressurize to make a statement blaming CBI of the torture, which led him to become an approver. The ld. Defence Counsel also confronted PW-2 with this statement. The Ld. Special PP argued that this statement has not been owned by PW-2 in his cross-examination and has explained that it had been obtained under coercion and pressure by the officers of CID. Admittedly, in this case the charge sheet was filed by the prosecution on 12.11.1975 and the conversation with PW-2 with Jailor was recorded in the tape on 30.09.1978, when the matter was sub judice before the court of CJM, Patna. I have dealt with this issue in detail in later part of the judgment and found that Vikram was made to read from a prepared statement under coercion. Even otherwise, he could not be confronted with this statement, which was tape-recorded on 30.09.1978 in view of the law laid down by a three Hon'ble Judge's Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case State of N.C.T. of Delhi Vs. Mukesh, (2013) 2 SCC 587, holding therein that "From the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act, it appears that the investigation and the materials collected by the prosecution prior to the filing of the charge sheet under Section 161 of Cr. PC are material for the purposes of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The expression "previous statements made" used in Section 145 of the Evidence Act, cannot, in our view, be extended to include statements made by a witness, after the filing of the charge-sheet.....". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has relied upon its illustrious judgment of a Bench of six CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 186 Hon'ble Judges in Tahsildar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959, SC 1012, wherein it was held that "previous statement" would be such statements as made during the investigation". In the present case, when the charge sheet had already been filed on 12.11.1975, the subsequent statement dated 30.09.1978, which was obtained under coercion, cannot be put to the witness i.e. approver PW-2 in his cross-examination to confront him. In view of the above, the net result of such of the improvements, omissions or clarifications obtained during the cross-examination of PW-2 are nugatory and of no consequence.
86. To corroborate the testimony of PW-2 about his posting in the printing press at Jaipur, Prosecution has examined certain witnesses and it would be profitable to refer the same. This will corroborate the deposition of PW-2 Vikram that he was part and parcel of Anand Marg organization and remained posted in printing press of Anand Marg Organization of Jaipur from the year 1972 to June 1974, thereafter again came to work at Delhi Press, met A-1 and was a privy to the crime and he made a true disclosure of the facts in his deposition in this court.
87. It is seen from the cross-examination that the accused instead of trying to demolish the deposition of this witness, strangely posed certain questions which are nothing but repetition of examination in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 187 chief which solidifies the testimony of PW-2 as regards the subject in discussion.
88. PW-2 further testified that he opened an account with Union Bank of India at Jaipur in the name of Vikram Kumar only vide application Ex.PW-2/G which bears his signatures at points A, B & F. He also identified his signatures at point "F" on the specimen signature card Ex.PW-2/H of the said bank. Even this fact is not shattered in the cross examination and the same is corroborated by documentary evidence.
89. PW-61 Sh. Kesri Singh, an officer of Union Bank of India deposed that in August 1973, he was posted as officer of Union Bank of India at Jaipur and in June 1976, he was Branch Manager at Johari Bazaar Branch of Union Bank of India at Jaipur. On 9.6.1976, he handed over documents i.e. Saving Bank Account Opening Form and Specimen Signature Card of SB a/c no. 2638 Ex.PW-2/G and Ex.PW- 2/H respectively of Vikram Kumar to the CBI officer vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-61/A which bear his signatures at point A. In his re- examination at Page No. 1076, he deposed that he also handed over copy of entries in the SB A/C no. 2638 to CBI officer on 9.6.1976, which is Mark PW-61/A and his signatures are at point A which are Ex.PW-61/B. In his cross-examination, PW-61 testified that neither he had seen Vikram nor he knew him. He would not be able to identify Vikram. The account was not opened in his presence. He admitted that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 188 the word "attested" or "true copy" are not written on Mark PW-61/A. He denied the suggestion that he did not supply Mark PW-61/A to CBI officer or that this fictitious copy was supplied later on. The testimony of this witness gets corroborated with the documentary evidence. He was examined only to prove that an account of the organisation stood in the bank at Jaipur to corroborate the evidence of PW-2 who worked in Jaipur press of the organisation. The result of cross-examination that he is unable to identify Vikram in no way helps the defence, since the prosecution is not depending on the evidence of this witness for the purpose of identification of PW-2. The purpose of examining the witness is only to strengthen the testimony of PW-2 that he opened an account in the name of organisation.
90. PW-84 Sh. J.S. Bhagaria, Inspector, CBI deposed that in June 1976 he was working as Inspector CBI at Jaipur Branch. On 09.06.1976, he went to Union Bank of India, Jaipur and met Sh. Kesri Singh (PW-61) and prepared correct seizure memo Ex.PW-61/A in respect of documents Ex.PW-2/G and Ex.PW-2/H which were taken in possession from Sh. Kesri Singh. He had also taken into possession a true copy of the statement of account from Sh. Kesri Singh which is Mark PW-61/A. In his cross-examination, PW-84 denied the suggestion that these are bogus and fabricated documents.
91. Seizure Memo dated 09.06.1976 Ex.PW-61/A by which original Account Opening Form and Specimen Signature Card of SB Account CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 189 No. 2638 were seized by Sh. J.S. Bhagaria (PW-84) from Sh. Kesri Singh (PW-61), Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Jaipur). This is available in Folder R-12. Ex.PW-2/G is Account Opening Form in respect of Account No. 2638 dated 08.08.1973 in the name of Mr. Vikram Kumar, Anand Printers, Jaipur submitted to Union Bank of India, Jaipur. This bears the signatures of Vikram Kumar (PW-2) at point B/Mark-H. PW-2/G reflects that Sh. Gopal Dass having account No. 1358 introduced Vikram Kumar. This is available in Folder R-
4. Ex.PW-2/H is the Specimen Signature Card of this Account No. 2638, which bears the signatures of Vikram Kumar at point Mark-K. It is also mentioned thereon this account was closed on 18.12.1973. This is available in Folder R-4. Mark PW-61/A is the copy of the Statement of Account No. 2638 in the name of Vikram Kumar of Anand Printers issued by the Manager of Union Bank of India, Jaipur for the period from 08.08.1973 to 18.12.1973. It is mentioned thereon that this account was closed on 18.12.1973. It bears signatures of PW- 61 at Point A as also at Point Ex.PW-61/B. This is available in Folder R-12.
92. PW-2 further testified that he opened an account in Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank vide application form Ex.PW-2/E in the name of Vikram Kumar and one Tara Chand Jain bearing his signatures at points A & B and that of Tara Chand Jain at point C. He also identified his signatures at point A on the Specimen Signature CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 190 Card Ex.PW-2/F and that of Tara Chand Jain at point B. The account was opened in the name of Anand Printers.
93. PW-63 Sh. D.K. Maharishi testified that in June 1976, he was working as General Manager, Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Jaipur. On 8.6.1976, some officer of CBI came to make enquiry regarding account in the name of 'Vikram Kumar' operated during the year 1972-73. On his direction, Branch Manager brought the Account Opening Application Forms, which included one account of Anand Printers operated by Tara Chand and Vikram Kumar. A Seizure Memo Ex.PW-63/A was prepared and it bears his signatures at point A. The CBI officer took three documents i.e. Accounts Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card and Original Resolution of Anand Printers Ex.PW-2/E, Ex.PW-2/F and Ex.PW-2/N respectively into his possession. He (PW-63) made his correct endorsement at Point A on these three documents. He also testified that Sh. Sat Narain Bhukhmariya was Branch Manager and Sh. Bhukhmariya had worked under him (PW-63) from 1963 to 1978. At that time, he had seen him writing and signing and identified his signatures on copy of statement of account Mark PW-63/A at points Ex.PW-63/B-1 to Ex.PW-63/B-6. In his cross-examination, PW-63 has denied the suggestion that the police forged the documents Ex.PW-2/E, Ex.PW- 2/F and Ex.PW-2/N. He deposed that he could not identify signatures of Vikram Kumar. He deposed that he could not identify Vikram CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 191 Kumar. The CBI Officer did not record his statement. He made his statement from his memory in the court.
94. PW-82 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, Dy. S.P. deposed that Sh. Ahuja, Dy. SP/Investigation Officer asked him to go to Jaipur and find out any account in the name of Anand Printers or Vikram Kumar in Mercantile Co-operative Bank and Jaipur Central Co-Operative Bank and Jaipur. Accordingly, he went to Jaipur. On 14.5.1976, he met Sh. S.N. Bhukhmariya and requested him to find out account in the name of Anand Printers or Vikram Kumar. He took into possession copy of statement of account no. 239 in the name of Anand Printers operated by Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-82/B. Sh. S.N. Bhukhmariya signed on each page of statement of account Ex.PW-63/B-1 to PW-63/B-6 and this account was found lying closed. In his cross-examination, PW-63 has denied the suggestion that Seizure Memo was prepared in local police station.
95. Ex.PW-2/E is Application Form for Opening Current Account No. 239 with Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. dated 20.05.1972 by Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand Jain of Anand Printers, Jaipur. It bears the signatures of Vikram Kumar at point A and B and Tara Chand Jain at Point C. Vikram Kumar is designated as Press Manager. Ex.PW-2/F is Specimen Signature Card of Account No. 239 and it bears signatures of Vikram Kumar at point A and that of Tara Chand at point B. Ex.PW-2/E and Ex.PW-2/F are available in Folder R-4.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 192 Ex.PW-2/N is the copy of Resolution of Anand Printers dated 25.05.1972 for opening an account with Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank to be operated by Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand Jain. This is available in Folder R-12. Mark PW-63/A with signatures of PW-63 thereon Ex.PW-63/B-1 to Ex.PW-63/B-6 is a copy of statement of account of Anand Printers in respect of account No. 239 issued by The Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Limited. It is mentioned in the last that this account was closed on 18.05.1973. This is available in Folder R-12. Ex.PW-63/A is the Seizure Memo dated 08.06.1976 by which Sh. J.S. Bhagaria (PW-84) of CBI seized Account Opening Form of Account No. 239, Resolution dated 20.05.1972 of Anand Printers and one sheet of Specimen Signature Card from Sh. D.K. Maharishi (PW-63), GM of Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Jaipur. This is available in Folder R-12. Ex.PW-82/A is the Seizure Memo dated 14.05.1976 in respect of seizure of copy of Statement of Account No. 239 by Sh. Hoshiyar Singh (PW-82), Deputy SP, CBI from Sh. S.N. Bhukhmariya, Branch Manager, Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Limited. This is also available in Folder R-12.
96. PW-2 went on to say about opening of third account in Mercantile Bank, Jaipur in the name of Anand Printers vide account opening form Ex.PW-2/J bearing his signatures at points A & B as Vikram Kumar. He also identified his signatures at points A & B on CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 193 the specimen signature card Ex.PW-2/K. He deposed that Anand Printers was the press belonging to Anand Marg.
97. PW-79 Sh. R.P. Mathur while speaking on oath deposed that in May, 1976, he was working as Manager, Mercantile Co-operative Bank, Jaipur and on 14.5.1976 vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/A, he handed over Account Opening Form Ex.PW-2/J to Dy. SP Hoshiyar Singh (PW-82). He deposed that on 9.6.1976 another officer came to him to whom he handed over the document Ex.PW-2/K (Specimen Signatures Card) vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/B. Nothing came out in his cross-examination, which is worth mentioning.
98. PW-82 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh Dy. SP, CBI in continuation of his testimony deposed that he went to Jaipur and met Sh. R.P. Mathur, (PW-79) Manager of the Mercantile Co-operative Bank at Jaipur on 14.5.1976. He also met Sh. S.N. Bhukhmariya. He found current account No. 2775 in the name of Anand Printers operated by Vikram Kumar and vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/A, he took into possession Account Opening Form Ex.PW-2/J and copy of statement of account Mark PW-82/A. In his cross-examination, he could not inform as to who prepared copy of statement of account Mark PW-82/A. He requested Sh. S.N. Bhukhmariya to find out about the account of Anand Printers or Vikram Kumar. He did not know as to who produced the statement of account Mark PW-63/A before him and who prepared it. He denied the suggestion that he personally did not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 194 go to Mercantile Co-operative Bank or that he asked the Bank Officer to produce the document before him in the local police station. Ex.PW-79/A is the Seizure Memo dated 14.05.1976 by which Sh. Hoshiyar Singh (PW-82), Deputy SP, CBI seized Account Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card of Sh. Vikram Kumar of Account No. 2775 and copy of statement of account from Sh. R.P. Mathur (PW-
79), Manager, The Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur. This is available in Folder R-12. Ex.PW-79/B is the Seizure Memo dated 09.06.1976 by which Sh. J.S. Bhagaria seized original account opening form in respect of account no. 2775 dated 15.12.1973 of M/s. Anand Printers, operated by Vikram Kumar, was seized from Sh. R.P. Mathur, Manager, The Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur. This is available in Folder R-12. Ex.PW-2/J is Account Opening Form in respect of Account No. 2775 dated 15.12.1973 in the name of Vikram Kumar of M/s. Anand Printers, Jaipur bearing signatures of Vikram Kumar at point A & B with The Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur. This is available in Folder R-4. Ex.PW-2/K is Specimen Signature Card of this account with The Mercantile Co- operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur and it bears the signatures of Vikram Kumar at point A and B. This is also available in Folder R-4. Mark PW-82/A is a copy statement of account for account no. 2775 issued by The Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur for the period from 15.12.1973 to 13.05.1974. This account was closed on 13.5.1974. This is available in Folder R-12. This 3rd Account was closed on CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 195 13.5.1974 and it further corroborates the testimony of PW-2 that Jaipur Printing press was out of order and in the end of June 1974, on direction, he came to work in Delhi press printing press.
99. On material particulars, the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 find further independent corroboration by the deposition of PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar (Aacharya Advetanand Avadhoot). PW-68 testifies that he joined Anand Marg in the year 1962 and became whole time worker in the year 1965 and Anand Murti gave him name as Aacharya Advetanand Avadhoot and he was designated as Chief Training Secretary of Sewa Dharam Mission at Varanasi. He deposed that he was also sent to Jaipur in Proutist Federation of India (PFI), a wing of Anand Marg. He was also posted in Delhi as Secretary of PFI at its office C-18, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi and thereafter in D-41, South Extension Part-1 and accused Santoshanand was the Editor of Hindi "Prout" and residing in the office at D-41, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi. He also identified accused no.1 Santoshanand and deposed that his original name was Ghanshyam Prasad and accused no.1 was working under him. He also identified accused no. 3 Ranjan Dwivedi since accused no. 3 used to visit their office in South Extension Part-1 and was in their organisation. He further deposed that Vikram used to work in the press at Ranchi and from there he brought him to Delhi. He had imparted training to Vikram at Varanasi and after training at Sewa Dharam Mission Training Centre, Varanasi, Vikram was sent to Printing Press, Ranchi.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 196 He testified that original name of Vikram was Jaldhar Dass. He had seen Vikram writing and signing. He identified the signatures of Vikram on above said bank documents Ex.PW-2/F at point A, Ex.PW- 2/E at point B & C, Ex.PW-2/J at point A & B, Ex.PW-2/K at point A & B, Ex.PW-2/G at point A, B & F and Ex.PW-2/H at point K.
100. In his cross-examination, PW-68 has denied the suggestion of the defence that Anand Margies gave him severe beatings. However, he deposed that Anand Murti who had asked him to establish 191 Printing Press all over India gave him beatings. He was given beatings on two or three times, as he could not complete the establishment of 191 Printing Presses. To a question by the defence that he was given beatings a number of times, to which PW-68 replied that he was given beatings two or three times. He testified that sometimes Anand Murti used to give him beatings on hands and sometimes on his hips with a stick. He (Anand Murti) also used to give beating to the others, who were not in a position to carry out his orders. Anand Murti used to have a Danda (stick) with him, which he used to take out from the almirah by asking them to spread their hands and sometimes on their hips. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he left Anand Marg because of giving beatings to him by Anand Murti. They used to address Mrs. Anand Murti as Marg Mata. Her name was Mrs. Uma Sarkar. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that she had defected from Anand Marg. He was not aware if Mrs. Uma Shankar had organized a parallel organization. He CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 197 addressed a press conference in the presence of Marg Mataji and he did not call Mrs. Uma Shankar there. He did not join any procession at boat club but self-immolation took place to press for release of Anand Murti. He deposed that there was no editorial board and his name did not appear as editor on the paper published from D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi, but his articles did appear in the magazine with his name. He has denied the suggestion that he was never in this organization or that he never lived or worked at D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi, that he embezzled or stolen the funds of the organization. He has also denied the suggestion that he did not know Vikram or that he had not seen him writing or signing, or that he has deposed at the instance of CBI and due to hatred towards the organization of Anand Marg or that for that reason he had wrongly identified the signatures of Vikram. In his further cross- examination, he testified that he did not have any quarrel with Santoshanand Avadhoot or others residing in D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi, before he left. He was having cordial relations with Santoshanand Avadhoot and others during his stay at D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. Santoshanand and others did not give him any threat during his stay in D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. He has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly identified the writing of Santoshanand.
101. PW-68 has identified the writing and signatures of PW-2 on these bank documents Ex PW-2/F at point A, Ex PW-2/E at point B & CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 198 C, Ex PW-2/J at point A & B, Ex PW-2/K at point A & B, Ex PW-2/G at point A, B & F and Ex PW-2/H at point K and thus it corroborates the statement of PW-2 that he was sent to Jaipur in a press of Anand Marg Organization namely Anand Printers. He opened 3 different bank accounts at Jaipur with three different banks i.e. Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur, Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jaipur & Union Bank of India, Jaipur. However, Vikram Kumar (PW-
2) has opened the account in Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. with another Anand Margi Sh. Tara Chand Jain, who has been examined by the defence as DW-8.
102. While dissecting the evidence of the above witness PW-68 in the backdrop of the cross-examination conducted, it is very clear that this witness was a member and a close associate of the founder Anand Murti. The cross examination itself concretizes the case of prosecution about the Anand Marg, its wings, the rude behavior of its founder and the participation of PW-2 in the organisation. The cross-examination never could backlash the deposition of PW-68 that he was associated with the organisation. Further, it gets solidified that PW-68 was assigned with the task of establishing 191 Printing Presses of the Organization throughout the length and breadth of the country. He was unable to achieve those targets. He was also being caned by the cult head. The line of cross-examination shows that the founder head was treating him badly. The line of cross-examination does not go to demolish that this witness had a close acquaintance with the writings CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 199 of approver PW-2 Vikram and accused Santoshanand. The defence only gave suggestions that he was not aware of the writings of these two persons, but the defence in their very cross-examination got elicited that he was associated with the organization and that he was given beatings by the founder head. The defence could not shake the testimony of PW-68 with regard to his posting in Sewa Dharam Mission at Varanasi or at Ranchi or at D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. The line of cross-examination manifestly assures that this witness was closely associated and knew the bickering between the cult head and his wife. Such was the intimate association as is elicited by the defence. In fact, the defence went to put counter and contrary suggestions to this witness. After careful scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, this court finds no reason to disbelieve his testimony as regards his association with Anand Marg, his knowledge with regard to the founder and the objects of Anand Marg, its activities like printing the propaganda material, its various wings and particularly his knowledge and acquaintance with regard to handwriting and signatures of accused Santoshanand and approver PW-2, who were working with him in the organization particularly and specifically in at D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi and with Vikram at Sewa Dharam Mission Centre of the Organization at Varanasi.
103. The testimony of PW-2 finds further corroboration from the deposition by defence witness DW-8 Sh. Tara Chand Jain. Therefore, this court finds appropriate to mention what has emerged in his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 200 deposition. The defence has examined DW-8 Sh. Tara Chand Jain in their attempt to persuade this court to disapprove testimony of approver Sh. Vikram (PW-2) that he was working in Anand Marg Printing Press at Jaipur and was having accounts in three different banks there. However, on the other hand DW-8 Tara Chand Jain himself also corroborated the statement PW-2. It comes out from his statement that he was a member of Anand Marg even in the year 1971-72 and as a Sevadar he used to serve food and medicine for the under privileged. He also remained Bhakti Pradhan of Anand Marg of Jaipur. There was a press under the name and style of M/s. Anand Printer, which used to be run by Anand Marg. Sh. Vikram Kumar, Anand Margi was posted as a Press Manager there at his (DW-8) request. He stayed there for about two and half years i.e. almost up to 1974. There used to be a bank account of the printing press, which used to be operated by him along with Vikram Kumar (PW-2) in Central Cooperative Bank, Jaipur. After Vikram Kumar (PW-2) joined the press, it went under the losses and at the orders of Centre, he removed him after October 1974. At the time of removal of Vikram Kumar (PW-2), there was no money in tha t bank account. It has come in his cross-examination that he joined Anand Marg in 1962 as a full timer. The first bank account of the organization was opened in the year 1972 in Central Co-operative Bank after Vikram Kumar (PW-2) came to Jaipur. He admitted his signatures on the document Ex.PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 201 2/E and PW-2/F. He admitted the suggestion that the account could have been operated by him and Vikram Kumar under joint signatures.
104. Thus, the testimony of DW-8 Sh. Tara Chand Jain further corroborates the testimony of the approver Sh. Vikram (PW-2) in material particulars. Though DW-8 has spoken about terminating the service of Vikram Kumar, yet he could not find any document in support of his deposition. He has testified that Vikram has worked with him for two and a half years up to the end of year 1974. He also testified that he removed him from the service after October 1974. The Prosecution has examined PW-63, PW-76, PW-61, PW-83, PW-84 and PW-79 only to corroborate the testimony of Approver Vikram (PW-2) that he remained posted from 1972 to June 1974 in the printing press of Anand Marg Organization at Jaipur. During his tenure in Jaipur, he opened three bank accounts with three different banks and one of the accounts he opened jointly with Sh. Tara Chand Jain (DW-8). The argument of the learned Defence Counsel that no resolution of Anand Marg Society was annexed with Account Opening Form or that these were the personal bank accounts of Vikram falls to the ground in the light of the deposition of PW-2 Vikram Kumar corroborated by their own witness Sh. Tara Chand Jain (DW-8). Thus, the depositions of PW-63, PW-76, PW-61, PW-83, PW-84, PW-79 and DW-8 corroborate the testimony of Approver Vikram (PW-2) that he remained posted from 1972 to 1974 in the printing press of Anand Marg Organisation, Jaipur. In a way, the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 202 deposition of DW-8 not only suggests that testimony of PW-2 to be truthful but also confirm that PW-68 is also a reliable witness. At the cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to reiterate that PW-68 has identified the handwriting and signatures of Approver Vikram (PW-2) on various before-mentioned documents and also of accused Santoshanand on his writings.
105. The depositions of approvers PW-1 and PW-2 also find independent corroboration from the statement of PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal Prakash. PW-33 testified that he joined Anand Marg at Bhagalpur in the year 1957 when he was a student. He joined service with M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company in January 1960 at Jamshedpur, and in the year 1966 on asking of Anand Murti, he resigned. He deposed that there was Angika Samaj wing of Prout. In January 1970, he was sent by Anand Murti as Office Secretary of PBI, Delhi. He remained there up to October 1971. There was an Office of PFI (Proutist Forum of India) a wing of Anand Marg at D-41, South Extension, Part-1 and "Prout Daily" and magazine "Education and Culture" used to be published from this place and accused No.1 Santoshanand was the Editor of this newspaper "Prout". The original name of accused Santoshanand was Ghanshyam Prasad and name of his father was Narinder Narain Verma. Sh. Narinder Narain Verma used to work in LIC and was also a Journalist with Vishwabandhu, a daily paper published from Patna. Sh. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar/Anand Murti was the founder of Anand Marg, who propounded the theory of Progressive CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 203 Utilization Theory commonly known as PROUT and he created five wings to propagate his theory which are BSS (Bishav Shanti Sena) (2 nd name Volunteer Social Service), ERAWS, PFI (Proutist Forum of India), PBI (Proutist Block of India) and SDM (Sewa Dharam Mission). He identified accused Santoshanand in the court and stated that he used to meet Santoshanand and he saw him in Maha Chakra at Patna. He also identified accused no.2 Sudevanand in the court and stated that he was Deputy Chief Secretary, North Region of PBI. He also identified PW-2 Vikram and stated that he used to sell the publications as a full time Anand Margi. He also identified accused Gopalji. He stated that he can identify accused Ranjan Dwivedi and counsel for accused Ranjan Dwivedi stated that he does not challenge/dispute his identity. (Meaning thereby had Ranjan Dwivedi been present in the court he would have been identified by PW-33).
106. In his cross-examination, the version of PW-33 is never shattered as regards his joining Anand Marg at Bhagalpur in the year 1957 as a student or that there was Angika Samaj wing of Prout. All the other aspects of his different capacities in the organization, the wings of the organisation, its publications, the role of A-1 as the Editor of "Prout" at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi, his capability to identify to PW-2, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-7 goes unrebutted. The deposition of this witness that A-2 was the Deputy Chief Secretary, Northern Region of PBI and his competence in identifying him are also not shattered in the cross-examination. The CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 204 cross-examination failed to destabilize the say of PW-33 as regards the father of A-1 having worked with LIC as well as a Journalist for "Vishwabandhu". The defence has tried to extract full address of his shop where he was carrying the business of clothes and PW-33 declined the request of the learned Defence Counsel for security reasons.
107. However, PW-33 deposed that he was having his shop at Patna as well as in Delhi. Then the witness on asking of the learned Defence Counsel declined to give the names of his children for security reasons. In fact, by making such bone testing cross-examination as regards the address of the witness and children (as on the date of deposition) throws a clumsy situation giving room to different interpretations including the mal-intentions of the accused, when the defence chose to cross-examine without questioning the identity of the witness.
108. The statements of both approvers PW-1 and PW-2 have been further independently corroborated by the statement of PW-11 Sh. Raj Singh. He deposed that in the year 1967, he took Diksha of Anand Marg from one Aacharya Lallan Singh at Delhi and in that connection, he used to visit North Avenue for attending Dharam Chakra for doing Sadhna. Sh. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar used to be called Anand Murti as well as Baba and Tarak Brahma and he had Darshan of Baba at 93, North Avenue which was the residence of Sh. Shashi Ranjan, MP, in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 205 the year 1970. He (PW-11) testified that he was residing at D-29, Ward No.1, Mehrauli, New Delhi and his residence was at an isolated place adjoining abadi. On the other side of his residence, there was jungle and graveyard and for this reason, Avadhoots used to come to his residence to do kapalik Sadhna during amavas nights and for such Sadhna, the Avadhoots used to have a bag containing human skulls and some daggers as sadhna used to be done in jungle. He also testified that preaching of Anand Marg was to establish a Sadvipra Samaj i.e. the rule of moralist. He deposed that their preaching's included worshiping truth, observation of celibacy and regular sadhna/prayer and they called only those persons as moralist, who were primarily Anand Margies and were strictly following a moral code. PW-11 further deposed that he knew accused Santoshanand present in the Court since the year 1968-1969 (correctly identified). During those days, accused Santoshanand was working as an Editor of Prout of Anand Marg, which was published from premises No. D-41, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi and that the said accused used to come regularly to his residence for Kapalik sadhna. He had also seen Vikram as he used to be present at D-41, South Extension Part-I, (New Delhi), whenever he went there.
109. In his cross-examination, PW-11 admitted the suggestion of the defence that he made a statement before the Magistrate since he was assured of protection by the CBI. He deposed that he was assured of protection by Sh. Puri of CBI. He testified that in the year 1973, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 206 police came to his house once or twice to enquire about Santoshanand in connection with self-immolation of Dineshwaranand as to whether Santoshanand visited his house and he replied in the negative. Police visited him one or two days after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand to find out whether Santoshanand was present in his house or not. He did not know at that time whether Santoshanand was a Proclaimed Offender. He was unaware of any Sanstha (Society) by the name of PBI. He however knew about one paper "Prout" being published by the organisation. He was aware of a training institute at Banaras. He deposed that the persons working in the press used to live in the upper premises. It is Vikram, Santoshanand and one Dada @ Deen Dayal apart from the others, were working in the Press. Vikram used to deliver "Prout" at his place and sometimes he himself used to collect it. Avadhoots generally used to visit his house at Mehrauli even prior to 1973. From 1967, Avadhoots used to visit his house almost regularly every Amavas night for Kapalic Sadhna. Between 1973 & 1974, after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand, one or two Avadhoots visited his house. He did not visit D-41, South Extension Part-I during this period. He was also not getting "Prout" paper regularly. The defence has not disputed the version of PW-11 that he had been a Anand Margi and his residence was situated at Mehrauli where Avadhoots including accused Santoshanand used to come frequently for doing Sadhna. His competency to identify A-1, A-3 and PW-2 was never derided by the defence.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 207
110. The evidence of PW-11 is in consistence with the testimonies of PW-33 and PW-68, which material particulars gets corroborated with the testimony of PW-2. The defence instead of shattering the consistent and coherent testimony of this witness only had redrawn the entire examination-in-chief. From the opening lines of the cross- examination, it is felt that the defence wanted to project that this witness is tainted since he met certain CBI officers. It should be borne in mind that their very cross-examination suggests that this witness had sought protection considering the gravity of the charges against the accused. The defence has utterly failed to establish that this witness is tainted or tutored or inimically disposed towards the accused.
111. PW-13 Sh. Shiv Raj deposed that he has been an Anand Margi since 1964, when he took Diksha from Aacharya Deepanand. He joined as Research Assistant, Shimla and came to Delhi in September 1972 for obtaining Ph.D. degree and stayed in the Hostel of Indian Agricultural Research Institute (PUSA), New Delhi until 29.05.1975. Aacharya Santoshanand Avadhoot used to visit him and at that time, he used to sport long hair, beard and mustaches and he used to be in attire of Avadhoot. He also used to wear hearing aid. (This witness has correctly identified accused Santoshanand in the court by pointing towards him). In those days, Santoshanand was editor of paper Prout published from D-41, South Extension Part I, New Delhi. He also deposed that Anand Murti was in jail and Santoshanand used to tell CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 208 about the philosophy of Prout. Santoshanand used to say something should be done to get Anand Murti released.
112. In his cross-examination, PW-13 replied that office of Anand Marg is situated at D-41, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi only. He came in contact with Santoshanand after coming to Delhi and very much impressed from his talks. He met accused Santoshanand for the first time in October 1972 in Delhi in the Hostel. Prior to that, he knew Santoshanand only by his name and he had not seen his face. He was introduced to him by his two friends namely Sh. Ranbir Singh and Sh. Kamal Dhari, while they were sitting in the room of Kamal Dhari. PW-13 further deposed that Santoshanand continued visiting them in the Hostel between January 1973 and April 1973.
113. The deposition of PW-13 that he had been an Anand Margi since 1967 or that he shifted to Delhi in 1972 and residing in hostel or about posting of A-1 as Editor of Prout at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi or visit of A-1 to PW-13 in his saffron attire and appearance of a mendicant or his competency to identify PW-13 are not shattered in his cross-examination by the defence. His cross- examination elicited reiteration of the facts deposed by the witness.
114. PW-34 Jagat Ram Dogra was the Junior Instructor, ITI, Indore (MP) and he joined Anand Marg in the year 1967. He deposed that he was given Diksha by Aacharya Visheshwaranand (PW-1) in the year CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 209 1967. PW-34 identified PW-1 Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan Srivastava in the court, and stated that in the year 1973, PW-1 came to him and enquired whether he could arrange arms and ammunitions. He (PW-34) replied that he would see to it in case of need. At that time, PW-1 gave him Rs.400/- to purchase pistol or revolver. PW-1 came to him in the month of August 1973 in plain dress, though, earlier he used to meet him in Bhagva dress. PW-1 again came to him after 15 or 20 days and he enquired whether he (PW-34) could make arrangement of the arms or not, to which he replied in negative. PW-1 demanded back his money from him. He (PW-34) had already spent the amount and he assured PW-1 that he might leave his address and he would send the amount by money order. Later on, he sent back the amount by money order.
115. In his cross-examination, PW-34 asserted that he stopped active participation in Anand Marg somewhere in 1974. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that he lost faith in Anand Murti Ji after coming to know about his arrest in the newspapers. He could not remember the date, month and year of the arrest of Anand Murti Ji. He testified about attending one "Dharam Maha Chakra" but could not remember its date, month and year. He was not able to differentiate between Aacharya and Avadhoot, but stated that the word "Aacharya" is used with an Avadhoot. He was detained in MISA in the year 1975 from Jabalpur, but he could not remember the date and month, when he was detained. At that time, there was ban on CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 210 Government servants joining Anand Marg. He was released from detention under MISA in the month of January 1977. His statement was recorded by CBI two or three days prior his detention under MISA. He has denied the suggestion that he was released from detention under MISA only on giving promise that he will stick to his statement, which he gave to CBI. He has denied the suggestion that he was not attending the office since August 1975. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that the Magistrate recorded his statement on 26.09.1975. He replied that he was arrested in the evening of 26.09.1975 after sunset. He has denied the suggestion that Aacharya Visheshwaranand is an agent of CBI or that he did not have any meeting with him or that he did not have any talk with him or that he (PW-1) did not give him (PW-34) Rs.400/- or that he (PW-34) did not send back this amount to him (PW-1). This witness denied the suggestion that PW-1, who was present in the court is not the Visheshwaranand. He testified that he did not tell CBI in his statement (u/s. 161 Cr. PC) that he could identify Aacharya Visheshwaranand or that he was given Diksha by the said person. (When PW-34 was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW34/DA, it was not found recorded). He deposed that he was not given any other name while taking Diksha.
116. This witness (PW-34) has been examined by the prosecution to prove the identity of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava as Visheshwaranand of Anand Marg and PW-34 has specifically deposed CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 211 that Visheshwaranand had given him Diksha in the year 1967. During his deposition, he clearly identified PW-1 as Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan Srivastava. In his cross-examination, the defence failed to discredit that PW-34 is not an Anand Margi or PW-34 did not take Diksha in the year 1967 from Visheshwaranand. PW-34 has also been examined by the prosecution to prove its case that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched at Trimohan in October 1973 on the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar (Proclaimed Offender), PW-1 had visited Indore and contacted PW-34 Jagat Ram Dogra for arms and paid him Rs.400/-, PW-34 could not arrange the revolver and on demand he promised PW-1 to send the amount by money order. Seven or eight years have already elapsed, when the statement of PW- 34 was recorded in the court and simply because PW-34 could not file the postal receipt of sending the amount of Rs. 400/- by money order to PW-1 or could not tell the date and month, does not ipso facto make his statement not worthy of acceptance. The defence has failed to point out any enmity or malafide intention as to why PW-34 shall make a statement, which is not found convenient to them. Even if he could not make in his previous statement that he could identify PW-1, it cannot be called an improvement, as it is inherent to identify him in the circumstances when PW-34 had taken Diksha from PW-1 in the year 1967 and they continued to meet even subsequently.
117. The argument advanced by the Defence Counsel that the testimony of PW-34 is not creditworthy springs from two points CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 212 namely that the PW-34 has not made the statement before the Police under Section 161 of Cr. PC as regards his ability to identify PW-1. Further, they pointed out that this witness had improved his version while in the witness box without any reference to his statement already given to the investigation. The improvement pointed out by the Defence Counsel is not fundamental insofar as he was able to say in his statement that he was initiated by PW-1 into Anand Marg and who in turn subsequently approached him for securing armed weapons. The defence has not even suggested in the cross- examination that PW-1 was not initiated into Anand Marg. In the absence of such a suggestion, it should be inferred that without knowing the person and further without identifying, nobody would initiate an unknown, especially into a spiritual order as that of Anand Marg. Having thus initiated the person and having dealt with him, which is not demolished in the cross-examination, mere identification of PW-1 in the court cannot be called an improvement and it only supplants the fact of initiation into the spiritual order. I have already discussed that no personal enmity is imputed against this witness by the defence. Thus, the improvement does not go to smash the entire version of the investigation, which is otherwise corroborated through other circumstantial evidence.
118. The other improvement pointed out also does not sound to reason insofar as it confines to this witness repaying a sum of Rs.400/, which he allegedly had taken from PW-1 since the repayment is not at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 213 all a fact in issue to be considered for the purposes of unraveling the truth concerning the charges. This improvement pointed out is only peripheral in nature and only surrounding a shadow which is unconcerned with the charges, this court is unable to sail with the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that these improvements would strike at the very root of prosecution story.
119. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused Santoshanand admitted that he is an Anand Margi. He stated that there was no office of Anand Marg at D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi, but was of "Prout" and he was sometimes the Editor thereof. He also admitted that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti used to be called as "Baba" being the founder of Anand Marg Organisation. He further admitted that Anand Murti propounded the theory of "PROUT". He stated that the founder was considered by his followers as 'Tarak Brahma' that is God incarnate like Krishna and Shiva. He also stated that there were different cadres of Anand Margies, namely, whole timers, Aacharya, Avadhoots and Anand Margies. He admitted that he was editor of the monthly magazine 'Education and Culture' and at that time 'PROUT' was a weekly and not a daily magazine. He only denies that D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi was used as office of Anand Marg and ground floor was used for printing press, first floor was used for editorial purpose and Anand Margies used to stay at Anand Marg Ashram situated at Hari Nagar and Anand Margies used to stay there. He also admitted that he was working in Delhi as Editor CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 214 of English and Hindi Prout. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi while answering under Section 313 Cr. PC stated that dozens of Sanyasis of Anand Marg used to stay at D-41, a three-storey building and Dharam Chakra used to be conducted on the 1st Floor of the building which he attended few times. However, Ranjan Dwivedi could not say whether Santoshanand used to reside at D-41, South Extension Part II, New Delhi permanently.
120. It is established from the testimony of Approvers PW-1 and PW-2 that "Prout" has been a wing of Anand Marg Organization. This fact has also been corroborated by PW-11, PW-13, PW-33, and PW-
68. It has also come in the testimony of PW-2 that Santoshanand used to live at D-41, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi and there was printing press on the ground floor and office of Proutist Forum of India on the first floor. It is also established from their deposition that first floor building was also used for boarding and lodging. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi also used to live in this building for 2 or 3 days or sometimes only for two hours. The statement of PW-68 on the point that Santoshanand, Editor of Hindi "Prout" and of English "Prout" Weekly was residing in the office D-41, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi, went unrebutted and unchallenged by the defence. Thus, the explanation of Santoshanand becomes not satisfactory.
121. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC accused Sudevanand stated that he is a follower of Anand Marg. He admitted that Prabhat Ranjan CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 215 Sarkar @ Anand Murti was also called as 'Baba' being the founder of the Anand Marg Organisation. He stated that this was his personal faith and reverence for Anand Murti as 'Tarak Brahma' i.e. God incarnate like Krishna and Shiva. He stated that he does not know his co-accused Santoshanand, Arteshanand, Gopalji and Ranjan Dwivedi and did not see Santoshanand before facing trial and saw Gopalji when he was arrested and never saw Vikram before his arrest. He stated that he never visited Samastipur. These explanations are highly unbelievable in view of the coherent testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW- 11, PW-13, PW-33 and PW-68, who had been long associated with the organisation.
122. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused Ranjan Dwivedi stated that he did not belong to Anand Marg Organisation and he is only a disciple of Anand Murti. He also stated that he has been a lawyer of Anand Marg Parcharak Sangh before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. When asked about different wings of Anand Marg Organisation like PFI, VSS, PBI, ERAWS, he stated that he does not have personal knowledge about details of various wings of Anand Marg Parcharak Sangh. He stated that only the office of 'PROUT' was located at D-41, South Extension, Part-1, Delhi from where daily magazine 'PROUT' was published and Santoshanand was Editor of the magazine. He admitted that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti, who was called the 'Baba', was the founder of Anand Marg Organisation. He admitted that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar propounded the theory of progressive CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 216 utilization. He further admitted that Anand Murti was considered by his followers as 'Tarak Brahma'. He stated that he never participated in any of the Dharam Maha Chakras. When asked about different cadres of Anand Margies namely (1) Whole timers (2) Aacharya @ Avadhoot & (3) Anand Margies, he stated that he has been simply an initiate and had never been a member of Anand Marg Parcharak Sangh or its cadres. He admitted that on becoming Avadhoot, one had to wear loongi, kurta, turban of saffron colour and had to sporting long flowing beard and moustaches and carry a kirpan in his hand. He admitted that few times he visited D-41, South Extension, Part-1 for attending Dharam Chakra. He stated that dozens of Sanyasis of Anand Margies used to stay at D-41, a three-storey building and Dharam Chakra used to be conducted on the 1st Floor of the building which he attended few times. He stated that he could not say whether Santoshanand used to reside at D-41, South Extension Part II, New Delhi permanently. While replying question no.201, he admitted that he used to visit Anand Marg office at D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. He further stated that after he developed inclination towards Anand Marg philosophy, he used to attend their spiritual congregations known as Dharma Chakra as and when invited by them. He stated that he started visiting the this place at New Delhi in the year 1973 when he shifted to Delhi. A close look of his explanations manifestly makes it clear that this witness has been dilly- dallying to reveal the truth. At times, he shows ignorance with regard CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 217 to the cadres to the Anand Marg, while admitting the founder and at one time, he denies having attended the congregation as a follower and at the next breath admits having attended Dharam Chakra (congregation). He admits the hierarchy among the monks of Anand Marg but blissfully shows his ignorance at the next moment. Thus, his explanations for the evidence appearing against the accused on record are highly improbable to assimilate.
123. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC accused Gopalji stated that he is an Anand Margi. He never knew Santoshanand, Arteshanand and Sudevanand before his arrest and he never met Vikram. He also stated that Anand Marg is a very big organization and does not know about other wings. He also admitted that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti used to be called as 'Baba' being founder of Anand Marg Organisation and he was considered by his followers as 'Tarak Brahma' like God incarnate like Krishna and Shiva. He further admitted that there are different cadres of Anand Marg like whole timers, Aacharyas, Avadhoots and Anand Margies.
124. PW-11 Raj Singh has proved the fact that motto of Anand Marg was to establish a 'Sadvipra Samaj' i.e. rule of moralists who were primarily Anand Margies and strictly following a moral code. This fact finds admission and corroboration from admitted writing in the diary Ex.PW-43/Z-6 of accused Ranjan Dwivedi Q-15-A and on the date of bomb blast at Samastipur on 02.1.1975, the accused Ranjan CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 218 Dwivedi has written the portion Q-15-A in his said diary Ex.PW-43/Z- 6 which reads as under:-
The day was fully utilized as an instrument graciously touched by the cosmic wave length meeting of sequences.
O, Baba, you are the Lord of Lords prevalent everywhere and will establish your cherished goal of universal 'sadvipra kingdom'.
This writing clearly reflects the views of accused Ranjan Dwivedi while thanking the Baba (for his divine Powers) which helped him in successfully arranging access to his co-conspirators Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver Vikram to reach the spot of crime at Samastipur on 2.1.1975, which finds particular reference to the other subject to be discussed in the later part of this judgment. Suffices to say for the purposes of this subject under caption, the accused has referred to cult head attributing divinity to him.
14) Boat Club Rally - Self-immolation
125. In the above backdrop, PW-1 deposed that in the year 1973, while posted as Principal, Anand Marg Public School at Jabalpur, he was called to Delhi where a Rally was scheduled at Boat Club in February 1973 to press the release of Anand Murti from Jail. He deposed that Anand Murti was arrested in a case of murder of one of his followers who deserted the cult, in the year 1971 and continued to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 219 be in prison, having lost prayer for bail up to the Apex Court. Many persons offered themselves for arrest in the Rally. PW-1 testified that he participated in that rally. He also courted arrest at the time of rally.
Accused no.4 Ranjan Dwivedi also courted arrest at that time.
126. In the cross-examination of PW-1, it is elicited that he did not inform the Magistrate in his statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC that he joined agitation for release of Anand Murti and about his arrest in Delhi. He clarified that Magistrate asked him with regard to the incident at Collectorate, Patna. He answered that in the year 1973, he remained in Tihar Jail, Delhi for about 10 days and gave his name as Visheshwaranand Avadhoot. He has not been shown Jail Record by the police that his name was recorded as Visheshwaranand Avadhoot. At that time Ranjan Dwivedi was also with him in the Jail. It is further elicited that he did not mention before the Magistrate that Anand Murti was arrested at Bombay in a Ranchi Bomb case and a rally was organized in Delhi to pressurize the Government to get Baba released. PW-1 replied that Anand Murti was firstly arrested in 1971 in Ranchi Bomb case. Then, he was arrested on 29.12.1971 in murder of a defector from the cult. Baba remained confined to Jail for about seven years.
127. PW-2 testified that in April 1973, he came to Delhi from Jaipur where a rally had been organized for demanding release of Anand Murti, who was confined in Patna Jail. Many persons belonging to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 220 Anand Marg participated in the rally. Firstly, they had assembled in Parade Ground opposite Red Fort and from there a procession was taken to Boat Club. Sudevanand, Ranjan Dwivedi and Santoshanand joined the rally apart from many other Anand Margies. Some of them were arrested at Boat Club and he himself was arrested from D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. At that time, Sudevanand came from U.P. and many persons were arrested from D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. He remained in jail for one and a half months. When he was released, Sudevanand was still in Jail. After his release from Tihar Jail in connection with "April, 1973 rally" in Delhi, he returned to Jaipur and came back to D-41, South Extension at the end of June 1974.
128. In his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC, accused Santoshanand admitted that Anand Murti was arrested in Ranchi Bomb Case and defector's murder case in the year 1971. He admitted that Anand Murti continued in custody and his bail application was rejected up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and prayer for transfer of that case outside the State of Bihar was also turned down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He stated that in April 1973, a rally was organised in Delhi not for the release of Anand Murti but to show the protest for administering poison to Anand Murti in jail.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 221
129. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC, accused Sudevanand admitted that Anand Murti was arrested in Ranchi Bomb case and defector's murder case in 1971 and continued in prison.
130. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC, accused Gopalji admitted that Anand Murti was arrested by the police in Ranchi Bomb Case and in defectors' murder case in the year 1971 and he continued to be in prison on that account.
131. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC, accused Ranjan Dwivedi admitted that Anand Murti was arrested in Ranchi Bomb case. He was also arrested in defector's murder case, in which Madhavanand was approver. He further admitted that in February 1973, a rally was organised at Boat Club to put pressure on the Government to secure the release of Anand Murti. He stated that in the said rally though he was a spectator and a lawyer, he was nabbed.
132. Statement of PW-1 and PW-2 about holding of rally in Delhi in February/April, 1973 to pressurize the government to release Baba finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-13. The said witness PW-13 deposed that Santoshanand used to say that something should be done to get Anand Murti released. There was a rally in Delhi in April 1973 by Anand Margies and he had joined that rally at the instance of accused Santoshanand to press the Government to release the Baba. In the cross-examination of PW-13, it is found holding of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 222 rally was not decided in his room, he was just informed of it. Santoshanand did not give him any threat to attend the rally. He (PW13) was of the opinion that they should try to get Baba released by constitutional means. Self-immolation by Aacharya Dineshwaranand was committed on the day following the rally in Delhi.
133. The testimony of PW-13, which corroborates the version of both approvers PW-1 and PW-2, is also corroborated by explanation tendered by accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC when he admitted that rally was organized at Boat Club to put pressure on the Government to secure the release of Anand Murti. Juxtaposing this consolidated testimony, the explanation offered by accused Santoshanand in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC that rally was intended to protest not only for poisoning his cult head in the jail but also for pressurizing his release is only to mislead this court.
134. PW-1 has further deposed about self-immolation by the cult members of the Anand Marg Organization. He knew that Divyanand Avadhoot and Dineshwaranand Avadhoot have committed self- immolation for release of Anand Murti at Patna and Delhi respectively. PW-2 also testified that he knew Dineshwaranand as he used to visit at D-41, South Extension-I, and subsequently Dineshwaranand self-immolated at Purana Qila, New Delhi. PW-2 deposed that when he visited again at the above address, he came to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 223 know that police was searching for Santoshanand after self- immolation by Dineshwaranand. He deposed that when Santoshanand met him in the market, he told PW-2 that he was aware that the police was after him in the case of above self-immolation of Dineshwaranand.
135. PW-50 Sh. R.L. Bhagat, Advocate testified that in the year 1974, he was working as Additional Public Prosecutor in Parliament Street Court. He used to appear before the court of Sh. M.K. Chawla, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. He has seen the file of Sessions Case No. 116/1974 "State Vs. Aacharya Puniyanand & Others" under Section 306/120-B IPC vide FIR No. 209 dated 24.04.1973, PS Tilak Marg, Delhi, decided by the said court on 07.04.1975. He testified that Santoshanand and another were Proclaimed Offenders in this case. Santoshanand did not appear throughout the trial of the case. Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate used to appear in the said case. He identified the accused Ranjan Dwivedi, present in the court. Despite opportunity, PW-50 was not cross-examined by the defence. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC further admitted that Divyanand Avadhoot and Dineshwaranand Avadhoot self-immolated in Patna and Delhi respectively in the year 1973 not only for release of Anand Murti but also against the gross injustice and atrocities perpetrated by the Government and the jail authorities. He also admitted that in the case of self-immolation by Dineshwaranand Avadhoot, a case vide FIR No.209 dated 24.4.1973 was registered CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 224 against his co-accused Santoshanand, who was declared a Proclaimed Offender. He admitted that he was Defence Counsel and Sh. K.L. Bhagat was the Prosecutor in the court. While replying Question No. 124, he also admitted that Dineshwaranand committed self- immolation at Purana Quila, New Delhi and Santoshanand was declared a Proclaimed Offender. He was defending Puniyanand and Gunadishanand in self-immolation case. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC accused Ranjan Dwivedi while replying Question No. 66 stated that he did not know accused Santoshanand prior to his arrest and he met him for the first time in jail after his arrest in this case. While replying other questions he also stated that Santoshanand used to reside in D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. While answering question no. 366, Ranjan Dwivedi stated that he was instructed to appear for Santoshanand and make pairvi in self- immolation case then being conducted at Parliament Street Court, but he does not recall meeting him since at that time he was hiding as an accused and was later acquitted. He also stated that he used to write him at times being helpful as a lawyer and also a fellow Margi. While replying question No. 251, he stated that at the instance of Sh. Ram Tanuk Singh, Advocate and the legal secretary of the Anand Marg he started taking up their cases in Delhi and in this connection he used to visit D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar also testified in his cross-examination that there were CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 225 self-immolations by some members of Anand Marg to press the release of Anand Murti.
136. Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, if read along with testimony of PW-11, PW-13 and PW-68 coupled with the explanation given by Ranjan Dwivedi, would definitely leads one to conclude that Dineshwaranand committed self-immolation in the year 1973 inside Purana Quila, New Delhi.
137. It is thus established that Anand Margies did hold a rally at Boat Club, New Delhi to pressurize the government to release Anand Murti/Baba. It has come in the testimony of PW-1 that this rally was organized at Boat Club New Delhi in the month of February 1973. However, PW-2 deposed that this rally was held in the month of April 1973. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi states that this rally was held in the month of February 1973. An FIR No. 209 dated 24.04.1973 PS Tilak Marg under Section 306/120-B IPC was registered against Santoshanand and others. This fact of registration of FIR because of self-immolation by Dineshwaranand is also admitted by accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. PC. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi had stated that this FIR was registered on 24.04.1973 against Santoshanand who was declared a Proclaimed Offender. Since Dineshwaranand committed self-immolation, the day following the rally as stated by PW-11 and accordingly an FIR was registered on 24.04.1973, it has to be concluded that the rally was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 226 organized at Boat Club New Delhi to pressurize the Government to release Anand Murti from jail in the month of April 1973.
15) Rally at Patna and gherao of Abdul Gaffoor
138. The evidence of PW-1 does not help in any manner to render a finding that there was a Rally at Patna or about gherao of Abdul Gaffoor, CM of Bihar during 1973 since he deposed that he was not present.
139. The testimony of PW-122 Sh. L.P. Tiwari, a Police Inspector PS Kotwali, Patna, reflects that in July 1973, on 26.7.1973, an entry Ex.PW-122/A was made in the Station Diary concerning the proposed procession of Anand Margies. He also deposed that in his presence on 26.7.1973 an order of SDM, Patna U/s. 144 Cr. PC was received, which is also incorporated in Station Diary Ex.PW-122/B. He further deposed that on 27.7.1973, a procession of Anand Margies started from Dinakar Community Hall and the police escorted 400 Anand Margies wearing saffron clothes, who were raising slogans like JAIL KA PHATAK TUTEGA - ANAND MURTI CHHUTEGA and others. He further deposed that R.P. Sharma, SI was deputed at the residence of Chief Minister, Bihar. On 28.7.1973 at about 06.00 AM, he was informed that 500/600 Anand Margies surrounded the residence of Chief Minister, Bihar. He along with Sh. M.P. Dubey and others rushed to the residence of the Chief Minister, Bihar and found Anand Margies squatted there in large number at the main gate. They were CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 227 not permitted by police to go inside. He also stated that Anand Margies were carrying banners, Bhalaajs, Lathies and Pharsas at the other gate. Sh. Nagender Tiwari, SDM took three representatives of Anand Margies to the CM, who heard them.
140. He further deposed that the persons present outside the residence of the CM attempted forcible entry to the residence and the SDM warned them of promulgation Section 144 Cr. PC, directed them to disperse, but to no avail. SDM declared their assembly unlawful and protestors started brick bating, used Lathies, resulting in injuries to Constables. 38 Anand Margies were arrested and a case No. 68 dated 28.7.1973 was registered with PS Kotwali, Patna vide FIR Ex.PW-122/D.
141. In his cross-examination, PW-122 Sh. L.P. Tiwari answered that it would not be possible for him to identify any one from amongst those 39 persons arrested in that case No. 68 dated 28.07.1973 of PS Kotwali Patna, due to lapse of time. He stated that original of Ex.PW- 122/D must be in the FIR register. In his statement to CBI Officer (U/s. 161 Cr. PC) he had only referred the residence of Chief Minister, without giving the name of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor as Chief Minister. He has denied the suggestion that he intentionally introduced the name of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor as Chief Minister at the instance of CBI officers. He stated that in his statement to CBI officers, he informed that Anand Margies were raising the slogans "JAIL KA PHATAK TUTEGA -
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 228 ANAND MOORTI CHHUTEGA". When the attention of the witness was drawn to his statement Ex.PW-122/DA (u/s. 161 Cr. PC), he admitted that there is no mention of this slogan specifically and reference was only to rising of emotional slogans. He has denied the suggestion that he has intentionally introduced this fact at the instance of CBI. His version that SDM took three Anand Margies to the Chief Minister, who gave them a patient hearing and asked them to meet him in his chamber in the Secretariat at about 10.30 AM, was not found recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr. PC.
142. In his cross-examination, the defence has not demolished the fact of incidents on 26.07.1973, the procession of Anand Margies, conversance at the CM residence, promulgation of Section 144 Cr PC and consequent registration of the case. The deposition of this witness PW-122 further corroborate the prosecution case that prior to criminal conspiracy in question, there were demonstrations, rallies, protest and self-immolations by Anand Margies to pressurize the government to release Anand Murti from the Jail, who was arrested in the murder of a defector.
16) Formation of Revolutionary Group
143. PW-1 deposed that he knew Vinayanand Avadhoot even earlier and he was the Principal of Anand Marg Primary School at Banaras and Rudranand Avadhoot was a senior worker of Anand Marg. He testified that at Patliputra, he and Vinayanand discussed and expressed CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 229 dissatisfaction about working of seniors Asimanand and Keshavanand, as they could not secure release of Anand Murti from jail. They met Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot, who told them that all peaceful measures or methods to get Anand Murti released had failed and plan to form a Revolutionary Group had been prepared. He deposed that aim of this Revolutionary Group was to get released Anand Murti by violent means, holding rallies and self-immolations. He deposed that Rudranand told them that all those who were creating obstructions in release of Anand Murti were enemies of the Organisation and they were immoralists and deserved to be liquidated. He also stated that on persuasion of Rudranand, both of them (PW-1 and Vinayanand) joined the Revolutionary Group. Rudranand advised them to resign from the Organization because in case of their arrest, it would bring a bad name for the Organization and Anand Murti. As such, they resigned from the Organisation by applications addressed to the General Secretary, Anand Marg by July 1973. Rudranand advised them to discard saffron attire and get their beard and moustaches shaved and long hair cut-short, and revert to plain clothes. Rudranand rechristened him as "Vijay" and Vinayanand as "Jagdish". He testified that real name of Vinayanand was Ram Mohan. They acted as per instructions of Rudranand, who also told them that Aacharya Ram Aasrey (Proclaimed Offender) has also joined the Revolutionary Group. He knew Gopalji prior to that as they both used to attend VSS Camp. Gopalji was Store Keeper at VSS Camp. PW-1 further testified that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 230 he himself, Vinayanand (Proclaimed Offender), Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Tyageshwaranand and Ram Kumar (Proclaimed Offender) went to Bhagalpur. At Bhagalpur, near Janta Library, they met Gopalji at his house. There, Santoshanand told PW- 1 that there was one Saroj Kumar Biswas at Bangaon and he (PW-1) should go and bring arms and ammunitions from him. Santoshanand gave him a letter addressed to Saroj Kumar Biswas. Santoshanand then talked to Gopalji in presence of all of them that all the arms and ammunitions collected shall be kept at the house at Chautham. Santoshanand also told Gopalji that for the release of Anand Murti, a Revolutionary Group had been formed and it has been resolved that some persons were to be put to death and so, arms and ammunitions was to be collected and kept at his house at Chautham. Gopalji was also a staunch worker of VSS. At that time, Gopalji informed them that their meetings would take place at both places at Chautham and at a farmhouse belonging to him situated across River Kosi. At that time, he himself, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Tyageshwaranand and Ram Kumar were present.
144. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied that he had narrated before the Magistrate that the aim of the Revolutionary Group was to secure release of Baba by violent means like rallies and self- immolations. He stated before the Magistrate u/s 164 of Cr. PC that Budheshawaranand @ Tyageshwaranand told him that house of Gopalji at Chautham would be appropriate as meeting place or CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 231 informed that Gopalji had come to Bhagalpur. (The witness was confronted and this was not found recorded in his statement Ex.PW- 1/X about coming of Gopalji to Bhagalpur). He replied that as far as he remembered, he had stated in his statement u/s 164 of Cr. PC that in the presence of all of them Accused Santoshanand told Gopalji that all the arms and ammunitions collected by them shall be kept at his house at "Chautham". (When confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-1/X, the name of the "Gopalji" and "house" were not found mentioned). He had not stated in his statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC that Santoshanand told Gopalji for release of Anand Murti, a Revolutionary Group had been formed or that some persons were to be put to death. He answered in his cross-examination that his name was rechristened as "Vijay" from the day he joined the Revolutionary Group.
145. The comprehensive and careful analysis of the evidence as regards the formation of Revolutionary Group is to be appreciated as a backdrop or the genesis leading to the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution. There is no other angle by which this can be understood other than the backdrop of events leading to the hatching of conspiracy at Trimohan in October 1973. There is no formal charge of forming Revolutionary Group but the backdrop is clearly stated by the Prosecution by adducing the evidence of PW-1 which is discussed above. The line of cross-examination does not discredit certain members having avowed to secure the release of their cult head being CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 232 not satisfied with the efforts under the process of law and thereby to look for alternate ways. The evidence of PW-1 suggesting that he along with Vinayanand met Rudranand, who in turn informed them about necessity of formation of a Revolutionary Group for which a plan was being prepared, is not discredited in the cross-examination. What is highlighted by the defence with regard to the improvements found in the evidence of PW-1 are only the minor details. Those minor details revealed in the testimony of PW-1 are like the discussions to adopt violent means, the details of Gopalji being the VSS Camp worker and further that Budheshawaranand suggesting the proper place to meet thereafter at Chautham. Such details are bound to appe ar in the deposition while any witness makes statement in the temple of justice by not suppressing anything connected with the facts in issue. Few details being not found in the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC but appearing in the testimony, do not severe the roots of formation of Revolutionary Group. The defence could not dismantle the evidence of PW-1 as regards the formation of the Revolutionary Group and the improvements highlighted are mere explanations, which do not touch the material particulars. Therefore, these improvements cannot be termed as dismantling the case of prosecution.
146. PW-2 deposed that in the hostel room of PW-13 in last week of June 1974, Santoshanand told him that Sudevanand, Arteshanand and Budheshawaranand had already joined the Revolutionary Group and discarded their saffron robes of Avadhoot and they were dressing CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 233 themselves like common man. PW-2 on asking of Santoshanand went to Bhagalpur and delivered a packet & a letter in envelop to Budheshawaranand. PW-2 testified that one Sukhdev Sahu (PW15) had rented a room where Budheshawaranand was living with him and he stayed in that room for 8/10 days and after 1 or 2 days, Budheshawaranand brought him to Chautham at the house of Gopalji and met him and he correctly identified him in the court. He did not know him prior to that. At a distance 5 or 7 KM, Gopalji had a farmhouse at Tilihar. Budheshawaranand introduced him to Gopalji as a confident and devoted member of Revolutionary Group and he himself was introduced to Gopalji as a member of Revolutionary Group and that he had been sent there by Santoshanand. He came back to Bhagalpur with Budheshawaranand after staying for one day at Chautham.
147. In the cross-examination of PW-2, it is found that there was no requirement to resign from the membership as Revolutionary Group was the part of Anand Marg Organization. It is further revealed that their Baba was confined in Jail. In order to get him released, a Revolutionary Group was formed and Santoshanand told them that by eliminating the big personalities of the Government i.e. Ministers and Smt. Indira Gandhi, the Government would be perplexed and they would be able to secure release of Baba. Thus, the cross-examination only fortifies that say of this second witness also about the formation CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 234 of Revolutionary Group and the accused could not elicit anything to discredit him.
17) A-1, A-2, PW-1 & PW-2 turning incognito.
148. PW-1 deposed that after taking Diksha as Avadhoot in the year 1965, he donned the prescribed dress of a Monk in saffron colour, wore lungi, kurta, turban and sporting long beard and mustaches and grown long hair, carried a kirpan. In the last week of July 1973, Rudranand persuaded him and Vinayanand to be Revolutionaries and having acted upon his advice, both discarded the attire and appearance of a Monk and took to plain clothes, rechristened them as "Vijay" and "Jagdish" respectively. Rudranand also informed them that Aacharya Ram Aasrey (Proclaimed Offender) had also joined the Revolutionary Group. He further testified that Arteshanand Avadhoot and Sudevanand Avadhoot, present in the court, were found present in plain clothes at the house of Ram Kumar when PW-1 visited his house at Trimohan along with Vinayanand and Shankaranand. PW-1 had seen them in saffron robes earlier. PW-1 further testified that when he returned from Indore and came to Trimohan, after 2 or 3 days, Santoshanand came there and he was not sporting beard and long hair and before that, he had seen him only as an Avadhoot (with saffron clothes etc.) as he is identified in the court with the same saffron robes and appearance.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 235
149. PW-34 went on to depose that PW-1 Aacharya Visheshwaranand, who had given him Diksha in the year 1967, came to him in 1973 and enquired whether he could arrange for arms and ammunition and at that time, he (PW-1) paid him Rs. 400/- for purchase of pistol or revolver. PW-1 visited him in August 1973. He was in plain dress at that time, though, earlier he used to be in Bhagva dress (Saffron Attire). In his cross-examination, PW-34 testified that he did not inform CBI that Aacharya Visheshwaranand used to wear Bhagva Clothes since no question was asked about it. The defence did not dispel the testimony of PW-34 in his cross-examination that PW-1 visited him in plain dress in the month of August 1973 and prior to that, he used to see him in Bhagva dress (Saffron Attire). Therefore, the testimony of PW-34 is reliable.
150. PW-2 also testified about initial attire of Santoshanand. Accused Santoshanand used to attire in the same dress in which he appeared in the Court. The witness stated that Santoshanand used to sport a long beard, grown long hair, wore saffron colour turban, saffron kurta and tehmad and waist band. He further deposed that after one or two days of his reaching here (Delhi), Santoshanand met him in the market of South Extension, Part-1 in the end of June 1974. At that time, he (PW-2) was wearing kurta-pyjama and sporting long hair, beard and moustaches. However, at that time, Santoshanand was wearing pant & shirt (discarding the saffron clothes). He (Santoshanand) got his haircut short and his beard was shaved.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 236 Santoshanand was putting a hearing aid in his ear. Santoshanand called him initially and he identified his voice and met him. He recognized him as he used to wear the hearing aid while working in the printing press at South Extension. Santoshanand asked him as to how he (PW-2) had come to Delhi and he (PW-2) replied that Jaipur printing press was not in working order and so he was working on the printing press at South Extension. Then, Santoshanand told him that there were so many persons to work at the press but they wanted reliable persons for the release of Baba. He (PW-2) told him that he (PW-2) had sacrificed his life for the Baba and would be prepared to do anything for his sake. Santoshanand asked him to meet him the following day in the morning at the gate of Pusa Institute. Next morning at 8 O'clock, he reached the gate of Pusa Institute where he found Santoshanand and one Shiv Raj (PW-13) standing there. All the three went to hostel room of Shiv Raj. Shiv Raj (PW-13) left for his office. At that time, Santoshanand told him that it was difficult to get Baba released by legal means and so many rallies and self- immolations had been resorted to which had no effect on the Government and the only way left was armed revolution by which they would shake and compel the Government to release Baba. Santoshanand also advised him to get his long haircut short and beard shaved so that nobody should be able to recognize him that he was a Anand Margi. Santoshanand at that time also told him that henceforth, he would be called Subir and he himself would be known as Vinod.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 237 Santoshanand also told him that so far Sudevanand, Arteshanand and Budheshawaranand had already joined the Revolutionary Group and they had also discarded their saffron attire as Avadhoot and they had been dressing themselves like a common man.
151. PW-2 further testified that Sudevanand also used to appear in South Extension Building, Delhi in the similar clothes as he was clad in the Court during evidence when he identified him.
152. It is found in the testimony of PW-11 Sh. Raj Singh that Santoshanand used to visit his residence regularly for doing Sadhna. After self-immolation by Dineshwaranand in the year 1973, Santoshanand stopped coming to his residence for one year. Thereafter, in April 1974, he came to his house at about 10 or 11 PM. At that time, he was wearing a plain shirt and pant. He was not attired in saffron clothes. At that time, he was clean-shaven. He had no long hair. It took some time for him to recognize him as earlier he had seen him in saffron attire with long beard. Santoshanand earlier used to wear hearing aid and on that night, when Santoshanand took out his hearing aid and fixed it in his ear, he could recognize him. He deposed that thereafter, Santoshanand came to him on 7th or 8th March 1975. Again, he along with Accused Sudevanand and Vikram (PW-2) came to his residence on 19.3.1975 and they were in plain clothes i.e. pant & shirt.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 238
153. In his cross-examination, PW-11 replied that he did not ask Santoshanand in April 1974, when he visited his residence as to why he got cut his long hair and why was he not wearing attire of Avadhoot. He did not ask him as to where he was, what his source of livelihood was, or whether he had left Anand Marg. He did not tell him that police visited his place to make enquiry about him. He informed Sh. Ahuja (I.O.) about visit of Santoshanand in plain clothes after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand. He had not asked Santoshanand on his visit on 7/8.3.1975 as to where he was for a year, what his source of income was or whether he was still in Anand Marg or left it. The defence chose silence on the facts in issue about the earlier appearance of A-1, A-2 and PW-2, which was spoken to by this witness in detail. Therefore, testimony of PW-11 is reliable.
154. PW-13 Sh. Shiv Raj Singh belongs to village Manturi Distt. Azamgarh (UP). He took Diksha of Anand Marg in the year 1964 from Aacharya Deepanand and joined as Research Assistant with Central Potato Research Institute at Shimla in February 1967. He came to Delhi in September 1972 for obtaining Ph.D. Degree and stayed there up to 29.5.1975. He was staying in the hostel of Indian Agricultural Research Institute (PUSA) New Delhi. Aacharya Santoshanand Avadhoot used to visit him, used to sport long hair, beard and mustaches, used to be in attire of Avadhoot, and he was using hearing aid. (This witness has also correctly identified accused Santoshanand in the court). He further deposed that in those days CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 239 Santoshanand was editor of paper Prout published from D-41, South Extension Part I, New Delhi and during those days, Anand Murti was in jail. Further, in his testimony, it is found that Santoshanand used to tell PW-13 about the philosophy of Prout. Santoshanand did not visit him after self-immolation by Aacharya Dineshwaranand after Rally in Delhi in April 1973 for some time and he came to him in April 1974. At that time, he was not wearing attire of Avadhoot. He had no beard or mustaches and had his haircut. He was wearing pant & shirt. Santoshanand came to him in first week of July 1974 and stayed with him. Next day, they went to Pusa Gate where one person met them. Santoshanand introduced that person as Vikram. (He identified Vikram in the court.) At that time, Vikram was having long hair with sporting beard and mustaches. Then they came to Hostel. Santoshanand & Vikram were talking to each other and he went to laboratory. He returned to Hostel at about 3-4 PM. when he found Santoshanand & Vikram in his room but at that time, Vikram was having his hair cut short and was not having beard. The cross- examination reveals that in April 1974, when Santoshanand visited him, he did not enquire from him as to why he had changed the attire of Avadhoot but Santoshanand informed him of his own that he had changed the dress as he was wanted in self-immolation case. Santoshanand did not give him any threat when he came to him without sporting long hair, beard and not in the attire of Avadhoot. He also did not ask him as to what was his source of livelihood during last CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 240 one year. On the same lines as that of PW-11, the defence miserably failed to discredit the testimony of PW-13 on the sworn facts with regard to the change of attire by A-1 and PW-2. The testimony of PW-13 is not suffering from any ill-will towards the accused for he has no axe to grind against the accused, since he was a sympathizer and had even sheltered them at Delhi.
155. Thus, with the cumulative ocular testimony of PW-2, which is in consonance with the testimonies of PW-11 and PW-13 and further the deposition of PW-1 finding corroboration with the testimony of PW-34, it can be safely said that the accused persons along with PW-1 and PW-2, who were the avowed monks wearing the prescribed dress in saffron colour with special appearance, in their zeal to have their cult head enlarged, joined the Revolutionary Stream by discarding the prescribed vesture in saffron colour and in order to remain incognito, they changed their clothes, appearance and roamed freely without being detected by anyone of their past identities.
156. The motto of the organisation, its founder, various wings, the hierarchy of the monks, the publishing wing, the arrest of its founder, the zeal of the hardcore followers to have him released by resorting to several acts, the formation of revolutionary group and some of the followers turning incognito to achieve their object, is already discussed above and now I hasten to find out the evidence on the aspect of collection of arms to achieve their object.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 241
18) Efforts to collect arms and ammunitions.
157. PW-1 deposed that it was propagated that Anand Murti was seriously ill only to create an impression in the minds of followers so that they work with renewed zeal for release of Baba. PW-11 deposed that in his presence, A-1 had stated that Baba had become very weak in jail and they must make efforts to get him released from jail. A-1 further told him that it was difficult to get him freed by lawful means and that is why they should adopt such means to shake the government. A-1 also informed that he was prepared to sacrifice his life for it. PW-1 further testified that when Sh. Dogra (PW-34) could not arrange arms and ammunition, he (PW-1) returned from Indore and came to Trimohan, where he along with Vinayanand was undergoing training in arms and ammunition from Ram Kumar. At that time, Shankaranand went away and A-1 came there after two or three days incognito and at that time also, A-1 told him that all peaceful methods for release of Anand Murti have failed.
158. PW-80 Sh. Roop Nath Mishra deposed that he took Diksha as Anand Margi in 1958 from Aacharya Vishvanath Singh, a Veterinary Surgeon at Narkatiaganj. In the year 1974 about 1 or 1½ month after Dusshera, he met Subir (PW-2) at the house of Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) at Narkatiaganj. (He identified Subir by pointing toward Vikram approver in the court.) Subir (PW-2) was introduced to him by Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) at his residence by saying that he was a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 242 worker of Anand Marg and Subir (PW-2) expressed his desire to visit his house. At the house of Paras Nath Singh (PW-27), Subir told him that Baba would be released only by Kranti (revolution). Subir came to his house the same day and stayed at his home. Subir (PW-2) also talked to him that Baba would be got released by way of Sangharsh (revolutionary struggle).
159. Cross-examination of PW-80 reveals that without his asking Paras Nath Singh (PW-27), himself told him that Subir wanted to get Anand Murti released by adopting illegal means. He suggested Subir that he did not like violence. He has denied the suggestion that Subir did not meet him at the house of Paras Nath Singh or that he did not talk to him about release of Anand Murti. He deposed that Paras Nath Singh was present when Subir was talking about release of Anand Murti by Krantikari means. He has denied the suggestion that Paras Nath Singh told him that Vikram was telling him that Anand Murti should be released by violence (Sangharsh). It has also come in his cross-examination that at that time Vikram was wearing shirt and pant, though when he saw him in the court, he was sporting beard and moustaches. Vikram must have been aged about 22/23 years old, when he met him for the first time.
160. The defence despite their lengthy cross-examination could not shake the testimony of this witness. The testimony of PW-80 clearly CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 243 suggests that there were confabulations among PW-2, PW-27 and PW- 80 to the effect that Baba could be released only by way of armed revolution (Sangharsh).
161. PW-13 Sh. Shiv Raj Singh testified that A-1 in his visit in April 1974, told him that Government was harassing Baba, who could not be released by adopting constitutional means. A-1 further informed him that some violent means should be adopted. PW-13 further testified that he declined, as he was a family man and a government servant. A-1 informed him that they should collect arms & ammunition but witness did not agree. A-1 used to stay with him in his room. A-1 came to him in the first week of July 1974 and stayed with him for the whole night and the next day he along with A-1 went to PUSA gate where one person met them and he was introduced to him as Vikram (PW-2) by A-1. PW-13 correctly identified approver Vikram (PW-2) in the Court.
162. In his cross-examination, one finds that PW-13 replied that he was of the view that they should explore lawful means. He could not remember the date in April 1974 when A-1 visited him. In the cross- examination of PW-13, the defence has not even suggested that there were no parleys of violent means took place between them. The defence has also not derided the version of PW-13 that Santoshanand informed him that they should collect arms & ammunition but he did CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 244 not agree. I find the testimony of PW-13 could not be demolished in cross-examination on these points by the defence and the same calls for taking cognizance at its full value. Even otherwise, the testimony of PW-13 is reliable and trustworthy from which it comes out that A-1 has been inciting even PW-13 that violent means be adopted to get the Baba released; for which they should collect arms and ammunitions and sought his co-operation.
163. PW-2 deposed that A-1 incited PW-2 citing his commitment for the cause and his vow to sacrifice his life for Baba in the context of failure of legal means. While they met at the hostel room of PW-13, A-1 further incited PW-2 that so many rallies and self-immolations remained futile compelling them to take up arms. PW-2 stated that he assured A-1 that be whatever the command, he would do so for release of Baba. Then, at the behest of A-1, PW-2 turned incognito, took the name "Subir" and A-1 assumed new name as "Vinod".
164. PW-27, a resident of Indo-Nepal Border, testified that PW-2 informed him about the fate of Baba, being in jail, the failure of efforts and the only course left being by revolution and force; to achieve this object, arms and ammunition and money needed to be collected and requested PW-27 to help PW-2 in this regard. Subir requested him to arrange some arms and ammunition either himself or through someone but PW-27 expressed his inability and then Subir CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 245 made a request to suggest some other source. PW-27 identified Subir by pointing towards PW-2 Vikram in the court.
165. In his cross-examination, PW-27 replied that he refused to give any assistance to Subir, when he initially asked him to help him in arranging arms and ammunitions. He did not ask him not to talk to him about the matter. On his next visit, PW-2 again asked him and told him not to talk about the subject. PW-2 used to make a mention about arranging arms and ammunitions and every time he used to tell him not to talk in that regard.
165. A close scrutiny of the statement of PW-27 Sh. Paras Nath Singh reflects that the defence has failed to erase that Subir (PW-2) informed him that Baba was in custody and he was to be got released by revolution and by using force. The defence was unsuccessful to belie his version that Subir asked him to achieve the object, arms and ammunition and money is to be collected. Therefore, the testimony of PW-27 goes unrebutted.
166. The evidence discussed above makes it clear that PW-2 having been exhorted and incited by A-1, visited Indo-Nepal Border and met PW-27 and PW-80 and other Anand Margies in his efforts to accumulate arms, ammunitions and money with a mistaken impression that the cult head would be released from Jail by armed struggle. The CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 246 evidence also shows that PW-2 only has made futile efforts to procure arms from PW-27 and PW-80.
19) Efforts of PW-1 to procure arms
167. PW-1 sworn to the fact that the house of Prem Kumar, an Anand Margi, was adjacent to office of PBI at Rajinder Nagar, Patna. Ram Aasrey (Proclaimed Offender) was living. PW-1 and Vinayanand met Aacharya Ram Aasrey there. One clean shaven Bengali gentleman was sitting with him and on a wooden rack a Jhola containing 5 country made bombs was kept. At that time, Gopalji accompanied with one person came there to meet Ram Aasrey and they talked secretly and went away. Prem Kumar also came there and Aacharya Ram Aasrey introduced them to Prem Kumar as 'Vijay' and 'Jagdish'. They stayed in this house for 2-3 days and during those days, he saw Rudranand and Shankaranand Avadhoot coming to meet Ram Aasrey and talked secretly. On asking of Ram Aasrey, he along with Vinayanand and Ram Aasrey came to Arrah. There Ram Aasrey arranged their stay in Anand Marg Primary School, Arrah and Jhola containing bombs was with him (PW-1). They stayed for 15 days. Ram Aasrey arranged separate house for his stay on rent at Arrah in the Bazaar (Market). Ram Aasrey used to come to meet them in the school, they also used to go to him, and Aacharya Rudranand and Shankaranand used to come to meet Aacharya Ram Aasrey at his residence and in the school. They used to talk with Ram Aasrey beyond their hearing, and Shankaranand talked to him and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 247 Vinayanand secretly. Shankaranand told him that there were many enemies of Anand Marg namely Mr. Puri and Hingorani of CBI, Jail doctors and Civil Surgeon of Patna and Anand Marg defectors namely Aacharya Vishokanand Avadhoot, former P.A of Anand Murti and Aacharya Anand Kishore. He (PW-1) asked as to how this could be achieved without weapons. Shankaranand informed him that one Anand Margi Mr. Dogra, Instructor of ITI, Indore had told him that in case of need, he would be able to provide arms and ammunitions. Shankaranand gave him Rs.2, 000/- and asked PW-1 to go to Indore and bring the weapons. Accordingly, he went to Indore and stayed there for 2/3 days but Mr. Dogra could not succeed. He paid him Rs. 400/- to Mr. Dogra to procure weapons and told him that he would collect the same on the next visit. He came back to Arrah and returned the balance amount to Aacharya Ram Aasrey. He further stated that Shankaranand came there at the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan and asked him to go to Indore and bring arms and ammunitions for which he had given money to Dogra. He deposed that from Trimohan he came to Arrah and obtained money from Ram Aasrey, which he returned to him and he went to Indore. He met Mr. Dogra and Dogra told them that he had not been able to procure the arms. Mr. Dogra was not having Rs. 400/- with him on hand and he did not return the money and assured that he would send money to Ram Kumar by procuring the address from him. PW-1 further testified CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 248 that from Indore he went to Trimohan and narrated the entire facts to Shankaranand.
168. It is found in the cross-examination of PW-1 that before the Magistrate he stated that he took Rs.2,000/- when he went to Mr. Dogra and paid him Rs.400/-. He did not remember whether he stated the details regarding sending of Rs.400/- to Ram Kumar or not. PW-1 further replied that he has not given any description of Bengali Gentleman, who was sitting by the side of Ram Aasrey (P.O.) in July 1973 except that he was clean-shaven. He did not remember whether he told the Magistrate that Ram Aasrey (P.O.) did not introduce him to Bengali Gentleman or not. He did not notice any mark on the country- made bombs as the same were wrapped in strings. One of the bombs was of half a kilo in weight. He also did not state in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that at that time, Ram Aasrey introduced him and Vinayanand to Prem Kumar as Vijay & Jagdish. He stated that Anand Marg School at Arrah was up to primary class. He did not state before the Magistrate that he stayed in Anand Marg Public School in Arrah for 15 days. There were two or three rooms in the house, which were arranged by Ram Aasrey on the ground floor. He did not know the names of neighbours but it was situated in the market by the side of a biscuit factory. He did not know number of that house or name of biscuit factory. He had stated to the Magistrate that Ram Aasrey lived in a separate house in the bazaar but had not stated that he had rented a separate house. He told the Magistrate that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 249 he replied Shankaranand that there was one Mr. Dogra, an Anand Margi Instructor at ITI Indore and when he was at Indore, he told him that he would be able to provide arms and ammunitions in case of need. (When he was confronted with his statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC, these words did not find the mention). He told the Magistrate that he informed Ram Aasrey, Rudranand and Shankaranand at Arrah of his talks with Mr. Dogra. When he was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr. PC, it was found mentioned that he informed Shankaranand at Arrah where Rudranand and Shankaranand used to come to meet Ram Aasrey and talk to him.
169. A careful scrutiny of the deposition of PW-1 reveals that the line of cross-examination and the suggestions made by the defence almost proves the case of the prosecution as regards the examination- in-chief of PW-1 about his visiting the house of Ram Aasrey, the meeting of several persons including Gopalji, the storing of arms in the house of Ram Aasrey and the subsequent instructions, PW-1 had received from Shankaranand to go to Indore and collect arms from PW-34 of course which effort of PW-1 did not fructify. Therefore, the material contradictions or improvements, if any as pointed by the defence go to the oblivion.
170. This statement of PW-1 is further corroborated by the testimony of PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra of Indore. PW-34 has identified PW-1 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 250 in the court correctly. The defence has given him suggestions only, which was denied by him. It is a settled principle of law that denied suggestion is no evidence. The details of the testimony of PW-34 about his role in Anand Marg, visit of PW-1 for arms and his failure thereof, his returning the money received from PW-1 to Ram Kumar is already discussed elsewhere and the repetition is avoided. The say of PW-1 and PW-34 is further fortified by the deposition of PW-19 Sh. Purshottam Kumar, owner of the Aadarsh Lodge, Indore, which I intend to deal hereinafter.
171. PW-1 testified that he stayed in Aadarsh Lodge which was also known as Gujarati Lodge, twice at Indore. He identified the Register of Visitors Ex.P-5, entry Ex.PW-1/K and signatures Ex.PW-1/L as "Vijay Kumar" as in his handwriting regarding his stay on 26.8.1973. While giving his particulars, he mentioned his name as "Vijay Kumar Prabhat", respecting the sentiments of his Guru Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and took his name as surname out of the awe, reverence and respect towards his Guru. He deposed that at another place he described his name at Ex.PW-1/M as "Vijay Kumar S/o Prabhatji" and he stayed there on 10.9.1973 and his signatures are at Ex.PW-1/N as Vijay Kumar. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the Hotel Register and Inn-Register are forged documents. He has also denied the suggestion that the entries did not exist or had been incorporated or interpolated subsequently. He further replied that he always stayed in the Aadarsh Lodge. He did not enquire the name of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 251 the manager or proprietor of that Lodge. He did not know the name of the bearer of that Lodge. He also did not remember whether adjoining rooms were under occupation or not. He also could not remember the number of the room, which he occupied. He replied that he made entire entry in the register in his own handwriting on his first stay there. He did not remember whether in his second stay/visit, he wrote the entire entry or only put his signatures against the entry in the register. He stated that he could say only after seeing the entry. The style of cross-examination instead of demolishing the deposition of PW-1 rather fortified it and non furnishing of the details of the owner, bearer, manager, the number of rooms, location thereof, etc. are all unwanted details since no Lodger would go to the extent of investigation of such details and naturally would not remember.
172. The testimony of approver PW-1 finds further corroboration from the statement of PW-19 Sh. Purshottam Kumar, owner of the Aadarsh Lodge, Indore. He testified that his father owns Aadarsh Lodge, Indore. He along with four brothers has been working in the said Aadarsh lodge with his father and they have engaged servants at the lodge. He deposed that they have been maintaining a Register of the Visitors of their Lodge. Sometimes, he makes entries in the Register, sometimes his father does, sometimes by the visitor himself and sometimes by the servants. The customer (i.e. visitor) signs the last column of the entry in the Register. After seeing the Register CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 252 Ex.P-5, he deposed that this is in respect of their Aadarsh Lodge. He proved the Register Ex.P-5 of Aadarsh Lodge and after perusing the entry dated 26.8.1973 Ex.PW-1/K he deposed that the visitor at Point Ex.PW-1/L has signed this encircled red portion. He also deposed that the portion A, B and C encircled with blue pencil in the entry Ex.PW- 1/K is in hand of his father, which he identified. The portions D, E and F encircled with red pencil in entry Ex.PW-1/K are in the hand of servant Guman Singh whose handwriting and signatures he has identified. He identified that portions G, H, J and K encircled with blue pencil in ExPW1/K to be in the hand of his brother Ramesh. After perusing the entry dated 10.9.1973 Ex.PW-1/M in the Register Ex.P-5, PW-19 also testified that this is an entry in respect of one Vijay Kumar in his hand (PW-19) and the portion encircled with red pencil in Ex.PW-1/M is in his hand (PW-19). He had obtained the signatures of the customer at that very time in the last column of the entry. The signatures Ex.PW-1/N were appended in his presence. The portions encircled with blue pencil and Marked A and B of this entry are in hands of his father, which he identified. The portion Mark C and D and encircled with red pencil of this entry are in his handwriting. The portion E and F are in the hand of his brother Ramesh. Both these entries Ex.PW-1/K and PW-1/M are in respect of Vijay Kumar and have been signed by the visitor as "Vijay Kumar" at point Ex.PW-1/L and Ex.PW-1/N. He further stated that entries in the Register (Ex.P-5) are made as per particulars given by the visitors.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 253 This Register Ex.P-5 was taken into possession by CBI on 30.9.1975 vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-19/A. The Seizure Memo Ex.PW-19/A bears his signatures at point A, that of his brother Ramesh at point B and their servant Guman Singh at point C. He, Ramesh and Guman Singh at points A, B and C., also signed the last page of this Register. His brother Ramesh, servant Guman Singh and he himself signed on the front page of Register at Point B, C and A respectively. The last but one leaf of the Register Ex.P-5 also bears his signature at Point A, of Ramesh at Point B and Guman Singh at Point C. They appended their signatures on 1 st, last and last but one page of the Register at the time it was taken in possession by CBI. He has identified signatures of his father, servant, Guman Singh and brother Ramesh since he had seen them writing and signing. In the Register Ex.P-5, name of the visitor in the entry Ex.PW-1/K is mentioned as Vijay Kumar Prabhat and in the entry Ex.PW-1/M as Vijay Kumar Wald Prabhatji and visitor has also signed as Vijay Kumar on both these entries at point Ex PW-1/L and Ex PW-1/N.
173. In his cross-examination, PW-19 replied that police recorded his statement. He informed the police about the entry dated 26.08.1973 in his statement. (However, when confronted with the statement under Section 161 of Cr. PC Ex.PW-19/DA any particular about the entry dated 26.08.1973 was not found recorded). He explained that he had not seen the entry dated 26.08.1973 at the time of taking into possession the Register Ex.P-5 by the CBI. The marking with red CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 254 pencil on the entry dated 10.09.1973 was put at the time of taking into possession of the register. He stated that on the left side of the page of the entry Ex.PW-1/M and PW-1/N there is no writing in his hand. He admitted that entry Ex.PW-1/M is the last entry on that page. The entry dated 10.09.1973 was not signed by the visitor in his presence. He also did not remember whether the customer signed the entry with his pen or pen of some other person. He did not remember whether he informed CBI that a portion of the entry was in the hand of his father, brother Ramesh and a portion in the hand of his servant Guman Singh. He informed the police that he would be in a position to identify handwriting and signature of his father, brother Ramesh and Guman Singh, servant. (However, when confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Cr. PC Ex.PW-19/DA, it was not found recorded). He informed the police that he would not be in a position to identify the visitor connected to the entry. (However, when confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Cr. PC Ex.PW-19/DA, it was not found recorded). He testified that the entry preceding and following entry Ex.PW-1/5 is in the hands of his father. He deposed that a bill book is maintained and bill is issued only if the customer wants. They did not issue any bill in respect of entry dated 10.09.1973. However, he asserted that there is mention of deposit of money in this entry itself. He also deposed that there is deposit of amount against all the entries on the page and for that reason he could say that no bill was issued in respect of all those entries. Normally, a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 255 government servant demands a bill. They do not maintain books of account of their lodge. However, they have been paying licence fee for their lodge. He did not know the amount, which was being paid as licence fee by his father. He could not remember the age of the customer to whom entry Ex.PW-1/M related. The age of this customer is mentioned in the entry. He did not sign the page having the relevant entry in this register, when the CBI took it into possession. He had seen this relevant entry in the register Ex.P-5 at the time of taking it into possession by the CBI. After that, he had seen the register on the date of his deposition in the court. He has denied the suggestion that he has made this entry at the instance of CBI or that he has been introduced as a false witness. The testimony of this witness is not discredited if he had informed the police in his previous statement that he would not be in a position to identify the visitor namely Vijay (PW-1) which was not found recorded in his previous statement. Accordingly he did not identify PW-1 in the court. The cross-examination did not go to unsettle the documentary evidence, which are proved on record and further corroborated by the oral evidence of PW-1, PW-19 and that of the police officials, who have seized the same, which discussion follows.
174. PW-83 Sh. M.P. Sharma, Inspector, has proved Seizure Memo Ex.PW-19/A by which the Visitor's Register of Aadarsh Hindu Lodge Ex.P-5 was seized. He was working as CBI Inspector with SIU-II, New Delhi. He testified that on 24.09.1975, Deputy SP Sh. Ahuja, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 256 Investigation Officer of this case, directed him to go to Indore (Madhya Pradesh) for partly investigating the case. He was directed by Deputy SP Sh. Ahuja to make investigation and find out regarding one Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Prabhat staying in some Gujrati Lodge at Indore. He was also informed that Gujrati Lodge was near Bus Stand, Indore. He was directed to verify from the record of that Gujrati Lodge about the stay of said Vijay Kumar between the period August 1973 and November 1973. Accordingly, he reached Indore on 25th or 26th September, 1975 and went to Gujrati Hotels and Lodges near Bus Stand Indore. He visited Aadarsh Hindu Lodge, which was also known as Gujrati Lodge and check up the entries in the Visitor's Register and found entry in respect of said Vijay Kumar. Sh. Purshottam Dass (PW-19) was the owner of that lodge from whom, he took into possession that Register (Ex.P-5) vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-19/A. He correctly prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-19/A and bears his signature at point D. Sh. Purshottam Dass (PW-19) has also signed at point A, his brother at point B and one servant at point C in his presence. He identified the Register Ex.P-5, which he took into possession from Sh. Purshottam Dass (PW-19) of Aadarsh Hindu Lodge. The first, last and penultimate page of the Register were signed by him, Purshottam Dass (PW-19) and two other witnesses mentioned hereinbefore. He identified his signature at point D on the Register Ex.P-5.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 257
175. In his cross-examination, PW-83 answered that name Gujrati Lodge is not written on the Register Ex.P-5. He did not verify from the office of District Magistrate, whether Aadarsh Hindu Lodge was registered in the same name in that office. He admitted that there is no serial number in the entries of Register Ex.P-5. He denied the suggestion that entry in respect of Vijay Kumar at page No. 21 of the Register Ex.P-5 was inserted subsequently. He admitted that column no. 1 of the register Ex.P-5 is of serial number. He also admitted that the portion having serial number on page no. 21 pertaining to entry Ex.PW-1/A is not there, which got torn off on account of use of the register. He asserted that this register was in the same condition, when he took into possession as it is now. He has denied the suggestion that portion of page no. 21 was intentionally torn off in order to insert the entry.
176. It is to be noted that this witness was cross-examined only on behalf of accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand. The other accused have failed to cross-examine the witness despite opportunity. It is to be noted that the line of cross-examination restricted to the suggestions that this Register Ex.P-5 was either manipulated/interpolated/fabricated. For every suggestion, the accused could only draw a negative answer from the witness and the line of cross-examination does not go to establish that the register is fabricated one and that the same is an implantation only to help the prosecution. The vehement answer of the witness that the Register has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 258 been in the same condition as it was when seized, is elicited in the cross-examination, which inspires the court to arrive at the finding that the register is not tampered with in any manner. Furthermore, this witness PW-83 is an impartial official witness, who had no axe to grind against these accused persons in manipulating the said Register. The mere non-recording of statements of other persons to suggest the name of Aadarsh Hindu Lodge, which was known as Gujrati Lodge, would not discredit the documentary evidence and the credibility of the witness.
177. This Visitor's Register Ex.P-5 of Aadarsh Hindu Lodge, Indore is available in Folder R-5. It is a bound register and duly paginated from Sr. No.1 to 78 in Hindi numerals. The first relevant entry dated 26.8.1973 at 7.40 AM Ex.PW-1/K is in the name of "Vijay Kumar. Prabhat" in Hindi and he stayed there up to 27.8.1973. This entry is in the middle of the page no.21 of the Register and in continuation of previous entries of 25th August 1973 followed by other five entries of 26th August 1973 and visitor has signed at Ex.PW-1/L as Vijay Kumar in Hindi. The second relevant entry dated 10.9.1973 at 6.00 AM Ex.PW-1/M, which is in the name of "Vijay Kumar wald (son of) Prabhat Ji" in Hindi. He stayed there up to 11.9.1973. This entry is, though a last entry on page no. 27, the visitor has signed in Hindi in similar manner as Vijay Kumar at Ex.PW-1/N and this entry is followed by ten more entries of 10.9.1973 on next page. It needs to be noted upon careful scrutiny of the Register Ex.P-5 that the last column CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 259 on the bottom of every page in the Register is left blank. This register can be said to have been maintained in due course of business by the Lodge. This Register was seized after about two years on 24.9.1975 by the I.O. and entries dated 27.8.1973 and 10.9.1973 appear to have been made in due course of business by the Lodge and do not suggest at all that these entries were added or substituted at the time of seizure of register or thereafter. There is no force in the argument on Ld. Defence Counsel that no witness has been examined to prove that this lodge was also known as "Gujarati Lodge" as stated by PW-83 Sh. M.P. Sharma and PW-19 Sh. Purshottam Kumar. There is also no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that bills of staying in the Lodge are not filed when entries itself support stay of PW-1 under assumed name of "Vijay Kumar Prabhat or Vijay Kumar wald Prabhat." The charges for lodging are reflected against the entries itself and therefore the question of issuing separate bills for stay in the Lodge does not arise.
178. The Ld. Counsel for defence points out that there have been improvements in the deposition of PW-19 in as much as the witness having not stated before the police that he is not able to identify the signatures and writing of the Lodge officials/Managers in the Register Ex.P-5. There is one more improvement argued with regard to the entry in the Register particularly referring to date 26.08.1973 as the witness having not stated before the police under Section 161 of the Cr. PC. According to the defence, these improvements would render CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 260 the witness unbelievable. I have carefully considered this submission. Needless to say that the prosecution also wants to connect the chain of events as regards the stay of PW-1 by his assumed name Vijay, Vijay wald Prabhat in the Lodge belonged to PW-19. Testimony of PW-19 that one Vijay stayed in his Lodge under the assumed name as above is not demolished in the cross-examination. The defence had not objected to marking of the Register Ex.P-5 through this witness. The defence having not objected to marking of the Register cannot point out these improvements in the testimony of PW-19 as prejudicing their case in as much the statement/testimony is only to be looked into as a connecting ring in the entire chain qua the purposes of proving the stay of PW-1 at the Lodge. The deposition of this witness cannot be looked in isolation since the Register maintained at the Lodge at Ex.P- 5 being the documentary evidence speaks louder than the witness himself. The entries in the register dated 26.08.1973 are also found recorded in due course of business of the said lodge. The defence having not objected to marking this Register and the seizure thereof, having been duly proved as mentioned above, the statement of PW-83 and PW-126A (whose evidence is discussed in the succeeding Para) and the document speaking volumes louder than the mere omissions by the police in recording the minute details as pointed by way of improvements. Thus, the improvements pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel is mere trivial and does not go to the root of the prosecution in proving the stay of PW-1 at the said Lodge situated in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 261 Indore, irrespective of the name of the Lodge whether it was known as Gujrati Lodge or Aadarsh Hindu Lodge.
179. Statement of Sh. R.P. Sinha, Inspector, CBI, at its Patna Office was examined on 15.09.1983 as PW-126. Subsequently, on 30.09.1983 one Sh. Maheshwar Prasad, Head Assistant, PWD was examined, but he has also been numbered as PW-126, apparently due to inadvertence and typographical error. This witness Sh. Maheshwar Prasad is now re-numbered as PW-126A.
180. Moreover, PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad has identified the signatures of PW-1 on the Visitor Register Ex.P-5 as "Vijay Kumar Prabhat" to be in the handwriting of PW-1. He (PW-126A) testified that in the year 1961, he was working in the office of SDO, PWD Lahariya Sarai. He knew Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava (PW-1), who, in those days was working as Correspondence Clerk in Darbhanga circle of PWD. In the year 1975, Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava has worked with him in the office of Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Lahariya Sarai. He deposed that during this period from 1961 to 1975, he had seen Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava writing and signing and for that reason he identified his writing and signatures Ex.PW-1/L and Ex.PW-1/N in the Visitor's Register Ex.P-5 (of Aadarsh Lodge/Gujrati Lodge, Indore). It is pertinent to mention that PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava has put these signatures as Vijay Kumar Ex.PW-1/L and PW-1/N. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 262
181. In his cross-examination, PW-126A replied that without seeing the entry in the register Ex.P-5, he could not say how Madan Mohan Srivastava has written his name therein and whether he had written his name as Madan Mohan Srivastava in the register Ex.P-5 and whether the relevant entry in the register Ex.P-5 was in English or Hindi. He did not remember whether he stated to the CBI Officer that in the year 1961 Madan Mohan Srivastava was working as Correspondence Clerk in Darbhanga Circle of PWD. He asserted that Madan Mohan Srivastava was working under him, when CBI Inspector Sh. N.N. Singh also called Madan Mohan Srivastava. He did not remember whether he stated to the Inspector Sh. N.N. Singh that he could identify the writings and signatures of Madan Mohan Srivastava both in English and Hindi or not. (He was confronted with the statement under Section 161 of the Cr. PC Ex.PW-126/DA, where the words "Both Hindi and English" were not found mentioned but the factum mentioned was that he was acquainted with the writing and signatures). He has denied the suggestion that the writing and signatures, which he identified to be in the handwriting of Madan Mohan Srivastava are not in his handwriting. He testified that he was the Section Incharge and only Madan Mohan Srivastava was working under him.
182. The defence did not challenge the identity and posting of PW- 126A in the cross-examination of PW-126A or that he was working CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 263 with PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava at the same place. The defence has also not challenged that Madan Mohan Srivastava was not working under the supervision of PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad in the office of PWD, Lahariya Sarai. When a person like PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava was working under the supervision of PW- 126A or in his office, it is quite natural that such superior gets acquainted with the writing and signatures of such subordinate like PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava. Thus, the statement of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava has been further corroborated on material particulars by PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Parsad that on two occasions in the month of August, 1973 (26.08.1973) and September, 1973 (10.09.1973), he visited Indore to meet PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra for collection of arms and ammunitions and stayed at Aadarsh Hindu Lodge under the assumed name of "Vijay Kumar". Therefore, the statement of PW-1 inspires confidence that he came to Indore at the instance of Shankaranand to collect the arms and ammunitions from PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra on payment twice in August, 1973 and September 1973 and that he paid Rs.400/- to Sh. Dogra on his 1 st visit.
20) Training in arms by Ram Kumar at Trimohan.
183. PW-1 also deposed that he along with Vinayanand was asked to go to Village Trimohan by Shankaranand for being trained in handling the arms and ammunition at the hands of Ram Kumar, an Anand Margi. Thus, they went to Trimohan along with Shankaranand. PW-1 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 264 took the jhola containing bombs with him. They travelled by Upper India Express (train), which stopped at Kaholgaon, a station ahead of Ekchari. They got down there and then on foot they reached at the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan. There Shankaranand introduced PW-1 as 'Vijay' and Vinayanand as 'Jagdish' to Ram Kumar. At the suggestion of Shankaranand, the jhola along with bombs was handed over to Ram Kumar (Proclaimed Offender). He further deposed that Arteshanand Avadhoot and A-2 were present in plain clothes at the house of Ram Kumar. PW-1 had seen them earlier in saffron robes. He identified A-2 in the court also. Thereafter, Shankaranand went away. He further testified that Ram Kumar trained him and Vinayanand in Judo and use of 12-bore gun. He testified that Arteshanand and A-2 did not receive this training in their presence as they had already received this training. He came to know of it during the course of his training and that of Vinayanand. Ram Kumar imparted them training regarding extent of energy of country made bomb and how to throw and handle it. This training was given to all four of them. They also received practical training. One bomb out of five bombs, which he had brought, was taken out. They were taken at some distance away from the house and Ram Kumar gave demonstration as to how to throw the bomb. Then, Ram Kumar gave him that bomb and he (PW-1) threw it but it did not explode. He directed Vinayanand to pick it up and threw it. When Vinayanand threw it, it exploded. At that time, he, Ram Kumar, Vinayanand, A-2 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 265 and Arteshanand were present. He deposed that they remained at the house of Ram Kumar for about 15 days. Arteshanand and A-2 also stayed there during their stay. He further deposed that thereafter Shankaranand Avadhoot came there who asked him to go to Indore and bring arms and ammunition for which he (PW-1) had given money to Mr. Dogra (PW-34). As such, from Trimohan, he (PW-1) came to Arrah and obtained money, which he had returned to him. Then he went to Indore and met Mr. Dogra. From Indore, he (PW-1) came to Trimohan and met Shankaranand who was still present there and narrated him the entire things. Shankaranand then went away and after 2-3 days, Santoshanand came there in plain clothes. He was not sporting beard and long hair and before that, he had seen him only in the guise of an Avadhoot as he is found at the trial.
184. PW-1 further testified that A-1 told him that all peaceful methods for release of Anand Murti have failed. A-1 brought a letter from Aacharya Rudranand, addressed to Din Pal Rai, Advocate of Azamgarh, who was also an Anand Margi. He knew Sh. Din Pal Rai, Advocate prior to that since he used to participate in VSS Camps. In the letter, it was written that the revolver be handed over to the bearer of the letter. PW-1 further deposed that he came to Azamgarh with the said letter and met Din Pal Rai, Advocate. He handed over the letter of Aacharya Rudranand to Din Pal Rai and told him that Rudranand and Santoshanand were busy in collecting arms. Din Pal Rai informed him that in case, they are not able to procure arms, he (Din Pal Rai) CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 266 would give the revolver but Din Pal Rai did not give him that revolver and he came back to Trimohan and reported to accused Santoshanand.
185. In the cross-examination of PW-1, it is elicited that before the Magistrate, he stated that Arteshanand and Sudevanand did not receive the training as they had already received such training but it was not found mentioned in his previous statement. PW-1 further stated in his cross-examination that 3-4 bombs used to be exploded for the purpose of imparting training. PW-1 further testified in his cross-examination that he has not stated before the Magistrate that he was introduced to Ram Kumar at Trimohan by his name as Vijay and that Vinayanand was introduced as Jagdish. PW-1 further deposed in his cross- examination that from Arrah, he Vinayanand went to Trimohan by train. They left Arrah in the evening and at 3.00 or 4.00 A.M., they reached at Kaholgaon as the train did not stop at Trimohan. Along with the Jhola containing the arms, he used to carry another Jhola of his personal belongings. There was no pin system in the bomb as it was a country made bomb. PW-1 further replied that house of Ram Kumar was situated on the bank of Ganga on the roadside. There were houses occupied by the persons in the vicinity of the house of Ram Kumar. They were staying in the house on the ground floor. There was a deserted school on the way leading to Ekchari Railway Station and the bomb was exploded there at a lonely place. This building was at a distance of one furlong from Ram Kumar's house. He might have fired 3 or 4 shots of .12-bore gun. Vinayanand might CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 267 have also fired 3 or 4 shots. The target used to be sometime a sparrow sitting on a tree. He might have fired 25/30 shots from an air gun in which pellets are used. For targets, sometimes points to be fixed in the wall and sometimes birds would be the made targets. He could not see how far the fragments of bomb fell after explosion. He volunteered to state that they had taken shelter behind a wall in order to save themselves. After that, they saw that the fragment had spread within the radius of 10 yards. He stated in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that when bomb was exploded, there were present Ram Aasrey, Sudevanand & Arteshanand. (When confronted with his previous statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC, it was found mentioned that these persons were told about the method of exploding a country made bomb and that when Vinayanand threw the bomb, it was exploded). He had not stated in his previous statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC that they were taken to the banks of Ganga and Ram Kumar explained how to take a aim with the revolver or that the tree being made a target or a shot was fired by him for demonstration. He also did not remember having stated that Ram Kumar then gave the revolver to Sudevanand and then Sudevanand fired a shot. He was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-1/X wherein it was not found recorded. He explained that he had not stated in detailed under Section 164 of Cr. PC that he was given revolver to fire, he was able to hit the target but Ram Kumar, and Sudevanand had missed the aim. He had not stated in the statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 268 then they came back to Ram Kumar's house and found Santoshanand and Shankaranand present there. He explained that he had not stated in this sequence that thereafter at that very time, Tyageshwaranand @ Budheshawaranand also reached there at Ram Kumar's house. He further testified that he stayed at Ram Kumar's house for 15/20 days during training but they were visiting other places also during this time. It is elicited that PW-1 had not stated in previous statement that he has fired a shot in the farm of Mr. Biswas from country made revolver, which Mr. Biswas has supplied.
186. The learned Defence Counsel pointed out certain trivial and explanatory improvements in the statement of PW-1 on some points mentioned in the Para above. He pointed out that PW-1 has not stated in his previous statement that Arteshanand and Sudevanand did not receive the training as they had already received such training; that he was introduced to Ram Kumar at Trimohan by his name as Vijay and that Vinayanand was introduced as Jagdish; that when bomb was exploded Ram Aasrey, Sudevanand and Arteshanand were present; Ram Kumar gave revolver to Sudevanand who fired the shot; and that he was given revolver to fire and he was able to hit the target but Ram Kumar and Sudevanand had missed the aim. The line of cross- examination does not suggest that the above persons namely PW-1 and Vinayanand did not go to the place of training namely Trimohan where Ram Kumar imparted training to them in testing the firearms. It CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 269 is also not disputed that in the cross-examination that Arteshanand and Sudevanand were present there. The cross-examination rather fortifies the presence of all the above persons including A-1, A-2, Vinayanand (PO), Ram Kumar (PO) and Arteshanand (since deceased) at the time of training in arms and ammunitions by Ram Kumar at Trimohan. Mere omission or the improvement does not go to discredit the testimony of this witness, insofar as, the defence being unable to demolish the fact of their presence at Trimohan and the training in arms.
21) Criminal Conspiracy at Trimohan
187. It has come in the deposition of PW-1 that when he came to Trimohan and reported to accused Santoshanand (A-1), he found that A-1 had brought a tape recorded speech titled as "Parvachan" (sermons), which was delivered by Anand Murti at Nagpur Dharam Maha Chakra (a religious congregation) and it was attended by A-1 also. He deposed that in the month of August/September or October 1971 (Upon court questions, the incident is related by the witness having occurred during October 1973) on one night at the terrace of house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan, he himself, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand and Ram Kumar assembled. Tape recorded speech "Parvachan" of Baba Anand Murti was played by A-1 and then collective meditation was performed. (This was stated by PW-1 in the court on 13.02.1981 at Page Number 19 in his examination in chief. While replying the court question at Page Number 122, PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 270 1 clarified the month of the event to be October 1973, when meeting took place at the terrace of house of Ram Kumar (Proclaimed Offender) at Trimohan. He further clarified that it appeared to be a typographical error at Page No. 19. He further clarified that it was Dharam Maha Chakra that had taken place in October/November 1971. The recorded speech, which was played on that day on Tape Recorder, pertained to this Dharam Maha Chakra delivered by Anand Murti). When meditation was over, A-1 said that there were many enemies of Anand Marg, who are to be finished because all peaceful methods having failed, they had to adopt violent means. A-1 described Madhavanand Avadhoot as enemy no. 1 as he had become approver in the murder case against Anand Murti and deserted Anand Marg and he should be liquidated first. He described L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minister as enemy no. 2 and Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister of Bihar as enemy no. 3 being puppet of L.N. Mishra who had ordered lathi charge on Anand Margies. Santoshanand also described the Jail Doctor and Civil Surgeon of Patna as enemies apart from Mr. Puri and Hingorani of CBI. On the same night, Santoshanand assigned the duty to Vinayanand to kill Madhavanand and he (PW-1) was given the duty of killing Chief Minister Abdul Gaffoor. Sudevanand was assigned duty to kill officers of CBI and Arteshanand was assigned the duty to kill the Jail Doctor and Civil Surgeon of Patna but no duty was assigned to Ram Kumar and regarding L.N. Mishra, it was resolved that it would be decided later on as to who would be asked to kill him.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 271
188. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 that the tape recorder was not played frequently but only it was done on that night. He testified that in the tape-recorded message, it was not the message of Anand Murti that all the peaceful methods have failed and violent methods have to be adopted. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that it is Santoshanand, who explained of his own that he had a feeling that they should kill all the enemies by violent means. He deposed that after playing the tape recorder, Santoshanand had said that he had some inward feeling that all the enemies of Anand Marg should be finished. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 replied that in his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC, he has not given the reason for killing Abdul Gaffoor as he ordered of lathi charge on Anand Margies or for killing L.N. Mishra as Abdul Gaffoor was the puppet of L.N. Mishra. He might have stated in his statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC that Ram Kumar had said that if Madhavanand Approver was killed, the entire government machinery would be paralysed. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-1/X, it was not found recorded. (PW-1 has not attributed these words in his examination in chief nor in his 164 statement. This aspect of cross- examination is only a bulwark on the part of the defence to confound and confuse the witness and to mislead the court. The cross- examination thus becomes un-understandable and is of no help to arrive at the maneuvers to disbelieve the conceptualization of the conspiracy and the acts that followed thereafter.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 272
189. The defence had tried to put the words in the mouth of witness only to mislead the witness. He has not stated in his previous statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that Santoshanand refuted it and said that Madhavanand should be liquidated as enemy no.1. He might have stated that they all including Ram Kumar agreed to it and to kill all other enemies. He had not stated in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that it was decided to defer the duty of killing of L.N. Mishra to someone else in future. He had also not stated specifically that Ram Kumar was not given any duty at that time.
190. There is no cross-examination by the defence as regards the meeting held at the terrace of house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan in the month of October 1973. They have also not challenged the veracity and testimony of PW-1 that after playing tape recorded speech of Anand Murti, Santoshanand exhorted them (Ram Kumar, PW-1, Vinayanand, Arteshanand and Sudevanand) that Madhavanand, Abdul Gaffoor, L.N. Mishra, Jail Doctors, Civil Surgeon, Hingorani and Puri of CBI are to be killed. Thus, the testimony of this witness on these vital points remains unrebutted and makes it creditworthy. It is also not challenged in cross-examination of PW-1 that after meditation, Santoshanand having said that there were many enemies of Anand Marg, who were to be eliminated since all peaceful methods yielded no results and they had to resort to violent means against the persons CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 273 whose names mentioned above. The defence has also not specifically given any suggestion to PW-1 regarding Santoshanand describing Madhavanand Avadhoot to be enemy no.1, since the said Madhavanand deserted the cult to become Approver in the case against Anand Murti. The defence has also not given any suggestion to PW-1 concerning Santoshanand describing L.N. Mishra as enemy no.2 and Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister of Bihar as enemy no.3. It is a well-settled principle of law that when the other party in his cross- examination does not dispute an assertion in the examination in chief of a witness, the version of witnesses is to be believed. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a very recent Division Bench Judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi), 2009 (163) DLT 658, and Para No. 175 of the judgment reads as under: -
175. It is settled law that where a witness is not cross-examined on any relevant aspect, the correctness of the statement made by a witness cannot be disputed. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1328 and Rajinder Prasad v. Darshana Devi, V (2001) SLT 780 = AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3207).
191. Further, the Hon'ble MP High Court has held in Moti Lal and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990, Crl. L.J (NOC ) 125 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 274 that it is a well settled principle of law that when the accused does not challenge a prosecution witness in his cross-examination on certain facts, it leads to inference of admission of that fact. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in Srawan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2002 ( 4) RCR ( Crl) 471 that it is a rule of essential justice that whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself the opportunity to put his case in cross-examination, it must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted. Reference can also be given to a latest judgment of the Apex court in Paulmeli Vs. State of Tamilnadu through Inspector of Police, 2014 (4) RCR
335.
192. In order to belie the case of the prosecution that a criminal conspiracy to kill Sh. Madhavanand, Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, Sh. L.N. Mishra and others was hatched at the terrace of the house of Sh. Ram Kumar Singh (Proclaimed Offender) at Trimohan, the defence has examined DW-15 Sh. Harender Kumar Singh, a cousin of Sh. Ram Kumar Singh. In his examination-in-chief, he has testified that he is an Anand Margi since 1957. He had taken diksha at that time. Their entire family is of Anand Margies. He deposed that accused Ram Kumar Singh is his nephew and he has been residing in an adjacent house. He testified that police arrested Ram Kumar Singh in 1974 and he was released on bail after two and half month of his arrest. Anand Margies used to visit him and then he would take them to Ram Kumar Singh, if so desired by the visitor. To his knowledge, no meeting of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 275 Anand Margies took place on the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar Singh. In his examination-in-chief earlier, he testified that Ram Kumar Singh might be handling firearms, as his father used to handle the same. He deposed that he had not seen him doing so. In his cross- examination, it is revealed that he had joint farming with Ram Kumar Singh and they used to divide the share of produce. Ram Kumar Singh was his nephew. In his further elicited from his cross-examination that DW-15 has confined his activities only to Kahalgaon Block, which is situated at a distance of about 4 or 5 KMs from Trimohan. Both of them used to attend Dharam Maha Chakra, which used to be held for three days; there was a Railway Station in Trimohan in the year 1972-1974, which was known as Ekchari. In his further cross- examination, he could not dare to deny whether any decision was taken by Anand Margies to put pressure on the Government to release Anand Murti.
193. This witness DW-15 is one of the oldest members of Anand Marg, who has taken Diksha. When he had confined himself and his activities to Village/Block Kahalgaon, which is situated at a distance of 4 or 5 KMs from Trimohan, one wonders as to how could he say that no meeting of the conspirators had taken place at the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar Singh. DW-15 and Ram Kumar Singh had their joint agriculture. Both of them used to attend Dharam Maha Chakra. Like DW-1 and DW-3 he is also an interested, biased and partisan witness and no reliance can be placed on his testimony.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 276
194. The defence evidence in fact pointed that this witness being an Anand Margi, knew very well that Ram Kumar, a fellow Anand Margi, was visited by several fellow Anand Margies. It also points to the expertise of Ram Kumar in handling arms and ammunitions and admits that Ram Kumar was once arrested. The deposition of this witness does not go to demolish the deposition of PW-1 about the meeting that took place on the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar.
22) Visit of PW-1 to meet Din Pal Rai
195. After his attempt to obtain arms and ammunitions from PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra having failed, PW-1 returned from Indore and came to Trimohan. There he met Shankaranand, explained the futile visit to PW-34 at Indore. After 2-3 days, Shankaranand brought a letter from Aacharya Rudranand addressed to Din Pal Rai, Advocate and Anand Margi of Azamgarh. PW-1 knew Din Pal Rai even earlier since he used to participate in VSS Camps. PW-1 came to Azamgarh with the letter and met Din Pal Rai. He informed Din Pal Rai that Rudranand and A-1 were busy in collecting arms. However, Din Pal Rai did not give him the revolver. PW-1 returned to Trimohan and reported the same to A-1. Thereafter, as mentioned above, conspiracy was hatched in October 1973 at the terrace of the house at Trimohan to kill Sh. Madhavanand Avadhoot, Sh. L.N. Mishra and Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, Jail Doctors, two Officers of CBI Sh. Puri and Sh. Hingorani.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 277
196. PW-1 further testified that on the same night, after the conspiracy at the terrace of the house at Trimohan was hatched, he was again directed by A-1 to go to Azamgarh to bring revolver from Din Pal Rai.
197. PW-1 further deposed that Santoshanand also directed Arteshanand, Vinayanand and Sudevanand to arrange a house at Patna as killing was to be carried out at Patna.
198. In the morning, he (PW-1) left for Azamgarh, met Din Pal Rai and narrated him entire discussion that had taken place on that night at the house of Ram Kumar in village Trimohan. Then Din Pal Rai showed him a Webley make revolver of 32 bore English make and explained him how it works and there were 6 live cartridges in that revolver. Sh. Din Pal Rai took him to a nearby Hillock and he (PW-1) fired one shot and realised that the revolver was in working condition and the cartridges were live. Din Pal Rai loaded another live cartridge for spent up one and thus it was loaded with six live cartridges. He came back to Trimohan with the revolver and cartridges via Kahalgaon and reached the house of Ram Kumar where Arteshanand, Sudevanand and Vinayanand were already present. He showed them the revolver and Ram Kumar also came and saw that revolver. Ram Kumar tested its working and remarked that such a revolver was difficult to procure in the market. Ram Kumar was already in possession of 3 cartridges of the same bore for use in the revolver and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 278 then they were all taken to nearby banks of Ganga. Ram Kumar explained them how the aim was to be taken with the revolver, he gave the demonstration by making a tree as target, and he himself fired the shot. Then he (Ram Kumar) gave the revolver to Sudevanand to aim a shot. Sudevanand fired a shot. Thereafter, he (PW-1) was given the revolver to hit the target i.e. the tree. He was able to hit the target, whereas Ram Kumar and A-2 missed the target. Then they came back to his house where A-1 and Shankaranand were present and revolver was shown to them and they approved it. He deposed that at that time Avadhoot Tyageshwaranand @ Budheshawaranand clad in saffron clothes also reached there. He was VSS organizer of Bihar Province. He knew him from before. Probably he is dead now. Budheshawaranand also approved the revolver but he suggested that the house of Ram Kumar was not an appropriate place for this purpose and house of Gopalji at Chautham, Distt. Monghyer would be more appropriate for such like activities. He also testified that Gopalji had come to Bhagalpur.
199. PW-98 Sh. Mohinder Nath Singh of Village Bara, District Azamgarh (UP) stated that on 16.2.1973 at about 6.00 PM he was going out to answer the call of the nature when Sh. Deen Pal Rai came there. He was known to him. He asked Sh. Deen Pal Rai to wait in the room and he will return soon. When he came back after 15/20 minutes, he found Sh. Deen Pal Rai in the room. He had kept his Weblascot Revolver under his pillow during night and there were four CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 279 cartridges in the revolver, which was loaded one. After his return, Sh. Deen Pal Rai took out the loaded revolver and four cartridges from under the pillow and took them away with him. He lodged a report with Police Station Kotwali Mark PW-98/A, Crime No. 160 dated 16.02.1973. He stated the number of his revolver as A-23485. In his cross-examination PW-98 replied that he had seen Din Pal Rai going out of the room swiftly. He inquired from him as to why he was taking his revolver and cartridges, but gave no reply. He raised the alarm, but no one came there. He did not chase Din Pal Rai, as he was having a loaded revolver. However, some school teachers came there and one or two other persons came there. He did not give the number of his revolver to the police. He purchased the revolver from Kanpur, but could not remember the name of the shop from where it was purchased. He admitted the suggestion that Sh. Din Pal Rai was acquitted. He was acquitted after his statement was recorded by the CBI Officer.
200. PW-90 Sh. Dalip Rai, SI, PS Kotwali Azamgarh, deposed that the record of crime case no. 160 dated 16.2.1973 under section 380 IPC PS Kotwali has been destroyed four years ago. In his cross- examination, he replied that Deen Pal Rai, Advocate was accused in the case. He was acquitted on 25.8.1976 by the court of CJM, Azamgarh as per Crime Register No.4 brought by him. He stated that he did not try to obtain certified copy of judgment as judicial file was stated to be destroyed.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 280
201. The accused persons have examined Sh. Deen Pal Rai as DW-
24. The testimony of this defence witness goes to show that he is initiated into Anand Marg and took Diksha in the year 1968. He is a farmer and an Advocate. He does not know any person by the name of Visheshwaranand and none came to him for arms at Azamgarh between the years 1971-1975. Azamgarh area does not have any hillock. According to him, during emergency period in the year 1975, police came to his residence in his absence. This information was passed to him by his son and he fled to Banaras where his father arrived at the behest of his father, he surrendered to police and was arrested at Raksol. He remained in different jails. He was sent to CBI remand for 15 days. During his stay in jail, he came in contact with many Anand Margies i.e. Santoshanand, Ranjan Dwivedi, Shankaranand etc. He further deposed that CBI lured and pressurized him to be their witness in this case. In his cross-examination, DW-24 admitted that cult head was arrested in murder of one of the defectors, which ended in acquittal, which he volunteered to say. He was not aware of rejection of bail of his cult head. He is also not aware of any Revolutionary Group. He has denied the suggestion put by Prosecution regarding his proximity with Rudranand, Rudranand writing a letter to him and sending through Visheshwaranand and Rudranand desiring a revolver to be procured from him through Visheshwaranand. He also denied that Visheshwaranand met him and talked about the revolver or that he has shown a revolver to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 281 Visheshwaranand during August/September 1973 or has given demonstration of its working near a hillock. He further denied having given a revolver to Visheshwaranand to be further given to Rudranand or Santoshanand.
202. After going through the deposition of DW-24 Sh. Deen Pal Rai, the question arises as to how much value can be attached to his testimony. Admittedly, he is also an Anand Margi and took Diksha in 1968 from Aacharya Nirmohanand. He admits having met accused persons and Anand Margies in the jail while this case was under
investigations since he claimed that CBI either lured him or pressurized him to become their witness against the accused persons. He has suppressed the fact by denying the suggestion of the Prosecution that he knew Rudranand, an Anand Margi very closely. In fact, Rudranand Avadhoot has also been examined by the defence as DW-1 who has admitted/testified his examination-in-chief itself that he knew Sh. Deen Pal Rai of Azamgarh. With this background, his denials about securing a firearm are to be looked into. Though he denied considering the background of his avowed affiliation and attachment to the cult, his evidence is to be discarded as a piece of canard. It must also be noted that this witness who was arrested during emergency and further having been taken to custodial interrogation by the CBI had avenged his arrest by speaking in favour of the accused persons. His testimony is falling short of inspiring any confidence in the mind of the Court in the backdrop of proved, profuse CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 282 and inspiring evidence of PW-1 Sh. Visheshwaranand corroborated by other circumstances, which I have discussed supra.
23) Effect of acquittal of Din Pal Rai
203. The Ld. Defence Counsel argued that case of the prosecution is falsified by statement of PW-90 Sh. Dalip Rai that Deen Pal Rai (DW-
24), who is alleged to have given revolver with cartridges to PW-1, has been acquitted by the court of CJM, Azamgarh. Copy of judgment has not been produced and DW-24 Deen Pal Rai has not stated even a single word in his statement that he was acquitted. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that DW-24 Din Pal Rai had been acquitted of the charge u/s 380 IPC for committing theft of the revolver of PW-98 Sh. Mohinder Nath Singh which was allegedly given by Sh. Din Pal Rai to PW-1 and prosecution is not able to prove this part of its case against accused persons. The question is whether the said acquittal touches centroid of conspiracy or whether it is only peripheral. Even if so called acquittal is taken in its face value, whether the same would shatter the chain of conspiracy. It is in evidence of PW-1 that conspiracy was hatched at the roof of house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan to kill Madhavanand, L.N. Mishra, Abdul Gaffoor and others which is by itself an offence. To execute the criminal conspiracy, arms and ammunitions were collected. Sh. Deen Pal Rai (PW-24) was one of the sources from whom arms and ammunitions were collected as per the case of the prosecution. Statement of PW-1 that he went twice to Indore to collect arms and ammunitions from CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 283 PW-34 Jagat Ram Dogra has already been corroborated by PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra, PW-19 Sh. Purshottam Kumar, PW-83 Sh. M.P. Sharma and PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Parsad as discussed hereinbefore. PW-1 had also found in the house of Prem Kumar at Patna where Aacharya Ram Aasrey had been residing, and there a clean-shaved Bengali gentle man was sitting and on a wooden rack, a jhola containing five country made bombs was kept. Ram Aasrey was living in that house who introduced PW-1 and Vinayanand to Prem Kumar as 'Vijay' and 'Jagdish'. On asking of Ram Aasrey, he along with Vinayanand and Ram Aasrey came to Arrah and Ram Aasrey arranged their stay in Anand Marg Primary School in Arrah and jhola containing bombs was with PW-1. PW-1 later on handed over that jhola containing bombs to Ram Kumar at village Trimohan in the presence of Vinayanand, Shankaranand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand. There at Trimohan, Ram Kumar trained PW-1 and Vinayanand in Judo, use of 12 bore guns, extent of energy of country- made bomb and how to throw and handle it. Subsequently, Santoshanand sent PW-1 to Sh. Saroj Kumar Biswas of Bangaon who asked PW-1 to wait for some days, as he will try to procure arms and ammunitions. PW-1 stayed there for 2/3 days and then Sh. Saroj Kumar Biswas gave him a country-made revolver 303 with three live cartridges and 110 cartridges which were of the type of 303. PW-1 gave all these to Gopalji, accused at Chautham. There Santoshanand came after 1/2 days and PW-1 told him that hand grenades could not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 284 be procured by Mr. Biswas and then Santoshanand and Vinayanand went to Bangaon for the purpose.
204. Therefore, the conceived intentions have been proved to achieve the end designs and it is natural human conduct that such person would leave no stone unturned to reach the design. Therefore, procuring of this weapon i.e. stolen revolver from Din Pal Rai, which entailed his prosecution resulting into his acquittal as stated by PW- 90, remains only peripheral and does not go to shatter the centroid of conspiracy, which is the subject matter in this charge sheet.
24) PW-1's delivering arms to Gopalji brought from S.K. Biswas - visit of A-1 & Vinayanand to Bangaon to bring hand grenades - telegram of A-1 to Gopalji.
205. PW-1 further testified that from Bhagalpur, he along with Ram Kumar came to Trimohan. He brought with him a letter given by Santoshanand. Rest of the party went to Patna side by train. On the same night from Trimohan, he took a train for Howrah and reached Bangaon. He gave the letter to Saroj Kumar Biswas at Bangaon. He (Saroj Kumar Biswas) asked him to wait for some days and during which period he would try to procure arms and ammunitions. He stayed there with Saroj Kumar Biswas for 2-3 days. Sh. Biswas gave him a country made revolver 303 with three live cartridges. He (Mr. Biswas) also gave him 110 cartridges, which were of the type of 303. In order to test its working, he fired a shot in nearby farm of Mr. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 285 Biswas. Mr. Biswas told him that he could not arrange hand grenade but was trying for it. So, he (PW-1) brought that revolver with two live cartridges and other 110 cartridges to Chautham and gave all these to Gopalji. He deposed that after 2-3 days, Vinayanand (PO), Arteshanand (Since died) and Sudevanand (A-2) also reached at the house of Gopalji (A-7). There he saw that Vinayanand had brought a revolver from Ram Kumar, which he (PW-1) had given him on being brought from Din Pal Rai, Advocate of Azamgarh. Vinayanand gave that revolver to A-7. At that time, he, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, A-2 and A-7 were present. He further testified that after 1-2 days, Santoshanand (A-1) also reached there and he told A-1 about articles he had brought from Bangaon. He also informed A-1 that Mr. Biswas could not procure hand grenades but was trying for it. A-1 asked him that he (PW-1) should go again to Bangaon to procure hand grenades from Mr. Biswas. He (PW-1) informed A-1 that he could understand Bengali language only a little but cannot speak it. He (PW-1) suggested to A-1 that as Vinayanand could understand and speak Bengali language, he should be sent to Bangaon for this purpose and A-1 agreed to it. A-1 told him that he along with Vinayanand would be going to Bangaon and if his return is delayed, he would send a telegram in the name of 'Prabhu' and would come back by 2nd or 3rd December 1973. He testified that he himself, Arteshanand, A-2 and A-7 stayed back at Chautham. A-1 and Vinayanand did not come back on 2nd or 3rd December 1973 and a telegram was received on 2 or 3rd CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 286 December 1973 from A-1. It was addressed to A-7 in which he described himself as "Prabhu". By this telegram, A-1 instructed them that they should continue to stay on at Chautham.
(This telegram Ex.PW-1/O (D-67) is available in Folder R-4).
206. A perusal of this telegram shows that it was dispatched from Howrah and addressed to Gopalji, Chautham and the message is "All to wait, Prabu". This telegram was received by Gopalji in due course of business at Chautham, Monghyer on 3.12.1973 as per postal stamp- cum-seal. This was recovered from house search of Gopalji on 17.5.1975 when a search was carried out by PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, I.O., in the presence of two search witnesses namely Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and Neel Mohan Singh. At the time of search, both the recovery witnesses and the IO put their respective signatures. Search Memo is Ex.PW-91/A.
207. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied that he did not state in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that when he gave letter of Santoshanand to a Bengali gentleman at Bangaon, he told him "that he would try to procure arms and ammunitions and he should wait for two or three days". He had also not stated that he told Santoshanand at Chautham that Mr. Biswas had not been able to procure hand grenade but was trying for it. He had also not stated that Santoshanand asked him to go again to Bangaon to procure hand grenade from Mr. Biswas. He had also not stated that he told Santoshanand that he was not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 287 conversant with Bengali language or that Vinayanand who could speak and understand this language should be sent and he agreed to it. He had also not stated before the Magistrate that Santoshanand said that he himself would go with Vinayanand to Bangaon and if his return was late, he would send a telegram by the name of 'Prabhu'. He had also not stated in such detail that Santoshanand told him that he would come back by 2nd or 3rd December, 1973. He had also not stated that he, Arteshanand, Sudevanand and Gopalji stayed back at Chautham or that Santoshanand and Vinayanand did not return by 2nd or 3rd December 1973. He had also not stated that this telegram was received from Santoshanand in which he described himself as 'Prabhu'. He had also not stated in the statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC that Santoshanand had written in this telegram that they should continue to stay at Chautham.
208. The line of the cross-examination of PW-1 on the above points indicate that the defence remained unsuccessful in belying that Budheshawaranand @ Tyageshwaranand suggested that the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan was not appropriate place for this purpose and house of Gopalji at Chautham at District Monghyer would be appropriate place for such like activities. The cross-examination of PW-1 also does not discredit the deposition of PW-1 that PW-1, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Tyageshwaranand and Ram Kumar went to Bhagalpur, near Janta Library, where house of Gopalji was situated and Gopalji had come CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 288 there. They went to his house and met him. The defence also did not demolish the testimony to the effect that Gopalji had a house at Bhagalpur near Janta Library. The accused persons have also not shaken the version of PW-1 in his cross-examination that at Bhagalpur, accused Santoshanand gave PW-1 a letter and directed PW-1 to go to Sh. Saroj Kumar Biswas at Bangaon and bring arms and ammunitions from him. They have also not disputed that Santoshanand asked Gopalji in his presence for collection of arms and ammunitions at his house at Chautham. The cross-examination is silent to the assertion of PW-1 that Santoshanand informed Gopalji about formation of a Revolutionary Group for the release of Anand Murti and certain persons are to be eliminated & for this purpose arms and ammunitions are to be collected, which shall be kept at his house at Chautham. The Ld. Defence Counsel have pointed out certain improvements of PW-1 qua his previous statement; that Biswas had asked him to wait 2/3 days and that Santoshanand asked him to go again to Bangaon. Further, they pointed out the improvement concerning PW-1 that he was not knowing Bengali language and Santoshanand should send Vinayanand for the purpose. They further brought the notice of the court to the improvement that Santoshanand told that in case he does not reach by 2nd or 3 rd December, he would be sending a telegram in the name of Prabhu. The improvements pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel on the face of it are trivial and explanatory in nature. PW-1 has narrated the complete facts of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 289 case in his knowledge in the court and he has given minor details from beginning until end, which does not at all suggest that he has been tutored to make a statement. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is not affected from those alleged improvements. These improvements do not prejudice the defence for the reason that they were unable to demolish certain aspects of the usage of the house of Gopalji at Chautham and also at Bhagalpur, the congregation of the named persons, who conceived the idea to form a Revolutionary Group. The aspects of formation of the Group, the deliberations that had taken place and the successive acts of those persons to achieve their designs were never seriously disputed in the cross-examination by the defence. This court is of the opinion that the improvements are merely decorative aspect of the facts spoken to, which remained unrebutted. The deposition of PW-1 that Santoshanand informed Gopalji about decision of formation of a Revolutionary Group, the need for elimination of certain persons to press the release of Baba Anand Murti, for which purposes arms and ammunitions were to be procured, all have been accepted by accused Gopalji. Gopalji further volunteered that henceforth the meetings would take place either at his house at Chautham or at his farmhouse at Tilihar. He has also accepted the consignment of one revolver 303, two live cartridges of this revolver and similar 110 cartridges from PW-1 at Chautham. He also accepted one revolver brought by Vinayanand from Ram Kumar at Chautham in the presence of PW-1. Therefore, the accused Gopalji CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 290 at that point of time has actively participated acceded to the designs of such of the conspirators as described by PW-1. He further allowed himself to be a part of such conspiracy, conceded and volunteered to make use of his house for piling of arms. Hence, considering the testimony, which is not shaken, the role of Gopalji in the conspiracy and the acts succeeding thereon is proved on rec ord by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
209. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati that the manuscript of telegram has not been seized by the IO and the record of dispatch and delivery of the telegram has not been produced to prove that the manuscript of the telegram was in the handwriting of Santoshanand by describing himself as Prabhu or that it was delivered to Gopalji. She argued that when accused Santoshanand had gone to Bangaon, how it could be dispatched from Howrah when according to Ld. Defence Counsel is at a distance of 100 KM from Bangaon. I do not find any merit in these arguments. U/s 88 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the court may presume that a message, forwarded from a telegraph office to the person to whom such message purports to be addressed, corresponds with a message delivered for transmission at the office from which the message purports to be sent. A perusal of this telegram Ex.PW-1/O shows that it was dispatched from Howrah and addressed to Gopalji, Chautham and the message is "All to wait, Prabu". This also bears the postal stamp-cum-seal dated 03.12.1973. This telegram was recovered from the house search of Gopalji by the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 291 IO PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha in the presence of search witnesses including Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) on 17.05.1975 vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A. This telegram rather corroborates the deposition of the approver PW-1 that Santoshanand informed them that he along with Vinayanand would go to Bangaon for collections of arms and ammunitions and hand grenade from Saroj Kumar Biswas and if they get late, he will send a telegram under the name of Prabhu. The name of the sender mentioned in the telegram is Prabhu and this is addressed to Gopalji. Accused Santoshanand had asked the addressee to continue to stay. The recovery of the telegram further indicates that it was received by Gopalji in due course of business at Chautham, Monghyer on 3.12.1973. Therefore, there was no occasion for seizure of the manuscript of the telegram. There was no requirement of producing the dispatch register and delivery receipt, when the original telegram bearing the postal stamp/seal was recovered, seized from the house of Gopalji, during the search. How accused Santoshanand came to Howrah from Bangaon is within knowledge of accused Santoshanand u/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, he has not explained it in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. Moreover, it is not denied during the course of arguments that Howrah falls between Bangaon and Chautham. The statement of PW-1 is further corroborated by telegram Ex.PW-1/O regarding going of Santoshanand along with Vinayanand to Bangaon for collection of hand grenades from Mr. Saroj Kumar Biswas. This further CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 292 corroborates the testimony of PW-1 about his complicity and that of Santoshanand and Gopalji in the criminal conspiracy.
210. PW-1 further testified that it was discussed by him, Gopalji, Arteshanand and Sudevanand that 110 cartridges brought by him from Mr. Saroj Kumar Biswas of Bangaon would be useless unless a suitable weapon for these cartridges was got manufactured. He further deposed that Arteshanand then stated that he would procure a weapon for these cartridges from one Manohar Darve, an ITI Instructor at Jabalpur, who was a staunch worker of VSS. As such, Arteshanand and Sudevanand left Chautham on this mission. Santoshanand came there 1-2 days after receipt of the telegram at Gopalji's house. He deposed that Santoshanand told him that Vinayanand would stay at Bangaon for the mission for which they had gone there. He further deposed that before return of Vinayanand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand to Chautham, he along with Santoshanand went to Patna in or about 2nd week of December 1973. They both went to house, which had been taken on rent at Gulzar Bagh. There Arteshanand and Sudevanand met them who were already present. Arteshanand told that he could not be successful in getting the arms manufactured by Manohar Darve for which purpose he was brought to Patna. Darve was not there at Patna when they reached there and had gone back.
211. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied that he has not mentioned in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that in the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 293 absence of Santoshanand and Vinayanand, it was discussed at Chautham that 110 cartridges brought from Bangaon would be useless unless a weapon for the same was got manufactured. He did not state that the job of manufacturing arms for use of 110 cartridges was entrusted to Arteshanand. He has not stated before the Magistrate that this was discussed amongst Gopalji, Arteshanand, Sudevanand and he himself. He voluntarily explained that he had not made a detailed statement.
212. The Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out certain improvements in the statement of PW-1 during the course of his cross-examination, to the effect that 110 cartridges would be useless unless a proper weapon is got made or that duty to procure the arms was assigned to Arteshanand. The course of cross-examination by the accused persons does not discredit the visit of PW-1 with Santoshanand in the house at Gulzar Bagh, where they met Arteshanand and Sudevanand. PW-1 has not stated in his examination in chief that duty to procure arms was assigned to Arteshanand and therefore the question of stating before the Magistrate in the previous statement does not arise. Moreover, as per the deposition of PW-1, it is Arteshanand himself who assured the co-conspirators that he would procure arms for those 110 cartridges. In fact, these are the matter of minor details, which all were not required to be mentioned in the previous statement.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 294
213. The prosecution has examined PW-105 Sh. Dass Narayan Sharma and PW-44 Sh. S.S. Vartak to prove that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, accused Arteshanand and Sudevanand tried to get a weapon manufactured from Manohar Darve, so that said 110 cartridges are used. PW-44 Sh. S.S. Vartak, Principal, ITI, Chhindwara, brought the leave application dated 16.12.1973 Ex.PW- 44/A of Manohar Darve and deposed that R.L. Malhotra was Principal, ITI Chhindwara at that time and he (PW-44) has succeeded him in the year 1974. He was able to identify the handwriting and signature of Sh. R.L. Malhotra, as he had seen him writing and signing since he took over the charge from him. He identified signatures of Sh. Darve on application Ex.PW-44/A at point A and of Sh. Malhotra on the order dated 28.12.1973 Ex.PW-44/B at point A. He testified that Manohar Darve was Anand Margi. He was detained under MISA in the year 1975. (Ex.PW-44/DA is the order of the Director, Employment and Training, Madhya Pradesh dated 15.07.1975, wherein it is mentioned that M.S. Darve, ITI, Chhindwara had been arrested and detained by Collector and District Magistrate, Chhindwara under MISA on 04.07.1975 and M.S. Darve is placed under suspension).
214. PW-44 admitted in his cross-examination that the application by M.S. Darve was submitted on medical grounds. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that when he was sick, he was not expected to come to Patna and PW-1 had deposed that it was in or about 2nd week of December CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 295 1973, when PW-1 along with Santoshanand went to Patna, and visited house at Gulzar Bagh where they met Arteshanand and Sudevanand and at that time Arteshanand told them that he could not be successful in getting arms manufactured by Manohar Darve for which purpose, Manohar Darve was brought there. It was argued that application for leave was submitted on 16.12.1973 which was allowed for the period from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973 and so in 2nd week, Sh. Manohar Darve cannot be expected in Patna. However, there is no force in the argument of Ld. Counsel as she urges this court to take a very technical approach of the deposition of PW-1 that it was in or about 2nd week of December 1973, when PW-1 along with Santoshanand went to Patna, and visited house at Gulzar Bagh. PW-1 has stated that it was in or about 2nd week of December 1973 and has deposed by approximation. The record reveals that Manohar Darve remained on earned leave with effect from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973. Manohar Darve was granted earned leave on his said application for the period from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973 vide order Ex.PW-44/B dated 26.12.1973.
215. Leave Application Ex.PW-44/A and Order dated 28.12.1973 Ex.PW-44/B passed by the Principal, ITI, Chhindwara sanctioning six earned leave from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973, are available in Folder R-7.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 296
216. Moreover, to avail medical leave only intimation is given and formal application is submitted only after availing the medical leave with medical certificate to take rest and fitness certificate. Medical leave is never applied in advance. PW-1 has testified the relevant period to be 2nd week of December 1973 by approximation. Therefore, it could be from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973, which is proved on record, when Manohar Darve remained on earned leave. This application clearly corroborates the statement of approver PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava that Manohar Darve was brought to Patna for manufacturing arms/revolver in or about 2nd week of December 1973 and he has been on earned leave from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973. Moreover, in the cross-examination, the defence has not controverted his assertion that Manohar Darve was an Anand Margi. Ld. Defence Counsel referred PW-105 Sh. Dass Narayan Sharma, who testified that Sh. Radhey Mahto gave his property on rent @ Rs.20/- per month to Aacharya Vinayanand. The house of Radhey Mahto is situated at some distance in Mohalla Tulsi Mandi, Gulzar Bagh. He deposed that once Aacharya Vinayanand brought a person "Mohan" and on asking, he allowed that person to stay in the night. The witness was declared hostile by the court and cross-examined by Ld. Special P.P. The witness could not conceal the truth in his further cross-examination by Ld. Special P.P. and it was successfully elicited that he did not remember whether that Manohar stayed in the karkhana (workshop) for 2/3 days or that he does not remember whether he stated to CBI CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 297 officer that Manohar Darve stayed there for 2/3 days. He testified that he does not want to say anything whether CBI officer has recorded his statement to the effect that Manohar Darve stayed for 2/3 days. It is clear enough that PW-105 stated to CBI officer about staying of Manohar Darve in his karkhana which was given on rent to Vinayanand.
217. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & anr. Vs. State of Gujarat 11 (2006) SLT 527 that the object of the criminal trial is to mete out justice and a trial should be search for truth and to convict the guilt and protect the innocent and a trial should be a search for the truth and not about over technicalities and the proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial and not by an isolated scrutiny. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that time has become ripe to act on account of numerous experiences faced by Courts on account of frequent turning of witnesses as hostile, either due to threats, coercion, lures and monetary considerations at the instance of those in power, their henchmen and hirelings, political clouts and patronage and innumerable other corrupt practices ingeniously adopted to smother and stifle the truth and realities coming out to surface rendering truth and justice to become ultimate casualties. Simply because a witness has been declared hostile and made different statements at different times does not lead to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 298 justification to reject his evidence and the Court should be slow to act on the testimony of such witness and his evidence has to be read as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to the same or not.
218. In view of the law of land declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (supra), this court is not to reject the testimony of hostile witness and the function of the court is to find the truth. No doubt, PW-105 has deposed in examination chief the name of visitor as Mohan instead of Manohar but when cross- examined by Ld. Special P.P., PW-105 could not conceal the truth. He could not deny if it was Manohar, who stayed there in the factory for 2 or 3 days. He also could not deny that he informed CBI about staying of Manohar Darve for 2/3 days, in his previous statement.
25) Shifting of arms to Gulzar Bagh, Patna
219. It is found in the statement of PW-1 that before return of Vinayanand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand at Chautham, he along with Santoshanand went to Patna in or about 2nd week of December 1973 in a house which had been taken on rent at Gulzar Bagh. Arteshanand and Sudevanand were already present there. He further deposed that arms and ammunitions, which had been kept at Chautham at Gopalji's house, had been brought at Patna and kept at the house at Gulzar Bagh. He stated that he used to stay in the same house whenever he went to Patna.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 299
220. In his cross-examination, when PW-1 was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-1/X, it was also not found recorded therein about his deposition that the arms and ammunitions kept at Gopalji's house at Chautham were brought in the house at Gulzar Bagh. He deposed that arms and ammunitions from Gopalji's house at Chautham were not shifted to the house at Gulzar Bagh, Patna in his presence and view but he voluntarily deposed that he had seen those arms and ammunitions "with his own eyes" in the house at Gulzar Bagh, Patna. When he was confronted with his previous statement the words "with own eyes" were not found mentioned. He did not remember the number of the house at Gulzar Bagh. He did not know the name of the owner of the house but voluntarily stated that this house was got rented by Das Narain Sharma, an Anand Margi. He had seen the arms and ammunitions kept in a jhola in the house at Gulzar Bagh. It is elicited in his cross-examination that decision to keep the arms and ammunition at Gopalji's house at Chautham was considered and taken at Bhagalpur and finally it was decided after Gopalji met them at Bhagalpur.
221. In the cross-examination of PW-1, the accused persons failed to demolish his testimony that arms were kept at the house at Chautham initially or that the same were shifted in December, 1973 in the house at Gulzar Bagh, Patna. When the basic fact of keeping the arms in house at Chautham or shifting thereof to the house at Gulzar Bagh, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 300 Patna, is not disputed, even if PW-1 has not stated in his previous statement about shifting of arms from Chautham to Gulzar Bagh does not affect the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, this improvement claimed by the accused persons made by PW-1 is not vital to impact the case.
222. There is no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-1 has not disclosed as to how the arms and ammunitions were shifted from the house of Gopalji at Chautham in the house at Gulzar Bagh and who was the person involved in shifting the arms and ammunitions and in which vehicle the same were carried from Chautham to Patna, since the cross-examination of PW-1 did not shatter the shifting of arms as deposed by the witness. It is to be kept in mind that this witness has never claimed having seen the shifting but as he stayed in this very house at Gulzar Bagh and having seen the storing of arms and ammunitions, he was competent enough to say so.
26) PW-1 tracking the movements of Bihar CM
223. In the criminal conspiracy that was hatched at Trimohan, PW-1 was assigned duty by Santoshanand to kill Abdul Gaffoor. To execute the conspiracy to kill Abdul Gaffoor, accused Santoshanand (A-1) directed PW-1 to watch movements of Abdul Gaffoor. PW-1 further deposed that A-1 told him that it would take time for Vinayanand to come back from Bangaon and in the meantime, he (PW-1) should follow the movements of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, the then Chief Minister CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 301 of Bihar. He told A-1 that he had not seen Abdul Gaffoor and he should be shown to him. He asked A-1 to find out where Abdul Gaffoor was living. Then A-1 brought a photograph of Abdul Gaffoor from the office of newspaper either 'PRADEEP' or 'Vishwabandhu', where father of A-1 was working. PW-1 saw the photograph and it was kept in the house at Gulzar Bagh. Then accompanied by Sudevanand and Arteshanand, PW-1 went to the place near which Abdul Gaffoor was residing. On return, they informed A-1 that he had acquainted himself of the surroundings of the residence of Gaffoor Saahib. Then A-1 suggested that he should go to the place of Abdul Gaffoor in the guise of a businessman, and survey the situation from the point of view whether action was possible there. He was provided coat, pant and shoes to be put on by him. He (PW-1) went to his house in the businessperson's guise, saw Abdul Gaffoor there, and found that the place was well guarded. He told Santoshanand in the presence of Arteshanand and Sudevanand that it was such a place from where it would be impossible to run away/escape after killing Gaffoor Sahib. He visited Bungalow of Abdul Gaffoor a week before 29.12.1973 at 04.00 or 05.00 PM.
224. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied that after seeing the photograph, he had seen Abdul Gaffoor in person at his residence. There was no register maintained at the entrance of his residence for making entries by the visitors. There was no "Pass" system at his residence. He did not remember the date of his visit to the residence CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 302 of Abdul Gaffoor but he visited him prior to his stay in Republic Hotel. He has not stated in detail before the Magistrate that Santoshanand told him that it would take time for Vinayanand to come back and in the meantime he should follow Abdul Gaffoor but it was not found mentioned in his statement Ex.PW-1/X. He replied that he has not stated that accompanied by Sudevanand and Arteshanand, he went to the places in the vicinity of area where Abdul Gaffoor was residing and on returning he informed Santoshanand that he had acquainted himself with the surroundings. He answered that he told Santoshanand that it would not be possible to run away after killing Abdul Gaffoor as the place was well guarded. He further testified that he did not try to read the nameplate of the occupant of the adjacent bungalow of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor. On the right side of the bungalow of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, there passes a road and on the left side, there was a bungalow. He did not know the name of that road. That link road meets the main road, which leads to the Secretariat. There was a bungalow across the link road and as far as he remembers, those bungalows were of the Ministers. He has denied the suggestion that those are the private bungalows near the bungalow of Abdul Gaffoor. He had not seen Mr. Abdul Gaffoor coming in and going from the kothi but he had seen him present in his bungalow. He did not remember the date when he saw Abdul Gaffoor present in his bungalow but it was before 29.12.1973 and time was 4.00 or 5.00 P.M. when he saw him. He has denied the suggestion that he had CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 303 never gone to the bungalow of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, that he had not seen him, or that he had made a false statement. He admitted that there was a police guard outside at the entrance. He did not try to know whether there was any reception. He had not tried to seek an interview with the Chief Minister. He had gone inside his bungalow. He had not taken any prior permission from his private secretary to go in. He clarified that he went there during usual interview timings fixed for the meeting the public. There were 20 or 25 persons present there waiting for an interview with the Chief Minister. He had seen 2 or 3 persons sitting with him. He did not know any person present there. He remained there waiting until Mr. Gaffoor came out to the room into the lawn. He continued to wait there for 1-1/2 hour. He replied that there might be system of recording entry of the visitors in the register and obtaining of their signatures at the main gate and he had no concern with that as he went there during public time to see the Chief Minister. He did not know if this register is also filled up during public meeting time. He could not remember the day of the week when he visited there. He saw 7-8 police officials in uniform. He went to the residence of Chief Minister in a dress of a businessman under the instructions of Santoshanand. He was instructed by Santoshanand to talk to the Chief Minister, if necessary to say that he wanted to open a factory and in that connection, he wanted his assistance to get land. He answered that had he been apprehended, he would have given the same excuse. He did not take any paper with CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 304 him. He did not state in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that he was asked by Santoshanand to go in the guise of a businessperson and survey the situation from the point of view of action. He did not carry any arm with him when he went to have a look of the Chief Minister.
225. There is no cross-examination as regards A-1 deputing PW-1 to track the movements of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor. The defence has not discredited PW-1 that accused Santoshanand brought a photograph of Abdul Gaffoor from the office of newspaper either 'PRADEEP' or 'Vishwabandhu'. The defence has also not derided the statement of PW-1 that father of Santoshanand was working in the editorial staff of these papers or that PW-1 saw the photograph of Abdul Gaffoor and kept the same in the house at Gulzar Bagh. The defence has also failed to dispute that PW-1 along with Sudevanand and Arteshanand, went to the place in the area where Abdul Gaffoor was residing. Therefore the testimony of PW-1 on these vital points goes unchallenged and could not be demolished or belied and the same is creditworthy.
226. PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal Prakash, whose testimony as regards his association with Anand Marg, being familiar with the organization and its publications and acquaintance with A-1 at Delhi as Editor is already discussed in the previous captions. What is relevant for the present is that the original name of accused Santoshanand was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 305 Ghanshyam Prasad son of Narinder Narain Verma, who was an employee of LIC and was also a Journalist working with the newspaper Vishwabandhu, at Patna. PW-33 identified A-1 in the court and deposed that he used to meet A-1 at Maha Chakra held in Patna. There is no iota to discredit in cross-examination of PW-33 on these points and his testimony is unshaken. Witness replied that father of A- 1 used to work in LIC as well as a journalist with "Vishwabandhu". Judicial notice of the fact can be taken note of that LIC of India has its lacs of agents throughout the country and they are not on the rolls of LIC and for that reason Ghanshyam Prasad worked as a freelancer to "Vishwabandhu" and "PRADEEP". PW-33 has also identified the A- 1 in the court correctly and his capability to identify A-1 is not questioned. Therefore, testimony of PW-33 cannot be doubted.
227. In order to prove that accused Santoshanand brought a photograph of Abdul Gaffoor from the newspaper "PRADEEP" or "Vishwabandhu" as stated by PW-1, the prosecution examined PW- 143 Ram Naresh Prasad, the then Advertisement Manager of Newspaper 'Vishwabandhu' published from Bihar during the period from 1972 to 1976. He testified that their newspaper "Vishwabandhu" is published from Bihar. Its publication is very old. He worked there as Advertisement Manager from 1972 to 1976. He deposed that photograph of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor used to be printed in their newspaper. The source of getting the photograph was Public Relations Department of Government of Bihar. Sh. N.N. Verma was part-time CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 306 worker with this Hindi daily newspaper 'Vishwabandhu'. He had seen Sh. N.N. Verma working in the newspaper during the period. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Sh. A.K. Sinha was owner of this Hindu Newspaper. He was also Editor and Manager. He admitted that he was not receiving the photographs and their blocks. These used to be received by Sh. A.K. Sinha. Whenever required, Sh. A.K. Sinha himself used to get prepared the blocks of photos and these blocks used to be in custody of A.K. Sinha. These could not be taken out of the premises. In his presence, blocks of Photo of Abdul Gaffoor were not received in the office. The defence could not shatter the testimony that photo of Abdul Gaffoor used to be published in the newspaper "Vishwabandhu" and Sh. N.N. Verma was a part time worker there. Thus testimony of PW-1 is corroborated to the effect that accused Santoshanand brought the photograph of Abdul Gaffoor from the newspaper office either 'PRADEEP' or 'Vishwabandhu' where his father was working. Admittedly, Sh. N.N. Verma is father of accused Santoshanand.
228. However, to demolish the testimony of PW-33, A-1 examined his brother Sh. Sushil Kumar s/o Narender Narain Verma as DW-9 on the points of avocation of his father. This witness conveniently stated that his father was working with National Insurance Company Limited without filing any document. He claimed that his father had retired in 1978. His elder brother was 20-21 years older to him and his parents informed him that his elder brother had left the house when he was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 307 about 18-20 months old and he cannot recognize his elder brother who became a Sanyasi. He stated his date of birth as 17.08.1962. In his cross-examination, he stated that name of his brother was Ghanshyam Prasad. He has denied the suggestion that his father was working in the editorial staff of "PRADEEP" newspaper published from Patna. He has not filed letter of appointment or salary slip etc. to indicate that his father (Narinder Narain Verma) was working with National Insurance Company Limited and retired there. Instead of examining DW-9, accused Santoshanand could have examined the Officer of National Insurance Company Limited, which is a subsidiary company of General Insurance Corporation of India, a Government of India undertaking to prove the alleged employment of his father there in order to demolish the case of the prosecution. A careful scrutiny of the deposition of this witness shows that his statement is superfluous and peripheral in so far as not extirpating the role of Santoshanand since DW-9 has no trace of knowledge concerning the activities of his brother who severed the ties and left the home, while DW-9 was still a child of less than of 2 years. Rather he corroborates the version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-33 that original name of accused Santoshanand was Ghanshyam Prasad and his father's name was Narinder Narain Verma.
229. From the examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination of DW-9 one fact remains certain that A-1 is known as Ghanshyam Prashad with his maiden name and the parentage is confirmed. There CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 308 is no material to believe that the father of A-1 was not a freelancer with "Vishwabandhu" or "PRADEEP".
230. There is no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution has not seized the visitor register at the reception of the residence of the then Chief Minister Abdul Gaffoor if any person by the name of Madan Mohan Srivastava or Visheshwaranand has visited there in the month of December 1973. PW-1 has clarified that he has gone to visit the Chief Minister at the time when it was meant for public meeting. There is also no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that Abdul Gaffoor was not examined by the prosecution to prove whether he had any threat perception from any member of Anand Marg Organisation. There was no necessity of examining Sh. Abdul Gaffoor as a prosecution witness since the motives of conspirators were admittedly not known to Abdul Gaffoor. It is a settled principle of law that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy. The conspirators have decided to kill certain persons including Madhavanand, Abdul Gaffoor, Sh. L.N. Mishra and others only with the purpose to pressurize the government to release their cult head, who had been in prison since December, 1971 and they had no personal enmity with Abdul Gaffoor. She also argued that the photograph of the Chief Minister of a State is easily available and is displayed in public places and PW-1 could be believed to say that he told Santoshanand that he had not seen Abdul Gaffoor and he should be shown to him. It has already come in the testimony of PW-143 that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 309 photographs of Abdul Gaffoor used to be published in their publication "Vishwabandhu" and Sh. N.N. Verma was a freelancer there. Sh. N.N. Verma is none but the father of accused Santoshanand. PW-33 has also deposed so, therefore the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence that Santoshanand brought a photograph of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor from the newspaper "PRADEEP" or "Vishwabandhu", where his father was working on the editorial staff. The accused persons including Santoshanand have not at all shattered the testimony of PW- 1 that the father of Santoshanand was working in the editorial staff of "PRADEEP" or "Vishwabandhu" from where Santoshanand brought a Photograph of Abdul Gaffoor and handed over the same to him. Thus, the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel falls to the ground. Moreover, the deposition of PW-1 of having seen the photo of CM and later tracking his movements, corroborated by the testimony of PW-143, who deposed that their publication used to get photographs from PRD of Bihar, being the main fact in issue, the mere defence that PW-1 deposed falsehood of the source of the photograph melts into the background.
231. PW-1 further testified that Santoshanand then enquired whether Abdul Gaffoor used to come to Republic Hotel. PW-1 went there to ascertain whether Abdul Gaffoor would be visiting the hotel or not. PW-1 also stayed there on the night of 29.12.1973 under the assumed name of Shankar Kumar Gupta. He signed the entry in the register of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 310 the hotel as S.K. Gupta of Karol Bagh, Delhi. He proved the entry of his stay in the Republic Hotel to be in his own handwriting Ex.PW-1/P and he mentioned his name as Shankar Kumar Gupta (Q-8) of S-8/19, S.W.A. Karol Bagh, Delhi and he signed as S.K. Gupta. He had taken balance from the Hotel on 30.12.1973 after a deduction of Rs.40/- vide Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q9) bearing his signatures as S.K. Gupta.
232. In the cross-examination of PW-1, it is found that he did not know the name of Manager of Republic Hotel as there was no need to know his name. He did not know name of any bearer of Republic Hotel. He could not say the exact time when he checked in the Republic Hotel and at what time, he left but he deposed that it was before sunset on 29.12.1973 and left in the morning next day. He did not remember the room number in which he stayed. He did not remember if he had noted time of arrival and departure. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the Hotel Register and Inn-Register are forged documents. He has also denied the suggestion that the entries did not exist or had been sandwiched/ interpolated subsequently. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 replied that he enquired about the arrival of Abdul Gaffoor at Republic Hotel from the Bearer. It is worthwhile to mention here that visit of PW-1 to Hotel Republic, Patna on 29.12.1973 under pseudonyms of Shankar Kumar Gupta or S.K. Gupta is not shaken in his cross- examination by the defence.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 311
233. Sheet of the Register of Republic Hotel contains an entry dated 29.12.1973 Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q (Q-8) in respect of stay of SHANKER KUMAR GUPTA R/o S-8/19 S.W.A. Karol Bagh, Delhi. Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9) is the Cash Voucher dated 30.12.1973, which is signed as S.K. Gupta on 30.12.1973. Ex.PW-17/A is a bill dated 30.12.1973 of Hotel Republic issued in the name of Shankar Kumar Gupta. This bill Ex.PW-17/A is available in the bound Bill Book of Republic Hotel (D-54). (One sheet of Register Ex.PW-1/P (left side of the sheet) and Ex.PW-1/Q (right side of the sheet) (Q-8) is available in Folder R-7 and Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9) is available in Folder R-4. Bill Ex.PW-17/A is available in Folder R-47)
234. PW-16 Sh. Lakshman Prasad, Barman in Republic Hotel, Patna testified that he has been working as Barman in the Republic Hotel, Patna since 1955. He deposed that Abdul Gaffoor was previously Chief Minister of Bihar and he knew him by face. Earlier he was MLC. He knew him even after becoming Chief Minister of Bihar. He visited Republic Hotel once or twice after becoming Chief Minister of Bihar. He used to visit to meet some persons staying in the Hotel. Abdul Gaffoor used to visit Sh. R.K. Gupta of Ludhiana during his stay in the Hotel.
235. In his cross-examination, PW-16 replied that he had seen him last time after 2/3 years in the year 1974-75. This corroborates the information, which accused Santoshanand conveyed to PW1 to the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 312 effect that the then Chief Minister Abdul Gaffoor used to visit Republic Hotel at Patna. He testified that there has been no Head Barman or Head Bearer in the Republic Hotel. He did not state to CBI that he was a Head Bearer. He replied that Abdul Gaffoor did not take liquor in the Hotel. He never served Sh. Abdul Gaffoor with liquor. His duty hours in the H otel were from 10.00 AM to 10.00 PM. Liquor remains in the custody of Barman and not in his custody. He answered that Sh. Abdul Gaffoor was aged about 42/44 years, when he had seen him for the first time. He did not remember the number of the room of the Hotel in which he had seen Sh. Abdul Gaffoor for the last time in 1974-1975. He could not tell the date or month of having seen Abdul Gaffoor. Sh. Abdul Gaffoor used to take Lime Water or Limca or Coca Cola. He was not aware whether Abdul Gaffoor was diabetic. He had not seen him actually taking Coca Cola etc., as after serving him the said drinks, he used to come out. Abdul Gaffoor never gave him any tip. Abdul Gaffoor used to visit the Hotel only for meeting and for no other purpose. His stay in the Hotel would be for about half an hour or an hour. He might have visited the hotel two or four times in all during the period of three or four years. It was not necessary that Sh. Abdul Gaffoor would visit Republic Hotel on each occasion when Sh. R.K. Gupta of Ludhiana was staying there. There used to be entries about stay of Sh. R.K. Gupta in Hotel Republic. He testified that when a stranger comes to Hotel Republic with some luggage, advance is taken from him. They do not charge any advance CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 313 from the person known to them. If the rent of the room is Rs.25/-, a sum of Rs.50/- used to be taken as advance. He testified that a bill is prepared when a customer leaves the Hotel. A receipt is given to the person at the time of taking advance from him. They do not obtain signature of the person-paying advance and rather receipt is issued to him. Normally, signatures of stranger staying in the Hotel are taken on the bills. He replied that no prior intimation was given to their Hotel about the intending visits of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, when he was the Chief Minister. Police were not making any arrangement in the Hotel before the visit of Sh. Gaffoor there. He also did not have any prior information about the intending visit of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor to the Hotel Republic on any particular date. He was not introduced to Sh. Abdul Gaffoor by anyone. He answered that Sh. Abdul Gaffoor never called him by his name. Sh. Abdul Gaffoor was about five and an half feet in height, medium built; Sanwala colour and his hairs were grey and black, dressed backside. He used not to wear any cap. Every time Sh. Abdul Gaffoor used to visit Hotel Republic to meet Sh. R.K. Gupta. It is elicited in his cross-examination that once upon a time, Sh. Abdul Gaffoor came to Hotel Republic along with Kashi Babu to meet Sh. R.K. Gupta. Sh. Gaffoor used to visit Hotel Republic on the invitations of his friends like Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta of Ludhiana and Sh. Kashi Babu of Eliphstan Cinema Hall. He did not state in his previous statement to CBI that Sh. Abdul Gaffoor used to visit Hotel Republic several times on invitation of many persons.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 314
236. A scrutiny of the deposition of PW-16 reflects that in his examination-in-chief he has testified that he has been working as a barman in Hotel Republic since 1955. He knew by face Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, former Chief Minister of Bihar. Sh. Abdul Gaffoor was earlier an MLC and used to visit Hotel Republic. He used to visit the hotel to meet some persons like Sh. R.K. Gupta of Ludhiana, staying in the Hotel. After he became Chief Minister, he visited there once or twice. In his examination in chief, he has used the word "used to visit" for the visit of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister, which indicate that Sh. Abdul Gaffoor has been a frequent visitor. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that he lastly saw him in the year 1974-75 after two or three years. The line of answers of the witness in the cross-examination indicate that he knew Sh. Abdul Gaffoor very well and he informed his height, body built, complexion and colour of the hair and dressing style. The defence themselves got elicited the visits of Abdul Gaffoor to Hotel Republic in cross-examination of the witness, which solidifies the version of the prosecution. The witness had also seen him in October/November, 1975 visiting Hotel Republic. The testimony of the witness could not be discarded if he could not remember the date and month of visit of Sh. Gaffoor in the Hotel. As per the case of the prosecution, PW-1 has stayed in Hotel Republic on the night of 29.12.1973 to ascertain whether Sh. Abdul Gaffoor would be staying and taking his meal in Hotel Republic. In his examination in chief, PW-16 supported the case of the prosecution, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 315 when he stated that he knew Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, former MLC and later became CM of Bihar and used to visit Hotel Republic to meet some persons like Sh. R.K. Gupta. PW-16 had seen him visiting the Hotel even in subsequent years 1974-75 and in October/November, 1975. PW-1 had gone there only to ascertain whether Abdul Gaffoor would be staying and taking his meal in the Hotel and the answers to the questions in the cross-examination, corroborates the case of the prosecution that Abdul Gaffoor has visited even subsequently. It is a matter of common prudence that when a very important person like Abdul Gaffoor, a former MLC and Chief Minister visit any particular place, it makes an impression in the mind of the public at large that such very important person might be a frequent visitor at that place. Obviously, accused Santoshanand under that impression deputed PW- 1 to ascertain staying and taking of meal by Sh. Abdul Gaffoor in Hotel Republic. In the cross-examination of PW-16, the defence has not discredited the visits of Abdul Gaffoor in Hotel Republic in the year 1973 or before that. The testimony of PW-16 as a whole has not been discredited. As per the deposition of PW-16, Abdul Gaffoor has been a frequent visitor to Hotel Republic and this corroborates the information which accused Santoshanand conveyed to PW1 to the effect that Abdul Gaffoor used to visit Republic Hotel at Patna.
237. PW-17 Sh. Sudershan Banerjee testified that in December 1973, he was working at reception of Hotel Republic and during the night intervening 29th and 30th December 1973, he was on duty at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 316 Reception. He deposed that whenever a stranger comes to Hotel Republic for the first time, they used to take advance from him. The visitor to Hotel Republic used to make entry in the Visitor's Register in his own hand. Memos are prepared with regard to the meals served to the customer staying in the Hotel. In case, amount of advance taken from the customer was more than the expenses, voucher used to be prepared to refund the excess amount. He further deposed that Sh. H.K. Singha used to work with him in the hotel at the reception during the period he was employed there. He had seen him (Sh. H.K. Singha) writing and signing and he would be in a position to identify his handwriting and signatures. The witness (PW-17) had seen the carbon copy of bill Ex.PW-17/A and identified the writing on Ex.PW-17/A-1 to be in the handwriting of Sh. H.K. Singha. He also testified that the writing encircled with red pencil on Ex.PW-17/A is also in the handwriting of Sh. H.K. Singha. He identified his own handwriting on Ex.PW-17/A encircled with blue pencil with his initials also. He testified that Sh. H.K. Singha was on duty before him on that day and Mr. Sher Khil took over from him as a Receptionist on 30.12.1973. Sh. Sher Khil had also worked with him and seen him writing and signing and for that reason, he could identify his handwriting and signature. At the time of deposition in the court, this witness has also seen the document and deposed that the point A-2, A-3 and A-4 on Ex.PW-17/A are in the handwriting of Sh. Sher Khil and at the foot of A-2 and A-4, he identified the signatures of Sh. Sher Khil. He was not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 317 aware of the whereabouts of Sh. Sher Khil. The said bill was prepared in accordance with the entries made in the Register. He testified that entry Ex.PW-1/P was found existing in the Visitor's Register when he joined duties as a Receptionist on 29.12.1973 at 10.00 PM. After perusing the Voucher Ex.PW-1/R, PW-17 stated that this is in the handwriting of said Sher Khil. About Sh. H.K. Singha he stated that he might be about 72 or 75 years old and was a heart patient.
238. In the cross-examination of PW-17, he replied that the page having the entry Ex.PW-1/P must have been in the Register and from there it must have been taken out. A Visitor coming to the Hotel sign s in the Visitor's Register and entry is made therein by the Visitor and they would insist in obtaining the signature of the Visitors on the entry made by the Visitor in the Visitors Register. He identified the entry Ex.PW-1/P at Serial No. 8025 in the handwriting of Sh. H.K. Singha. He clarified that the entry in the Visitor Register in respect of a person coming earlier would be made first and in respect of a person, coming subsequently would be made later. A receipt was used to be given to a customer at the time of taking advance from him and a carbon copy thereof was used to be prepared. In the Cash Voucher, the number of the receipt regarding the advance is mentioned. After perusing the Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R, he deposed that number of advance receipt is not mentioned, but reference of bill number is there. The Manager passes the vouchers and then those are sent in the account section. Ms. Ghosh was working as an Accountant in the Republic Hotel in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 318 those days and he identified her signatures at Point A on the Voucher Ex.PW-1/R. He replied that Bill Ex.PW-17/A bears his own handwriting made at 10.00 PM on 29.12.1973, which indicate that he was on duty at that time. It bears his initial on this bill. He has also identified the entry in the visitors register Ex.PW-1/P, which is a part of right side of the visitors register and has been separately exhibited as Ex.PW-1/Q. (Ex.PW-17/A is a bill no. 8025 of Hotel Republic which was issued in the name of Sh. Shankar Kumar Gupta on 30.12.1973. This is available in the bound Bill Book of Republic Hotel in Folder R-47). (Sheet of Visitor's Register Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q (having questioned writing Q-8) is available in Folder R-
7).
239. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has not examined Sh. H.K. Singha and Mr. Sher Khil, Receptionist to prove the Bill and Voucher. There is no need to bring any more evidence which becomes superfluous to formulate that the CM visited the Hotel Republic and PW-1 having tracked him. There is no merit in their arguments since PW-17 has not only identified the handwriting of Sh. H.K. Singha on Bill Ex.PW-17/A but also his own handwriting encircled with blue pencil and his initials. He has also identified the handwriting of Ms. Ghosh, Accountant and Sh. Sher Khil, Receptionist. It is not suggested in the cross-examination of PW-17 that he had not seen Mr. Singha or Mr. Sher Khil or Ms. Ghosh writing and signing. The testimony of PW-17 could not be demolished CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 319 in cross-examination by the defence on any of the point deposed by him. While dissecting his testimony this court finds the same to be trustworthy.
240. PW-147 Mr. Clifford Boile, the then Manager of Hotel Republic, Patna deposed that from January 1975 to June 1976, he had worked as Manager, Hotel Republic, Patna. Earlier also he had worked there as Assistant Manager from 1959 to 1961 and as Manager from 1961 to 1962. He deposed that they were maintaining a Visitor's Register in Hotel Republic, Patna. Whenever a visitor came to their Hotel for stay, the person present at the reception, used to make inquiry from him as to for how long he intended to stay and what type of accommodation was needed by him. On being satisfied, the visitor used to make entries in the Visitor's Register in his own handwriting. The Visitor Register used to be a bound register. He testified that most of the visitors in Hotel Republic were regular visitors. Whenever a visitor was not a regular one, he was required to deposit advance at the time of getting accommodation and this advance used to vary depending on the type of accommodation required by him. PW-147 further testified that the document (D-49) having entry Ex.PW-1/P and besides other entries bear his signature at Point 'B' (two places) on two pages with date 03.05.1975. He had also seen the Cash Voucher dated 30.12.1973 of Hotel Republic, Patna Ex.PW-1/R and it bears his signatures at two places C and D with date appended under both the signature in his handwriting. Vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-134/A, he CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 320 handed over sheet from the Visitor's Register having entry Ex.PW-1/P and Bill Ex.PW-17/A contained in the Bill Book having Bill nos. 8001 to 8100. He deposed that Seizure Memo Ex.PW-134/A bears his signature at point B. He asserted that Bill Ex.PW-17/A was contained in this Bill Book, when it was handed over by him to the CBI Officers. At that time, he has signed the Bill Ex.PW-17/A, bearing Bill No. 8025 at point F with date 03.05.1975. He stated that in fact these bills were given to Bihar Police. In his further statement, he deposed that police officers asked him entire Visitor Register, but he did not give the register, as it was required for audit purposes. He himself took out the page having entry Ex.PW-1/P from the Visitor's Register and signed this sheet of Visitors Book having entry Ex.PW-1/P at the time it was given to the Police Officer. He further deposed that Seizure Memo dated 19.9.1975 Ex.PW-129/B bears his signature at point 'A'. Vide this Seizure Memo he handed over Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R to the Police on 19.09.1975. He signed the Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R at point 'C' at the time it was handed over to the Police Officer. He explained that he did not part with this Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R on 03.05.1975 since he was to obtain permission from the Accounts Officer. However, on 03.05.1975, he had shown this Cash Voucher No. 4 Ex.PW-1/R to the Bihar Police Officer and at that time, he and Bihar Police Officer had signed this document. He confirmed that Sh. H.K. Singha and Sh. S. Banerjee (PW-17) and Devashish Sher Khil were working as Receptionist in Hotel Republic in the year 1975. He CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 321 also testified that whenever amount was obtained from a visitor as advance, a receipt was issued to him. If at the time of checking out of that customer, he was to pay charges, more than the amount of advance, they used to obtain balance amount from him and in case the amount was less, they used to return the balance amount against the Cash Voucher No. 4. At the time of deposition in the court, the witness has seen the Cash Voucher No. 4 Ex.PW-1/R and asserted that it was in the handwriting of Devashish Sher Khil. He deposed that he was familiar with his handwriting and signatures, as he had seen Sher Khil writing and signing, while he was working under him. The witness has also seen the portion Mark A-2, A-3 and A-4, encircled with red pencil, on Bill No. 8025 Ex.PW-17/A and stated that this was in the handwriting of Sh. Devashish Sher Khil. He deposed that he had seen Sh. H.K. Singha writing and signing, since he was working under him. He also identified that that the portion X1 and X2 on the said Bill Ex.PW-17/A are in the handwriting of Sh. H.K. Singha. (Seizure Memo Ex.PW-129/B by which Cash Voucher No. 4 of 30.12.1973 of Hotel Republic was seized by PW-129 Sh. N.N. Singh from Mr. Clifford Boile (PW-147) is available in Folder R-2)
241. In his cross-examination, PW-147 replied that there used to be one person on duty at the Reception at one time. The accounts office was located on the ground floor and that of the Manager on the first floor. The bills of the guests used to be prepared at the Reception. One copy of the bill used to be given to the customer and another used CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 322 to be sent to accounts section. The bill book and third copy used to be kept at the Reception Counter under the control of the Manager. Visitor's Register used to be maintained at the Reception. At the time when he handed over the documents to the Bihar Police Officer, he signed the first and last page of the Visitor's Register. The Bihar Police Officer came to him in his room and he did not contact any of the before said person. He deposed that Receptionist is not required to fill all the columns of the Visitor's Register. He admitted that on the sheet of Visitors Register serial numbers are not mentioned despite having relevant column. He has denied the suggestion that the entry Ex.PW-1/P is a bogus one or was incorporated subsequently or that it was not a part of the Visitors Register. He stated voluntarily that there is a printing of page number on this document (Ex.PW-1/P). In his further cross-examination, PW-147 answered that the Bill Book (D-
154) was regularly maintained. He admitted that in this Bill Book, bill no. 8031 relates to check out dated 2.1.1973 and bill no. 8032 relates to check out dated 31.12.1973. He also admitted that the Bill No. 8034 relates to check out dated 03.01.1974, whereas the Bill No. 8035 and 8036 relates to check out dated 01.01.1975. He also admitted that the Bill No. 8019 in the Bill Book (D-154) relates to the check out date 02.01.1973 and the Bill No. 8025 Ex.PW-17/A relates to check out date 30.12.1973. He has denied the suggestion that between 30.12.1973 and 02.01.1974 only five persons checked out in Hotel Republic, Patna. He admitted that the Bills are prepared date-wise in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 323 respect of the customer, who checks in the Hotel Republic, Patna. He has denied the suggestion that this Bill Book was not regularly maintained or that he has made tutored statement. He deposed that the month April to March is used to be their accounting year and closing year in respect of this entry would be 31st March 1974. The audit of accounting period April 1973 to March 1974 was done by the end of the year 1974. He asserted that Visitor Register was not maintained year-wise. A new register is used to start when the previous register was completely written or if the earlier register got torn off. Normally a Visitor Register used to be completed in 1½ or 2 years. As far as he remembered, the sheet of the Visitor Register, given to the police, was taken out from the Visitor Register, which was started in the year 1972 and it continued to contain entries until 1974. He further asserted that he informed the Bihar Police Officer that it was a running Visitor Register and it was still required for audit purposes. He replied that he handed over the original Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R to the Police as it was no more required for audit purposes. He has denied the suggestion that Cash Book and Vouchers are audited separately. He answered that both are audited simultaneously. He has denied the suggestion that CBI officer did not ask for the Visitor Register from which the sheet was given to Bihar Police Officer. They have preserved the Visitor's Book. It must be lying in the Hotel Republic, Patna even now. He remembered that Police Officer asked him to preserve the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 324 Visitor's Book as the same might be required. Voucher Ex.PW-1/R is available in Folder R-4.
242. Perusal of the testimony of PW-147 reflects that the same could not be shaken in his cross-examination. This witness has also proved the handwriting and signatures of Sh. Sher Khil and Mr. H.K. Singha on the Bill Ex.PW-17/A and of Mr. Sher Khil on the Voucher Ex.PW- 1/R. His deposition that they required the Visitor's Register for audit purpose as it was a running register, has not been shaken by the defence in his cross- examination. The deposition of PW-47 that he himself took out the page having entry Ex.PW-1/P from the Visitor's Register and signed this sheet of Visitors Book having entry Ex.PW- 1/P at the time it was given to the Police Officer, is also not discredited in his cross-examination by any of the accused persons. His testimony that the Visitor Register was not maintained year-wise, and a new register is used to start when the previous register was completely written or if the earlier register got torn off, is not at all shattered by the defence.
243. PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha deposed that in February 1974 he was posted as Inspector with Intelligence Branch, also known as Special Branch, of Bihar Police with Headquarter at Patna. He testified that on 29.4.1975, on receiving information from Deputy SP C.D. Prasad upon which he went his house and found Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay (PW-1) there and arrested CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 325 him on the same day. He produced him before CJM, Patna on the same day. On obtaining his police remand, he interrogated PW-1 and recorded the statement of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava in his case diary. He interrogated him from 30.04.1975 to 03.05.1975 and recorded his statement on 03.05.1975. On interrogation, he (PW-1) disclosed that he made an entry in the register of Hotel Republic, Patna as 'Shankar Kumar Gupta' on 29.12.1973 and signed that entry as 'Shankar Kumar Gupta'. He also testified that PW-1 disclosed to him that he signed Cash Voucher of the Hotel Republic as 'Shankar Kumar Gupta'. He further testified that on the same day i.e. 03.5.1975 at about 4.00 PM, he went to Hotel Republic, Patna and asked for the production of Visitors' Register, Cash Voucher and Bills in respect of Shankar Kumar Gupta for 29.12.1973. Two sheets of Register were produced before him containing the entries Ex.PW-1/Q and Ex.PW- 1/P and he put the signatures on both these sheets at that time. The Hotel Manager Mr. Clifford Boile (PW-147) at point "B" also signed these sheets in his presence. He also deposed that Refund Voucher Ex.PW-1/R was also produced before him by the Manager, which he signed at Point A and Manager Clifford Boile (PW-147) signed at point B in his presence. He deposed that entry Mark Q-8, signatures Q-9 of S.K. Gupta also existed on two sheets Mark D-49 at the time the same were seized by him and it was one continuing sheet, which he took into possession from the Visitor's Register. He did not take into possession complete Visitor's Register due to request of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 326 Manager that it was a running register. He deposed that the Manager did not give him the voucher though it was signed by him and he (PW-
134) instructed the Manager that the voucher should be preserved. He also deposed that Bill Book containing serial No. 8001 to 8100 was shown to him by the Manager, in which he found a Bill Ex.PW-17/A in the name of Shankar Kumar Gupta at serial no. 8025 dated 30.12.1973. He (PW-134) signed the first page at point A and on the last page at point B and on the bill no. 8025 Ex.PW-17/A at point C contained in the bill book. He obtained signatures of Mr. Clifford Boile (PW-147) at point D, E and F on the first page, last page and bill no. 8025 of the said bill book. He prepared a Seizure Memo Ex.PW- 134/A on 3.5.1975 in respect of the sheets and bill book (containing Bill Ex.PW-17/A) and the Seizure Memo bear his signatures at point A and of Clifford Boile (PW-147) at point B. He has showed this document as a receipt.
244. In his cross-examination, PW-134 replied that he did not take any step to get Madan Mohan Srivastava identified from the employees of Hotel Republic, Patna to find out whether he was the same person, who stayed in Hotel Republic, Patna under the name of Shankar Kumar Gupta. He did not take Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava along with him, as he knew the location of Hotel Republic, Patna. It is a well-known Hotel of Patna. He answered that since the Manager expressed his difficulty in parting with the register, which was a running one, so he seized only the page having the relevant entry CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 327 against a valid receipt and gave a direction to the Manager to preserve the whole of the register. He admitted that relevant entry is the last entry for 29.12.1973 on the sheet. He testified that the Manager, Hotel Republic, Patna gave the relevant sheet to him, after he removed it from the Visitor's Register. The witness was shown the relevant entry Ex.PW-1/P on which he did not find page number. He explained that the sheet is now in torn condition. The receipt of taking into possession the documents from Hotel Republic, Patna was got typed in the Hotel. He did not take into possession the Refund Voucher Ex. PW-1/R and he left it in the hotel after he initialed the same. He made a request to the Manager to handover the Refund Voucher, who expressed his inability as it pertained to account department and on that account, he directed him in writing that it should be preserved. He admitted that Bill No. 8025 is dated 30.12.1973 and while Bill No. 8026 is dated 05.01.1974. He also admitted that Bill No. 8027 is dated 31.12.1973 and 8030 is dated 01.01.1973. He further admitted that Bill No. 8031 is dated 02.01.1973 and while Bill No. 8032 is dated 31.12.1973. He further admitted that Bill No. 8034 is dated 03.01.1974 and while Bill No. 8035 is dated 01.01.1974. In his further cross-examination, PW-134 denied the suggestion of the defence that he took Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand (PW-1) to his house and kept him there for two or three days. He had denied the suggestion that he came to know of the particulars of Visheshwaranand on 10.02.1974. He volunteered to state that he was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 328 not the investigation officer on 10.02.1974 and the investigation of this case was entrusted to him on 28.02.1974. In his further cross- examination, PW-134 testified that Madan Mohan Srivastava was allowed bail on 08.05.1975 and his statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr. PC on 12.05.1975. He remained under interrogation until 07.05.1975. He has denied the suggestion that a deal was struck with Madan Mohan Srivastava to make a statement on the condition that he would be allowed to rejoin his post, which he left in 1964. He deposed that Deputy S.P. Sh. Jata Shankar Khan of Intelligence Branch, Darbhanga, apprehended Visheshwaranand. (Seizure Memo dated 03.05.1975 Ex.PW-134/A, by which Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) has seized Full Page No. 187 of the Visitor's Book containing entries from 28.12.1973 to 03.01.1974 including the entry dated 29.12.1973 in the name of Sh. Shankar Kumar Gupta and Hotel Republic Bill Book, containing Bill No. 8001 dated 29.12.1973 to 8100 dated 10.01.1974 including carbon copy of Bill No. 8025 dated 30.12.1973 in respect of Mr. Shankar Kumar Gupta, were seized from Mr. C. Boile, Manager of Hotel Republic, Patna, is available in Folder R-5)
245. I have already referred in previous part of this judgment about PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad with whom PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava had worked from the year 1961 to 1975. This witness has also identified the signatures of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava as S.K. Gupta Ex.PW-1/Q in the sheet of Hotel Republic. He deposed CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 329 that these are the signatures in the handwriting of Madan Mohan Srivastava. In his deposition, the sheet of the Hotel Republic was mentioned as Ex.PW-1/T instead of Ex.PW-1/P, which appears to be a clerical/typographical error. He has also identified signatures Ex.PW- 1/R (Q-9) on the Cash Voucher and deposed that these are in the handwriting of Madan Mohan Srivastava. He replied that writing at Point 'X' encircled with blue ink on Ex.PW-1/R is not in the handwriting of Madan Mohan Srivastava. No other writing and signature of PW-1 was questioned by the defence. Competency of this witness to identify the writing or signatures was never discredited by the defence. Hence, this unchallenged testimony of PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad corroborates the deposition of PW-1 that he stayed in Hotel Republic under assumed name of Shankar Kumar Gupta, which is corroborated further with the testimony of PW-134.
246. PW-129 Sh. Narinder Nath Singh, the then Inspector, CBI at Patna stated that he remained associated with the investigation of this case from March 1975 to November 1975 under the direction and supervision of the Chief Investigating Officer, Sh. H.L. Ahuja. He deposed that he visited Hotel Republic during the investigation of this case on 19.9.1975 and seized one Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (D-15) from Mr. Clifford Boile (PW-147), Manager of the Hotel vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-129/B, which was signed by the Manager Mr. Boile at point 'A'. In his cross-examination, PW-129 answered that he did not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 330 seize any other document except the Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R from Hotel Republic. He further deposed that this Refund Voucher Ex.PW- 1/R also relates to stay of Shankar Kumar Gupta. He has mentioned the date of the Voucher in his case diary as 30.12.1973. At the time of taking into possession Voucher Ex.PW-1/R, he did not know who this S.K. Gupta was. He came to know about Sh. S.K. Gupta within a month of taking into possession the Voucher Ex.PW-1/R. Sh. S.K. Gupta was the pseudonym of Madan Mohan Srivastava. He met him after taking into possession Ex.PW-1/R. He admitted that in the seizure memo Ex.PW-129/B the bill number was mentioned as 4025 instead of 8025 due to clerical mistake.
247. PW-129 went on to depose that he met Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava in the office of Superintendent Engineer, PWD at Darbhanga on 22.9.1975. At that time, he obtained his specimen writing and signatures on 15 sheets Ex.PW-1/W-1 to PW-1/W-15 and he gave his specimen writing and signatures voluntarily in the presence of Sh. R.B.P. Yadav, P.A. to Superintendent Engineer. Sh. Yadav has also signed on these documents at point 'X' in his presence. PW-1 has also confirmed at page no.36 of his statement that he has given his specimen writings and signatures Ex.PW-1/W-1 to Ex.PW1/W-15 (S-45 to S-59) voluntarily. He testified that documents Ex.PW-1/T, Ex.PW-1/U and Ex.PW-1/V bear his handwritings, which he had written during his posting in the office of Superintendant Engineer, Darbhanga. He admitted writings on these three documents, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 331 which are Mark A-73 to A-77. PW-43 Sh. B. Lal, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Shimla examined these specimen handwriting and signatures of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava S-45 to S-59 (Ex.PW-1/W-1 to PW-1/W-15) and admitted writing Mark A-73 to A-77 on Ex.PW-1/T to Ex.PW-1/V and compared with questioned writing Ex.PW-1/P (Q-8) in the sheet of the register of Hotel Republic Ex.PW-1/5 and on the Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9). (Documents Ex.PW-1/T to Ex.PW-1/V, having admitted writing Mark A-73 to Mark A-77 of PW-1 are available in the Folder R-4). He (PW-43) deposed (at page no. 931 and 932 of his statement) that the person (Madan Mohan Srivastava), who wrote both these writings S-45 to S-59 and A-73 to A-77 also wrote the writing Mark Q-8 (an entry in the register of Visitors of Hotel Republic Ex.PW-1/Q reading as S.K. Gupta and PW-1/P, marked Q-8 in different column, signatures reading as S.K. Gupta on the Cash Voucher of Hotel Republic, Patna (Q-9) and marked as Ex.PW-1/R). He further deposed that both these writings agreed in general and individual writing habits, such as, movements, which is wrist predominant, pen presentation, which is about 70 degrees, pen pressure, which is medium, shading, which is smooth and usually on downwards strokes, skill, which is medium, speed, relative size, spacing, proportion of letters. He also found similarities in individual writing habits for the detailed reasons given in his deposition and in his opinion Ex.PW-43/P-1 to P-20. He also deposed that questioned CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 332 writings are free in execution, there is no question of imitation in their production, and the above similarity when collectively considered proved the common authorship. This further corroborates the statement of PW-1 that he stayed in Hotel Republic under assumed name of 'S.K. Gupta' to watch the movement of Abdul Gaffoor on the direction of accused Santoshanand.
248. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-1 should have been taken to Hotel Republic for his test identification parade from the hotel employees to confirm and prove whether he (PW-1) stayed there as 'Shankar Kumar Gupta' on 29.12.1973. Nevertheless, there is no force in the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel when the writing on the record of Hotel Republic has not only been admitted by PW-1 in his own handwriting and admitted his signatures. Further, PW-126A has identified the signatures of PW-1 as S.K. Gupta on the Register Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q and on the Voucher Ex.PW-1/R. Further, PW-43 Sh. B. Lal, GEQD has also proved by his expert opinion that that the person (Madan Mohan Srivastava), who wrote both these specimen writings S-45 to S-59 and admitted writing A-73 to A-77, also wrote the questioned writing Mark Q-8 on the Visitors Register Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q and Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9). Therefore, there was no occasion for the prosecution to get conducted TIP of PW-1 from the employees of Hotel Republic, Patna namely PW-16, PW-17, PW-147, Sh. H.K. Singha and Mr. Sher Khil and others. For the same reason, there was no necessity for prosecution to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 333 verify the Karol Bagh address, given by PW-1 to the Hotel Staff of Hotel Republic.
249. Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate argued that Bill Book (containing Bill Ex.PW-17/A) is not maintained in chronologically and appeared to be fabricated one. The argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel on the face of it look to be attractive but it has no force, when bill book is perused very minutely. This bill book containing Bill Ex.PW-17/A is a bound volume having copies of bills from serial no.8001 to 8100. These copies of the bills in the said bill book reflect that the entries in the bill book are made by the date of arrival of the visitor in the Hotel and bill is issued on the date of departure. The relevant bill no.8025 Ex.PW-17/A shows that Shankar Kumar Gupta arrived at the Hotel on 29.12.1973 at 8.35 PM. He stayed there in Room No.41. His name is mentioned at point Ex.PW- 17/A-1 and in body of the bill both dates of arrival as 29.12.1973 and departure as 30.12.1973 are mentioned. On the left top of the bill, it is mentioned that the visitor paid Rs.50/- in advance and his bill was for Rs.40.28. This bill was issued on 30.12.1973. The next bill no. 8026 was issued on 3.1.1974 and in the body of the bill the dates of arrival and departure of the visitor are mentioned as 30.12.1973 and 03.1.1974 respectively. The next three bills referred by Ld. Defence Counsel in her arguments are 8027, 8028 and 8029, which were issued on 31.12.1973. But a perusal of the bills shows that date of arrival of visitors in all these three bills are 30.12.1973 and dates of departure CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 334 are 31.12.1973 and that is why bills were issued on date of departure i.e. 31.12.1973. Thereafter, the bill no. 8030 is dated 01.1.1973 showing the date of arrival of the visitor on 30.12.1973 and departure on 1.1.1974. There is a clerical error in issuing this bill dated 1.1.1973 instead of 1.1.1974 as it a matter of common parlance that whenever 1st January or 2 nd January comes the people are habitual in writing the previous year or continue to write the previous year in the first week of January of the next year. For this reason, this error has crept in bill no. 8030 otherwise in the body of the bill, it is clearly reflected that the visitor has arrived in the Hotel on 30.12.1973 and he made his departure on 1.1.1974. Then next bill is No.8031 issued on 2.1.1974 and body of the bill shows the date of arrival of the visitor as 30.12.1973 and of departure on 2.1.1974. Similarly, the bills 8032 and 8033 were issued on 31.12.1973 as the date of arrival and departure of the visitors is same i.e. 31.12.1973. Next bill is 8034, it was issued on 3.1.1974, and in the body of the bill, the date of arrival of the visitor is 31.12.1973 and of departure is 3.1.1974. Then next bill no. 8035 was issued on 1.1.1974 and the body of the bill, date of arrival and departure of the visitor is the same i.e. 1.1.1974. The entire bill book shows that the entries in the Bills are entered into by the hotel staff partly as soon as on the arrival of the visitor. The bill is issued to the visitor on his departure. The date of departure is mentioned at the top of the bill whereas date of arrival and departure are mentioned in the body of each bill. So, all the bills of Hotel CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 335 Republic contained in Bill Book having Bill No. 8001 to 8100 have been issued in due course of its business on the date of departure of the visitor's.
250. Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Gulati then argued that the Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9) and Visitor's Register Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q (Q-8) do not bear the signatures of PW-1 as 'S. K. Gupta'. PW-1 has already admitted the signatures in his own handwriting. Further, as discussed hereinbefore, this has been corroborated by PW- 126A, who has also identified these signatures on Cash Vouchers Ex.PW-1/R and Visitor's Register Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q in the handwriting of PW-1. Apart from this, specimen writing and signatures of PW-1 and his admitted writing was compared by GEQD PW-43, who had given his expert opinion that after comparing the writing Q-8 and Q-9 with specimen and admitted handwritings of PW- 1, he came to the conclusion that writer of these writings is same i.e. PW-1. Thus, there is no force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel. It is further argued that on behalf of accused persons that PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha did not seize the cash voucher immediately on his visit on 03.05.1975 when he seized the Bill Book and sheet of Visitor's Register and that after about four months, on 19.09.1975, PW-129 Sh. Narender Nath Singh seized the Voucher Ex.PW-1/R. This voucher is in respect of refund of excess amount of Rs. 9.72 to the visitor Sh. S.K. Gupta vide bill no.8025. It is already mentioned hereinbefore that on Bill Ex.PW-17/A, it is mentioned that visitor CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 336 'Shankar Kumar Gupta' had paid Rs.50/- in advance. The bill was for Rs.40.28 and vide this cash voucher dated 30.12.1973 Ex.PW-1/R, a sum of Rs.9.72 was refunded to the visitor namely Sh. S.K. Gupta, who is none as but PW-1.
251. Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that the entire Visitor's Register of Hotel Republic has not been filed and the prosecution has only filed a loose sheet of the Visitor's Register. The left side part of the loose sheet is Ex.PW-1/P and the right side part of the sheet Ex.PW-1/Q. She submits that this loose sheet of the Visitor's Register cannot be read into evidence and in support of her submissions, she has referred Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under: -
"34 (Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form) when relevant: (Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form), regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."
252. The Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon Para No. 16, 17 & 20 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 337 of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla, 1998 (3) SCC 410, wherein Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 came up for interpretation and the cited Para of the judgment are as under: -
"16. From a plain reading of the Section it is manifest that to make an entry relevant there under it must be shown that it has been made in a book, that book is a book of account and that book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business. From the above Section, it is also manifest that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is thus seen that while the first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of the entry as evidence, the second part speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging a person with a liability. It will, therefore, be necessary for us to first ascertain whether the entries in the documents, with which we are concerned, fulfill the requirements of the above section so as to be admissible in evidence and if this question is answered in the affirmative then only its probative value need be assessed.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 338
17. 'Book' ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as 'book' for they can be easily detached and replaced. In dealing with the word 'book' appearing in Section 34 in Mukundram v. Dayaram, AIR 1914 Nagpur 44, a decision on which both sides have placed reliance, the Court observed :-
"In its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing apart. The binding is of a kind, which is not intended to be moveable in the sense of being undone and put together again. A collection of papers in a portfolio, or clip, or strung together on a piece of twine which is intended to be untied at will, would not, in ordinary English, be called a book ...................................I think the term "book"
in Section 34 aforesaid may properly be taken to signify, ordinarily, a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 339 collectively in one volume. It is easier however to say which is not a book for the purposes of Section 34, and I have no hesitation in holding that unbound sheets of paper in whatever quantity, though filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account within the purview of Section 34."
We must observe that the aforesaid approach is in accord with good reasoning and we are in full agreement with it. Applying the above tests it must be held that the two spiral note books (MR 68/91 and MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are "books" within the meaning of Section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (MR 72/91 and 73/91).
20. The word 'account' has been defined in Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Volume IA at pages 336 to 338 to mean (i) a claim or demand by one person against another creating a debtor-
creditor relation; (ii) a formal statement in detail of transactions between two parties arising out of contracts or some fiduciary relation. At page 343 of the same book the word has also been defined to mean the preparation of record or statement of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 340 transactions or the like; a statement and explanation of one's administration or conduct in money affairs; a statement or record of financial transactions, a reckoning or computation; a registry of pecuniary transactions or a reckoning of money transactions; a written or printed statement of business dealing or debts and credits; or a certain class of them. It is thus seen that while the former definitions give the word 'account' a restrictive meaning the latter give it a comprehensive meaning. Similarly is the above word defined, both restrictively and expansively, in Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) to mean 'a detailed statement of the mutual demands in the nature of debit and credit between the parties arising out of contracts or some fiduciary relation. A statement in writing, of debits and credits, or of receipts and payments; a list of items of debits and credits, with their respective dates. A statement of pecuniary transactions; a record or course of business dealings between parties; a list of statement of monetary transactions, such as payments, losses, sales, debits, credits, accounts payable, accounts receivable, etc., in most cases CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 341 showing a balance or result of comparison between items of an opposite nature."
253. Elaborating on section 34 of Evidence Act, she has also relied upon Para 24 & 25 of another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal, 2000 (1) SCC 434 which reads as under:-
"24. In the recent judgment of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, 1998(3) SCC 410, it has been laid down that for purposes of Section 34, 'Book' ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets of papers or scraps of paper cannot be termed as 'book' for they can be easily detached and replaced. It has also been held that the rationale behind admissibility of parties' books of account as evidence is that the regularity of habit, the difficulty of falsification and the fair certainty of ultimate detection give them in a sufficient degree, a probability of trustworthiness." When that is the legal position, extracts of alleged account books, in our view, were wrongly treated as admissible by the courts below though the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 342 original books were not produced for comparison nor their non-production was explained nor the person who had prepared the extracts was examined.
25. Therefore, the private extracts of alleged account books like Exs.D2 to D5 are not admissible. The principal evidence relating to the alleged payment of rent disappears and the foundation for the alternative plea of tenancy crumbles. This is one reason why the finding relating to tenancy is vitiated being based on inadmissible evidence."
254. There is no dispute about the proposition of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla's case (supra) and Ishwar Dass Jain's case (supra). However, these judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court are not applicable as the "Visitors Register" of a Hotel is not a "Book of Accounts" within the meaning of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Dixit vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 (1) SCC 596 and the relevant Para reads as under:
"15. True Section 34 contains the rider that "such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability." In the first place the provision deals only with "books of accounts".
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 343 It primarily pertains to pecuniary transactions. The expression "books of accounts" means book in which merchants, traders or businessmen generally keep their accounts i.e. statements of debits and credits or receipts and payments. A register kept at the counter of hotel need not contain any statement of account. So, until it is shown that such register also pertained to the pecuniary transactions involving the customers of the hotel the same cannot be treated as a book of accounts. In the second place, even if it is assumed that a register kept in a hotel can be treated as a book of accounts, the entry therein cannot become the sole premise to charge a person with liability. The entry found in the register kept at Sanjay Hotel can only show a circumstance that A.2 Manish Dixit has written in it the name 'Rakesh (Ramesh ?) Chander Sharma' as the person who occupied particular room in the hotel on 24.2.1994. Why did A.2 write such a name in the register on the said date, which was the immediately following date of the murder of Gulshan Makhija. He only knows why he wrote a different name. In the absence of any explanation from him it is open to the Court to draw an CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 344 inference that A.2 (Manish Dixit) had some reasons to conceal his identity to the hotel people and hence he wrote a pseudonymous name in the register."
255. Moreover, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh alias Photti's case (supra), R.L. Vaid's case (supra), Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao's case (supra) and by our Hon'ble High Court in Sukhvinder Singh Sandhu's case (supra) that unless and until the facts and circumstances in a cited case are in pari materia in all respect with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it will not be proper to cite an earlier case as a precedent to arrive at a definite conclusion.
256. Apart from it, the particulars of this sheet of Visitor's Register of Hotel Republic Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q bearing particulars of PW-1 and his signatures and handwriting at point Q8 dated 29.12.1973 tally with the particulars mentioned on the Bill Ex.PW- 17/A. This sheet of Visitor's Register Ex.PW-1/P and PW-1/Q dated 29th December 1973 is in respect of visit of Sh. Shankar Kumar Gupta, Indian, Occupation-Business, R/o S-8/19, SWA, Karol Bagh, Delhi-5. It is mentioned that he arrived from Allahabad and was to go back to Allahabad. He was allotted room No. 41 in the Hotel. The Bill number is also mentioned as 8025 in the last column. He has signed as S.K. Gupta. All these particulars are Q-8, which have been owned CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 345 by PW-1 in his own handwriting. PW-126A has also identified this handwriting Q-8 in the hand of PW-1. PW-43 has also opined that this handwriting and signatures Q-8 do tally with the specimen and admitted handwriting and signatures of PW-1. The relevant particulars of the Visitor's Register in respect of visit of Sh. S.K. Gupta also match with the corresponding entries in the relevant Bill No. 8025 Ex.PW-17/A. The entry in this Bill Ex.PW-17/A was made in respect of visitor Shankar Kumar Gupta on 29.12.1973 as time of arrival is also reflected as 8.35 PM. The date of departure is mentioned as 30.12.1973 with checkout time as 10.30 AM. On the left top corner, it is mentioned that he has paid advance Rs.50/- vide Receipt No. 8521. The total expenses of two days stay in the Hotel are mentioned as Rs.40.28. It is also reflected from the Bill Ex.PW-17/A that visitor Mr. Shankar Kumar Gupta was allotted Room No. 41. Mentioning of room No. 41 and Bill No. 8025 in the folio of Visitor's Register Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q draws authentication from the Bill Ex.PW-17/A contained in the Bill Book. Apart from this authentication, further corroboration is found with Ex.PW-1/R, which is a Cash Voucher dated 30.12.1973 by which balance amount of Rs.9.72 was refunded to the visitor mentioned in the Bill No. 8025. The visitor has signed as S.K. Gupta with date 30/12/73 and his signatures and date are Q-9. I have already discussed these signatures and dates Q-9 are in the handwriting of PW-1. The writing and signatures of this entry by Mr. Shankar Kumar Gupta have been CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 346 proved to be in the handwriting of PW-1 by PW-126A Maheshwar Parsad. This is further corroborated by the statement of GEQD PW- 43 Sh. B. Lal, who compared these disputed signatures of Sh. Shankar Kumar Gupta with the admitted and specimen handwriting and signatures and came to the opinion that these are in the handwriting of the same writer i.e. PW-1.
(Cash Voucher dated 30.12.1973 Ex.PW-1/R is available in Folder R-4)
257. Cleverly, in the cross-examination of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, it was put to him that this is the last entry of 29.12.1973 to mislead the court as if it was last entry on the sheet of the Visitor's Register Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q. A perusal of this folio Ex.PW- 1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q shows that this entry is in the middle of the folio of the Visitor's Register of Hotel Republic and even after this entry, there are seven more entries of 30.12.1973, five entries of 01.1.1974, three entries of 02.1.1974 and two entries of 03.1.1974. Therefore, the suggestion made to the witness and argument ensued thereon by Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate is highly irrelevant and connotes nothing to disbelieve this documentary evidence. The document does not go to support the contention of the defence that this entry is interpolated or added in the Register to fabricate the folio of the Visitor's Register.
27) Further tracking the movements of CM.
258. PW-1 further deposed that he was told that Abdul Gaffoor did not come to the Hotel Republic, and Santoshanand ascertained from CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 347 somewhere that Abdul Gaffoor used to come to the house of a Muslim family near Palace Hotel, Opposite Gandhi Maidan Patna. Then, Santoshanand gave him a loaded revolver. He also gave one each country made revolvers to Arteshanand and Sudevanand, and so from 30.12.1973 to 4.1.1974, he himself, Arteshanand and Sudevanand kept a watch from 8.00 PM to 12 O' Clock at night on a rickshaw near Palace Hotel. Santoshanand used to supervise this action by remaining present near about them all through. He testified that they could not see Abdul Gaffoor coming to that family.
259. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied on this point that he did not know the name of the Head of Muslim family. The family was known as Khan Family. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 testified that the house of a Muslim woman, where Abdul Gaffoor was expected to come, was situated in a thickly populated locality. There was a Palace Hotel near that house. On the back of that Hotel, there was a cinema. When he (PW-1) used to follow Abdul Gaffoor for this purpose, it was winter season and he would wrap a chaddar and put on pajama. He would keep the revolver in his hand hidden inside the chaddar. They used to keep sitting on a rickshaw while Santoshanand used to move about. The rickshaw had been hired from nearby, where so many rickshaws remained parked. There was no bus Adda (bus stand) nearby. He could not say if there was any local bus stop nearby. He did not see any police officer moving thereabout on that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 348 place where they had positioned themselves. He had no arm licence with him.
260. The testimony of PW-1 suggests that the then Chief Minister of Bihar used to stay at Hotel Republic, Patna and also used to visit the house of a Muslim family and the accused having gathered knowledge about the movement of the then Chief Minister. The cross- examination did not demolish the movements and the described occasional visits of the then Chief Minister Sh. Abdul Gaffoor. Certain trivial questions were only put to PW-1 in his cross- examination asking him the minute's details as regards the mode of transport chosen by them in chasing their target and the details regarding location of the house, the name of the Head of that Muslim family. These aspects of the cross-examination instead of discrediting the witness, rather fortifies the chasing by PW-1 and co-conspirators. Therefore, the cross-examination has no relevance to disbelieve the movements of PW-1. Thus, the arguments advanced by Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate that no Rikshaw wala who ply rickshaw near Palace Hotel, Patna, has been examined by the prosecution goes to oblivion.
261. PW-67 Sh. Ali Waris Khan deposed that he owned a house in Patna City, where he has been residing with his family since 1948. He deposed that he has seen Gandhi Maidan (ground), Patna and there is Palace Hotel towards South of Gandhi Maidan and his house was just adjacent and South of the Hotel Palace. It was a blind lane, which was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 349 only way to lead to his house. He knew Abdul Gaffoor, who had been former Chief Minister of Bihar since 1952. They used to meet very often, and after 1962, Abdul Gaffoor often used to visit his house to meet him and visited his house during the year 1973-74. In the year 1974, the visits of Abdul Gaffoor to his house were rare though in the year 1973 he used to visit his house.
262. In his cross-examination, PW-67 answered that Abdul Gaffoor used to visit his place only for gossiping, in which he was interested. Sh. Abdul Gaffoor never told him that Anand Margies were after his life. He had no knowledge whether security men in plain clothes used to travel with Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister, when he came to him. He did not know whether information about visit of Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister used to be given to the Police or not. Local police never informed him to the effect that they had received message about intending visit of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor to his house. Sh. Abdul Gaffoor was Chief Minister of Bihar for two and half years and he remembered that he was Chief Minister in the year 1973 and 1974. He did not remember whether Abdul Gaffoor used to visit his house twice in a week or some time thrice in a week. (When the witness was confronted with his previous statement under Section 161 Cr. PC, there is a mention of frequent visits and not about twice or thrice a week).
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 350
263. The cross-examination of this witness PW-67, when perused carefully, only confirms the fact that the then Chief Minister used to visit the house of this witness frequently, as both were good friends. This information gathered by Santoshanand prompted him to propel PW-1, Sudevanand and Arteshanand to follow and exploit a chance to eliminate the target. There is no force in the arguments of the Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-67 Ali Waris Khan in not stating about any of the threats to the life of Abdul Gaffoor at the hands of Anand Margies would render the prosecution case unbelievable. There is also no force in the arguments that Abdul Gaffoor has visited his house rarely in the year 1973 and that is why she argues that the story of the prosecution is woven to fix the accused. Rather the testimony of PW- 67 corroborates the statement of PW-1 to the effect that accused no.1 Santoshanand having told him that Abdul Gaffoor used to come to the house of Muslim family near Palace Hotel, Opposite Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
28) Procurement of hand grenade by
Vinayanand.
264. PW-1 averred on oath that in the Morning of 05.1.1974, Vinayanand reached there with hand grenade brought from Bangaon. It was shown to him (PW-1), Arteshanand and Sudevanand at Gulzar Bagh house (Patna). After two or three hours, Santoshanand also reached there and Santoshanand suggested that they should leave the Abdul Gaffoor for the time being and follow Madhavanand as he was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 351 to be produced before the District Magistrate, Patna on 07.1.1974. He also deposed that one Ram Swarath Singh, an Anand Margi, was called through him there, as he was familiar with the locality where Madhavanand was to be brought. It was decided that they would go in groups of two or three in order to survey the surroundings in which the District Magistrate's court was situated. On 06.1.1974, he himself along with Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand and Ram Swarath Singh went to Collectorate in groups of two and three. After survey of the surroundings, they came back to their house at Gulzar Bagh. It was then decided that as soon as Madhavanand would be brought in the Collectorate, Vinayanand would throw hand grenade on Madhavanand, which he had brought from Bangaon. It was also decided that he (PW-1) would remain there with a revolver with instructions that after throwing the hand grenade, he (PW-1) would escort him (Vinayanand) to a place near Police Line where on the road a person on the motorcycle would be waiting for them and they would be then driven off on that motorcycle. PW-1 further testified that finally on his objection, it was agreed that Vinayanand would alone carry the revolver and a hand grenade and would act there as considered best by him in the situation. Vinayanand agreed to this suggestion. Santoshanand asked him (PW-1) to go to Chautham. On 06.1.1974, during night he left for Chautham and was asked to stay there with Gopalji (A-7) at his house and wait for others i.e. Santoshanand (A-1) and others until 15.1.1974 by which date they CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 352 would reach there. He (PW-1) gave his ammunitions and revolver to A-1 before leaving for Chautham. He (PW-1) reached there (at Chautham) in the Morning of 7th January (1974) by bus. A-7 was not present at his house at that time. He (PW-1) stayed at Gopalji's house. There he heard the radio news at 7.30 PM that an attempt to kill Madhavanand remained unsuccessful and at about 9-10 AM, on 8th January (1974) A-7 came there with a newspaper, which contained the details of Madhavanand's life. A-7 suggested him that he should shift to his farmhouse at Tilihar on the other side of the Kosi River. He told A-7 that A-1 and others would be coming from Patna by 15th January (1974) whereon A-7 advised him to wait for them at Tilihar. Accordingly, he went to Tilihar where he remained until 15th January (1974).
265. In his cross-examination, PW-1 answered that he did not prepare any sketch/map after surveying the route along with which Madhavanand had to come in the Collectorate. PW-1 has further replied in his cross-examination that he did not state in his 164 statement that on 06.01.1974, he was asked to stay there with Gopalji at his house until 15.01.1974 at Chautham. He did not state in his 164 statement that he gave his ammunition and revolver to Santoshanand before leaving for Chautham. He stated that he had only said that all his belongings were handed over to Santoshanand. (When he was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-1/X, where later part, it was not found recorded therein). He did not state in his 164 statement CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 353 that at Chautham, he told A-7 that A-1 and others would be reaching there by 15th January and A-7 advised him to wait for them at Tilihar or that he went to Tilihar and remained there till 15th January.
266. The further testimony of PW-1 has been perused. The course of cross-examination by the accused, does not repel the arrival of Vinayanand on 05.01.1974 with a grenade from Bangaon, showing of hand grenade PW-1, Arteshanand and A-2 at Gulzar Bagh house (Patna) or direction by A-1 to leave Abdul Gaffoor and concentrate on Madhavanand, who was to be produced in Collectorate, Patna on 07.01.1974 or that the decision that Vinayanand shall attack Madhavanand with the said hand grenade. The cross-examination does not shatter that PW-1 left for Chautham on 06.01.1974 and reached there on 07.01.1974 in the Morning. They have also not derided that on his reaching at Chautham, A-7 was not found in his house or of his stay in the house of Gopalji's or coming of A-7 on 8th January (1974) with a newspaper containing the details of attack Madhavanand's life. They have also not discredited that Gopalji had no house at Chautham or that PW-1 did not come there on 07.01.1974. They have also not challenged his testimony that Gopalji suggested to PW-1 to shift to his farmhouse at Tilihar. The defence has also not discredited PW-1 having told Gopalji that A-1 and others would be coming from Patna by 15th January (1974) or that Gopalji advised him to wait for them at Tilihar or that he went to Tilihar, where he remained until 15th January (1974). Merely because PW-1 did not state in his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 354 statement under Section 164 Cr. PC about A-1 asking him to go to Chautham or PW-1 handed over arms and ammunitions to A-1 are only matter of minute details, which were even otherwise not required to be stated. In these circumstances, the further deposition of PW-1 is found worth credible and acceptance.
29) Attempt to kill Madhavanand
267. At the cost of repetition, it is worth mentioning that on reaching of Vinayanand at Gulzar Bagh House on 05.01.1974, with a hand grenade from Bangaon, ultimately it was decided that Vinayanand would alone carry the revolver and hand grenade and attack Madhavanand as soon as he would be brought in the Collectorate, Patna. PW-1, then, left for Chautham on 06.01.1974. Pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched at the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan in October 1973, an attempt was made on the life of Madhavanand on 07.01.1974. Let us examine the relevant evidence.
268. PW-8 Ct. Jai Kishan Singh, PS Kotwali, Patna deposed that on 7.1.1974, he was posted at Sadar Treasury, Patna as Guard on duty. On that day, at about 10.30 AM, he was sitting on the Northern side of the Guard Room of the Treasury and basking in the Sun. HC Ram Aasrey Singh, HC Rajender Singh and Ct. Gorakhnath were also there with him. They had finished their duty by that time. At that time, one jeep BRV-1400 came from the Western side and was parked on the Eastern side of the Guard Room. Severn or eight persons including CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 355 one Madhavanand Avadhoot, whose name he came to know later on, came there. He saw Madhavanand accompanied by escort party proceeding towards the North for urination. After Madhavanand returned, he sat on the front seat of the jeep while the members of the escort party stood on side of the park. After a short while, he noticed four persons reaching there from Western side and stood near the park at a distance of 20 paces away from that jeep on the road. One of those four persons was in saffron clothes while others were in plain clothes. Out of whom, one of them was wrapping himself with a saffron chaddar. That person in saffron chaddar was having one revolver in his hand. Immediately that person with a saffron chaddar threw a hand grenade with his right hand towards the jeep and that grenade fell at a distance about 2-2½ yards from the jeep but it did not explode. Immediately they all and some members of the escort party ran towards that man to secure him. However, that man first ran towards West and after covering some distance ran towards North and he again ran towards West. They continued to follow him and he was running along with the bank of Ganga. At some distance from Dhobighat that person fired three shots towards them but fortunately none of them was hit as they had taken their positions. Since the road/pagdandi (footpath), on which that person was running, was blocked after Magad Mahila College Hostel, that man jumped in the River. He (PW-8) and Ct. Gorakhnath also jumped in the River followed by Kailash (PW-10), driver of that jeep. Kailash Driver CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 356 (PW-10), however, stopped at some distance whereas they continued to follow that man. After swimming a distance of about 100 yards, they secured that man in the River and that man sustained some injuries on being secured. He was brought to shore and by that time police officials and district officials assembled there. That person was feigning unconsciousness. They took that person to the Police Information Room after bodily lifting him. PW-8 deposed that he would be in a position to identify that man, if his photograph was shown to him. He identified the photograph Ex.P-4 of the person, who was secured in the River Ganga on that day. The other three associates of that person managed to escape from the place from where the hand grenade was thrown. He deposed that while basking in the Sun, he was wearing wooden sleepers and when he started chasing that person, he left those wooden sleepers at some distance from the grenade.
269. In his cross-examination, PW-8 answered that in those days, the office of Collector used to start at 10.30 AM. That Jeep was parked hardly at a distance of about 50 yards, may be less than that, from the office of the Collector. The public starts reaching the Collector Office at about 10.00 AM. He deposed that he saw those four persons, when one of them threw the grenade. Earlier also, he had noticed them when they stood there and were gazing at the jeep. Since one of those persons threw the grenade immediately after they assembled there, there was no occasion for them to ask them to move away from the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 357 place. He along with others ran after that person, who had thrown the grenade. He was not aware whether any person chased the remaining three persons. The guard party, which was surrounding the jeep at that time, was armed with the rifles. Two of those guards ran after the person, who threw the grenade, while the rest remained on guard on Madhavanand. None of those guards fired any shot at that time. When that person, who threw the grenade, fired three shots towards them, none of the guard returned the fire as they were in between. The guards did not fire any shot in the air. He was not aware whether police recovered any empty cartridges from that place subsequently. In his presence, no bullet was recovered. The roof of that jeep was of tarpaulin. The back portion of that jeep and two sides of the jeep were uncovered. He answered that saffron chaddar of that man fell on the path, while he was running. He did not lift it. Even subsequently, he did not notice that Chaddar in possession of any police officials. The Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali Patna came there after some time. He stated in his statement under Section 161 of Cr. PC that the person, who was ultimately arrested, was wearing a saffron chaddar. (When he was confronted with his previous statement, the word "saffron" was not found written). He replied that no efforts were made to pick up the revolver from the river because of deep water. He has denied the suggestion that the said person was unarmed or that he did not fire any shot from any revolver. In his further cross- examination, it is found that he was promoted as Constable on that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 358 very day, when they arrested that person i.e. on 07.1.1974. He also got commendation certificate and hike in the pay. He denied the suggestion for such commendation he has deposed falsely at the instance of CBI. He answered that the man was feigning unconsciousness and neither he nor police officers asked his name. In fact, said person was not speaking anything and nothing was inquired from him for that reason. (When confronted with his previous statement, it was found recorded "on asking he did not tell anything"). He replied that when they returned after having arrested that person, Madhavanand had already been removed inside the office of District Magistrate and in fact, he did not see Madhavanand thereafter on that day. He further informed in his previous statement that the arrested person was removed to the Police Information Room. (When confronted with his previous statement, the word "lift" is not mentioned and it is mentioned that he was taken there by catching hold of him). In his previous statement, he had mentioned having seen four persons across the jeep before throwing of the grenade. He stated that apart from saffron chaddar, that person was in plain clothes and only that person out of four was wrapping a saffron chaddar. He was not sporting any beard. (When confronted with his previous statement, it was found mentioned that the beard of that person was not grown). He was a cleanly shaved except for moustaches. He did not recollect whether in his previous statement, he mentioned the name of Ram Aasrey (P.O.) and Rajender Singh as the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 359 persons, who were sitting with him at that time. (When confronted with his previous statement, only designations instead of their names are found mentioned). He testified that the grenade thrown, which did not explode immediately, was later on while defusing it by the Military persons at about 06.00 or 06.30 PM, an explosion occurred, causing a lot of damage to the Collectorate building.
270. The perusal of the cross-examination of PW-8 makes it clear that the defence could not be successful in whittling down the veracity of this witness in describing the incident that had occurred on 07.01.1974. In fact, the cross-examination rather fortified the presence of PW-8, his colleague-police officials, the presence of the jeep and Madhavanand being brought there by the escort party and PW-8 having noticed four unknown person amongst whom one person having saffron chaddar etc. Further, his cross-examination has not demolished the said person taking out a hand grenade from the chaddar, which was thrown at Madhavanand and the escort party. It has further not demolished remaining three persons running away from the scene, the PW-8 along with PW-10 chasing the culprit, who flung the grenade and culminating into his arrest from the river Ganga, into which he jumped and PW-8 identifying the photograph Ex.P-4. Only certain improvements have been extracted in the cross- examination. One of these improvements is the chaddar having not been described with its colour saffron. What is pointed by the defence is that PW-8 being silent about his non-observing the other three CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 360 associates of the culprit after the incident. The further improvement is that the non-observance by the PW-8 to speak with regard to the empty cartridges arising out of the three shots fired by the said person, who flung the grenade and with regard to the fate of the chaddar (a piece of lengthy cloth to cover one's body). These improvements are minor in nature and should be evaluated in the grim circumstances where an unexpected and sudden event of serious nature like the flinging of grenade happens; that too against a person brought by the police. Under such situation, the police officials would naturally run to catch hold of the culprit rather than to observe the minute circumstances like the colour and fate of the covering cloth or the fate of empty cartridges. When sighted from the order of human behavior and especially by a person belonging to the police department, the improvements pointed out by the defence are not to be winked at and no serious attention can be given to such minor improvements especially even the major events are not shaken in the cross- examination. This witness is highly trustworthy. It is also natural that a person acting with such an alacrity and braveness in trying to nab a dangerous person is rewarded with the promotion, which the defence points out having been given the same day. In fact, such a commendation further proves the incident rather than to demolish it and enhances the morale of police officials.
271. PW-9 Sh. Chandi Mishra Hawaldar testified that on 06.1.1974 while he was posted at Civil Line, Gaya as Naik, he received an order CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 361 at 8.30 PM to escort Madhavanand to Patna from Gayaji, as he was to be produced before the Collector on 07.1.1974. Four constables and one Sh. Ram Prasad Dubey, Zamaadar, were with him in escorting the said person. They had a government vehicle with a driver Kailash Singh (PW-10). On 07.1.1974, they took Madhavanand from Central Jail, Gayaji and brought him in the jeep to the office of the Collector, Patna at about 10.30 AM. He deposed that they had taken Madhavanand from Gayaji via Kedar Sarai, Islampur and Fatuha and at all these three places, they noticed one red colour motorcycle and two jeeps either following their jeep and running at a distance from them. In those vehicles, some persons were wearing saffron clothes, while the others were in plain clothes. He further deposed that on reaching the Collectorate, Patna, they parked the jeep near Treasury, where Madhavanand expressed his desire to urinate. They took him to a drain nearby and wherefrom after urination, Madhavanand was brought back and seated on the front seat of the jeep. At that time, he noticed four persons standing on the Western side at a distance of 20- 25 yards away from their jeep. One of them was cleanly shaven without beard and some of them were wearing saffron clothes. The man without beard was in plain clothes and wrapping himself with a saffron chaddar. In his left hand, he was holding a revolver. That person immediately threw a grenade with his right hand towards the jeep, which fell at a distance about 2 yards from that jeep. Thereafter, that person ran towards Western side and his other companions ran CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 362 here and there. The grenade did not explode. Sh. Jai Kishan (PW-8) and Gorakhnath Singh, who were sitting near the Treasury, ran after that person and he himself and driver of the jeep Kailash Singh (PW-
10) ran after that person. After running some distance towards West, that person took a turn and ran on the banks of River Ganga up to Dhobighat. Prior to reaching Dhobighat, he fired three shots from his revolver towards them and since they had taken the position, none of them was hurt. After reaching the Dhobighat, that man jumped into the River. Ct. Gorakhnath Singh, Jai Kishan Singh (PW-8) and Kailash (PW-10) also jumped into the River and chased that man. Subsequently Gorakhnath Singh and PW-8 Jai Kishan Singh apprehended that man after swimming a distance of about 100-125 yards and before they apprehended him, that man threw his revolver in the River. After securing him, Gorakhnath Singh and Jai Kishan Singh (PW-8) brought him to Dhobighat. The said assailant received some injuries in process and he was brought to the shore but did not speak anything. The said person was feigning unconsciousness at that time. From there, that person was taken to Police Information Room. He identified the person in the photograph Ex.P-4 to be the assailant of the grenade in the incident. Meanwhile, SHO, Kotwali, Patna also reached the spot and gave dictation to the officer and the same was read over to him and then he signed it. His report is Ex.PW-9/A and bears his signatures at point A. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 363
272. In his cross-examination, PW-9 replied that on becoming suspicious about the movement of that motorcycle and jeep, he noted the numbers thereof on a paper. He stated that he had shown that paper on which he noted the number of motorcycle to the police and he retained that paper with him, which he later on lost it. He did not remember the make of that motorcycle. He could not recollect the number of that motorcycle. However, he testified that they were travelling at that time in Jeep No. BRB-1400. He told the description of two persons who were riding on that motorcycle to the police. He told the police that the said jeeps and motorcycles were sometime following them and at times were running ahead of them. He stated to the police that some of the persons in those vehicles were in plain clothes, and some in Anand Margi dress. He informed the police the number of persons sitting on those vehicles. He informed the police that at Collectorate Patna, Madhavanand wanted to urinate and for that purpose they had taken him to nearby drain. He testified that in the FIR, he had dictated the number of motorcycle, which was following their jeep. (When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, the number was not found mentioned). He replied that in the said FIR, he had also mentioned that one motorcycle and two jeeps were sometime following their jeep and sometimes running ahead of them. (When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, it was not found mentioned). He had himself seen that red colour motorcycle running behind their jeep as also running ahead of them. He had seen the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 364 photograph Ex.P-4 for the first time in the court. The said photo was not taken in his presence. He had seen the grenade with his own eyes. He did not notice any other thing lying near that grenade. He answered that the man, who was secured from river Ganges on that date, was having only the trimmed moustaches. He replied that in the FIR, he had mentioned having seen four persons standing on the Western side at a distance of 20-25 paces from their jeep. (When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, the words are "3/4 persons" were found mentioned). He mentioned in the FIR that the person, who had thrown the grenade, was without beard. (When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, it was found not so recorded. In the FIR, he further testified that the person fired three shots at them, was wrapping a saffron colour chaddar. (When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, the word "Saffron" was not found mentioned). At the time of chasing that person, he was not having any revolver, but a rifle with him. He did not aim at that person, as in between there were three constables, who were also running after that man. He has denied the suggestion that he had mentioned the red colour of motorcycle to implicate Anand Margies falsely. In the FIR, he mentioned that the said person was holding the revolver in his left hand. (When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, the word "left" was not found mentioned). He mentioned in his previous statement that the grenade was thrown towards the jeep. (When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, the throwing CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 365 of grenade towards jeep was not found mentioned and it is mentioned that the guards surrounded the jeep and grenade was thrown towards those guards). At the time, when grenade was thrown, Madhavanand was sitting inside the jeep and all the guards were surrounding the jeep within a maximum distance of one pace, from that jeep. The grenade fell two yards short of that jeep and it did not strike jeep at all. At that time, the grenade was thrown, he was facing that person. That grenade fell near him. Jai Kishan (PW-8) was running ahead and he was following him. While running, that person threw his chaddar on the way. Neither of them had picked up. In the FIR, he had mentioned about dropping of that chaddar by that person.
273. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW-9 makes it abundantly clear that the accused persons have again failed to demolish the testimony of this witness in describing the incident that had taken place on 07.01.1974 at the Collectorate, Patna. Rather, the cross-examination of PW-9 fortifies the presence of PW-9, members of his escort party, guards at the Treasury including PW-8, the presence of the jeep and Madhavanand being brought there by them and PW-9 having noticed four unknown persons amongst whom one person wearing saffron chaddar and revolver in his left hand. It is also not demolished in his cross-examination that the said person taking out a grenade from the chaddar, which was thrown towards jeep, in which Madhavanand was seated in the front seat and surrounded by members of the escort party including PW-9. It has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 366 further not demolished that remaining three persons having running away here and there from the scene of the crime, the PW-8, Gorakhnath along with PW-9 and PW-10 chasing the culprit, who flung the grenade and culminating into his arrest from the river Ganga, into which he jumped and PW-9 identifying the photograph Ex.P-4. The Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out a few little improvements in the statement of the witness, which are descriptive in nature. Those trivial improvements are that in his previous statement, he mentioned that those unknown persons were 3 or 4, whereas in the court, he deposed that those were four persons, out of which one of them had wrapped himself with a saffron chaddar. They have also pointed out that the word "Saffron" was not found mentioned in his previous statement. It is also pointed out that in the court the witness has stated that one out of those four persons, was carrying a revolver in his left hand and this word "left" was not found mentioned in his previous statement. The defence has also pointed out that the PW-9 is silent about his non-observing the other three associates of the culprit after the incident. The defence has also pointed out that PW-9 has not stated as to whether three empty cartridges of the shots fired by the culprit and his saffron chaddar were recovered or not by the police. These improvements are not serious in nature and should be evaluated in the grim circumstances where an unexpected event of grave and gruesome nature like the flinging of grenade happens; that too against a person in police custody. Under such circumstances, the police CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 367 officials would naturally run behind the culprit rather than to observe the minute details like the colour and fate of the covering cloth or the fate of empty cartridges. The Ld. Defence Counsel also pointed out that this witness PW-9 could not give the registration number and other details of the vehicles, which were following them from Gayaji to Patna. In fact, at that time, it was never in the mind of the escort party that Madhavanand could be the target of those persons. The incident took place at the destination of the escort party i.e. Collectorate Patna. In the circumstances, when there was no such prior information about impending attack on Madhavanand on the way from Gayaji to Patna, there was no occasion for the members of the escort party including PW-9 to note down the registration numbers and make of the vehicles, which were following them or sometimes, they were driving ahead of their jeep. The testimony of PW-9, who is a police official and a public servant, inspires confidence and the defence in any manner could not demolish his testimony.
274. PW-10 Sh. Kailash Singh, Hawaldar deposed that in January 1974, he was posted as Driver at Police Line, Gayaji. On 06.1.1974, at 8.30 PM, he received an order to escort Madhavanand from Central Jail, Gayaji in Jeep No. BRB-1400 to Collectorate, Patna. Sh. Ram Prasad Dubey, Jamadar, Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and 4 home guards accompanied them in the said jeep at 6.00 AM on 7.1.1974. They brought Madhavanand from Central Jail, Gayaji and proceeded in that jeep towards Patna via Gaya town, Khijar Sarai, Islampur and Fatua.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 368 They reached office of the Collector, Patna at 10.30 AM. Near Gaya Town Hospital, one red colour motorcycle, one brown colour jeep and one station wagon of yellow colour, overtook their jeep. The driver of that motorcycle was in plain clothes, while another person with saffron cloth was pillion rider. There were four or five persons in that jeep and two of them were wearing saffron clothes. Up to Patna, the said three vehicles sometimes were running ahead of their jeep and sometime following their jeep. They parked their jeep at the place in the North of which was the Collector's office and in South of which was the Treasury Guard Room. Near Treasury Guard Room, he noticed one Santri (Constable/Guard) on duty besides three or four other constables basking in the Sun. When they had stopped their jeep, Madhavanand expressed his desire to urinate and consequently Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and others escorted him to a drain nearby and after urination, Madhavanand was brought back to the jeep. He was made to sit on the front seat of that jeep. At that time, he saw four persons standing between the office of the Collector and the park on the road. One of the four persons, aged about 25-26 years, was holding a revolver in his left hand. He was wrapping a saffron colour chaddar and by his right hand, that person threw a grenade towards their jeep. The said grenade fell 2 yards from their jeep, but did not explode. After throwing grenade, that person ran towards the West and they all rushed after him. The other three associates of that person ran away hither and thither. He himself, Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and 4 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 369 Treasury Guards ran after that person and after running towards West, that person turned towards North and again on reaching the banks of River Ganga, he turned towards the West. He could run up to Dhobighat and on way he threw his chaddar on the road and before reaching Dhobighat that person fired three shots from his revolver towards them; however, they escaped unhurt as they had taken the position. After reaching the Dhobighat that man jumped into the river Ganga. Two of the Treasury guards followed that man in the water and they secured him after swimming about 100-125 yards and before being secured that man threw his revolver in the River. He stated that the man was brought to the shore and in that process, he had received some injuries. On the bank of the river, that man started feeling unconscious and did not speak anything. Three or four constables including him bodily lifted that man and took him to PIR (Police Information Room). Thereafter, he returned to the place, where he had parked the jeep. There, he talked to Madhavanand, informed him that the person, who had thrown the hand grenade, was Vinay Avadhoot and he remained with him in Ranchi Jail. Madhavanand also told him that one of the companions of said Vinay Avadhoot, was Ram Roop. He deposed that he would in a position to identify the photograph of Vinay Avadhoot. He (PW-10) identified photograph Ex.P-4 of the person, who had thrown the grenade and subsequently was secured in the River Ganga.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 370
275. In his cross-examination, PW-10 elaborated that he talked to Madhavanand outside the Collector Office, after about an hour of throwing grenade. Then he returned from PIR leaving the person, who had thrown the grenade there and at that time Madhavanand told him that the name of Vinay Avadhoot and Ram Roop. (When confronted with his previous statement, it was found mentioned "Rajasthan Ka Vinay"). He deposed that Madhavanand told him name of that Vinay as Vinay Avadhoot. (When confronted with his previous statement, the word "Vinay" was found mentioned at one place and "Vinay Avadhoot" at another place). At 04.30 PM on 07.01.1974, they had escorted Madhavanand to PIR and there, he identified Vinay Avadhoot and told his name. In the PIR, on seeing Vinay Avadhoot, Madhavanand himself pointed out that he was the person, who threw the grenade and at that time, Vinay Avadhoot was feigning unconsciousness and was not speaking. He was not telling his name. He could not recollect whether in his previous statement, he had given the colour of the chaddar, which that person was wearing as saffron. (When confronted with his previous statement, Saffron colour was not found mentioned). He did not recollect whether he stated to the police that three associates of the grenade thrower ran away here and there.
276. A scrutiny of the cross-examination of PW-10 reflects that the defence could not demolish his testimony while describing the incident that had taken place on 07.01.1974 at the Collectorate, Patna.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 371 Rather, the cross-examination of PW-10 further confirms the presence of PW-10, members of the escort party, guards at the Treasury including PW-8, the presence of the jeep and Madhavanand being brought there by them and PW-10 having noticed four unknown person amongst whom one person wrapping himself with a saffron chaddar and having revolver in his left hand. It is also not demolished in his cross-examination that the said person taking out a grenade from the chaddar, flung towards jeep, in which Madhavanand was occupying the front seat and surrounded by members of the escort party including PW-10. It has further not demolished that remaining three persons having run away here and there from the scene of the crime, the PW-8, Gorakhnath along with PW-9 and PW-10 chasing the culprit, who flung the grenade and culminating into his arrest from the river Ganga, into which he jumped. They also could not dispute the testimony of PW-10 that on conversation by him with Madhavanand after securing of the assailant, Madhavanand informed him the name of the assailant to be Vinay Avadhoot. However, the Ld. Defence Counsel have pointed out a few improvements, which are of lesser importance and not altering the material particulars. Those trivial improvements are that in his previous statement, it was found mentioned that name of the assailant having been named as Vinay or Vinay Avadhoot or Rajasthan Ka Vinay, whereas in the court he has described his name as Vinay Avadhoot. The other improvement pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel is that in his previous CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 372 statement he did not tell the colour of the chaddar, in which the assailant had wrapped himself. The witness also could not tell whether he had stated before the police that three companions of the assailant went hither and thither. These improvements, which are trivial in nature, are to be viewed in the grim circumstances where an unexpected gory event like the flinging of grenade happens; that too against a person brought by the police. Under such circumstances, the priorities of the police officials would naturally be towards catching hold of the culprit rather than to follow the companions of the culprit or to notice minute circumstances like the colour of the covering cloth. The testimony of PW-10, who is also a police official and a public servant, inspires confidence and his testimony went unshaken in any manner.
277. PW-7 Sh. A.R. Ghosh, Photo Expert of CID, Bihar at Patna deposed that on 7.1.1974, he was posted as Photo Expert at Secretariat, Bihar Government, Patna. On that day, he went to Collectorate, Patna, on the directions of the Incharge and reached there at 3.30 PM, where he took the photographs of the scene of the occurrence. There was lying one bomb type object and he took its photograph. In all, he took 10 photographs. He brought in the court the negatives of those photographs, which are Ex.PW-7/1 to Ex.PW- 1/10 and corresponding photographs are Ex.PW-7/11 to Ex.PW-7/20. Besides that, he also took photographs of injured person, who was arrested by the police. Two negatives of the same are Ex.PW-7/21 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 373 and Ex.PW-7/22. Ex.PW-7/21 is the negative of photograph Ex.P-4. He claimed that he has been doing photography for the last 25 years. Despite opportunity, the defence chose not to cross- examine him and thus the testimony of PW-7 went unrebutted.
278. PW-1 further testified that Ex.P-4 is photograph of Vinayanand and this was of the time when he discarded his dress as Avadhoot and started putting on plain clothes. This photograph has also been identified by PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10. Madhavanand during conversation, after securing of the assailant, informed PW-10 that the assailant was Vinay Avadhoot.
279. PW-18 Sh. Gokhla Nand Sahai, the then officer Incharge PS Kotwali, Patna deposed that on 7.1.1974, at about 10.55 AM, he received an information that some explosive bomb had been thrown in front of Treasury, Patna. He along with some officials proceeded to that place for verification. On reaching there, he noticed that one jeep was parked and one grenade lying there at a distance of six feet from that jeep. He deposed that he recorded the statement of one Chandi Mishra (PW-9) at the spot. He gave dictation based on statement made by Chandi Mishra, which was recorded by Sub-Inspector Girija Nand (PW-92). Ex.PW-9/A is the statement of Chandi Mishra, which was recorded on his dictation by SI Girija Nand, in his presence and it bears his signatures. This statement Ex.PW-9/A was sent to PS through ASI Durga Prasad for registration of the case. He correctly CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 374 recorded the endorsement Ex.PW-18/A in his handwriting on statement Ex.PW-9/A. This endorsement Ex.PW-18/A, bears his signatures also. He entrusted the investigation of this case to SI Girija Nand (PW-92).
280. In his cross-examination, PW-18 replied that signatures of Chandi Mishra (PW-9) are at point A on Ex.PW-9/A. The rukka (information) sent to the police station for registration of the case was not returned to the IO after registration of the case and in fact, it was kept in the police station with the original FIR. He did not leave the spot immediately after sending of rukka to the police station and he remained at the spot and the PIR for about two hours. He had no concern to know the number of the said FIR of that case. He testified that he had put section 120-B read with section 302 IPC. He admitted that no death took place in this incident regarding which statement of Chandi Mishra (PW-9) was sent to Police station for registration of a case. PW-18 answered that the only work, which he had done at the spot, was of sending the rukka. He denied the suggestion that Madhavanand was not present at the spot at the time of the incident. He did not prepare any rough site plan of the spot. Chandi Mishra gave the description of one person in his statement Ex.PW-9/A, though he referred four persons in his statement. The witness has seen FIR Ex.PW-92/A in the court and found that at the right top corner, the date 8.7.1974 is written, (In fact, this is 8.1.1974). It is elicited that when he reached the spot, member of public, Chandi Mishra and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 375 police officers were present. No person from the public volunteered to give information as to how the occurrence had taken place.
281. PW-92 Sh. G.N. Singh (Girija Nand), the then Second Officer, PS Kotwali, Patna deposed that from March 1973 to February 1976, he was posted in PS Kotwali, Patna. He remained there posted as Second Officer till May, 1974. He became Incharge PS Kotwali, Patna after May, 1974. He deposed that on 07.1.1974 at about 10.55 AM, Officer Incharge PS Kotwali, Patna informed him about rumour of a bomb blast in Patna Collectorate. He (PW-92), ASI Rameshwar Prasad and ASI Durga Prasad accompanied Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-
18) for going to Patna Collectorate and reached there at about 11.15 AM. They found a hand grenade lying between the Treasury Guard Room and office of the Collector. They also found a jeep no. BRB- 1400 parked at a distance of about two yards of the hand grenade and it was facing East. He also found one Iron Lever and one pair of wooden sleepers near the hand grenade. They also found a crowd near that place. They repelled the crowd from that place and deputed constables on all the sides of the place. He did not find Naik Chandi Mishra there. Ct. Chandi Mishra (Naik) came there at about 12.30 PM. There was a Police Information Room (PIR), which was at a distance of about two furlongs from the place where the jeep was parked and the police information room was not visible from near the jeep. Sub-Inspector Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-18) took the statement of Naik Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and at the instance of Gokhla Nand CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 376 Sahai (PW-18), he (PW-92) recorded the statement of Chandi Mishra Naik (PW-9) Ex.PW-9/A correctly. He read it over to Naik Chandi Mishra, who admitted the same to be correct and signed at point A. He has worked with Gokhla Nand writing and signing and accordingly, he identified signatures of Gokhla Nand Sahai at point C on Ex.PW-9/A. Sh. Gokhla Nand Sahai recorded his endorsement Ex.PW-18/A in his own handwriting. SI Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-18) entrusted the investigation of this case to him. He, therefore, sent the statement of (PW-9) Naik Chandi Mishra with endorsement of SI Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-18) to PS Kotwali, Patna for registration of a formal FIR through ASI Durga Prasad Singh. He had seen the FIR, which is hand of ASI Durga Prasad Singh. He identified the handwriting and signatures Junior SI Saraswati Pandey. FIR is Ex.PW-92/A, which bears the signature of Junior SI Saraswati Pandey at point A. He deposed that he correctly recorded the statements of SI Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-18) and Naik Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and thereafter inspected the spot. There was a park in front of the Collectorate, Patna towards South. There was a road in between the Park and Patna Collectorate. The jeep was found parked at a distance of about 20-22 yards towards East of that park. Patna Collectorate is towards North of the jeep at a distance of about 15 feet from that jeep. The Treasury Guard Room was at a distance of about 20/21 feet from the jeep. There was a drain running North-South at a distance of 12 feet towards the East of the jeep. River Ganga was flowing towards CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 377 North of the building of Patna Collectorate and it was flowing towards East-West. He deposed that River Ganga was at a distance of 25-30 yards from the turning. He saw the boundary of Magad Mahila College. There was washer man ghat towards North-East corner of the boundary wall of the said college. There was a pagdandi (footpath), which leads up to Dhobighat and beyond that, some bricks were kept there. Police Information Room was at a distance of about two furlong towards the south of Dhobighat, there was a path for going to Police information Room from the Dhobighat by the side of boundary wall of Magad Mahila College, and that path was in South. He deposed that a person desirous to go to the Police Information Room from Dhobighat would use the said path and the place where the jeep was parked, would not fall on the way.
282. In his further statement, PW-92 Sh. G.N. Singh deposed that after inspection of the spot, he returned to Patna Collectorate. He requested the City S.P., who arrived there, to arrange the services of military personnel to examine and inspect the hand grenade. One military Captain came there from Danapur Cantt. He talked to the Captain and made arrangement of sand bags. On his request to SDM, Lala Agam Prasad, Deputy Magistrate was deputed for destruction of the hand grenade. Thereafter, he went to Police Information Room, where he found one accused in custody, lying on bench who was keeping mum and was not speaking. He found a wound on his head. His clothes were found wet with water. He prepared injury statement CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 378 and made a request for his medical examination. He identified the photograph of the assailant as Ex.P-4. He sent information to the police photographer through police information room to get the spot photographed. He returned to the spot at 3.30 PM and immediately thereafter photographer also reached there who took photographs on his direction. He stated that jeep had been moved ahead before taking of the photographs. He recorded statements of the constables of treasury guard and their HC and of Ct. Jai Kishan Singh (PW-8). At 5.45 PM, the afore said military Captain Mr. Prabhat (PW-150) along with two officials came to the spot and at that time Lala Agam Prasad, Deputy Magistrate also arrived there. Sand bags were also brought at the spot by that time. Those sand bags were kept around the hand grenade and he and Lala Agam Prasad gave a warning to the public to move away from that place. By that time, City S.P. and other officers also arrived. Thereafter, hand grenade was blasted by Captain Prabhat (PW-150) causing vibration of great velocity and sand bags kept scattered. There was a pit of 1 X 1½ feet at the place of the blast and it was blackened. The office of the DM was in double storey building and 3-4 holes were caused by the splinters on the second storey of the office of District Magistrate. Glass panes of windows of the office of DM were broken because of this blast. After the blast, he took a lever and remnants of hand grenade into possession from the spot. He deposed that he correctly recorded the statement of Captain Prabhat (PW-150) and also of the Madhavanand Avadhoot.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 379
283. PW-92 further testified that on 08.01.1974, the accused was sent to Medical College, Patna in the Evening. He had taken into possession one spring and a plug, which were the remnants of the bomb along with the Lever from the spot on 07.01.1974 and he deposited the same in the Malkhana (Store Room) of PS Kotwali. He testified that Jeep was of yellow colour, station wagon was of green colour and motorcycle was of red colour. All these three vehicles were in running condition. The accused was discharged from the hospital on 18.01.1974. His police remand was taken on the same day until 29.01.1974 and he was sent to judicial custody on 30.01.1974. Investigation of this case was remained with him up to 27.02.1974, when it was handed over to Sh. M.M.P. Sinha of Bihar CID (PW-
134).
284. In his cross-examination, PW-92 admitted the suggestion of the defence that the hand grenade of this incident was thrown on Madhavanand. He deposed that culprit of the crime was sent to Police Information Room, before recording of FIR. He had shown the culprit to Madhavanand after five or six hours of registration of the case. He could not say whether Madhavanand was sent back to jail at 05.00 PM. He did not obtain any specific order from the Magistrate to keep Madhavanand after 05.00 PM. Since Madhavanand had given the name of the person apprehended, he was not put for test identification parade. He has denied the suggestion that the man in the photograph CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 380 Ex.P-4 is not the same, who was arrested. He deposed that Chandi Mishra gave him registration number of one motorcycle, one jeep and a station wagon and these were the vehicles, which were chasing the vehicle, carrying Madhavanand. He had seized all those three vehicles. Their drivers could not be arrested as it could not be ascertained as to who were the drivers of these three vehicles. During his posting, no one has taken three vehicles on superdari. He admitted that registration number of these vehicles is not reflected in the statement of Chandi Mishra. He testified that the slippers shown in the photographs were of Ct. Jai Kishan Singh (PW-8).
285. Ex.PW-9/A is an intimation/rukka on the statement of Sh. Chandi Mishra (PW-9) dated 07.01.1974, which was forwarded by the Station Incharge, PS Kotwali for registration of FIR. It (information) speaks of a case under Section 120-B read with section 302/307 IPC and under Section 4/5 Explosive Act and 25/27 of Arms Act. The endorsement is Ex.PW-18/A on the rukka Ex.PW-9/A itself. At its bottom, it is mentioned that a case No. 24 of 07.01.1974 U/s. 120-B read with Section 302/307 IPC and 4/5 Explosive Act and 25/27 Arms Act was registered with PS Kotwali, Patna and SI G.N. Singh (PW-92) has taken over the investigation. On the right top corner of the rukka on the first page, CJM has mentioned as "Seen" and put his signatures on 08.01.1974. On the right top corner of the FIR Ex.PW-92/A, CJM has signed with date 8.01.74.
(All these documents are available in Folder R-9).
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 381
286. The incident of 7th January 1974 has been further corroborated by the statement of PW-150 Major Prabhat Chander Dass. He deposed that in January 1974, he was posted at Danapur as Captain, under Brigadier Chaddha and Major K.K. Puri. On 7.1.1974 in the afternoon, he received information on telephone from District Magistrate, Patna (Sh. R.N. Dass) and on their requisition after obtaining permission from Major K.K. Puri, he reached the Collectorate Patna for defusing hand grenade. He reached Patna at about 4.35/5.00 PM along with Field Engineer, NCO. The hand grenade was found inside the Collectorate compound. He first examined the area visually and then the grenade. He found lever lying on the ground separated from the hand grenade. He considered the hand grenade fitted with a base plug, and not having the lever and pin, to be dangerous. He got the area cleared and asked for bringing some sand bags as it was a live hand grenade. District Magistrate Mr. Dass and some police officials were also present there. Some vehicles were parked nearby and he got them removed. Gun cotton slab was put near the hand grenade and then the hand grenade was destroyed by igniting the fuse and by placing the detonator into the gunpowder and intensity of the hand grenade and of cotton slab got intermixed and the blast was quite loud. After the blast, he inspected the place, found some splinters of the hand grenade and a spring in broken condition, and found the base plug.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 382
287. In his cross-examination, he replied that when the lever and the pin are not found in a hand grenade, it is considered dangerous and it can blast at any movement. He described what a live hand grenade is. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that in the instant case, something was not functioning and for that reason, the hand grenade did not explode. In his presence, civilian police lifted splinters of hand grenade, base plug, spring etc. at the spot. Lever was lying at the spot, but it was picked up before the hand grenade was defused.
288. PW-140 Inspector Alok Nath Chatterjee the then Sub Inspector, Special Branch, Patna deposed that in April 1974, he was Sub- Inspector and posted in the Special Branch, Patna (Bihar). Inspector Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) was the Investigating Officer of the Patna Kotwali vide case No. 24 of 1974 (pertaining to attack on Madhavanand). He deposed that on 5.4.1974, Inspector M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) gave him three articles, which were shown to him. He sealed them in a tin container and that sealed tin container was given to him. He took that sealed container to the office of Controller of Explosives at Esplanade, Calcutta. He gave the receipt Ex.PW-140/A to Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) about that tin container having three articles. He gave the details of the articles as were given to him by Inspector Sh. M.M.P. Sinha. (At the time of deposition of PW-140 in the court, it is observed that one tin container sealed with the seal of DSJ has been opened, from which fly of Lever Ex.P-138, Base Plug Ex.P-139 and Broken Spring Ex.P-140 were taken out). He deposed CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 383 that these three articles were Mark as A, B and C, before they were sealed and Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) gave the nomenclature. A forwarding letter was also given to him by Sh. M.M.P. Sinha along with a facsimile of seal with that covering letter. He delivered the sealed tin and covering letter in the office of Controller of Explosive, Calcutta on 06.04.1974 against a receipt. He further deposed that no one tampered with the sealed tin and the letter during the period they remained in his possession. In his cross-examination, PW-140 deposed that he did have any occasion either before or after that time to take the articles to the office of Controller of Explosive, Calcutta.
(The Receipt Ex.PW-140/A is available in Folder R-7)
289. PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, Investigating Officer of this case deposed that in February 1974, he was posted as Inspector (Intelligence) Branch (also known as Special Branch of Bihar Police) with Headquarter at Patna. On 28.2.1974, investigations of the case vide FIR No.24 PS Kotwali was entrusted to him from SI Girija Nand Singh (PW-92) of PS Kotwali, Patna. Investigation of this case remained with him from 1.3.1974 to 10.6.1975. He deposed that on 05.04.1974, he arranged to send one sealed parcel containing lever of a hand grenade, striker with spring etc. of exploded hand grenade to the Controller of Explosives, Calcutta though SI Alok Nath Chatterjee (PW-140) for opinion as to whether these were the parts of a service hand grenade or not. He testified that the sealed Parcel, which was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 384 sent to Controller of Explosive, Calcutta on 5.4.1974, was taken from Malkhana, PS Kotwali Patna.
290. The prosecution has also examined an explosive expert Sh. R.P. Malhotra as PW-138 to prove his report about the bomb found at the Collectorate Patna. Sh. R.P. Malhotra, the then Deputy Controller of Explosives at Calcutta deposed that he was posted as Deputy Controller of Explosives at Calcutta from 1972 to 1976. He is B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering and AMIE, which he had passed in the year 1968. He remained posted in Ordinance Factory, Kirki in supervisory capacity from 1961 to 1971. During apprenticeship in the ordinance factories, he received practical training in handling the hand grenades. After 1972, he examined a number of explosives including hand grenades. He had appeared in various courts as Deputy Controller of Explosive and as Controller of Explosives. He was promoted as Controller of Explosives in the year 1981. PW-138 further testified that on 6 th April 1974, he received a sealed tin container through Sh. Alok Nath Chatterjee (PW-140) Sub-Inspector CID, Patna (Bihar) relating to Patna Kotwali vide Case No.24 dated 7.1.1974. He issued a receipt in token of his having receipt this sealed parcel. He brought with him the file having the receipt also. On 02.04.1974, he examined the contents of the sealed tin container consisting of article Mark (A) Broken Spring, Mark (B) Fly of Lever and Mark (C) Base Plug. On examination, these were found to be remnants of an exploded hand grenade. These were then sent in his laboratory attached to his office CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 385 for chemical examination. Sh. A. Ray was the chemical examiner. (During deposition of PW-138 in the court, one parcel sealed with the seal of Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Calcutta was opened, from which Fly of Lever Ex.P-138, Base Plug Ex.P-139 and Broken Spring Ex.P-140 were taken out). PW-138 deposed that these are the same, which were marked by him as Mark A, B and C. He brought with him the file of this case, in which the copy of his report with his signature is available. The copy of report of Sh. A. Ray, Chemical Examiner, was also available, which is Mark PW-138/B. He identified the signatures of Sh. A. Ray at point A. Therefore, this report of Sh. A. Ray is proved by PW-138 and it is now exhibited as Ex.PW-138/F. He testified that original report was forwarded to the SDM, Sadar, Patna, vide registered post and he brought office copy available in his file, which is Ex.PW-138/C. He identified his own signature on this office copy at point A and of Sh. Kundu (PW-51), Controller of Explosive at point B. The sealed parcel was then handed over by him to Sh. Ram Bachan Ram, ASI, IB, Bihar, Patna, on 04.12.1974.
291. As per report dated 18.06.1974 Ex.PW-138/C of PW-138 of Sh. R.P. Malhotra, the above said articles A and B were the remnants of an exploded hand grenade, which prior to explosion contained high explosive charge of Tri-Nitro-Toluene. The article Mark C was a fly of lever of such type of grenade and that a grenade of above type is capable of endangering life on explosion. As per the chemical CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 386 examination report Ex.PW-138/B of Sh. A. Ray, article Mark A was consisting of a broken spring with a metal body, article B was consisting of a metal piece and mark C was consisting of a metallic plug. Tri-Nitro-Toluene (TNT) was detected in each of items Mark A and C and nothing of significance was detected in the article Mark B. (Report of Sh. A. Ray Ex.PW-138/B and Report Ex.PW-138/C of Sh. R.P. Malhotra are available in Folder R-2)
292. Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati argued that as per the case of the prosecution Madhavanand was brought from Gayaji Jail to Collectorate, Patna, but no document of Gaya Jail or production warrant to show that he was being brought to Patna, has been filed by the prosecution. She also argued that the story of the prosecution is unbelievable as Madhavanand could have been attacked easily during the journey from Gaya to Patna as it was a rural area and the distance between Gayaji & Patna was about 130 KMs, and it was difficult to attack at a crowded place like Office of Collector, Patna, where there was no scope to escape after attack. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that Ram Swarath Singh of Khusrupur Village referred by PW-1 in his statement, who, had knowledge about the topography of the area, has not been examined. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that Madhavanand has not been examined for identification of his assailant Vinayanand as stated by PW-9 and PW-10 in their respective cross- examination. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that no public person was joined a witness to the incident of attack on Madhavanand and only CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 387 police officials, who are interested witnesses, have been examined to prove the incident. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the Investigation Officer made no effort to recover the saffron chaddar, which Vinayanand has alleged to have thrown while fleeing from the spot towards Ganga. Further, she points out a lapse in the investigation in not recovering three empty cartridges as Vinayanand has fired thrice while fleeing from the spot towards Ganga. She would further urge a defect in the investigation in not recovering the revolver, when there was only waist-deep water in the Ganga.
293. PW-9 Chandi Mishra Hawaldar and PW-10 Kailash Singh Hawaldar have already testified that they have brought Madhavanand from Gayaji Jail to Collectorate, Patna and in view of their trustworthy ocular testimony, there remains no requirement to place on record production warrant or any document of Gaya Jail. These witnesses as well as PW-8 Jai Kishan Singh have given detailed narration as to how a hand grenade was thrown towards the jeep in which Madhavanand was sitting which fell at a distance of 2/3 yards from the jeep and the grenade did not explode. It had already come in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that after throwing the hand grenade, the assailant ran towards the Ganga and jumped into it. PW-8 Ct. Jai Kishan and Gorakh Nath Singh brought him to banks of the River and they have identified the photograph of the assailant Ex.P-4 as the said assailant. Consequently, they secured him from River Ganga and this photograph has also been identified by PW-1 as that of Vinayanand.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 388 The entire argument concerning these events advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the defence is merely peripheral since this court is not adjudicating any substantive charges concerning the attack on the life of Madhavanand, which happened prior to the murder of L.N. Mishra. It should be borne in mind that these incidents are only put forth by the prosecution in the backdrop of the charge u/s 120-B IPC in respect of conspiracy hatched to kill Madhavanand, Abdul Gaffoor, L.N. Mishra and others. This court, in fact, need not go into details to find out the complicity of the assailants of Madhavanand, but only consider it as a backdrop to prove the charge under Section 120-B of IPC, which is sufficiently proved through the eye witness account of PW-8 to PW-10, which is appreciated already. It is only superfluous to urge here that Madhavanand would have been attacked on the way from Gaya to Patna and not in a city like Patna. As regards, the non- recovery of certain material objects concerning the incident of attack on Madhavanand, the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1, cannot be lost sight of. It is held in Para No. 31 to 33 therein that if direct evidence is there, non-recovery of weapon or pistol or spent cartridges does not derail from the case of the prosecution. Reference can also be given to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi & Others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (6) SCC 81, holding therein "It has been then submitted on behalf of the appellants that nothing incriminating could be CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 389 recovered from them, which goes to show that they had no complicity with the crime. In my view, recovery of no incriminating material from the accused cannot alone be taken as a ground to exonerate them from the charges, more so when their participation in the crime is unfolded in ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses, whose evidence has been found by me to be unimpeachable." Similarly, if only police officials have been examined by the prosecution, and private witness are not examined, it does not affect the case of the prosecution, as held in C. Ronald and another Vs. State, 2011 (12) SCC 428, (Para 21 and 22) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
294. The cumulative effect of the deposition of PW-7 to PW-10 conclusively establishes that an attempt on the life of Madhavanand had taken place on 07.01.1974 and further the assailant was Vinay @ Vinay Avadhoot (Proclaimed Offender) and he along with his three henchmen had followed the said Madhavanand, who was being brought in custody to Patna. It comes to the fore from the testimony of PW-1 that this Madhavanand is a defector and deserter of the cult, turning hostile to the interest of the cult by becoming an approver in a murder case against its founder. Further, this evidence proved from the testimonies of all these four witnesses regarding an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Madhavanand corroborates the deposition of PW-1 as regards the conspiracy hatched in October 1973 at Trimohan to eliminate Madhavanand by Vinayanand, is believable. It is the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 390 defence which got elicited the name of assailant as Vinay Avadhoot in cross-examination of PW-10. This incident has been duly registered with PS Kotwali as per the evidence of PW-18, which is discussed above.
295. As regards the oral and documentary evidence proved through witnesses PW-18, PW-92, PW-134, PW-138, PW-140 and PW-150, shows that the hand grenade was a live one, which was later detonated and exploded with the help of PW-150. The evidence of PW-138 and PW-150, which remained un-derided, establishes that the hand grenade contained TNT, a dangerous explosive substance. This incident is to be viewed only to substantiate the theory the prosecution that there was a conspiracy hatched at Trimohan in October 1973 when they decided to eliminate the perceived enemies including Madhavanand, on whom the hand grenade was flung.
296. It is argued by Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate that in his Application by way of Memo of Evidence dated 08.02.1975 Ex.PW- 134/DD (also exhibited as Ex.PW-151/DF), filed by the Investigation Officer Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134), before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna, names of accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand were not mentioned regarding the incident dated 07.1.1974. She also points out that in other applications Ex.PW-134/DA (dated 01.08.1974), Ex.PW-134/DB (dated 12.07.1974) and Ex.PW-151/DB (dated 26.07.1974) filed before the Magistrate; PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 391 Sinha has mentioned that conspiracy was hatched by Vinayanand, Visheshwaranand, Rudranand and Shankaranand at Village Arrah. She argued that in the charge sheet, Investigation Officer, without any reason or justification, has shown the place of conspiracy to be at Village Trimohan instead of Village Arrah and names of Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand are mentioned. However, I do not find any force in this argument since the said applications were filed when the matter was still under initial investigation. I have perused all these applications and found that all these details are mentioned by the Investigation Officer based on the disclosure made by Vinayanand Avadhoot in the course of his interrogation soon after his unsuccessful attempt to escape after throwing the grenade on the jeep of Madhavanand at Patna Collectorate on 07.01.1974. Based on the disclosure by Vinayanand, IO has mentioned that Vinayanand has informed about the plan to kill Madhavanand Avadhoot hatched in Anand Marg Primary School, Arrah by Visheshwaranand Avadhoot, Shankaranand Avadhoot and Vinayanand Avadhoot. (These applications are available in Folder R-18). Moreover, this court cannot ignore the fact that at that point of time, the investigation was at its initial stage. The ultimate result of investigation was filed subsequently by the Investigation Officer in the form of charge sheet u/s 173 Cr. PC of which cognizance was taken by the court and ultimately after considering the evidence collected CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 392 during investigation, my Ld. Predecessor ordered for framing of the charge.
297. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel Ms. Sima Gulati that with regard to the incident at Collectorate Patna, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are police officials, who are interested one and no attempt was made to join any private witness from the public when admittedly there was a huge crowd after the incident. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Mathew and another, AIR 1978 SC 1571: -
"the evidence of the investigating officer cannot be branded as highly interested on ground that they want that the accused are convicted. Such a presumption runs counter to the well recognized principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case."
Therefore, the public servants, who have deposed, must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 393 their case. Moreover, it is a matter of common prudence that generally private persons in such type of incident are scared of becoming witnesses. Therefore, the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel falls to the ground.
30) Aftermath the attempt on Madhavanand.
298. PW-1 deposed that at about 9-10 AM, on 8th January (1974) Gopalji came there (Chautham) with a newspaper, which contained the details of Madhavanand's life. Gopalji suggested to him that he should shift to his farmhouse at Tilihar on the other side of the Kosi River. He told Gopalji that Santoshanand and others would be coming from Patna by 15th January (1974) whereon Gopalji advised him to wait for them at Tilihar. Accordingly, he went to Tilihar where he remained until 15th January (1974). PW-1 further testified that when Santoshanand and others did not reach there, he (PW-1) came back to Gopalji house at Chautham. After 2-3 days, Arteshanand and Sudevanand also reached there but Santoshanand did not come there. Sudevanand narrated him all the details of attack made on Madhavanand. He further deposed that on 17th January (1974), they received a telegram from Santoshanand in the name of 'Prabu' addressed to Gopalji Ex.PW-1/S that they should wait for 'satsang'. After one or two days of telegram, Santoshanand came to Chautham and discussed attack on Madhavanand in detail. Santoshanand expressed his regret that they had not been successful in their mission. At that time, he himself, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Gopalji and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 394 Santoshanand were present. Santoshanand asked him to go and bring Ram Kumar so that further programme could be chalked out. It was decided that further course of action be deferred for the time being as they were short of arms and ammunitions. In or about 4th week of January, (1974), he (PW-1) went to Trimohan to bring Ram Kumar but he refused to come. It was decided that they would all go to Ram Kumar's house on 6th February and the situation would be reviewed there and further programme would be settled. They were asked to take shelter at their respective places and should reach at Ram Kumar's house on 6 th February 1974. He (PW-1) came to Trimohan at Ram Kumar's house and all others reached there on 6th February. He himself, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Ram Kumar and Tyageshwaranand participated in a meeting on 6th February 1974 at the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan. In the meeting, Santoshanand suggested that they were short of arms and ammunitions and another meeting would be held on 15.2.1974. In the meantime, they should go to their respective convenient places for shelter. Tyageshwaranand was VSS Organizer of Bihar State and he (PW-1) told them that he had no shelter in Bihar and so Santoshanand told him that Abdul Gaffoor was fighting elections from Madhubani constituency and he should go there to keep a watch on his activities.
299. In the cross-examination, it is found that at 06.30 AM on 07.01.1974, PW-1 reached Chautham, but Gopalji was not there at that time. He has not stated before the Magistrate that on reaching CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 395 Chautham, Gopalji came there next day i.e. on 08.1.1974. He deposed that he has stated before the Magistrate that on 08.1.1974 Gopalji came there and brought newspaper containing the news that an attack had been made on Madhavanand in the Collectorate at Patna. He was confronted with the statement Ex.PW-1/X where the words "they have read news in the newspaper" is not mentioned. He has not stated before the Magistrate that Gopalji had asked him to stay at Tilihar. He explained that Magistrate did not ask of his activities after incident of Madhavanand. He did not state in his previous statement that on 17th January (1974), they received a telegram from Santoshanand by the name of "Prabhu" addressed to Gopalji that they should wait for "Satsang". He also did not state that after one or two days of the telegram, Santoshanand came to Chautham and question of unsuccessful attempt of Madhavanand's life was discussed or that Santoshanand has expressed his regret for the failure of the mission. He also did not tell Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Gopalji and Santoshanand were present at that time or that Santoshanand asked him to come and bring Ram Kumar for planning further programme. It is further found in his cross-examination that he did not state before the Magistrate that it was decided that further course of action shall be deferred as they were short of arms and ammunition. He did not state before the Magistrate that in or about fourth week of January, he went to Trimohan to bring Ram Kumar or he refused to come. He also did not state that when he came back, it was decided that they would go to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 396 Ram Kumar's house on 06.02.1974, where situation was to be reviewed and further programme was to be settled. He also did not state before the Magistrate that when all others left, he came to Trimohan at Ram Kumar's house or that he reached Trimohan a fortnight before 6th February, when all other persons reached there on 06.02.1974. He also did not state that he himself, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Ram Kumar and Tyageshwaranand reviewed the entire working. He also did not tell the Magistrate that Santoshanand at that time suggested that as they were in short supply of arms and ammunition, another meeting would be held on 15.02.1974 and in the meantime, they should go to their respective places. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 replied that there was no residential house near the house or farmhouse of Gopalji in Tilihar, which was across Kosi River. However, there were small farmers in their huts but he had no connection with them. It is further elicited from PW-1 that on 17.1.1974, Santoshanand told him at Chautham at Gopalji's house that Bihar Police was looking for the culprits in Madhavanand's case. He was not reading newspaper regularly from 7.1.1974 to 17.1.1974 and he read the newspaper on 8.1.1974, wherein there was news about it. He was at Tilihar, which is the farmhouse of Gopalji for the period from 9.1.1974 to 17.1.1974. He stated that he and Santoshanand went underground after 7.1.1974 and he had interest in the Organisation until 9.2.1974 when he was at Lahariya Sarai.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 397
300. Telegram Ex.PW-1/S (D-68) is available in Folder R-4.) This telegram was sent from Calcutta to Gopalji, at Chautham with message "Inform Satsang may be delayed Parbu". As per postal seal- cum-stamp, it was received in due course of business at Chautham on 17.1.1974. (This was recovered from house search of Gopalji on 17.5.1975 and bears signatures of both recovery witnesses PW-91 Sh. Parsu Ram Singh and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh and I.O. with dates 17.5.1975.)
301. It is argued by the defence counsel that there has been a sea- change in the testimony of PW-1 when viewed from the earlier statements he made before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr. PC. I have carefully considered the same. At the outset, it projects as though this witness exaggerating the events aftermath the attempt on the life of Madhavanand. After the careful shearing of the improvements/ exaggerations, what is to be deduced to account for the aftermath events following the attempt on the life of Madhavanand is that the prosecution successfully establishes the visit of PW-1 at Chautham & Tilihar, where the house & farmhouse of Gopalji are situated. The defence could not de-stabilize the version of PW-1 concerning the farmhouse of Gopalji, which is situated near Kosi River and there being no residential habitation in and around except huts of farmers. Thus, it establishes PW-1 visited the house of Gopalji at Chautham and farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar. Further, it can be CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 398 deduced that at the house of Gopalji on 17.01.1974, Santoshanand warning PW-1 about the intensive search by the Bihar Police, who were looking out for the assailants of Madhavanand. It is also filtered down that PW-1 was at Tilihar from 09.01.1974 until 17.01.1974 and that accused Santoshanand went underground during this period. It is also proved on record and through the oc ular testimony of PW-1 that a telegram Ex.PW-1/S sent by Santoshanand under his assumed name of "Prabu", was received at Chautham by accused Gopalji at his house in due course of business. Thus, it can be reasonably believed that all the accused were in touch with each other even after the attempt on the life of Madhavanand, making the conspiratorial acts intact and in- chain.
31) PW-1: Leaving the Organisation
302. PW-1 further deposed that on 7th February (1974), he came to Chautham at Gopalji house to take money from him. He took Rs.100/- from Gopalji. On 09.2.1974, he came to Lahariya Sarai and met Sham Lal Dass, who had imparted him Sadhna and stayed at his house. He came to know from Sham Lal Dass that he had abandoned Anand Marg and advised him (PW1) to say good-bye to this organisation. PW-1 further deposed that on 10.2.1974, his parents and other relatives came to the house of Sham Lal Dass at Lahariya Sarai and he along with his parents were overwhelmed by emotions and started weeping due to long separation. Due to this reason, he resolved that he would part company with the Organization and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 399 Revolutionary Group as well. He met his parents after a gap of 10 years. He did not go to Trimohan to attend the meeting scheduled on 15.2.1974. He sent a telegram addressed to Ram Kumar stating that he had changed his line and would not be reaching to attend the meeting. From the house of Sham Lal Dass at Lahariya Sarai, he went to his home at Laxmi Sagar, Darbhanga. In the last week of February 1974, Ram Kumar came to his house and told him that he was deputed by Santoshanand to inform him that many hand grenades had been procured and he should rejoin the Organisation. Ram Kumar impressed upon him (PW-1) to accompany but he declined and told Ram Kumar that thenceforth he wanted to live with his parents. He neither went to Trimohan nor participated in any activity of the Organisation. His marriage was solemnized on 2.6.1974 and after one month of his marriage, Avadhoot Tyageshwaranand, who was in plain clothes came to his house and before that, he had seen him in the dress of an Avadhoot. Tyageshwaranand brought a letter in his name from Santoshanand asking him to rejoin the organization. Tyageshwaranand told him that Baba had also remembered him and after reading the letter, he returned it to Tyageshwaranand telling him that he had married and would not go back to the organization. He tore off the letter immediately. PW-1 further deposed that Ex.P-3 is the photograph of Tyageshwaranand in plain dress. He hailed from Village & District Unnao and his original name was Suraj Prakash and he was also called as Budheshawaranand. He came to his Village with CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 400 a letter from Santoshanand to persuade him to rejoin the Organisation and his appearance was as appearing in photograph Ex.P-3.
303. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he had not stated before the Magistrate that on 07.02.1974, he came to Chautham at Gopalji's house to take money from him or took Rs.100/- from him or that on 09.02.1974, he came to Lahariya Sarai by bus and met Sham Lal Dass. He had also not stated in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC that from Sham Lal Dass he came to know that he had abandoned Anand Marg and advised him to say good-bye to this organization. He did not tell the Magistrate that on being asked, Sham Lal Dass telephoned his parents and other relations informing them of his arrival at his house or that on 10.02.1974 his parents and other relatives arrived there. He also did not state in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC that his parents and he himself were overwhelmed by emotions, started weeping due to long separation and he decided to Part Company with Anand Marg and the Revolutionary Group. He had stated before the Magistrate that he gave a telegram to Ram Kumar to the effect that he would not attend the meeting convened for 15.02.1974 and that he had changed his line. He sent this telegram from Lal Bagh post office of Darbhanga. He had not mentioned in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC that the telegram was sent from Lal Bagh post office. He had only stated that it was sent from Darbhanga. He did not state in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC tha t he came to the house of Sham Lal Dass CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 401 at Lahariya Sarai. He also did not state in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC before the Magistrate that in the last week of February, 1974 Ram Kumar came to his house and informed him that he had been sent by Santoshanand to inform him that many hand grenades had been procured and he should rejoin the organization. He also did not state in his previous statement under Section 164 Cr. PC that he declined to go with Ram Kumar or told him that he was living with his parents. He did not state before the Magistrate that he then did not come to Trimohan or did not participate in the activities of the organization thenceforth. He also did not state that after one month of his marriage, Tyageshwaranand Avadhoot came to his house with a letter from Santoshanand in his name mentioning therein that he should rejoin the organization and Baba had also remembered him. He had also not stated before the Magistrate that he returned that letter to Tyageshwaranand after reading it and informed him that he had married and would not go back to the organization or that Tyageshwaranand then tore off the letter immediately. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 replied that his parents met him at Lahariya Sarai and he decided to leave the organization forever. He informed Ram Kumar by a telegram that he (PW-1) would not attend the meeting fixed for 15.2.1974. Later on, Ram Kumar came to his house to take him back and he told him that thenceforth he would like to live with his parents. He has also denied the suggestion that Ram Kumar had also left the organization at that time. He further testified in his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 402 cross-examination that he was not disgusted with Anand Marg Organisation when he met Ram Kumar at Lahariya Sarai. He became disgusted only after his parents met him at Lahariya Sarai on the next day as his parents had started weeping. He did not tell his parents at that time what was he doing as a member of the Organisation. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 admitted the suggestion of the defence that his parents used to love and respect him. However, he added that while in service, his parents wanted to get him married and he had opposed in this respect. He was 22 years of age when he joined the service in the first instance. He got married after he left Anand Marg Organisation. PW-1 testified in his further cross- examination that he did not inform Sham Lal Dass and his parents, when they met him that he had been a member of the Revolutionary Group or that he had been making conspiracy to kill other Anand Margies and other leaders or that he had been collecting arms and ammunitions or that he had followed Abdul Gaffoor to assassinate him or watched his movements or that he planned and surveyed the routes by which Madhavanand was to come for the purpose of his assassination.
304. It is to be understood the circumstances in which PW-1 changed his mind on his free will and volition. The defence could not demolish in their evidence that PW-1 had chosen the different path to become a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 403 householder, entering into the matrimony by giving up his mendicant life in Anand Marg.
305. The line of cross-examination of this witness also reveals the progression of the mind of PW-1 to have opted for a settled life than remaining a mendicant, that too after meeting the loved parents, who insisted upon him to give up the religious order in Anand Marg. His mental disposition cannot be found fault with. The change of mind by PW-1 in deserting the organization cannot be coloured with any prejudice or to term it as acting with an ulterior intention towards the Anand Marg.
32) Identity of PW-1
306. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the accused persons that PW-1 is an imposter and neither was an Anand Margi nor was ever assigned any name of Visheshwaranand. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava whether he was an Anand Margi or that he had any alias name of Visheshwaranand @ Aacharya Madan @ Kapalic @ Vijay. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has countered the arguments of the defence stating that there is ample evidence to believe that PW-1, whose maiden name is Madan Mohan Srivastava and was rechristened as Visheshwaranand after his initiation/Diksha in the cult.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 404
307. I have already referred the statement of PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay to the effect that that he remained associated with Anand Marg from 1964 to February 1974 and initially his name was Madan Mohan Srivastava. The detailed testimony is already discussed, however to say pithily, PW-1 initiated by Sham Lal Dass, his immediate superior in Home Guards, while he was a part time worker and later was rechristened as Visheshwaranand He also met the founder of Anand Marg on 15.3.1964, became a full- time worker by taking a one month's leave. He received kapalic diksha also in the year 1965 and became a Monk of the order Avadhoot. He started wearing saffron. Ex.PW-1/C is the application submitted by him in March 1964 in his office to leave the station. Ex.PW-1/D is the telegram dated 16.03.1964 for extension of leave. He submitted his resignation letter dated 15.4.1964 Ex.PW-1/E.
308. PW-1 also testified that he worked as Principal of Anand Marg Primary School at Jabalpur, and Aacharya Keshavanand Avadhoot (DW-3) was working as General Secretary in place of Aacharya Sarveshwaranand Avadhoot, who was also in custody in jail along with Anand Murti for defector's murder case. At that time, Headquarter of Anand Marg was at Patna. Said acting General Secretary sent him a telegram that Baba was seriously ill and he (PW-
1) should come immediately and the message in the telegram was "Baba is seriously ill, come sharp". Therefore, from Jabalpur, he went to Patna. While replying the court question, PW -1 stated that he is not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 405 in possession of that telegram as he left everything at Jabalpur. He met acting General Secretary Aacharya Keshavanand Avadhoot at Patna.
309. In his cross-examination, PW-1 answered that he had not mentioned in detail in his statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC that he was appointed Provincial Secretary of PFI (Madhya Pradesh). He also did not tell that he was sent to Banaras for training in Sewa Dharam Mission as it was a matter of detail. He also did not state u/s 164 of the Cr. PC that he was asked to bring two human skulls for kapalic sadhna and he only stated that in the year 1965, he was made an Avadhoot. He stated that he told the Magistrate that he was given diksha as Avadhoot by "Prakashanand" "on behalf of Anand Murti". When he was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-1/X, the name of "Prakashanand" was not found mentioned. He did not state to the Magistrate that he was sent to Indore where he started monthly and fortnightly papers for PFI, such as "Malwa Pahari" and "Yodha" which was published from Jhansi. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that when a person is made Avadhoot, his name is changed at that very time. He confirmed that he was given the name "Visheshwaranand Avadhoot" on becoming an "Avadhoot". He replied that while posted as Editor at Indore, he used to purchase papers from Purshottam Printing Press and he was not dealing with the Government for purchase of the paper. He was aware that Government gives quota of papers for all journals but they have not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 406 applied to the Government for the quota of paper as they used to publish only 500 copies. He had oral understanding with Purshottam Printing Press at Indore to the effect that they would supply papers to them as required. At Page No. 90, he (PW-1) further admitted the suggestion of the defence that he used to send copy of the journal to the Government. He used to send it by post and not with a covering letter. In his further cross-examination PW-1 answered that he has no knowledge whether the Government had ordered any secret memo giving particulars of the person involved in the case including Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Vijay @ Hans Lal S/o Sh. Daroga Singh of Village Tenduni, District Bhojpur or that he was the absconder. He is also not aware whether a reward of Rs.500/- was announced for the person, who would get such person arrested. He also denied the suggestion that he was an imposter and not the real Visheshwaranand. He also denied the suggestion that real Visheshwaranand is still absconding. It is elicited that he did not state before the Magistrate about his transfer to Anand Marg Primary School at Bilaspur where he worked until August 1972. He did not remember the name of the owner of the house in which the school was situated. But it was at a rent @ Rs.30/- per month. To a question whether the social organization of Anand Marg spread throughout India, PW-1 replied in the affirmative and added that there were children homes, schools and hospitals and they were controlled from the head quarter. There were relief centers also. When the head CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 407 quarter was at Patliputra, the activities of the Organisation throughout the country used to be coordinated by the head quarter. He admitted that this Organisation had branches in various countries also for social service. He testified that in the beginning, letters of appointment as member of Anand Marg School were not issued from the head quarter but later on about the year 1969, such letters started being issued. He had not received any letter of appointment as Principal of School at Jabalpur. He received the transfer letter from Bilaspur to Jabalpur through one Brahmchari, who had come from Headquarter to replace him. He volunteered to say that he had been submitting progress report to Headquarter as Principal at Jabalpur. There was a law department in the Anand Marg Organisation. The lawyer member of the law department was Ram Tanuk, who had appeared in the court on defence side. He did not meet Sh. Ram Tanuk, Advocate to enquire about the difficulty in release of Anand Murti. In his further cross- examination, it is found that he became VSS member in the year 1965 as at that time a person below 45 years of age had to be member of VSS compulsorily in their capacity as Anand Margi. Sh. Satyanand Avadhoot was Incharge of VSS in the year 1965, who was later on arrested in Defector's murder case. Thereafter, one Sambodhanand, who was an absconder in defector's murder, was the Incharge. After him, Madhavanand Avadhoot became the Incharge. In the year 1973, Madhavanand was the Incharge of VSS. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that majority of Anand Margies were in government CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 408 service. It is elicited further that VSS camp used to be held twice a year. These camps used to be held in open fields. About 500 persons used to visit these camps. These camps were organised in solitary places. The activities in the camps were visible to the passerby. There used to be erected boundaries in order to prevent from outsiders coming in. He admitted that VSS workers used to be deputed to render social service to the people in the relief so required during calamities like earth quake, draught and cyclone and also on the occasion of migration consequent to Bangladesh War.
310. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 answered that he did not remember the date on which he received the telegram of illness of Baba at Jabalpur, but was in the latter half of July 1973. The telegram was delivered to him at about noontime. He left for Patna on the same day by train without any prior reservation. He travelled alone. He neither met Baba in jail nor did he go to court at Patna to attend court proceedings. He stayed at Patna for three or four days at that time. He did not go to the court to meet the Baba. He had talked with the workers on the subject.
311. A scrutiny of deposition of PW-1 reflects that he joined Anand Marg in the year 1964. Sh. Sham Lal Dass imparted him Sadhna. He met Baba Anand Murti on 15.03.1964. He was imparted training in Kapalic diksha by Baba Anand Murti in 1965. On behalf of Anand Murti, Prakashanand imparted diksha to him as Avadhoot at that time.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 409 As elicited in his cross-examination, that while making statement before the Magistrate about diksha as an Avadhoot, the word "Prakashanand" was not found mentioned and this improvement pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel is trivial in nature. In his previous statement, he has not stated about his appointment as Provincial Secretary of PFI in Madhya Pradesh. However, this omission is not of any importance in view of the fact that in his further cross-examination, the defence themselves given the suggestion that as Provincial Secretary, he used to deal with accounts. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that he has not stated in his statement before the Magistrate that he was sent to Indore and publication like "Malwa Pahari" and "Yodha" used to be published from Jhansi. However, this court is conscious of the fact that in his further cross-examination the defence have themselves admitted by giving suggestion to PW-1 that he used to send copies of these journals to the Government by post and not with a covering letter. It has come in his cross-examination that he used to purchase papers for publication from Purshottam Printing Press and this fact has also not been controverted by the defence. The suggestions made by the defence shows that the accused are aware about the active role of PW-1 in the organisation in various capacities. They got elicited that this organisation had branches in various countries also for social service. The defence has also elicited from PW-1 the details of VSS and he stated that he joined it in the year 1965. He informed the names of various Incharges of VSS from CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 410 time to time like Satyanand Avadhoot in the year 1965, succeeded by Sambodhanand and after that Madhavanand in the year 1973. He also informed about arrest of Satyanand Avadhoot and Sambodhanand in defector's murder case. He also admitted the suggestion of the defence that majority of Anand Margies were in government service. It is also elicited that VSS camp used to be held twice a year in open fields and about 500 persons used to visit these camps. The defence has not at all suggested that the information, so given by PW-1 in his cross-examination, was not correct. PW-1 has narrated about the Anand Marg Organisation, its various wings, its various activities, its cult head, posting of various persons in different wings from time to time and his own activities. PW-1 has narrated all these facts in so minute details that no person other than an Anand Margi be possessed of such knowledge.
312. I have already referred and appreciated the deposition of PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra of Indore, who identified PW-1 in the court correctly. It has come in his deposition that he took Diksha from Aacharya Visheshwaranand (PW-1) in 1967 when he joined Anand Marg. In August 1973, PW-1 came to him and gave him Rs.400/- for purchase of pistol/revolver and after 15/20 days, he came again in September 1973 when PW-34 told him that he could not arrange the arms. The deposition of PW-34 ratifies the prosecution story that PW- 1 Madan Mohan Srivastava is also known as Visheshwaranand.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 411
313. I have already held that PW-1 visited Indore to collect arms from PW-34, who identified PW-1 as Visheshwaranand. PW-1 lodged himself as "Vijay Kumar" and "Vijay Kumar Prabhat" at Aadarsh/Gujrati Lodge, which is corroborated by PW-19. The handwriting and signatures of PW-1 on the record of the said lodge have been identified by PW-126A and the record of the Lodge was seized by PW-83.
314. I have also referred, discussed and appreciated the statement of other relevant witnesses namely Sh. Laxman Parsad (PW-16), Sh. Sudarshan Banerjee (PW-17) and Mr. Clifford Boile (PW-147) of Hotel Republic. IO Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) has seized the folio of Visitor's Register and Bill Book containing Bill No. 8025 Ex.PW- 17/A on 03.05.1975. Sh. Narinder Nath Singh, Inspector CBI (PW-
129) has seized the Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R on 19.09.1975. I have also referred obtaining of specimen writing and signatures of PW-1 by the IO and GEQD PW-43 Sh. B. Lal has compared the questioned handwriting and signatures on folio of Visitor's Register Ex.PW-1/P (Q-8) and Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9) of Hotel Republic with his admitted writing and signatures Mark A-73 to A-77 on Ex.PW-1/T to Ex.PW-1/V and specimen handwriting and signatures S-45 to S-59 (Ex.PW1/W-1 to PW-1/W-15). PW-43 has given his expert opinion and deposed that the writer of the questioned, admitted and specimen writing is the same i.e. PW-1. Here it is relevant to mention that while PW-1 stayed at Republic Hotel, Patna, he assumed the name of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 412 Shankar Kumar Gupta of Karol Bagh, Delhi and his handwritings and signatures have been identified by PW-126A.
315. PW-1 was posted as Principal of Anand Marg Public School at Jabalpur, during the year August 1972 to July 1973. In his re- examination, he admitted certain documents, which were in his handwriting and bearing his signatures as Visheshwaranand during his tenure as Principal. He deposed that the document Ex.PW-1/Z is Children Home's Progress Report and he has filled up its blanks in his handwriting by point A and B. The Tour Programme Ex.PW-1/ZA is entirely in his own handwriting and he has signed as Visheshwaranand Avadhoot with date as 23/10/72. The writing on the reverse side Ex.PW-1/ZB is also in his handwriting. He has seen the document Ex.PW-1/ZC, which is the record of Personal Work done and this is in his handwriting within red circle. It bears his signature at Point A. He was shown Monthly Progress Report of Anand Margi Primary School, Jabalpur Ex.PW-1/ZD and identified his signatures at Point A as Ac Visheshwaranand Avadhoot and he mentioned the date at Point B, which is of March 73. The figure of the date is torn off. He identified his writing on this document encircled red colour. He has also seen the telegram, on the backside of which there is writing in red circle Ex.PW-1/ZE and he had received this telegram. This telegram bears the postal stamp dated 16.01.1973 and this is addressed to Visheshwaranand Avadhoot C/o Kishore Lal Jaiswal, Garha Road, Jabalpur. (There is a presumption of correctness of the telegram under CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 413 Section 88 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 which is connected to PW-1 and the same is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/ZX). He has also seen the Notebook Ex.P-11 and on the title cover, the words reading as "Notes on Social Philosophy" are written in his handwriting, which are Ex.PW-1/ZF. On the first page, the words reading as "Ac Visheshwaranand Avadhoot" with date 7/4/71 is in his handwriting, which is Ex.PW-1/ZF-1. At page No. 186, the writing within red circle Ex.PW-1/ZF-3 is also in his handwriting. Page No. 187-196 are also in his handwriting. He received a Telegram Ex.PW-1/ZG (23.02.1973) and it was addressed to him as Visheshwaranand.
316. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that there is no page number on the weekly Progress Report Ex.PW-1/Z. This report used to be sent to Ranchi either by ordinary post or through some Anand Margi, who was going to that place. This is an office copy. He deposed that he remained posted in Jabalpur Primary School from August 1972 to July 1973. He admitted the suggestion that on Ex.PW-1/ZA the date is mentioned as 23.10.1972. He explained that he was transferred to Jabalpur in August 1972 from Bilaspur. He was Incharge of Bilaspur and Jabalpur, Diocese for want of a good worker at Bilaspur. He started the Note Book Ex.P-11 from April 1971 till about 15.05.1971 and during this period he was sick and remained hospitalized at Lucknow. He deposed that there is no date on Ex.PW- 1/ZE on the reverse of the telegram. He received this telegram, while posted at Jabalpur, but did not remember the month. There is no CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 414 writing in his hand on the Telegram Ex.PW-1/ZG. At the time of his deposition in the court on 20.05.1981, the PW-1 could not recollect the name of the students and their father's name from amongst the children studying in the school when report Ex.PW-1/Z was seen. He also could not remember the number of the house in which the school was situated and name of the owner of the building. However, he deposed that the rent of building was Rs.30/- per month. He used to get the receipts in lieu of payment of rent from the landlord. It has further come in his testimony that in a separate file, the receipts used to be tagged and he had left the place. In his cross-examination, PW-1 explained about the court fees of Rs.15/- on Ex.PW-1/ZD to the effect that this school was being run previously on Garha Road and due to the shortage of the funds, the rent could not be paid by the Principal. A civil suit was filed against Anand Marg's Principal, he received the summons, and a compromise was arrived at between the parties, for which the court fees of Rs.15/- was paid. In his further cross- examination, PW-1 replied that sometimes he writes his name as Avadhoot Visheshwaranand, sometimes as Aacharya Visheshwaranand and sometimes as V. Avadhoot. The words "Monthly Report of School" on the reverse side on Ex.PW-1/ZE and marked X are in his handwriting. In his cross-examination, he asserted that there was no other person known by the name of Visheshwaranand in Anand Marg Organization.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 415
317. Ex.PW-1/Z is a document of Anand Marga Primary School/Children's Home, Jabalpur, Ranchi Region. This is in the handwriting of Aacharya Visheshwaranand (PW-1) dated 29.03.1973. Ex.PW-1/ZA is a Tour Programme of DS, Bilaspur (MP) and bears signature of Visheshwaranand Avadhoot (PW-1) with date 23.10.1972. Ex.PW-1/ZC is the Personal Work Done Report for December 1972 for Jabalpur office and V. Avadhoot (PW-1) signed this at point A. Ex.PW-1/ZD is monthly report of Anand Marga Primary School, Vijay Nagar and Jabalpur (MP) for the month of February and March 1973 and this is also signed by Aacharya Visheshwaranand (PW-1). The date is torn off beneath the signature though the month and year are legible as March 1973. Ex.P-11 is a Notebook and the title is written as "Notes on Social Philosophy" at point Ex.PW-1/ZF. On opening of this notebook, the first page Ex.PW-1/ZF-1 bears the name of AC Visheshwaranand Avadhoot (PW-1) with date 07.04.1971, beneath his name. At page No. 186 of this notebook, the writing Ex.PW-1/ZF-3 is in the handwriting of PW-
1. (All these documents are available in Folder R-3).
318. The document Ex.PW-1/ZE is the reverse side of a telegram, which bears some handwriting and PW-1 testified that this writing on the backside of the telegram is in his handwriting. The telegram has been marked as Mark PW-151/E. Keshavanand (DW-3) sent this telegram from Bombay and it was addressed to Visheshwaranand c/o Sh. Kishori Lal Ji Jaiswal, Cloth Store, Garha Road, Jabalpur. This CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 416 telegram bears the round postal stamp of Jabalpur Post Office and bears its date as 16.01.1973. PW-1 testified about receiving this telegram, which is now Ex.PW-1/ZX. He also another telegram Ex.PW-1/ZG from Asimanand from New Delhi addressed to Visheshwaranand C/o Kishore Lal Jaiswal, Garha Gate, JB (Jabalpur). It bears the round stamp of post office Jabalpur and bears its date as 23.02.1973. The contents of the telegram are "Baba poisoned condition serious Mass Rally reach 26 maximum P (sic)".
(This Telegram Ex.PW-1/ZG is available in Folder R-1.)
319. The testimony of PW-1 to the effect that the before said documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/Z, PW-1/ZA, PW-1/ZC, PW-1/ZD and PW- 1/ZF-1 to PW-1/ZF-3 are in his handwriting and bear his signatures, is corroborated by said PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad. I have already given the introduction and particulars of PW-126A as to how he knew and saw PW-1 writing and signing and is in a position to identify handwriting and signatures of PW-1. Regarding handwriting and signatures of PW-1 on Ex.PW-1/Z, PW-1/ZA, PW-1/ZC, PW-1/ZD and PW-1/ZF-1 to PW-1/ZF-3, PW-126A deposed that all these documents are in the handwriting of PW-1 and bear his signatures. The defence did not shatter the competency of PW-126A to identify the handwriting and signatures of PW-1 on these documents. The defence has also not derided the deposition of PW-126A that these documents are in the handwriting of PW-1 and bear signatures of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 417 PW-1. Therefore, the testimony of PW-126A could not be demolished by the defence. It is found that the defence has also not derided in the cross-examination of PW-1 his handwriting and signatures on these documents. The defence has only given the suggestion that signatures have been affixed on these documents as Visheshwaranand to create evidence of his identity as Visheshwaranand. The defence could not demolish the deposition of PW-1 about his posting in Anand Marg Primary School at Jabalpur. They also did not shatter that these documents Ex.PW-1/Z, PW-1/ZA, PW-1/ZB, PW-1/ZC, PW-1/ZD, PW-1/ZE and PW-1/ZF-1 to PW-1/ZF-3 are not in his handwriting or do not bear his signatures.
320. These documents were seized by the I. O. Sh. H.L. Ahuja (PW-
151) from Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Inspector, Officer Incharge of PS Gorakhpur on 26.09.1975 vide Seizure Mem o Ex.PW-151/E. PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja I.O. deposed that these documents Ex.PW1/Z, Ex.PW1/ZA, Ex.PW1/ZC, Ex.PW1/ZD, Ex.PW1/ZF and Ex.PW1/ZG bear his signatures at point 'A' and that of Sh. R.S. Chauhan at point 'B'. He also seized 'Prout' newspaper dated 9.9.1972 Ex.P-9 and "New Generation" newspaper dated 3.8.1973 and 10.8.1973 Ex.P-10. The writing encircled Mark PW-1/ZF-1 existed in the note book Ex.PW-1/ZF at the time he seized it and entries Ex.PW-1/ZF from page 1 to 186, Ex.PW-1/ZF-3 also existed. PW-151 answered in his cross-examination that these documents were taken into possession by him from hundreds of documents from Gorakhpur (Jabalpur) vide CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 418 Seizure Memo Ex.PW-151/E and he has signed all these documents at point A while Inspector R.S. Chauhan has signed the same at point B in his presence. In his cross-examination, he stated that during emergency, police has seized these documents from Anand Marg Primary School, Jabalpur.
(Seizure memo Ex.PW-151/E is available in Folder R-1).
321. PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha remained Investigation Officer of case No. 24/1974 from 01.3.1974 to 10.6.1975. He deposed that during investigation of the case no. 24/1974, he came to know that Vijay @ Hanslal S/o Daroga Singh of Village Tenduni PS Jagdishpur was wanted as an accused and he did not know that aforesaid Vijay @ Hanslal has also alias name of Visheshwaranand. He deposed that subsequently he found that he did not have any alias name as Visheshwaranand Avadhoot. In his cross-examination, he replied that that during the period when investigation of the case remained with him, Vijay @ Hanslal S/o Daroga Singh of Tenduni was not arrested. He denied the suggestion that an imposter was created. In his further cross-examination, PW-134 replied that he came to know of the parentage and address of the Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan Srivastava on 22.6.1974 and visited his house on 22.6.1974 itself but he was not found available. There he came to know his father's name as Ramji Prasad @ Ramji Babu of Mohalla Laxmi Sagar, near Darbhanga Railway Station. He replied that for the first time he came CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 419 to know that Visheshwaranand was Madan Mohan Srivastava on 22.6.1974. He replied that he came to know that Vijay @ Hanslal S/o Sh. Daroga Singh, resident of Village Tenduni, PS Jagdishpur was wanted as an accused and he did not know that aforesaid Hanslal @ Vijay has also alias name as Visheshwaranand.
322. In his further cross-examination, PW-134 at page no. 3384 to 3386, after perusing his case diary dated 10.7.1974, he replied that Deputy SP C.D. Parsad gave instructions that proceedings u/s 82/83 Cr. PC be initiated against accused Rudranand, Shankaranand and Vijay @ Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Hanslal S/o Daroga Singh of Village Tenduni, District Bhojpur. He admitted that after obtaining the warrant of arrest against these three persons, he handed over the same to SHO and compliance report was received. On 12.7.1974, he applied to CJM, Patna for obtaining their warrant of arrest, proclamation and attachment. He answered at page no. 3390 that he visited Village Tenduni on 29.7.1974 and accused Vijay @ Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Hanslal was found absconding. PW- 134 stated at page No. 3392 that subsequently, it was found that Vijay @ Hanslal S/o Daroga Singh, resident of Village Tenduni did not have alias name of Visheshwaranand. PW-134 further clarified at page no. 3395 that they were in fact trying to ascertain from their own sources as to which of these two persons was wanted in this case vide FIR no.24/1974.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 420
323. During cross-examination, PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (page 3379) was given suggestion by accused about alias name of Madan Mohan Srivastava as Visheshwaranand. By giving him, suggestion that he took Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand to his house and kept him for 2-3 days and thus admitted the case of the prosecution that alias name of Madan Mohan Srivastava was Visheshwaranand.
324. The Ld. Defence Counsel then argued that as per the case of the prosecution PW-1 had admittedly participated in the rally at Boat Club in April 1973. He was arrested and when it was so, why the record of Tihar Jail was not seized and filed in this case to show that PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava had alias name of Visheshwaranand. She also argued that they have also not filed the record of the Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi i.e. Parcha Shanakht (identification slip) relating to Madan Mohan Srivastava. Nevertheless, there is no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel as this had already been answered by the I.O. PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja at page no.3775 of his deposition that enquiries were made by DSP M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) but no such record could be found in Central Jail, Tihar as it was a minor offence. This has not been discredited in the cross-examination of PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja by the defence.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 421
325. Ld. Defence Counsel repeatedly argued that when Investigation Officer Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) has come to know on 22.6.1974 that Madan Mohan Srivastava had alias name of Visheshwaranand, it is strange as to how on 10.07.1974/12.07.1974, he continued to proceed against Vijay @ Hanslal @ Visheshwaranand of Village Tenduni for issuance of warrant of arrest and proceedings U/s. 82/83 Cr. PC. However, there is no merit in the submissions. PW-134 has categorically stated that he came to know on 22.06.1974 that Madan Mohan Srivastava had alias name of Visheshwaranand and visited his Village on that day and he was found absconding. He also admitted that on perusal of a note in the case diary dated 10.07.1974 written by Deputy SP Sh. C.D. Prasad, he had moved application on 12.07.1974 for action under Section 82/83 Cr. PC against Vijay @ Hanslal @ Visheshwaranand of Village Tenduni and he visited Village Tenduni on 29.07.1974 and he was found absconding. The matter was still under investigation and PW-134 clarified at Page No. 3395 in absolute terms that in fact, they were ascertaining from their sources as to who was the real Visheshwaranand, out of these two persons. Matter was still at the initial stage of investigation. Ultimately, the Investigation Officer found that it is Madan Mohan Srivastava, who was assigned the name of Visheshwaranand, after he was imparted Kapalic diksha in the year 1965 by and on behalf of Anand Murti. Even otherwise, prosecution has been able to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt through other evidence also that it is Madan Mohan Srivastava, who CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 422 was also known as Visheshwaranand. Moreover, there are several admissions on behalf of the defence that it is Madan Mohan Srivastava, whose alias name is also Visheshwaranand, which I proposed to deal with in the succeeding Para.
326. I have minutely gone through the cross-examination of PW-1 and the line of his cross-examination sufficiently suggests admissions of the defence that PW-1 has been a part and parcel of their cult before 10.02.1974, when he left Anand Marg Organisation. Following admissions emerge by the defence in cross-examination of PW-1 to the effect that PW-1 had been an active member of Anand Marg Organisation and his identity is established: -
(i) At Page No. 77 of his cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion of the defence that he had never left the Organisation as stated by him.
(ii) At Page No. 86 of his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted the suggestion of the defence that when he joined the Anand Marg, it was not banned by the Government.
(iii) At page No. 87 of his cross-examination, PW-1 testified that when he was appointed Provincial Secretary of PFI for Madhya Pradesh in August 1964, he was not given orders in writing.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 423
(iv) At Page No. 87 of his cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted the suggestion of the defence that as Provincial Secretary, he used to deal with accounts.
(v) At Page No. 105, PW-1 admitted the suggestion of the defence, in his cross-examination that in December 1970, he had wavered and thought of resigning from the Anand Marg Organisation. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he was asked to leave the organization forthwith in July 1973 by the General Secretary, when he was called to Patna. He also denied the suggestion that his resignation was accepted immediately and he was asked to leave with bag and baggage.
(vi) At Page No. 112-113, PW-1 in his further cross-examination, has denied the suggestion of the defence that thinking that in Anand Marg Organization, there were highly placed government servants and he would be able to get better job by coming in contacts with them, he joined it. He has denied the suggestion that for this reason, he left the government job and joined Anand Marg Organization for better emoluments.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 424
(vii) At Page No. 112-113, PW-1 has denied the suggestion of the defence that he was employed to enroll members to the Organization or that this was his only job throughout his stay in the Organization and for that purpose he was getting salary.
(viii) At Page No. 112-113, PW-1 has also denied the suggestion of the defence that there were persistent reports of embezzlement of money against him and he was turned out.
(ix) At Page No. 90 of his cross-examination, PW-1 further admitted the suggestion of the defence that he used to send copy of the journal to the Government. He used to send it by post and not with a covering letter. (He has stated so in continuation of his cross-examination at Page No. 88 and 89, when questions are asked by the defence about the journals "Malwa Pahari" and "Yodha").
(x) The accused persons have themselves given suggestion to the investigating officer Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) in his cross-examination admitting the alias name of Madan Mohan Srivastava as Visheshwaranand. PW-134 has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 425 denied the suggestion of the defence at Page no.
3379 that he took Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand to his house and kept him there for two or three days.
327. Accused persons have examined DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand, who claimed himself to be Dharam Parchar Secretary to counter the Prosecution case that there was another Visheshwaranand, who was having his alias name as Hanslal and wanted in this case and that PW- 1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava is an imposter and not a real Visheshwaranand.
328. DW-2 stated that Baba Anand Murti was arrested in the year 1970 on murder charge and was released by the order of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in August 1978. He himself was arrested four years after the arrest of Baba (i.e. in the year 1974) and was released after lifting of the Emergency.
329. In his examination-in-chief, DW-2 deposed that he knew Visheshwaranand of Anand Marg Organization, who belongs to the area close to his village and his earlier name was Hanslal and he was of his height, which is 5"-7' or 5"-6' and he had a cut on his right nostril. In his cross-examination, he could not explain if the cut mark on his nostril was due to some injury or it was by birth and since when CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 426 it was appearing. He also did not tell the role and status of Visheshwaranand in the Anand Marg Organization.
330. DW-2 knew accused persons facing the trial and recognized them. He also knew Ram Aasrey (Proclaimed offender) but he has suppressed the fact by showing his unawareness, whether bail application of Anand Murti was dismissed by the Apex Court. He also suppressed whether a rally was organized at Boat Club, New Delhi in 1973 as a mark of protest for non-release of Baba or that accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi were arrested in the Rally. He could not dare to deny all these important events though he claimed to have been holding position of a Secretary and joined organisation in 1959.
331. This witness is not reliable since this witness claims on the one hand to be the Pracharak (Propagator) of Anand Marg, knowing Visheshwaranand with a cut mark on his nostril and on the other hand, he is intelligently unaware of the status and role of that Visheshwaranand in the Organization. He is intentionally unaware of their Guru having been denied bail and the subsequent protests by way of Rally at Boat Club, New Delhi or arrest of the accused persons. DW-2 also could not tell about the post of Dharam Pracharak Secretary as it does not find anywhere in the hierarchy of Anand Marg stated by him.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 427
332. He himself claimed to have been arrested by CBI as a suspect for attack on Madhavanand and he knew and recognized all the accused persons. He was kept in column No. 2 of the charge sheet. He is one of the oldest associate and follower of Anand Marg and its cult since 1959, it is only and exclusively for this reason, he has deposed in the Court to help the accused persons.
333. In view of the above said discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that DW-2 has been a close friend/associate of the accused persons and all of them were known to him. Hence, he is a partisan, interested and biased witness and his testimony does not inspire any confidence.
334. The defence has also examined DW-34 Sh. D.P. Ojha, the then Superintendent of Police, Samastipur to prove his affidavit Ex.PW- 6/D, which he has filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said Transfer Petition of the case on behalf of the State of Bihar. He testified that from December 1974 to January 1975, he remained associated with the investigation in relation to the bomb blast since its inception as the matter was of high magnitude; investigation was taken over by CID the next day as per the instructions of the State Government. He deposed that he filed an affidavit in the transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is Ex.PW-6/D. In his cross-examination by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he is aware that the person namely Madan Mohan Srivastava @ CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 428 Visheshwaranand, who is named in Para 9 of his affidavit Ex.PW-6/D, became an approver during investigation in the case by CBI. He also admitted that in his affidavit Ex.PW-6/D, the alias name of Madan Mohan Srivastava is mentioned as Visheshwaranand. Despite this admission by their witness, that it is Madan Mohan Srivastava, who has his name as Visheshwaranand, the accused persons did not choose to re-examine him on this specific point.
335. Therefore, this discussion leads this court to conclude that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava was assigned name as Visheshwaranand, which is corroborated by the testimony of PW- 126A, PW-34 and ample documentary evidence discussed above and several admissions of the defence. The defence has miserably failed to prove that he is an imposter.
33) Search at Chautham - Arrest of Gopalji
336. Regarding the search carried out at the house of Gopalji by the Investigation Officer Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) on 17.05.1975 at Chautham, the prosecution has examined one of the search witnesses Sh. Parsu Ram Singh, the then resident of Village Chautham.
PW-91 Sh. Parsu Ram Singh deposed that he knew about the place Chautham as he was employed by Murariji of the same Village during 1972 to 1978. He knew Gopalji of Village Chautham, present in the court (the witness correctly identified accused Gopalji @ CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 429 Krishan Mohan Singh by pointing towards him). The house of Murariji was at a distance of 50/60 yards from the house of Gopalji. He had seen Gopalji residing in the previously mentioned house at Chautham from 1972 to 1975. He further testified that on 17.05.1975 at about 05.00 AM, he was present in the house of Murariji at Chautham, when he heard about police surrounding the house of Gopalji. He went there out of curiosity. At that time, Gopalji was also present. He found police and C.I.D. men at that place. A C.I.D. man told him that he wanted to take the search of the house of Gopalji. Many persons from the public were present there and C.I.D. men requested for services of two persons from the public in order to start the search proceedings. PW-91 further testified that he and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh offered themselves as witnesses. Sh. Neel Mohan Singh was also residing at Village Chautham in those days. Thereafter, two Inspectors, one Incharge of Police Station of PS Chautham, Gopalji, Neel Mohan Singh and he himself went inside the house of Gopalji. Police took the search of the house of Gopalji in their presence. Some cloth badges and some brass badges were taken into possession. There were eight brass badges, which are Ex.P-150 to Ex.P-157 bearing the letters VSS, which were taken into possession. There were about 15 or 16 cloth badges, which are Ex.P-158 to Ex.P-173, which were also recovered from the house of Gopalji. Ex.P-174 to Ex.P-176 are the badges of brass and Ex.P-177 to Ex.P-178 are of white metal recovered from the house of Gopalji. Some pages of blank CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 430 letter pad having some illegible impression of writing Ex.P-179 to Ex.P-184 were also found there. He and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh signed on those pages at point A and B respectively. The licence book Ex.P-185 was also found on the table and bears his signature at point A and that of Sh. Neel Mohan Singh at point B. One book in English Ex.P-186 was also found on that table, which also bears his signature at point A and of Sh. Neel Mohan Singh at Point B. Numerous papers were found in the house and some of them were found in a tin box, which he identified to be Marked A-1. The documents found in the tin box were consisting of some diaries, copies, letters and loose papers. He and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh have signed all those papers found in the tin box. All these papers found in the tin box were bearing some writings. He identified some of those documents Ex.PW-1/S, Ex.PW- 1/O, Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M, Ex.PW-33/B, Ex.PW-43/F and Ex.PW-68/A, which bears his signature at point A and that of Sh. Neel Mohan Singh at point B. The Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A was prepared at the spot and it bears his signature at point A and that of Sh. Neel Mohan Singh at point B. PW-91 further deposed that after completion of the search, Gopalji was arrested and taken away by the police with them.
337. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-91 that these documents, which were found in the tin box, are not specifically mentioned in the Seizure Memo. He testified that Murariji has also reached the house of Gopalji and that Sh. Neel Mohan Singh was an CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 431 employee of Murariji. Sh. Neel Mohan Singh did not accompany him and he came there separately. Gopalji has two brothers and a stepmother and two unmarried sisters and they were all present in the house. On asking of police, Gopalji had also signed the Seizure Memo, but he did not remember whether he signed in English or Hindi. Seizure Memo was prepared in the Verandah (corridor) of the house of Gopalji. Gopalji had signed Seizure Memo at the same time after their signatures. PW-91 further testified that he did not remember the names of the servants of Gopalji as Gopalji had numerous workers in the field. He admitted the suggestion of accused Gopalji that Gopalji used to give different amount to different persons on demand. He admitted the suggestion of accused Gopalji that Murariji transferred some land in his name when Land Ceiling Act was enforced. PW-91 explained that the land was actually not given to him, but it was only a paper transaction. He was not aware whether Murariji and Gopalji were on inimical terms. He has denied the suggestion that those documents, which he signed, were not actually recovered from the house of Gopalji. He has also denied the suggestion that after arrest of accused Gopalji, C.B.I. men came to the house of Murariji at Chautham and stayed over there.
338. The style of cross-examination reflects that the fact of carrying out the search at the house of Gopalji at Chautham was never shattered. On the other hand, the search conducted by the IO is further strengthened since searching questions were made with regard to each CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 432 and every items seized. A perusal of these documents Ex.PW-1/S, Ex.PW-1/O, Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M, Ex.PW-33/B, Ex.PW-43/F and Ex.PW-68/A, which were recovered in a tin-box from the house of accused Gopalji, reflect that the same were signed at the spot by the IO Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) as also by both the independent public witnesses Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh, bearing the date of seizure. The accused persons including accused Gopalji has not at all disputed that Gopalji had house at Village Chautham. They have not suggested to PW-91 that he had enmity with Gopalji or that he had deposed in the court at the instance of Murariji. They have also not disputed that Gopalji was not arrested from his house at Chautham after carrying out the search on 17.05.1975. They have also not suggested that Gopalji was a resident of Village Burail only and not a resident of Chautham. They have also not suggested to PW-91 that the house, where the search was carried out, was under the ownership of Smt. Nageshwari Devi, who is the maternal grandmother of Gopalji. They have also not suggested that Gopalji was arrested from a flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, the then MLC and an uncle of Gopalji at Patna and not from Chautham. Rather in the last sentence, it was suggested that after the arrest of Gopalji, C.B.I. officers came to the house of Murariji at Chautham and stayed over there.
339. In the cross-examination of PW-1 also, it is not at all suggested by the defence that Gopalji had no house at Chautham or farmhouse at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 433 Tilihar, across the river Kosi. It was never suggested to him that no meeting of Anand Margies at the residence of Gopalji at Chautham or farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar, took place. It is also not suggested to PW-1 that he never stayed at the house of Gopalji at Chautham or at the farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar. It was also not suggested that question of his visiting Tilihar at the farmhouse does not arise as the farmhouse had already been washed away due to flood in the River Kosi in the year 1971-1972. There is no suggestion that Gopalji had no house near Janta Library, Bhagalpur, nor to the fact that Gopalji was a resident of Village Burail only. It is also not suggested to PW-1 that arms and ammunitions were not stocked and kept at the house of Gopalji at Chautham. Rather at page no. 118 and 119 of the cross- examination of PW-1, the defence asked the witness as to where the decision to keep the arms and ammunitions at Gopalji's house was taken and PW-1 answered that firstly the matter was considered at Bhagalpur and finally it was decided after Gopalji met them at Bhagalpur to be at Chautham. To a question of the defence as to whether he met Gopalji at his house at Chautham or Bhagalpur, when it was decided to keep arms at his Chautham house and PW-1 has replied that this talk had taken place at Bhagalpur. This line of cross- examination also reflects a clear admission by the accused persons in their question itself put to PW-1.
340. The record reveals that prior to framing of charge, in his second bail application filed on 14.07.1980 through Sh. P.P. Grover, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 434 Advocate, before the predecessor of this court, Gopalji had mentioned his name and address as under: -
"Gopalji son of late Shri Baidyanath Prasad Singh, resident of Village and post office Chautham, Distt. Monghyer, Bihar".
This is a clear admission of the accused Gopalji that he had been a resident of Village Chautham throughout.
341. Accused had not put their defence in the cross-examination of PW-1 running into 144 pages that Gopalji was a resident of Burail or that farmhouse at Tilihar was already washed away in the River Kosi in the year 1971-1972. They had also not put their defence to PW-1 in his cross-examination that the house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar belong to maternal grandmother of Gopalji namely Smt. Nageshwari Devi or that Gopalji only used to visit his maternal grandmother, stepmother and stepbrothers and sisters there at Chautham. The next opportunity, which was available to accused persons in this regard, was deposition of PW-2 and they have also not put their defence to PW-2 that Gopalji had no house at Chautham or farmhouse at Tilihar. Rather, the line of cross-examination of PW-2 suggests that the Gopalji is a resident of Village Chautham. The third earliest available opportunity, which accused persons including accused Gopalji had when they cross-examined PW-91 and they have not disputed the case of the prosecution that Gopalji was a resident of Chautham or that he had a house at Chautham. They have also not put CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 435 their defence that Gopalji was a resident of Burail or that the search was carried out at the house of Smt. Nageshwari Devi, the maternal grandmother (Nani) of Gopalji. They have also not disputed that Gopalji was not a resident of village Chautham. They have also not discredited the arrest of Gopalji from his house at Chautham on 17.05.1975. They have also not put their defence that Gopalji was arrested from a flat of his uncle Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLC at Patna.
342. It is seen in the testimony of PW-134 that search was started at 05.00 AM on 17.05.1975, which continued until 12.00 Noon in the house of Gopalji at Village Chautham. (He identified the Gopalji present in the court, correctly, by pointing out to him). Before carrying out the search at the house of Gopalji, he obtained the help of local police of Police Station, Chautham. Sh. Neel Mohan Singh and Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) were joined as independent witnesses before the search. Both of them were from Chautham. Accused Gopalji was found sleeping in the Verandah (corridor) of his house before they started the search of the house. He told Gopalji about the purpose of coming to his house to search it. He along with others offered their own search to Gopalji prior to their going inside his house. He prepared correct Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A in respect of the seizure made from the house of Gopalji. He prepared it correctly in his own handwriting. It bears his signatures at point C. It was also signed by Sh. Neel Mohan Singh and Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 436 in his presence at point B and A respectively. The documents seized from his house included a Slip Ex.PW-2/M, Manuscript Ex.PW-33/D and Manuscript Ex.PW-43/F, Telegrams Ex.PW-1/O and Ex.PW-1/S. All these documents were signed by him and said two witnesses namely Sh. Neel Mohan Singh and Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) at the time when he seized these. All these documents were found in the tin box.
343. In his cross-examination, PW-134 admitted that numbers of the houses of both the witnesses were not mentioned in the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A. He clarified that there was no house number in Village Chautham. After perusing the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A, he replied that there is no mention of signing the seized documents by the witnesses. He could not give the reason as to why he has not mentioned the details of the documents in the Seizure Memo Ex.PW- 91/A. He has denied the suggestion that these documents were not recovered from the tin box. In his further cross-examination, PW-134 testified that name of Gopalji was recorded by him in his case diary for the first time on 03.05.1975. He could not assign any reason as to why he did not obtain warrant of arrest of Gopalji up to 17.05.1975. He did not collect any proof of the ownership of that house in the name of Gopalji. He explained that he was accompanied by the local police at the time of the going to the house of Gopalji and he verified the fact. He has denied the suggestion that Gopalji was a resident of Burail, District Saharsa. To a question that he had carried the search CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 437 in the house at Chautham belonged to Smt. Nageshwari Devi, PW-134 answered that this fact did not come to his notice during the search. He has denied the suggestion that the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A is not in his handwriting. He replied that they surrounded house of Gopalji at 04.15 AM and at that time, Gopalji was found sleeping in the Verandah (courtyard), of his house. He did not prepare any rough site plan of the house of Gopalji. There were about 50 persons with him while going to Chautham. He voluntarily stated that Village Chautham was a notorious one and for that reason, he took sufficient number of persons with him and some persons accompanying him were armed. He answered that he had made general reference about the arrest after recovery of valuable evidence from the house of Gopalji during the search in the application for remand Ex.PW- 134/DE. He asserted that application Ex.PW-134/DE is in his handwriting and bears his signatures.
344. The defence had not put any suggestions to PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha that Gopalji (A-7) was not a resident of Chautham. They have also not suggested their defence that A-7 was not present at the time of search or that A-7 was not residing in the house at Chautham.
345. The statement of accused Gopalji under Section 313 of Cr. PC was recorded by the predecessor of this court on various dates from 16.11.1998 to 02.11.2001. While giving his introduction, accused Gopalji furnished his address as resident of Village Chautham. At CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 438 various places, he has not denied that he was not having any house at Chautham or that he was not a resident of Chautham or that he had no farmhouse at Village Tilihar (Monghyer). He has not claimed in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC that he was the resident of Village Burail or that only his maternal grandmother, stepmother, stepbrothers and stepsisters have been residing in the house of his maternal grandmother at Chautham. He has also not claimed that the farmhouse at Village Tilihar was washed away in the flood in the year 1971- 1972. He has also not claimed that he was not arrested from his house at Chautham but from the flat of his uncle Sh. Uma Shankar, MLA, at Patna. Here it is pertinent and interesting to give the relevant extract from his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, which will benefit to adjudicate the issue whether Gopalji has been a resident of village Chautham or whether he had a farmhouse at Tilihar. This will further enable this court as to whether any reliance can be placed on the deposition of several defence witnesses examined by Gopalji on these points or whether those witnesses are examined by him as afterthought process. The introductory particulars of Gopalji as informed by him to the Ld. Predecessor of this court at the time of recording his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC on 16.11.1998, which are as under: -
"Statement of accused Gopalji s/o Late B.P. Singh age 50 years, Cultivator, r/o Chautham Distt. Khagaria, Bihar recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. without oath: -"
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 439 The relevant questions put up to accused Gopalji and answers given by him are as under: -
"Q.49 It is in evidence against you that Santoshanand in the presence of all of you mentioned above, talked to you and all arms and ammunitions collected henceforth would be kept at your house at Chautham to which you agreed. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. I did not know accused-
Santoshanand and had never met him till I was
arrested in this case."
"Q52. It is in evidence against you that in the said meeting mentioned in the afore said question, besides you, Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Madan Mohan Srivastava, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Budeshwaranand and Ram Kumar were present and you stated that they all would be meeting either at Chautam or at farm house situated across river Kausi. What have you to say?
Ans. It is totally false and incorrect."
"Q62. It is in evidence against you that in pursuance of the conspiracy, Santoshanand and Vinayanand did not return from Bangaon by 2nd CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 440 or 3rd December, 1973 and sent a telegram addressed to you in the name of Prabhu and the said telegram is dated 17.01.1974, Ex.PW1/S. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect."
"Q.64. It is in evidence against you that your co- accused, Sudevanand, Arteshanand left Chautham on the mission of procuring a weapon and that Santoshanand arrived at your house at Chautham after a day or two of the receipt of the said telegram and Santoshanand informed the others that Vinayanand had stayed back at Bangaon for the mission they had gone. What have you to say?
Ans. It is totally false. Nobody came to my
house. I did not know Arteshanand and
Sudevanand and Santoshanand or Vinayanand."
"Q68. It is in evidence against you that in pursuance of the conspiracy, the arms and ammunitions which had been kept at Chautham at your House had been brought to Patna and were kept in the aforesaid house at Gulzar Bagh, Patna. What have you to say?
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 441 Ans. It is incorrect. No arms and ammunitions were ever kept at my house. I was not part of any conspiracy. False story has been concocted."
"Q.85 It is in evidence against you that Santoshanand asked Madan Mohan Srivastava to proceed to Chautham and accordingly Madan Mohan Srivastava left for Chautham on the night of 6.1.1974 and Santoshanand further instructed him to stay with you at your house and wait for the arrival of Santoshanand till 15.1.1974. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
Q.86 It is further in evidence against you that before leaving for Chautham, Madan Mohan Srivastava handed over arms and ammunition including the revolver to Santoshanand and that he (Madan Mohan Srivastava) arrived at Chautham by bus on 7.1.1974. What have you to say? Ans. It is incorrect. In fact in the year 1974 there was no bus route connection with Chautham. False story has been concocted.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 442 Q.87 It is further in evidence against you that it was at your house that the news was heard at the radio on 7.1.1974 at 7.30 p.m. that attempt on the life of Madhavanand remained unsuccessful. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. On 7.1.1974 I was not present at Chautham and there was no question of hearing any such news at my residence. It is a false story.
Q.88 It is in evidence against you that on 8.1.1974 you arrived at Chautham with the Newspaper which carried the details of unsuccessful attempt on the life of Madhvanand and you suggested that place of storing arms and ammunition be shifted from Chautham to Gopalji's farm house at Tilihar, which was on the other side of Kosi river. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. I was not present at Chautham on 8.1.1974 also and there was no question of my having talked anybody and had nothing to do with any attempt on the life of Madhavanand or storing of the arms and ammunitions. All allegations are false.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 443 Q.89 It is in evidence against you that Madan Mohan Srivastava informed you that Santoshanand would be returning from Patna by 15.1.1974 and that you advised Madan Mohan Srivastava to wait for your arrival at Tilihar. What have you to say? Ans. It is false and incorrect. I never knew and had no talk with Madan Mohan Srivastava who is an imposter and I was not present at Chautham as stated above. I was at BARAIL Saharsa District in January 1974.
Q.90 It is in evidence that since Santoshanand did not reach your farm house Madan Mohan Srivastava returned to your house at Chautham where you met Sudevanand and Arteshanand. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect."
"Q.100 It is in evidence that M.M. Srivastava came to your house on 7.2.1974 at Chautham, took Rs.100/- from you and ultimately came to Lahariya Sarai to meet Sham Lal Dass, who had given Sadhna to him. What have you to say?
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 444 Ans. It is incorrect. On 7.2.1974 I was not present at Chautham and never knew the so called M.M. Srivastava. He is an imposter."
"Q152. It is in evidence against you that on 14.10.1974, PW-Vikram met Santoshanand at Chautham in your presence and narrated as to how Budheshawaranand was apprehended by the police and the Thela and contents thereof were seized by the police. What have you to say? Ans. It is incorrect. Budheshawaranand, Vikram and Santoshanand never met me nor any talk took place between them in my presence."
"Q154. It is in evidence against you that the meetings of the members of the Revolutionary Group used to take place at your house at Chautham and also at your Farm House at Tilihar and you along with your co-accused, Santoshanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand besides Vikram used to participate in these secret meetings. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. I have never known about any revolutionary group. I never knew Santoshanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand before my arrest. I CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 445 never met Vikram. No secret meeting ever took place at my residence of my farm house."
346. The accused Gopalji has given his explanation under Section 313 Cr. PC in reply to a relevant as under: -
"Q. 388. Do you want to say anything else?
Ans. I am innocent. I had never any enmity with late Shri L.N. Mishra or any other person. I had no connection, whatsoever, with the other accused persons. All the witnesses are interested and under influence of CBI. CBI Officers hatched a conspiracy of implicating me and others in this case. Soon after the incident, Arun Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Thakur were arrested and their detailed statement under Section 164 Cr. PC were recorded by the court of Competent jurisdiction. Both were kept under custody till November 1975. The then Home Minister Shri Brahma Nand Reddy made his categorical statement in the Parliament after verification from CBI and other concerned sources that Arun Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Thakur were the persons who had caused the death of Shri L.N. Mishra in conspiracy with others. The challan of case was being filed in the court against CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 446 them. Shri L.N. Mishra also made dying declaration against political rivals. The further investigation by CBI is biased and without any lawful basis and in fact, no fair investigation was conducted. I was not present at the place of incident nor I knew any of the persons, involved in the incident. I was looking after my agriculture work. Corrupt bureaucrats were annoyed with me. I was tortured brutally by CBI Officials and was threatened with death. I was forced to write many writings at their dictation to implicate me in this case. The evidence has been fabricated just to shield the real culprits."
In his lengthy explanation, he has not claimed that he has been a resident of Village Burail and not of Chautham or that he had no house at Chautham or farmhouse at Tilihar. He has also not claimed that the house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar were owned by his maternal grandmother or that the farmhouse at Tilihar was washed away in the flood of Kosi River during the year 1971-72. He has also not claimed that he was not arrested from the house at Chautham but from the flat of his uncle Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA at Patna. He has also not alleged that the search officer Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-
134) or search witness Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) had any enmity with him or that search witness Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 447 deposed at the instance of Sh. Murariji of Village Chautham or that he (Gopalji) had any enmity with Sh. Murariji.
347. During the stage of defence evidence, on 11.01.2008, on pointing out by the Ld. Special PP, after hearing both the parties, my Ld. Predecessor has recorded further statement of accused Gopalji on some aspects, which were left out to be asked to him in his previous statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. The case was still at the stage of defence evidence, when prosecution was allowed to adduce some more witnesses on 14.02.2011. Thereafter as required by law, further statement of accused persons U/s. 313 Cr. PC was recorded and the further statement of accused Gopalji was recorded on 13.01.2012, when he had taken a flip-flop and twisted the story that he was not a resident of Village Chautham, but of Village Burail and he was not arrested from the house at Chautham but was arrested from the flat of his uncle at Patna. In his introduction he informed his address as of Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi. The relevant questions put to him under Section 313 Cr. PC and answers given by him are as under: -
Q.4 : It is also in evidence against you that on 17.05.1975 a search was carried out of your house at Village Chautham in your presence as also in presence of two public witnesses namely Sh.
Parsuram Singh and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh by Sh.
M.M.P. Sinha, the then Inspector, CID, Bihar.
What have you to say?
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 448 Ans. At Village Chautham, there is no house belonging to me. However, there is house of my NANI (maternal grand-mother) and on that day I was not available in Village Chautham. On that day I was at Patna. I was available in the Flat of my uncle, who was MLA of Congress Party and from that Flat CBI arrested me.
Q.5. It is also in evidence against you that on 17.5.1975 on completion of your house search, a memo Ex.PW-91/A reflecting the recoveries of items mentioned therein from your house was prepared by Inspector M.M.P. Sinha in your presence and in the presence of two public witnesses namely Sh. Parshuram Singh and Sh.
Neel Mohan Singh and you also signed the search memo as Gopalji @ Krishan Mohan Singh in token of having received copy of the search list. What have you to say?
Ans.: Three persons came in the Flat of my uncle MLA and arrested me and again said that those were 3 or 4 persons. Again said on that day at about 6 a.m. one person came in the Flat of my MLA uncle and knocked it and it was opened by body guard of my uncle and he was asking the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 449 body guard Sh. Ghutaran Jha by naming me and after hearing my name, I came out and that person told me that his boss wanted to see me in the vehicle/jeep parked on the road and the flat was on the first floor and accordingly I came down stair. They were two or three persons and they pushed me inside the vehicle and took me in a building/Govt. Quarters at Patna and kept me holding in a room whole day. Their behaviour was changed in the night and they started abusing me. They thrashed me also and two or three persons came. Again said there were several people in the room in the night and under coercion they obtained my signatures on several blank and written papers. No search of my house was carried. It was house of my NANI where search might have carried out.
I am not aware of it.
Q 6 : It is also in evidence against you that those items mentioned in Search memo Ex.PW-91/A were recovered/seized by Sh. M.M.P. Sinha from your house in your presence and in the presence of above said two public witnesses. What have you to say?
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 450 Ans.: I have no knowledge. When I was lodged in jail, a copy of Search Memo was sent to me and during those days it was Emergency in the country. At that time I observed that this was one of the paper on which my signatures were obtained on the night of 17.5.1975.
Q 7: It has also come in evidence against you in the statement of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, Dy.
S.P. (the then Inspector, CID Bihar) that the documents seized from your house included Slip Ex.PW-2/M (D-64), Manuscript Ex.PW-33/D (D-
65), Manuscript Ex.PW-43/F (D-66), copy of Telegram mark PW-91/A5 (D-69), Inland letter Ex.PW-68/DA (D-70), Inland letter mark PW-
91/A6 (D-71), Inland letter mark PW-91/A7 (D-
72), Inland letter mark PW-91/A-8 (D-73), Telegram Ex.PW-1/S (D-68), another Telegram Ex.PW-1/O (D-67), Manuscript mark PW-91/A1 (D-52), Inland letter mark PW-91/A2 (D-59) and 6 sheets of letter-pad with indentation P-179 to P- 184 (D-60) and all these recovered/seized documents/articles were signed by him and two witnesses in your presence at the time of seizure. What have you to say?
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 451 Ans.: I do not know. The recovered documents/articles are fabricated/planted in a fake search.
Q 10 : It is also in evidence against you in the statement of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, Dy. S.P. (the then Inspector CID, Bihar) that the Search memo Ex.PW-91/A was prepared by him in his own handwriting and bears his signatures. What have you to say?
Ans.: It was a fake search. I am not aware of it.
However, this document was not written by Sh.
M.M.P. Sinha.
Q. 25: Have you anything else to say?
Ans.: I was born at Barail, District Saharsa, present in District Saupal of Bihar and resided with my father and my initial studies were also done at Barail. I'm the elder son from the first wife of my father. I also have one sister who was elder to me. After my birth my mother expired and thereafter, my father again married and from the second wife he had two sons and three daughters.
My step-mother was not having good behaviour with me and when I gain senses, I realized that my step-mother had step-motherly CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 452 treatment with me and therefore, I did not had good relations with her.
During the year 1971, my father expired and my step-mother along with her children started living at Chautham i.e. My Nanee's house along with her. After my father's death I took the responsibility of agricultural and I used to manage the agriculture at Barail and at times to assist my younger brothers I used to visit Chautham but hardly once or twice a year and this continued till the year 1975. The property at Chautham was looked after by my nanee and her staff. During those times, Anand Marg Organization was very popular and even my brother was an Anand Margi.
I am a licence holder of gun from Barail and I had also voted from Barail. I was doing various social works from Barail and was also managing a temple from there.
After the death of my father, his younger brother my uncle Shri Uma Shanker Singh, MLA Congress was the guardian of my family and I always used to consult him and take opinion from him regarding the family and agriculture business. I used to visit Patna for this purpose.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 453 There was one Murariji at Chautham who had dispute with our family and as I had approached him he personally did not like me. He had threatened me that he will implicate me in false cases. Murariji was Zamindar. He had several trusted and personal workers. Murariji was a Congressman. There was one Gopalji in the village Chautham, who was very close to Murariji.
My nanee had a farmhouse/kamath at Telihar (PS Beldaur) but the aforesaid farmhouse/kamath was washed away by river Kosi in its meandering process and during the year 1971-72, the river Kosi was flowing at the place where the farmhouse/kamath was located. I say that after 1972, river Kosi was flowing over the farmhouse and my nanee had no other farmhouse in the village Telihar. On May 15, 1975, I along with my cousin brother Samrender Narain Singh s/o Uma Shankar Singh reached Patna from Barail at the MLA flat no. 191, R Block, Patna of my uncle to discuss the sale of mangoes crop and how to recover the proceeds thereof. That in the morning of 17.5.75, I was arrested at around 6:00 AM.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 454 When I was in police custody, the CBI pressurized me to leave Anand Marg and denounce Anand Marg and to give witness against Anand Marg. My uncle was also called by the CBI to convince me to denounce Anand Marg and become a witness but my uncle personally told me that he had come to meet me on the pressure of the CBI.
I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The documents shown against me have been planted and are false. For example, D-74 alleged to be found in a tin box is of 24.5.75 i.e. beyond the date as shown to be the date of alleged house search and also beyond the date of my arrest from Patna. (The copy of this document was provided to me along with the list of documents in the charge sheet).
I did not organize any meeting of Anand Marg and I did not had any arms or ammunition at any point of time, apart from my licensed gun. I came to know about co-accused in the jail and specifically Visheswar Anand and Vikram who had come to the court as a witness.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 455 I am innocent and have been falsely implicated by CBI in this case.
348. The following was put to PW-2 in his cross-examination at Page No. 238: -
"Q. Did you or not meet Gopalji out of
Chautham or Tilihar ?
Ans. I think, I did not.
Q. Is it that whenever you went to Chautham,
he was found present at house ?
Ans. Yes. Because date for the meeting used to
be prefixed."
This line of cross-examination of PW-2 by accused Gopalji and Arteshanand clearly establish that Gopalji had a house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar.
349. PW-2 further deposed that next day (i.e. 14.07.1974), he went to Chautham and met Santoshanand there. Gopalji was also present there and he told A-1 about the delivery of the packet to Budheshawaranand, who kept the packet in a bag, and subsequent arrest of Budheshawaranand by the police with the bag containing the packet. He informed Santoshanand in the presence of Gopalji that Budheshawaranand had thrown the bag towards, which he could not pick up scared of being arrested. On asking of Santoshanand, PW-2 informed A-1 that the packet sent by him was in the bag and on this CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 456 disclosure A-1 was shocked and he held his forehead in his both hands and told him that the packet contained three hand grenades. He deposed that he stayed at the house at Chautham for 4/5 days. He testified that meetings of the members of Revolutionary Group used to be held at the house of Gopalji and at his farm at Tilihar. Apart from him, Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Arteshanand and Gopalji used to attend those meetings. The meetings used to be addressed by Santoshanand, who used to tell that they had to procure arms for revolution in order to get the Baba released. In his cross-examination at Page No. 91, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that on 14.07.1974, he was at Chautham.
350. The testimony of PW-2 has not been discredited and disputed by the defence including Gopalji that Gopalji had a house at Chautham and a farmhouse at Tilihar or that PW-2 went to Chautham on 14.07.1974 and stayed in his house or that meetings of members of the Revolutionary Group used to be held at his house and farmhouse, which used to be attended by Gopalji, PW-2, Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Arteshanand and meeting used to be addressed by Santoshanand. These assertions of PW-2 have also not been discredited and disputed by the other accused persons. They have also not disputed the narration of the incident at Khanjarpur Maqbara by PW-2 to all of them. Rather, by giving the suggestion that on 14.07.1974, PW-2 was at Chautham, the defence has admitted the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 457 version of the approver PW-2. Therefore, the testimony of approver PW-2 stand further corroborated and is to be believed.
351. The accused Gopalji examined several defence witnesses namely DW-23 Sh. Chander Mohan Singh, DW-28 Sh. Dhanik Lal Singh, DW-29 Sh. Maleshwar Prasad Singh, DW-31 Sh. Ghutran Jha @ Laxmi Kant Jha, DW-32 Sh. Krishna Kumar Singh, DW-41 Sh. Bhupender Narain Singh and DW-42 Sh. Samrender Singh, S/o Sh. Uma Shankar Singh (MLA) in his defence. He has examined these defence witnesses in his efforts to demolish the case of the prosecution that he is a resident of Village Chautham or that he had a farmhouse at Tilihar or that search was carried out at his house at Chautham. Through the deposition of these witnesses, he has tried to claim that he is a resident of Village Burail and the house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar were owned by maternal grandmother. He has also tried to claim that the search was carried out at the house of his maternal grandmother Smt. Nageshwari Devi and he was arrested from flat of his uncle Sh. Uma Shankar Singh at Patna.
The probative value of these defence witnesses is also discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
352. The line of this cross-examination of PW-1 clearly indicates admission of the accused persons that Gopalji had his house at Chautham also at Bhagalpur. The defence has also not challenged assertion of PW-1 in his examination-in-chief that he went to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 458 Chautham and stayed at the house of Gopalji or that on asking of Gopalji, he went to farm house of Gopalji at Tilihar. It was not suggested that at that time, no farm house was existing or that it washed away in the flood or that Gopalji was not resident of Chautham or that no farmhouse of Gopalji was situated at Tilihar or that Gopalji has been exclusively resident of Burail or that Gopalji had no house at Bhagalpur. Accused Gopalji has never put his defence to prosecution witnesses particularly PW-1, PW-2, PW-91 and PW-134 that he is not a resident of Chautham or that he had no house at Chautham or that he had no farmhouse at Tilihar or that he was arrested from Chautham or that he was arrested from Patna. Accused Gopalji himself admitted by describing his address in the bail application as a resident of Chautham, apart from giving so in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. Subsequently, accused Gopalji has taken a flip-flop and started pleading that he has been a resident of Village Burail and not of Chautham and he had no house at Chautham or farmhouse at Tilihar and in his defence he has examined several witnesses on these points. The testimony of such witnesses is liable to be discarded at the threshold in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Majid etc. vs. State of Haryana, 2002(1), JCC 154, wherein it was held that when the statement made by the defence witness was not asked from the relevant prosecution witness in his cross-examination, no credence can be given to the evidence of the defence witness. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 459 Court, the deposition of defence witnesses does not require any countenance by this court. Still, this court in order to unravel the truth, hastens to appreciate the testimony of those witnesses herein follows.
353. DW-14 Sh. Mahender Narain Singh of Village Burail has deposed that he knew accused Gopalji present in the court since his childhood, being his neighbour. He testified that the father of Gopalji remarried the sister of mother of Gopalji. Gopalji lost his father in the year 1971. Gopalji was not having good relations with his stepmother, who used to stay at Chautham. Gopalji continued to reside at Burail after death of his father. He used to visit Chautham sometimes. Gopalji had a dispute with one Murariji of Chautham and Murariji falsely involved Gopalji in a case. It further comes in his examination-in-chief that on request, he (DW-14) tried to settle their dispute but in vain. He placed on record a certificate issued by the Headman of village Burail Ex.DW-14/A, a copy of the Voter List Ex.DW-14/B and original gun licence of Gopalji Ex.DW-14/C showing his address as that of Burail. He also testified that he was practicing as an Advocate at Supaul since 12.11.1969 till he joined services on 05.04.1975 as a Judicial Magistrate.
In his cross-examination, he answered that Supaul is at a distance of 11 km from Burail. He remained posted as a Judicial Officer at Sasaram, Darbhanga, Samastipur, Jamshedpur, Patna, Dumka, Motihari, Bhagalpur and Chhapra and stayed at those places.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 460 While posted at those places, he used to come to his village on Saturdays. It is further elicited that mother of Gopalji expired long ago before he got his senses and similarly second marriage of father of Gopalji was solemnized before he got his senses. He could not tell the name of second wife of Gopalji's father. He was also not aware of another house Gopalji at Bhagalpur. He never visited Chautham. He took a second-thought and testified that he was not aware what the activities of Gopalji at Chautham were. He has denied the suggestion that Gopalji was actively involved in Anand Marg activities. He was not aware of day-to-day activities of Gopalji except for Saturdays and Sundays. He also admitted that document Ex.DW-14/A was neither written nor signed in his presence. This certificate Ex.PW-14/A was issued on 30.09.1986 by the Mukhiya (Headman) of Burail, Gram Panchayat and the witness has not stated as to how he identified the signatures of the Headman. No other person has been examined to identify the signatures of Village Headman, whether he had died four or five years ago as claimed by the witness.
354. It is admitted by other defence witness DW-1, DW-2, DW-3, DW-7 and others that Gopalji has been an active member of Anand Marg since long. However, DW-14 has surprisingly denied the suggestion of the prosecution that Gopalji was actively involved in Anand Marg activities. He also admitted that Gopalji used to visit Village Chautham but was not aware of his activities there. DW-14 has never visited Chautham. Moreover, at the time of conducting the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 461 search of the house of Gopalji at Chautham, Gopalji was himself found available there with the family members in the presence of the witnesses including PW-91 Sh. Parsu Ram Singh. DW-14 has stated that Gopalji informed his father that he has been involved in a false case by one Murariji of Chautham belonging to Congress Party and if that is so, no particulars of that case or copy thereof has been placed on record. Merely because the accused Gopalji was having a Gun Licence, showing his particulars of village Burail, does not ipso facto means that he was not residing at Village Chautham. When the search was carried at the house of Gopalji at Chautham, not only Gopalji, but also all his family members were found available. In view of this discussion, the testimony of DW-14 does not come to the rescue of accused Gopalji or his co-accused persons, in any manner.
355. The accused Gopalji has also examined DW-30 Sh. Prabhat Kumar Singh, an Assistant working with Arms License Department in the office of Collector, Saharsa, Bihar. He brought the record of Gun License issued to Gopalji, which is already Ex.DW-14/C. In his cross- examination, DW-30 has filed Photostat copy of Police Verification Report for the year 1971. No doubt, Gopalji has been shown to be a resident of Village Burail. However, it has come in the deposition of Prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-91 that Gopalji has been a resident of Village Chautham and he has his farmhouse at Village Tilihar. This has been admitted by his own witness DW-29 Sh. Maleshwar Prasad Singh of Village Chautham, who deposed that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 462 accused Gopalji who is resident of Village Burail, used to visit at his grandmother's Village at Chautham. This is also admitted by DW-28 Sh. Dhanik Lal Singh, DW-14 Sh. Mahender Narain Singh and DW- 23 Sh. Chander Mohan Singh. Apart from this, there is unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of PW-1 that Gopalji had a house at Bhagalpur, near Janta Library. Simply because accused Gopalji is also having his house at Burail and got issued his Gun License and recorded himself as a voter there, does not ipso facto mean that he never possessed or resided at other place i.e. at Village Chautham. At the same time, this court can also take note of the fact that his family i.e. his stepmother, stepbrothers and maternal grandmother, all have been residing in the house at Village Chautham, with whom he used to reside there. At the cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to mention that at the time of search at his house on 17.05.1975 in the presence of independent witnesses of Village Chautham, accused Gopalji was found available with his family members. Therefore, the deposition of DW-30 does not help the accused Gopalji.
356. DW-23 Sh. Chander Mohan Singh @ Rattanji, of village Chautham, deposed that he is an Anand Margi and took Diksha in the year 1956. His father was also an Anand Margi. He testified that accused Gopalji had no residential house in his Village but his maternal grand-parent's house is there. (However, in his statement, he has spoken "maternalparents" instead of "maternal grandparents"). In the year 1973-74, Gopalji used to live in Village Burail. However, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 463 Gopalji sometimes used to visit his maternal grandparents' house at Chautham but he had not seen any Anand Margi accompanying or visiting him. The maternal grandparents of Gopalji had a farmland (Kamath) in Village Tilihar. This farmland was already submerged in Kosi River in the year 1971-72. There is a common wall between his house and that of maternal grandparents of accused Gopalji. There was another Gopalji S/o Salig Ram @ Mukund Babu in Village Chautham, who was also an Anand Margi. He also knew one Murariji, another Anand Margi of their Village, who left Anand Marg after arrest of Guru/Anand Murti in the year 1971. Thereafter, Murariji used to ask Gopalji to denounce Anand Marg or leave the village but accused Gopalji declined it. For this reason, Murariji continued to have enmity with Gopalji and filed some criminal cases against accused Gopalji. It is further gathered from the testimony of DW-23 that PW-91 and Neel Mohan Singh, who are residents of Village Chautham, were employees of Murariji. Murariji had land in their names, he asked both of them to depose against Gopalji in this case, and in return, Murariji promised them transfer of those lands in their names and not to claim back. He testified that Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) deposed in this case on the dictates of Murariji. However, Murariji did not fulfill his promise and Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) had left him. Since Neel Mohan Singh insisted to have possession of the land before deposing against Gopalji in this case and Murariji, did not honour it and for this reason, Neel Mohan Singh did not come to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 464 depose. Police never came to the maternal grandmother's house of Gopalji at Chautham in connection with the investigation of the present case.
357. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that in the house, apart from maternal grandparents of Gopalji, his stepmother and her children were residing. There were about 10/12 rooms in the house. Kamath (farmland) was at a distance of 6/7 miles from their house and there was one bamboo built Hall type construction, which might be of the size of about 20' x 20'. This Hall was used for storage of the crop in addition to stay and cooking (boarding and lodging). There might be about 40 Anand Margies in Village Chautham before arrest of Anand Murti in the year 1971. In his cross-examination, DW-23 could not tell the details of the cases filed by Murariji against Gopalji. He also could not tell the particulars including the area of the alleged Benami land of Murariji in the name of Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and Neel Mohan Singh. In his presence, Murariji did not ask Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and Neel Mohan Singh to depose against Gopalji in the present case. He admitted that Neel Mohan Singh had already died. He (DW-23) along with his brothers have been holding 7/8 Bighas of land at different places at Village Chautham and those lands are situated at a distance of 3 Km. from their residence. He along with his younger brothers used to go in the Morning to look after their agricultural land and come back in the Evening or even sometimes late. He admitted the suggestion of the Prosecution that during this CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 465 period of their being at agricultural land, he would not know the names and identity of the persons visiting Village Chautham. He could not deny whether some Revolutionary Group was formed to put pressure on the authorities for release of Anand Murti. He also could not deny whether any meeting of Revolutionary Group used to take place at the house at Village Chautham and at the farmhouse at Village Tilihar. He also could not dare to deny whether arms and ammunitions were used to be stored at afore said residence at Chautham and Farmhouse (Kamath) at Village Tilihar.
358. This witness has been examined by the accused Gopalji in order to deride the case of Prosecution that meeting of Revolutionary Group used to take place at the residence Gopalji at Chautham and farm house at Tilihar situated nearby and no search was carried out at the house of Gopalji at Chautham. A scrutiny of the testimony of the deposition of DW-23 reveals that Gopalji also used to visit Chautham as his stepmother, stepbrother and stepsisters and maternal grandmother have been residing. Though, DW-23 claimed to have his house adjoining to the house of the grandparents of accused Gopalji, yet he admitted that he, along with his younger brothers, used to leave the house to look after their agricultural land, in the Morning for their agricultural land, situated at a distance of about 3 KM. They used to return in the Evening and sometimes even late. During this period, admittedly he would be not aware of the persons, who visited their Village at Chautham. Obviously, for this reason, DW-23 could not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 466 deny formation of Revolutionary Group to put pressure on the authorities to release Anand Murti or about holding of meetings of Revolutionary Group in the house of accused Gopalji at Village Chautham and farmhouse at Village Tilihar. He also could not deny that the arms and ammunition used to be stored at the aforesaid residence at Chautham and farmhouse (Kamath) at Tilihar. In his examination-in-chief, he had claimed that farmhouse (Kamath) at Tilihar was submerged in Kosi River in the year 1971-72. However, DW-23 admitted in his cross-examination that there was Bamboo built hall type construction in the size of about 20' x 20', which was used to store crop apart from using the same for stay and cooking (boarding and lodging) on the farmhouse (Kamath) at Village Tilihar. He could not tell the number of the specific lands of Murariji under Benami ownership of Parsu Ram Singh and Neel Mohan Singh. He admitted that in his presence Murariji did not ask to depose against the Gopalji in this case for transfer of the land. He also could not tell the particulars of those criminal cases alleged to have been filed against Gopalji by Murariji. DW-23 is admittedly an Anand Margi since 1956. His testimony rather supports the case of the Prosecution that sometimes meeting of conspirators also used to be held at the farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar. Further, DW-23 has admitted that there was one bamboo built hall type construction in measurement of 20' x 20', which was used for storage of crop and boarding and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 467 lodging. Therefore, the testimony of DW-23 remains shaky since he is an interested witness being an Anand Margi in the past.
359. Sh. Maleshwar Prasad Singh examined as DW-29 of Village Chautham deposed that Gopalji is a resident of Village Burail. He knew Gopalji, who used to visit his Nani (maternal grandmother) at village Chautham. His eldest brother is Leel Mohan Singh. His brother and Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and many others used to work with Murari Babu. He is not aware whether the police had ever conducted raid in the house of Nani of accused Gopalji. He testified that the relation of Murari Babu and Gopalji got strained after 1970 when Murari Babu joined Congress and had asked Gopalji to join Congress. Prior to joining Congress, Murari Babu was a member of Anand Marg. In his presence, Murari Babu threatened Gopalji that if they come in power, they would fix him in a false case. His brother Leel Mohan Singh is not alive. He stated that he had seen his brother Leel Mohan Singh writing and signing but cannot identify his signatures. After perusal the document Ex.PW-91/A, he stated that writing at point 'B' is not in the hands of his brother Leel Mohan Singh. In his cross-examination, DW-29 stated that he did not bring any document written by his deceased brother Leel Mohan Singh for the purpose of comparison.
360. This witness also cannot be believed as he has suppressed and concealed the name of attesting witness of the Search Memo Ex.PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 468 91/A. The Prosecution has examined one of the independent public witness PW-91, resident of Village Chautham employed by Murariji, who deposed that the search was carried out in his presence and Neel Mohan Singh was also present with him. PW-91 testified that Neel Mohan Singh was working with Murariji. PW-91 has also identified the signatures of Neel Mohan Singh at point 'B' and his own signatures at point 'A'. Gopalji did not claim in the cross-examination of PW-91 that the real of another search witness is Leel Mohan Singh. Accused Gopalji himself examined DW-23 deposed that Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and Neel Mohan Singh (correct name) are residents of Village Chautham, had been employees of Murariji. DW-29 did not state that the correct name of his brother was Leel Mohan Singh and not Neel Mohan Singh. He himself stated in his examination-in-chief that he cannot identify the signatures of his brother. It appears that DW-29 is not connected with attesting witness Sh. Neel Mohan Singh. Moreover, the statement of DW-29 and that of DW-14 and DW-23 are contradictory to each other. DW-29 has claimed that Murariji threatened Gopalji to implicate him in false case, as and when Congress comes into power, whereas, DW-14 deposed that Murariji has filed a criminal case against Gopalji and DW-23 claimed that Murariji had filed some criminal cases against Gopalji. DW-14 and DW-23 have also not given the details of those alleged cases. In view of this discussion, the deposition of DW-29 does not inspire any confidence and requires no indulgence of this court.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 469
361. Sh. Dhanik Lal Singh of Village Tilihar, examined as DW-28 deposed that he knew the accused Gopalji, as land of his maternal grandparents was there in their Village. The constructed premise along with the land in their village is called as Kamath. He used to visit Kamath of maternal grandmother of accused Gopalji Smt. Nageshwari Devi widow of Sh. Babu Sheevadheen Singh. The said Kamath of Smt. Nageshwari Devi is no more in existence as it got washed away during the year 1970-1972 in the flood of River Kosi. Their village is situated on the bank of River Kosi. DW-28 had filed an application before the Ex-Mukhiya of village Tilihar regarding the geographical details of the property of Smt. Nageshwari Devi, which is Ex.DW-28/1. The Circle Officer at the bottom of the application itself mentioned his Report Ex.DW-28/2. The Revenue Officer has signed this report at point 'A' and Circle Officer at point 'B'. He testified that there was no Anand Margi in their village at any point of time. Accused Gopalji never had any meeting in his village and visited the village rarely. His (PW-28) house and land is still in village Tilihar. Smt. Nageshwari Devi is no more. Ex.DW-28/1 and Ex.DW-28/2 are available in folder R-XXIV.
362. Though this witness was cross-examined by the State, the evidence of this witness is only superflous since he is talking about a Kamath and its location belonged to the step mother of Gopalji Smt. Nageshwari Devi at Tilihar. There is no positive assertion to believe CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 470 that Gopalji was not a resident of Chautham. However, he admits in the cross-examination that he saw accused Gopalji in the village Tilihar during the year 1970-71 and he voluntarily stated that Gopalji only visited the village and went away. To a question of Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that it was not necessary that as and when accused Gopalji visited the Village Tilihar, he used to be present all the time to which the witness has cleverly answered that he saw him once or twice only. His family was not related to Smt. Nageshwari Devi. He moved an application Ex.DW-28/1 on asking of the brother of the accused Gopalji based on telephonic call, which he had with the lawyer of the accused Gopalji. He admitted that in the application Ex.DW-28/1 and Ex.DW-28/2, there was no mention of Smt. Nageshwari Devi. He could not tell the area of Kamath of Smt. Nageshwari Devi. He has denied the suggestion of the Prosecution that at the Kamath of Smt. Nageshwari Devi, the accused Gopalji used to hold the meetings of Anand Margies or that arms and ammunitions used to be collected there or that he has deposed falsely at the instance of accused Gopalji being his old acquaintance.
363. A scrutiny of the deposition of DW-28 projects the suppression of facts and does not inspire any confidence. In his examination-in- chief, he stated that accused Gopalji visited his village rarely. In his cross-examination, DW-28 deposed that Smt. Nageshwari Devi, who was having her Kamath in their village, never visited it. However, he saw accused Gopalji in Village Tilihar once or twice. He further CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 471 testified that accused Gopalji never stayed in the Village Tilihar and he only used to visit the Village and leave. When Smt. Nageshwari Devi was having the Kamath (farmhouse) in the Village Tilihar and DW-28 is not related to her, then his deposition that he used to visit to Kamath of Smt. Nageshwari Devi is not believable. He did not claim to have been authorized by Smt. Nageshwari Devi to visit and look after her Kamath. It has come in the deposition of DW-28 that Gopalji has visited Tilihar, which fortifies the case of the prosecution that Gopalji had a farmhouse there and for that reason, he would like to visit there in order to supervise the Kamath apart from joining the meeting of the conspirators there. He claimed that this Kamath was of maternal grandparents of accused Gopalji and the witness has thus suppressed the fact of various visit of Gopalji and instead of this, he stated that accused Gopalji visited there rarely. In his introductory statement, he stated that his father has been Mukhiya of village Tilihar since 1968 and so remained Mukhiya till the year 2001. In his further statement, he stated that their village is situated on the bank of River Kosi and there was flood in the River Kosi during the year 1970-72 when Kamath of Smt. Nageshwari Devi got washed away. It is not explained as to how their house or land got survived from the alleged floods of 1970-72. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that only Smt. Nageshwari Devi was having a Kamath in their village. However, in his further cross-examination, he made a contradictory statement and stated that land of other Kamaths also swept away. He CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 472 could not tell the area of the Kamath of Smt. Nageshwari Devi, but claimed that its Khasra number was 8339. He is relying upon a document filed by him Ex.DW-28/2 wherein on the basis of statement of some village persons, it is reported that Khasra No.8341 and 4919 belong jointly to Sheevadheen (who was the husband of Smt. Nageshwari Devi) and Keshwa Narang. In his statement, he has filed one application dated 10.11.2008 Ex.DW-28/1, which he addressed to Anchal Adhikari, Beldaur (Khagaria) asking him about status of Khasra No. 4191 and 8341 of Village Tilihar, Anchal Beldaur, District Khagaria. On the application itself, there was a report of some Officer with a seal of Anchal Karyalaya, Beldaur Khagaria dated 18.11.2008 Ex.DW-28/2 to the effect that as per the version of villagers of Mauja Tilihar, Khasra No.8341 and 4191 was estate of Babu Sheevadheen Singh and Keshwa Narain Singh and most of the land has been sold away and in Tilihar, it was washed away in the flood during the year 1970-72. His testimony clearly indicates that accused Gopalji had some interest in the estate of Sheevadheen Singh and used to visit Tilihar.
364. DW-31 Sh. Ghutran Jha @ Laxmi Kant Jha resident of Village Burail deposed that he used to stay with uncle of Gopalji namely Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, an MLA in the year 1975. He was servant of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh. Gopalji was taken away by the police in his presence from R-Block, which is the residence of MLA in Patna. In his cross-examination, DW-31 testified that when Gopalji was taken CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 473 away by the police, Sh. Baras Lal Sahu, Gauri Shankar Chaudhary, Bhaskar Mishra apart from him and Uma Shankar Singh were present. Gopalji was taken by the police at about 06.00 or 06.15 AM. He could not say whether he was taken away by the police or CBI, but they were in plain clothes. He could not explain as to why Gopalji was present at the flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh. He deposed that till the date of deposition in the court on 19.12.2008, he never disclosed to anyone that Gopalji was taken away by the police in his presence from R-Block, Patna. He further testified that he has come to depose in the court on asking of Samrender Narain Singh (DW-42), who is the cousin of accused Gopalji and son of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLC. He visited CBI office after 2-3 days of Gopalji's arrest. He met two or four persons in CBI office and they did not tell him whereabouts of Gopalji.
365. It is elicited from the deposition of DW-31 that he had been servant of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh and had come to the court on asking of Sh. Samrender Narain Singh (DW-42), who is none other than the cousin of Gopalji. This witness is unreliable since he has not disclosed the shifting of Gopalji from MLA's residence ever since the date of incident to anyone nor did he protest or enquired. I find that he is an interested and biased witness and has made deposition to favour accused Gopalji, who is admittedly a cousin of Samrender Narain Singh (DW-42), with whose father, DW-31 claimed to be the servant. Moreover, in his deposition it comes out that at the time of the alleged CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 474 arrest of Gopalji from the flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh at Patna, Sh. Baras Lal Sahu, Gauri Shankar Chaudhary, Bhaskar Mishra and Uma Shankar Singh were present, who have not been examined by the accused Gopalji. In view of this discussion, I do not find his testimony worth inspiring confidence.
366. DW-32 Sh. Krishna Kumar Singh of Village Chautham deposed that in his presence no search was carried out by the police in the house of maternal grandfather of accused Gopalji. In his cross- examination, it is elicited that it takes about 10 minutes on foot to reach house of maternal grandfather of accused Gopalji from his own house. He also admitted that while coming from outside the Village, his house does not fall on the way, if one is to reach the house of maternal grandfather of Gopalji. He stated that he came to depose in the court on asking of one Chunnu Babu, who is the stepbrother of accused Gopalji. The testimony of this witness, does not in any manner, help the accused persons including Gopalji since it is not mandated upon the authorities or the investigating agency to intimate this witness or to carry out their duties.
367. DW-41 Sh. Bhupendra Narain Singh, a resident of District Bhatinda, Punjab deposed that he had been Personal Assistant of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA, Supaul from 1973 to 1977. He used to live in the flat of said Sh. Uma Shankar Singh at Patna. It has come in his testimony that on 17.05.1975, police officials visited the said flat CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 475 of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh from where they took away accused Gopalji. It has also come in his statement that he along with the son of MLA and Sh. Dhruv Jyoti Singh were returning after a Morning walk, when they saw police officials in civil dress, taking away Gopalji in a police vehicle. The driver of the police vehicle was in police uniform. On the direction of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, he made telephonic call in the office of S.P., Patna about the incident and it was responded by the police officials. They told him that they would talk to the MLA later on. In his cross-examination, DW-41 could not tell the date and month, when he joined as P.A. to Sh. Uma Shankar Singh. He admitted that Uma Shankar Singh was real uncle of Gopalji. Gopalji had come to the flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh on 15.05.1975 in the evening and Sh. Samrender Narain Singh (DW-42) accompanied him. It is elicited that he saw the accused Gopalji only in the jeep of the police, but did not note down the registration number thereof. He had written a letter on the dictation of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh addressed to some Minister or Officer about the manner in which the police took away Gopalji. He admitted that a dispatch register was used to be maintained in the flat of MLA containing entries of correspondence. In his deposition, he only stated that he saw police officials in civil dress and driver in police uniform, who took away accused Gopalji and they saw only in the jeep. He could not tell the registration number of the jeep, in which the police took away Gopalji. He also did not tell as to how many police officers were in the jeep, when CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 476 accused Gopalji was being taken away. He is not sure whether the letter was written to the Minister or Officer and copy of the letter was also not filed. Admittedly, DW-41 claimed to be Personal Assistant of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, a Legislator, related to accused Gopalji. Neither the dispatch register nor the copy of the alleged letter has been placed on record. It appears that he has made the statement on the request of accused Gopalji to favour him. I find that he is an interested and biased witness. His testimony does not appear to this court, to be trustworthy since no documentary evidence is adduced to have protested the illegal arrest of Gopalji from Patna.
368. DW-42 Sh. Samrender Narain Singh is cousin of accused Gopalji deposed that accused Gopalji is his cousin. They have studied together up to 8th standard. His father Sh. Uma Shankar Singh had been MLA for the period from 1967 to 1977. On 15.05.1975, he along with Gopalji had arrived at Patna to meet his father about his advice regarding mango crop. On 17.05.1975 at about 05.30 AM, he and Bhupender Narain Singh (DW-41) had gone for a morning walk. While they were returning at a distance of about 250 yards from the tea kiosk, they met Dhruv Prasad, ADM, who was going towards MLA flat. They saw one police vehicle parked near MLA's flat. They saw four persons holding the hands of Gopalji. The vehicle had already been started by its driver. It was 06.00 or 06.15 AM, when police vehicle left the place. His father also came down from first floor along with Barish Lal Saha, Bhaskar Mishra and Gauri Shankar CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 477 Chaudhary. He was informed by Gauri Shankar Chaudhary that Gopalji had been taken away by officers of CBI in a jeep. On asking of his father, Bhupender Narain Singh (DW-41) made a telephonic call to S.P., Patna. In his cross-examination, DW-42 replied that he has joint agriculture with accused Gopalji. At that time, Dhruv Jyoti Prasad was passing by the side lane of the teashop and then they proceeded together towards MLA's flat. The number of the jeep was not noted. His father lodged a written complaint with the Revenue Minister on that day about illegal arrest of Gopalji. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that Gopalji was not arrested from the flat of his father at Patna or that he was arrested on 17.05.1975 from his house at Chautham. He admitted that 35 years have elapsed and he did not make any such statement before any authority. DW-41 has stated that on 17.05.1975, he along with Uma Shankar Singh and Dhruv Jyoti Singh were returning after a morning walk, when they saw police officials in civil dress and driver of the vehicle in police uniform and they took away accused Gopalji. However, DW-42 deposed that he and Bhupender Narain Singh (DW-
41) had gone for morning walk and while they were returning, Dhruv Jyoti Singh, per chance met them near the flats and the statement of DW-41 and DW-42 are contradictory to each other on the vital point. Admittedly, accused Gopalji is the first cousin of DW-42 and both of them are doing their agriculture jointly. His testimony becomes unreliable since no copy of the said complaint is produced on record to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 478 support his contention that such complaint was lodged protesting the unlawful arrest of Gopalji. DW-41 has stated that a dispatch register was being maintained in the said flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh and he made an entry of dispatch of the complaint in the dispatch register. Even a copy of this dispatch register is not produced on record by this witness. In these circumstances, I find that DW-42 is also an interested and biased witness.
369. On the other hand, from the collective evidence of PW-134, who prepared a Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A, attested by independent witnesses PW-91, the arrest of Gopalji at Chautham is believable. It becomes believable since no suggestion was made to PW-91 that Gopalji was not arrested from Village Chautham. I have already discussed the evidentiary value of Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A.
370. However, since the accused Gopalji had seriously disputed the seizure memo as not being in the handwriting of its author PW-134 (a police officer of Bihar), it becomes relevant to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.
371. In his cross-examination, PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (I.O.) has denied the suggestion of the Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Gopalji that Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A is not in his handwriting. Now the repetition is inevitable. In his examination-in-chief, PW-134 deposed that he prepared correct Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A at the house of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 479 Gopalji in his own handwriting and it bears his signatures at point C and that of search witnesses Sh. Neel Mohan Singh and Sh. Parsu Ram Singh at point B and A respectively. It is relevant to note that accused Gopalji has not taken this defence during the marking of the exhibit and not even suggested so in the cross-examination of PW-91. Accused does not have any grouse of the signatures of Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) on the Search Memo Ex.PW-91/A.
372. However, Gopalji has examined DW-38 Sh. B.N. Srivastava, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert to adumbrate that the search memo is not in the handwriting of PW-134. To compare the questioned writing of Sh. M.M.P. Sinha on the Seizure Memo Ex.PW- 91/A is Q-1 and Q-2, my Ld. predecessor permitted the specimen handwriting of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha on the date of his deposition to be obtained, which are Mark S-1 to S-3 (Ex.PW-160/D to Ex.PW-160/F). By the report of DW-38, dated 31.08.2009 Ex.DW- 38/1, he opined that questioned handwriting in English and Hindi including figure work have not been written by the writer of specimen writing in English and Hindi including the figure work.
373. On the other hand, to dispel the opinion of DW-38, the prosecution examined PW-160 Sh. Narender Kumar, Deputy Government Examiner of Question Documents, Shimla. He had examined all the admitted, questioned and specimen writings of M.M.P. Sinha and had also gone through the report of DW-38. A CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 480 detailed analysis of his own in the capacity of an expert, had deposed at length supporting the case of the prosecution. He took the assistance of another expert Sh. B.A. Vaid also in arriving at his findings regarding the handwriting of PW-134. These experts are from the specialized field namely GEQD (Government Examiner of Questioned Documents). They have given their Report Ex.PW-160/H and the reasons are mentioned in their report Ex.PW-160/G.
374. Unsatisfied with the GEQD opinion accused Gopalji further examined another handwriting and fingerprint expert Sh. Deepak Jain as DW-43. He furnished a Report Ex.DW-43/A submitting that the writings are different, supporting the defence of accused Gopalji.
375. At this juncture, this court is riddled with enigmatic opinions of the experts. It is to be kept in mind that if the conflicting opinions arise, it is always better for the court to apply its own wisdom especially, if provided under the law. Thus, this court has no other alternative than to exercise the powers conferred by Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
376. This court has examined and compared the questioned writing appearing on Search Memo Ex.PW-91/A and the specimen writing furnished by PW-134 before the predecessor of this court on 31.08.1984 Ex.PW-160/D to Ex.PW-160/F, after perusing the reports and depositions of DW-38, PW-160 and DW-43. My careful CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 481 comparison reveals that the questioned writings and specimen writings do tally and are in the handwriting of one and the same person i.e. PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha.
377. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, Gopalji has pleaded that one document D-74, is shown to have been recovered from his house bears the date as 24.05.1975, whereas the search was carried out 17.05.1975. I have perused the document D-74, which is available in Folder R-5 and it does not bear the signatures of the search witnesses Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and Neel Mohan Singh and IO/Search Officer PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha. This is a slip of Rs.200/- for GOLI (cartridges) and bears the signatures of Parmanand Singh and Bhujangi Prasad (sic.). It has come in the testimony of PW-91 and PW-134 that all the documents at the time of search were signed by both the search witnesses and by the search officer PW-134. This document was never confronted to PW-91 or to PW-134 that it was recovered during the search at the house of Gopalji at Chautham on 17.05.1975. The record reveal that as per the list of documents dated 10.11.1975 (Annexure "A"), which was filed along with the charge sheet, D-74 is described as a slip recovered from the house of Krishan Kumar Verma of Parsha (Monghyer) bearing script in Hindi for having paid Rs.200/- for cartridges. Thus, the accused Gopalji has not only confused himself but is also trying to mislead and confound this court.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 482
378. The accused Gopalji has left no stone unturned in taking false defence at every stage during the trial. The accused Gopalji in his bail application has given his address as that of Village Chautham. I have already referred the statement of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-91 and in their cross-examination, defence has never suggested that Gopalji is not a resident of Chautham and he had no farmhouse at Tilihar or that search was not carried out at Chautham or that he was not arrested from Chautham but from Patna. Accused persons have also not claimed so in the cross-examination of PW-134 except that accused Gopalji is a resident of Village Burail and it was not suggested to him that he had not been residing at Village Chautham or that he was not arrested from Chautham after carrying out search there. The statement of Gopalji was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC on various dates from 16.11.1998 to 02.11.2001 and in this statement, he claimed to be a resident of Village Chautham. He did not claim that search was not carried out at his house at Chautham or that he was not arrested from there. Moreover, this court has individually appreciated the deposition of all the witnesses examined by Gopalji on the issue, who have not been found to be trustworthy at all. In view of these, the answers given by Gopalji to the questions put to him in his further statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC by this court and explanation put forth by him on 13.01.2012 is nothing but an unsuccessful attempt to explain falsity and not the truth. It is a well settled law that in a case if an accused adduces false evidences in respect of his defence, this can CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 483 be taken as an additional link in the chain in circumstances against him. This has been so held recently by the Division Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State (Delhi (6) RCR (CR) 2364).
379. In view of the above evidence forthcoming against the accused from the cogent testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-91, one can safely say that Gopalji has been a resident of Village Chautham and he also had his farmhouse at Tilihar across River Kosi. A search was carried at his Chautham House by PW-134 in the presence of witnesses including PW-91 and search memo Ex.PW-91/A was prepared by PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha and several documents and articles were recovered from his house and he was arrested from his house at Chautham. Evidence also reveals that meetings of members of Revolutionary Group used to be held at the house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar and arms and ammunitions used to be collected at his house at Chautham. These meetings used to take place at the house of Gopalji at Chautham, attended by PW-2, Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Gopalji and Arteshanand.
34) Effect of leaving Conspiracy by PW-1 & statement of PW-1 & 2 after their arrest.
380. The Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the accomplice/approver PW-1 had left the conspiracy in the month of February 1974 and that the other approver PW-2 was arrested subsequent to killing of Sh. L.N. Mishra and under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 484 their respective statements are not at all binding on the accused persons facing the trial. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon judgment of the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor AIR 1940 PC 176 and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 2640, Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (6) (2002) 7 SCC 334, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru AIR 2005 SC 3820 and Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883. They have also referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohammed Atik & Ors. Crl. A. Nos. 400-403 of 1998 decided on 3.4.1998. With due respect, there is no dispute about principles of law laid down by the Privy Council and Hon'ble Supreme in these judgments.
381. Since the Charge has been framed under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, I would like to advert to the law of conspiracy, its definition, essential features, ingredients to the offence and case law.
382. Section 120-A IPC defines "criminal" conspiracy which reads as under: -
"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-
(1) an illegal act, or CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 485 (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation:- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
383. It is clear from the above noted definition of "criminal conspiracy" that the three essential elements of offence of conspiracy are: -
(a) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished;
(b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object;
(c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 486 embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means.
Thus, the gist of offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to break the law.
384. Under Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The essence of offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration. The gist of offence of conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. Conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and as such direct evidence is seldom available. So, in case of criminal conspiracy, the court has to infer certain facts and circumstances. In considering the question of criminal conspiracy, it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the object which the conspirators set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy was to be carried out. All this is necessarily a matter of inference. Agreement of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 487 conspiracy can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is not necessary that there should be express proof of the agreement, far from the acts and conduct of the parties, the agreement can be inferred.
385. Proof of a criminal conspiracy by direct evidence is not easy to get and probably for this reason Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. It reads as under:-
"10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design :- Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
386. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hassan Maniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062, that for an offence u/s. 120-B IPC, the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 488 prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrator expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implications. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Ram Narayan Poply Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003, SC 2748 that, "the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence.
In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 120-A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 489 party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfillment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in Section 120-B. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of conspiracy is seldom available; offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or substantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about date of formation of criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in formation of conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out; all this is necessarily a matter of inference."
387. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Firozuddin Basheeruddin versus State of Kerala, 2001 (4) Recent Criminal Report 20, that the criminal conspiracy can be proved by CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 490 circumstantial evidence and even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. It is also held that conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its object has to be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the accused. When two or more persons agree to commit crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by such persons to carry out their common purposes, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. A criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible thereof. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. Vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan, AIR 1987 SC 773 that every one of the conspirators need not take active part in the commission of each and every one of the conspiratorial acts.
388. This section came for interpretation before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiva Narayana v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 449 wherein it was held that under the principle CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 491 contained in Section 10 of the Evidence Act, once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved, act of one of the conspirator becomes the act of the other.
389. The consolidated case law as on date has been succinctly summarized by the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court of Delhi recently in a celebrated judgment by his lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, while writing for the Bench in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Versus State, 2009 (163) DLT 658, as under: -
"134. After survey of the case law on the point, following legal principles pertaining to the law of conspiracy can be conveniently culled out:-
A. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. (See the decision of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 492 Supreme Court reported as State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253).
B. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-
participators in the main object of the conspiracy. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time.
They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 493 achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. But then there has to be present mutual interest.
Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2433 and State v.
Nalini, (Supra)] C. It is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 494 crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the graham of the crime of conspiracy.
D. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. Since a conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, it would quite often happen that there is no evidence of any express agreement between the conspirators to do or cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 495 pursuance of a common design. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove actual meeting of conspirators. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design is sufficient. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct of accused persons constitute relevant material to prove charge of conspiracy. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 439;
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1062; and Kehar Singh v. State AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1883) E. A conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 496 is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a threat to the society against which it was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so. The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalized or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice versa.
F. Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the acts done by one are admissible against the coconspirators. In short, the section can be analysed as follows:-
(1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 497 should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 81 of 183 entered the conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be used against a co-conspirator and not in his favour. (See the decision of Supreme Court reported as Sardar Sardul Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 747.)"
390. Here it is pertinent to refer to a classic judgment of three Hon'ble Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682 (known as 2 nd Caveeshar case) in which his lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subba Rao, had already spoken for the bench analysed the ingredients of Section 10 as culled out above in the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra), which amounts to repetition, if quoted again.
391. It would be profitable to draw reliance from yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the same strength (Three Hon'ble Judges) in Nalini case (supra) relied upon by the defence, which reads "It is not that immediately the object of conspiracy is achieved, Section 10 becomes inapplicable. For example principle CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 498 like that of res gestae as contained in Section 6 of the Evidence Act will continue to apply." (Para 582). Therefore, the res gestae i.e. the acts, circumstances and the statements that are incidental to the principal fact of a litigated matter and are admissible in evidence in view of their relevant association with that fact, cannot be ignored since the same become relevant in view of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, this court is constrained to appreciate the attendant circumstances and the facts thereon, which are connected with the facts in issue i.e. the conspiracy to find out whether the acts amounted to conspiracy or not. It was argued by Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate for the defence that PW-1 has snapped out of the conspiracy in February, 1974 and he was arrested on 29.07.1975 and other approver PW-2 Vikram was arrested on 12.08.1975, after killing of L.N. Mishra, the other accused persons facing the trial are not bound by the statement made by both of them in view of the law cited by her.
392. In fact, the case law is misconceived in applying to the facts in issue by the learned Defence Counsel. It is relevant to quote that even if the PW-1 has left the conspiracy in February 1974, his actions pursuant to the conspiracy till he stepped out of it becomes res gestae, which cannot be ignored. The intentions and motive of the criminal conspiracy hatched in October, 1973 is kept alive since the object of conspiracy is to have the cult head Anand Murti released from jail either by hook or crook (whether lawful and unlawful means by terrorizing the State). Merely by achieving the slaying of some of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 499 targets like L.N. Mishra, did not terminate the object of the conspiracy by the conceivers of the same and the accused facing the trial. This court is unable to assimilate the submissions of the Ld. Defence Counsel that the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 after the murder of L.N. Mishra shall not bind the accused persons facing the trial in view of law of agency implied under Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is worthwhile to rely on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swarup (supra) and of our Hon'ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra), which reads "(4) It would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be used against a co-conspirator and not in his favour." Reason being, the law of res gestae as contained in Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
393. Further, the statement of both the approvers PW-1 and PW-2 stands in a different pedestal. These witnesses have withstood extensive cross-examination at the hands of the accused. This is not a mere case based on the statement of a conspirator against the co- conspirator. Here two conspirators have turned approvers. Thus, their testimony is on par with an eye witness and also as an accomplice. In such circumstance, their testimonies are to be carefully scrutinized and the same is to be tested on the touchstone of corroboration in material particulars as laid down in several rulings, which I have already discussed in the earlier part of the judgment.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 500
394. The very judgment relied by the accused in Navjot Sandhu's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made a distinction at Para (xv), which squarely applies to the present case and the same is as follows: -
"(xv) The learned senior counsel then referred to the decision of this Court in Tribhuwan v. State of Maharashtra [1972(3) SCC 511], in which the accused examined himself as a witness and his evidence was admitted under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, mainly on the ground that his deposition could be subjected to cross-
examination. So also in the case of K. Hashim v.
State of Tamil Nadu, the evidence of co-accused who subsequently became approver, was admitted under Section 10. These two cases rest on a different principle and cannot be said to have differed with the view taken in Mirza Akbar's case................"
395. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. Defence Counsel are distinguishable for the reason mentioned in the preceding Para. PW-1 and PW-2, parties to the crime have turned approvers. The competent court had granted them the pardon. Their statements in proving the acts of their fellowmen cannot be held sacrosanct unless and until the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 501 attendant circumstances, the acts and the things done jointly by all are proved and corroborated by material particulars. Now I venture to proceed to analyze the evidence on various aspects of the conspiracy hereunder.
35) PW-2 joining Criminal Conspiracy
396. I have already referred to the reliability of the testimony of PW- 2, regarding the "Anand Marg, its founder, wings and objects", holding of Rally, Self-immolations and his association and posting at Jaipur Printing Press of Anand Marg. It is also proved on record that he returned to Delhi in the last week of June 1974 and was reporting to Chief Secretary Sh. Dhaneshanand at D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. He worked at Delhi Press, which is proved on record. I have also earlier referred the further deposition of PW-2 about his meeting with A-1 in the market at South Extension, Part-1 at the end of June 1974, incognito and wearing a hearing aid. The version of PW-2 that he was called by A-1 at the gate of IARI, Pusa Road, Delhi and his visits, the PW-2 discarding the saffron robes, assuming pseudonym, carrying a letter and packet given by A-1 to be delivered to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur has already been duly corroborated and proved in material particulars. It is to be mentioned that PW-2 was exhorted and influenced by A-1 to work underground by joining a Group of devotees/monks to achieve the object discussed above by means of violent methods. He knew Budheshawaranand, whose other name was Tyageshwaranand and Amar Singh, whose CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 502 original name was Surya Prakash, hailing from District Unnao, U.P. Santoshanand told him that Sudevanand had changed his name as Ram Chander and Bharat.
397. PW-2 clearly testified that A-1 gave him one packet duly packed and one letter in a closed envelope for delivery to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. A-1 advised him that whereabouts of Budheshawaranand should be enquired from the Principal of Anand Marg Primary School, Bhagalpur. He testified that the packet and the letter were given to him by A-1 at about 03.00 or 04.00 PM near PUSA Institute in the presence of PW-13 for its delivery to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. On the same day, he left for Bhagalpur along with the packet and the letter, reached Bhagalpur by train at 1 O'clock at night. He stayed at the platform during night. The next morning, he went to Anand Marg Primary School, where he met Chitbhashanand, Principal of the School and on his request, Budheshawaranand was called there. Previously Budheshawaranand used to clad himself like an Avadhoot but on that day, he was seen in plain clothes with hair cut short and beard shaved. He (PW-2) gave him that packet and letter. Budheshawaranand kept the packet in a thaila (bag), which was opened and closed by a zip. Sh. Sukhdev Sahu (PW-15) had rented a room where Budheshawaranand was living with him. He stayed in that room for 8/10 days and after 1 or 2 days, Budheshawaranand brought him to Chautham at the house of Gopalji and met him. He (PW-2) correctly identified Gopalji in the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 503 court by pointing towards him. He did not know him (Gopalji) prior to that. At a distance of 5 or 7 KMs, Gopalji had a farmhouse at Tilihar and Budheshawaranand introduced Gopalji and PW-2 as a confident members of Revolutionary Group and informed A-7 that PW-2 had been sent there by A-1. He stayed at Chautham for one day and then he came back to Bhagalpur with Budheshawaranand. He deposed that Budheshawaranand told him that in case of any emergency, he could come to Gopalji for help. He stayed at Bhagalpur for one or two days after his return from Chautham.
398. In his cross-examination, PW-2 answered that he had not stated before ACMM in his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC that at that time when he met him in the market of South Extension Part-1, A-1 was sporting short moustaches and hair and that he was wearing hearing aid. He clarified that he had mentioned that he was in plain clothes. He replied that A-1 told that there should be armed revolution and when he was confronted with his previous statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. PC, the word used are "Kranti" and not "Shashastra Kranti". He had stated before the Magistrate in his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC that A-1 gave him a packet and a letter, but he has not stated that the packet was duly packed and the envelope was closed. The packet was wrapped in a cloth piece and it appeared that there were papers underneath the cloth cover. He replied that he had mentioned the name of the Principal of Anand Marg Primary School, Bhagalpur in his statement Ex.PW-2/L, but when he CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 504 was confronted with his previous statement, the name of the Principal was not found recorded. He had not stated in Ex.PW-2/L that Budheshawaranand had his haircut short and beard shaved and that he was in plain clothes. He deposed that it was 12.00 Noon or 01.00 PM, when Budheshawaranand met him in the school premises at Bhagalpur and at that time, he handed over the letter and packet to Budheshawaranand. It was 3rd or 4th of July 1974, when Budheshawaranand met him in the Primary School, Bhagalpur. He has not stated before the Magistrate that Sukhdev Sahu had rented a room, in which Budheshawaranand was living or that he had stayed in his room for 8/10 days. In his previous statement, it was found recorded that he lived with Budheshawaranand. He had not stated before the Magistrate that he was introduced to Gopalji by Budheshawaranand as a confident and devoted member of Revolutionary Group. When confronted with statement Ex.PW-2/L, it was found mentioned that he was introduced with Gopalji. In his further cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he did not remember the room number of Shiv Raj Singh (PW-13).
399. The testimony of PW-2 that he went to meet A-1 in IARI, Pusa, New Delhi, where A-1 handed over him a letter and packet to be delivered to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur and that he got his beard shaved and hair short cut is corroborated by PW-13. I have already discussed the introductory deposition of PW-13 about his shifting to Delhi in September 1972, his stay in the hostel room of IARI, Pusa up CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 505 to 29.5.1975, working of Santoshanand as Editor of 'Prout' at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi, his visit while A-1 used to be in the saffron attire and appearance of Anand Margi and his participation in the Boat Club Rally at the instance of A-1. I have also referred his statement that after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand, A-1 stopped coming to him. It is found in the testimony of PW-13 that A-1 came to him in April 1974, but was not wearing uniform of Avadhoot and he was not sporting beard and mustaches and having his haircut. He was in plain clothes wearing pant & shirt. A-1 told him that Government was harassing Baba who could not be released by adopting constitutional means. A-1 informed him that some violent means should be adopted to get the Baba released and he was asked by A-1 to co-operate with him to achieve that object. However, PW-13 declined as he was a family man and a Government servant. A-1 asked him that he should collect arms & ammunitions but he did not agree. Sometimes A-1 used to stay with him in his room. A-1 came to him in the first week of July 1974 and stayed with him for the whole night and the next day he along with A-1 went to PUSA gate where one person met them and A-1 introduced him as Vikram. He would be in a position to identify Vikram. (The witness has correctly identified approver Vikram in the Court). PW-13 further deposed that at that time Vikram was also having long hair sporting beard and mustaches. They all three went to the Hostel. Thereafter, he (PW-13) went to the laboratory leaving A-1 and Vikram talking to each other there on one CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 506 side of the room. He returned to the Hostel at 3.00 or 4.00 PM and found both A-1 and PW-2 inside his room but he found PW-2 having his haircut short and not having beard. He found PW-2 having short mustaches. A-1 gave one packet with one letter to PW-2 with a direction to give the same to Aacharya Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. PW-2 left his room at about 5.00 PM.
400. In his cross-examination, PW-13 answered that when A-1 visited him in 1974, he did not inquire from A-1 as to why he had changed his attire. He did not remember the exact date of July 1974 when A-1 came to him but he came to him in the first week of July 1974. He did not ask A-1 where he was posted and what was his source of livelihood was during the last one year. He did not inquire from him whether he was trying to collect arms and ammunitions.
401. I have minutely perused the deposition of PW-13 and found that his testimony on the aforesaid points testified by him in his examination-in-chief have not been shattered by the accused persons including A-1. The defence was unsuccessful in shattering the deposition of PW-13 about the visit of A-1 or that of PW-2 in the first week of July 1974 in the Hostel room of PW-13. The defence has also not derided that he left for his laboratory leaving A-1 having conversation with PW-2 or his return there at 03.00 or 04.00 PM, when A-1 in his presence handed over one packet with a letter in the envelope for delivery to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. Therefore, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 507 the testimony of PW-2 has been corroborated by the version of PW-
13. As this witness has no axe to grind against the accused and further being an independent person employed by the government, but a sympathizer of the cult, his testimony is found cogent and trustworthy.
36) Pamphlets of Revolutionary Message.
402. PW-2 further testified that on his visit to Bhagalpur, he accompanied Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh to Baidyanath Printing Press there. Budheshawaranand had already got published pamphlets in the name of Shashastra Krantikari Chhatra Sangh and they read some pamphlets, which looked alike Ex.PW-2/D (available in the Folder R-4). They went to that press to get such like pamphlets printed and Press owner demanded advance for printing but Budheshawaranand was not having sufficient amount, so they came back to the house of Sh. Sukhdev Sahu (PW-15). He identified the photograph of the Budheshawaranand Ex.P-3 (available in the Folder R-4) and deposed that Budheshawaranand has died. In his cross- examination, he answered that he had not stated in his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC, that Budheshawaranand had taken him to Baidyanath Printing Press at Bhagalpur or that they were not possessed of sufficient amount or that they came to the house of Sukhdev Sahu.
403. This fact is corroborated by the statement of PW-36 Sh. Baidyanath Parsad Sinha, who deposed that he owned Baijnath Press CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 508 at Mundi Chakk, Bhagalpur, which he and his father used to supervise. In the middle of June 1974, 2 or 3 persons came to his press and one of them gave his name as Amar Singh and they wanted to get a pamphlet printed from his press. They brought the manuscript of the pamphlet and wanted that press line should not appear on the pamphlet. They also desired that no entry in their record of printing the pamphlet should be made and pamphlet should be printed immediately. They were given threat that they would be make it difficult for them to run the press and would set it on fire unless they agreed. Accordingly, he agreed and in those days, Chhatra Aandolan (student agitation) was going on and he agreed for printing of pamphlets because of Chhatra Aandolan and due to threat given to him. A proof Ex.PW-2/D was prepared and next day, same persons came to him and he gave two sheets of proof Ex.PW-2/D (2 sheets) to Amar Singh, who made some corrections in his presence at point A, B & C. The writing at point D & D1 on Ex.PW-2/D was also made by Amar Singh in his presence and Rs.100/- were paid to him for printing of 2,000 copies of pamphlets and Amar Singh also made writing at point 'E' on Ex.PW-2/D in his presence regarding payment of the amount and then they printed 2,000 copies of pamphlets. In 2nd week of July 1974, Amar Singh again came to him with one boy and he would be in a position to identify Amar Singh, and his photograph. Ex.P-3 has been identified by the witness as photograph of Amar Singh. In August 1975, CBI men seized the proof of the pamphlet CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 509 Ex.PW-2/D and final copy of the pamphlet (2 sheets) Ex.PW-36/A vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW36/B. (Ex.PW-36/A consisting of two sheets is available in Folder R-13. Seizure Memo Ex.PW-36/B is available in Folder R-2).
404. In his cross-examination, PW-36 replied that writing at point 'E' on Ex.PW-2/D was made by Amar Singh on the date written therein and on that very date, Amar Singh saw the proof. He deposed that Amar Singh did not put the date, when he put his signature in Hindi, however, he had given the date under his signature at the time of making the payment. It is further elicited that Amar Singh was aged about 25 years. He was accompanied by one or two persons on his first visit to his press. One of them was of fair colour and other was of blackish complexion. CBI officer had shown him five or six photographs and he identified the photograph of Amar Singh. There was slight difference between the photograph Ex.P-3 and the photograph shown to him and explained that there was difference of size. He has denied the suggestion that he is an agent of CBI or that no person by name Amar Singh came to him in the press or that he did not own any press or that Amar Singh did not make any corrections in Ex.PW-2/D in his presence or that he has deposed falsely.
405. After going through the deposition of PW-36, I find that the defence could not discredit his testimony. Rather the defence has fortified the deposition of the PW-2 and PW-36 about the visit to the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 510 press. The defence failed to belie that Ex.P-3 was not the photograph of Amar Singh. PW-36 is an independent person. The accused persons have not shown any enmity with him. The accused persons also could not discredit the witness that the pamphlet Ex.PW-36/A was published from his press after the proof Ex.PW-2/D with corrections thereon was delivered to him by Amar Singh. It has already come in evidence that Amar Singh was also known as Budheshawaranand and Tyageshwaranand and his photograph has been identified by PW-2. The owner of the printing press PW-36 has also identified this photograph Ex.P-3 to be of Amar Singh, who had visited his press. This photograph has also been admitted by the defence while giving suggestion to the main IO Sh. H.L. Ahuja (PW-
151). The prosecution has examined PW-36 only to corroborate the testimony of approver PW-2 Vikram, who accompanied Amar Singh to the said press of PW-36, while at Bhagalpur to get printed the pamphlets.
406. PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh, Deputy SP, CBI testified that he has been associated with the investigation of this case from 8.1.1975 to 29.8.1976 while assisting Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Dy. SP. He deposed that on the direction of Chief I.O. (Sh. Ahuja), on 23.8.1975, he went to Bhagalpur and met Sh. Baidyanath Sinha (PW-
36) of Baidyanath Printing Press and seized one copy of proof Ex.PW- 2/D (2 sheets) and pamphlet (2 sheets) Ex.PW-36/A vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-36/B. Ex.PW-2/D is the proof of pamphlet with the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 511 title Shashastra Kranti- Hamara Rasta and this has been edited at points A, B & C and signed by one Amar Singh at point Q-11 and Q-
12. (This document is available in the Folder R-4).
407. In his cross-examination, PW-131 answered that the pamphlets, which were given to him by the Chief IO, did not have the print line. The Chief IO instructed him to ascertain that the pamphlets were printed at the Baidyanath Printing Press. He has denied the suggestion that they have bargained with Baidyanath Sinha (PW-36) that in consideration of his agreeing to make a statement they would not take any action against him for incriminatory pamphlets. The owner of the printing press did not produce any document before him, having received amount for printing the pamphlets. He replied that he was shown registration certificate of Baidyanath Printing Press and it was in the name of Avadh Kumar Sinha, who is father of Baidyanath. Shri Avadh Kumar Sinha was alive, but he did not examine him as he was not available being out of station. He also did not consider it necessary to contact Sh. Avadh Kumar Sinha as Amar Singh has contacted PW-36 to get the pamphlets printed. He had not shown photograph Ex.P-3 to PW-36 and he had a smaller photograph of the same person along with five or six more photographs, which were shown to PW-36. The parentage of both the witnesses of Seizure Memo Ex.PW-36/B was not mentioned. Baidyanath Printing Press is situated at Mundi Chakk and both the witnesses Subodh Kumar and Anjani Kumar were from Mundi Chakk.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 512
408. The testimony of PW-131 could not be demolished by the Ld. Defence Counsel in his extensive cross-examination. They could not demolish that the pamphlets and proof copy bearing the signature of Amar Singh, were not recovered from the press owner PW-36.
37) Stay of PW-2, Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh at the house of PW-15.
409. It has come in the testimony of PW-2 that he delivered the packet and letter of A-1 to Budheshawaranand at Anand Marg Primary School, Bhagalpur and that Budheshawaranand was a tenant under Sh. Sukhdev Sahu (PW-15). PW-2 came with Budheshawaranand to his house and stayed there. To corroborate the testimony of PW-2, the prosecution has examined Sh. Sukhdev Sahu as PW-15, who deposed that he was working as a clerk in PWD and took Diksha in the year 1968 from Aacharya Saryug Prasad and joined Anand Marg. He came to Bhagalpur in the year 1974 on his transfer. He testified that in Bhagalpur, he came in contact with Aacharya Chitbhashanand Avadhoot of Anand Marg, who was Principal of Anand Marg Primary School, Bhagalpur. On asking of Aacharya Chitbhashanand, PW-15 replied that he had no objection for the stay of some persons with him. Aacharya Chitbhashanand informed him that a person namely Amar Singh, an Anand Margi, would be visiting him for stay. In the month of June 1974, one person Amar Singh with reference of Aacharya Chitbhashanand came to him. He deposed that on 04.7.1974 Amar CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 513 Singh accompanied with another, who was introduced to him as Subir Kumar. The witness has correctly identified by pointing towards PW-2 in the Court as Subir (pseudonym of PW-2). Amar Singh and PW-2 stayed with him and Amar Singh told him that he was to go to Muzaffarpur and enquired from him whether he knew someone there and requested for a letter of reference so that he may stay with that person at Muzaffarpur. He (PW-15) gave him two introductory letters addressed to Sh. Satya Narain Parsad, his relative and another to Sh. Ram Sagar Parsad, his nephew. They remained with him up to 12.7.1974 and they left his house in the Morning of 13.7.1974. He identified both letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B, which were given by him. He also identified the photograph Ex.P-3 as that of Amar Singh. (Ex.P-3 is the photograph of Tyageshwaranand @ Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh in plain dress and has also been identified by PW-2). He was also shown the blackish bag Ex.P-7, which was with Amar Singh on 04.7.1974 and the witness stated that the bag had a handle in the center, which was not there). Ex.PW-15/A is a letter dated 04.07.1974 written in Hindi by Sukhdev (PW-15) addressed to Sh. Satya Narain. On the backside of the letter, the name and address of Sh. Satya Narain Prasad of Muzaffarpur is mentioned at point A. Ex.PW-15/B is another letter dated 04.07.1974 addressed to Sh. Ram Sagar Prasad written in Hindi by Sukhdev (PW-15). On its backside, the name of Sh. Ram Sagar Pd. is mentioned. Both these CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 514 letters dated 04.07.1974 Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B are available in Folder R-1.
410. In the cross-examination of PW-15, he admitted the suggestion that afore said Amar Singh is now dead. He also admitted that police came to him after the death of Amar Singh. He deposed that until the CBI came to him, he did not know that the other name of Amar Singh was Budheshawaranand. He referred the name of "Subir Kumar" in his statement before the police and when his attention was drawn to his previous statement, his name was found mentioned as "Subir". He has denied the suggestion that Amar Singh had not stayed with him in the month of July 1974. He has also denied the suggestion that Vikram did not stay with him at any time.
411. Perusal of the deposition of PW-15 put forth he issued above said two letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B, which are not questioned by the defence. Even otherwise, the defence except for suggesting that neither Amar Singh nor Subir Kumar (PW-2) stayed with him, could not discredit the witness in other detailed facts spoken to by him. The prosecution has mainly examined PW-15 to corroborate the testimony of the approver PW-2 that pursuant to direction of accused Santoshanand, he came to Bhagalpur and handed over one letter in envelope and one packet to Budheshawaranand, who is also known as Amar Singh and both of them stayed at the house of PW-15. The prosecution has also examined him for the reason that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 515 these two letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B were issued by PW-15 on the request of Amar Singh to enable him to stay at Muzaffarpur. They have also examined him for the reason that these letters Ex.PW- 15/A and Ex.PW-15/B along with hand grenades etc. were recovered subsequently from the search of the bag Ex.P-7, which was seized by the police from Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh at Maqbara (Tomb), Khanjarpur on 13.07.1974. Regarding this incident an FIR No. 71 of 13.7.1974 of PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur was registered. PW-2 was accompanying Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh at the Maqbara at that time, which incident now I propose to deal in the succeeding caption.
38) Incident at Maqbara, Khanjarpur.
412. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, arms and ammunitions was collected by the accused persons and in the first week of July 1974, A-1 handed over one letter and a packet to PW-2 to be delivered at Bhagalpur to Budheshawaranand. After delivering the packet and the letter, PW-2 accompanied Budheshawaranand to his rented accommodation/room in the house of PW-15. There on 04.07.1974, on the request of Amar Singh @ Budheshawaranand, PW-15 issued him two letters Ex.PW- 15/A and Ex.PW-15/B. In their further attempt in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, PW-2 accompanied Budheshawaranand at Maqbara, Khanjarpur on 13.07.1974 and at that time, Budheshawaranand was carrying a bag Ex.P-7. In this regard, PW-2 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 516 further testified that there is a tomb near Anand Marg Primary School, Bhagalpur in the area known as Chhotti Khanjarpur. On 13.7.1974 at about 10/11 AM, he and Budheshawaranand were present at the Maqbara (Tomb). Budheshawaranand had the thaila (bag) with him in which he was carrying that packet. Some tourists were taking snaps there and in the meanwhile, police came there and arrested Budheshawaranand. He threw his bag i.e. thaila towards PW-2. PW- 2 tried to pick up the thaila and police officer also tried to catch him. However, he (PW-2) ran away leaving thaila there. (During his deposition, a sealed envelope was opened, which was found to contain that bag Ex.P-7. The bag was found empty). The bag, which Budheshawaranand was carrying and dropped, was of same type as Ex.P-7.
413. In his cross-examination, PW-2 replied that he did not state in his previous statement Ex.PW-2/L that when they went to Maqbara the packet was in the thaila, which Budheshawaranand was carrying since such details were not asked from him. He answered that it was 13.07.1974, when they went to Maqbara at 10.00 or 11.00 AM. At that time, 5 or 7 tourists were there for sightseeing. He could not say how many police officers chased him, as he did not turn his face backwards. That Maqbara is at the banks of Ganga near the school. The police officer, who had chased him, was exhorting to catch PW-2, who in a hurry jumped into the river and escaped by swimming. The police did not follow him thereafter.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 517
414. PW-24 Constable Shiv Balak Singh deposed that in the year 1974, he was working as a Constable at Brari Thana where S.I. Ram Aadhar Ram (PW-25) was the Incharge. On 13.7.1974 at about 10.30 AM, he was standing at the Chowk of Chhotti Khanjarpur and S.I. Ram Aadhar Ram (PW-25) took him to Maqbara in Chhotti Khanjarpur. On the way to Maqbara, Ram Aadhar Ram (PW-25) told him that some outsiders have come there and they went to Maqbara and found two persons talking to each other. S.I. Ram Aadhar Ram (PW-25) made enquiry from them and one of them was having a leather bag. Darogaji (S.I.) made enquiry from one of them about the contents of leather bag. At that time, his companion moved 5/6 paces from there. The person, who was having leather bag, threw it to his companion, the bag fell down on the ground, and the man towards whom that bag was thrown started running without that bag. The man, who had thrown it, then lifted the leather bag and Darogaji secured the man with the leather bag. He (PW-24) chased his companion but could not succeed in apprehending that person. (However, this witness had identified that person in the court by pointing out towards Vikram, approver). Darogaji raised the alarm upon which two persons namely Sh. Kishan Dass (PW-42) and Mahender came there. He deposed that Sh. Kishan Dass (PW42) is the Mahant (Priest) of Thakur Dwara (Temple of Lord Krishna) near the Maqbara. The bag, on opening, was found to contain three hand grenades, two detonators and one loaded pistol with two live cartridges. A Seizure Memo was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 518 prepared, seven papers were found in that bag, and Darogaji signed on all those papers. (During deposition of PW-24, two sealed parcels with the seal of Explosive Inspector, Calcutta, were opened and the same were found to contain three hand grenades, having pins and lever Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13. On opening of another sealed parcel, it was found to contain Revolver Ex.P-14, two cartridges Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16 and these were the same, which were taken out from that bag.) He would be in a position to identify the photograph of the man, who was apprehended and Ex.P-3 is the photograph of that person. He also identified the Bag Ex.P-7, which was with that man whose photograph is Ex.P-3. He stated that the person, whose photograph is Ex.P-3, is dead and that person, whose photograph is Ex.P-3, gave his name as Suresh Singh, again as Ramesh Singh and again as Suraj Prakaksh and that person was taken to P.S. Brari.
415. In his cross-examination, PW-24 answered that he had seen the person who escaped from Maqbara in Police Station Kotwali about one year and few days after incident. He replied that Maqbara is about 18 feet in height. This is visible from the road of Brari. Sometimes, he had seen some children on the roof of Maqbara from the Western side road of Brari Chowk, Khanjarpur. He and SI Ram Aadhar Ram (PW-25) had gone upstairs on Maqbara. The roof of that Maqbara might be 75' X 75' and there are four domes on that Maqbara. They were in uniform. The width of the stairs might be about two feet. He (PW-24) started chasing the person, who was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 519 running towards East and that person has run away using the stairs. He could not apprehend him. There was no electricity in the stairs. He had given the description of that person escaped to Darogaji. In his further cross-examination, he deposed that they had not given any beating to the person, who was apprehended by them at the Maqbara. He has denied the suggestion that they had given him beatings and the person became unable to speak. He deposed that the person secured by them along with the bag containing the said articles, received minor injuries on his shoulder in the process of apprehending him. There was no bleeding. They remained at the spot till 02.00 PM. No cash was recovered from the personal search of the person secured.
416. Perusal of the testimony of PW-24 reflect that his deposition about recovery of aforesaid Bag Ex.P-7 containing three hand grenades, one pistol with two cartridges etc. from the person of Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh has not been belied. His testimony identifying PW-2 Vikram and photograph Ex.P-3 in the court remains unrebutted.
417. PW-25 Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram, Officer Incharge, P.S. Brari, District Bhagalpur deposed that on 13.7.1974 at about 9.30 or 9.45 AM, he received information that some strangers have come to Maqbara Khanjarpur. He took PW-24 with him at 10 AM, from Chhotti Khanjarpur Chowk and reached Maqbara Khanjarpur. On the way to Maqbara, he informed PW-24 about their purpose of going CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 520 there. On the roof of Maqbara, they found two strangers, he (PW-25) made enquiries from them, and one of them was having a bag. He (PW-25) was not satisfied of their reply and wanted to check the bag. The person carrying the bag refused and threw it towards his companion. He (PW-25) moved towards other man in order to seize the bag but he again threw it towards the first man. He (PW-25) secured the first man, who was having that bag initially and that bag fell down on the ground from where he (PW-25) lifted. The other person started running away towards the East. PW-24 chased him, but could not succeed. He would be in a position to identify that man, who escaped from there and identified that person as Vikram approver (PW-2) by pointing towards him, who was present in the court. He (PW-25) raised the alarm at the spot, when the bag was being thrown. Mahant Kishan Mohan Dass (PW-42) and Mahender came there. The witness (PW-25) has identified the Bag Ex.P-7, which was taken from the hands of the person apprehended at the spot. After they were brought down, he opened the bag Ex.P-7 in the presence of afore said two public witnesses and PW-24. It was found to contain three hand- grenades Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13 in a plastic container, Revolver Ex.P-14 and two live cartridges Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16, two Letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B and papers Ex.PW-25/A to Ex.PW-25/E. He put his signatures on the letters and papers at point 'X', while taking the same into his possession. He prepared a Seizure Memo Ex.PW-25/F, which was attested by Mahant Kishan Mohan Dass (PW-42) and Mahender.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 521 The person apprehended by him, initially gave his name as Suresh and thereafter as Suraj Prakash and again as Budheshawaranand and that man is dead and he identified the photograph of the person apprehended from whom the recovery was effected to be Ex.P-3. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW-25/G in his own handwriting and it bears his signatures and endorsement Ex.PW-25/G-1 on the rukka is in his handwriting and bears his signatures, which was sent by him to Police Station Kotwali. The three hand grenades were sent by him to Expert at Calcutta for examination with a forwarding letter Ex.PW-25/H and it bears his signatures at Point A.
418. The letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B seized from persons at Maqbara were given to him by PW-15 when PW-2 accompanied by Amar Singh went to PW-15. Ex.P-3 is photograph, which has been identified by PW-1 and PW-2 as that of Tyageshwaranand @ Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh. This photograph Ex.P-3 is of the person, who has been identified to be Amar Singh by PW-36 Baidyanath Parshad Sinha. When he was apprehended at Maqbara by PW-25 Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram, he gave his name as Suresh Singh, then Ramesh Singh, then Suraj Prakash and also as Budheshawaranand.
419. In his cross-examination, PW-25 admitted the suggestion of the defence that it is correctly written in the rukka Ex.PW-25/G at point A to A that person apprehended received minor injuries while he was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 522 being overpowered. He also admitted the suggestion of the defence that he had written in the case diary that these hand grenades, pistol etc. were collected for murdering Madhavanand.
420. Ex.PW-25/A to Ex.PW-25/E are available in Folder R-16. Seizure List Ex.PW-25/F is available in Folder R-1. Rukka Ex.PW- 25/G with endorsement Ex.PW-25/G-1 thereon and FIR and Request to Examine the Explosives Ex.PW-25/H by Ram Aadhar Ram addressed to Deputy Controller of Explosive, Calcutta, dated 10.01.1975 referring to FIR No. 71 dated 13.07.2014 regarding the above incident, are available in Folder R-2.
421. I have scrutinized the deposition of PW-25 and its perusal shows that his testimony regarding recovery of afore said Bag Ex.P-7 containing three hand grenades, one pistol with two cartridges and letters etc. from Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh has not been discredited by the defence in his cross-examination. His testimony of identifying PW-2 Vikram in the court is also not challenged. PW-25 has also identified the photograph Ex.P-3 of the person apprehended and that version of PW-25 could not be discredited by the defence.
422. PW-42 Mahant Krishan Mohan Dass deposed that on 13.7.1974 at about 10.30/11 AM, he was present in his Mandir (Temple), which was at a distance of about 100 yards from the Maqbara of Chhotti Khanjarpur. He heard the alarm from the said Maqbara and came CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 523 there where he found arrival of another witness Mohinder Dass. They had gone on the roof of the Maqbara and found Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram (PW-25) having already secured a man, who gave his name as Suresh and was having a bag with chain. He identified the bag Ex.P-7 and that person was brought downstairs and bag was searched by PW- 25 and PW-24 who returned there after chasing the other person. He deposed that three hand grenades, one country-made pistol, two bullets, one plastic container containing two detonators of hand grenades, two letters, 4/5 pieces of papers written in Hindi and English, were taken out from that bag. A Seizure Memo Ex.PW-25/F was prepared bearing his signatures at point A. Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram signed the letter and pieces of papers. The witness identified the articles recovered from the Bag Ex.P-7. He identified hand grenades Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13, Revolver Ex.P-14, Bullets Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16. He also identified the photograph of the man Ex.P-3 from whom said bag Ex.P-7 containing the said articles was recovered.
423. In his cross-examination, PW-42 deposed that no rough site plan was prepared at the spot. The personal search of the person secured was taken but nothing was recovered. He was aged about 25 or 30 years. He was speaking Hindi. He was wearing white pant and shirt. He stated to the police that two detonators were found in plastic container. When he was confronted with his previous statement, there was no mention of plastic dibba. Police remained at the place for about three hours. There were some abrasions on the person of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 524 man apprehended by Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram. Initially, he gave his name as Suresh and then as Suraj Prakash. He has denied the suggestion that photograph Ex.P-3 is not of the man, who was apprehended by Ram Aadhar Ram. He also denied the suggestion that the above said articles were not recovered from the bag Ex.P-7 in his presence.
424. PW-138 Sh. R.P. Malhotra was the Deputy Controller of Explosive at Calcutta from 1972 to 1976. I have already referred his introductory statement while dealing with the incident dated 07.01.1974. He deposed that on 26.7.1974, he visited P.S. Barari, District Bhagalpur on the request of S.P. Bhagalpur Sh. Vijay Partap Singh. He met Sh. Ram Aadhar Ram (PW-25), Officer Incharge P.S. Barari. On the same day i.e. 26.07.1974, three hand grenades and two numbers of Ignitor Sets were shown to him. After preliminary examination, he tested and destroyed the Ignitor Sets and handed over the remaining three hand grenades to the Officer Incharge with advice to send the same to Calcutta Office for further examination. Regarding his examination of the hand grenades, he had given his handwritten Preliminary Report dated 26.07.1974 Ex.PW-138/A, which is correct and bears his signatures at point 'A'.
425. As per this Report Ex.PW-138/A dated 26/7/1974, PW-138 visited Barari Police Station and took charge of two numbers of Ignitor Sets and three numbers of hand grenades from the Officer CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 525 Incharge, Barari, PW-25. All three hand grenades were found by him without any Ignitor Sets. Both the detonators of the Ignitor Sets were used up during test at Barari P.S. and he handed over three hand grenades to Officer Incharge, Barari with advise to send the same to the office of Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, East Circle, 8, Esplanade, East Calcutta through a special Messenger for further examination.
(Preliminary Report Ex.PW-138/A dated 26.07.1974 is available in Folder R-1)
426. PW-138 further deposed that a sealed packet containing the three hand grenades was received in the Office of Deputy Chief Controller, Calcutta on 17.1.1975 through Constable Ram Narain Singh, number 561 and Constable Sudarshan Singh, number 568, P.S. Barari. These were received by Sh. Tapan Kumar Bandhopadhaya, Deputy Controller of Explosive. He can identify his writing and signatures as he had seen him writing and signing and Sh. Tapan Kumar Bandhopadhaya has left the department and he does not know about his present whereabouts. He examined the contents of the sealed parcel on 28.2.1975 and these hand grenades found to contain T.N.T, a high explosive and these hand grenades were referred to the laboratory for chemical examination to the Assistant Chemical Examiner Mr. Ray. He deposed that hand grenades Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13 are the same, which were examined by him and they have the same marking and he had noted the marking numbers of these CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 526 hand grenades. He further deposed that he tested Ignitor Sets at P.S. Barari on 26.7.1974 and destroyed. These hand grenades Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13 bear the marking, which appear to be the same, as were examined by him at P.S. Barari on 26.7.1974. He proved his Report Ex.PW-138/B. As per this Report dated 28.02.1975 Ex.PW- 138/B, all these three hand grenades were found to contain a high explosive charge of T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro-Toluene) and such hand grenades are capable of endangering life on explosion after being suitably ignited with an Ignitor Set or otherwise.
(Report dated 28.02.1975 Ex.PW-138/B is
available in Folder R-1)
427. In his cross-examination, PW-138 replied that TNT, which stands for Tri-nitro-toluene, which is an explosive, is visible to naked eyes. It is in the jacket shell of hand grenade. It was not possible to open the hand grenade in the Police Station Barari to ascertain about the presence of TNT in the hand grenades. After receiving the hand grenades in their office, he examined them and found TNT present. At present TNT is not present in the hand grenades Ex.P-11, P-12 and P-13 as the same has been destroyed by the chemical examiner. He denied the suggestion that he has intentionally destroyed the Ignitors and TNT, so that his report might not be challenged by re-examining of the exhibits. The year of manufacture of the hand grenades was mentioned as 1967 and the life of such hand grenades is about 15 years. He deposed that as per his report these hand grenades were CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 527 received by him in a sealed wooden box. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that these hand grenades were manufactured and assembled in different factories. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that his Report Ex.PW-138/A is false one.
428. A perusal of the deposition of explosive expert PW-138 reflects that his deposition that the hand grenades were found to contain TNT, which was capable enough endangering life on explosion, has not been discredited. I find the other part of the cross-examination of PW- 138 as irrelevant to the facts in issue.
429. From the testimony of PW-2 and PW-13, it comes out that in the first week of July 1974, A-1 in the presence of PW-13 handed over a packet duly packed and a letter in a closed envelop to PW-2 at Delhi for its delivery to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. Accordingly, PW- 2 delivered that packet and letter to Budheshawaranand. Thereafter, PW-2 and Budheshawaranand stayed at the rented house of PW-15. Budheshawaranand was none else but Amar Singh. PW-15 gave him two reference letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B (both dated 04.07.1974) to enable him to visit and stay at Muzaffarpur. As discussed under the caption "PW-2 Joining of Criminal Conspiracy", during the stay of PW-2 at Bhagalpur, Budheshawaranand brought him to Chautham at the house of Gopalji who had his farmhouse at Tilihar and both of them were introduced as members of Revolutionary Group and Budheshawaranand informed Gopalji that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 528 PW-2 had been sent by Santoshanand. On 13.07.1974, Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh @ Tyageshwaranand, who was carrying a bag containing the said packet and articles including detonators, loaded revolver etc., accompanied PW-2 to a tomb at Khanjarpur, Bhagalpur. There PW-25 apprehended Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh with the above said articles. Those articles were recovered in the presence of two public witnesses including PW-42, who has proved the Search List. The packet was found kept in the thaila (bag), which was found to contain three hand grenades, which were handed over by A-1 at IARI, Pusa, New Delhi to PW-2 in the presence of PW-13 to be delivered to Budheshawaranand. The arrest of Amar Singh @ Budheshawaranand and recovery of the before said articles, preparation of search list and escape of PW-2 from the site has also been proved by PW-24 and PW-
25. PW-2 has been identified not only by PW-15 but also by PW-24 and PW-25. The recovery of two letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW- 15/B from the said thaila further lends credence to the testimony of PW-2 that those reference letters were given by PW-15 to Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh on his request in his presence, when they stayed at the residence of PW-15. On examining the said recovered hand grenades from the bag carried by Amar Singh @ Budheshawaranand in the company of PW-2, by explosive expert PW- 138, it was found that the same were containing TNT, which on explosion could endanger life. Thus, the testimony of the approver CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 529 PW-2 stands corroborated in all the material particulars so far by the corroborative evidence of PW-13, PW-15, PW-24, PW-25, PW-42, and PW-138. These facts are enough to believe the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt regarding the complicity of A-1, Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh @ Tyageshwaranand (deceased), PW-2 and A-7 in the criminal conspiracy.
39) Aftermath - incident of Khanjarpur
430. PW-2 further deposed that next day (i.e. 14.07.1974), he went to Chautham and met A-1 there. A-7 was also present there and he told him about the delivery of the packet to Budheshawaranand, keeping of the packet in a bag by Budheshawaranand and arrest of Budheshawaranand by the police along with the bag containing the packet. He informed A-1 in the presence of A-7 that he could not pick up the bag for the fear of being arrested. On asking of A-1, PW-2 further informed him that the packet sent by him was in the bag and on knowing this A-1 was shocked and he held his forehead in his both hands and told him that the packet contained three hand grenades. He deposed that he stayed at the house at Chautham for 4/5 days. He testified that meetings of the members of Revolutionary Group used to be held at the house of A-7 at Chautham and at farmhouse of A-7 at Tilihar. Apart from him, A-1, A-2, Arteshanand (since deceased) and A-7 used to attend those meetings. The meetings were addressed by A-1, who used to tell that they had to procure arms for revolution in order to get the Baba released. In his cross-examination, PW-2 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 530 deposed that he did not state in Ex.PW-2/L that meetings used to be held at the house of A-7 and in the statement Ex.PW-2/L, it was found mentioned that meetings were held at Chautham. He explained that by saying that meetings were held at Chautham, he meant to say at the house of A-7 at Chautham. In his further cross-examination at Page No. 91, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that on 14.07.1974, he was at Chautham.
431. The testimony of PW-2 is not discredited by the defence including A-7 that A-7 had a house at Chautham and a farmhouse at Tilihar. The defence could not deride that PW-2 went to Chautham on 14.07.1974 and stayed in his house or that meetings of members of the Revolutionary Group used to be held at his house and farmhouse, attended by A-7, PW-2, A-1, A-2, Arteshanand and meeting used to be addressed by A-1. These assertions of PW-2 have also not been discredited by the other accused persons. The accused could not shake narration of the incident at Khanjarpur Maqbara by PW-2. Rather, by giving the suggestion that on 14.07.1974, PW-2 was at Chautham, the defence has admitted the version of the approver PW-2. Therefore, the testimony of approver PW-2 stand further corroborated and renders it to be believed.
40) Attempt to procure arms and ammunitions.
432. PW-2 deposed that they had to procure arms for a revolution in order to get the Baba released. While he was at Chautham after the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 531 incident at Maqbara, Khanjarpur dated 13.07.1974, A-1 asked him to go to Indo-Nepal Border and meet Anand Margies there and procure arms from them. A-1 further told PW-2 to meet Sh. Paras Nath (PW-
27), a Railway Guard of Narkatiaganj and one Khub Lal of Bitia; both of them were Anand Margies. He went there and did not know Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27). However, he knew Khub Lal, who introduced him to Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27). Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) introduced him to Sh. Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) of Village Chamua. Despite best efforts, he was not able to procure any arms. The defence gave suggestion to PW-2 at Page No. 91 that he was at Narkatiaganj, Chamua, Rajgir and Chakia in November 1974.
433. PW-2 further deposed that he was introduced to Khub Lal by Sh. Ram Aasrey at his shop at Bitia in the month of September/October 1974, as "Subir". Ram Aasrey requested Khub Lal to introduce him (PW-2) to Sh. Paras Nath, Guard (PW-27). Next day Khub Lal took him to Narkatiaganj at the quarter of Paras Nath, Guard (PW-27) and introduced him to Sh. Paras Nath, Guard, as Subir, a worker of Anand Marg. He deposed that Khub Lal told Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) that he (PW-2) would be staying with him for some days. Those were Durga Pooja days and he stayed at his house for 3/4 days. He came back to Chakia and about one month thereafter he went again to Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27). He told Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) that Baba could not be got released by legal means and armed revolution (Sashatra Kranti) had to be resorted to. He CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 532 requested him to help him in procurement of arms as far as it was possible for him and Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) just replied to him that he would see to it. During these visits, he was introduced by Paras Nath (PW-27) to some other Anand Margies, who were living in the vicinity. Those were including Sh. Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) and Sh. Radha Kishan. He talked to Sh. Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) and told him about their failure to get Baba released by legal means and Sashatra Kranti was the need, and he thus came back to Chakia from the place of Paras Nath (PW-27). He stayed for 3-4 days with him during this visit.
434. It is seen in the cross-examination that meeting with Paras Nath (PW-27) took place at the house of Paras Nath at Narkatiaganj. The house of Khub Lal is on the main road near bus stand but he could not tell the name of the Mohalla. He could not give the names of the persons residing in the vicinity of the house of Khub Lal, as he never met anybody in his vicinity. He deposed that he stayed at Bitia with Khub Lal for one night, when Ram Aasrey introduced him. He visited Bitia three or four times. On his second visit, he stayed for 10 or 15 days and on the other occasion, he stayed for a day or so. He did not remember the dates of his visit, but the same were in the month of September and October 1974. It was November/December 1974, when Paras Nath introduced him to Roop Nath Mishra of Village Chamua at the house of Paras Nath. He deposed that he informed Paras Nath and Roop Nath Mishra the purpose of his visit. He has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 533 denied the suggestion that he was never deputed to collect any arms by A-1 or that he had no meeting with A-1. He did not remember whether he stated in the Committing Court that Santoshanand asked him to meet Paras Nath, Railway Guard of Narkatiaganj and Khub Lal of Bitia. When he was confronted with the statement of the Committing Court Ex.PW-2/DF, where it was found recorded that A-1 deputed him to procure arms and ammunitions from Anand Margies, residing along Indo-Nepal Boarder and under this instructions he went to Paras Nath, Railway Guard, Narkatiaganj, who was a Anand Margi. He did not state in this statement Ex.PW-2/DF that Ram Aasrey introduced him to Khub Lal or that he told his name to Khub Lal as Subir. He did not state in the Committing Court that when he again went to Paras Nath, he told him that Baba could not be got released by legal means and Sashatra Kranti had to be resorted to as no such question was put to him.
435. PW-27 Paras Nath Singh deposed that during the period between 1968 and 1975, he was working as Railway Guard, at Narkatiaganj (Bihar). He took Diksha in the year 1968 from Aacharya Parmanand Srivastava of Anand Marg. He knew Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) of Village Chamua, Narkatiaganj. He came in contact with Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) about five or seven months after he joined Railways Service. He was a commission agent at Railway Station Chamua Halt. He was Aacharya of Anand Marg. He also knew Khub Lal since the year 1969 and he was Anand Margi and had a shop at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 534 Bitia. He further deposed that after taking Diksha from Aacharya Parmanand Srivastava, he often used to visit him but sometimes Aacharya himself used to visit him. During Durga Pooja days of the year 1974, he was at Narkatiaganj, when Khub Lal visited him. At that time, he was accompanied by one person, who was introduced to this witness by Khub Lal as "Subir" of Anand Marg and he would be in a position to identify the afore said "Subir". (The witness has correctly identified PW-2 in the Court). He further deposed that Khub Lal informed him that PW-2 was a worker of Anand Marg and he would meet the people for propaganda of Anand Marg. He made a request to allow Subir to stay with him for one or two days to which he agreed. Khub Lal then went away. PW-2 stayed with him 4-5 days and was not in the dress of Avadhoot but in plain clothes and had small mustaches and cut hair on the head. He was not sporting any beard. PW-2 told him that he was full-time worker of Anand Marg, and one month later PW-2 came to him alone. He had a general talk with PW-2. PW-27 told him about Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80), Amresh Chand, Radha Kishan, and Anand Kishore. PW-2 informed him that Baba was in custody and was to be released by revolution alone. To achieve the object, arms, ammunitions and money was to be collected and requested him to help him in this regard, as it was border area with Nepal, for which PW-27 expressed his inability. Then PW-2 requested him to find other sources. PW-2 stayed with him for about 2 or 3 days during that visit. This time, PW-2 used to go out from his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 535 house in the Morning and come back in the Evening and he had gone to meet Amresh Chand. At his (PW-27) residence, he met Anand Kishore, Radha Kishan, Roop Nath (PW-80) and then he went away.
436. In his cross-examination, PW-27 replied that Roop Nath Mishra, Khub Lal, Amresh Chand were residing at Narkatiaganj and surrounding area. Khub Lal was not in a position to regularly visit his place, whereas Radha Kishan and Nand Kishore used to visit him regularly. He further answered that Anand Kishore and Radha Kishan used to meet Subir at his residence and once Roop Nath Mishra also met him. He replied that sometimes aforesaid meetings used to be in his presence. In the meetings, there used to be general discussions. He admitted the suggestion that in May 1975, the police searched his house and nothing objectionable was found. He refused to give any assistance to PW-2, when he first of all asked him to help in arranging arms and ammunitions. PW-2 again talked to him on his next visit and he told him not to have a talk with him on that subject.
437. A perusal of the testimony of PW-27 disclose that the defence has not at all belied regarding the visits of PW-2 meeting him and several persons in connection with procurement of resources and arms. The testimony of PW-2 has been corroborated by PW-27 about visit of PW-2 to procure arms.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 536
438. PW-80 Roop Nath Mishra of Village Chamua (Bihar) deposed that he took Diksha as Anand Margi in 1958 from Aacharya Vishwanath Singh and he became Aacharya in the year 1963. In the year 1964, marriage of his daughter was solemnized according to Sanatan Dharam rites. He had given cash, ornaments and clothes in the marriage of his daughter. In connection with giving of dowry, he was called to Jamalpur in the year 1964. In those days, Anand Murti was at Jamalpur. He was also known as Baba. He was produced before Anand Murti by Sh. P.K. Chatterjee, General Secretary of Anand Marg. Anand Murti became very angry and reprimanded him on giving of dowry in the marriage. Anand Murti constituted a committee for taking action against him. Committee took a decision that he should get back his dowry from son-in-law and give the same to Bitia Children Home of Anand Marg. He could not get back the dowry from his son-in-law for depositing the same at Bitia Children Home of Anand Marg. For this reason, he was deprived of Aacharyaship in 1964. He attended Dharam Maha Chakra of Anand Marg of Patna, Bitia, Motihari and Muzaffarpur. He lastly attended Dharam Maha Chakra in the year 1971. He knew Ram Aasrey since 1958. He was an old worker of Anand Marg. He was a full time worker and holding the designation of Aacharya. He knew Sh. Paras Nath Singh (PW-27), who was also an Anand Margi. He was Railway Guard posted at Narkatiaganj. He was known to him since the year 1958 as Narkatiaganj is at a distance of 6 KMs from his Village CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 537 Chamua and the nearest market from his Village is Narkatiaganj. Sh. Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) used to reside at Railway Quarters at Narkatiaganj. Sometimes, he (PW-80) used to visit Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) at his house. He (PW-80) met one person by the name of Subir at the house of Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) at Narkatiaganj in the year 1974 about 1 or 1½ months of Dusshera. Subir was introduced to him by Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) and Subir expressed his desire to visit his house and in those days JP Andolan was going on. In the house of Paras Nath Singh (PW-27), Subir told him that Baba would be got released by Krantikari. He would be in a position to identify Subir (The witness has correctly identified Subir by pointing towards Vikram). He further testified that on the same day, Subir came and stayed at his house. Subir stayed at his house and told him that Baba would be get released by Sangharsh.
439. The cross-examination of PW-80 reveals that Aacharya Ram Aasrey met him for the first time in Dharam Maha Chakra but he did not remember in which year he met him. He had never gone to his house but Aacharya Ram Aasrey visited his house once in February or March 1975. He came to his house by chance. He did not talk to Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) or anybody else that they should get Anand Murti released by adopting illegal means. Without his asking, Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) himself told him that Subir wanted to get Anand Murti released by adopting illegal and violent means. He suggested Subir that nothing should be done by violence. He testified that Paras CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 538 Nath Singh (PW-27) was present apart from him when talk about release of Anand Murti by Krantikari. In his further cross- examination, PW-80 admitted the suggestion of the defence that he joined Anand Marg, since it believed in pious living, social service, impart education in yoga, sadhna for salvation, pure living, rending social service, eradication of evils from society, removal of dowry system, simple living and high thinking. They also believed in Ahinsa (non-violence).
440. Perusal of testimony of PW-80 Sh. Roop Nath Mishra makes it clear that PW-2 by name Subir visited him around Dusshera festival of 1974, which generally fall in the month of October. He corroborated the version of PW-2 to the effect that he (PW-2) told that Baba could not be released by legal means and he would be got released only by armed revolution. The defence in their lengthy cross- examination could not discredit this testimony of PW-80 as regards the visits of PW-2 in his attempt to achieve the mission.
441. Defence has examined DW-21 Sh. Niranjan Dev to dispel the case of the prosecution that Ram Aasrey, Paras Nath (PW-27) and Vikram (PW-2) used to come to his father Sh. Khub Lal at Bitia for collection of arms and ammunitions. He deposed that his father Khub Lal was an Anand Margi and died in October, 2002. In his cross- examination, it is elicited that in the year 1973-1974 he was 13-14 years of age and a school-goer in Bitia. He could not know the names CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 539 of those persons who used to come to his father during his school time which used to be from 10.30 AM to 3.00 PM.
I fear that believing this witness, who was a juvenile at the relevant period of time and small school going kid, who could perceive nothing, would be only a disservice to the cause of justice. Therefore, the testimony of this witness is not useful to the either side.
442. The cross-examination of PW-2 is nothing but re-address of the examination-in-chief. The questions and suggestions particularly at Page No. 91 put prove the prosecution's case. The defence got elicited in the cross-examination that PW-2 visited all the places as claimed in his chief. Here it is pertinent to mention that in his further cross- examination the defence has given him the suggestion that in the month of November, 1974, PW-2 was at Narkatiaganj, Chamua, Rajgir and Chakia. The say of PW-2 is further corroborated on all material facts with the testimonies of PW-27 and PW-80. The defence witness examined is not helpful to them since DW-21 was an innocent minor at the relevant period of time and the evidentiary value of this witness is already discussed above. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution proved its case that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, attempts were made by the conspirators to collect arms and ammunitions for their ill conceived designs.
41) Meet at Rajgir in Nov' 74 convened by A-1.
443. PW-2's testimony further reveals that a meeting of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 540 Revolutionary Group at Rajgir was held in November 1974 after unsuccessful efforts to procure arms, convened by A-1. Apart from himself, A-1, A-2, Arteshanand and Anand Margies of Bhagalpur, attended. A-1 addressed the meeting. A-1 told them that Sadvipra Raj could not be established without armed revolution, for which he exhorted to collect arms. A-1 emphasized that each one of them would have to work to achieve the end and asked to enroll at least 25 reliable persons each so for the purpose. PW-2 further testified that A- 1 informed him earlier and directed him to attend, which he did.
On this aspect, there is no cross-examination to undo the assertions of PW-2.
42) Shifting of PW-2 to Chakia (Bihar)
444. I find from the testimony of PW-2 that he shifted his headquarter at Chakia in Bihar for revolutionary activities, on his own. He used to visit neighbouring places for the purpose of collecting arms. A-1 and A-2 used to give him money for this work and for his daily expenses. A-2 used to come to Chakia on the directions of A-1 to give him instructions.
In the cross-examination of PW-2, at Page No. 91, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that he was at Narkatiaganj, Chamua, Rajgir and Chakia in November 1974.
445. Thus, the deposition of PW-2 could not be discredited by the defence and his visit at Chakia, drawing instructions from A-1 and A-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 541 2 and the support given by A-1 and A-2 to collect the arms have remained untouched in the cross-examination. Rather, by giving the suggestion to PW-2 in his cross-examination at Page No. 91 that he was at Narkatiaganj, Chamua, Rajgir and Chakia in November, 1974, the defence admits the version of the approver PW-2.
43) A-1's stay at Ashok Lodge, Patna.
446. PW-2's testimony reveals that in the third week of December 1974, A-2 came to him at Chakia. A-2 gave the message of A-1 that A-1 would be waiting for PW-2 at Gandhi Maidan Patna on 29.12.1974 in the morning. Accordingly, PW-2 went there and he found only A-2, who took him to Ashok Lodge/Ashok Niketan at Patna where A-1 met him. A-1, who occupied one room there on upper floor, told PW-2 that thenceforth meetings would be held in that room, which he took on rent. He further deposed that A-1 directed him to reach Samastipur on 01.1.1975 and make arrangements for stay of 2 or 3 persons at the house of some Anand Margi or in some Dharamshala (Lodge). A-1 told PW-2 that A-1 would be at the Railway Station by 04.00 or 5 O'clock in the Evening on 01.1.1975 where he asked PW-2 to meet him.
447. In his cross-examination, PW-2 gave an answer that Ashok Lodge was also known as Ashok Niketan. In the committal court, on asking, he has stated that it was also known as Ashok Niketan. It is elicited that he did not state so in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC that it CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 542 was also known as Ashok Niketan, since it was not questioned. He did not remember the number of the room of the Ashok Lodge or Niketan, which was rented. He also did not know what the room rent was. He did not notice whether any sign board of this building was hanging outside the building. The colour of the building was white. He did not remember the name of the Manager of that Lodge.
448. This fact deposed by PW-2 that in Ashok Lodge at Patna a room had been taken on rent by A-1, is corroborated by PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar, who is the son of the owner of the Lodge known as "Ashok Niketan/Ashok Lodge". PW-23 deposed that in the year 1974, he was a student of B.Sc. (final year). He and his father have been managing the affairs. PW-23 saw the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A belonging to them and deposed that on 28.12.1974, one person came to him and told his name as "Vinod Kumar". The visitor informed PW-23 that he was an agent of Law Books of which headquarter is at Allahabad. The visitor was wearing a hearing aid. He testified that he would be in a position to identify him and he identified the accused Santoshanand correctly in the court. Further he went on to narrate that A-1 was given a room on the second floor of his house on rent at the rate of Rs.55/- per month, which was agreed by A-1. PW-23 also inquired from him about his permanent address. An advance sum of Rs.55/- was paid by A-1 for the month of January 1975. On asking of PW-23, the said person wrote down his address in their Note Book Ex.PW-23/A. (This Note Book is also exhibited as Ex.P-6). He CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 543 deposed that the portion Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) encircled with blue pencil and portion Ex.PW-23/A-1 encircled with red pencil in the Note Book Ex.PW23/A were written by this "Vinod Kumar", who is none other than A-1 as identified, in his presence. Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) reads as under:-
"28.12.74"
"Binod Kumar S/o Mr. Sumanji Sahay Sitarampur Maniari P.O. Maniari Dist - Muzaffarpur"
(Note Nook Ex.PW-23/A = Ex.P-6 is available in the Folder R-4).
449. PW-23 further testified that the accused Vinod Kumar brought his luggage in that room. He deposed that 3 or 4 persons used to visit Lodger in his room and he would be in a position to identify those persons visiting the said Vinod Kumar (A-1 as identified). He identified accused "A-2", "Arteshanand" and "PW-2" also in the court and these persons used to call "Vinod Kumar" as "Boss". "Vinod Kumar" stayed there till June 1975. He testified that he used to take rent from "Vinod Kumar" regarding which entries were made in the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A and the entries Ex.PW-23/A-2 to Ex.PW- 23/A-8 in the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A are in the handwriting of his father Sh. Mahender Prasad Singh. He further testified that on 8th or 9th June 1975, he had gone to Village Jug Dumari, PS Pun-Pun, Distt. Patna in connection with his marriage and returned there on CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 544 18.6.1975. He found the room rented to Vinod Kumar, lying vacant and on enquiry, he came to know that the room was vacated 2-3 days earlier. He had seen Vinod Kumar in that room one or two days before his going to Village Jug Dumari.
450. PW-23 further deposed that Bihar Police came to his house and brought with them the person present in the court by pointing out towards Arteshanand (who died later on during trial). He also testified that on 09.07.1975, Note Book Ex.PW-23/A was taken into possession by CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-23/B, which bears his signatures at point A and that of his father at point B. He has also signed the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A at point X-1 and X-2 and his father signed at points Y-1 and Y-2 on the front page and the last but one page, at the time when the same was taken into possession by CBI. He further testified that this Note Book Ex.PW-23/A used to be kept in their room, in which entries were being made by him and by his father. He had seen his father writing and signing and as such, he was in a position to identify handwritings and signature of his father. He deposed that his father was aged about 60 years and not keeping good health.
451. In his cross-examination, PW-23 replied that their family was not staying in their house known as Ashok Niketan and Ashok Lodge. He replied that his father did not come, as he has been a heart patient. The land on which the building Ashok Niketan exists is in the name of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 545 his mother. His father is an agriculturist. They have not been paying any income tax of rental income from the Lodge. He deposed that on 28.12.1974 Vinod Kumar came to him while wearing pant and shirt. He was not sporting beard but had small moustaches. He was not wearing any turban. He had a little bit of baldness. They used to get address of the tenants recorded in their Note Book. He has denied the suggestion that they have forged all entries or that he is a false witness. In his further cross-examination, PW-23 replied that they did not report to the corporation about renting out of the Ashok Lodge. In those days, they did not send any information to the corporation mentioning the details of the tenants and the rent. He did not remember whether he had stated in his previous statement that "three or four persons" used to visit Vinod Kumar in his room in Ashok Niketan. When he was confronted with his previous statement, there was mention of "three more persons". He stated that he did not see these persons talking to each other and did not try to overhear conversation between Vinod Kumar and his companions. He had seen them addressing Vinod Kumar as "Boss". He did not make any inquiry as to why three or four persons were coming to that room, which was rented out to Vinod Kumar only. He did not make inquiry from Vinod Kumar about his companions. Vinod Kumar and his companions did not go out of his Lodge to ease themselves. They used to have their bags with them. Sometimes, they used to come together and sometimes, two persons used to come there. He might have seen CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 546 accused by pointing towards Arteshanand Avadhoot (since deceased) 7 or 8 times. He admitted that there is no entry in his hand in the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A and all the entries are in the handwriting of his father. He has denied the suggestion that all are forged entries in the Note Book or that he made a false statement or that Arteshanand and Vikram did not visit the Lodge at any time.
452. I have carefully scrutinized the testimony of PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar. In his cross-examination, the defence despite lengthy cross- examination could not dislodge the fact that PW-23 owned a Lodge and a room in their Lodge was not taken on rent by the said Vinod Kumar, (who was identified as A-1 in the court) on 28.12.1974 at the rate of Rs.55/- per month and A-2, PW-2 and Arteshanand visiting him. His testimony that A-1 under the assumed name of Vinod Kumar has written his address on the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A at point Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) is also not demolished in cross-examination by the accused persons. They have only given the suggestion about Arteshanand and Vikram not visiting the Lodge for which PW-23 asserted that he had seen Arteshanand (since deceased) about 8 times in the Lodge. The defence had not drawn to show any enmity of PW- 23 with the accused. PW-23 is an independent witness. His testimony is found to be trustworthy and believable. The A-1 in his cross- examination has also not objected to the identification of his writing on Ex.PW-2/C in the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A = Ex.P-6. Thus, PW-23 has further corroborated the statement of approver PW-2 Sh. Vikram CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 547 that this writing Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) in the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A (Ex.P-6) is in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand, who stayed in the Lodge under the assumed name of "Vinod Kumar".
453. PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh, Dy. SP, CBI deposed on this aspect that he was assisting Chief Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja and on 09.7.1975, he examined Ashok Kumar (PW-23) and his father Mahender Singh of Ashok Niketan, Patna. He further testified that he seized Note Book Ex.PW-23/A and entries Ex.PW-23/A-1, Q-2 and Q-2/1 did exist in the note book. He prepared Seizure Memo Ex.PW- 23/B in his handwriting in respect of said notebook. It bears his signatures at point 'A', of Ashok Kumar (PW-23) at point 'B' and Mahender Singh at Point 'C'. He also obtained the initials of Ashok and Mahender Prasad Singh on the first and last page of the notebook and he had also put his own initials there. The initials of Ashok are at point X-2 and of Mahender Prasad Singh at point Y-2. His own initials are at point Z.
454. In his cross-examination, PW-131 replied that he did not inquire from Ashok and Mahender Singh of Ashok Niketan as to whether Vinod Kumar executed any rent deed. He did not inquire from them whether they had any counterfoil receipt of the rent with signatures of Vinod Kumar other than the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A. The Note Book Ex.PW-23/A was not paginated, but they have paginated at the time of taking it into possession. He admitted that seven pages of the Note CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 548 Book Ex.PW-23/A are blank. The relevant entry is on Page No. 16. He did not try to find out as to who were residing in the other rooms as he did not consider it necessary. There was no employee of Ashok and Mahender Singh. He did not make any inquiry to find out as to in whose name the property was registered and who was paying the house tax. He has denied the suggestion that no such entry existed at Page No. 16 of the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A or that entry Ex.PW- 23/A-1 was got fabricated on that page. He admitted that on the page where entry Ex.PW-23/A-1 exists, there is no other entry on that sheet. He did not inquire as to where from the Vinod Kumar was having his tea and meals. He did not ask Ashok Kumar and Mahender Prasad as to why they had left blank pages in the Note Book. He did not go to the address of Vinod Kumar mentioned in the diary. During investigation, he came to know that the name of Santoshanand is Vinod Kumar.
455. The testimony of PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh is not discredited during the cross-examination by the defence. He is a public servant and a Senior Police Officer. He had taken into possession the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A in discharge of his duties in due course. I found the testimony of PW-131 does not suffer from any malice.
456. I have referred in the subsequent paragraphs of the judgment that the approver PW-2 has identified the handwriting Ex.PW-2/C (Q-
2) on the Note Book Ex.P-6 = Ex.PW-23/A to be in the handwriting of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 549 A-1. This is corroborated by PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar, who has identified A-1 as having stayed in their Lodge by name Vinod Kumar and has written Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) in the Notebook Ex.PW-23/A = Ex.P-6, in his presence 28.12.1974. This handwriting of A-1 Ex.PW- 2/C (Q-2) has also been identified as that of A-1 by PW-33 and PW- 68, which I would deal in the succeeding paragraphs. Further, the handwriting expert Sh. B. Lal (PW-42) compared the writing Ex.PW- 2/C (Q-2) with the specimen handwriting of A-1 and found the same to be in the handwriting of same person. In view of this evidence and discussion, it has to be concluded that the prosecution was successful to prove its case very reasonably, that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched at Trimohan in October 1973, A-1 had taken a room on rent in Ashok Lodge/Ashok Niketan, Patna on 28.12.1974. He had taken the room under assumed name of Vinod Kumar by concealing his identity on a rent of Rs.55/- per month. He continued to occupy the room till about 15th or 16th of June 1975. During his stay there, his co-accused persons namely A-2, Arteshanand and PW-2 used to visit him. These persons used to call accused A-1 as "Boss", which further corroborate the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 that A-1 used to dictate terms to the co-conspirators and was a ringleader throughout.
44) Macabre incident at Samastipur dated 02.01.1975.
457. This leads me to refer to the gruesome incident as pleaded in the charge sheet pursuant to the criminal conspiracy at Trimohan. At the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 550 time of hatching the criminal conspiracy in October 1973, A-1, A-2, Arteshanand (since deceased), Ram Kumar (PO), Vinayanand (PO) and PW-1 were present, as per the evidence discussed above.
458. A-7 joined the conspiracy later on when A-1, Vinayanand (PO), Arteshanand (since deceased), A-2, Tyageshwaranand (since deceased), Ram Kumar (PO) and PW-1 met A-7 at the house of A-7 at Bhagalpur. A-1 conveyed to A-7 about formation of a Revolutionary Group and they would meet henceforth at the house of A-7 at Chautham. A-1, during this meeting exhorted that certain persons were to be eliminated for which arms and ammunitions would be stored at the house of A-7 at Chautham. A-7 conceded to the meetings to be held either at Chautham or his farmhouse at Tilihar. Evidence is already discussed, which pointed to the above facts indelibly. It is also established that PW-1 brought a revolver with live cartridges thereof and 110 other cartridges, which were handed over to A-7. As already held above, A-7 received two telegrams Ex.PW-1/O and Ex.PW-1/S dated 03.12.1973 and 17.01.1974 respectively from A-1 and these two telegrams were recovered at the time of house of A-1 on 17.05.1975.
459. It is also established that in the first week of July 1974, PW-2 delivered a packet and a letter to Budheshawaranand (since deceased) at Bhagalpur, which were given to PW-2 by A-1 at IARI Hostel, New Delhi in the presence of PW-13. Thereafter, Budheshawaranand (since CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 551 deceased) brought PW-2 at Chautham and introduced each other to A- 7 and PW-2 as committed workers. It has also come on record that during November 1974, a meeting of the members of Group was attended by A-1, A-2, Arteshanand (since deceased), PW-2 and Anand Margies of Bhagalpur at Rajgir. In the said meeting, A-1 reiterated that objective of the organisation would be impossible without armed revolution, for which arms to the maximum extent was needed and collected.
460. With this background of the prior acts to the incident, which are proved as alleged in the charge sheet, the evidence concerning the events dated 02.01.1975 are to be reckoned with. PW-2 in his statement on oath deposed that on 29.12.1974, when A-2 brought him to Ashok Lodge, Patna, A-1 met him there and directed PW-2 to reach Samastipur on 01.1.1975 to make arrangements for stay of 2 or 3 persons with the help of Anand Margies or at any Dharamshala. A-1 also told him to meet him at Railway Station, where A-1 assured of reaching there by 4 or 5 O'clock in the evening on 01.01.1975. PW-2 accordingly reached there on 01.1.1975 via Chakia. He made arrangement for stay of 2/3 persons at the house of Girijanandan, an Anand Margi, whom PW-2 knew. PW-2 reached Railway Station at 4 O' clock on 01.1.1975, met A-2 at 5 PM. A-2 enquired PW-2 whether the arrangements for stay were made or not, for which PW-2 replied in the affirmative. On enquiry, A-2 told him that A-1 was present in the first class waiting room at Railway Station. A-2 told him that Ranjan CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 552 Dwivedi (A-3) had come by bus from Muzaffarpur to Samastipur along with A-1 and A-2. A-2 further told PW-2 that A-3 had kept his luggage in the first class waiting room at the Railway Station and that A-3 had gone to meet one of his friends and A-1 was keeping watch on his luggage. A-2 then went back inside the Railway Station and A-1 came out. A-1 also enquired from PW-2 about the arrangements and PW-2 replied in the affirmative. A-1 told PW-2 that after A-3's coming back, they would go with PW-2 to the place arranged for stay. He kept waiting until 8.30 PM and during this time, sometimes A-1 would come to him and sometimes A-2 and then they would go back. After 8.30 PM, PW-2 along with A-1 and A-2 reached the room of Girijanandan. On enquiry by Girijanandan, PW-2 told him that the person in jacket and pant was A-1, the man wearing kurta and dhoti was A-2, and they were Anand Margies. He also deposed that Girijanandan did not know both of them.
461. It is also found in the statement of PW-2 that they all the three slept in the room of Girijanandan, who also slept there. They got up at about 5 O'clock in the Morning of 02.01.1975, when Girijanandan was away to answer the call of nature. A-1 told PW-2 that L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister would be visiting the very day at Samastipur to inaugurate the Broad Gauge Railway Line between the Samastipur and Muzaffarpur. A-1 further told them that L.N. Mishra was the most corrupt minister of Indira Sarkar, a big sinner (Mahapapi), responsible for bringing their enemies i.e. communists closer to the Congress. The CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 553 said Minister had a dominant role to play in the Bihar politics and he was the hindrance for release of the Baba/Anand Murti. A-1 further told that L.N. Mishra was to be liquidated in order to shake the Government and compel the release of Baba. PW-2 asked A-1 as to what had to be done for this. A-1 took out three hand grenades from his bag. PW-2 further deposed that out of those three, A-1 kept one in his pocket of pant, one was given to A-2, who hid in the pocket of his Kurta and the third hand grenade was given to PW-2 by A-1. PW-2 kept it in the cloth bag as suggested by A-1 and slung the bag to his shoulder, and covered with woolen chaddar. A-1 was wearing a full- sleeved jacket and the pant, under the jacket, he was wearing a sweater, A-2 was wearing a Kurta and Dhoti, and he had wrapped chaddar on his body. PW-2 was wearing a sweater and under it a shirt and pant.
462. In his further statement, PW-2 deposed that A-1 told him in the presence of A-2 as to how to handle the hand grenade. A-1 told PW-2 that the lever of hand grenade was to be kept pressed with one hand and pin was to be taken out with the other hand and it would burst within four/five seconds after the pin was taken out and lever was released and thrown. A-1 also told PW-2 that the pin could be removed with teeth also. At that time, A-2 was also present. A-1 told them that the hand grenade was to be thrown on his signal. The hand grenade was of the shape of an egg (oval shape) and one could not clinch his fist fully by taking the hand grenade in the hand.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 554 Girijanandan reached there after this talk had taken place. PW-2 further deposed that at 08.00 AM, they all three started towards Samastipur Railway Station and Girijanandan asked them whether he the meals arrangements to be made or not. PW-2 told him that meals might be kept ready; whenever they find time they would come and take their lunch. Then Girijanandan gave a key of the room to PW-2 and Girijanandan was still there when they left for the Railway Station. On the way, they walked one behind the other at some distance from each other. They reached there within 20-25 minutes and at the platform sometimes, they would meet and then would separate and move out there. PW-2 found Dais, constructed on Platform No. 3 for inauguration event. There were rows of chairs on Platform No. 3 opposite the Dais. At about 12 O'clock, PW-2 had seen A-1 and A-2 sitting on the chairs at Platform No. 3 side-by-side. PW-2 further saw A-3 sitting on a chair in the row ahead towards the Dais. He had seen A-3 talking to A-1 and A-2 by turning his face towards them.
463. The evidence of PW-2 further reveals that Sh. L. N. Mishra was to reach there at about 01.00 PM but at about 12.30 PM, an announcement was made that he would reach two hours late. PW-2 was moving about on the Platform No. 1. After the announcement, A-1 and A-2 got up and came to PW-2 at Platform No. 1. They told him that as the Minister would be late by two hours, they should go and take their meals, and hence they went to the room of Girijanandan and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 555 had their meals there. At about 2 or 2.30 PM, they came back to the Railway Station, A-1 told PW-2 that A-3 had arranged for their entry to the function. A-1 told PW-2 to remain on the Platform No. 1 and wait for further instructions. A-1 and A-2 went to the Platform No. 3 and occupied the chairs on the rear portion of the rows of chairs i.e. a little behind the middle row. PW-2 remained moving about on the Platform No. 1, from where A-1 and A-2 were visible to him at Platform No. 3 and they were sitting on the extreme part of the rows of the chairs nearest to Platform No. 1. PW-2 further deposed that at 4.00 PM, A-2 came to him and gave PW-2 one "Pass" issued by Congress Sewa Dal. It looked alike Pass Ex.P-8 shown to him during the trial. A-2 asked PW-2 to accompany him to Platform No. 3. A-2 had his own "Pass" also which he had pinned on his chest and PW-2 was carrying the "Pass" in his hand. He was stopped by the police and they asked him to pin the "Pass" on his chest. He went out, took a pin from a shop, then came back, and went inside and at that time he was alone and A-2 had already entered but had kept a chair vacant for him by their side and he sat there. In the meanwhile, before he occupied the chair, an announcement was made that the Minister would be reaching at 5.00 PM.
464. It has further come in the deposition of PW-2 that Sh. L.N. Mishra reached there by a Special Train at 5.10 PM from Lahariya Sarai side which halted on one side of Platform No. 3. Shri L.N. Mishra got down from the train. Some other persons also came with CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 556 him. L.N. Mishra came to the munch (Dais) accompanied by large number of persons. One person spoke for a minute first and then another person spoke for some time and thereafter L.N. Mishra stood up to deliver his speech. They heard L.N. Mishra speaking at the place where they were sitting. In the meanwhile, track was cleared and Special Train moved ahead, which paved the way for many persons to cross the track, thereby came closer to see L.N. Mishra. PW-2, A-1 and A-2 mingled with this crowd, came nearer to the Dais, and positioned themselves in that side from which the Special Train had come. PW-2 further deposed that all three of them (PW-2, A-1 and A-2) were at a distance of about one yard from the Munch i.e. Rostrum. A-2 was standing ahead and on his left, stood A-1. PW-2 also deposed that on the right side of A-2, he himself was standing in the crowd. They stood on one side of Rostrum i.e. towards the right hand side of L. N. Mishra. A-3 was not there at that time with them. They listened the Minister; the Minister finished his speech and turned to descend from the Rostrum for inaugurating Broad Gauge Line. Then A-2 took out hand grenade from his pocket and with a Chaddar wrapped round his shoulders brought the hand grenade up to the level of his mouth and threw it on the munch. A-2 had taken out the pin under the cover of chaddar and dropped it in front of L.N. Mishra and this hand grenade rolled a little distance on the Rostrum and then exploded. PW-2 further deposed that hand grenade rolled one or two feet on the Rostrum before it exploded and there was loud explosion.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 557 People started fleeing and they (PW-2, A-1 and A-2) also fled along with them and PW-2 ran along with Meter Gauge Track towards the Lahariya Sarai. At a distance of about 100 meters from the stage, he dropped the hand grenade in between the track of Meter Gauge lest he be detected. Then PW-2 reached the room of Girijanandan and after sometime, Girijanandan also reached there but A-1 and A-2 did not reach there in his presence. PW-2 waited for them for some time and then went to Muzaffarpur. PW-2 told Girijanandan that in case A-1 and A-2 coming and inquiring about him, Girijanandan would inform them that PW-2 had gone to Muzaffarpur. Next day, PW-2 went to Chakia. PW-2 deposed that he was arrested on 24.07.1975 along with A-2 at Bhagalpur.
465. In his cross-examination, PW-2 answered that in his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC in A.N. Ray's case, he has not stated that he was in Chakia, Narkatiaganj, Chamua, Rajgir and Chautham in July and November 1974. He has also not stated that he met A-1 at Patna on 29.12.1974 or that A-1 told him to make arrangement for their stay at the house of Girijanandan or their coming to Samastipur and meeting of A-3 at Samastipur.
466. PW-2 correctly explained that a separate case with regard to incident of Samastipur was registered and so he did not narrate these facts in Justice Ray's case, in his statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr. PC of that case.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 558
467. In his further cross-examination, PW-2 replied that on 30.12.1974, from Patna, he reached Chakia on the same Evening and stayed there even on 31.12.1974. He left Chakia on 01.01.1975 at about 08.00 or 09.00 AM and reached Samastipur at about 01.00 PM. He met Girijanandan at about 01.30 or 02.00 PM on the same day.
468. It is also found in his cross-examination that there were about 25 to 35 persons on the Rostrum. The train had halted at Platform No. 3, where the Rostrum was erected. The bogy carrying the Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra halted in front of the Rostrum itself and about 15 or 20 persons came out from that compartment along with Sh. L.N. Mishra. He replied that he sat on a chair in front of the Rostrum on the Platform. He could not say how many rows of chairs were there but there were about 150 chairs on his backside and 400 or 500 in front of him. He was standing at a distance of about 1 or 1.25 yards from the Rostrum towards the right hand side of A-2.
The lines of cross-examination fortify the presence of PW-2 on the day of incident along with A-2.
469. It is also elicited that there was a big crowd and he could not remember as to how many persons standing wearing Badges of Congress Sewa Dal. There was distance of about 8 or 10 feet between the Rostrum and the place, where the train carrying Sh. L.N. Mishra halted. The height of the Munch from the ground of the Platform was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 559 up to his chest level. His own height is 5'7". The length and breadth of the Munch would be 20 feet and 15/16 feet respectively. From its appearance, it appeared to have been made of the bricks. He could not say whether there were wooden planks underneath the Dais.
The cross-examination reinforces that there was a Dais constructed on Platform No. 3.
470. It is further elicited that there were 2 or 3 ladies of 40-45 years age, on the Dais and the ladies did not deliver any speech. In his further cross-examination, it is elicited that only one hand grenade was thrown on the Munch and that too by A-2. PW-2 further answered that hand grenade of A-1 remained with A-1. All the persons on the Rostrum were standing and some were coming down from the Munch and some were sitting behind the Minister to make way for Minister to alight and the speech had already been finished. The hand grenade, which was thrown, did not touch the body of any person and it fell down on the Munch in front of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He deposed that this hand grenade moved on to the space between the persons standing on the Dais. He saw this hand grenade only when A-2 brought it towards his mouth and flung on the Munch. At that time, one or two persons were standing on the left side and two or three persons on the right side of Sh. L.N. Mishra, who was ahead of all of them and others were behind him. The duration of the speech of Sh. L.N. Mishra was about half an hour from 05.10 PM to 05.45 PM approximately. Sh. L.N. Mishra was clad with a Dhoti and a buttoned up coat of darkish colour.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 560 He was bareheaded. He replied that there was a mike on the Munch and could not say whether his speech was being tape-recorded or not. When Sh. L.N. Mishra was delivering his speech, on the steps leading to the Dais , a police officer was standing, who was sometimes going up and sometimes coming down. It is also elicited that on the front row, some ladies were sitting on the chairs and one camera man was moving on the backside of the ladies. He answered that the steps leading to the Munch were in the direction in which the sun rises. There were 2/3 pillows in the middle of the Dais. At the time Sh. L.N. Mishra alighted along with others, he was ahead of them and followed by others. Out of 40 or 50 peoples with him, only 25 or 35 persons sat on the Munch. To a question whether he had seen anybody near the Munch with a loose jacket and a pant, to which he replied that he did not notice although A-1 was clad in a jacket. When Sh. L.N. Mishra delivered the speech, he was facing west. He deposed that as soon as the hand grenade exploded, they stepped backward and thereafter they ran from that place. He further answered that the track, where he dropped the hand grenade was at a distance of about 100 yards from the Munch. PW-2 took it out from the thaila and dropped it on the track. Someone presided the meeting, but he did not know his name. No person had proposed "Vote of thanks" after conclusion of the speech of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He replied that Sh. Mishra was garlanded, when he reached the munch. To a question whether any person presented a charter of demands to Sh. Mishra before the speech, to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 561 which PW-2 answered that he had seen somebody reading out from a paper, but did not notice whether it was presented to Mr. Mishra or not. He did not remember the name of the persons, who have garlanded Sh. Mishra. He was also garlanded, when he came out of the train. He replied that towards Northern side of Platform No. 1 slogans were raised against by a crowd of people against Mishra. When the train was shunted away, all the persons from Platform No. 1 did not come to Platform No. 3 and only some persons came on the tracks after the train was shunted out. There were iron fencing between two tracks in between Platform No.1 and 3. There might be 50 or 100 police officers deployed on Platform No.1 to control the demonstration. He replied that slogans were raised once or twice, before the arrival of Sh. L.N. Mishra. Slogans were also raised against him on his arrival. He answered that Platform No. 5 is opposite to Platform No. 3 and there was munch between Platform No. 3 and 5. The Platform No. 7 was away on the opposite side. Platform No. 5 was separated by many Railway tracks.
471. Regarding "Passes", the cross-examination of PW-2 reveals that only such persons holding Passes, were allowed to come to Platform No. 3 and those who did not have the Passes were stopped at Platform No. 1 and Platform No. 7. The persons, who were holding Passes, could go near the Munch. The front row of chairs was at a distance of 6 or 8 yards from the Dais. He answered that he was carrying the cloth bag slung to his shoulder and moving about from 08.30 AM to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 562 04.00 PM there. He got his Pass at about 04.00 PM. Sh. L.N. Mishra was to arrive at 01.00 PM, but at about 12.00 or 12.30 PM, it was announced that he would arrive at about 03.00 PM. When he was standing in the crowd on Platform No. 3, the cloth bag was on his left side towards the front and he had kept one hand in the jhola. At that time, when his hand was in the jhola (hand bag), he was not moving about but standing in the crowd. No person had questioned him regarding keeping hand in the jhola. There was some nervousness in his mind though he was trying to behave like a normal man. He has denied the suggestion that he fell in the hands of CBI of his agreeing to toe their line in order to save himself. He could not say whether the munch was hollow underneath up to the ground as it was covered with a cloth. He replied that people had started at about 10.00 AM, but they started occupying the chairs at about 11.30 AM. When the announcement was made at about 12.30 PM about the late arrival of the Minster, some persons dispersed and some continued sitting on the chairs. He voluntarily stated that he left at about 12.30 PM to take his meals. He came back there at about 02.00 or 02.30 PM. People started sitting on the chairs when he came there at about 02.30 PM. He could not say whether the persons raising the slogans were Railway employees or outside the public or to which party they were belonging. He was at a distance of about 100 yards from the place where slogans were being made. The persons, who were raising the slogans, were not moving and they were standing at one place. The CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 563 police was standing in front of those persons, who were raising the slogans. Apart from Platform No. 1, sometimes voice of slogans were heard from Platform No. 7. He did not see how many persons were injured but he had heard the cries of the persons. He did not see A-1 taking out his bomb to throw it. He also did not know in which direction, A-1 had run away. He also did not know in which direction, A-2 had run away as they had mingled with the people. He did not go back to look for his companions as in the very beginning, they had decided that they would meet at the house of Girijanandan. They did not reach there (house of Girijanandan) and PW-2 left the house. He waited for them for half an hour or 45 minutes and he thought that it would not be advisable for him to stay any longer. He did not change his clothes before leaving the house of Girijanandan. It takes about 15 minutes walk to reach the house of Girijanandan from Platform No. 3. He did not take his meals before leaving the house of Girijanandan in that Evening. He had returned the keys of the house to Girijanandan before leaving the place. He had not taken away the belongings of A-1 and A-2. He had taken away only his own articles. He further deposed that he came to know only on 02.01.1975 in the Morning, when A-1 told him that hand grenade was to be thrown on L.N. Mishra. To a question regarding momentary training given to him by A-1 at the house of Girijanandan, PW-2 replied that it was not a very complicated affair and he understood upon explanation.
472. PW-2 answered in his further cross-examination on behalf of A-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 564 3 that when A-1 asked him on 29.12.1974 to make arrangement for stay of 2 or 3 persons in Samastipur for 01.01.1975, he got a hint that as L.N. Mishra was coming to Samastipur on 02.01.1975 they might have to do something in this regard. He got this hint at Ashok Lodge at Patna. Regarding throwing of hand grenade on L.N. Mishra, it came to his knowledge only in the morning of 02.01.1975. He has denied the suggestion that he became an approver under fear and he voluntarily stated that only tape-recorded statement was given by him under fear.
473. PW-2 further replied that on 02.01.1975 in the Morning, A-1 told them that L.N. Mishra was coming and he was Mahapapi, and an obstacle for the release of their cult head. It is further elicited that A-1 told them that Mishra was to be liquidated to shake the government and get the Baba released. In the cross-examination of this witness at the hands of A-3 also, the detailed description of the events sworn to by this witness in his chief and further got confirmed in the cross- examination at the hands of other accused is repeatedly got elicited and the entire cross-examination of this witness by A-3 is nothing but the replica of the same. PW-2 has admitted the suggestion of the A- 3 at Page No. 301 that A-1 and A-2 were present on Platform No. 3 as they got admission, since they were having passes with them. The same reads as under: -
Ans. Sometime I would also be going ahead of the people and look towards Santoshanand and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 565 Sudevanand, who were sitting on Platform No. 3 on chairs. It is correct that they had occupied chairs soon after they got admitted into Platform No. 3 as they had Passes with them. There was no crowd on Platform No. 3 except the assemblage of the persons, who had occupied seats after entering on the basis of the passes". My Ld. Predecessor had also taken judicial note of during the recording of evidence of this fact. Therefore, it would be only repetitive rhetoric hence the same is not again reproduced. At Page No. 289 of his cross-examination, the Ld. Defence Counsel for A-3, an important suggestion is given as under: -
"Q. Is it that Sudevanand and Santoshanand also ran along with you?
Ans. They were with me only when I was stepping backward but when I left from the place, I do not know in which direction Santoshanand and Sudevanand went."
(This interrogation with this suggestion implies in itself admission of the presence of accused A-1, A-2 and PW-2 at the spot).
474. It is also got elicited that no splinter of the hand grenade fell on PW-2. He has denied the suggestion that since no splinter struck him, he was not present at the spot.
In his further cross-examination, PW-2 replied that all of them CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 566 were present in the clothes of a common man. He volunteered that he had already described as to how they had discarded their saffron robes and long hairs.
Even the purchase of clothe-pin is got confirmed in the cross- examination. PW-2 replied that the shop from which he purchased the pin, was across the road and he paid five or ten paisa, for which he had given him four or five pins.
475. Other details got elicited only reaffirms that PW-2 was present and the incident happened as happened, particularly, the overt acts of A-2 hurling the hand grenade at the Dais, the commotion thereafter in presence of PW-2, A-1 also ready with their ammunition, which were not used and the hand grenade hurled by A-2 got exploded and that PW-2, A-1 and A-2 ran away mingling in the crowd, which went helter-skelter.
It is vital to note in cross-examination of PW-2, it is elicited by A-3 that they (PW-2, A-1 and A-2) killed L.N. Mishra and that he was not aware whether Yashpal Kapoor visited Muzaffarpur or not.
476. I have very carefully scrutinized the deposition of PW-2 and despite his lengthy cross-examination by the defence, they could not discredit his assertion in his examination-in-chief. Defence could not demolish that on 29.12.1974 in the Ashok Lodge/Ashok Niketan, Patna, PW-2 was brought by A-2, where A-1 directed him to arrange stay of 2/3 persons in Samastipur on 01.01.1975. It is also CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 567 unchallenged that PW-2 was asked to meet them at the Railway Station, Samastipur on 01.01.1975 at about 04.00 or 05.00 PM. Defence could not belie that about 12.00 Noon, A-1 and A-2 were found sitting on the chairs at Platform No. 3 behind A-3 or that A-3 was talking to them by turning his face. Defence has also not derided that A-1 at about 02.00 or 02.30 PM informed PW-2 that A-3 had arranged "Passes" for them. Defence could not demolish the facts spoken that in this second session, A-1 and A-2 occupied chairs a little behind the middle row at the venue and their presence throughout till the explosion of hand grenade.
The cross-examination does not go to destabilize the version of PW-2 that after the conclusion of the speech, A-2 took out the hand grenade, flung on the Dais in front of Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra and it got exploded or that thereafter they all fled from the site.
477. The Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out that PW-2 has made improvements in his statement as he did not state in his previous statement under Section 164 Cr. PC in A.N. Ray's case that he met A-1 at Patna on 29.12.1974 or that A-1 told him to make arrangement for their stay at the house of Girijanandan or their coming to Samastipur and meeting of A-3 at Samastipur. Here it is to be noted that pertaining to the attack on the former Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Ray, a case under Section 307 IPC was registered and the facts of the present case were not to be narrated.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 568
478. However, in the said case, CBI court has held out a conviction against A-1, A-2 and A-3. The same was appealed by all the accused. The Hon'ble High Court in the very matter reported as MANU/DE/1873/2014 in the matter of Santoshanand Avdoot Vs. State had the following to observe: -
"134. I have minutely scrutinized the evidence of PW-Vikram and the corroborative evidence discussed in detail above and find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of PW-Vikram has not been corroborated in material particulars. .....................................The statement of PW-1 is vivid in explanation and inspires full confidence of the court. ...................................... The statement of approver inspires confidence including the conspiracy part which gets full support from the narration of the occurrence given by several other impartial witnesses. ........................................."
479. This court is also of the firm view that the testimony of PW-2, which withstood bone testing, chilling lengthy and repetitive cross- examination, does not suffer from any incoherence, fallibility, doubts and inconsistencies and the same proves all the material particulars expected of in this case. PW-2 has also narrated all the facts in minute details, which cannot be termed as tutored or suffering from any CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 569 malice. The same also does not suffer from any enmity towards the accused since PW-2 himself was one of the avowed Anand Margi and took active part in the conspiracy and the execution of its objective. Therefore, the other detailed cross-examination, which is only go-over and hovering around the same again and again does not go to discredit the witness, but on the other hand reaffirms and fortifies the examination-in-chief.
At one point, in his cross-examination, it is elicited that on the Dais Sh. L.N. Mishra was garlanded and someone has presented him a "Charter of Demand". This has been corroborated by PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, an independent witness, who has testified that he garlanded the Minister and wanted to present him a "Maanpatra".
480. It has come in the testimony of PW-2 that A-2 told him that A-3 had come by bus from Muzaffarpur to Samastipur along with A-1 and A-2. It has further come in his evidence that A-3 had kept his luggage in the first class waiting room at the Railway Station and that A-3 had gone to meet one of his friends, A-1 was keeping watch on his luggage. The testimony of PW-2 further reveal that he saw A-3 sitting on a chair in the row ahead towards the Dais, and talking to them by turning his face towards them. It is further noticed from the testimony of PW-2 that at about 2 or 2.30 PM, when they came back to the Railway Station, A-1 informed PW-2 about making of arrangements of their entry to the venue by A-3. To corroborate this deposition of approver PW-2, the prosecution has examined PW-5 Sh. Vishwanath CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 570 Thakur and PW-6 Sh. Virender Kumar Ojha. Therefore, it is necessary to refer the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6.
481. PW-5 deposed that he was working as Sub-Inspector, RPF since 1963 and was transferred as Crime Reader to ASO Samastipur. He knew PW-6. They had joined the Training Center at Lucknow and thereafter they were posted together at Gorakhpur. He deposed that on 01.1.1975, PW-6 was posted as Sub-Inspector (Prosecution) at Samastipur. On that day, he along with PW-6 at about 5:00 PM left their office. Since it was the New Year's Day, PW-6 offered a cup of tea at his residence and he went there. At that time one person, who disclosed his name as Ranjan Dwivedi, came there. (The witness has correctly identified the A-3 in the court). PW-6 found it difficult to identify him, upon which A-3 introduced himself as practicing as Advocate in Supreme Court. Since A-3 was not having any luggage with him, on asking of PW-6, A-3 told PW-6 that he came from Sitamarhi after halting at Muzaffarpur, his Bhabhi (brother's wife) and mother were coming from Sitamarhi and he wanted train Reservation for them for Delhi. On asking of PW-6, A-3 told him that his luggage was in the first class waiting room at Samastipur Railway Station and his other friends in the waiting room were looking after his luggage. They had tea together in the quarters of PW-6 at that time and during conversation, A-3 asked PW-6 whether he knew Sahai family since Mr. Sahai had expired and further said Mr. Sahai was the father-in-law of one of his friends. PW-6 told A-3 that the family of Mr. Sahai was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 571 residing in his neighborhood, upon which said accused expressed his desire to visit their house for condolence. Subsequently, all the three went together to the house of Mr. Sahai for offering condolence and thereafter all the three left for Samastipur Railway Station to meet Bhabhi and mother of the A-3.
482. PW-5 deposed that on the way, A-3 told PW-6 that his luggage is being looked after by his trusted friends who were known to him from Delhi and accompanied him by bus from Muzaffarpur. They then reached first-class waiting room at Samastipur Railway Station and there they met one friend of A-3, who was introduced by A-3 to them as Santoshanand, present in the court. (The witness has correctly identified the accused Santoshanand in the court). He deposed that on that day, A-1 was wearing a jacket and a pant though in the court he was in saffron robes. At that time, A-1 was neither sporting a beard nor wearing a turban, as is found in the court. Santoshanand was having short hair and wearing a hearing aid. Thereafter, A-3 asked A- 1 "WOH KAHAN GAYE" (where A-2 had gone), to which A-1 replied that he had just gone outside and would come back in no time. Then A-1 asked A-3 as to where he got delayed and then PW-6 asked A-1 as to where they were to go to which A-1 replied that they were to go towards Barauni side on the next Morning. Meanwhile, it was reported that the train carrying Bhabhi and mother of A-3 was running late. Since it was already past 8:00 PM, PW-5 was getting late and left for his residence.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 572
483. In his cross-examination, PW-5 replied that he left Railway Station Samastipur at about 08.05 or 08.10 PM leaving A-3 and PW-6 there. He answered that in first class waiting room, one register is maintained, in which the person staying there has to enter his name and other particulars including the number of the Railway Ticket. However, on that day, he did not notice that register in the waiting room. He noticed the attendant in the waiting room. He could not recollect the appearance or age of the attendant or what dress he was wearing or whether he was wearing any hearing aid or wearing any cap or jacket or any turban. He testified that the said waiting room was for men. The ladies first class waiting room was at a distance of five or six yards from the gents' waiting room. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he did not accompany PW-6 to his house on 01.01.1975 while returning from his office. He stayed at PW-6's quarters on that Evening for about 25 or 30 minutes. When, A-3 reached the quarters, he and PW-6 were sitting in the lawns of the quarters and there was twilight. He could identify any person seen in that twilight. By the time, A-3 reached, the tea was not being served. The tea was served to all of them about four or five minutes of arrival of A-3 there. A-3 stayed there with them at the house of PW-6 for about ten or twelve minutes and thereafter they all three went to house of Mr. Sahai. He was hearing the conversation between PW-6 and A-
3. PW-5 deposed that he told in his previous statement that A-1 was wearing jacket and pant and was introduced to PW-6 by A-3. He did CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 573 not tell the colour or features or height of A-1 in his previous statement. He did not state in his previous statement that A-1 was having short hair and beard shaved.
484. From the scrutiny of deposition of PW-5, it is found that the same could not be discredited at all by the defence including A-1 and A-3. They have not demolished the assertion of PW-5 that A-3 told PW-6 in his presence that his friends who were looking after his luggage in the waiting room, were reliable and known to him from Delhi, and came with him from Muzaffarpur by bus. They failed to deride the deposition of the witness on the fact that A-3 introduced A- 1 to PW-6 in his presence. Accused further failed to belie the say of PW-5 that A-1 was donning a pant and jacket and wearing a hearing aid. In his cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that after 01.1.1975, he has seen A-1 for the first time in the court on the date of his deposition. Therefore, in a way accused persons have admitted that A-1 was with A-3 on 01.1.1975 at Samastipur Railway Station and was introduced to PW-5 by A-3. The line of cross-examination does not suggest that PW-5 has any enmity with any of the accused persons. PW-5 is a Government servant and an independent witness. There is no reason to discard the testimony of PW-5, which is found trustworthy and inspiring confidence. The testimony of PW-2 gets corroborated in material particulars by the deposition of PW-5 and of PW-6, which is being discussed herein after.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 574
485. PW-6 deposed that he was Sub-Inspector (Prosecution) at Samastipur at the relevant time. He knew A-3, who is brother of the wife of his distant relative Sh. R. Chaubey and could identify him. However, A-3 was not present in the court on the day of deposition being exempted. He deposed that on 01.01.1975, A-3 came to his quarters at about 5.30 PM at Samastipur. At that time, PW-5 was sitting with him and PW-6 was trying to recollect his past acquaintance with A-3 and in the meanwhile A-3 introduced himself by saying that he was Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate, Supreme Court. On his asking, A-3 told him that he was coming from Sitamarhi by bus after halting at Muzaffarpur and he had arrived by bus from Muzaffarpur and his Bhabhi and mother would reach Samastipur by train from Sitamarhi and he wanted Railway Reservation for himself, his Bhabhi and mother for Delhi. Then they had tea together. PW-6 deposed that he asked A-3 as to where his luggage was and he told him that the same was in first class waiting room at Samastipur Railway Station and was being looked after by his friends. A-3 asked PW-6 whether he was acquainted with Sahai family. A-3 also told PW-6 that Mr. Sahai, father-in-law of his friend Vinay, had died and he wanted to offer condolence to the bereaved family. PW-6 told A-3 that Sahai family was residing in their neighborhood and he agreed to accompany A-3 to Sahai's house. Then all the three went to the house of Mr. Sahai and conveyed their condolences and spent about 45 minutes. From there they all three went to Railway Station, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 575 Samastipur for arranging requested reservation of A-3. On the way to Railway Station, he enquired from accused Ranjan Dwivedi about his friends by telling him that sometimes some friends might play mischief with the luggage, and on this accused Ranjan Dwivedi informed him that his friends were from Delhi and reliable and they had travelled together in the bus from Muzaffarpur. They reached first class waiting room, Samastipur Railway Station and found one friend of A-3 guarding the luggage. There, A-3 introduced them to that friend as his relative and A-3 introduced his friend as Mr. Santoshanand. He can identify that friend of A-3. (The witness identified the accused Santoshanand present in the court, who was introduced to them by Ranjan Dwivedi as his friend). He further testified that at that time, A-1 was wearing a jacket and a pant and he was clean-shaven and putting a hearing aid and there was a little baldness in the center of his head. When A-3 enquired from A-1 as to where his other friend had gone, A-1 informed A-3 that he (other friend i.e. Sudevanand) had gone outside and A-1 asked A-3 as to where he got delayed. PW-6 asked A-1 as to where he wanted to go and A-1 informed him that he wanted to go to Barauni next Morning. PW-6 deposed that at about 08.15 PM, PW-5 left the Railway Station. Thereafter, PW-6 and A-3 went to Railway Reservation Counter. PW-6 asked the clerk to arrange for three berths for his friend for Delhi. The clerk informed him that he was closing Counter for the night and promised to do next morning. PW-6 deposed that mother and Bhabhi CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 576 of A-3 arrived at about 12.00 midnight or 01.00 AM and they received them at Platform No. 4. The mother and Bhabhi of A-3 were taken to first class ladies waiting room and then the luggage of A-3 was shifted from the gents' waiting room to ladies waiting room. While leaving the Railway Station, PW-6 told A-3 that in case of any problem in accommodation for the night in the waiting room, he might come to his place. PW-6 deposed that mother and Bhabhi of A-3 stayed in the ladies waiting room and at about 12.30 AM or 12.45 AM, A-3 came to his quarters and told him that he would like to stay with them as there was no proper accommodation for him in the waiting room.
486. PW-6 further deposed that on 02.01.1975, he and A-3 reached the Railway Station, Samastipur at about 10.00 AM. He first went to the ladies waiting room and exchanged greetings there with the mother and Bhabhi of A-3. From there both of them went to Reservation Counter. The clerk, who met him last night, was not at the Counter and PW-6 asked A-3 to wait for him, as PW-6 was to go to the court on his duty. PW-6 returned there by 11.30 AM or 12.00 Noon, met A- 3 with his friend A-1 and another at Platform No. 1, who was introduced to him as Sudevanand (The witness has correctly identified the accused Sudevanand also present in the court). He deposed that he asked A-1 as to how he was still there as on the previous night A-1 disclosed that he would leave for Barauni early in the Morning and A- 1 told PW-6 that they had stayed back to see the function. PW-6 got Reservation for A-3, his mother and Bhabhi for the train to go to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 577 Delhi. He deposed that the application for reservation was filled up by A-3 in his presence.
487. I have perused the Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A, which is available in Folder R-13. As per this Requisition Form for reserved accommodation Ex.PW-6/A, three berths for 3rd class in 85-UP Assam Mail for 02.1.1975 from Samastipur to New Delhi were booked by R. Dwivedi c/o V.K. Ojha, PP RPF SPS, at 11.30 AM in the name of R. Dwivedi, m/o R. Dwivedi and Tara Devi. The portion Q-6 is questioned writing of accused Ranjan Dwivedi, which was later on admitted by him. Mentioning of address of PW-6 by the accused Ranjan Dwivedi in the Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A further corroborates the testimony of PW-6 that it is PW-6, who got the reservation of accused Ranjan Dwivedi, his mother and Bhabhi for the train going to Delhi and the Reservation Slip was filled up by accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his presence.
488. PW-6 further deposed that there was one Dais (Munch) fixed on the Platform No. 3 and he along with A-3 proceeded towards it. When they reached there, PW-6 noticed that A-1 and A-2 were already present there and on the rear seat, PW-6 and A-3 sat in the one row and behind them A-1 and A-2 were already seated. One Youth Congress worker was distributing some "cards" ("badges") and PW-6 and A-3 proceeded towards that worker to collect badges from him. It is also found in his testimony that the said worker told PW-6 for a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 578 railway employee, no badge is necessary. He further deposed that A-3 demanded three badges from that worker, who gave three badges and A-3 handed over each Badge to A-1 and A-2 and kept 3rd one for himself. At about 12.30 PM, there was an announcement that the Minister's train would be reaching late and crowd started melting. PW-6 started roaming about on Platform No. 3. After sometime, the two friends of A-3 went away for meals. At about 3.30 PM, PW-6 and A-3 sat there and said two friends of A-3 were already sitting behind them. At about 04.00 PM, PW-6 and A-3 left the Platform No. 3 and from there, he went to waiting room and collected the mother and Bhabhi of A-3 as time for their train was drawing near. On Platform No.7, mother, Bhabhi of A-3 and Ranjan Dwivedi himself boarded the train for Delhi and he did not go to Platform No. 3. After seeing the Badge Ex.P-8, he testified that the badges obtained by A-3 from Congress worker, were of similar type.
489. This Badge of Congress Sewa Dal is available in Folder R-4. The front side of the badge Ex.P-8 reads as under:-
काँ ेस सेवा दल सम तीपुर The backside of the badge Ex.P-8 bears signatures of Sh. Shiv Narain Poddar dated 28.8.1976 of Ajay Printing Press, Samastipur, Sh. Virender Narain Poddar (PW-37) and Sh. Dev Narain Parshad (PW-
81). The size of the Badge is 3.5 inches X 2.75 inches. Here it is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 579 pertinent to refer that during the cross-examination of PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, who is an Ex-Serviceman, a social-worker and independent person, accused persons got produced from one similar Badge/Pass/Card from him in the court, which was produced and exhibited as Ex.PW-57/DA. The Card/Badge/Pass Ex.P-8 is similar in all respect with Ex.PW-57/DA. This Badge/Pass/Card Ex.PW-57/DA is available in Folder R-7). Ex.PW-57/DA also reads as under:
काँ ेस सेवा दल सम तीपुर
490. In the cross-examination on behalf of A-3, PW-6 answered that Sh. R. Chaubey (DW-4) is a cousin of a son of his maternal uncle. He replied that prior to 01.01.1975, he had seen A-3 only once for a few minutes and that is why he could not immediately place him on 01.01.1975, when he came to him. Prior to 01.01.1975, he met A-3 only once in Delhi in the month of June/July 1974, during the pleasure trip with his family to Delhi. He admitted that his stay with Sh. R. Chaubey for 2 or 3 days, which was at Old Willington Camp, Race Course Road, Air Force Quarters, New Delhi. He denied the suggestion that at that time A-3 was also staying in the quarter of Sh. Chaubey. During such stay, once at about 08.00 AM, A-3 reached there and at that time Sh. Chaubey introduced A-3 to him as his brother-in-law (Sister's husband). He has denied the suggestion that PW-6 brought his wife for medical check-up at All India Institute of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 580 Medical Sciences, New Delhi. It is also elicited that according to rules, first class waiting room can be used only by the passengers having first class tickets. The witness explained that Samastipur being small station, first class waiting room might be used for two-three hours even by second-class passengers during day time. He also admitted the suggestion that in Samastipur, person not having any Railway Ticket was also permitted into the first class waiting room, with the consent of the attendant. He admitted that one register is maintained there. The passengers in the waiting room make entries, ticket number and destination. On 01.01.1975, he noticed that attendant outside the first class gents' waiting room. He does not know the name of that attendant. In the waiting room, he found one hold-all and one attaché. It is elicited that this witness along with A-3 and PW-5 were there for some time. A-3 engaged a porter for shifting the luggage. He has denied the suggestion of A-3 that he had some litigation with his brother-in-law Sh. Chaubey.
491. The A-1 and A-2 cross-examined PW-6 and got elicited that while in Delhi, PW-6 visited all the sightseeing places and neither Chaubey nor A-3 accompanied him and his family. PW-6 visited Agra and Mathura with his family, but they did not stay either at Agra or at Mathura during night; then proceeded to Lucknow. He has also denied the suggestion that primary purpose of visit to Delhi at that time was to get medical check-up of his wife at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He also denied the suggestion that Mr. Chaubey CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 581 told him that he could talk to A-3 as he might be knowing somebody in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, since he was a practicing Advocate. He has also denied the suggestion that A-3 gave a cold shoulder to him, which was not liked by him. He also denied the suggestion that out of disgust for not helping him, PW-6 left the house of Mr. Chaubey with a grudge that A-3 did not help him deliberately. PW-6 replied that at that time, he was the only Railway Prosecutor at Samastipur. He has denied the suggestion that he readily agreed to become a witness in this case because of strained relations with A-3 and his brother-in-law Sh. Chaubey. He has denied the suggestion that A-3 never met him on 02.01.1975. He also denied the suggestion that he never arranged Railway Reservation for A-3 as stated. At Page No. 571 of his cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted the suggestion of accused persons, which reads as under: -
"It is correct that after 2.1.75, he saw accd. Santoshanand only in this court when I came to give my statement."
He has denied the suggestion that Santoshanand and Sudevanand were not there on 02.01.1975 or that he has made a false statement under the pressure of police and promise of promotion and cash rewards.
492. Accused No. 7 got elicited from PW-6 that in his police statement he mentioned that on 01.01.1975, having arranged Railway Reservation for Ranjan Dwivedi, his mother and wife for 02.01.1975. He explained that he meant that the seats were assured on 01.01.1975.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 582 He replied that it is not necessary to mention the time of reservation in the requisition slip. At Page No. 577, he admitted the suggestion of accused persons about introduction of Santoshanand and Sudevanand to him by Ranjan Dwivedi and the suggestion reads as under: -
"It is correct that when accused Ranjan Dwivedi accused introduced Santoshanand and Sudevanand to me, I could never anticipate that I might be required to give evidence in that connection in court or to give out the names. I, however remember those names"
Strangely, A-7 had also got elicited the name of Reservation clerk and PW-6 named him as Mitra Dada. He went to the court with the hope that Mitra Dada would be coming back to the reservation counter by that time he returns from the court. However, one Mr. Ghai was present at the Reservation Counter on 02.01.1975, when he initially went there. On 01.01.1975, Mitra Dada had assured him that he would be reaching Reservation Counter even on 02.01.1975 due to the proposed function. When he returned from the court, PW-6 asked A-3 whether he got the Reservation, to which A-3 replied that he was waiting for PW-6. He told Mr. Ghai that Mitra Dada had assured him of Reservation and on telling him, he immediately made the reservation. He denied the suggestion that reservation was not made in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that Sudevanand and Santoshanand never met him on the Railway Station on 01.01.1975 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 583 and 02.01.1975. He could not say whether the Passes/Badges were given to A-3 due to his influence or that of A-3. He also deposed that when they took their seats at about 03.30 PM, he noticed that Sudevanand and Santoshanand having put these passes on their chest with the help of pins. He also noticed that A-3 had not fixed up that pass on his person. He had seen about 20/25 persons, who had similarly tagged the passes on their person but all the persons have not fixed up. He replied that the train in which mother and Bhabhi of A-3 went to Delhi left Samastipur Railway Station on 2.1.1975 at about 4.50 PM. At about 04.00 PM, A-3 pointed out to him that the train in which he, his mother and Bhabhi were to go to Delhi, was being placed at the Platform and so at his instance, they proceeded to the waiting room and from there to the platform for boarding the train.
493. Further, this fact is corroborated by the statement of A-3 himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, who admitted that he visited the house of PW-6 on 01.01.1975 and requested him to arrange reservations for Delhi. He admits having told PW-6 that he had come from Muzaffarpur and wanted the reservation for himself, his mother and Bhabhi and that was the only train connecting Delhi from his native place. He also admitted visiting Sahai Family with PW-5 and PW-6 for condolence. He also admitted that the train, by which his Bhabhi and mother were to come, was running late and at about 8.00 PM, PW-5 left for his residence. He also admitted that his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 584 Bhabhi and mother reached at about 12 midnight or 01.00 AM and taken to first class ladies waiting room.
494. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate that the story of the prosecution is not believable as to why A-3 would introduce A-1 and A-2 to PW-6 with their names, when they were to execute the conspiracy by throwing hand grenade on Sh. L.N. Mishra. She further argued that in his statement before the police, PW-6 has stated that he had arranged Reservation for A-3 and his mother and Bhabhi on 01.01.1975, whereas the Requisition Slip speaks of Reservation on 02.01.1975. The A-3 as well as Ms. Sima Gulati argued that prosecution had not seized the Register kept at the first class waiting room at the Railway Station, Samastipur to show that A- 3 kept his luggage there under the watch of A-1 and A-2 and the prosecution has not examined the attendant of the first class waiting room to depose that he had seen A-1 and A-2 there. Ld. Defence counsel vehemently argued that as per the case of the prosecution, PW-5 has left the Railway Station at 08.30 PM and at the same time A-1 and A-2 along with the PW-2 have left the Railway Station and that PW-6 and A-3 went to Platform No. 4 to receive the mother and Bhabhi of A-3, who had arrived by 12.00 Night or 01.00 AM from Sitamarhi and in such a situation it is not coming in the evidence of PW-6 and in chain of circumstances as to who was taking care of the luggage in the first class waiting room.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 585
495. I have scrutinized the deposition of PW-6. This witness has not been discredited in any manner by the defence. In the cross- examination, the visit of A-3 to the quarters of PW-6 with a request for Reservation for him, his mother and Bhabhi on 01.01.1975, the presence of PW-5 is never demolished. The parleys among A-3, PW- 5 and PW-6 are reiterated in the cross-examination including as to who was guarding the luggage of A-3 and arrival of A-3 in the company of A-1 and A-2 from Muzaffarpur by bus. They have also not discredited his testimony about the competency of PW-6 in identifying A-1, A-2 and A-3. The presence of A-1 to A-3 at the venue of the Railway Station, Samastipur is also not demolished along with their procurement of Passes by A-3. The identification of A-1 and A- 2 by this witness is also not derided and their description on a day prior to the incident and on the date of incident is never shattered in the cross-examination.
The Railway Reservation Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A speaks for itself. The address given by A-3 is that of PW-6 in it and it is found written thereon by A-3 as "R. Dwivedi c/o V.K. Ojha, PP RPF SPS". This documentary evidence coupled with the oral testimony of PW-6 lends credence to the version of prosecution.
496. I have dealt with the Requisition Slip in subsequent paragraphs, which has been proved to be in the handwriting and signatures of A-3, who had later on admitted the same. The defence who contended that there was no mode of entry into the venue by the Passes, have CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 586 themselves got produced a similar Badge/Pass Ex.PW-57/DA from an independent witness Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma in his cross examination and got it exhibited. PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma has categorically stated that such Badges were issued to him and his eight companions by the Congress worker on the date of function. I have elaborated the testimony of PW-57 in the subsequent part of the judgment. This corroborates the testimony of approver PW-2 and PW-6 that A-3 had arranged Passes/Badges for him and his co-conspirators.
497. The malice attributed by the accused to the evidence of PW-6 is that PW-6 was dissatisfied with A-3 in not arranging the medical aid for the wife of PW-6 when he visited Delhi. PW-6 has denied a suggestion that he visited Delhi in June or July 1974 for treatment of his wife at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He further denied that A-3 did not accompany him, and for that reason he had a grudge with him. He also denied the suggestion that PW-6 had some litigation with the brother-in-law of A-3 namely Mr. Chaubey (DW-
4). PW-6 had already explained that he had come to Delhi with his family for a pleasure trip and had gone to Mathura, Agra and Lucknow also. Had his wife been ill or suffering from serious problem, PW-6 would have never ventured to go to several places apart from Delhi sightseeing. The defence failed to indicate particulars of the litigation, which PW-6 allegedly had with DW-4 Sh. Chaubey. Moreover, even DW-4 Sh. Chaubey, whose testimony has been dealt by me in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment, has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 587 also not testified that he had any litigation with PW-6 or that PW-6 has any grudge with him or A-3. The argument of accused Ranjan Dwivedi and Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati that the prosecution has not explained as to in whose custody the luggage of Ranjan Dwivedi remained after accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand left at about 08.30 PM and around same time, PW-5 has left Samastipur Railway Station and Ranjan Dwivedi along with PW-6 admittedly went to receive the mother and Bhabhi of accused Ranjan Dwivedi at Platform No. 4. The luggage of Ranjan Dwivedi was not the material object as admittedly there is no allegation that Ranjan Dwivedi brought any arms and ammunitions. In view of the overwhelming evidence of PW-2 corroborated by PW-5 and PW-6, it is obvious that Ranjan Dwivedi was spotted in the company of accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand on 01.01.1975 and 02.01.1975. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the defence falls to the ground in the backdrop of the clear cut evidence presented through PW-6, who had explained the situation in the very cross-examination that the luggage of A-3 was shifted with the help of a porter.
498. This court cannot be oblivious of the fact that PW-6 has been the exclusive Public Prosecutor of Railway at Samastipur and accused Ranjan Dwivedi must have availed of the clout of PW-6, when he approached him for Railway Reservation on 01.01.1975. Further, this is not the fact in issue when Ranjan Dwivedi has not disputed of having kept his luggage in the first class waiting room. So far as the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 588 register of first class waiting room is concerned, PW-6 has admitted the suggestion of the defence that in Samastipur, person not having any Railway Ticket could also use first class waiting room and such users could be there with the consent of the attendant of that waiting room. Further, the defence themselves got an answer in their cross- examination from PW-6 to a suggestion that "It is correct that after 2.1.75, he saw accused Santoshanand only in this court when I came to give my statement" and "It is correct that when accused Ranjan Dwivedi accused introduced Santoshanand and Sudevanand to me, I could never anticipate that I might be required to give evidence in that connection in court or to give out the names. I, however remember those names". In view of this discussion, I find that the testimony of PW-6 is consistently trustworthy and could not be discredited by the defence. PW-6 has also corroborated the testimony of the approver PW-2 that he was informed by Sudevanand about the arrival of Ranjan Dwivedi along with him and Santoshanand by bus from Muzaffarpur and that he had seen accused Ranjan Dwivedi sitting on the chair ahead of Santoshanand and Sudevanand and talking to them by turning his face towards them and that Sudevanand informed him that accused Ranjan Dwivedi had arranged entry passes for them. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 01.01.1975, A-3 came to Samastipur along with A-1 and A-2 by bus from Muzaffarpur and next day A-3 arranged entry Passes/Badges/Cards for their safe entry to the venue to be held CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 589 on 02.01.1975. The Passes are also got exhibited by the accused themselves in the cross-examination of PW-57. These facts are enough to prove that A-3 had also joined the criminal conspiracy, initially hatched at the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan in October 1973. I had discussed the scribblings of Ranjan Dwivedi's diaries in the subsequent paragraphs, which further establishes that he was part of the conspiracy for killing Sh. L.N. Mishra.
499. The defence has argued that apart from PW-2 none having seen the hurling of hand grenade by A-2 on the Dais becomes highly improbable. The consistent testimony of approver PW-2, which was also upheld by our Hon'ble High Court in MANU/DE/1873/2014 (supra) cannot be thrown overboard on the point that there are no other eye witnesses. This court is aware that the present case is based on criminal conspiracy for which seldom an eye witness crops up but to be gathered from other circumstantial evidence and especially if it is based on the statement of an approver only the material particulars are to be corroborated. It is profitable to quote the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh's case (supra) which laid down:
"It would not be right that expect that such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story or even all the material particulars. If such a view is adopted it would render the evidence of the accomplice wholly CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 590 superfluous. Moreover, as requirement of the law is that the corroboration must connect the accused with the crime, may be by direct or circumstantial evidence and it is not necessary that the corroboration should confirm all the circumstances of the crime and it is sufficient if the corroboration is in material particulars, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra's case (supra).
The argument that the accused Ranjan Dwivedi could have not introduced other two accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand to PW-6 as queer some and be not believed is only a hypothesis - which gets belied by cogent evidence of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 as discussed above. The other aspect regarding the non-specifying the correct date before police and non-seizure of register of waiting room - pale into insignificance in the backdrop of A-3 not repudiating the reservation slip and keeping of his luggage in the first class gents' waiting room and its subsequent shifting to ladies waiting room through a porter.
500. Therefore, this court comes to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 02.01.1975, accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi visited the scene of occurrence in the first session and remained there up to 12.30 PM, whereas the approver Vikram continued to wait for CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 591 signal from accused Santoshanand at Platform No. 1. There A-3 obtained three badges/passes from a Youth Congress Worker and gave one each to A-1and A-2 and kept third with him. At about 12.30 PM, there was an announcement that the Minister's train would be reaching late. At about 3.30 PM, PW-6 and A-3 sat there again and A-1and A-2 were already sitting behind them. The accused A-3 along with PW-6 had left the Dais at about 04.00 PM, since A-3 was to catch the train along with his mother and Bhabhi bound for Delhi and in the meanwhile accused Sudevanand with a Badge/Pass pinned on his chest, went to Platform No. 1 and gave the other badge/pass to PW-2, who got it pinned by buying a pin from outside and came to Platform No. 3. All these three persons i.e. Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver PW-2 occupied the seats and in the meanwhile, track was cleared as Special Train moved ahead. Resultantly, many persons crossed the railway track in order to come closer to see L.N. Mishra. Availing of this opportunity, Santoshanand, Sudevanand and PW-2 also mingled with them, came nearer to the Dais at a distance of about one yard, and positioned themselves in that side from which the Special Train had come. As soon as, Sh. L.N. Mishra finished his speech and turned in order to descend from the Rostrum for the purposes of inaugurating Broad Gauge Line, Sudevanand took out hand grenade from his pocket and under the cover of Chaddar brought it to the level of his mouth and taken out the pin and dropped/threw it on the munch, in front of L.N. Mishra and this hand grenade rolled a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 592 little distance of one or two feet on the Rostrum and then exploded. As a result, there was loud explosion and like the people, Sudevanand fled from there. PW-2 fled along with Meter Gauge Track towards the Lahariya Sarai over which the Special Train had brought L.N. Mishra and at a distance of about 100 meters from the stage, he dropped the hand grenade in between the track of Meter Gauge lest he be detected. A-1 also has also run away from the spot.
45) Registration of FIR on the incident at Railway Station.
501. PW-86 Sh. Rameshwar Sain, Incharge PS GRP, Samastipur deposed that on 02.01.1975, received writing Ex.PW-65/B at 08.00 PM. He recorded his endorsement Ex.PW-86/A on the rukka Ex.PW- 65/B with his signatures. First Information Report No. 1/75 at Ex.PW- 86/B was written by him and bears his signatures. The investigation of this case was entrusted to Deputy SP Sh. Shashi Kumar Narain Singh. (The original writing/rukka Ex.PW-65/B is available in Folder R-7. Endorsement Ex.PW-86/A is made on the backside of Ex.PW- 65/B. FIR Ex.PW-86/B is available in Folder R-7. The FIR No.1 dated 02.01.1975 was registered u/s 3/4 Explosive Substance Act, 120-B/307 of IPC at GRP, Samastipur Railway Station). In his cross- examination, it is found that the original writing (Ex.PW-65/B) with his endorsement Ex.PW-86/A was sent to Jurisdictional Magistrate on the very day through a constable with a peon book. Nothing material comes out in his cross-examination to suggest that he has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 593 not received the information Ex.PW-65/B. Endorsement thereon in his handwriting Ex.PW-86/A is also not discredited.
502. PW-65 Sh. Vishwanath, Dy. S.P. Samastipur, Special Division deposed that on 02.1.1975, there was a function of inauguration of Broad Gauge Lines from Samastipur to Muzaffarpur at Platform no. 3 of the Railway Station, Samastipur. The then Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra was the Chief Guest to inaugurate the Broad Gauge Lines. On that day i.e. 02.1.1975, he had gone to Platform no. 3 Railway Station, Samastipur on duty. The original schedule time of this function was 01.00 PM. Minister was to come from Darbhanga by a Special Meter Gauge Train. This function was delayed and the Railway Minister came there at about 5.20 PM. Sh. L.N. Mishra delivered a speech from a special constructed Dais on Platform No. 3. He concluded his speech at 05.45 PM. PW-65 along with SDM was at a distance of about ten yards from the Pooja place where BG Lines was to be inaugurated and it was towards South of that place of Pooja. After concluding his speech, Sh. L.N. Mishra turned around to step down from the Dais and suddenly there was a blast with a loud sound when the Railway Minister was still on the Dais. The Railway Minister and several other persons present on the Dais received injuries. He assisted in sending the injured persons to the nearby Hospital. Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra were taken to Special B.G. Train. He submitted a report in writing to Officer Incharge GRP, Samastipur for registration of a case regarding the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 594 blast. He suggested that case be registered u/s 120-B/307 IPC and Section 3 & 4 on Explosive Substance Act. He proved the carbon copy of his Report Ex.PW-65/A for registration of the case prepared by him with his own handwriting and bearing his signatures. He gave this Report to the Officer Incharge GRP on the same day at about 8.00 PM. In his re-examination PW-65 proved his original writing and signatures Ex.PW-65/B, carbon copy of which is also Ex.PW-65/A. (Both these documents are available in Folder R-7).
503. The cross-examination of PW-65 reveals that there was a black flag demonstration at Railway Station Samastipur on occasion of the visit of the Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra on 02.1.1975. Slogans were raised against the Minister during demonstration. He again said there was only black flag demonstration and there were no slogans. He stated that demonstrators were the members of Chhatra Sangarsh Samiti. The black flag demonstration was at Platform no.7. There was shouting by slogans "Lalit Babu Zindabad" at the arrival of the Minister for the function. He did not hear any slogans or shouting against the Minister. 70% of the people were present in front of the Minister at the time of function and about 200 persons were present at the back. About 30-40 persons were present at the Dais. He admitted the suggestion that a large number of local police officials, RPF and GRPF were on law and order duty and for security purpose. Even the Magistrates were on duty. He admitted the suggestion that the purpose of all the police officials was to prevent the mischief and keep CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 595 a watch on the movement of undesirable persons and others. No person of the public was allowed on the track of the BG Lines, which was to be inaugurated. It was expected from the officials on duty that they would not permit anyone coming on the Platform no.3 where the function was to be held without "Invitation Card" or "Pass". The Platform No.3 & 4 was on one side of the same Island and on the other side of the same Island, was Platform No. 5 & 6. This function, therefore, was on the space of Platform no.3, 4, 5 & 6. The area of the function was demarcated. The Eastern and Western side of Island platform were being protected and utilized for function. On two sides, there was a demarcation of Railway lines. On one side, there was Munch and public was sitting in front of Munch. (The location is reflected in Map Ex.PW-139/A). The spot indicated the remnants of one hand grenade. His statement was recorded on 03.01.1975 and he did not give the name of all the injured persons. The CBI officer recorded his statement. They had no secret information that some Railway employees might make an attempt on the life of the then Minister. He is aware that on 3.1.1975 pamphlets were distributed to the effect that Chhatra Sangarsh Samiti was responsible for this blast. (On the reverse side of Ex.PW-65/B, there is acknowledgement/ endorsement Ex.PW-86/A by Sh. R. Singh (PW-86 Sh. Rameshwar Sain, Incharge) GRPS Samastipur to the effect that it was received at 20 hours on 02.1.1975 and case No.1 dated 02.1.1975 registered u/s 3/4 Explosive Substance Act and 120-B/307 IPC) (PW-86 has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 596 proved the endorsement/acknowledgement Ex.PW-86/A and FIR Ex.PW-86/B).
504. It comes out from his deposition on 02.1.1975, Sh. L.N. Mishra, Minister was to visit the event by 01.00 PM, but reached late at 05.20 PM. There was a crowd, some shouted slogans at a distant place. Sh. L.N. Mishra delivered the speech from the Dais on Platform No.3 and concluded at 5.45 PM. As he completed his speech, there was a blast with a loud sound, injuring several persons there. Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra were taken to Special BG Train. He submitted his Report to Officer Incharge for registration of the case u/s 120- B/307 IPC and U/s 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act on the same day at 8.00 PM. He proved his report Ex.PW-65/A and original writing Ex.PW-65/B bearing his signatures. It can be easily said that there was heavy security arrangements for the function and people were allowed only with Passes/Badges and Invitation Cards. Police did not have secret information that some Railway employees might make attempt on life of the then Railway Minister.
505. PW-146 Inspector Nageshwar Parsad Singh brought the original case diary of GPR Case No. 1 of 1975 relating to murder of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He deposed that he knew Deputy SP S.K.N. Singh as in the year 1975 both of them were deputed and posted in GRP Samastipur. He had seen Sh. S.K.N. Singh writing and signing and for that reason he could identify his handwriting and signature. He had died in a road CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 597 accident in June 1983. In the case diary brought by him relating to GRP Case No. 1 of 1975, there is a statement dated 03.01.1975 of Deputy SP Vishwanath Singh of Samastipur, which is in the handwriting of Sh. S.K.N. Singh. It also bears the signatures of Sh. S.K.N. Singh. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Ex.PW- 65/DA is the correct statement of Deputy SP Vishwanath Singh.
46) Testimony of Eyewitnesses other than PW-2 and PW-65.
506. The prosecution has examined several eyewitnesses to the Samastipur incident dated 02.01.1975. Those witnesses are PW-2 Vikram, PW-65 Vishwanath, PW-3 Mahinder Parshad Sahu, PW-4 Rajender, PW-26 Narinder Parsad Issar, PW-28 Brij Nandan Prasad @ B.N. Prasad, PW-53 P.N. Tiwari, PW-56 Umesh Parshad Singh, PW- 58 Ajay Kumar, PW-60 R.N. Rai and PW-129 Jayant Banerjee. Court witnesses CW-2, Sh. Jiya Lal Arya, CW-3 Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra, CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta, CW-5 Sh. Baleshwar Ram CW-6 Sh. Pratap Singh and CW-7 Sh. Jwala Prasad Singh have also been examined. I have already dealt with the testimony of PW-2 and PW-
65. Now I propose to deal with the testimony of other eyewitnesses.
507. PW-3 Sh. Mahinder Parshad Sahu, a nephew of Shri Mahadev Parshad Sahu a Railway employee residing in the Railway Quarters at the relevant time, testified that on 02.01.1975 at about 03.30 PM, he, Shyam and Rajender (PW-4) went to Railway Station, Samastipur.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 598 Neither of them was having any "Pass" or "Invitation Card". There was a regular Dais, in front of which there were rows of chairs, which were occupied by the time they reached there and consequently they had to sit on the chairs at rear. At about 04.45 or 05.00 PM, Sh. L.N. Mishra reached there in a Special Train from Lahariya Sarai side on Platform No. 3 itself. At that time, several people on Platform No. 1 were shouting as they were not able to see or hear anything because of the obstructions caused by the train. Sh. L.N. Mishra came on the Dais, where 30 or 35 persons were present. Sh. Mishra then delivered the speech but they could not see him as the persons in front of them had stood up. After crossing the Meter Gauge Line, they also like others proceeded towards the Dais to have a better glimpse of Sh. Mishra. There were some persons on the North of the Dais also. After Sh. Mishra finished his speech, he acknowledged the greetings of the crowd with folded hands and turned around and immediately at that time, a loud explosion was heard at the Dais. Peoples started running away here and there. They were at a distance of about 45 feet from the Dais. After few seconds, they also started running on the Railway Track towards the West and after running about two or four paces only, his cousin Rajender (PW-4) told him that he had lost one of his chappals (slippers). He (PW-3) however run away without waiting for Rajender and reached his residence. After sometime, Rajender also reached there. His uncle Sh. Mahadev Sahu reached the residence at about 06.45-07.00 PM. Rajender informed him that he CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 599 had found one round object like motor of a fan at the Railway Station, which he promised to show him next Morning. Rajender also told him that he had kept that object in the flower-bed near the entrance of gate of that house. Out of his inquisitiveness, he asked Rajender to show him that object at that very time and on his pressing, Rajender took him towards that place. Since it was dark, they located that object in the building. In the light of that room, they found that the said object was metallic and of the size of a big egg. It could not be held in a clinched-hand. There were grooves on that object and one big screw on one end of that object and on the other end something like a pin inserted in it. First he unscrewed that screw and then re-screwed and thereafter he pulled up that pin. He felt that its lever was expanding and there was hissing sound. Immediately, his cousin Asha shouted that it was a bomb and he threw it in the adjoining store room and there was a loud explosion like a bomb, which he had heard at the Railway Station. He sustained multiple injuries and fell down. Later on, he came to know that Rajender (PW-4) had also received injuries at that time. He (PW-3) was removed to the hospital, where he remained confined for about 65 days.
508. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that on 02.01.1975, when he went to Parcel Office in the morning, he came to know that entry to the place of meeting of Sh. L.N. Mishra was through "Invitations" or "Passes". He noticed about 50 constables around the Dais at a distance of about 7 or 8 feet. He also noticed some police constables in the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 600 remaining portion of Platform No. 3. Nobody enquired from them about any "Pass" to make entry in the venue. He explained that they were just children at that time and there had been relaxation in "Pass" checking. He has denied the suggestion that there was strict checking of passes at the Railway Station. He did not see anyone throwing any object towards the Dais and he only heard the sound of explosion. He denied the suggestion that police was not permitting any person to reach within a distance of 30 feet from that Dais. He reached the Platform No. 3 prior to arrival of Sh. Mishra. He also denied the suggestion that no person without the passes was permitted to sit on the chairs even in the rear portion. He deposed that some of the chairs in the rear were unoccupied, they sat on them. He admitted that there were police officers around rows of the chairs. He replied that in those days, Rajender was a student of 8th Class. At the time of incident, his aunt was in the Kitchen at a distance of about 6 or 7 paces from him. The store was situated at about 6 or 7 paces from the place, where he was standing. Rajender was also standing about 1 or 2 paces away from him. On his return from the hospital, he noticed a pit of about 5-6 inches in depth near the door of that store. The police approached him 3 or 4 days of the occurrence, while he was still in the hospital. He gave his statement to the police. He admitted that he and his uncle Mahadev Parshad were granted bail from the court of Sessions at Samastipur. He deposed that police got him discharged from the case after about a year.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 601
509. PW-4 Sh. Rajender Prasad Nayak, who is the son of Mahadev Sahu, a Railway employee posted at Samastipur and residing in Railway Quarters deposed that on 02.01.1975, he along with Shyam Babu went there at about 11.00 AM. People were saying that Lalit Babu would reach at about 03.00 or 04.00 PM and so they returned to their house. At about 03.00 PM, he and Mahender Sahu (PW-3) and Shyam Babu went to the venue and no person checked passes and they reached there. They seated there on the chairs lying on the rear. After about 1 or 1 1/4 hours of their having seated there, a train came from Lahariya Sarai side on Meter Gauge Line and Lalit Babu alighted from one of the compartment and reached the Rostrum. At that time, the persons, who had collected on Platform No. 1 started shouting that they were not able to hear or see anything due to train in between and subsequently that train was moved ahead and those people from Platform No. 1 started moving towards the Dais and they also moved there. They were stopped at a distance of about 30 or 35 paces from the stage. After concluding his speech within 20 or 25 minutes, Lalit Babu turned around and immediately there was an explosion on the Dais. People started running helter-skelter and they also started running towards the backside and hardly had run 2 or 4 paces, when he found one of his chappals (slippers) got out of his foot. He informed Mahender Sahu (PW-3) about it. He returned to retrieve his chappal, but he could not recover it. Mahender Sahu (PW-3) and Shyam Babu did not wait for him. While he was returning on the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 602 Meter Gauge Track, one object struck his bare foot. He thought the object to be an electric motor of a fan and so he brought it to his house. He kept it in the flower-bed in the compound of his house. At that time, Shyam Babu and Mahender Sahu (PW-3) were already there. His mother, younger brother Munni and Sister Asha @ Sharda were also there in the house. He informed Mahender Sahu (PW-3) about the metallic object appear to be a motor of fan, which he found on the Railway Track. Mahender Sahu (PW-3) expressed his desire to see the object. He lifted and brought inside the building. Mahender Sahu (PW-3) followed him. They were examining the object in the hall. Mahender Sahu (PW-3) unscrewed a lid type from the object and he put it back. The object was oval shape. On the outer surface of that object, there were grooves. Mahender Sahu (PW-3) pulled one pin-sort of thing from that object and at that time, his sister Asha came closer to them and told that object looked like a bomb. Mahender (PW-3) threw the object in the store room, which was at a distance of about 3/4 paces from the place they were standing and there was explosion in the store. As a result, he and Mahender Sahu (PW-3) suffered injuries. They were removed to hospital.
510. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-4 that there was sufficient light under which anything lying on the track could be seen. He replied that his father was arrested in connection with the explosion at their house. He did not conceal the object in the flower- bed and he has just kept it there. He had not seen any hand grenade CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 603 prior to 02.01.1975. On 03.01.1975, he came to know that said object, which he had found on the Railway Track was a hand grenade. After the explosion, he noticed smoke on the Dais, which had engulfed the entire Dais after which hazy view was visible. CBI officers had taken him to the said platform and recorded his statement.
511. It comes out from the statements of PW-3 & PW-4 that the defence did not demolish their deposition of their attending the function, the explosion that took place after conclusion of the speech by the Railway Minister. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that there was no "Pass" system to enter Platform No. 3 and PW-3 and PW-4 have made their entry to the venue without possessing any Pass. Firstly this has been duly answered by the PW-3 in his cross- examination that they were just children and for that reason nobody asked them for the Pass. Secondly, the defence has admitted the system of entry by Passes by giving suggestions to PW-3 that no person without the Pass was permitted to sit on the chairs and that there was strict checking of "Passes" to enter the venue. The theory of defence suffers from duality, on this aspect is approbative and reprobative and without any definite stand of their own. It is also noticeable that PW-3 was aged about 16 years and PW-4 was aged about 11 years at the time of incident. PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Investigation Officer has deposed that on 10.01.1975, Bihar Police had arrested seven persons including Mahadev Sahu, his two nephews and four of his colleagues in respect of bomb blast at his house and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 604 arrested persons were interrogated and independent verification in due course of time was got done, but nothing incriminatory could be established against them. As such, he moved application for their release and subsequent to their release on bail he filed application for their discharge for lack of any evidence. Accordingly, all of them were discharged by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur. The defence has also not suggested to either of them that they were involved in the crime in any manner. From the deposition of PW-3 and PW-4, it is thus established that on 02.01.1975 that there was an inaugural function of Railway Line at Samastipur Railway Station at the hands of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister, who arrived there at about 05.00 PM and after conclusion of his speech, when the Minister took a turned around, there was a blast on the Dais. It is also established that there was system of entry to venue by way of "Pass/Badge".
512. PW-26 Sh. Narinder Parshad Issar deposed that during the year 1974-75, he was worker of Congress (I) at Samastipur. On 02.01.1975, there was a function of inauguration of Broad Gauge Line by the Railway Minister from Samastipur to Muzaffarpur. On that day, at about 4.30 PM, he along with Umesh Singh (PW-56), the then MLC, Sh. Shiv Shankar Singh, the then Editor, Dasha Disha, Sh. Shiv Sagar Mishra, Sh. Jamuna Singh and others went to Railway Station. Train came there at about 05.00 or 05.15 PM by which Sh. L.N. Mishra arrived and reached the Dais. PW-26 followed Minister on the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 605 Dais, where 20 or 30 persons were present. Sh. Baleshwar Ram (CW-
5) welcomed the Minister. It was followed by the speech of the Railway Minister, which lasted in 15 or 20 minutes. When the Minister was about to conclude his speech, PW-26 stood at the corner of the Dais by the side of stairs leading to the Dais. After concluding his speech, Minister was about to take a turn, when some black object passed in between him and Sh. L.N. Mishra. This black object came from North Side. That black object fell on the Dais, which exploded and there was smoke. Many persons including Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra sustained injuries. He assisted Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3) in taking him to the Saloon. In his cross-examination, PW-26 answered that at that time he was an Advocate and an active member of District Congress Committee. He replied that the black object came while ascending and thereafter it descended. It came at his chest level. The Railway Minister took a turn for coming down stairs from the Dais. In his further cross-examination, the rough Site Plan Ex.PW- 26/DB was put to him and he stated that he was standing at Point 'A', Sh. L.N. Mishra was standing at Point 'B' and the black object fell down at point 'C' where it exploded. The Site Plan showing sequence of seating at the Dais as stated by PW-26 Ex.PW-26/DB is available in Folder R-7. This was exhibited on request of Defence Counsel.
513. It is manifest from a scrutiny of deposition of PW-26 that the defence has not discredited his testimony particularly that a black object was passed in between him and Sh. L.N. Mishra and it came CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 606 from North side, which exploded after it fell down on the Rostrum. The defence elicited in cross-examination, the position of the witness on the Dais and that of the Minister, the place where the black object (hand grenade) fell down and got exhibited the Site Plan Ex.PW- 26/DB, which fortifies the version of the prosecution. The defence has also not discredited the testimony of PW-26 that Sh. L.N. Mishra and Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra suffered injuries in the blast, which took place on the Dais after conclusion of the speech by Sh. Mishra. The de fence has never suggested that the explosive was stealthily installed beneath the Dais by some others as argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
514. PW-28 Sh. Brij Nandan Parshad, an injured, the then DIG, Darbhanga Range, testified that on 23.12.1974, he received information about proposed visit of Railway Minister to Darbhanga by Air and then to Samastipur by Train. From Samastipur, his programme was to go to Muzaffarpur. On 24.12.1974, there was a meeting with the Commissioner of Darbhanga Division Mr. Kundra in his chamber regarding arrangements. DMs and SPs of Samastipur and Darbhanga attended the meeting. On 30.12.1974, he went to Samastipur in connection with the arrangement about visit of Minister and met local DM and SP. O n 02.1.1975, he went to Samastipur and before reaching Samastipur, he had gone to Darbhanga Airport, where the Minister was received. Minister proceeded to Sanskrit University. The Minister was to reach Airport at 10.00 AM. However, he got late and came there at about 03.00 PM. After finishing the function in Sanskrit CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 607 University, Minister came to Lahariya Sarai Railway Station, and witness accompanied him. From there, he travelled by Special Train. Besides Railway Minister, Commissioner Darbhanga Division, Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3), Radha Nandan Jha, Ram Bilas Jha, Suraj Narain Jha and Railway officials travelled in that Saloon and PW-28 was also in that Saloon with the Minister.
515. It has also come in his deposition that Special Train reached Platform No. 3, Samastipur at about 05.15 PM. Then the Minister proceeded towards the Dais. About 30 persons were already present on the Dais. CW-5 Sh. Baleshwar Ram welcomed the Minister followed by the speech of the Minister. About 40-50 persons were present on the Dais. When Minister was delivering his speech, information was received about black flag demonstration, which was perhaps held towards Platform no. 7 and he asked Superintendent of Police, Samastipur to tackle the situation. After some time SP, Samastipur came back and informed him that some arrests have been made and people dispersed. He thought of approaching the Minister with a request to conclude the speech. He approached the Railway Minister and by that time, speech was concluded, Minister took a turn & there was a blast on the Dais. PW-28 fell down and became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself in Samastipur Hospital. He deposed that in those days there was strike in the Medical College, Darbhanga and he was taken to Nawab clinic, Darbhanga and remained admitted there as Indoor Patient for about CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 608 three months. He was operated upon thrice and was flown to America for further treatment. All his intestines came out, there were about 50 splinters in his body, and 25 were still in his body on the date of deposition. He joined duties 8 months later.
516. In his cross-examination, PW-28 replied that meeting on 24.12.1974 was to finalize the security arrangements. His purpose to visit Samastipur on 30.12.1974 was to assess the situation and security arrangements at the Railway Station. He admitted that CRPF and RPF Jawans were also deployed with local police. He reached Samastipur on 02.1.1975 and later on came to know from SP that they were checking the passes of all the entrants/visitors. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that before 02.1.1975, they had received information that Karpuri Thakur's group might disrupt the function, apart from disgruntled Railway employees. He admitted the suggestion that Rajeshwar Mishra, Advocate wanted to go on the Dais and this witness stopped him for having no "Pass" or "Invitation".
517. From analysis of the deposition of PW-28, it is apparent that the Minister reached Samastipur Railway Station at about 05.15 PM. About 30 persons were present on the Dais. During Speech by the Railway Minister, there was black flag demonstration towards Platform No. 7 and PW-28 asked SP, Samastipur to tackle the situation. PW-28 was going upstairs to request the Minister to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 609 conclude his speech due to black flag demonstration. By the time he approached the Minister, the speech was concluded, there was a blast on the Dais and he suffered grievous injuries and was taken to Samastipur Hospital. Tight security arrangements were made, as suggested by the defence also. There was checking of the Passes to allow the visitors to the venue. He admitted the suggestion of defence that before 02.1.1975, they had information that group of Karpuri Thakur and disgruntled Railway employees might disrupt the function. He also admitted the suggestion that Sh. Rajeshwar Mishra, Advocate, was denied entry, as he was not having any pass. In the cross- examination of the PW-28, nothing could be elicited which demolishes his affirmation of him being proximately located at the spot, the security arrangements and the strict vigil with regard to the entrants to the venue, the blast that took place and the injuries occurred to the witness as well as others.
518. PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari, a PR Official of the Northern Division Railways deposed that he was duty bound to disseminate information regarding Railways, its activities to the Press and Media. An event was proposed for inauguration of Broad Gauge Line between Samastipur and Muzaffarpur on 02.1.1975 by the Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra at Samastipur. The scheduled time was 1300 hours (1.00 PM). He was instructed by his senior Sh. P.R. Chopra, GM, North-Eastern Railway to make arrangements for publicity of the inaugural function.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 610 He deposed that 11,000 Invitation Cards were printed from the Railway Press, Gorakhpur for the event. The sample invitation card at Ex.PW-53/A is exhibited.
(This Invitation Card Ex.PW-53/A is
available in folder R-2)
519. PW-53 further deposed that the proposed event being historical was given wide publicity through All India Radio Station, Patna and Television Kendra. Cards were sent throughout the country. Advertisements were released apart from posters. He was at Samastipur on 01.1.1975 in connection with the said event.
520. In his further statement, PW-53 testified that he was at Samastipur on 02.1.1975 also. It is also testified by him that PW-28 Sh. Brij Nandan Parshad, DIG, approaching the Minister on the Dais. This witness followed DIG to the Rostrum in order to hand over the printed material to the Railway Minister and to the General Manager. He could not reach the top of the Rostrum and in fact, he had gone up to the last stair, when a loud explosion took place at the Rostrum and the Minister had already concluded the speech and took a turn before the explosion. PW-53 was pushed down, and noticed splinters and smoke, and heard the people shouting "bomb-bomb", rushing out, jumping and some helpless. Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra received injuries and was taken to his MR Carriage on the Broad Gauge Line by the Senior Chief Security Officer followed by Shiv Sagar Mishra. He did not go to that Carriage. After the Railway Minister was taken CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 611 to the carriage, Ram Bilas Jha met him outside that Carriage and directed that PW 53 to inform Chief Operative Superintendent and Divisional Manager to start the train immediately or at least within half an hour. He came to know through Ram Bilas Jha that the Minister expressed his desire to be taken to Patna. Ram Bilas Jha told witness to convey the same to Chief Operative Superintendent and Divisional Superintendent. Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta (CW-4) was the P.A. to Railway Minister then, who directed him to inform the media that after the event the Special Train of the Minister was being diverted towards Patna. He conveyed them the instructions that were given to him by Sh. Ram Bilas Jha and Sh. V.P. Gupta. This Special Train left Samastipur for Patna at about 8.00 PM. Witness then went to Railway Hospital, Samastipur and then to Civil Hospital, Samastipur to see the DIG and also to ascertain the requirements of the blood etc. He left Samastipur on 03.1.1975 in the evening with General Manager and reached Gorakhpur in the afternoon of 04.1.1975.
521. In his cross-examination PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari was questioned about the crowd in and around the venue and the location of arrangements for the invitees. He also noticed large number of police on the date at venue. Witness heard explosion but could not see from which side the bomb came on the Rostrum.
To a suggestion, he replied having seen the people moving helter-skelter after explosion immediately after the speech of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 612 Minister, who spoke extempore. The Minister was sitting on the Rostrum, which was well laid. The height of the Rostrum was elicited to be about 3 or 4 feet approximately and about 30 to 40 people were sitting on the Rostrum. The publicity was aimed at attracting grand crowd.
522. Evaluating the testimony of PW-53, it can be concluded that on 02.01.1975 an event was organized to inaugurate the Broad Gauge Line at Samastipur Railway Station in which the Minister participated. Wide publicity was carried out by the Railway, which got printed "Invitation Cards", distributed the same throughout the country. This witness had heard that there was an explosion after the conclusion of the speech by L.N. Mishra, the Minister and that there was a 30 to 40 persons on the Dais and also a big crowd gathered, which went helter- skelter after the explosion. This witness had seen PW-28 approaching the Minister prior to the blast. It also emerges that the Minister, who was injured in the blast, wishes to be taken to Patna for his treatment as told to him by Ram Bilas Jha and the line was cleared for the Special Train, to depart to Patna, which left Samastipur by 08.00 PM.
523. PW-56 Sh. Umesh Parshad Singh, MLC, Bihar, deposed that he participated in the event on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur, seated behind the Railway Minister on the Rostrum. The Minister spoke for about 20 minutes. After conclusion, the Minister took a turn to get down, PW- 56 observed something coming from his left hand side and moving CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 613 towards right in front of him. Before he could realize as to what it was, there was a blast and that article was of dark black colour, the size of which was less than a ball and its diameter could be of about three inches. He again said it was of deep grey colour. People started running and PW-56 suffered injuries and was taken to Samastipur Hospital in a jeep. He was given first aid and went to Patna and got himself treated at Popular Nursing Home for about 10 days.
524. It is elicited in his cross-examination that PW-56 reached the venue by 11.30 AM or 12 Noon and waited till arrival of the Minister. The Rostrum was about 18/19 X 15/16 feet and there was 7/8 feet vacant space in front of the Rostrum. The open space was about 18/19 X 7/8 feet in front of the Rostrum. About 40 - 45 people were sitting on the Rostrum. As the Minister spoke, there was hooting from a distant place. He did not see black flag demonstration. He knew only 10-15 persons, who sat on the Rostrum. He was in Congress party at that time. The Bihar police met him 3-4 days after the incident at Popular Nursing Home and recorded his statement. He answered that some article came from his left hand side and moved towards his right hand side. (He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW-56/DA - witness stated therein that "passed by his side"). He informed the police that the article was of dark black and deep grey colour. (Confrontation of the statement Ex.PW-56/DA reveals that it was "black"). He has denied the suggestion that the black substance was thrown from the Rostrum itself and stuck to his earlier statement.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 614
525. A close look of the deposition of PW-56 reveals that he was sitting on the Dais behind the Minister on that date. The testimony of the witness that some substance passing from his left to right side, which exploded soon after the Minister concluded his speech and the injuries sustained by him are not demolished in the cross-examination. His first aid treatment at Samastipur and further treatment at Popular Nursing Home is also fortified.
526. PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, an ex-serviceman-teacher and social worker, deposed that he along with 8 or 10 persons of his area reached Samastipur on 01.1.1975 to attend the function of 02.01.1975 in order to present a "Charter of Demand" to the Minister to include their village on the BG Line. He reached the venue only after securing a Pass/Badge given by a Congress Sewa Dal worker. (The witness identified the Badge Ex.P-8 and stated that Badge looked alike the one secured by him)
527. He deposed that he sat on the Dais with the help of Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP of their area. Minister was giving speech when he went to Munch. After the Minister concluded his speech, the witness garlanded the Minister who moved one or two steps towards the stairs and then there was an explosion on the Munch in which witness also received serious injuries due to splinters. He was taken to the Railway Hospital, Samastipur where he remained admitted for 12 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 615 days. He remained confined to his home for about one year and could not do any heavy work. He suffered fracture in his foot and one such splinter was still in his foot. He brought Sewa Samiti Dal Badge in the court and on the request of the Ld. Defence counsel, the Badge was produced in the court which was exhibited as Ex.PW-57/DA (available in Folder R-7).
528. In his cross-examination, the defence elicited that similar Badges were given to all of them numbering 8 or 9 and all his companions accompanied him to the venue. He answered that the Congress worker was known to him. He stated that he wrote a number of letters to include their village on the BG Line and received even reply. He replied that Ex.PW-57/DA might be called a "Badge" or a "Pass". The police was not permitting anyone without a "Pass".
529. Perusal of the testimony of PW-57 reflects that he had been a teacher, an ex-serviceman and was a social worker attached to congress party. He along with 8 or 10 companions came to Samastipur to present a "Charter of Demand" to the Minister. The defence could not shatter his testimony that the entry to the venue was by Passes/Badges and he and his all companions entered the venue with Congress Sewa Dal Passes. Defence themselves got exhibited a Pass through this witness. The defence also could not deride his presence on the Dais, garlanding of Minister, the explosion and suffering of injuries. The Congress Sewa Samiti Dal Badge, which he CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 616 brought in the court, was got produced in the court and exhibited as Ex.PW-57/DA. The size of the Badge is 3.5 inches X 2.75 inches. This badge/pass/card is similar to Badge/Pass/Card Ex.P-8 (available in Folder R-4). On the front side of the Badge/Pass/Card, "Congress Sewa Dal Samastipur" is printed in Hindi.). Ex.PW-57/DA (available in Folder R-7) reads as under:-
काँ ेस सेवा दल सम तीपुर
530. PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar, then aged 10 years, who is the son of the then Incharge, GRP Railway Station Samastipur at the relevant time, testified that on 02.1.1975, he went to the venue. The Railway Minister came there at 05.00 PM and the witness was sitting behind Press Gallery, which was in front of the Munch. PW-58 took one garland from a person found near the Dais having garlands and on arrival of the Minister PW-58 came to the Rostrum. After conclusion of the speech, the Railway Minister took a turn and moved 1 or 2 steps ahead. The witness also moved 1 or 2 steps forward in order to garland the Minister and in the meantime he heard explosion and received injuries on his chest. He (PW-58) jumped from the Dais and became unconscious and on regaining consciousness, he found himself in Janta clinic, Darbhanga where he remained under the treatment of Dr. S.M. Nawab.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 617
531. It is elicited in his cross-examination that in those days he was a student of seventh class. On date of deposition i.e. on 10.11.1982, he was 16 years of age. He was aware about the necessity of Pass to reach the venue. He did not have any "Invitation Card" or "Pass" with him but he gained entry being the son of the Incharge of GRP. He did not know the person, who was standing near the Dais with garlands, earlier and he gave him one garland on request. He was at a distance of about 7/8 paces from the Railway Minister at the time of the explosion. After about 15 days, one person came to him in the clinic and made enquiries about the incident.
532. After scrutinizing the evidence of PW-58, who was aged about 10 years at the time of incident and a son of Incharge, GRPS, Samastipur Railway Station, demonstrates that the Railway Minister arrived there at 05.00 PM. He was aware about the necessity of the Passes. He took a garland and went to Rostrum to garland the Railway Minister. After conclusion of Minister's speech, as the Railway Minister took a turn and moved 1/2 steps ahead, PW-58 also moved forward to garland the Railway Minister, he heard explosion and suffered injuries on his chest. He jumped from Dais and became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself in Janta Clinic, Darbhanga under treatment of Dr. S.M. Nawab.
533. PW-60 R.N. Rai, Officer Incharge, Railway Station, Siwaan GRP received orders from his superior to be on ring round duty with CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 618 the Railway Minister at the relevant period. There were other four GRP men with him. On 02.1.1975 he took ring round duty with Minister from Lahariya Sarai Railway Station. The Railway Minister came at the Railway Station, Lahariya Sarai at about 4.00 PM and he took him in ring round duty from Portico of Railway Station, Lahariya Sarai. He escorted the Railway Minister to his Saloon in the Special Train for going to Samastipur. S/S Jagan Nath Mishra, Ram Bilas Jha, 3/4 political leaders, DIG B.N. Parshad, Commissioner J.C. Kundra also sat with the Railway Minister in his Saloon. The PA, personal staff and servants of the Railway Minister also sat in that Saloon. He (PW-60) also travelled in that Saloon and Special Train left Lahariya Sarai Railway Station for Samastipur at about 5/5.15 PM. At Samastipur, he escorted the Minister to the venue for the function. S/S Jagan Nath Mishra, Ram Bilas Jha, B.N. Parshad, Commissioner J.C. Kundra also came on the Dais with the Minister. The DIG B.N. Parshad did not remain on the Dais and came down. After escorting the Minister to the Dais, this witness came down and remained on the back of the Munch. During the speech of Minister, his Special Train by which Sh. L.N. Mishra and others came to Samastipur was removed from the Platform. After removal of Special Train, persons standing on that side moved ahead and came near the Munch. The Railway Minister concluded his speech at about 5.45 PM and at that time he (PW-60) was on the backside of the Munch. After the speech was over, slogans "Lalit Babu Jindabad" were raised and there was a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 619 blast on the Dais and there was smoke. The DIG B.N. Parshad was on the Munch at the time of the blast and he (PW-60) immediately went to the Munch and there were many injuries on the person of Sh. B.N. Parshad, DIG who was crying. Sh. L.N. Mishra also received injuries and he with the help of Hawaldar rendered assistance in removing DIG B.N. Parshad from the Munch. After bringing DIG down from the Munch, he again rushed to the Munch and in the meantime, Sh. Rattan Singh, Security man of Railway Minister and 2-3 others came and rendered assistance to Sh. L.N. Mishra. They took him to the Saloon of Broad Gauge Line of the Special Train, which was to be inaugurated. The DIG was escorted to a vehicle outside the Railway Station and that Special Train left Railway Station, Samastipur at about 8 PM and he travelled in that Saloon with Railway Minister. He came to know about death of Sh. L.N. Mishra on 3.1.1975 at Barauni.
534. After perusal of the cross-examination, I find that the defence had questioned him on the very facts he stated in his chief. The cross- examination does not go to erase his presence as an escort at the venue and having witnessed the blast, in which the Minister was injured and subsequent shifting of the Minister in a Saloon of the Special Train.
535. His testimony also reaffirms that DIG Prasad was injured in the incident and that this witness had helped him to move away from the Dais to the Hospital and the Minister was helped by a Security Personnel to be shifted to the Saloon.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 620
536. CW-5 Sh. Jiya Lal Arya, the then District Magistrate, Samastipur appeared as a Court witness and his deposition reflects that that he was behind the Dais and the blast took place after conclusion of the speech by Sh. L.N. Mishra.
537. PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan deposed that he was Member of Parliament in 1975 also and knew Sh. L. N. Mishra. On 02.1.1975, he was to accompany Sh. L. N. Mishra, the Railway Minister, to Samastipur from Darbhanga. He could not accompany him and so, he along with some other persons travelled by jeep to Samastipur from Darbhanga and reached Samastipur at 4.30 PM. Sh. L. N. Mishra reached Samastipur by Special Train at about 5/5.30 PM. DIG, Darbhanga, Commissioner, Darbhanga and others escorted the Minister to the Dais. PW-85 also went to the Munch and sat on the first row. There Ram Sukumari Devi, Kapil Deo Singh, Ram Vinod Sharma were also sitting in the front row on the Munch. There were 50 to 60 persons sitting on the Munch but he is not definite about exact number of persons seated on the Dais. There was an explosion on the Munch after the Railway Minister concluded his speech. Witness also received injuries on both of his legs because of the explosion and became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself at Dr. Nawab's clinic, Darbhanga and remained in the clinic for about three weeks and he suffered fracture in his right leg. He could not work for about six months due to fracture and injuries. After his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 621 discharge from Dr. Nawab's Clinic, Darbhanga, he remained at Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, for about a month. Seven splinters were present in his legs as on the date of his deposition.
(Ex.PW-93/H is the Bed Head Ticket of Ram Bhagat Paswan and his other medical papers are Ex.PW-104/B).
538. In his cross-examination PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan admitted the suggestion that he is an old Congress (I) member and commands respect in his area. He received invitation for the function held at Samastipur Railway Station. He had taken that Invitation Card with him for going to the Railway Station, Samastipur. Some persons with him were not allowed to go on the Munch. Two persons accompanied him up to some distance from the Munch but the police officers asked for the "Pass" on their reaching near the Munch. To his knowledge, "Invitation Cards" and "Passes" were not being distributed near the Munch. His "Invitation Card" was seen before he went up on the Munch. The height of the Munch was 4 ft and there were stairs for going to the Munch. The Railway Minister had taken a turn after finishing his speech when there was an explosion. Samastipur was in his area and he was representing that area as Member of Parliament. He stated that he knew Congress Sewa Dal and was associated with it during his student days but no Congress Sewa Dal volunteer met him there. He came to Willingdon Hospital in New Delhi in the first week of February 1975 and CBI officers met him there for taking his statement. Sh. Ram Bilas Jha was an MLC in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 622 those days who was also in Congress (I). He denied the suggestion that Sh. Ram Bilas Jha was jealous of Sh. L.N. Mishra. It was not necessary that Sh. Ram Bilas Jha always used to accompany Sh. L.N. Mishra. Sometimes Sh. Ram Bilas Jha used to accompany Sh. L.N. Mishra. He did not hear anyone calling Sh. Ram Bilas Jha as "Boss Jha". The explosion took place in his presence. It was not possible someone sitting on the Munch threw that bomb. He did not see any black flag demonstration against Sh. L.N. Mishra when he was sitting on the Munch.
539. While dissecting the deposition of PW-85, who was also injured in the incident, it comes to the fore that on 02.1.1975, he sat on the Munch in the 1st row at the Platform. There DIG and Commissioner Darbhanga and others escorted Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister. There were about 50 persons on the Munch when there was an explosion after the Minister concluded his speech. This witness received injuries on his both legs due to explosion and became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself in Dr. Nawab's Clinic, Darbhanga and remained admitted there for 3 weeks. He suffered fracture in right leg and could not work for about 6 months. After his discharge from Dr. Nawab's Clinic, he remained admitted in Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi in February 1975. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that he commands respect in the area and thus even the defence admits that his deposition is trustworthy. He took his Invitation Card with him to the venue.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 623 However, his two companions were not allowed entry to go on the Dais by the police for want of Passes. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the defence that there was no pass system to make entry in the function at Platform No. 3 does not stand in view of the information elicited in cross-examination by the defence. The deposition of the witness that there was explosion soon after the Minister had taken a turn after finishing his speech could not be shattered in his cross-examination. PW-85, who stood the test of cross-examination, was questioned by the defence as regards the possibility of flinging the bomb from the Munch (Dais/Rostrum) itself by which it is negated.
540. PW-109 Mohan Kumar Jha, a distant relative of Sh. L.N. Mishra, deposed that on 02.1.1975, he accompanied Sh. L.N. Mishra up to the Dais. He speaks of the presence of several persons in the entourage of the Minister by names S/S Gauri Badla, V.P. Gupta, Additional Private Secretary of Railway Minister, Pt. Vishwanath Jha, Parmanand Jha and others. All of them reached the Dais. This witness handed over a thermos bottle to Rattan Singh, security man of the Minister, which was passed on to the Minister on the Dais and left the venue to go to Sa loon. Thereafter he was going towards the Saloon when he heard a loud explosion. He also noticed that Sh. L.N. Mishra, being brought injured by S/S Shiv Sagar Mishra, Kanhaiya, Mahender Narain Jha, MLA, Rattan Singh, Security Guard and others towards the Saloon of the Special Train. That Train left Samastipur for CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 624 Danapur at about 7.00 PM. From Danapur, dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra was brought to Balwa Bazaar, Distt. Saharsa.
541. In his cross-examination, PW-109 answered that Sh. L.N. Mishra was his distant relative. He did not have any association with Congress (I) or Railways and he had gone because of his personal relationship with Sh. L.N. Mishra. Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra and General Manager (Railways) also travelled in the Train from Lahariya Sarai to Samastipur. The Train left Railway Station, Lahariya Sarai at about 03.00 PM. About 40-50 police officers were present near the Dais. There were about 20-30 persons on the Dais. He knew that the cards were distributed (for the function). He was at a distance of about 8 ft. when he heard a loud explosion. He received the Invitation Card from the Railways and not from Sh. L. N. Mishra. CMO was looking after Sh. L.N. Mishra at Samastipur but could not say what treatment he had given to him. He was in another portion of the same Saloon of Sh. L.N. Mishra when Train left Samastipur for Danapur. They vacated the portion of the Saloon in which Sh. L.N. Mishra was present after half an hour and then doctors were attending to him. He could not remember whether there was any black flag demonstration after arrival of the Train from Lahariya Sarai until the incident. 20/25 persons were present on one side and 20/25 persons were present on the other side of the Dais besides the persons sitting on the chairs.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 625
542. Appreciating the evidence of PW-109, one can say that he accompanied Sh. L.N. Mishra to the Dais. Sh. V.P. Gupta (CW-4) and Sh. Vishwanath Jha (PW-65) also travelled in that Saloon. The line of cross-examination fortifies his presence at the spot, there being a crowd on the Dais, having heard the explosion and further having seen L.N. Mishra in injured state and shifted to the Saloon in the Special Train, which left for Danapur.
543. PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai deposed that he has been Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat of Malikaur since 1968 and an active member of Congress since 1966. He knew Lalit Babu Mishra since 1956. He received an Invitation Card from the Railway Authorities, Samastipur and another from Railway Authorities, Muzaffarpur regarding inaugural function of Broad Gauge Line to be held on 02.1.1975. On 02.1.1975 at about 11.00 AM he along with Baleshwar Ram, Rama Kant Jha and Satender Singh besides others went to the Railway Station, Samastipur at Platform no.3. The "Passes" available with them were checked at the entrance of the Railway Station. He sat on the chair lying on the Platform while Rama Kant Jha and Baleshwar Ram went to the Dais and there was an announcement at 12.30 PM /01.00 PM that Railway Minister would be late. He returned to the Railway Station, Samastipur at about 3.30 PM and sat in the third row in front of the Dais. He went near the Dais at about 04.45 PM/5.00 PM with a garland in his hand to receive Lalit Narain Mishra after hearing the announcement that Railway Minister is coming. Sh. L.N. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 626 Mishra came at about 5.15 PM, and they garlanded him and then Sh. L.N. Mishra went on the Dais. S/S Baleshwar Ram and Rama Kant Jha and others accompanied Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra on the Dais. He (PW-113) stood near the stairs towards the North-East of the Dais. There were 30/35 persons on the Dais including Jagan Nath Mishra, Rama Kant Jha, Y.P. Mandal, Baleshwar Ram, Surya Narain Jha, Ram Vinod Sharma, Ram Sukumari Devi, Ram Naresh Singh, Suresh Prasad Singh, Kailash Pati Singh and Kapil Deo Narain Singh. After finishing his speech, Sh. L.N. Mishra folded his hands towards the audience and after taking a turn moved 2-3 steps, when he heard some sound and thereafter smoke appeared, people started falling, and then he realised that it was a bomb blast. People started running away. This function was presided over by Sh. Baleshwar Ram who welcomed the Railway Minister. He moved ahead and noticed that Sh. L.N. Mishra was about to fall but Ram Sukumari Devi assisted him by holding him in her hand. The witness lifted Ram Vinod Sharma in injured condition and handed him over to others to remove him to the hospital. Thereafter with the help of others, he lifted Jamuna Mandal who was removed to the Hospital. He noticed that Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken towards the Special Train, which was to go to Muzaffarpur and Sh. L.N. Mishra was made to sit in that train.
544. In his cross-examination PW-113 answered that there was no black flag demonstration on Platform No.3. There were no slogans of "L.N. Mishra Murdabad" in that function. However, there was some CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 627 opposition from Platform No.1. Sh. L.N. Mishra was garlanded after he alighted from the Train and came to the Dais. After Railway Minister finished his speech, some persons wanted to give memo and garland Sh. L.N. Mishra but he could not say whether they succeeded in doing so or not. When he rendered help to Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma and Jamuna Mandal, his clothes got blood stained. Police used to check "Passes" before allowing persons to go inside the place of function. He has denied the suggestion that during Railway strike, the Railway employees were violent and aggressive. There was no apprehension that the Railway employees turning violent during the inaugural function. He had a discussion with Sh. Rama Kant Jha and Sh. Baleshwar Ram in the Inspection Bungalow on 1.1.1975 about bringing of Sh. L.N. Mishra from Darbhanga and also that Congress Sewa Dal Badges were printed and some workers would be using them. During the talks, Sh. Rama Kant Jha told him that the Railway authorities have allowed Sewa Dal workers to be present with Sewa Dal Badges.
545. I have given my close look to the deposition of PW-113, which is reliable, cogent and trustworthy in so far as his presence, the connections he had with the Minister and his active role in helping the injured to be shifted for medical aid are all vivid and a firsthand eye witness account, which cannot be discarded. This witness further fortifies the factum of the presence of Congress workers, who were distributing the Passes and the police restricting the entry only to such CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 628 Pass holders. He has further given the firsthand account of names of several persons, who were present on the Dais at the time of the incident. The cross-examination remained unsuccessful
546. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha, the then Assistant Medical Officer, NE Railway, Divisional Hospital, Samastipur, deposed that on 02.1.1975 at about 4.30/5.00 PM, he along with Dr. M.N. Sharma, Medical Superintendent and some Engineers, Railway officers, went to Railway Station Samastipur at platform no.3. He listened to the speech of Sh. L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minister. After finishing his speech, Sh. L.N. Mishra spoke "Jai Hind" and then he took a turn towards his back. In the meantime there was a flash on the Dais followed by smoke and some thunder sound and heard cries of some occupants of Dais. He saw some persons jumped from the Dais. Dr. M.N. Sharma came by his side and they both went on the Dais. He found that General Manager, Mr. Chopra, standing on the Dais, was lifted for giving him medical aid. In the meantime, others also came on the Dais. He was directed by Dr. M.N. Sharma to rush to the Hospital and to arrange for first aid for the injured who, were to be sent to the Hospital. He immediately rushed to the Hospital. He contacted the doctors on telephone and rang up emergency bell for summoning of doctors and staff due to emergency. There is no cross- examination by the accused persons on these aspects and thus his testimony is not discredited.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 629
547. PW-127 Sh. Jayant Banerjee deposed that in September 1974, he was transferred to Samastipur as Signal Inspector. On 02.1.1975 at about 03.30 PM, he was asked by his superior to be on the Dais of Platform no.3 for adjustment of the mike and he accordingly went on the Dais at about 05.00/05.15 PM and sat on the right hand corner. The Railway Minister has already arrived on the Dais along with the party. After finishing his speech, the Railway Minister took a turn and within 10/15 seconds, there was a blast. There were about 25/30 persons on the Dais at that time and some of them were sitting and some were standing. He was standing on the Dais at that time. He noticed one person in police uniform coming on the Dais, who fell down. He jumped down from the Dais wherefrom his staff removed him to Hospital. He received injuries on his left arm and right buttock. He noticed one or two persons falling on the Dais. Bihar Police in the Hospital recorded his statement.
548. In his cross-examination at the behest of accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand, it is elicited that he was inquired by the police only in the hospital on 04.01.1975 and that on 02.01.1975, he was operated upon. An unwanted suggestion was made to this witness that L.N. Mishra was the symbolic determination of the government to break the strike, for which this witness expressed his inability and later agreed. The cross-examination does not go to shatter the testimony of this witness concerning the blast occurred soon after conclusion of the speech by the Railway Minister and many people getting injured CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 630 including this witness. There is no cross-examination on behalf of accused Gopalji, Arteshanand and Ranjan Dwivedi and they did not choose to cross-examine this witness despite opportunity.
549. CW-3 Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra deposed that Sh. L.N. Mishra was his eldest brother who got injured in the incident on 02.1.1975 at Samastipur Railway Platform and died on 03.1.1975 at Danapur Railway Hospital. He (CW-3) also suffered injuries in the bomb blast. The bomb exploded soon after his brother finished the speech. It is found in his statement before the court that an unusual opinion delivered by him when he was asked to speak about the incident and his statement made to the police. This opinion is that there was lack of security in the Railway Platform and that his elder brother L.N. Mishra did not get proper medical attention in time. However, he admits that there was a bomb explosion occurred, while he was on the Dais and it was the Evening time. He further wondered the incident as a mystery and stated that he is unable to understand, who was behind it. He further stated that he has nothing to say in respect of the involvement of the accused persons. He further expressed his inability to speak anything with regard to his statement made to the police found at Mark-A.
550. This witness was allowed to be cross-examined by the Special PP and it is elicited that he had received his brother at the Airport and accompanied him to Darbhanga and from Darbhanga to Samastipur by CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 631 a Special Train. He admits having sat along with his brother on the Dais and that there were 20 to 30 persons. He expressed his inability to say from where the bomb came from but he knows only about the injuries sustained by him. He had shown his unawareness as to who founded the Anand Marg or whether Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti founded Anand Marg or whether the said Anand Murti @ P.R. Sarkar was working in Bihar Railways. Again he stated that he knew an Organisation by the name of Anand Marg. He admitted to be an MLC from Muzaffarpur Saran Champaran in Bihar. He further admits that one Abdul Gaffoor was the Chief Minister of Bihar during 1974. He does not know about any cases were registered against Anand Marg and Anand Margies. He did not feel that Railway Union or any organisation intended to kill L.N. Mishra. A specific suggestion was put by the Ld. Special PP to this witness suggesting that after the conclusion of the investigation by CBI, the mystery is solved. To this suggestion CW-3 admits that the mystery might have been solved but for him, the mystery remained so. He did not remember anything with regard to the dismissal of bail applications of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and to secure his release, the Anand Margies resorted to armed struggle. This witness also did not know the attack on his brother was organised by Anand Margies for securing the release of P.R. Sarkar. He also did not know that his brother L.N. Mishra was close to Sh. Gaffoor, the then Chief Minister of Bihar in the year 1974.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 632
551. The cross-examination of this witness was also permitted on behalf of the accused, who have extensively cross-examined him. It is elicited that he is unaware about his statement given to the police on 20.01.1975 and having stated therein that Samastipur was not the proper place for the function. He also does not remember whether there was any Railway strike and that the employees were aggressive and that his brother was aware about it. He had no intelligence reports concerning his brother. It is elicited by the very accused that after the conclusion of the speech of his brother, CW-3 got up from his seat to accompany his brother to get down, then the explosion took place. He did not see any bomb falling on the Dais or around the Dais. He admits that he himself and his brother got injured and fell unconscious. CW-3 also does not remember whether he told the police about his brother informing him that the locals might have been misled by others and that the conspiracy might be of the big people. He also does not remember whether he told the police suspecting the involvement of one of the persons, who lost the elections. He also does not remember whether it was Dr. Bhalla, CMO Samastipur, who treated him and his brother. He also does not remember of telling to the police that Dr. Bhalla deliberately did not treat his brother properly. He also does not remember who took the decision to take them by Saloon to Danapur. He denied the suggestion that Bihar Government had its own helicopter at that time. However, he admitted that there was no air field at Samastipur to airlift anyone. He CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 633 also admits that there was a strike by the Government doctors and that is why they were not taken to Darbhanga or Patna for treatment. He is also unaware about the constitution of a Board of medical experts at the orders of Bihar Government. He admits that his brother was injured in his abdomen. To a court question, he stated that he was unconscious after the incident and when he reached Danapur, he was semi-conscious and regained consciousness on the night of 03.01.1975 and he was not even informed about the death of his brother, which was informed to him only in the night. He did not know whether postmortem on the body of his brother was conducted or not.
552. The manner in which this court witness responded to a grave and ghastly incident is really perplex and can be termed as a reflex of fear psychosis. This observation is warranted considering the standing of this witness in the public life. This witness is the younger brother of disincarnated Union Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra in the bomb blast, in which incident he also suffered injuries, resulting in him losing the consciousness. He had responded to the questions concerning the day to day affairs in State of Bihar as a threatened witness in so far as giving evasive answers expressing his unawareness to the important and vital on-goings in his State of Bihar. He deposed that despite the reports of investigation by the CBI in tracing out the crime, its genesis and the perpetrators, this witness strangely claims the entire incident as still a mystery. He gives the answers to the questions regarding the Anand Marg, its founder, registration of cases against Anand Marg CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 634 and rejection of bail application of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, who is the cult head of Anand Marg, in pell-mell so that the truth does not surface. It is strange that a person of his stature, who was a Legislator, a Minister in the State of Bihar and Later its Chief Minister and who held many responsible positions in the State Government and Union Government is unwilling and evasive to speak about the important developments in the society and organizations that spread its tentacles of terror. If the responsible persons of the stature of CW-3 were to give such irresponsible, evasive and tumultuous answers in the court of law, what best can be expected of a common man to speak truth. However, this witness had given the half truth except admitting his injuries to him and to his brother, which ultimately led to the death of his brother L.N. Mishra. The net effect of his evidence only proves that there was an explosion immediately after the speech of Sh. L.N. Mishra at the scene of occurrence, which resulted in injuries to several persons including this witness and the death of three persons, which included Sh. L.N. Mishra.
553. Suffice it to say, his deposition is helpful to hold that there was no airfield at Samastipur and that the Bihar Government was not having its own helicopter. This observation is warranted to understand the situation in which a Union Minister seriously injured in the incident was to be shifted by the train for a Hospital at a distant place, which took its own time in the peculiar situation, where the doctors in the State of Bihar were on cease work (strike). The CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 635 testimony of this witness, who was also treated by Dr. Bhalla, CMO of Samastipur goes to show that he does not impute any irresponsible treatment by the doctor to him and his brother. It is also pertinent to mention that CW-4 Sh. V.P. Gupta, the P.A. of the Minister deposed that it was Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3), who had taken the decision to shift Sh. L.N. Mishra to Danapur.
554. PW-110 Sh. S.S. Pachauri, the then Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Samastipur Division deposed that on 01.1.1975 Sh. J.S. Azad, the then Divisional Mechanical Engineer, gave him instructions for escorting Railway Minister, L. N. Mishra from Darbhanga to Samastipur on 02.1.1975. His duty was to remain on engine and to see that the train operation was according to the schedule and instructions. On 1.1.1975 at about 10/10.15 PM, he left Samastipur for Darbhanga. On 2.1.1975, he examined the engine of the Special Train, which was to carry the Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra from Darbhanga to Samastipur. They left Darbhanga at 11 AM and Special Train reached the Railway Station, Lahariya Sarai. The Railway Minister came there at about 3.30 PM. The Railway Minister travelled in the Saloon, which was reserved for him. The Special Train started from Railway Station, Lahariya Sarai at 4.10 PM and reached Samastipur at 5.10 PM and during this period he was on the engine foot plate. The Special Train reached Platform no.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur and there Railway Minister alighted from the train, which remained stationed there for about 10 minutes. Thereafter, the train was moved on giving CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 636 of a signal by the Station Master himself. A short whistle was blown by the engine before it started. After the train was moved ahead to clear the view for other platform, the engine was detached from the train. The engine left for the shed and he left for the control room. The engine had hardly left and he had hardly moved and crossed the BG Line from Platform No.3, he heard loud explosion. He stopped and came back and heard about the injuries to many VIPs. The Special BG Train left Samastipur between 7.30 PM and 8.00 PM. His testimony on these facts could not be discredited by the defence.
555. PW-102 Sh. Adeshwari Parshad Sinha was the Assistant Station Master MG Line Samastipur in the year 1975. He deposed that he was working as Assistant Station Master (Indoor) on Meter Gauge Line, Samastipur. Assistant Station Master (Cabin) used to give clearance of the line to the train arriving at the Railway Station, Samastipur and trains leaving that Railway Station. He also used to record the timings of such arrival and departure of the train. It used to be communicated to him, while he was working as ASM (Indoor) and he used to make entries in this regard in the Detention Register. After seeing the entry in the Detention Register Ex.P-187, he testified that the entries dated 02.1.1975 Ex.PW-102/A & Ex.PW-102/B were correctly recorded. On 2.1.1975, his duty hours were from 1600 hours to 2400 hours, down Passengers Special Train reached Samastipur Railway Station at 5.12 PM and Rattan Lal was its driver. Down Passenger Special Train was given clearance at 1700 hours and came from the side of Lahariya CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 637 Sarai. As per these entries Ex.PW-102/A and Ex.PW-102/B dated 02.1.1975, the time of arrival of down passenger Special Train is recorded as 1712 hours. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted the suggestion of the defence that the Railway Minister came to Samastipur by this Special Train.
556. CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta, the then Additional Private Secretary to Sh. L.N. Mishra deposed that on 1.1.1975 he, Sh. L.N. Mishra and his brother Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3) had gone from Delhi to Patna by Air and from Patna they went to Darbhanga by State Aircraft. They went to Samastipur by Train. Sh. L.N. Mishra had gone there for a meeting/public address for inauguration of train from Samastipur to Muzaffarpur. Sh. L.N. Mishra got down from the Saloon and went to Platform at meeting spot. He remained in the Saloon since the programme was short of 10/15 minutes and then Mr. Mishra was to come back to Saloon and they were to proceed for Muzaffarpur. When he was in the Saloon, he heard a loud noise, came out and found that Sh. L.N. Mishra and Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra were being brought to Saloon in injured condition. Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra was bleeding from his legs and Sh. L.N. Mishra was injured but he could not see any mark. Dr. Bhalla, Railway Doctor, who was present on the Railway Station, immediately came to the Saloon. He started treating Sh. L.N. Mishra, who was in the small cabin. The doctor did not tell any seriousness of the injury, they decided to go to Danapur by the same train and on the way train stopped at Patna where lot of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 638 supporters of Sh. L.N. Mishra got down. Some supporters who were at Patna got in and son-in-law of Sh. L.N. Mishra met him at Patna. Dr. Sahi, who was an eminent Surgeon, also came into the Saloon and examined Sh. L.N. Mishra. There was doctor's strike going on in Patna on that day and they went to Danapur by Saloon. At Danapur, Sh. L.N. Mishra was removed to Military Hospital, where military doctors and other doctors examined and treated him. He deposed that L.N. Mishra was declared dead on 03.1.1975. The deposition of CW- 4 on these facts has not been discredited by the accused persons in their cross-examination. In his further cross-examination, CW-4 has deposed that decision to shift Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken by CW-3 Jagan Nath Mishra.
557. The cumulative scrutiny of the depositions of PW-3, PW-4, PW-65, PW-26, PW-28, PW-53, PW-56, PW-57, PW-58, PW-60, PW-85, PW-109, PW-113, PW-127 and CW-3, CW-4 and CW-5 demonstrate that on 02.01.1975, the Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra arrived at Platform No. 3 of the Railway Station Samastipur at about 05.15 PM by a Special Train. He came to the Dais. Sh. L.N. Mishra started delivering the speech, which lasted for about 20 minutes. At that time, about 30/40 persons were present on the Dais. As he concluded and about to step down, an object of black/grey colour was observed by PW-26 and PW-56 and immediately thereafter there was a blast on the Dais and many persons suffered injuries. Neither of these witnesses had seen the culprit, who had thrown the hand grenade CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 639 on the Dais, causing the blast. PW-4 has also corroborated the deposition of the approver Vikram (PW-2) that the unused bomb, which was dropped by the PW-2 on the Railway Track, while running away from the spot after the bomb blast, was picked up by PW-4 and he took it to his home and had shown it to PW-3, who started checking it and when some hissing sound started coming out of the hand grenade, PW-3 threw it in the store room of his house, where it exploded.
47) Construction of Rostrum.
558. PW-48 Sh. M.K. Gupta deposed that during December 1974 to January 1975, he was working as Assistant Engineer (Construction), at Samastipur in Railways. He got constructed a Rostrum on the Platform between MG (Meter Gauge) and BG (Broad Gauge) Lines for inaugural function on 2.1.1975 and the construction work for the Rostrum was started one week prior to the date of inauguration. Sh. Rajender Singh and Sh. Nandi were the inspectors of the work and others assisted him in that work. The Divisional Engineer Sh. Pratap and Senior Divisional Engineer with Head Quarter at Samastipur also supervised this work. The dimensions of the Rostrum were approximately 20 feet x 16 feet and he used to be present during construction of the Rostrum but not throughout and most of the time Sh. Rajender Singh, Inspector of Works used to be present at the spot during construction. Sleepers were spread on the top and there was masonry work on all the four sides. The tarpaulin was spread on those CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 640 sleepers and DARI and the GADDAS were spread. The GADDAS were hired whereas tarpaulin and DARIS were Railway's property and DARI and GADDA were spread over the sleepers on 02.1.1975. PW-48 further deposed that he was present on BG Lines (Broad Gauge Lines) on 02.1.1975. There was no tampering of the masonry work of the Rostrum till the function started on 02.1.1975. Identity slips were issued to the persons who worked on the construction of the Rostrum. Slips like Ex.PW-48/A (Available in Folder R-31 as D-6) were issued before the function. It is worthy to reproduce the contents of document Ex.PW-48/A (Ex.P-17) which reads as under:-
"NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY The bearer is a Railway representative of Engineering Department and is allowed to attend the premises of the ceremony at Samastipur on 2.1.1975.
Assistant Engineer (Con.), N. E. Railway, Samastipur."
It is also very pertinent to mention here that this document was recovered from the coat pocket of the deceased Sh. Ram Kishore Singh Kishore at the time of Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-35/B for which a separate Production List Ex.PW-35/C was prepared. The same is also endorsed on the document at Ex.PW-48/A by separately recognising such endorsement by Sh. Uma Kant Chaudhary (PW-35) CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 641 by marking it as PW-35/D.
559. The contents of the document reproduced above makes it abundantly clear that the bearer of such slip being Railway employees of its Engineering Division was allowed to attend the premises of ceremony on 02.1.1975 at Samastipur. Therefore, this document, which was retrieved from the person of the deceased namely Sh. Ram Kishore Singh Kishore establishes that the said person was present during the ceremony officially near the Dais and had become an innocent victim of the bomb blast. The same is also being discussed while appreciating medical evidence.
559. In his cross-examination, PW-48 has denied a suggestion that Railway Labour were around the Rostrum to do odd jobs even during the ceremony. This suggestion fortifies the case of the prosecution and does not help the accused in any manner to deny the event, turning of such an event into a tragedy, loss of lives and injuries to several persons and blast, which caused such tragedy. The line of cross- examination establishes the presence of Ram Kishore Singh Kishore around the Dais in the capacity of a Railway employee and issuance of such slips. Further, the cross-examination itself goes to prove that entire version of PW-48 is credit worthy. There is no cross- examination to the witness that there was no tampering with the Dais until the start of the function on 02.1.1975.
Thus, the theory imagined by the accused and put forth in their CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 642 defence that explosive material could have been implanted beneath the Dais does not stand to any reason.
48) Threat perception to the Minister?
560. Ld. Defence Counsel have argued that it has come in evidence of PW-28 Sh. Brij Nandan Prashad, DIG that they had information that the group of Karpuri Thakur and disgruntled Railway employees might try to disturb the function. Ld. Defence Counsel referred the statement of PW-28 Sh. B.N. Prashad, DIG, who deposed that during speech, there was black flag demonstration towards Platform No.7. He did not allow Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate as he had no Pass or Invitation Card and he had information of carrying a demonstration at the Airport. PW-56 Sh. Umesh Prashad Singh deposed that during the speech by the Railway Minister L.N. Mishra there was hooting from a distance place. PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar testified that he saw more than 100 persons having black flags and raising slogans after arrival of the Railway Minister at Platform no.1. PW-60 Sh. R.N. Rai deposed that he heard loud cries from the side of Platform No.1. CW-2 Sh. Jiya Lal Arya, the then District Magistrate, Samastipur deposed that he had not received any intelligence report about danger to the life of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that when function was going on, there was a demonstration by the students. There was no JP Movement in the function on that day. (JP refers to movement by late Sh. Jai Prakash Narain). CW-5 Sh. Baleshwar Ram testified that on that date there was no demonstration of JP movement CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 643 at the platform. PW-65 Sh. Vishwanath testified that there was black flag demonstration at Railway Station, Samastipur on occasion of visit of Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra at Samastipur on 02.1.1975. They were raising slogans against the Railway Minister at the time of flag demonstration. The black flag demonstration was at platform no.7. There were slogans "Lalit Babu Jindabad" at the arrival of Railway Minister for the function.
561. Black flag demonstration or raising slogans is quite common in a democratic setup, which is a mode of expressing protests against the establishment. It has nowhere come in the statement of any of the witness particularly police officials that there was any threat to the life of Sh. L.N. Mishra. PW-65 Sh. Vishwanath, Deputy SP has specifically testified that they have no secret information that the railway employees might make an attempt on the life of the Railway Minister. CW-7 Sh. Jwala Partap Singh, Officer Incharge, Chhapra GRP, who was on escort duty with Sh. L.N. Mishra, deposed that he had no information of any threat to Sh. L.N. Mishra. The defence has examined DW-10 Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then Private Secretary of Late Sh. L.N. Mishra from 1964 till his death. He has been examined by the defence to demolish the case of prosecution that there was no threat to the security of Sh. L.N. Mishra. However, DW-10 has testified that he had no knowledge of receiving any wireless message dated 30.12.1974 in their office regarding any attempt on the life of Late Sh. L.N. Mishra. He is also not aware of any other similar CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 644 message dated 24.12.1974. He did not read any report expressing the danger to the life of Sh. L.N. Mishra.
Therefore, from the deposition of PW-28, PW-56, CW-2, PW- 65, CW-7 and DW-10, it is reflected that there was no potential threat to the life of Sh. L.N. Mishra, though there were reports that group of Karpuri Thakur and disgruntled Railway employees might disrupt the function.
49) Security, mode of entry to the venue.
562. As there were reports with the police that group of Karpuri Thakur and some disgruntled Railway employees might try to disrupt the function and as there were black flag demonstrations, raising of slogans at Platform No. 1 and 7, the security measures had to be resorted by the authorities concerned for not only the smooth handling of the function but also maintaining law and order since the Minister was to inaugurate. Tight security arrangements were made by the local police at Samastipur Railway Station apart from RPF and GRPF, who were deployed. Even the entry to the venue was restricted to only such persons carrying Invitation Cards or exhibiting Badges/Passes issued by Congress Sewa Dal in its name.
563. I have already discussed in the chapter of "Macabre incident at Samastipur dated 02.01.1975" that entry into the venue was restricted to the holders of Passes/Badges or Invitation Cards. I have also returned a finding that the accused themselves in the cross-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 645 examination of PW-57 had suggested and got produced a Pass, which looked like the one recovered by the prosecution, which A-3 had secured from the Congress worker for the safe ingress of the conspirators.
564. PW-28 Sh. Brij Nandan Parshad, DIG deposed that purpose of their meeting on 24.12.1974 in the chamber of Commissioner, Darbhanga was to finalize security arrangements about visit of Railway Minister as they were to make security arrangements. The purpose of his visit on 30.12.1974 to Samastipur was to make security arrangements at Railway Station, Samastipur. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that DAP, GRPF, RPF Jawans were deployed for security with local police there. On his reaching the Samastipur Railway Station on 02.1.1975, he came to know from SP that they were checking "Passes" of the persons coming on the Dais and in the area of function. PW-65 Sh. Vishwanath Deputy SP, Samastipur has also admitted the suggestion of the defence that the local police officials, RPF and GRPF were on law and order duty and for security purposes. He further admitted the suggestion of the defence that the purpose of all police officials was to prevent the mischief and to keep a watch on the movements of undesirable persons and others. No person was allowed on the track of Broad Gauge Lines, which was to be inaugurated. It was expected from the officials on duty that they would not permit anyone going on Platform No.3 where the function was to be held without having "Invitation CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 646 Card" or "Pass" for that. PW-60 Sh. R.N. Rai, Officer Incharge GRP, Siwaan, who was on ring round duty with the Railway Minister, stated that the police and RPF officials were present around the Munch. PW- 53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari, Chief Public Relation Officer, North-Eastern Railway, stated that he noticed police moving on all sides of the place of function before and during the time of function. PW-109 Sh. Mohan Kumar Jha, a distant relative of Sh. L.N. Mishra, stated that 40/50 police persons were present near the Dais.
565. The defence has admitted in cross-examination of PW-3 Sh. Mahinder Prasad Sahu, by giving the suggestion to PW-3 that no person without the "Passes" was permitted to the venue and that there was strict checking of "Passes" at that time at the Railway Station. PW-3 was not carrying any Pass with him and he has explained that he was just a child at the time of incident in question and for that reason there was relaxation in "Passes" and this fact of relaxation of passes for the children, which PW-3 has testified in his deposition, has also not been discredited and disputed. By giving this suggestion, it is to be inferred that the PW-3 was present at the function and his juvenility, which did not call for any verification of the Badges/Passes with him are all admitted by the defence, who suggested as above.
566. PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma who had been a teacher and an ex-serviceman and a member of local society formed to promote the development in the area and an independent person came to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 647 Samastipur along with 8/10 persons to attend the function. The police officers did not allow them to go to the platform. One Congress worker gave them one Badge of Congress Sewa Dal each outside the Railway Station. He reached the platform where inauguration was to be held based on a "Congress Sewa Dal Badge". He identified the "Badge" Ex.P-8 and such type of Badge was given to him outside the Railway Station. He was not permitted to go on the Rostrum but with the assistance of their area MP Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan (PW-85) he sat on the Dais behind him. PW-57 brought the Sewa Dal Badge in the court on the date of his deposition and on the request of accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand, it was produced and exhibited as Ex.PW-57/DA. This Badge/Pass is like Ex.P-8. This is in the size of 3.5"x 2.5" and "Congress Sewa Dal Samastipur" is printed in Hindi. (This is available in Folder R-7). PW-57 further testified that similar Badges was given to his 8/9 companions. They were seated on the chairs. He does not understand the meaning of "Pass" but he and his companions had Sewa Dal Badges, which they pinned on their chest. He deposed that Ex.PW-57/DA might be called a "Badge" or a "Pass". The police was not permitting anyone in the absence of "Passes" through the gate.
567. PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar aged about 10 years at the time of incident 02.1.1975 and son of Incharge GRP PS Samastipur stated that he also came on the Rostrum. He did not have "Invitation Card" or "Pass" and went there being son of Incharge GRP PS Samastipur. He CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 648 was aware of the fact that the persons having "Passes" would occupy the chairs and place on the Rostrum. He saw the "Persons" going and showing "Cards" before they were permitted to go inside the place of function. PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, M.P. admitted the suggestion of the defence that he commands respect in the area. Some persons with him were not allowed to go to the Munch. Two persons accompanied him up to some distance from the Munch but police officer asked for a "Pass". PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai, a Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat of Village Malikaur since 1966/68 stated that the "Passes" available with them were checked at the entrance of the Railway Station. He sat on the chair lying on the platform while Rama Kant Jha and Baleshwar Ram went to the Dais. In his cross- examination, he answered that police used to check "Passes" before allowing persons to go inside the place of function. On 1.1.1975 he had discussion with Sh. Rama Kant Jha and Sh. Baleshwar Ram in Inspection Bungalow about bringing of Sh. L.N. Mishra from Darbhanga and also that Congress Sewa Dal Badges were printed and some workers would be using them. During the talks, Sh. Rama Kant Jha told him that the Railway authorities have allowed Sewa Dal workers to be present with Sewa Dal Badges.
568. To further prove its case, the prosecution has examined the owner of the Printing Press Sh. Virender Narain Poddar as PW-37, where the Badges/Passes/Cards of Congress Sewa Dal like Ex.P-8 (similar card is Ex.PW-57/DA) were printed. PW-37 Sh. Virender CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 649 Narain Poddar deposed that his father owned Ajay Printing Press at Samastipur since 1970. He (PW-37) was a final year student of DHMS at Lahariya Sarai in the year 1974-75 and used to look after the work of Printing Press in 1974-75 in the absence of his father as his father did not attend to the work at Printing Press from the last week of December 1974 to 03.1.1975 on account of illness. He stated that Ex.P-9 is the badge of Congress Sewa Dal Samastipur, which was printed in their press on 01.1.1975 on the request of Satender Prasad Singh @ Timmoo, who was known to him for a petty long time on account of his association with his father. He was Mukhya Karyakarta of ruling Congress at Samastipur and came to him in the printing press at about 12 noon on 01.1.1975 and requested for getting the printing on the same day. He told him that these badges were needed in the inauguration function on 02.1.1975 and wanted printing of 100 badges. He did not charge anything for the printing of 100 Badges. He (PW-37) prepared a sample badge while sitting in the press and got printed the badges on the same day and one badge was retained by him as a sample, which is Ex.P-9. He deposed that in the month of August 1976, CBI officers came in the press and he was present there with his father. They have given that sample badge Ex.P-9 to the CBI officers on that day, which was taken into possession by them vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-37/A. He testified that the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-34/A bears his signatures at point 'A' and that of his father at point 'B'. His father has appended his signatures at Point "B" in his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 650 presence.
569. In his cross-examination at the instance of accused Gopalji and Arteshanand, PW-37 answered that manuscript is obtained for printing and in the instant case, Satender Prasad Singh gave them manuscript, but it could not be tagged with Ex.P-9. The CBI officers did not ask him for the manuscript. The sample badge Ex.P-9 was lying in the file. The sample badge Ex.P-9 was given to the CBI officers, after taking out from that file. He could find only one hole in the badge Ex.P-9. He has signed on the badge Ex.P-9. Print line was not printed on the sample badge Ex.P-9. He had informed the CBI officers that the sample badge was kept in a wire and it had a hole. He could not remember whether in the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-37/A, there was a reference of hole or not. He deposed that they were not maintaining regular books of accounts. They have not entered printing of 100 badges at the instance of PW-37 in the Order Book. There used to be two employees in their press at that time. The block was not prepared by him but by someone else. He remembered the name of one of the employees to be Kameshwar Pathak, who used to operate the machine. His father was suffering from fever and Asthma. He testified that the paper used for printing of badge, used to be called as card board. He bought card board from the market on the same day. He denied the suggestion that Satender Prasad Singh did not come to him or that the said Badge was not got printed in their press. Despite opportunity, the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 651 other accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi did not choose to cross-examine the witness.
570. In fact, this badge is wrongly mentioned as Ex.P-9 in the statement of PW-37. Record reveals that this badge is, in fact, Ex.P-8, available in Folder R-4. This Badge Ex.P-8 was initially exhibited without any objection of the defence in the statement of approver PW-
2. Subsequently, it was also proved in the statement of PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh, Assisting Investigation Officer and PW-81 Sh. Dev Narain Prasad. The record further reveals that Ex.P-9 is, in fact, a "Prout" newspaper in the record and it appears that due to typographical error, the exhibit mark of this Badge Ex.P-8 was mentioned in the deposition of PW-37 as Ex.P-9 instead of Ex.P-8.
571. A careful scrutiny of the deposition of PW-37 reflects that he is an independent witness. It is not shown whether he had any enmity with any of the accused persons. His testimony that Sh. Satender Prasad Singh @ Timmoo was Mukhya Karyakarta of ruling Congress party at Samastipur, was not shattered. It is also not suggested that the Badge was printed at some other printing press. The printing and existence of the Badge has also not been disputed by the defence. The accused Gopalji had only given him the suggestion that the Badge was not printed in their press and it is well settled principle of law that a denied suggestion is not evidence. It is also not suggested by the defence that such type of Badges were got printed subsequent to the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 652 function dated 02.01.1975 in order to create evidence. Moreover, the similar Badge Ex.PW-57/DA was got produced from PW-57 by the defence themselves in the court, meaning thereby that the existence of the Congress Sewa Dal Badge was not disputed by the defence. If his evidence is read in conjunction with the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-57 and PW-113, it has to be concluded that these Congress Sewa Dal Badges like Ex.P-8 and Ex.PW-57/DA, were got printed from Ajay Printing Press at Samastipur belonging to PW-37 and his father. I find that PW-37 is a truthful witness.
572. PW-81 Sh. Devender Narain Prasad deposed that he has been running a General Merchant Store at Gudri Bazaar, Samastipur since 1969. He testified that in August 1976, he had gone to the market for purchase of Ghee (Oil). On the way, one officer from Delhi came and inquired from him whether there was any press and he (PW-81) replied in the affirmative. The officer of Delhi accompanied him (PW-
81) to Ajay Printing Press, where the press owner and his son were found present. The officer inquired at the printing press, whether any Badge was printed there and the owner told him that he will check-up the record. Then the press owner took out the papers tagged in a wire and from under about 100/150 papers, he took out one Badge on which Congress Sewa Dal Samastipur was printed. He deposed that he would be in a position to identify that Badge since he had signed it. He deposed that Ex.P-8 is the same badge, which was produced by the owner of the press and bears his signatures at point 'A' and that of Sh.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 653 Shiv Narain Poddar, owner of the press at point 'B' and his son Virender Poddar (PW-37) at point 'C'. He deposed that the document Ex.PW-37/A (Seizure Memo) was prepared by the officer and bears his (PW-81) signatures at point 'C'. He further testified that he had seen many persons supporting such Badges, while going inside the Railway Station and coming out of it, where a function was held at the Railway Station, Samastipur. That function was about inauguration of Railway Line by Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra.
573. In his cross-examination, PW-81 answered that Railway Station Samastipur is at a distance of about two furlong from his shop. There was no function of Congress at the Railway Station. However, the Railway Minister, who came for inauguration of Railway Line, was of Congress Party. He further testified that Badges like Ex.P-8 were seen by him for the first time on the day on which Railway Minister L.N. Mishra came to Railway Station Samastipur for inauguration of Railway Line. He had gone up to outside the Railway Station as a spectator at about 04.00 PM and by that time the Railway Minister had not arrived. He had read in the newspaper "Arya Vart" on 01.01.1975 about the visit of the Railway Minister and arrival time of the Minster was mentioned as 01.00 PM and one boy told him at about 02.00 PM that Minister was not arrived by that time. He had seen the persons sporting the Badge. He has denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the printing press or that no badge was produced by the owner of Ajay Printing Press to that officer in his presence or that his signatures CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 654 on the documents were obtained in the office or that he had not seen people sporting Badges like Ex.P-8 on the date on which Sh. L.N. Mishra arrived for inauguration of the Railway Line at Railway Station, Samastipur.
574. On a close look on the deposition of PW-81, it is clear that he is an independent person having no axe to grind against anyone and at par with PW-37, he had spoken to the truth about the seizure of Pass Ex.P-8 from PW-37. Thus, the prosecution has established the seizure of the passes like that of the one, which the defence got produced in the cross-examination of PW-57. Again, it is not shown as to why he deposed falsely. It is also not put to PW-81 as to what enmity he had with the accused persons or as to what benefit he (PW-81) would derive by deposing so. The defence has only given the suggestions, which were denied by the witness and again at the cost of repetition it is trite law that denied suggestion is not evidence. His deposition that he had seen people entering the Railway Station Samastipur on the date of ceremony of inauguration of Broad Gauge Line, sporting such type of Badges, rather, supports the version of the defence, which they have put in the cross-examination of PW-3 that there was strict security check and entry was allowed only through "Passes". I find that the testimony of this witness is trustworthy.
575. PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh, Deputy SP CIU (P) Branch, CBI deposed that he was assisting Chief Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 655 Ahuja, Deputy SP as per his directions. He deposed that on 28.8.1976, he went to Samastipur for tracing the press from where the badges of Congress Sewa Dal were printed. He visited Ajay Printing Press after making enquiry and met the owner of the press Shiv Narain Poddar and his son Virender Narain Poddar and after making a search they produced before him one badge of Congress Sewa Dal of Samastipur Ex.P-8 after taking out the same from a wire, which he seized in the presence of one Dev Narain (PW-81) vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-27/A (In fact, the Seizure Memo is Ex.PW-37/A). He deposed that it was signed by Virender Narain Poddar at point 'A', Shiv Narain Poddar at point 'B' and Dev Narain at point 'C' and his own signatures are appearing at point 'D'. He deposed that he also obtained the signatures of these persons on the Badge Ex.P-8 at point 'A', 'B' and 'C'.
576. In fact the Seizure Memo is Ex.PW-37/A and not Ex.PW-27/A which appears to be a typographical error as the Seizure Memo was already exhibited as Ex.PW-37/A in the statement of PW-37 Sh. Virender Narain Poddar and this Seizure Memo Ex.PW-37/A is available in Folder R-12.
577. In his cross-examination, PW-131 answered that he did not visit Congress Office, before his visiting Ajay Printing Press. The registration of Ajay Printing Press was in the name of Shiv Narain Poddar. He did not find any order for getting the Badges of Congress Sewa Dal printed in the order book of Ajay Printing Press. The order CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 656 book for the particular period was not available. He had seen the record relating to the employees of Ajay Printing Press. He had inquired from Ajay Printing Press as to why the print line was not printed on the Badge Ex.P-8, which he incorporated in his statement. Ajay Printing Press was situated in the New Market. He had examined Satender Prasad Singh, a member of Congress Sewa Dal, but he did not produce any such Badge before him. He admitted the suggestion that Congress Sewa Dal was a political organisation. He explained that since Railway Minister was of a Congress Party and that Party had also invited other persons, it did not occur to him to make inquiry in this regard. In his further cross-examination, PW-131 answered that Virender Nath Poddar (PW-37) was otherwise maintaining order book, but the order book for the period from 08.08.1974 to 19.04.1975 was not available. He was maintaining accounts only on rough sheets. There was no mention about printing of Badges in those rough accounts since no payment was made for their printing.
578. Scanning of deposition of PW-131 reflects that his testimony that he visited Ajay Printing Press or met its owner and his son (PW-
37) in the presence of PW-81 on 28.08.1976 and made inquiry from them has not been disputed by the defence. The accused persons have also not discredited him that he had not seized the Badge Ex.P-8 from the owner of the Ajay Printing Press. It is also not suggested that this Badge was got printed subsequent to the inaugural function. PW-131 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 657 is a Senior Police Officer and his testimony is worth inspiring confidence.
579. From the totality of the above evidence on the subject and after appreciating the evidence both ocular and documentary by various witnesses discussed herein above, I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution was successful to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there was tight security at the spot and venue owing to the visit of Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra for inauguration of Broad Gauge Line at Platform No. 3 between Samastipur and Muzaffarpur. Police officers along with forces of GRPF and RPF were deployed there. Railway authorities got printed 11000 Invitation Cards, out of which about 6600 cards were sent/delivered throughout the country to mark the historical event in the State. However, there were reports that a group of Karpuri Thakur and some disgruntled Railway employees might disrupt the function. Nevertheless, there was no threat perception to the life of Sh. L.N. Mishra. There were black flag demonstrations and raising of slogans against the Minister at Platform No.1 and 7 (not near the venue) at the time of his speech, which is an usual protest in a peaceful and democratic manner. Congress Sewa Dal badges, which are referred to as "Passes" or "Badges" or "Cards" were issued/given by Congress workers. These Passes/Badges were pinned by the audience on their attire near the chest for their entry to the venue. Badge/Pass/Card Ex.P-8 available in Folder R-4 and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 658 Receipt Memo of Badge Ex.PW-37/A is available in Folder R-12. Badge/Pass/Card Ex.PW-57/DA is available in Folder R-7.
50) Registration of FIR - on explosion at railway quarters.
580. PW-142 Sh. Sarju Prashad Verma, the then Officer Incharge P.S. Samastipur in January 1975, deposed that on 02.1.1975, he was on duty on Platform No. 7, Railway Station, Samastipur. Sh. D.P. Ojha (DW-34) was his Officer. On that day, after the function, on the direction of his S.P., he went to Railway Hospital, Samastipur to make arrangement for the injured and came to know about bomb blast in the house of Mahadev Sahu and accordingly he went to the house of Mahadev Sahu in Railway Colony with a constable and a Jamadar. Mahadev Sahu met him there. He inspected the house of Mahadev Sahu. He had gone inside the store of that house, where the explosion took place and he did not find any injured there. He found the ceiling and all the walls of that room were damaged and glass panes of windows on south wall were found broken and he also found a hole in the wire-mesh of that window. There was a hall towards each of that store in which he found pin of a hand grenade and a lever besides bloodstains and three pieces of the Chappals stained with the blood. He preserved the spot and prepared a writing which was sent to P.S. Samastipur through constable Ram Dayal Singh No. 292 of CRP Force and an FIR No. 1 of 1975 was registered in the P.S. Samastipur on his Rukka Ex.PW-142/A. The matter was investigated by him and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 659 then it was handed over to CID, Bihar. He deposed that this rukka Ex.PW-142/A is in his handwriting and bears his signatures. He testified that ASI K.P. Singh was working at PS Samastipur at that time and he had seen him writing and signing and endorsement at point A on the said rukka is in hand of ASI K.P. Singh. He also deposed that Ex.PW-142/B is the original FIR, which is in the hand of said Sh. K.P. Singh with his signatures at point 'A'.
(This rukka Ex.PW-142/A and FIR Ex.PW-142/B are available in Folder R-7.)
581. In his cross-examination, it is found that he recorded the statement of Mahadev Sahu, one of the accused in the case He further replied that same night at about 10.00 PM or 11.00 PM, he decided that Mahadev Sahu was not an accused. He suspected seven persons to be responsible for keeping hand grenade in the house, which exploded and he named them as accused in his rukka. The case file titled as "State Vs. Mahadev Sahu & Others" of case No. 1 (1)/75, PS Samastipur was brought by PW-148 on 16.01.1985 during the deposition of PW-142 Sh. Sarju Prashad Verma and after retaining the rukka Ex.PW-142/A and FIR Ex.PW-142/B, the file was returned to PW-148. This is mentioned by my Ld. Predecessor at Page No. 3544 and 3547 of deposition of PW-142.
582. PW-145 Sh. Khusheshwar Singh, the then Mukhiya of Village Bahadurpur, Harnoli, deposed that he used to visit Samastipur also. He deposed that he was going on the road wherefrom he was called at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 660 the house of Mahadev Sahu at about 05.00 PM or 06.00 PM. He further deposed that the house of Mahadev Sahu was situated in the Railway Colony, Sam astipur and he was taken by the policemen to the house of Mahadev Sahu to witness the seizure under the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-145/A, which was prepared. He signed at point 'A'. The other witness Mahinder Singh at point 'B' and these proceedings took place two days after the incident of L.N. Mishra.
(Seizure list Ex.PW-145/A is available in Folder R-2.)
583. In his cross examination it is elicited that there were other houses in the locality of Mahadev Sahu, but none was called there. He did not remember how many articles were recovered due to lapse of time. The police did not get the spot photographed in his presence. The proceedings were completed there in about one or half an hour. The defence has not suggested that the articles mentioned in the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-145/A were not recovered from the spot or that the seizure memo was not prepared there. The defence has also not shown whether the witness has any enmity with the accused. PW-145 is an independent public witness and there is no reason to discard his testimony.
51) Scene of occurrence - Site plans.
584. PW-139 Sh. Bipin Bihari Singh deposed that in January, 1975 he was working as Section Officer in District Board, Samastipur. Sh. K.L. Pandey was his Assistant Engineer at that time. On 05.1.1975, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 661 under the instructions of District Engineer, Sh. Ranbrik Singh, this witness accompanied by K.L. Pandey and a police constable visited Samastipur Railway Station. They took measurements of Platform no. 1 & 2. These Platforms were on one side of the Railway Line and in continuation of each other. Beyond the Railway Line, there were Platforms no.3 and 4 in continuation and adjacent to these, there were Platforms no.5 and 6. They started taking measurement from one corner at Platform no. 3, there was a Stage on Platform no. 3, and he noted the measurement of that stage. After taking measurements, he prepared correct draft plan Ex.PW-139/A at the scale of 1"=16'. It bears his signatures at point "A". He also identified the signatures of Sh. K.L. Pandey on the draft plan at point 'B'. On 07.1.1975, he accompanied a police constable to the house of Sh. M.D. Sahu, Accounts Officer, Railways. It was lying open and found guarded by the police. Inmates were not present in the house. After taking measurements, he correctly prepared the draft plan Ex.PW-139/B at the scale of 1"=4'. It bears his signatures at point "A".
(These site plans Ex.PW-139/A & Ex.PW-139/B are available in Folder R-39)
585. In his cross-examination it is noticed that he had prepared the rough notes at the time of taking measurements at the spot which were destroyed by him after the draft plans were prepared (about Ex.PW- 139/A). He was not told about the place of incident and that is why he has not shown the same in the draft plan Ex.PW-139/A. The height of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 662 the enclosure near the stage has not been shown by him in the draft plan (Ex.PW-139/A) but it was about 5 ft. He signed the tracing paper on 07.1.1975 from which the blue print Ex.PW-139/A was prepared. He also answered having prepared the rough notes for finalizing Ex.PW-139/B after inspecting the spot. He did not mention the name of the person who pointed out the spot/place of explosion of hand grenade at the house of Sh. M.D. Sahu.
586. PW-139 Sh. Bipin Bihari Singh has proved the topography of Samastipur Railway Station vide his site plan Ex.PW-139/A. He also proved the position of house of Sh. M.D. Sahu vide site plan Ex.PW- 139/B. In his cross-examination, the defence failed to unearth any incorrectness in the topography of Railway Station, Samastipur and house of M.D. Sahu as shown by PW-139 Sh. Bipin Bihari Singh in the site plans Ex.PW-139/A and Ex.PW-139/B.
52) Recovery of articles from the scene of crime at Samastipur Railway Station.
587. PW-72 Sh. Ram Chand Mishar deposed that on 04.01.1975, at about 03.00 PM, he had gone to Railway Station Samastipur, where he met CID Officers at Platform No. 3. There was a Munch. CID officer had taken into possession one tarpaulin, two durries, two gaddas, two jajams, two musands, 50 pieces of hand grenade, one glass mug, one broken glass, broken pieces, some printed leaflets, two letter pads of Sansad Sadasya, some letters & applications, one muffler, 50 pieces CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 663 of shoes and Chappals from the spot in his presence and that of one Suraj Prakash. CID officers prepared a list Ex.PW-72/A of those articles, which were taken into possession and he (PW-72) along with other public witness Suraj Prakash Singh signed it. It was also signed by CID officer in their presence. He deposed that he would be in a position to identify seized articles. During his deposition, the material objects seized were duly identified, which are consisting of one pillow Ex.P-33, two bed sheets Ex.P-34 and Ex.P-35, one cotton mattress (gaddas) Ex.P-36, and portion of tarpaulin Ex.P-37.
588. In his cross-examination, PW-72 answered that at that time 50 or 100 persons were standing. Sh. Suraj Prasad Singh was also sitting among the public. He and Suraj Prasad were called by Darogaji, when they were among the public. Suraj Prasad Singh used to sell books on the Railway Station. He did not know what is the meant by base plug. He did not know the meaning of precision cap and striker. The CID officers counted the Chappals and shoes in his presence. He has denied the suggestions that there were 17 pairs of shoes and Chappals. PW-72 then stated that those were 50 in numbers. He has denied the suggestion that his signature were obtained by the CID officer in his office. He did not remember whether the photographs of the Munch were taken or not.
589. PW-73 Sh. Shobha Kant Jha, working on the tea-stall at Platform No. 8 in January 1975, deposed that on 05.01.1975, he was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 664 present at Platform No. 8, Railway Station Samastipur. He deposed that on that day at about 04.00 PM, Inspector of CID Mr. Sinha had taken into possession four wooden sleepers from the Munch, scrap of the wooden sleepers, one iron piece under the Dari, two other small iron pieces and prepared Ex.PW-73/A evidencing seizure. One Sattan Rai was also present. The contents of the document Ex.PW-73/A were read over to him and he signed on it at Point "A" and signed by Sattan Rai at Point "B" and Inspector Sinha at Point "C". He deposed that he would be in a position to identify those four sleepers. During his deposition in the court, all these articles consisting of wooden sleepers at Ex.P-38, Ex.P-39, Ex.P-40 and Ex.P-41 were identified. The cross- examination of PW-73 reveals nothing to disbelieve him and the seizures.
590. A scrutiny of the depositions of PW-72 and PW-73 fortify the seizures. The cross-examination does not go to show that they were implanted and further does not show that the seizure was effected from some other place. The credibility of these witnesses has not been shaken in the cross-examination.
(Ex.PW-72/A and Ex.PW-73/A are available in Folder R-2)
591. PW-52 Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sinha, the then ASI, GRP at Samastipur testified that on 04.01.1975, DSP K.D. Singh gave some articles for safe custody in the Malkhana of Police Station. On 08.02.1975, some articles from amongst those given by DSP K.D. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 665 Singh were handed over to Inspector S.K. Ghosh of CBI vide handing over memo Ex.PW-52/D, which bears his signatures at Point "A". No one has tampered with the articles given by DSP K.D. Singh for safe custody in the Malkhana during the period the same remained there. At the time of deposition, one sealed parcel with the seal of "CFSL" was opened, from which one white pillow Ex.P-33, one white bed sheet having blood stains Ex.P-34, another white bed sheet Ex.P-35, cotton mattress Ex.P-36 and portion of tarpaulin Ex.P-37 were taken out. Thereafter, three separate parcels sealed with the seal of "CFSL" were opened in the court, from which pieces of wooden sleepers Ex.P- 38 and Ex.P-39, Ex.P-40 and a wooden slipper Ex.P-41 were taken out. He testified that these are the same, which were given by him to Sh. S.K. Ghosh and were earlier deposited in the Malkhana by DSP K.D. Singh. Subsequently, another sealed envelope with the seal of "CFSL" was opened and three iron pieces Ex.P-42 to Ex.P-44 and one piece of newspaper Ex.P-45 and one thread Ex.P-46 were taken out. Handing over memo Ex.PW-52/D is available in Folder R-14.
592. PW-137 Sh. S.K. Ghosh, the then Inspector, CBI, deposed that on 08.02.1975, he took seven items as per the list of articles Ex.PW- 52/D from Shri J.P. Sinha, ASI, GRP, Samastipur (PW-52). He collected the articles in unsealed condition, which were then converted into two sealed parcels in his presence. The first parcel comprised of one white pillow with a big hole (burnt), and few small holes, one white bed sheet smeared with bloodstains, one white bed sheet with a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 666 big hole (burnt) and few small holes, portion of red strips cotton mattress size 6'.9" X 6'.6" with one big hole (burnt) and few small holes cut from a full size mattress (size 10'.6" X 9'.6"), portion of tarpaulin (size 7'.6" X 5'.8") with one big hole (burnt) and few small holes cut from a full size tarpaulin (size 17'.6" X 15'). These were put in a hessian cover, stitched and sealed and then put in a wooden box. He further deposed that the second parcel comprised of four wooden railway sleepers. He put the same in three gunny covers, stitched and sealed and put in a wooden box. There was another sealed cover containing three small pieces like iron, one small piece of newspaper and one piece of cotton. He signed the document Ex.PW-52/D at Point "B". It was also signed by ASI J.P. Sinha (PW-52). During his deposition, a parcel sealed with the seal of "DSJ" was opened, from which one white pillow Ex.P-33, two bed sheets Ex.P-34 and P-35, cotton mattress Ex.P-36 and piece of tarpaulin Ex.P-37. He deposed that these are the same articles, which were converted into a sealed parcel in his presence. Further, in his deposition, two wooden pieces Ex.P-38, Ex.P-39 and Ex.P-41 were taken out from the gunny bags. In his cross-examination it is elicited that memo Ex.PW-52/D was prepared correctly. He further clarified that after receiving the aforesaid articles from Sh. J.P. Sinha (PW-52), he received instructions from SP, CBI, camping at Samastipur to take all these articles to Delhi and deposit the same with Director, CFSL, New Delhi. He handed over him (PW-137) a letter No. 136/3/1/75/CIA-1 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 667 dated 08.02.1975 addressed to the Director, CFSL. He testified that he could identify the writing and signature of SP, CBI, since he had seen him writing and signing. He replied that the contents of this letter were dictated by SP, CBI in his presence and this letter was signed by him in his presence. He answered that Ex.PW-137/A is the same letter, which was dictated by SP, CBI in his presence. He identified the signature of SP, CBI at Point "A". He replied that the endorsement at Point "B" on this letter was correctly made by him with his signature and date. He brought these parcels to Delhi and handed them over to Director, CFSL, New Delhi in his office. He testified that no one tampered with these articles during the period, they remained in his custody.
593. PW-51 Sh. N.G. Kundu deposed that he has been associated with Department of Explosives since 1961 and joined the Department of Explosives as Assistant Inspector Explosive on 23.5.1961 at Calcutta. On 04.01.1975, he reached Samastipur by Mithila Express on requisition from ASP, Railway Police. He visited the Rostrum constructed on the Platform No. 3 at Samastipur Railway Station for inauguration of the ceremony of BG Lines in company with Sh. Sarju Roy, SRP and Sh. K.D. Singh, DSP, CID. He again visited the place of occurrence on 05.01.1975 with the same persons, who were with him earlier day. He found some metallic splinters on the Rostrum such as base plug, one striker with its spring, one piece of soft lead having impression of spring, about 50 pieces of cast iron splinters and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 668 remnants of Ignitors etc. He also noticed a big hole of six feet on the Rostrum. A few metallic splinters were also found embedded on the wooden sleepers. Gaddas, Dari and something like the same were found spread on the Rostrum. He made a request to the police on 04.01.1975 to seize all the articles lying on the Rostrum after observing necessary formalities to enable him to examine them for giving his final and firm opinion. He also advised the police on 05.01.1975 to take wooden scrapping from those sleepers, where a few pieces of splinters were embedded. He testified that at the time of his visit at the spot on 05.01.1975, he found a l ever, which appeared to be a part of grenade lying about 12 feet from the Eastern edges of the Rostrum along the side of the seat of explosion and this lever was found in the Dari, which was rolled over and lying in that position. He also found two pieces of cast iron splinters. He advised the police to seize all these articles to enable him to examine the same for giving his opinion. He submitted his preliminary report to DSP, CID Sh. K.D. Singh after physical examination of the spot. He proved his Preliminary Report Ex.PW-51/A, which is in his handwriting and bears his signatures. He opined that the hand grenade was "of service origin", had been used to cause the explosion there. He did not have instruments and facilities with him to do the chemical test at the spot while giving his preliminary opinion. Therefore, he requested the police authorities to send the above said articles to the office of Deputy Controller of Explosive, East Circle, Calcutta for further CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 669 examination. PW-51 further testified that these exhibits/articles were received on 09.01.1975 through Sh. Ram Pujan Singh (PW-149) of Samastipur GRP in sealed packets along with a letter of DSP, CID, Bihar dated 06.01.1975 duly forwarded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur vide Memo No. 5 dated 07.01.1975. He brought this letter with him and forwarding note. He further deposed that Sh. R.P. Malhotra (PW-138) was Deputy Controller of Explosive and working under him in January 1975. He had seen him writing and signing and he is in a position to identify his handwriting and signatures. The receipt of the exhibits and letters was given by Sh. R.P. Malhotra. Seal of the exhibits were checked by him with reference to specimen of the seal available on the forwarding letter, which tallied and was intact. For the purpose of examining the articles, he gave the following marking:-
A One Base Plug
B One striker with its spring
C One piece of soft metal having impression of spring
D Fifty pieces of cast iron splinters.
E Remnants of Ignitors Set.
F Scrapings from wooden plank from the "Seat" of
explosion
G One piece of lever, and
H Two pieces of cast iron splinters
594. Ex.PW-51/A is Preliminary handwritten Report dated
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 670 05.01.1975 of Sh. N.G. Kundu, mentioning the fact of visit at the spot on 04.01.1975 and 05.01.1975 and recovery of the above said items. Ex.PW-51/A is available in Folder R-14.
595. PW-51 further deposed that he handed over all these exhibits to the office of Chemical Examiner attached to the Chemical Laboratory in the Department of Explosive on 16.01.1975 along with his Memo for chemical examination. He received the Report No. LA-2585 dated 27.01.1975. At that time, Sh. A. Ray was the Assistant Chemical Examiner, who has signed Report. He deposed that he would be in a position to identify the signatures of Sh. A. Ray, since he (A. Ray) was working under him and he (PW-51) had seen him writing and signing. He proved the carbon copy of the Report Ex.PW-51/B, which bears the signatures of Sh. A. Ray at Point "A". He further testified that based on the physical examination of the place of occurrence of explosive and exhibits seized (A to H as mentioned above) and after the report of chemical examiner, he opined that except exhibit Mark-F, others were remnants of exploded hand grenade containing T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro-Toluene) and this was of the "service origin" and such hand grenade could endanger human life on explosion. The exhibit Mark-F i.e. wooden scrapping was involved in an explosion caused by T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro-Toluene). He submitted his original report to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur along with Chemical Examiner Report on 01.02.1975. Ex.PW-51/C is the carbon copy of correct Report, which bears his signatures. The copy of his report was sent to Sh. Harbans CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 671 Singh, SP. He also deposed that most probably the explosion was on the top surface of the Rostrum at the spot.
596. Ex.PW-51/B is the carbon copy of the report of Sh. A. Ray, Chemical Examiner dated 27.01.1975 and after examining the exhibits found at the Samastipur Railway Station Mark "A" to "H", he was of the opinion that T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro-Toluene) was found in the items "D", "F" and "H". Ex.PW-51/B is available in Folder R-2. Ex.PW- 51/C is the Report dated 01.02.1975 of Sh. N.G. Kundu (PW-51) to the effect that on 04.01.1975, he visited the site of explosion i.e. specially constructed Rostrum on Platform No. 3, Samastipur Railway Station and on his instructions the before said exhibits were seized by the Police, which have been marked by him A to H and these exhibits were received in their office on 09.01.1975. In his report, he has mentioned that these items except "F" were the remnants of an exploded hand grenade containing T.N.T. and was of the service origin and such hand grenade could endanger human life on explosion. Ex.PW-51/C is available in Folder R-14.
597. Regarding his visit and examination of the articles at the house of Mahadev Sahu, Assistant Account Officer, North Eastern Railway, PW-51 further deposed that he visited bungalow of Mahadev Sahu, Assistant Account Officer/North Eastern Railway, Samastipur along with Sh. Chhaju Roy, SRP and K.D. Singh, DSP, CID on 04.1.1975. He found within that house some remnants of explosives of same type, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 672 which had exploded on the Rostrum of Platform No. 3, Samastipur. He deposed that mostly the remnants were found in two rooms of the house of Sh. Sahu and most of them in the store room. The remnants were consisting of base-plug, striker with a spring, remnants of Ignitor Set, pin and lever and 40 pieces of cast iron splinters. He also found pin and lever and some pieces of such cast iron splinters in the adjoining room of the store room. There was a door in between these two rooms. He advised the Police Officers to seize the said exhibits after observing legal formalities and send the same to the office of Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, East Circle, Calcutta for examination in the laboratory. He gave his Preliminary Report Ex.PW-51/D on 05.1.1975 which is in his handwriting and bears his signatures. He gave this report to Sh. K.D. Singh, DSP, CID, Patna. He also deposed that a sealed packet along with a letter dated 6.1.1975 Mark PW-51/B was received on 09.1.1975 by Sh. R.P. Malhotra. It was duly forwarded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur vide memo dated 07.01.1975. He identified the signatures of Sh. R.P. Malhotra on copy of the receipt Mark PW-51/C. He deposed that seals of the packet were intact which tallied with the facsimile of the seal available on Mark PW-51/B and sealed parcel was opened by him, which was found containing articles base-plug, striker with a spring, remnants of Igniter Sets, safety pin and lever and 40 pieces of cast iron splinters, and these exhibits were handed over to Assistant Chemical Examiner Sh. A. Roy along with memo. He (PW-51) CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 673 received Chemical Examiner Report Ex.PW-51/E on 29.1.1975 and as per the opinion of Chemical Examiner, those exhibits were found to be remnants of the hand grenade containing T.N.T. and such hand grenade could endanger life on explosion. He deposed that Ex.PW- 51/F is the carbon copy of his correct Report dated 01.2.1975 and bear his signatures at point 'A'. As per this report Ex.PW-51/F, Sh. N.G. Kundu has expressed his opinion that the above said articles have the remnants of exploded hand grenade containing Tri-nitro-toluene (T.N.T) and such a grenade could endanger life on explosion. (Mark PW-51/B and Mark PW-51/C are available in Folder R-2).
598. Ex.PW-51/D is Preliminary handwritten Report dated 05.01.1975 of Sh. N.G. Kundu, mentioning the fact of visit at the spot on 04.01.1975 i.e. at the house of Sh. Mahadev Sahu and recovery of the above said items. Ex.PW-51/D is available in Folder R-14. Ex.PW-51/E is the carbon copy of the report of Sh. A. Ray, Chemical Examiner dated 29.01.1975 and after examining the exhibits found at the house of Mahadev Sahu at Samastipur Mark "A" to "E", he was of the opinion that T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro-Toluene) was found in the items "A" and "E". Ex.PW-51/E is available in Folder R-2. Ex.PW-51/F is the Report dated 01.02.1975 of Sh. N.G. Kundu (PW-51) to the effect that he visited the residence of Sh. Mahadev Sahu on 04.01.1975 and on his instructions the before said exhibits were seized by the Police, which have been marked by him A to E and these exhibits were CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 674 received in their office on 09.01.1975. In his report, he has mentioned that these items were the remnants of a exploded hand grenade containing T.N.T. and was of the service original and such hand grenade could endanger human life on explosion. Ex.PW-51/F is available in Folder R-14.
599. In his cross-examination, PW-51 has denied the suggestion that he had made up his mind at the spot in connivance with the CBI. He volunteered that at that time no CBI men was present at the spot. He further answered that after examining the scene of explosion, remnants and conducting local enquiry, he came to the conclusion that the remnants were of hand grenades. He has given his both reports in his handwriting at Samastipur itself. He further replied that the remnants were received in their Calcutta office in sealed parcels. He had personally broken the seal and checked the exhibits in the parcel with reference to the details, which were then handed over by him personally to the Assistant Chemical Examiner for chemical examination. Those remnants were again sealed with their seal along with the copy of the report of Assistant Chemical Examiner. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that his final report is based on his physical examination of the remnants and also his inspection at the spot and report of Assistant Chemical Examiner. He could not detect any pin in the remnants of the hand grenade, which exploded on the Platform. He has denied the suggestion that his purpose of visit the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 675 spot was only to find the lever. He explained that purpose was to find the other splinters.
600. PW-149 Sh. Ram Pujan Ram, Constable deposed that in January 1975, he was posted in GRP at Samastipur and in those days Sh. Nageshwar Prasad Sinha (SI) was their Incharge. He testified that DSP, CID of Samastipur Sh. Krishan Dev Prashad Singh was investigating the case relating to death of Sh. L.N. Mishra. Six or seven days after the occurrence, he took two sealed packets and two open letters in the office of Explosive at Chaurangi Road, Calcutta. Those articles were given to him by an officer of Police Station Samastipur. He delivered two sealed packets and two letters in the office of Controller of Explosive, Chaurangi Road, Calcutta. No one tampered the case property during the period, it remained in his possession. He had given the parcels containing the case property against the receipts Ex.PW-138/D and Ex.PW-138/E, which he obtained from the office of Controller of Explosive. In his cross- examination, it is found that he did not know the name of the official to whom he delivered the case property in the office of Controller of Explosive. He admitted that he was given duly stamped receipts from the office of Controller of Explosive, Calcutta on 09.01.1975 after he delivered the case property.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 676
601. A conjoint reading of the deposition of PW-72, PW-73 and PW- 51 reflect that they visited the site of crime at Platform No. 3, Samastipur Railway Station on 04.01.1975 and 05.01.1975, where apart from other articles like mattresses, pillows etc., they found remnants of the bomb consisting of base plug, striker with a spring, remnants of Ignitor Set, pin and lever and 40 pieces of cast iron splinters. Seizure list Ex.PW-72/A and Ex.PW-73/A were prepared by the CID Officer. On the direction of the PW-51, those remnants of the bomb were sent to the Controller of Explosive at Calcutta through PW-149. At the spot, PW-51 has given his Preliminary Report Ex.PW-51/A. It is also evident from the statement of PW-51 that he visited the house of Mahadev Sahu on 04.01.1975 and there also he found similar remnants of the bomb and on his directions those remnants were collected by the Police officials and the same were also sent by a separate letter to the Controller of Explosive at Calcutta through PW-149. As per the reports of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PW-51/B pertaining to remnants collected from the Platform No. 3 of Samastipur Railway Station and on chemical examination, he found items No. "D", "F" and "H" containing T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro-Toluene). Similarly vide report Ex.PW-51/E pertaining to remnants collected from the house of Mahadev Sahu at Samastipur and on chemical examination, he found items No. "A" and "E" containing T.N.T. (Tri- Nitro-Toluene). Both these reports of Sh. A. Ray, Assistant Chemical Examiner have been proved to be in his handwriting by PW-51, who CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 677 had seen him writing and signing. Furthermore, PW-51 has also given his opinion based on his spot inspection, remnants seen by him at the spot of crime and report of Assistant Chemical Examiner, which are Ex.PW-51/C (pertaining to Platform No. 3) and Ex.PW-51/F (house of Mahadev Sahu). Both these opinions of the expert reveal that the remnants found at both the places containing T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro- Toluene) and on explosion this could endanger human life. The opinion expressed in the reports is not rebutted by any evidence nor did cross-examination shatter the opinion of the expert that the remnants were not collected from the spot.
53) Owning the cause of the crime.
602. The prosecution has presented certain material before this court by way of documentary evidence by which, another link in the chain of the events could be attributed to accused persons charge sheeted. The documentary evidence are Manuscript in Hindi Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) and a printed pamphlet in Hindi Ex.PW-20/A. The pamphlet and the manuscript were found in the office of UNI, Patna Bureau on the very next day of the crime committed at the Platform No. 3, Samastipur Railway Station. The evidence available on record regarding the collection of the evidence and the ratification of the same through the prosecution witnesses and linking it with the accused is to be analyzed in the totality of the circumstances presented by the prosecution. This CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 678 documentary evidence was found in the office of UNI. In order to establish the same, the prosecution has examined PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmad, Staff Reporter of UNI, PW-21 Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha, Bureau Manager, PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra, Journalist attached to the Patriot and the Link and the seizure of the same were conducted by Sh. K.N. Tiwari (PW-124), Inspector of Police, CBI.
603. PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmad deposed that he was working as staff reporter in January 1975 in UNI, Patna Bureau and during those days Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21) was the Chief of their Bureau and both of them were working in the same office. He knew Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22), who was special correspondent of "Patriot" and "Link" papers at Patna. He testified that "Patriot" is daily newspaper while "Link" is a weekly and both were published from Delhi. In the month of January 1975, Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-
22) was having his office at Patna, who was a regular visitor to their office. On 03.1.1975 (afternoon) at about 2.00 or 3.00 PM while he was present along with Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21) in his office, a manuscript Ex.PW-2/B and a printed leaflet (Ex.PW-20/A) were seen by them and both these papers were found tagged. He saw these papers during sorting process and he had shown them to the Bureau Chief Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21) who, after going through those papers, asked him to keep the same with him and next day i.e. 04.1.1975, Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22) came in their office. During discussion, there was a reference of these two documents and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 679 the same were shown to Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22), who had also gone through the contents that day and sent a report for "Patriot" and "Link" but the documents remained in his custody. He deposed that in July 1975, CBI officials came to his office to enquire whether any material was received in their office showing that anyone owned responsibility for L.N. Mishra murder case and he replied that he would try to recollect. He (PW-20) took out old bundle from the almirah and during checking, he found Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) and Ex.PW- 20/A in the bundle for January 1975 and these two documents were taken into possession by CBI Officers vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW- 20/B which bears his signatures at point A and that of Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) at point B and one Sh. Dhaneshwar Singh at point C and CBI officials also obtained their signatures on Ex.PW-2B and Ex.PW- 20/A at points A, B & C. (Ex.PW-2/B is available in Folder R-4. Ex.PW-
20/A and Ex.PW-20/B are available in Folder R-13).
604. The object of cross-examination by the accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand of PW-20 seems to elicit from this witness that this press material spoken to by the witness is implanted by the CBI. In a direct reply, this witness had stated that it was never in his experience that anyone from the CBI could come to their office and place the document on their table. It is also elicited from this witness that he is unable to say as to who placed the material from the public. It is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 680 common prudence that the Fourth Estate (Press and Media House) do have their drop-in boxes or the receipt counters from where any material, which the public intend to get published through the media are collected day in and day out. Anyone is free to drop any material, which they intend to get published for which the media houses generally do not issue any receipts nor do maintain any inward or outward register. Furthermore, it is very important to note that by a catena of decisions the Journalists are recognized of their immunity to reveal the source of information. Keeping this in mind the cross- examination elicited that "we as journalists do not give information to the police about the material received by us and it was not signed" is to be understood. This witness has further stated "we treat the press material as confidential unless it is published". This answer goes totally negative to the idea of the cross-examination. However, it is seen from the cross-examination that the Journalists in house namely D.N. Jha, Chander Mohan Mishra had discussed about these letters. Thus, the line of cross-examination does not go to shatter that these material found in the office of UNI had emanated from there. The accused could not elicit anything contrary to show that these letters sprang up from somewhere else than UNI. Thus, this source of the same is proved on record as emanating from UNI from where it was dropped by someone and collected during investigation. The line of cross-examination, suggests that it was the CBI, which got it planted in the office of UNI, does not find any ground, reason being that CBI CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 681 came in picture only after 10.01.1975, whereas these documents were dropped in the office of UNI on the next day of incident i.e. 03.01.1975. On the other hand, it is elicited that PW-20 has shown these letters to Chander Mohan Mishra when D.N. Jha mentioned about these documents on 03.01.1975 and that these documents were in the almirah, when Chander Mohan Mishra came to their office. The other accused have chosen not to cross-examine this witness.
605. The Manuscript in Hindi Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) seized from the Office of UNI reads as under:-
सश ांितकार छा संघ
ैस-साम ी
सम तीपुर बम कांड सश ा तका रय ारा
यथा थितवाद एवं शासन तं पर ारंिभक सश आघात
है। इस आघात का दायरा मशः बढ़ता जाएगा जब तक क रा
क शासन यव था नैितक के हाथ म नह ं चली आती।
यह देश जतना गाँधी-गौतम का है उससे कह ं अिधक
राम और कृ ण का है -उसी राम और कृ ण का ज ह ने अ याय,
अ याचार एवं शोषण के खलाफ न केवल शंखनाद कया था
ब क नैितक को एक मंच पर एक कर उनको वरोिधय से
वजय दलाने म अगुवाई भी क थी। अतएव शांितपूण िनह थे, िनद ष छा क ह या कर अ हंसा क दहाई ु देना मा एक ढकोसला है।
देश क एकछ शासक ीमती इ दरा गाँधी को भी यह
प कर देना चाहते ह क यह व लवकार आ दोलन अदमनीय
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 682 एवं अजेय है। इसके दमन क सभी चे ाएँ इस महान यास क जड़ मजबूत करगी एवं इसक शाखा- शाखाएँ सभी दशाओं म फैलती जाएँगी। हम सी.आई.ड ., पुिलस, यायालय आ द के अिधका रय को भी यह साफ बता देना चाहते ह क सरकार ारा उठाए गए कसी भी दमना मक कारवाई म शर क होकर अपने ऊपर खतरा न उठाएँ। ा तका रय के खलाफ स य सब से िगन-िगन कर एवं चुन-चुन कर बदला िलया जाएगा।
भी म पतामह, ोणाचाया द पांडव ारा नह ं ब से गए थे।
ीमती इ दरा गाँधी से हम अपील करगे क वह
ाचार , बेइ मान का साथ छोड़कर नीितवाद एवं मानववाद
त व के सहयोग से गर बी एवं शोषण के खलाफ अ वल ब
सं ाम ारंभ कर। ित हंसा मक एवं दमना मक ख काफ
महँगा पड़ेगा। य द वे वतमान रवैये को नह ं बदलती ह तो उनक मौत शह द क भाँित न होकर पापी क तरह होगी।
जनता से हमार अपील है क वह उन सब के नाम
विभ न मा यम से घो षत कर जनके कारण उसका जीवन
तबाह एवं बबाद हो रहा है। पर तु इसम य गत श ुता,
सा दाियक मनोमािल य स यक संक ण भावनाओं का कोई
थान नह ं होना चा हए।
606. Its English translation reads as under: -
Armed Revolutionary Students Association Press-matter Samastipur bomb blast is an initial strong jolt by the armed revolutionaries on status quo and corrupt ruling establishment. The extent of this jolt would gradually distend until the governance of the nation comes in to the hands of moralists.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 683 This country belongs to Ram and Krishna, much more than it belongs Gandhi - Gautam. Rama and Krishna not only blew the conch against injustice, oppression and exploitation, but also drawn the moralists on one platform and led them in getting victory upon opponents. Therefore, it is an paradox to speak volumes of non-violence on one hand while killing the peaceful, unarmed and innocent students.
It is hereby made clear to despotic ruler Smt. Indira Gandhi that the revolutionary movement is irrepressible and invincible. All the attempts of its suppression will strengthen the roots of this great movement and its branches - offshoots would spread in all directions. We also want to make it clear to the officers of C.I.D., Police and Courts etc. that they shouldn't take risk by participating in the suppressive actions of the Government and invite trouble for them. All those active in opposing the revolutionaries would be targeted by selective methods to avenge their actions. Pandavas did not spare even Bhishmpitamah, Dronacharya and others.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 684 We appeal to Mrs. Indira Gandhi to be away from the corrupt and dishonest and to associate with the moralists and humanists forces to initiate war without any delay against the poverty and oppression.
Vindictive and oppressive attitudes would turn out more dear. If she doesn't change her present attitude, her death would be that of a sinner rather than a martyr. We appeal to the public to declare by all means the names of all those who are responsible for ruining and destroying their life. But there be not any place for personal enmity, communal ill-will, due narrow emotions.")
607. The above said manuscript Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) was found tagged with a printed pamphlet in Hindi Ex.PW-20/A which reads as under: -
"अमर सश ा त अमर छा नवचेतना
क युिन ट , पुिलस और फौज के सहारे जोर-जु म का
च चलाकर जन- वरोधी -सरकार को स ा
म रखने क कोई भी सा जश
नाकामयाब होगी
1. ाचार , कपटाचार एवं द ु र अिधकार गण
2. बुजुवा अथ- यव था एवं िश ा- यव था क पोषक
सरकार इसके नेता, मं ी एवं वधायकगण तथा
3. सी-दलाल, देश ोह , ग ार क युिन ट के
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 685 काले कारनाम का एक ह द ड मौत अ हंसा क पाखंड पुजा रन सरकार ारा िनद ष, िनह थे छा -युवक क गोली से ह या का भरपूर बदला िलया जाएगा नैितकता एवं मानवता क आधारिशला पर नये भारत के िनमाण म सतत ् संल न सश ा तकार छा संघ"
608. Its English translation is as under:-
Long live Armed Revolution Long live- Students Renaissance Any conspiracy and ploy to remain in power for running corrupt and anti-people government by coercion and oppression with the help of communists, police and army Shall fail The only penalty for the misdeeds of
1. Corrupt, immoral and bad-conduct officers
2. The government sponsored Bourgeois economy and education-system, its leaders, ministers and Legislators and
3. Russian-agents, traitors-unpatriotic communists-shall be Death Thorough retaliation would be initiated for the killing of unarmed innocent students by the bullets of hypocratic non-violence government.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 686 Ever committed in creating a new Bharat based on morality and humanity Shashastra Krantikari Chhatra Sangh Armed Revolutionary Students Association"
609. PW-21 Dhariya Nand Jha deposed that in the year 1975, he was working as Bureau Manager, UNI, Patna and Farzand Ahmad (PW-
20) was working as staff reporter in January 1975 in their office and both of them used to sit in the same office. During those days Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22) was special correspondent for Patriot & Link papers at Patna and he did not have his office. He (PW-22) often used to visit their office. On 03.1.1975, between 2.00 and 3.00 PM, while he was present in his office at Patna with Farzand Ahmad (PW-20), the documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A were given to him that day by Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) and after a cursory look on these two documents, he asked Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) to keep these two documents with him. Next day on 04.1.1975, Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22) came in his office and there was a general discussion among them about the receipt of these two documents previous day in their office and these two documents were shown to Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22) by Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20). These documents were returned by Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22) after going through the same and he asked Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-
20) to keep them in his custody. He did not give any news item CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 687 through UNI in respect of these two documents as there was no signature of any proper authority thereon and there was no print line on Ex.PW-20/A. He deposed that these two documents were taken into possession by CBI officials in their office vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B and CBI officials came in their office for tracing the news published in "Link weekly" and these two documents were given to CBI officials by Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) in his presence and that of UNI correspondent of Samastipur Sh. Dhaneshwar Singh. He testified that Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B bears his signatures at point B with date 19.7.75 and documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A were signed by him, Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20), and Dhaneshwar Singh at points B, A & C respectively.
610. The cross-examination revolved around minute details and it only fortifies that the CBI visited the office of PW-21 and inquired about any documents from the witness. The witness volunteered that CBI firstly visited Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra and only through him, after getting the information that a news item was published in "The Link", which the CBI had shown to PW-21 also. This witness had replied the cross-examination that he did not inform the CBI about the publication in "The Link". It is also elicited that Chander Mohan Mishra was not present when CBI visited. The cross-examination of this witness further creates a bonding link with the evidence of PW-20 that Chander Mohan Mishra earlier met PW-20 before publishing the news item in "The Link". Certain unwanted questions were put to this CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 688 witness whether the manuscript contained the name of L.N. Mishra, the date, the mention of a pistol and the number of people, taking part in the incident, the sender of the manuscript, etc. When the document itself is self-explanatory, the line of cross-examination does not go to discredit the version of this witness. In the cross-examination, the accused further stressed the need of identification of these documents, which the witness had identified. Thus the line of cross examination does not go to show that these documents are fabricated or implanted. The non-mentioning by him about the print line unavailable in his previous statement Ex.PW-21/DA and this omission does not strike at the root of the credibility of this witness since this witness had sustained the extensive cross-examination. The accused Gopalji and Ranjan Dwivedi did not choose to cross-examine this witness.
611. PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra deposed that in January 1975, he was attached to daily paper "Patriot" and weekly magazine "Link" and he has been working for "Link weekly" since the year 1960. He knew Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21) who was his friend and a co-professional and in January, 1975, Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) was having his office at Fraser Road, Patna and he often used to visit Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) in his office in connection with his professional work, and on 4.1.1975, he visited his office and he found Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) and Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) in their office and Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) told him that a very interesting paper was received in connection with L.N. Mishra murder case and on his request, Sh.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 689 D.N. Jha (PW-21) asked Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) to give him the paper who had shown two leaflets Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A and after going through the same he returned to Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) and prepared a report and sent the same to the paper "Link Weekly"
and the material in respect of these two documents was published in the news item encircled with red pencil on page 11 of "Link Weekly"
dated 12.1.1975 and this news item is the same which was sent by him from Patna for publication and the news item is Ex.PW-22/A and the portion in inverted coma in this news item were taken by him from these two documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A.
612. This witness was grilled at length in cross-examination, but could elicit only futile and unwanted swagger like the questions relating to the Chairman of "The Link" Organisation suggesting Ms. Aruna Asaf Ali and this witness belonging to CPI and the leaflet Ex.PW-20/A being against the communists and the witness not mentioned about the communists in publication. Further unwanted cross-examination is done to elicit that this Journalist along with D.N. Jha were at Samastipur, when L.N. Mishra visited and they sat in the Press enclosure and the same were replied in the positive by the witness. The cross-examination is un-understandable as regards the witness travelling along with L.N. Mishra to Patna in a Saloon. Further cross-examination of this witness revealed that the CBI officers did not contact him prior to the publication of the news item in "The Link" weekly. The entire cross-examination does not go to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 690 shake the testimony of the witness about his perusing the documents retrieved at UNI office, the discussion among the journalists and the subsequent publication of the story in "The Link" magazine dated 12.01.1975. This Journalist was unnecessarily put to shame by suggesting that he claimed air fare from the court. It is also elicited that due to the paucity of time, he travelled by the air otherwise he would leave Patna one day earlier. He was very humble in submitting that in case the court was not to grant him air fare, the balance amount would be borne by him. This shows his politeness and sobriety. Further, he is neither a stock witness nor an interested witness and he has no axe to grind against the accused persons. The prolix cross- examination, which runs into 10 pages by two accused spread on two dates, does not help them to disbelieve this witness, who was not cross-examined by other three accused persons despite opportunities.
613. As deposed by PW-22, the news item Ex.PW-22/A published in the weekly magazine "LINK" dated 12.1.1975 at page 11 reads as under: -
"Threat to P.M. Who killed Lalit Narayan Mishra? This is not as important a question as who got him killed. In this connection, the reaction of a section of the youth of Bihar who hailed the assassination was revealing. The day he died, a handwritten leaflet was distributed to the press by the so-called CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 691 "Sashatra Krantikari Chhatra Sangh" in Patna which said, "The Samastipur incident was only the first effective attack by the armed revolutionaries on the status quoists and the corrupt administrative machinery." It asked Prime Minister Indira Gandhi "to give up repressive measures" which would prove "costly" for her. "If she does not change her present attitude she will not die the death of a martyr but of a sinner (papi)." In an attached printed leaflet, it said that corrupt officials, minister, legislators and communists would all have to face death."
614. These two documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A were taken into possession by PW-124 Sh. K.N. Tiwari. He deposed that in January 1975, he was working as Inspector of Police with CBI at Shilong, and in January 1975, on the instructions from the Head Office of CBI, New Delhi, he went to Samastipur on 10.1.1975 in connection with the investigation of L.N. Mishra case and reported to Harbans Singh, SP, CBI who directed him to assist Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Chief Investigation officer of the case and he was acting under the specific instructions of Sh. Ahuja. He stated that on 19.7.1975, he seized Hindi handwritten pamphlets Ex.PW-2/B from Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) of UNI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B which bears CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 692 his signatures at point D, signatures of Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) at point A, of Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) at point B and Sh. Dhaneshwar Singh at point C. This seizure memo Ex.PW-20/B dated 19.7.1975 is available in Folder R-13 and as per this memo, two documents i.e. manuscript in Hindi bearing "SASHATRA KRANTIKARI CHHATRA SANGH- PRESS SAMAGRI" (one sheet) and one printed leaflet of Sashstra Krantikari Sangh were seized from Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) and this is signed by Sh. Farzand Ahmed at point A, Sh. D.N. Jha at point B and Sh. Dhaneshwar Singh at point C. CBI officer Sh. K.N. Tiwari signed it at point D.
615. The cross-examination of this witness is lengthy with regard to his association in the investigation on different dates, but for the purposes of the subject in topic we are concerned with the proceedings conducted by him during investigation, while seizing these two documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A under seizure memo Ex.PW- 20/B. The cross-examination simply fortifies that the Seizure Memo was prepared in the presence of the witness namely Farzand Ahmad and that when the Inspector visited the UNI office, Farzand Ahmad and D.N. Jha were present. The cross-examination does not go to discredit the Seizure and the proceedings of the day, while the material concerning the manuscript and the pamphlets were seized. The evidence of this witness corroborates the say of PW-20 Farzand Ahmad, PW-21 D.N. Jha and PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 693
54) Tracing the handwriting/author of the manuscript Ex.PW-2/B.
616. Having thus found that the seizure of these two documents corroborated with the oral testimony of witnesses PW-20 to PW-22 and PW-124, now the pivotal question is to find out as to how to link the same to the accused persons. The document-manuscript is very significant and vital to connect the link to the accused Santoshanand. This document is vital since the same was dropped in the office of UNI, Patna, the very next day of the gruesome incident at Samastipur Railway Station having a quotation in the manuscript Ex.PW-2/B referring to Samastipur bomb blast.
617. PW-2 deposed that Santoshanand used to write in his presence and he can identify his signatures and writing. He stayed with Santoshanand up to the end of 1972. He further testified that the Press Samagri encircled red Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), being the manuscript seized, which is referred in the preceding paragraphs and the writing Ex.PW- 2/C (Q-2), being the scribbling found on the Note Book of Ashok Lodge/Ashok Niketan, Patna, proved through PW-23, are in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. He deposed that during his 3 years stay at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi, he used to work on press and distribute the publications and whatever was written in the handwriting of Santoshanand, used to be composed by him for the press. He also identified the writing in Hindi encircled with red mark Q-3 on slip Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A) in the handwriting of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 694 accused Santoshanand. This slip Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A) was found recovered in the search carried at the house of accused Gopalji at Chautham on 17.05.1975 by PW-134 in the presence PW-91.
618. PW-2 deposed that by the end of 1969, he received a telegram from Aacharya Advetanand to go to Ranchi. Aacharya Advetanand was the Financial Secretary of Proutist Forum of India, a wing of Anand Marg and its head office was at D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. PW-2 stayed at Ranchi for a day or two and was brought to New Delhi by Advetanand. On the ground floor of D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi, there was a printing press and on 1st Floor, the office of Proutist Forum of India was there. The same was also used for boarding and lodging. At New Delhi, he was introduced to Santoshanand by Advetanand. At that time, accused Santoshanand was working as Editor of newspaper 'Prout' and magazine 'Education & Culture'. PW-2 testified that accused Santoshanand used to write in his presence and thus able to identify his signatures and handwriting. He also identified the writing Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) in blue circle and the words are in the handwriting of Santoshanand which are available in the copy book pertaining to Ashok Niketan Ex.P-6 (also Ex.PW- 23/A). At page no.25 of his deposition he further testified that the Slip Ex.PW-2/M (Q-3) (also Ex.PW-33/A) is in the handwriting of Santoshanand. He identified the signatures written as 'Vinod' and the date written beneath the signatures as '15.11.73', which could also be read as '74' to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. Perusal CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 695 of the document Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M (Q-3) clearly reflects the date to be 15.11.1974.
619. The minute scrutiny of the lengthy cross-examination of PW-2, running into 350 pages, does not shatter the deposed ability of PW-2 in recognising, identifying the signatures, the handwriting of Santoshanand. There has been no cross-examination on his competence. There is no cross-examination to put forth that the writings found in Ex.PW-2/B, Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/M are not in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that before the advent of computers into the printing technology, it was always the compositors who used to do all the composition by sorting out the individual letters of different fonts from the stock of metal letters or by typing them lino-type, so that the matter is composed and made ready for printing. It is the primary duty of a compositor to choose and compose the letters according to the manuscript. The compositor used to compose all the letters into several lines and would produce a galley. Such galleys are taken out and by printing ink and replica is produced. Thus the initial copy is produced before it is sent for proof reading. After such proof reading, the compositor used to correct the same. In such circumstances, a compositor was fully acquainted of the scribbling, be it any manner or speed of any author. Alas ! The days of composition, galleys, printing copy, proof reading and all such wonderful methods of precision in writing and publication went into oblivion after the new era of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 696 computers and information technology. In the instant case, the occupation of PW-2 in the printing press of the publications "Prout" and "Education & Culture", was that of a compositor as deposed by him. Accused Santoshanand had been the editor of both these publications. Thus, PW-2 was very much acquainted, familiar and knowledgeable with regard to every type of scribbling by his editor Santoshanand. Thus, the testimony of PW-2 that he was capable of identifying the writings of Santoshanand is highly trustworthy, dependable and cogent. This observation is warranted in the background of the accused having not cross-examined with regard to his competency and there being no cross-examination elicited to establish that the writings found in Ex.PW-2/B, Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/M are not in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. Thus, this court can simply do away with any other evidence as superfluous, however the prosecution has examined some more independent witnesses also for establishing the handwriting of Santoshanand, which is discussed in the succeeding Paras.
620. The testimony of the approver Vikram (PW-2) that the above said three documents i.e. Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-2/M = Ex.PW-33/A (Q-3) are in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand has been corroborated by PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar. PW-68 deposed that he was posted in Delhi as Finance Secretary. He was also designated as Press and Paper Secretary of PFI. Earlier there was office at premises No. C-18, South Extension-I, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 697 New Delhi and then in D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. Santoshanand, Editor of Hindi Prout, was residing at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. (He correctly identified accused Santoshanand in the court.) He deposed that many workers including Vikram (PW-2) used to distribute the publications and he remained with Santoshanand till he left the organization in January 1972. Santoshanand was working under him and during this period, he had seen Santoshanand writing and signing and he used to write both in English and Hindi and he would be in a position to identify the handwriting of Santoshanand. He identified the writing of Santoshanand Ex.PW-2/B (in Hindi), Ex.PW-2/C (in English), Ex.PW-33/A (in Hindi), mark A-1 to A-72 in Kohinoor Exercise Book mark P-22. (Ex.PW-2/B has writing Q-1, Ex.PW-2/C has writing Q-2 and Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M has writing Q-3.)
621. This witness was also subject to lengthy cross-examination by the accused persons including Santoshanand running into 25 pages spread over four dates. However, nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination on the vital points for which he was examined by the prosecution. The accused persons including Santoshanand have not demolished the competency of this witness to identify the handwriting and signatures of accused Santoshanand. They have also not discredited the witness that he has wrongly identified the persons and the writing of accused Santoshanand on Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-2/M = Ex.PW-33/A (Q-3). The accused CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 698 persons have not denied his status in the cult previously as Chief Training Secretary, Sewa Dharam Mission, Varanasi and then at the headquarter at Purulia or Area Secretary in Bombay or Finance Secretary and Press and Paper Secretary, while posted in Delhi. They have also not discredited his deposition that accused Santoshanand was working under him. They have also not discredited that Vikram used to distribute the publications. The accused Santoshanand has admitted his residence at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi by suggesting to the witness in his cross-examination that he did not have any quarrel with Santoshanand Avadhoot and others while residing in premises D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi, before he left the cult and he had cordial relations with Santoshanand and others during his stay there. Therefore, prosecution through the testimony of PW-68 has undoubtedly proved that the documents Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-2/M = Ex.PW-33/A (Q-3) are in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand.
622. The testimony of the approver (PW-2) has further been corroborated by PW-33 Ujjawal Prakash on the point that the documents Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-33/A (Q-
3) are in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. PW-33 deposed that he joined Anand Marg at Bhagalpur in the year 1957. In the year 1970, Anand Murti sent him to Delhi as Office Secretary of PBI with office at 13, Feroz Shah Road at the residence of Shashi Ranjan MP. Accordingly, he came to Delhi in January 1970 and remained there up CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 699 to October 1971. He deposed that there was one office of PFI (Proutist Forum of India), a wing of Anand Marg at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi and he was a frequent visitor to this premises. The "Prout" daily and magazine "Education & Culture" used to be published from D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. Santoshanand was the Editor of this paper "Prout" and he had seen Santoshanand writing and signing and would be in a position to identify the writing and signatures of accused Santoshanand, present in the Court. His earlier name was Ghanshyam Parsad and Sh. Narinder Narain Verma was his father. Accused Santoshanand used to bring material for "Prout" paper and also used to do writing in his presence and he had seen Santoshanand writing in English and Hindi and identified writings at Ex.PW-2/B (Q-
1), PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-33/A (Q-3) to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. He also correctly identified the accused Santoshanand in the court.
623. In the cross-examination of PW-33, running into 13 pages, the accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand did not challenge his capability to identify the person and handwriting of accused Santoshanand. They have also not challenged and discredited him on his identifying the handwriting of accused Santoshanand on Ex.PW- 2/B (Q-1), PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-33/A (Q-3). However, interestingly, accused Ranjan Dwivedi has given him only a suggestion in the cross-examination that he is not acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 700 The defence has not discredited the testimony of PW-33 that he had been a frequent visitor to the premises D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi, where the office of PFI, a wing of Anand Marg, was situated or that Santoshanand was its Editor or that previous/original name of Santoshanand was Ghanshyam Prasad or that his father's name was Narinder Narain Verma or that his father was working in LIC and as a Journalist. They have also not challenged his capability of identifying Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Gopalji and Ranjan Dwivedi in the court.
624. Therefore, in view of this discussion referred in the preceding Paras, the say of approver PW-2 Jaldhar Dass @ Vikram @ Subir and corroborated by PW-68 Sudhir Kumar Basedar and PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal Prakash, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the manuscript Ex.PW-2/B (Q1) is in the handwriting of accused No.1 Santoshanand. This manuscript Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) along with a printed leaflet Ex.PW-20/A was found in the office of UNI at Patna on the succeeding day i.e. 03.01.1975 after the gruesome incident at Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975, and this manuscript starts by referring Samastipur Bomb Blast and suggesting further threat to the Government, the then Prime Minister Late Smt. Indira Gandhi, Officers of C.I.D, Police and Courts etc. and all those who oppose their cult. The recovery of this document in the office of UNI Patna has also been established by PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmad, PW-21 Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha, PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra and PW-124 Sh. K.N. Tiwari, Inspector of Police, CBI. The possibility of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 701 fabricating this document is also ruled out as the crux of the document Ex.PW-2/B was reported by PW-22 in the renowned magazine "The Link" on 12.01.1975 Ex.PW-22/A, which is supported by the oral testimony of the Author.
625. I have already referred the deposition the approver PW-2, who had identified the writing and signatures as "Vinod" on the Slip Ex.PW-2/M (Q-3) containing writing in Hindi and encircled with red mark Q-3, to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. I have also referred the testimony of PW-68 corroborating the deposition of PW-2 as he has also identified the same to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. I have also referred the deposition of PW-33, who has also identified the said slip in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. However, PW-33 deposed that the portion with red pencil Ex.PW-2/N and marked Q-3 is Ex.PW-33/A. This slip is available in Folder R-5. In fact, this document Ex.PW-33/A had already been exhibited as Ex.PW-2/M in the testimony of PW-2. Obviously, there is a clerical error, when the red portion of the slip Q- 3 was described to be Ex.PW-2/N in his statement instead of Ex.PW- 2/M and a separate exhibit number was also given as Ex.PW-33/A. The record further reveals that actually Ex.PW-2/N is a document of Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank, which has been proved by the deposition of PW-2 and PW-63 Sh. D.K. Maharishi. This Slip Ex.PW- 2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A) is pasted on a plain paper and the pasted slip is encircled with the red pencil and below the writing, the handwriting CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 702 expert has given marking to the slip as Q-3. Here it is pertinent to refer the contents of the Slip Ex.PW-33/A (Ex.PW-2/M) Q-3, which is written in Hindi and reads as under:-
"कृपया पए 3900/- तुरंत भेजने क कृपा कर।
भरत जी इसी वशेष उ े य से आपके पास जा रहे
ह। उनके हाथ से शी भेज चूँ क उ रािश क
त काल ज रत है।
वनोद
दनाँक
15/11/74"
626. Its English translation reads as under:-
"Kindly send Rs. 3900/- at once. Bharatji is coming to you for this particular purpose. As the above amount is needed urgently, send the same by his hand soon.
Vinod Dated 15.11.74"
55) Obtaining Specimen writing of
Santoshanand.
627. The handwriting on these three relevant and material documents Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-2/M (Q-3) have been proved to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand by the testimony of PW-2, PW-23, PW-33 and PW-68. The prosecution has also obtained the opinion of Government Examiner of Questioned CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 703 Documents (GEQD). For this purpose, the Investigation Officer had taken the specimen handwritings and signatures of accused Santoshanand during the investigations. After examining the questioned writing with the specimen handwriting of the questioned documents Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-2/M (Q-
3), GEQD PW-43 Sh. B. Lal has given his opinion that these writings are in the handwriting of the same person. Now I refer the relevant witnesses on the subject.
628. PW-32 Sh. Satnam Singh deposed that on 11.8.1975 he was working as MM, Delhi. On that day, Santoshanand @ Ghanshyam Prasad son of Narendra Narayan Verma was produced before him for taking his specimen writing by some officers. Santoshanand did not raise any objection and gave his specimen writing of his own in his presence on three sheets and he appended his certificate and those sheets are Ex.PW-32/A1 to Ex.PW-32/A3. His correct certificate with his signature appears at Point "A" on all these three sheets. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Arteshanand and Gopalji, he admitted their suggestion that a person is always produced in the court with an application in which request is made for obtaining specimen writing and order is passed on such application to the effect that the person is willing to give specimen writing and thereafter his specimen writing is taken. However, despite opportunity, the accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi did not choose to cross-examine the witness. It is not at all suggested to the witness that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 704 specimen writing of accused Santoshanand was obtained forcibly or by inducement or allurement. The testimony of PW-32 has not been discredited by the accused persons including Santoshanand that Ex.PW-32/A-1 to A-3 does not bear the specimen handwriting of accused Santoshanand. Therefore, from the testimony of PW-32, it has been proved that sheets Ex.PW-32/A-1 to A-3 were voluntarily written by the accused Santoshanand bearing his specimen handwriting.
(Ex.PW-32/A-1 to Ex.PW-32/A3 are available in Folder R-13)
629. PW-29 Sh. K.K. Dey, the then Extra Assistant Director with M/s. Waterways Irrigation & Navigation Directorate, deposed that on 10.7.1975, on the direction of his Director, he accompanied CBI men to their office in R.K. Puram. Accused Santoshanand was called there and thereafter Dy. SP dictated to Santoshanand, who had written the writing on nine or ten sheets in his presence and he (PW-29) has signed all these sheets. These sheets were also signed by his colleague Sh. Naresh Kumar. The witness has identified those nine sheets which are Ex.P-79 (9 sheets) in the summoned file of Sessions Case No. 9 of 1976. The file was brought from Hon'ble High Court brought by LDC and copies thereof are Ex.PW-29/A (9 sheets). He identified accused Santoshanand in the court and stated that at that time he was not sporting the beard, long hair and mustaches. In his cross- examination, he answered that he was sitting on one side of the same table on which Santoshanand was sitting while writing. He had seen CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 705 Santoshanand writing in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that these papers were not written by Santoshanand in his presence.
(Ex.PW-29/A is available in Folder R-15)
630. PW-39 Sh. Rajinder Thukral deposed that in July 1975, he was working as Officer Grade-I with State Bank of India, R.K. Puram Branch, New Delhi. In July, 1975, Dy. SP Sardari Lal, CBI met their Branch Manager, who deputed him and his colleague Sh. B.K. Tuteja. Sh. Rajender Thukral, inter-alia, deposed that specimen handwriting of Santoshanand were taken in his presence and that of Sh. B.K. Tuteja by Sh. Sardari Lal, Dy. SP. He would be in a position to identify Santoshanand and identified him correctly by pointing towards him. He also deposed that at that time accused Santoshanand was in plain clothes and not wearing BHAGWA dress and he did not raise any objection in giving his specimen writing. He identified the writing Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A-10, which accused wrote in his presence and that of Sh. B.K. Tuteja. (Here it is pertinent to mention that learned predecessor of this Court, who recorded deposition of PW-39, has corrected statement of PW-39 at page No.889 under his initials from Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A-10 as Ex.PW-39/L-1 to Ex.PW-39/L-10. However, exhibits mark on the specimen writing remained the same Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A-10 under the signatures of my learned predecessor). He identified his signatures and that of Sh. B.K. Tuteja on all three documents. In his cross- examination by accused Ranjan Dwivedi, PW-39 answered that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 706 Santoshanand was given blank full scape paper. Despite opportunity, PW-39 was not cross-examined by other accused persons including Santoshanand. It is not suggested that Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A- 10 do not bear the specimen handwriting of accused Santoshanand.
(Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A-10 are available in Folder R-13)
631. The opinion of GEQD dated 19.9.1975 Sh. B. Lal is Ex.PW- 43/J (available in Folder R-14). PW-43 Sh. B. Lal has compared the questioned writing Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW- 33/A=Ex.PW-2/M (Q-3) with the specimen writing of the accused Santoshanand Ex.PW-32/A-1 to Ex.PW-32/A-3 (3 sheets) and Ex.PW- 39/A-1 to PW-39/A-10 (S-19 to S-31) and vide his report Ex.PW-43/J, he found that the person who wrote the writing stamped and marked as S-19 to S-31, S-32 to S-44 also wrote the writing similarly marked and stamped Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3. PW-43 proved his report Ex.PW-43/J and he also deposed that the person (Santoshanand) who wrote the writing S-19 to S-31 (Ex.PW-32/A-1 to Ex.PW-32/A-3 and Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A-10) also wrote the writing Q-1 (Ex.PW-2/B), Q-2 (Ex.PW-2/C) and Q-3 (Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M) and all the writings agree in general and in individual habits such as movements which is wrist and forearm combined, pen presentation, pen pressure which is medium and smooth, skill which is superior, relative size and spacing and proportion of letters and similarities in individual habit writing are also found in both the writings.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 707
632. The Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the action of Investigation Officer in obtaining specimen writing and signatures of accused persons during investigation of the case amounts to violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India and they have relied upon a ruling of the Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhvinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 SCC 152. They have also relied upon a full bench judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in Sapan Haldar and Another vs. State, 191 (2012) DLT 225 wherein it has been held that during investigation of a case, neither can the Investigation Officer obtain a sample writing of the accused nor can even a Magistrate so direct.
633. The Ld. Special P.P. on the contrary clarified the position of law by referring to a judgment of the Larger Bench of Eleven Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs. Kathikalu Oghad, (1962) 2 SCR 10 wherein it was held that by giving impressions or specimen handwriting, accused person does not furnish evidence against himself and does not violate Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. This judgment has been followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court again in State of U.P. vs. Boota Singh and others AIR 1978 SC 1770 and relevant extract (Para 41) reads as under :-
"........ Before closing this part of the case, we might advert to an argument advanced before us by Mr. Mulla regarding the specimen signature of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 708 respondent Boota Singh taken by the police during investigation. Mr. Mulla submitted that the act of the investigating officer in taking the specimen signature of the respondent Boota Singh was hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also amounted to testimonial compulsion so as to violate the guarantee contained in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. The matter is no longer res integra and is concluded by a decision of this Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1962) 3 SCR 10 where the court observed as follows (At P.1820 of AIR SC):-
"That is why it must be held that by giving these impressions or specimen handwriting, the accused person does not furnish evidence against himself. So when an accused person is compelled to give a specimen handwriting or impressions of his finger, palm or foot, it may be said that he has been compelled to be a witness; it cannot however be said that he had been compelled to be a witness against himself."
It was also held that merely taking a specimen handwriting does not amount to be giving a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 709 statement so as to be hit by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code.
In view of this decision of the Court, Mr. Mulla did not pursue the point further."
634. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also followed these judgments recently also. In its celebrated judgment titled as State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru 2005 (11) SCC 600, the relevant observations found at Para No. 18 of the judgement calls for attention as under: -
".........This conclusion was reached by the High Court even after excluding the evidence of PW-23, Principal Scientific Officer who confirmed that the signatures on the delivery receipt-Ext. PW-1/6 tallied with his specimen signatures. In this context, a contention was raised before the High Court that in view of Section 27 of POTA, specimen signature should not have been obtained without the permission of the Court. In reply to this contention urged before the High Court, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned senior counsel for the State clarified that on the relevant date, when the specimen signatures of Afzal were obtained, the investigation was not done under the POTA provisions and de hors the provisions of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 710 POTA, there was no legal bar against obtaining the handwriting samples. The learned counsel relied upon by the 11 Judge Bench decision of this Court of State of Bombay v. Kathikalu Oghad 1962 (3) SCR 10 in support of his contention that Article 20 (3) of the Constitution was not infringed by taking the specimen handwriting or signature or thumb impressions of a person in custody. Reference has also drawn to the decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Boota Singh (1979) 1 SCC 31. We find considerable force in this contention advanced by Mr. Gopal Subramanium......................."
635. The latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point is Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India 2011 (2) SCC 490 and straight question before Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether in cases prior to amendment in Cr. PC in 2005, the I.O. has power to obtain specimen writing and Hon'ble Supreme Court answered it in the affirmative and relevant Para reads as under:-
"35. Another question which we have to consider is whether the Police (CBI) had the power under the Criminal Procedure Code to take specimen signature and writing of A3 for examination by the expert. It was pointed out that during investigation, even the Magistrate cannot direct the accused to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 711 give his specimen signature on the asking of the police and only in the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code in 2005, power has been given to the Magistrate to direct any person including the accused to give his specimen signature for the purpose of investigation. Hence, it was pointed out that taking of his signature/writings being per se illegal, the report of the expert cannot be used as evidence against him. To meet the above claim, learned Addl. Solicitor General heavily relied on a 11-Judge Bench decision of this Court in The State of Bombay v. Kathikalu Oghad and Ors., (1962) 3 SCR 10. This larger Bench was constituted in order to re-examine some of the propositions of law laid down by this Court in the case of M.P. Sharma and Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors., (1954) SCR 1077. After adverting to various factual aspects, the larger Bench formulated the following questions for consideration:
"2. ... ... On these facts, the only questions of constitutional importance that this Bench has to determine are; (1) whether by the production of the specimen handwritings - Exs. 27, 28, and 29 - the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 712 accused could be said to have been 'a witness against himself' within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution; and (2) whether the mere fact that when those specimen handwritings had been given, the accused person was in police custody could, by itself, amount to compulsion, apart from any other circumstances which could be urged as vitiating the consent of the accused in giving those specimen handwritings. ... ...
4. ... ... The main question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether a direction given by a Court to an accused person present in Court to give his specimen writing and signature for the purpose of comparison under the provisions of section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act infringes the fundamental right enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
The following conclusion/answers are relevant:
10. ... ... Furnishing evidence" in the latter sense could not have been within the contemplation of the Constitution- makers for the simple reason that
- though they may have intended to protect an accused person from the hazards of self- incrimination, in the light of the English Law on CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 713 the subject - they could not have intended to put obstacles in the way of efficient and effective investigation into crime and of bringing criminals to justice. The taking of impressions or parts of the body of an accused person very often becomes necessary to help the investigation of a crime. It is as much necessary to protect an accused person against being compelled to incriminate himself, as to arm the agents of law and the law courts with legitimate powers to bring offenders to justice. ...
11. ... ... When an accused person is called upon by the Court or any other authority holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a 'personal testimony'. The giving of a 'personal testimony' must depend upon his volition. He can make any kind of statement or may refuse to make any statement. But his finger impressions or his handwriting, in spite of efforts at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 714 amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression 'to be a witness'.
12. ... ... A specimen handwriting or signature or finger impressions by themselves are no testimony at all, being wholly innocuous because they are unchangeable except in rare cases where the ridges of the fingers or the style of writing have been tampered with. They are only materials for comparison in order to lend assurance to the Court that its inference based on other pieces of evidence is reliable. They are neither oral nor documentary evidence but belong to the third category of material evidence which is outside the limit of 'testimony'.
16. In view of these considerations, we have come to the following conclusions :-
(1) An accused person cannot be said to have been compelled to be a witness against himself simply because he made a statement while in police custody, without anything more. In other words, the mere fact of being in police custody at the time when the statement in question was made would not, by itself, as a proposition of law, lend itself to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 715 the inference that the accused was compelled to make the statement, though that fact, in conjunction with other circumstances disclosed in evidence in a particular case, would be a relevant consideration in an enquiry whether or not the accused person had been compelled to make the impugned statement.
(2) The mere questioning of an accused person by a police officer, resulting in a voluntary statement, which may ultimately turn out to be incriminatory, is not 'compulsion'.
(3) 'To be a witness' is not equivalent to 'furnishing evidence' in its widest significance; that is to say, as including not merely making of oral or written statements but also production of documents or giving materials which may be relevant at a trial to determine the guilt innocence of the accused. (4) Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression 'to be a witness'. (5) 'To be a witness' means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 716 a statement in writing, made or given in Court or otherwise.
(6) 'To be a witness' in its ordinary grammatical sense means giving oral testimony in Court. Case law has gone beyond this strict literal interpretation of the expression which may now bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony in Court or out of Court by a person accused of an offence, orally or in writing.
(7) To bring the statement in question within the prohibition of Article 20(3), the person accused must have stood in the character of an accused person at the time he made the statement. It is not enough that he should become an accused, any time after the statement has been made." In view of the above principles, the procedure adopted by the investigating agency, analyzed and approved by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, cannot be faulted with. In view of oral report of Rolia Soren, PW 4 which was reduced into writing, the evidence of PW 23, two letters dated 01.02.2002 and 02.02.2002 addressed by Mahendra Hembram (A3) to the trial Judge facing his guilt coupled with the other materials, we are CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 717 unable to accept the argument of Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel for Mahendra Hembram (A3) and we confirm the conclusion arrived by the High Court."
636. In view of the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru's case (supra), Kathikalu Oghad Case (Supra) and Dara Singh's case (supra), investigating officer has not committed any illegality in obtaining the specimen writing and signatures of the accused during investigation. Here it is relevant to refer Article 141 of the "Constitution of India" which reads as under:-
"Article 141 - Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts: the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."
637. It is mandated upon every court of law, the tribunals throughout the country to follow the rulings and the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, in the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the arguments advanced by the defence that the accused was compelled to give the specimen writings violating the law, cannot be borrowed to declare the acts of investigation as opposed to law. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that in the cross- examination of Magistrate before whom the specimen writings were obtained, nothing is elicited to show that the person writing the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 718 specimen was pressurized, compelled to scribe and further that the scribbling were not that of the accused Santoshanand.
638. Be it as it may, there has been ample evidence on record to connect the handwriting on the incriminatory documents Ex.PW-2/B, Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A) collected by the prosecution are in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand, which is proved by the evidence of approver PW-2 and corroborated by PW- 19, PW-33 and PW-68. Thus, any amount of debate on the legality of obtaining the specimen handwriting of the accused and comparing it with the questioned documents does not arise nor would wittle down the case of prosecution.
639. The writing on Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A i.e. Q-3) have been proved to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand as discussed herein before by the testimony of PW-2 Sh. Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass and corroborated by PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar and PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal Prakash. The writing on Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) is further proved by PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. Manuscript Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) which is proved in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand further lends credence to the criminal conspiracy and attack on the then Railway Minister Sh. L. N. Mishra on 02.1.1975. This Hindi manuscript Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) along with a printed Hindi pamphlet Ex.PW-20/A was thrown in the office of UNI, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 719 Patna next day i.e. 03.1.1975. These were found on 03.1.1975 by the staff reporter of UNI, Patna Sh. Farzand Ahmed (PW-20) at about 2.00 PM or 3.00 PM while he was present with Chief of their Bureau Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21). PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmed has shown both these documents to Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21), who after going through these documents asked Sh. Farzand Ahmed (PW-
20) to keep them with him. Next day, i.e. 04.1.1975, they had shown both these documents to Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22), who was attached with Delhi paper 'Patriot' and weekly paper 'Link'. Thereafter, PW-22 on going through both the documents, he scripted a report which was published in due course in the paper 'Link Weekly' dated 12.1.1975 which is Ex.PW-22/A. PW-2 has proved the writing at Ex.PW-2/C as in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand, which is corroborated by PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal Prakash and PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar. This is also further proved by PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar, in whose Lodge Ashok Lodge/Niketan, accused Santoshanand took a room on rent under fake name of "Vinod/Binod Kumar" on 28.12.1974 at the rate of Rs.55/- and at that time in the Note Book Ex.P-6 (also Ex.PW-23/A) he has written his name and address Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2). The handwriting of accused Santoshanand Ex.PW- 2/C (Q-2) in English and deposition of PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar corroborates the testimony of approver PW-2 that secret meetings used to take place in Ashok Lodge/Niketan, Patna, where accused Santoshanand took a room on rent till they were arrested. PW-23 Sh.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 720 Ashok Kumar has also identified PW-2 Vikram, accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand in the court and stated that they used to address "Vinod Kumar (i.e. Santoshanand) as "Boss". This independent witness PW-23 Ashok Kumar thus corroborates the deposition of approver PW-2 Sh. Jaldhar Dass @ Vikram @ Subir, which disclose that all the directions have been issued by accused Santoshanand and how he used to influence the Anand Margies. As per the entries in the note book Ex.P-6 (also Ex.PW-23/A) Binod Kumar (i.e. Santoshanand) stayed there from 28.12.1974 till June 1975 and entries of payment of rent/lodging charges are reflected from January 1975 to June 1975 @ Rs.55/- per month which are Ex.PW-23/A-2 to Ex.PW-23/A-8. Another document Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A) (i.e. Q-3) has been proved to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand by deposition of PW-2 Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass @ Subir which is corroborated by deposition of PW- 33 Ujjawal Prakash and PW-68 Sudhir Kumar Basedar. This slip was recovered from the house of accused Gopalji at the time of his house search carried on 17th May 1975 at 5 A.M. by PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, Inspector, IB, Patna, in the presence of two witnesses including PW-91 Sh. Parsu Ram Singh and in this slip also, accused Santoshanand mentioned his name as "Binod Kumar" and requested to send Rs.3,900/- through bearer of the slip Sh. Bharatji on 15.11.1974. Bharatji is none else but accused Sudevanand as deposed by the approver PW-2 and his deposition reveals that that Sudevanand has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 721 changed his name as Bharat has not been discredited in his cross- examination by the defence. This conclusively proves the involvement of accused Gopalji in the criminal conspiracy and this corroborates the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that Gopalji was also a part of conspiracy and meeting of revolutionary group used to take place at his house at Chautham, Distt. Monghyer and farm house at Tilihar and used to be attended by accused persons Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Gopalji, Arteshanand and approver Vikram; Arms and ammunitions were collected there. As referred earlier in detail, while dealing with issue of search carried out at the house of accused Gopalji, this Slip Ex.PW-2/M (Ex.PW-33/A) / Q-3 was one of those documents which was recovered from the house of accused Gopalji at that time by PW- 134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha on 17.5.1975 vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A. The recovery of the Slip Ex.PW-2/M, which is in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand, from the house of accused Gopalji reflects the connectivity among accused Santoshanand @ Binod, Gopalji and Sudevanand @ Bharatji pursuant to the criminal conspiracy. As per the contents of the Slip, accused Santoshanand, while writing his name as Vinod, has requested to send him Rs.3900/- on 15.11.1974 and this only suggests that it is for procuring the arms and ammunitions to achieve their motive of killing certain persons mentioned herein before, to get their cult head released, was being financed by accused Gopalji. The writing on the Note Book Ex.P-6, which is also exhibited as Ex.PW-23/A of the Ashok Lodge/Ashok Niketan, Patna CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 722 contains a writing Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and this has been identified and proved in the handwriting of Santoshanand by the approver PW-2, further corroborated by PW-33 and PW-68.
640. Here it is relevant to mention at the cost of repetition that this handwriting Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) was written by accused Santoshanand in the presence of PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar, an independent witness, in whose Ashok Lodge/Ashok Niketan, Santoshanand introduced himself as Binod Kumar and on asking of Ashok Kumar, in his presence, accused Santoshanand has written his address Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) in their Note Book Ex.P-6 = Ex.PW-23/A. PW-23 has also identified that person as Santoshanand in the court and his testimony was not discredited. This writing of accused Santoshanand Ex.PW- 2/C also contains the date as 28.12.1974 and as per the entry in the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A-2, Santoshanand started living there from 28.12.1974 at a rent of Rs.55/- per month and continued to reside there until 08.06.1975 having the last entry in the name of Vinod Kumar dated 08.06.1975 Ex.PW-23/A-8. Witness PW-23 has also deposed that the accused Sudevanand, Arteshanand and Vikram used to come in the Lodge and they used to address Santoshanand as "Boss". PW- 23 has identified not only Santoshanand but also Sudevanand, Arteshanand and Vikram in the court correctly. His capacity to identify them was never discredited.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 723
641. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, while replying question No. 129 at Page No. 45 that the document Ex.PW-2/B is in his handwriting, to which the accused Santoshanand has replied that he has not written any document like Ex.PW-2/B with his hand and while in police custody he was made to sign certain papers and he does not know whether it is one of them. It is evident that the question was concerning the circumstances about the writing on the document Ex.PW-2/B to be in his handwriting, to which accused Santoshanand evaded and falsely blamed the police by accusing them that he was made to sign certain papers, while in police custody. He had talked about signing of the documents and not the handwriting. Further, while replying question No. 130 at Page No. 46 of his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC put to him that the writing on Ex.PW-2/C in the Copy book of Ashok Niketan Ex.P-6 is in his handwriting, accused Santoshanand has replied that this is false and incorrect and the writing was not in his handwriting. Similarly, he denied the writing Ex.PW-33/A (which is also Ex.PW-2/M) while replying question No. 224 at Page No. 77. All these three documents Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), PW2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-33/A (Q-3) have already been proved in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. This explanation of accused Santoshanand to the question for the circumstances appearing against him by way of the above proved documentary evidence is straight denial. The corroboration is to be looked into somewhere, which I have already discussed above. This straight denial of a proved fact by CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 724 way of documentary and ocular testimony of the witnesses is to be counted as providing a missing link for completing a chain of circumstances as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtas Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2013(4) SCC 434 following its earlier judgment State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, 2000 (1) SCC 471. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (11) SCC 768.
56) Incriminatory documentary evidence
against A-3.
642. Although the ocular testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 decisively corroborates the testimony of PW-2 with regard to A-3 Ranjan Dwivedi arriving at Samastipur, a day earlier i.e. on 01.01.1975 accompanied A-1 and A-2 by bus from Muzaffarpur and awaited the arrival of his mother and sister-in-law, who were to come from Sitamarhi by train and he having requested PW-6 to arrange for reservation of three tickets to Delhi for the next day, still this court is presented with documentary evidence to prove this facts alleged. The prosecution alleges these facts to connect A-3 with the conspiracy by arranging entry Passes for his co-conspirators to the venue. Hence, the appreciation of documentary evidence is inevitable, which is being ventured hereunder.
643. The Reservation Slip duly filled-in by A-3 for reservation of tickets to him, his mother and sister-in-law in the presence of PW-6 is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 725 already discussed. However, PW-40 Sh. R.K. Ghai deposed that in the year 1975, he was working as Head Clerk at Samastipur Railway Station. On 02.1.1975, he was on duty from 06.00 AM to 02.00 PM. The Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A bears his initials at point 'A'. It was for reservation of three berths by Assam Mail for 02.1.1975 from Samastipur to Delhi in the name of R. Dwivedi, mother of R. Dwivedi and third Tara Devi. He signed and put his initials at point 'A' on Ex.PW-6/A at about 12.00 noon on 02.1.1975. Assam Mail used to start from Barauni and one first class-cum-second class coach and one three tier sleeper coach used to be attached to 20 Down, Mithila Express from Samastipur which used to be attached to Assam Mail at Barauni Railway Station and these coaches were for New Delhi. These reservations were for three tier sleepers. He knew Sh. G.P. Gupta (PW-54), the Reservation Supervisor at Samastipur Railway Station and worked with Mr. Gupta and saw him writing and signing and identified his signatures on Mark PW-40/A. This document is Seizure Memo dated 04.8.1975 and later on it was exhibited as Ex.PW-54/A (Available in Folder R-13) in the statement of PW-54 Sh. Ganesh Prashad Gupta. In his cross-examination by accused Ranjan Dwivedi, PW-40 admitted the suggestion that in the Requisition Form Ex.PW-6/A, passenger has not mentioned the date of submitting the form. It also does not bear the date under his initials. To a question whether a form was given to him on 01.01.1975 and not on 02.01.1975, PW-40 deposed that as far as he remembered it was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 726 not given on 01.01.1975. He also deposed that the exact time of booking can be ascertained from the entry in the register of reservation. Despite opportunities, the other accused persons did not opt for his cross-examination.
644. PW-54 Sh. Ganesh Prashad Gupta deposed that in the year 1975 he was working as Reservation Supervisor at Samastipur Railway Station, and Requisition Slip for reservation Ex.PW-6/A bears initials of Sh. R.K. Ghai (PW-40), Reservation Clerk, at point 'A' and this was handed over by him to CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-54/A (Mark PW-40/A). He stated that Inspector R.P. Sinha of CBI had signed this Seizure Memo in his presence at point 'B'. He deposed that Reservation Counter used to be opened at 06.00 AM and closed at 8.00 PM. One Reservation Clerk used to be on duty from 06.00 AM to 02.00 P.M. and other one from 2.00 P.M. to 10.00 P.M. and after closure of the counter at 8.00 P.M., the Reservation Clerk used to complete his miscellaneous work during two hours. There was one counter for 1st class and 2nd class at Railway Station, Samastipur and in those days seats could be got reserved for trains 10 days in advance. Cross-examination of PW-54 revolved around the incidents post 1975 initially, however the accused Gopalji and Arteshanand in their cross- examination could elicit that R.K. Ghai (PW-40) was on duty at the relevant time. Certain explanation is also drawn from the cross- examination that out of the three tickets reserved two tickets were for Ex-Samastipur to Delhi and one from Muzaffarpur to Delhi and that is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 727 why there is change in the series of numbers. It is elicited that there is a ticket in the name of Tara bearing No. 03796. The reservation farms are generally preserved for a period 3 to 5 years. It is found in the cross-examination that Ex.PW-54/A is emanated from the reliable quarters i.e. Divisional Office of Samastipur and that this witness had given a receipt while obtaining this register. A suggestion was made to this witness that this witness made a false statement to help the prosecution, which was denied. It is noteworthy that accused Ranjan Dwivedi, Santoshanand and Sudevanand did not cross-examine the witness despite the opportunity. Thus, the cross-examination adopted by accused Gopalji and Arteshanand even if read on behalf of other accused, does not destabilize the version of PW-54 about the aspect of the reservation of tickets by the reservations form.
645. PW-126 Sh. R. P. Sinha deposed that he remained posted as Inspector, CBI, Patna from 08.8.1967 to February 1976. On instructions of Sh. K. Prakash, SP, CBI, Patna, he went to Samastipur on 04.8.1975 for part investigation of L.N. Mishra murder case. He went to Reservation Office, Railway Station Samastipur on 4.8.1975 from where he took into possession Requisition Slip for reservation Ex.PW-6/A from Sh. G.P. Gupta (PW-54), Reservation Supervisor, vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-54/A (available in Folder R-13) which is in his hand and bears his signatures at point 'B' and signatures of G.P. Gupta at point 'A'. (Reservation Slip Ex.PW-6/A is available in folder R-13). This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 728 Gopalji and Arteshanand. This fortifies that this witness was instructed by the SP of CBI to seize the Reservation Slip from Samastipur Railway Station and that in the instruction letter time is not mentioned. Non-mentioning of time in the letter of the SP is inconsequential. It is elicited that G.P. Gupta (PW-54) produced the reservation slip and he examined the reservation clerk. There was no instruction to procure the reservation register. Ex.PW-6/A was not found tagged in a wire but was taken from a bundle. The line of cross- examination does not suggest that the reservation slip seized is fabricated. It is again noteworthy that accused Ranjan Dwivedi, Santoshanand and Sudevanand did not cross-examine the witness despite the opportunity. Thus, the cross-examination adopted by accused Gopalji and Arteshanand even if read on behalf of other accused, does not shatter the version of PW-126 about the aspect of seizure of reservation form and deposition of reservation clerk.
646. I have perused the documentary evidence Ex.PW-6/A, the Reservation Slip, which is available in Folder R-13. As per this reservation slip three berths in third class by 85 UP Assam Mail for 02.01.1975 from Samastipur to New Delhi were reserved in the names of three passengers namely (1) R. Dwivedi, (2) M/o R. Dwivedi, and (3) Tara Devi at Samastipur at 11.30 AM and in the column of applicant, Ranjan Dwivedi has signed and beneath his signature he furnished his address as "C/o V.K. Ojha, PP RPF, SPS". This document is marked as Q-6 by GEQD for the purpose of comparing CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 729 handwriting of accused Ranjan Dwivedi at Point A and B. The seizure memo dated 04.08.1975 Ex.PW-54/A concerning the Reservation Slip Ex.PW-6/A is signed by PW-126 and PW-54 at B and A respectively. This is also available in Folder R-13. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, the accused Ranjan Dwivedi admitted that he obtained reservation for 3 berths i.e. for himself, his mother and Bhabhi and Reservation Slip Ex.PW-6/A was filled up by him under his signatures.
647. Collated with the documentary evidence, the ocular testimony of witnesses PW-40, PW-54 and PW-126 and the approver's testimony (PW-2) and that of PW-6 makes the fact indelible that accused Ranjan Dwivedi, Santoshanand and Sudevanand were very much present along with approver Vikram (PW-2) on the day i.e. 02.01.1975 at Samastipur Railway Station and that accused Ranjan Dwivedi had applied in writing the requisition for railway tickets for himself, his mother and Tara Devi through the help of PW-6. This fact further cements the version after going through the address furnished of the applicant-Ranjan Dwivedi in Ex.PW-6/A as that of "C/o V.K. Ojha, PP, RPS, SPS" (PW-6). Thus, the presence of above accused including Ranjan Dwivedi is highly believable without any room to doubt.
648. PW-47 Sh. Krishan Kumar Shukla, Traveling Ticket Examiner, Railway, Kanpur deposed that on 03.1.1975, he was on duty in the second class sleeper of Assam Mail from Kanpur to New Delhi and as CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 730 per the Reservation Chart, his duty was in Coach No. 3954 and Reservation Chart Mark PW-47/A was delivered to him at Kanpur. He deposed that after Assam Mail left Kanpur, he checked the passengers already present in that coach with reference to Reservation Chart Mark PW-47/A. He checked up the number of the tickets available with the passengers travelling in that coach and after tallying the number of the tickets and names from the passengers with the Chart, he put the tick mark against entries in the Reservation Chart. He stated that Mark PW-47/A is in two sheets and the entries made by him in the Chart are in blue ink and tick marks in blue ink in the Chart are also in his hands and the red ink entries and carbon entries on Mark PW-47A were already found when it was given to him. He deposed that as per the entries in the chart on berth no. 2, 3 & 5 of Coach 3954, he found the persons mentioned therein traveling from Samastipur to New Delhi and the ticket numbers of passengers on berth No. 2, 3 & 5 matched with the numbers mentioned in the chart and this chart was deposited by him on reaching New Delhi Railway Station in the office of Head Ticket Collector and this coach No. 3954 was from Samastipur to New Delhi. This Reservation Chart Mark PW-47/A for coach no. 3954 dated 2.1.1975 of train no.85-UP Assam Mail, (three tier sleeper) is in respect of 50 passengers and name of passenger no. 2, 3 & 5 are mentioned as Sh. R. Dwivedi, M/o Dwivedi and Ms. Tara Devi respectively. This witness is cross-examined only on behalf of Ranjan Dwivedi. It is elicited that the charts are prepared in triplicate. It is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 731 elicited that he was given the carbon copy and the same is Mark PW- 47/A, which dealt with berth numbers 2, 3 and 5 Samastipur to Delhi. The answer elicited that he could not say whether these tickets at 2, 3 and 5 were purchased simultaneously or not, does not go to help the accused in any manner since this witness was not the issuing clerk or the reservation clerk at Samastipur but a TTE. It is also elicited that he never worked as booking clerk. This witness expressed his inability to identify the passengers. The aspect of examining this witness is only to establish that after the reservation whether the persons, who got reserved, travelled or not. The inability to identify the passengers in no way helps the accused. Therefore, the cross-examination of this witness remained futile on record. On the other hand, the genuineness of Mark PW-47/A is never impeached. Moreover, this Reservation Chart is prepared in due course of its business by the Railway and is a public document and has been proved by PW-47 Sh. Krishan Kumar Shukla, Traveling Ticket Examiner and hence it is admissible in evidence and this is now exhibited as Ex.PW-47/A. (Available in Folder No.R-1).
649. PW-132 Sh. B.R. Puri, Dy. SP, CBI deposed (Page 2980) that during investigation of RC No. 01/1975, on 14.7.1975 under orders of Chief I.O. Deputy SP Sh. H.L. Ahuja, he seized reservation chart and relevant memos of 2-tier and 3-tier of 85-UP Assam Mail leaving Barauni on 2.1.1975 and reaching Delhi on 3.1.1975 and these were all 10 sheets. He deposed that these were seized by him from Sh.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 732 Shobha Ram, Assistant Head Ticket Collector, New Delhi Railway Station vide seizure memo Ex.PW-132/A (available in Folder R-1) which he correctly prepared in his hand and it was signed by Sh. Shobha Ram at point 'A' in his presence and his signatures are at point 'B'. He stated that Mark PW-47/A (now Ex.PW-47/A) consisting of 10 sheets was seized by him from Sh. Shobha Ram which were signed by him at the time of its seizure. The cross- examination did not swerve the seizure of the reservation chart, which is otherwise proved by PW-47.
650. The ocular and documentary evidence of this witness establishes another link in the circumstances that Ranjan Dwivedi, who was found along with the accused above named at the spot of Samastipur, had left and travelled in the train in accordance with the reservation, he obtained at Samastipur to go to Delhi.
57) Search at the house of A-3.
651. PW-132 Sh. B.R. Puri, Dy. SP, CBI deposed that he had been associated with CBI since 1958 and remained associated with the investigation of these cases from May 1975 to September 1975 and Dy. SP H.L. Ahuja was the Chief Investigating Officer. He remained associated with the investigation of RC No. 11 of 1975 relating to attack on Chief Justice Ray and Dy. SP Sardari Lal was the Chief Investigating Officer of RC No.11 of 1975 and he took part in the investigation of the aforesaid two cases under the direction of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 733 Chief I.O. of respective cases. He testified that on 06.7.1975 while associated with the investigation of the case RC No.11/75 (relating to attack on Chief Justice A. N. Ray) Chief IO Dy. SP Sardari Lal directed him to search the house of Ranjan Dwivedi and he along with two witnesses Mr. Narula and Mr. Vishnu Dutt Kumar (PW-115) went to 31, National Park, New Delhi where Ranjan Dwivedi was residing on the second floor and conducted the search of the house in the presence of these two witnesses. At that time, Ranjan Dwivedi was present in the house. He recovered documents and clothes from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi vide Seizure Memo dated 06.7.1975 Ex.P- 137 (available in the summoned file) which he prepared correctly and the photocopy thereof is Ex.PW-115/B (the Photostat copy of the Search Memo Ex.PW-115/B is available in the Folder R-7. On the search list also reference of the case No. 11/75 is mentioned on its top). It bears signatures of Laxmi Narain Vishnu Dutt Kumar (PW-
115) at point 'A' and of Ranjan Dwivedi at point 'B'. It also bears his signatures and that of Sh. Narula. (As per this copy of Seizure Memo dated 06.7.1975 Ex.PW-115/B, various documents including (i) personal diary of R. Dwivedi, 31, National Park, New Delhi for the year 1975, (ii) personal diary of R. Dwivedi, A-75A South Extension, Part II, New Delhi-110049 for the year 1973 and (iii) Anand Marg Table Diary of R. Dwivedi, Advocate, Supreme Court Bar Association, New Delhi for the year 1975 were seized.) He also deposed that he has also seized the documents Ex.P-133, Ex.P-133-A, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 734 Ex.P-133-B, Ex.P-134 to Ex.P-136 from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi and are available in the said summoned file, Photostat copies of the same are Ex.PW-115/A-1 to Ex.PW-115/A-6 (these are also available in the Folder R-7). He obtained the signatures of Narula and Kumar (PW-115) on all the aforesaid documents seized from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi. He also testified that he has seen the pocket-cum- purse diary Ex.P-123, Anand Marg Diary Ex.P-124 and Table Diary Ex.P-127 and these documents are in the summoned file which were also seized by him from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi and he obtained the signatures of both the above said public witnesses on all the written pages of these diaries. He deposed that writings Mark Q-13, Q-13-A, Q-14 and Q-14-A in diary Ex.P-123 were in existence at the time it was seized by him and Ex.PW-43/AA-194 is the juxtapose copy of the Mark Q-13 and Q-13-A and Ex.PW-43/AA-195 is the juxtapose copy of Mark Q-14 and Q-14A. He further deposed that writing Mark Q-15 and Q-15-A, Q-15-B, Q-15-C and Q-15-D in diary Ex.P-124 was existing at the time when it was seized by him and juxtapose of the Mark Q-15 and Q-15-A is Ex.PW-43/AA-197, of Q- 15-B and Q-15-C is Ex.PW-43/AA-198 and of Q-15-D is Ex.PW- 43/AA-199. He deposed that writing Mark Q-20 in diary Ex.P-127 besides other writings were existing at the time when it was seized. The juxtapose of the writing Ex.PW-43/AA-200 is Mark Q-20. He further deposed that then he took the documents and articles seized from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi to the CBI Office where Ranjan CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 735 Dwivedi was also taken and produced before Dy. SP Sardari Lal, Chief IO. He handed over the documents and Seizure Memo to Dy. SP Sardari Lal.
(Juxtapose Ex.PW-43/AA194 to Ex.PW-43/AA-
200 are available in Folder R-119.)
652. The prosecution has also examined the search witness namely PW-115 Sh. Laxmi Narain Vishnu Dutt Kumar, who deposed that in July 1975, he was residing on the first floor of the property No.31, National Park, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He knew accused Ranjan Dwivedi, who was residing on the second floor of the said house. (On the day of deposition of PW-115 accused Ranjan Dwivedi was to appear in the court but he did not appear and his counsel submitted that the identity of Ranjan Dwivedi is not disputed). PW-115 deposed that he can identify aforesaid Ranjan Dwivedi. He deposed that one foreign lady used to reside with Ranjan Dwivedi on the second floor of that house and he did not know what relationship she had with Ranjan Dwivedi but she claimed to be his wife and Ranjan Dwivedi also used to tell him that she was his wife. He further deposed that in the first week of July 1975, Dy. SP Puri came along with one Mr. Narula and he was asked by Dy. SP Puri to join him. He joined Dy. SP Puri and accompanied him to the said house of Ranjan Dwivedi, where Ranjan Dwivedi and his wife were found present. Ranjan Dwivedi had with him two rooms, kitchen and bathroom. Some papers were taken into possession by Mr. Puri from the drawing-cum-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 736 bedroom of Ranjan Dwivedi. He put his initials on all the papers taken into possession by Mr. Puri from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi. He has seen the documents Ex.P-133 to Ex.P-136, Ex.P-133-A and Ex.P-133-B in the court (which were available in the summoned file of the case No. 9/76 from Hon'ble High Court) and deposed that all these documents bear his initials and Photostat copies thereof are Ex.PW-115/A-1 to PW-115/A-6 (Available in Folder R-7). He testified that he has seen diary Ex.P-127 in the said summoned file, which bears his initials on all written pages including the page having writing Q-20. He has also seen Anand Marg diary Ex.P-124 in the summoned file, which bears his initials on all written pages including the page having writing Mark Q-15, Q-15-A and Q-15-B. He has also seen pocket-cum-purse diary Ex.P-123 in the said summoned file and his initials appear on all these pages including the page having writing Q-13, Q-13-A, Q-14 and Q-14-A. The search proceedings continued for about 2 or 2½ hours and the search list was prepared in the house of Ranjan Dwivedi which he (PW-115) signed. The Seizure Memo Mark B-137 in the summoned file bears his signatures at point 'A' and the copy of this search list was given to Ranjan Dwivedi and the Photostat copy of the search list is Ex.PW-115/B (Available in Folder R-7). He testified that Dy. SP Puri took Ranjan Dwivedi with him from the spot. In his cross-examination, PW-115 replied that Ranjan Dwivedi had written "Received copy" and thereafter he signed the search list. Ranjan Dwivedi occupied the second floor of the said CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 737 house in March 1975. They were having family relationship and on visiting terms with Ranjan Dwivedi. Regarding the existence of writing Q-20 in the diary Ex.P-127 at the time of the seizure PW-115 deposed that he had put his initials on this page due to existence of some writing on it. Documents were collected from different places of the house of Ranjan Dwivedi. He has denied the suggestion that Ranjan Dwivedi himself lifted the documents and handed over to Sh. Puri. He also denied the suggestion that after planting the documents they have been wrongly shown as recovered from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi. Defence has not derided the testimony of PW-132 & PW- 115 of arrest of A-3 in RC-11/75 on 06.07.1975.
653. By giving the suggestion to PW-115 that Ranjan Dwivedi himself handed over the documents to the CBI Officer at the time of the Search, he has virtually admitted the seizure of the documents from his house. Further, while making his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, Ranjan Dwivedi has admitted that the search was carried out in his said house on 06.07.1975 and documents were seized and thus the deposition of PW-132, PW-115 further stand corroborated. While replying question No. 317, he stated that he was arrested on 06.7.1975 by PW132 Sh. B.R. Puri from his house at 31, National Park, New Delhi. He also admitted that Sh. Puri carried out search of his said premises in the presence of witnesses Sh. Vishnu Dutt and Narula after observing necessary safeguards and at that time he and his wife were present in the premises and CBI arrived at about 11.00 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 738 AM. While replying Q. No. 318, he stated that CBI took some of his personal possessions into custody. He replied question no.319 that the documents, the photocopies of which are Ex PW-115/A-1 to A-6, were recovered from his residence vide Seizure Memo Ex PW-115/B. He admitted the CBI made seizure from his residence.
58) Identification of handwriting of A-3.
654. PW-111 Sh. Surinder Vikram Singh deposed that he had worked as Accountant & Manager (Administration) from 1965 to June 1982 with M/s. Shabnam Engineering and Foundry Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur. He further testified that he knew Ranjan Dwivedi, whose real name is Ram Janam Dwivedi, and is an accused in this case. Ranjan Dwivedi used to be Executive Assistant to the Director Incharge Smt. Sheela Singh during the period from September 1970 to February 1971. During this period he had seen Ram Janam Dwivedi writing and signing and for that reason he can identify his handwriting and signatures. Ranjan Dwivedi had connections with Anand Marg. (The witness has correctly identified the accused Ranjan Dwivedi in the court). He deposed that Requisition Form for Reservation Ex.PW-6/A (Available in Folder R-13) is filled up in the hand of Ranjan Dwivedi and having his signatures and the entire writing is Q-6. From the summoned file from the Hon'ble High Court brought by Sh. Hari Ram, Diary Ex.P-124 was shown to the witness and he stated that writing marked Q-15, Q-15-A, Q-15-B, Q-15-C and Q-15-D are in the handwriting of accused Ranjan Dwivedi. From the summoned file CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 739 Diary Ex.P-127 was also shown to the witness and witness stated that the writing Q-20 is in the hand of accused Ranjan Dwivedi. The Diary Ex.P-123 was also shown to the witness from the summoned file and witness deposed that writing Q-13, Q-14 and Q-14-A are in the hands of accused Ranjan Dwivedi.
655. In his cross-examination by accused Ranjan Dwivedi, PW-111 deposed that mostly Ranjan Dwivedi signs as "R. Dwivedi". He has denied the suggestion that on Ex.PW-6/A, the signature are as "R.J. Dwivedi" and witness stated that he does not find any letter "J" in the signatures on Ex.PW-6/A. He identified the writing of the Ranjan Dwivedi 11 years after he saw him writing and signing. He has denied the suggestion that writing Q-20 in the diary Ex.P-127 is not in the handwriting of Ranjan Dwivedi. (It is pertinent to mention here that in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, while giving his explanation in question No. 323 about his writing Q-20, Ranjan Dwivedi admitted his writing Q-20 and other diaries). To a question that Ranjan Dwivedi was not even remotely connected with Anand Marg and PW-111 deposed that he is in fact follower of Anand Marg.
656. A scrutiny of deposition of PW-111 reflects that accused Ranjan Dwivedi has not disputed his employment as Executive Assistant to the Director Incharge Smt. Sheela Singh in M/s. Shabnam Engineering and Foundry Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur during the period from September 1970 to February 1971. He has also not swerved his handwriting at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 740 Point Q-15, Q-15-A, Q-15-B, Q-15-C and Q-15-D in Diary Ex.P-124 and writing Q-13, Q-14 and Q-14-A in Diary Ex.P-123. He has only disputed his writing Q-20 in the diary Ex.P-127, which he admitted in his statement U/s. 313 Cr. PC. He has also not discredited PW-111 about his capability to identify his handwriting and signatures. Therefore, from the deposition of PW-111, it is proved that the writing at Point Q-15, Q-15-A, Q-15-B, Q-15-C and Q-15-D in Diary Ex.P- 124 and writing Q-13, Q-14 and Q-14-A in Diary Ex.P-123 are in the handwriting of accused Ranjan Dwivedi. Later, the accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC has admitted that PW-111 Sh. Surinder Vikram Singh was acquainted with his handwriting and identified the Requisition Form Ex.PW-6/A, filled up on his handwriting. It is worthwhile to mention here that PW-132 has visited the residence of accused Ranjan Dwivedi on 06.07.1975 pursuant to the instructions of Chief Investigation Officer Deputy SP Sardari Lal of RC No. 11/1975 relating to the case of attack the then Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Ray and the search memo Ex.P-137 in RC No. 11/1975 Photostat copy of which is Ex.PW-115/B is available on the record, find mentioned the search proceedings with regard to RC No. 11/1975. All those recovered articles including three diaries of Ranjan Dwivedi are lying in the file of case No. 11/1975 and as the writing on these diaries mentioned herein before are relevant to the fact in issue in the present case, the Photostat copy of the same were placed on record. It has come in the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 741 testimony of PW-115 that after the search accused Ranjan Dwivedi was taken by PW-132 with him. PW-132 has also stated that he had taken Ranjan Dwivedi from his house after the search was over and produced him before Sh. Sardari Lal, Deputy SP, CBI, who was the Investigation Officer in RC No. 11 of 1975. The accused Ranjan Dwivedi was never arrested in the present case during the investigation by the IO and only his custody warrants were issued by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna pursuant to which Ranjan Dwivedi was produced before the designated court at Patna on 20.12.1976, when he was sent to judicial custody.
657. The contents of diary of A-3 are very relevant to the facts in issue regarding his complicity in the crime with other accused and approver Vikram. While replying Q. No. 319 at page 156, A-3 himself filed certified copies of entire diaries Ex.Q-13, Q-14 and Q-15 obtained from the record of the Hon'ble High Court (Available in Part XIX page 3 to 241). He stated that CBI has only given excerpt of one or two dates of the diary and if the contents and other passages of diary and other articles seized are read together, this will substantiate fact that they are only the emotional expression of a young man struggling in life and profession and experiencing the grace of Almighty at every step and juncture in life. A-3 also stated that the excerpts of his writing in diary placed in evidence even if read together with the rest of the passages of the diary, only proves his innocence and falsify the story of the prosecution.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 742
658. The Diary Ex.P-123 was filed in A.N. Ray's case and its juxtapose copies are Ex.PW-43/AA-194 (Q-13, Q-13-A), Ex.PW- 43/AA-195 (Q-14, Q-14-A) and Ex.PW-43/AA-196 (Q-14A). (Available in Folder R-119). Similar juxtapose copies of diary Ex.P- 123 are Ex.PW-43/Z-4 (Q-13 & Q-13-A) and Ex.PW-43/Z-5 (Q-14 & Q-14-A). (Available in Folder R-119).
659. The contents of relevant portion Q-14 of the diary Ex.P-123 of 01.01.1975 of Ranjan Dwivedi read as under:-
"........ Received from S.S. in bus on 1st Jan. 75"
660. The contents of portion of this diary (Q-14A) read as under:-
"On 2 'Jan' 75 witnessed the Lila of the Lord by becoming witness for the noble purpose."
661. The other diary of accused Ranjan Dwivedi in A.N. Ray's case is Ex.P-124, juxtapose of which are Ex.PW-43/AA-197 (Q-15 - 1st Jan and Q-15A - 2 nd Jan), Ex.PW-43/AA-198 (Q-15B - 3rd Jan and Q-15C
- 4th Jan). (Available in Folder R-119). Similar juxtapose copies of Ex.P-124 are Ex.PW-43/Z-6 (Q-15 and Q-15A) and Ex.PW-43/Z-7 (Q-15 B, Q-15C and Q-15D). (Available in Folder R-119)
662. The contents of portion of this diary (Q-15) reads as under :-
"January - Wednesday - 1 A very bright beginning of the new year. Attended CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 743 fortunately the D.C. at Muz. AMPS. school and Vahni heard indicative of approaching new era, a glorious chapter in the human history. Met SS in the bus. Stayed Samastipur and visited Vinay's mother-in-law's house with Ojha Ji and his friend. Treated very nicely. Mother and Bhabhi arrived from Sitamarhi.
663. The contents of portion of this diary Q-15 A reads as under :-
Thursday - 2 The day was fully utilized as an instrument graciously touched by the cosmic wave length meeting the sequences.
O, Baba, you are the Lord of Lords prevalent everywhere and will establish your cherished goal of universal Sadvipra kingdom.
Started for Delhi with mother and Bhabhi."
664. The contents of portion of the diary Q-15B dated 3rd Jan 1975 reads as under:-
"Reached Delhi and received by Rajeshwarji at the station. News of the first phase of the drama heard at the station.
Met Arun, Maya, Prabhaji and others and could not resist myself."
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 744
665. The contents of portion of the diary Q-15C dated 4th Jan 1975 reads as under :-
"Met Jain Sahib and Dr. Rane, Puniayanandji, Gunadishanandji and started the proceedings of the case."
666. The contents of portion of the diary Q-15D dated 4th Jan 1975 reads as under:-
"Attended D.C. Delhi and narrated my meeting with Baba on 17th Dec 74."
667. The contents of portion of the diary Q-20 reads as under:-
"Pankaj Kr.
C/o N.N. Verma Development Officer, Vishwa Vahni Daily, Exhibition Road N. Patna"
668. The Reservation Slip Ex.PW-6/A has been proved to be in the handwriting of accused Ranjan Dwivedi by the deposition of PW-111. This has also been corroborated by the admission of accused Ranjan Dwivedi himself while making his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. Recovery of three diaries Ex.P-123, Ex.P-124 and Ex.P-127 has been proved by PW-115. PW-115 has also proved that these diaries CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 745 were bearing the writing Mark Q-15, Q-15-A, Q-15-B, Q-13, Q-13-A, Q-14, Q-14-A and Q-20. PW-111 has also proved these writings in the handwriting of accused Ranjan Dwivedi as he had seen him writing and signing while working with him. During his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, accused Ranjan Dwivedi has himself admitted his diaries, which contained the above said scribblings, by filing the certified copies of those diaries from the case of RC No. 11/1975. Still the prosecution has proved that these writings are in the handwriting of accused Ranjan Dwivedi by taking the opinion of GEQD, Shimla, who has appeared as PW-43 to prove his report.
669. By way of abundant caution, prosecution has examined PW-30 Sh. W.R. Chopra and PW-39 Sh. Rajender Thukral, in whose presence the specimen writing of A-3 was obtained and the consequent report proved through PW-43 Sh. B. Lal, GEQD, whose testimonies are consistent with the documentary evidence proved through PW-111 and PW-115, since A-3 himself having admitted these documents to be in his handwriting in his statement U/s. 313 Cr. PC, the discussion of their evidence would be only superfluous on record.
59) Meeting with Baba by Ranjan Dwivedi on 17.12.1974.
670. As held earlier, it is proved that the recovered diaries from the residence of Ranjan Dwivedi were bearing his handwriting, which are referred in succeeding Paras. On 04.01.1975, the accused had written CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 746 in his diary Q-15-D that "Attended D.C. Delhi and narrated my meeting with Baba on 17th Dec 74." Apparently, before going to Samastipur, Ranjan Dwivedi met his cult head in Central Jail, Patna on 17.12.1974 and after Samastipur bomb blast, as per his scribblings in the diary Q-15-D, he attended Dharam Chakra in Delhi, where he narrated his meeting with Baba on 17.12.1974. In this regard, I proceed to refer the necessary evidence adduced by the prosecution.
671. PW-71 Sh. Brinda Ban Pandey deposed that he was posted as Assistant Jailor Central Jail Patna in December 1974 and Sh. P.K. Ganguli was working as Superintendant (Jail). He deposed that register Ex.P-150 (D-127) (Available in Folder R-49) was maintained in due regular course of work in the Central Jail, Patna, in respect of the visitors to meet the under-trial prisoners in Jail. This register is for the period 14.5.1974 to 09.1.1975. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi along with Sh. Ram Tanuk Singh, Advocate submitted an application dated 16.12.1974 addressed to the Superintendant, Central Jail, Patna, seeking interview with Anand Murtiji, who was lodged there. The same is at Mark PW-71/A. Sh. P.K. Ganguli, Superintendant (Jail), Central Jail, Patna allowed interview in the presence of Assistant Jailor vide order dated 16.12.1974, which is noted on the very application. The order is Ex.PW-71/A. He identified the handwriting and signature of Sh. P.K. Ganguli on the said order. Before the interview could take place, another order Ex.PW-71/B was passed on 17.12.1974 by Sh. P.K. Ganguli on the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 747 back of said application Mark PW-71/A. That register Ex.P-150 contained an entry dated 17.12.1974 (Tuesday) regarding interview by Ram Tanuk Singh and Ram Janam Dwivedi with Anand Murtiji which is initialed by Chander Nath Mukherjee, Assistant Jailor, whose writing and signatures and initials were identified by the witness as he had seen him writing and signing. The relevant entry is Ex.PW-71/C bearing the initials of Chander Nath Mukherjee at point A. He further deposed that in November 1975, Sh. Bhageshwari Parshad Pandey was working as Superintendant, Central Jail, Patna and he had seen him writing and signing and had also received writing from him in course of his duties and thus could identify his writing and signatures. Seizure Memo dated 13.11.1975 Mark PW-71/B bears the signatures (Ex.PW-71/D) of Sh. Bhageshwari Parshad Pandey. Under the Seizure Memo at Mark PW-71/B (Ex.PW-71/D) (also Ex.PW-151/H), Interview Register was seized by Sh. H. L. Ahuja on 13.11.1975 from Pandey. (Seizure memo is available in Folder R-12). He deposed that another Seizure Memo (memorandum) Mark PW-71/C dated 28.10.1975 bears signatures of Sh. Bhageshwari Parshad Pandey at point Ex.PW-71/E. The witness has also identified the accused Ranjan Dwivedi, present in the court as the person who met Anand Murtiji on 17.12.1974. During cross-examination of PW-71 on the request of Ld. Defence Counsel, the application of the accused Ranjan Dwivedi was exhibited as Ex.PW-71/DA. The seizure memos of the register are Ex.PW-71/D and Ex.PW-71/E (Available in the folder R-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 748
2). As per Register Ex.P-150 at page 169 for 17.12.1974 (Tuesday) the accused Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate, Supreme Court along with Sh. Ram Tanuk Singh, Advocate, High Court Patna met Sh. P.R. Sarkar @ Anand Murti in Patna Jail.
672. PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Dy. SP, CBI, Investigating Officer deposed (at page no.3567) that he has seen the Seizure Memo dated 28.10.1975 Mark PW-71/C (D125) which is in his handwriting and bears his signatures at point 'A' and Seizure Memo is Ex.PW-151/F (Available in the folder R-2) and vide this Seizure Memo he has seized original application of Ranjan Dwivedi and Sh. Ram Tanuk Singh for interview with Anand Murtiji and he has mentioned the details of the document in the memo. (Original application dated 16.12.1974 of Ranjan Dwivedi is available in Folder R-2). He deposed (page 3568) that the Seizure Memo dated 13.11.1975 Ex.PW- 151/H is in his handwriting and vide this Seizure Memo, he seized one interview Register Ex.P-150 (Document D-127) and it was signed by Sh. Bhageshwari Parshad Pandey in his presence (Ex.PW-71/D). The entry Ex.PW-71/C existed in this register Ex.P-150 at the time its seizure.
673. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, the accused Ranjan Dwivedi admitted that he met Sh. Anand Murti on 17.12.1974 along with Sh. Ram Tanuk Singh. The testimony of PW-71 has not been discredited by the accused persons including Ranjan Dwivedi.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 749 Therefore, there remains no doubt to hold that the fact of A-3 visiting Jail, having met Anand Murti on 17.12.1974 is established beyond doubt prior to the bomb blast at Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975.
60) What the diary entries of Ranjan Dwivedi confides?
674. As dealt earlier, a finding is already returned as regards the presence of Ranjan Dwivedi having arrived at Samastipur Railway Station along with Santoshanand and Sudevanand on 01.01.1975 to arrange the Passes/Badges for entry in to the venue for his co- conspirators, which is proved by overwhelming corroboratory evidence to support the deposition of approver, this court is now to understand, decipher and analyze the documentary evidence just now preceded in the above paragraphs.
675. The question No. 358 in the statement of accused Ranjan Dwivedi under Section 313 Cr. PC was confronted to him. The circumstances appeared against him is that he had written the writing Mark Q-15 in his diary to the effect that he, Santoshanand and Sudevanand had travelled together from Muzaffarpur to Samastipur on 01.1.1975. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi explained that by merely stating that he met S.S. in the bus and S.S. stands for Sectorial Secretary just as G.S. stands for General Secretary. The accused Ranjan Dwivedi did not truly explain as to who was that S.S. i.e. Sectorial Secretary if CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 750 he meant that the abbreviation S.S. stands for Sectorial Secretary. Instead of telling the name of 'SS', he evasively stated that 'SS' stands for Sectorial Secretary as 'GS' stands for General Secretary. He did not deny that he met Santoshanand and Sudevanand in the bus. From the depositions of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6, it is sufficiently proved by the prosecution that the accused Ranjan Dwivedi travelled along with accused persons Sudevanand and Santoshanand by bus from Muzaffarpur to Samastipur. Thus, accused Ranjan Dwivedi evaded the answer by saying that S.S. stands for Sectorial Secretary as G.S. stands for General Secretary. The accused Ranjan Dwivedi has rightly noted in his diary that he met "SS" in the bus, but evaded to explain the true connotation of these two letters in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC. Admittedly, the word "Sectorial" is not found in any dictionary even on the internet. Admittedly, it is also not a coined word. The post of Sectorial Secretary is also never heard in the common parlance In this context I may profitably utilize the legal principles embodied in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under:-
"When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
676. The Section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 751 regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.
677. This provision has come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1956 in Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. the State of Ajmer AIR 1956 SC 404, the State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2988, Sunder @ Sundararajan vs. State by Inspector of Police AIR 2013 SC 777, Bhimanna vs. State of Karnataka 2012 (4) JCC 2667 and also recently in Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 2012 Volume I SCC 10 and the relevant Para No.29, in Prithipal's case reads as under:
"In State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2988, this court held that if fact is especially in the knowledge of any person, then burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is impossible for prosecution to prove certain facts particularly within the knowledge of accused. Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 752 reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases, in which, it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused."
678. The above ruling concluded by holding the law that it is obligated upon the accused who had pleaded such knowledge to prove the same. Here accused Ranjan Dwivedi submitted that S.S. stood for Sectorial Secretary. He has not named that person. Neither he has placed any documentary evidence by way of Constitution of Anand Marg or its bye-laws nor proved the same by naming any Sectorial Secretary or by producing him in the witness box in his defence. At least, he could have named the person, who held the post of Sectorial Secretary to discharge his initial onus as is fixed on him.
679. The position of law concerning the onus on the part of an accused to give probable explanation to a circumstance to which he had special acquaintance or knowledge, which appeared against him from the evidence is again recognized and the Hon'ble Supreme CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 753 Court laid down that a false explanation may be counted as providing missing link for completing the chain of circumstances (See State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, 2000 (1) SCC) 471). A false answer/ explanation is again held to be one more circumstance or a missing link to complete the chain. (Ref. Rohtas Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (14) SCC 434, and also Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (11) SCC 768).
680. The Question No. 360 put to the accused Ranjan Dwivedi to confront him with his handwriting in the Diary, recorded by him on 02.01.1975, while he was at Samastipur and it reads as under:-
"It is in evidence against you that you made a note Ex.Q-14A in your diary "on 2nd January, 1975 witnessed the Leela of the Lord by becoming utilized for the noble purpose", what you have to say?"
And the accused Ranjan Dwivedi answered that statement made therein as ambiguous and cannot read into and furthermore he was not at the scene of the incident and therefore could not have witnessed it. He explained that this writing is in the diary of 1974 and he has written it as to how he was utilized for helping his friend Vinay's mother- in-law, whose husband had died only a few days earlier, and all were in distress. Even Vinay had CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 754 not reached by the time, he coincidently went to their house and they were all overwhelmed by his sympathy to help their son find employment if he comes to Delhi after mourning ceremony.
681. This explanation of the accused Ranjan Dwivedi is to be understood from the writings he made. According to him the incident was very solemn and sorrowful because father-in-law (Mr. Sahai) of his close friend Vinay died a few days earlier and that his relatives were in distress. The accused Ranjan Dwivedi, if at all intended to quote the said incident in his diary, should have definitely noted the sorrowful state of the relatives of Vinay pertaining to his visit on 01.01.1975 only. This writing is concerning the date 02.1.1975, whereas admittedly A-1 visited Sahai's family along with PW-5 and PW-6 on 01.1.1975. There is not even mention of Vinay either by name or by coded name as is his practice to refer to the persons by simple alphabets only. On the other hand, considering the writing and the incident that happened on 02.1.1975 at Samastipur, where this accused was successful in procuring/arranging the Passes/Badges for entry into the venue for his co-conspirators, he vented his thanks- giving by referring it as a supervening act by a divine element, whom he referred as "Lord". It is very relevant to note that the conspirators were all impelled and overtaken by the demi-god status that they had attributed to their Baba, Anand Murti, who was the head of their cult. Such overwhelming faith of conspirators including Ranjan Dwivedi in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 755 their cult and its head Baba Anand Murti who was treated by them as an incarnation of Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna, made them to refer their cult founder as "Lord" and all the commandments were such of the design to spread their cult or to refer to "Leela" (play) of their Lord. It is noteworthy to mention that on 02.1.1975 this accused has made arrangement and had put himself to the optimum utilization in arranging entry Passes/Badges for access of accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand to the scheduled event of inauguration of Broad Gauge line between Samastipur and Muzaffarpur at the hands of the then Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra. That is how the entire writing is to be collated to the happenings on 02.1.1975.
682. If the explanation given by the accused is to be understood in the backdrop of sorrowful state as explained by him, he would have definitely mentioned the date of death of father-in-law of his friend Vinay and their names. Such a thing is not found in his writings but the writings directly related to his contribution in making arrangements for easy access of co-conspirators to the scene of crime. Therefore, this explanation is not tenable and convincing.
683. In view of the above collation, which are referred to the incident dated 02.01.1975, this accused was referring to his role and no other plausible explanation is forthcoming. His explanation is only slippery. Accused have not suggested to PW-1, PW-2, PW-11, PW-13, PW-33 and PW-68 during their cross-examination that in the hierarchy of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 756 cult there is post of "Sectorial Secretary" or "SS". In this peculiar situation nothing more can be deduced from the diary writing than to say that this accused was successful in getting entry Passes/Badges/Cards arranged for his friends and they all were referring to their plan to eliminate the target, which they considered as noble purpose and he considered it as "Leela" of his cult head.
684. One more writing: -
"the day was fully utilized as an instrument graciously touched by cosmic wave length meeting the sequences. Oh baba, you are the lord of the lords prevalent everywhere and will establish your cherished goal of universal sudvipra kingdom. Started for Delhi with mother and Bhabi"
(Question No.361 - in respect of the entry in the diary dated 2nd January 1975- Mark Q-15-A).
Ranjan Dwivedi replied that this entry is not relevant to the incident that took place."
685. The explanation of the accused to the above circumstances appearing against him in question No. 361, he could not offer any explanation and merely stated that this entry is not relevant to the incident that took place. This explanation given by him is highly casuistic and warrants proper deciphering. As already mentioned above, the cult head i.e. "Baba" Anand Murti was revered as incarnation of Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna by the cult followers.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 757 After reading the scribbling in the diary, it comes out that it is more a thanks-giving for engaging some force which helped him to arrange for the access to co-conspirators to reach the spot of the crime and therefore this accused had mentioned that his cult head had some divinity. Attributing his success to have been useful in arranging the Passes, this accused expressed his beholding to his cult head that because of his omnipresence, he could make good of this opportunity only by such divine grace which he refers to as "cosmic wave lengths made the success". It is very crucial and significant that accused Ranjan Dwivedi referred to the cherished goal of his cult head in his handwriting by employing the peculiar words only known to Anand Margies i.e. "Sadvipra raj" (kingdom of moralists). He also refers after having accomplished such access for his co-conspirators for which he made a thanks-giving by way of these scribblings, he left for Delhi with his mother and Bhabhi. In the absence of any other tenable or convincing explanation and especially in the background of giving an evasive reply, this accused could not escape himself from his handwriting which clearly refers to the acts and deeds that had taken place prior to the scheduled event of inauguration of Broad Gauge line between Samastipur and Muzaffarpur and the special words employed i.e. "Sadvipra Raj" refers to the objectives of the Anand Marg.
686. Next writing confronted to him under Section 313 Cr. PC: -
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 758 "Reached Delhi and received by Rajeshwarji at the station. News of the first phase of the drama heard at the station"
(Question No.362 referring to the entry in the diary dated 3rd January 1975) The accused explained that it was in relation with the intended visit of his future wife and of the consent of his brother Mr. Ram Dwivedi, an Engineer in America giving his reluctant assent for the same.
687. Apropos the noting in his writing on the subsequent date, this accused after reaching Delhi Railway Station specifically refers to the news of 'the first phase of the drama heard at the station'. As already deciphered above, the events that had taken place on 02.1.1975, which have been referred by this accused as a play of their Lord by using the words "Leela", "Cosmic wave lengths", "Sadvipra Kingdom", etc., here this accused again refers to the words "drama". "Drama" literally is synonym to the Sanskrit word "Leela" or "play". This accused must be referring to the news of blast that had taken place at the spot of crime i.e. Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station. However, strangely this accused gives an explanation that the writing suggested to his brother Sh. Ram Dwivedi, an Engineer in America, giving his reluctant acceptance for his proposed marriage with his fiancée. It is noteworthy that he did not meet his brother Sh. Ram Dwivedi at the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 759 station nor did he receive any telegram or heard anything from Sh. Ram Dwivedi through anyone, especially when in those days there was no facility of mobile phones or even STD booths. If this writing is recorded as related to his brother giving consent for his marriage with his fiancée, he would have directly referred his brother's consent for marriage.
688. One more important inculpatory circumstance accosted: -
"Attended DC (Dharam Chakra), Delhi and narrated my meeting with Baba on "17th Dec 74".
What you have to say"?
(Question No.364 regarding entry dated 5.1.1975 in his diary Mark Q-15-D) The accused No. 4 Ranjan Dwivedi explained that the entry of 05/1/75 is of no relevance and attending DC (Dharam Chakra) which is a public spiritual function where Margies and their non-Margies friend/relatives attend is not a venue to discuss conspiracies and as he was admittedly the Advocate for Anand Marg and had met Shri Anand Murti Ji in Bankipur Jail, the narration of his meeting with him at a public place cannot be construed as having any sinister meaning and it is again a case of making a mountain out of mole hill.
689. The fact that Ranjan Dwivedi met Baba on 17.12.1974 is proved by the prosecution in the statement of PW-71 Sh. Brindaban Pandey, the then Assistant Jailor, Central Jail, Patna, who brought the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 760 application submitted by accused Ranjan Dwivedi to meet Baba and also passed orders on that application, as found in the Register at Ex.P-150. Furthermore, there is a clear cut admission in the diary itself that he met Baba on 17.12.1974. It has also come in evidence that accused Ranjan Dwivedi came by bus to Samastipur and in this bus, he met other co-devotees of Baba namely accused Santoshanand and accused Sudevanand. The meeting with co-devotees of Baba by this accused and his participation in Dharam Chakra (congregation of devotees of Baba) at Muzaffarpur (AMPS School) and Vahni would go to show that this accused was under the spell of the founder of the cult namely Anand Murti (Baba) and it was the design of the entire cult and plan of the co-conspirators to eliminate anybody who came in their way. Thus, the meeting of this accused with Baba on 17.12.1974 which he confirmed in his diary and announcement of such meeting with Baba in the congregation would go to show that this accused was boastful of himself to have become the useful tool in the hands of his spiritual/cult head as noted by him elsewhere also in the diary at Q-15, Q-15D and Q-15A. These writings conclusively establish that this accused along with the co-conspirators was active in the pursuit of the cult, which planned to eliminate anybody so as to bring pressure on the establishment for the release of Baba. However, the explanation given by the accused Ranjan Dwivedi to these writings that Dharam Chakra is a public spiritual function where the Margies and their non- Margies friends and relatives attend is not a venue to discuss CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 761 conspiracy and that he was an Advocate of the "Sect" is not tangible explanation though the meeting/congregation of the cult followers and non-followers is a possibility.
61) Theory propounded by Ranjan Dwivedi under Section 313 of Cr. PC.
690. In his further explanation to the entire episode, Ranjan Dwivedi stated that the excerpts of his writing in diary, when read together with the rest of the passages, only proves his innocence and falsify the story of prosecution. He stated that he was an advocate for the cult of Sh. Anand Murtiji, and that the Anand Marg was banned during Emergency. He was going to challenge the order of the ban imposed against Anand Marg on 26.6.1975 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this was precisely the reason of his arrest by CBI.
He stated that the strained relations between L.N. Mishra and the then Prime Minister were mentioned earlier wherein the wife of the deceased expressed her fear in this regard. He also stated that according to a report in the Illustrated Weekly dated 18.1.1987, it was mentioned that L.N. Mishra was a controversial figure and the Bihar Assembly Privileges Sub Committee indicted Mishra and his family for alleged irregularities in the Kosi Project and he was accused of showing favours to the Director of the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation by the CPM. He also stated that it was alleged by the opposition that Mishra was the man behind the Tulmohan Ram scandal involving import licences when he was Minister for Foreign CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 762 Trade and he had several damning receipts for large sums of money, he had ploughed into Mrs. Gandhi's Rai Bareli campaign in 1971 which could have seriously injured her court battle with Raj Narain. He stated that Sh. L.N. Mishra tried to meet the leader of opposition (J.P. Narain) just before the bare his past services (sic.) to Mrs. Gandhi to explain how the screws were being tightened on him and to seek JP's guidance. He stated that the date set for L.N. Mishra to meet J.P. Narain was mid January but he was killed before he could do so and many people suspected an assassination for political reasons and the CBI protected the real offenders and the initial investigation into the assassination of L.N. Mishra conducted jointly by Bihar CID and CBI unearthed the plot as hatched by one "Boss Jha" and others wherein Arun Kumar Thakur and Arun Mishra were paid to kill the Minister and investigation also resulted in the seizure of blueprints of the map of Samastipur Railway platform and diary from the house of Arun Kumar Mishra, and that Arun Kumar Thakur was formally arrested on 08.2.1975 and subsequently made a confessional statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC.
He further stated that on 21.2.1975 Arun Kumar Thakur gave details of his complicity in the crime and according to Mr. Tarkunde report, A.K. Thakur had confessed to that which police could not have known at that time such as complicity of Shiv Narayan Sharma who threw the grenade, witness Shankar saw Arun Thakur and Arun Mishra running away after the blast and Mr. Bery, a Railway Officer, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 763 was saluted by Arun Thakur at one of the platforms before the incident, the diary of A.K. Thakur was attached that contained highly suggestive entries on 01.1.1975 and 05.5.1975 and incriminating papers found in the house of A.K. Thakur contained the design of a grenade, name of the co-accused and a rough sketch of railway lines and platform and A.K. Thakur stated that he threw away his grenade on the railway lines and a letter was written by Arun Mishra to Sheo Narayan Sharma dated 10.11.1974 that he was ready "to do the work". He stated that there was a deliberate suppression of enquiry by Mr. D. Sen of CBI and it was opined that an officer of the rank of D. Sen could not have suppressed the investigation into the murder of L.N. Mishra without the assurance of political support from higher quarters.
Further, he explained that Mrs. Indira Gandhi took unusual interest in this matter and asked Abdul Gaffoor if he had favoured Jailor Rehman of Samastipur Jail by promoting him and Mr. Gaffoor denied it. He stated that Mr. Justice Tarkunde reported attributes that real Visheshwaranand, who was known to the police as being involved in the conspiracy to murder Madhavanand, was one Hans Lal s/o Daroga Singh of village Tandura in Bhojpur District. He stated that as soon as this Srivastava Visheshwaranand (PW-1) made his confessional statement on 12.5.1975, CBI showered extraordinary favours on him. He stated that Srivastava was a clerk in PWD Office in Darbhanga and his services had been terminated in August 1964 due to prolonged absence from duty and on 13.3.1975, the next day of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 764 making confessional statement, he was reinstated with continuity in service after 11 years. He stated that according to Justice Tarkunde, after Mr. S.B. Sahai, DIG Bihar, started a fresh enquiry into the case at the instance of the then Chief Minister, Vikram was examined on 30.9.1975 by the Doctor and Jailor of Danapur Sub Jail where he still remained a prisoner and Vikram told them that the confessional statement was false and this was result of physical torture. He stated that according to Justice Tarkunde, Vikram was interviewed by Chief Secretary, Bihar Government, who met him alone in the cell and later on DIG S.B. Sahai also met him and they were satisfied that confessional statement of Vikram was due to torture.
691. Whether the prolixity of this explanation would stand the test of probabilities to wean away one's attention to the overwhelming evidence adduced on record or not is the question that arises after going through this lengthy exp lanation.
This court has already dealt the issue regarding the possibility of PW-1 posing himself as an imposter-Visheshwaranand and further had delved deeply into the validity and legality of the CID Reports of Bihar Government and the futility of Tarkunde Report, which is purely hear-say evidence. The main contention of the accused Ranjan Dwivedi by way of explanation is that late L.N. Mishra's deeds while in power reeked with corruption in Kosi Project, MMTC and import licence scandal and was a source for extravagance during the campaign for Mrs. Gandhi at Rai Bareilly. If the Minister was so CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 765 much tainted his continuance in the Union Cabinet would be un- understandable and just because he was corrupt, nobody intended to kill him by taking law into their own hands. There is no material to perceive the political or personal animosity of the Minister with any of his political rivals or such foes. The accused has not placed any material to suggest that the Minister was the object of avowed vengeance at the hands of some private individuals or the group. In these circumstances, the theory propounded by the prosecution that the followers of Anand Marg (specifically the accused) had resolved to get their founder released by extra legal measures through browbeating, terrorizing the government and in such pursuits the incident occurred is more probable supported by the cogent, creditworthy and reliable evidence, when looked through the entire conspectus of ocular and documentary evidence. This theory further gets credence from the earlier events to the murder of L.N. Mishra like the self-immolations, attack on one of the deserters of the cult by the name at Madhavanand at Patna and the tracking the movements of CM of Bihar by the group, who perceived him to be one more obstacle for release of their Guru, which are all the offshoots of the criminal conspiracy and presented with reliable evidence by the prosecution as discussed above.
62) Extra Judicial Confession by A-1.
692. PW-11 Sh. Raj Singh deposed that after April 1974, A-1 came to his residence on 7th or 8 th March 1975, and then on 19.3.1975 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 766 accompanied by Sudevanand and Vikram at about 08.00/09.00 PM. He was not previously acquainted with the name of Sudevanand. (The witness has correctly identified accused Sudevanand and approver Vikram in the Court). He deposed that the names of Vikram and Sudevanand were disclosed to him during night by accused Santoshanand. He had earlier seen Vikram as he used to be present at D-41, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi whenever he went there. On the night of 19.3.1975, accused Sudevanand and approver Vikram were in plain clothes and they were having one brief case and one bag and some other luggage. Prior to 19.03.1975, he had seen accused Sudevanand in dress of Avadhoots. He further deposed that on the night of 19.3.1975 accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Vikram stayed at his house and in his presence accused Santoshanand told that Baba had become very weak in the jail and they must make efforts to get him freed from the jail and it was difficult to get Baba freed by lawful means and for that reason they should adopt such means which might shake the Government and accused Santoshanand became highly sentimental and stated that he was prepared to sacrifice his own life to get Baba freed. He deposed that Sudevanand was also called "Doctorji" as he used to give homeopathic medicines. After going through morning rituals and taking their breakfast, Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Vikram left his residence on 20.3.1975 at 8.00 AM. They took with them one Jhola and left the other baggage at his residence. After attending his office, he returned to his residence at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 767 about 05.00 PM and within 10-15 minutes of his reaching house, on 20.3.1975 itself, accused Sudevanand also reached there. Sudevanand was looking quite nervous. He enquired from him as to whether Santoshanand and Vikram had also arrived in the house and he told him that they have not arrived and after about half an hour accused Santoshanand also reached his house and made enquires about Sudevanand and Vikram. On seeing each other, accused Sudevanand and Santoshanand embraced each other and kissed and said Baba has saved them. Vikram did not come to his residence on that night and on the same evening i.e. 20.3.1975, accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand lifted all their luggage and started leaving his house. At that time, they told him to destroy all the articles connected with Anand Marg and not to tell the police if they come to his residence that nobody had come there and they also asked him to keep Vikram in his house for the night in case he reaches there. Thereafter they left towards jungle in different directions.
693. PW-11 Raj Singh further testified that on 21.3.1975, he was reading newspaper, and found the news about hand grenade attack on Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Sh. A.N. Ray. At that time, Santoshanand also came there and on his asking he (PW-11) told him that Vikram had not arrived there. He further deposed that after reading the newspaper report, accused Santoshanand said, "Sala bach gaya, we had thrown two hand grenades on him." He asked CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 768 Santoshanand as to why they attacked the Chief Justice and what wrong he had done and Santoshanand replied that he was a "Mahapapi" (big sinner) and rejected two/three bail applications of the Baba and that he was the stooge of Indira Gandhi's Government. Santoshanand then told that, "Behold the leela of the Baba as despite throwing of two hand grenades, he i.e. Chief Justice did not die." Santoshanand further told him that perhaps Baba wanted to give a new lease of life to the Chief Justice so that he could mend his ways. He further told that "see the leela of Baba that we had thrown only one hand grenade at Samastipur and L.N. Mishra died although he had superficial injuries as compared to others, who had sustained grievous injuries but surviving". Santoshanand further told that only that person dies whom the Baba wants to die and the person whom the Baba does not want to die, survives even in attack of two hand grenades. He deposed that he became scared on hearing all this from accused Santoshanand, who informed him that at that time, they had escaped at both the places i.e. Samastipur and Delhi by the grace of Baba. He told Santoshanand that he was a family man and a Government servant and was being involved unnecessarily in such matters and sought forgiveness and the accused told him not to be a coward and threatened him with dire consequences of meeting the same fate as that of L.N. Mishra, in case he divulged information, which he had come to know from them and accused Santoshanand left his residence and directed him to send Vikram to the Garden as and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 769 when he comes. On asking of meaning of Garden, he (accused Santoshanand) told him that Vikram understood it. Santoshanand again came to his residence on 22.3.1973 at about 8.00 AM and when he was about to leave for his office at 10 AM, Santoshanand asked him to take him on scooter as he was to post some letters at GPO, Delhi and being scared of him, he asked Santoshanand to give him those letters and he gave him 6 or 7 letters wrapped in one paper and uppermost was addressed to Chief Justice A.N. Ray and he posted those letters same day at GPO. He stated that accused Santoshanand gave him Rs.60/- while leaving his house for giving to Vikram as Vikram had no sufficient funds. On 23.3.1975, Santoshanand again came to his house at 08.00 AM to enquire about Vikram and he told him that he had not reached and Santoshanand took back those Rs.60/- by saying that Vikram was a bold and clever man and must have reached all by himself. He also threatened of dire consequences if he divulges information about them to anyone. On 09.4.1975, Vikram came to his house at about 07.00/08.00 AM and Vikram told him that he had already met Santoshanand.
694. In his cross-examination, PW-11 replied that he knew Vikram prior to his visiting the house of PW-11. He was introduced to him by Santoshanand. He came to know about the name of Vikram in the year 1971. He admitted the suggestion of the defence at Page No. 638 of his deposition, which reads as under:-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 770 "It is correct that while coming to my house along with Vikram and Sudevanand, Santoshanand was having a bag of black colour."
He did not remember whether Santoshanand was having anything with him when he visited his house along with Sudevanand and Vikram on 19.03.1975. He denied the suggestion that on his coming to his house from the office, he was informed by his wife that the brief case was left there by Santoshanand. He did not see black bag in the hand of Santoshanand on 20.03.1975, when he returned to his house. He further deposed that after taking away of that black bag in the Morning of 20.03.1975 from his house, he did not see that black bag subsequently. He did not recollect whether during his visit to the house, Santoshanand used to have a brief case with him in the year 1974. He deposed that after 23.03.1975, he had seen Santoshanand only in the court. He further testified that the details about the incident regarding L.N. Mishra were given to him by Santoshanand without his specific asking about it and information given to him was extra judicial confession by Santoshanand. He did not inquire from him as to who had thrown the hand grenade at Samastipur but Santoshanand informed that "we had done so". When this information was given to him by Santoshanand, he told him that he was a family member and immediately they threatened him. From the word "HUM", he understood that Santoshanand was referring to himself, Sudevanand and Vikram. He was in plain clothes, when he came to his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 771 house. He replied that during the night of 19.03.1975, Vikram and Sudevanand were not present, when Santoshanand talked to him about health of Baba in Jail or that they must take make efforts to get him freed from the Jail. At that time, Santoshanand also told him that it was difficult to get Baba released with lawful means and they should adopt such means, which might shake the Government. He did not agree with the Santoshanand to get Baba released by illegal means. On 19.03.1975, he did not have any suspicion that Santoshanand and his two companions were going to do some illegal act. On 20.03.1975 after coming to his house in the Evening, Santoshanand embraced Sudevanand, which continued for 5-7 minutes. They did not give him any threat on that day (20.03.1975). He further answered that on 21.03.1975, when Santoshanand admitted his involvement in throwing of hand grenade on Chief Justice A.N. Ray, he got very much perplexed but did not ask him to leave the house. He developed hatred towards Santoshanand after coming to know his involvement in the matter. Santoshanand narrated him the details at that time in about 15 or 20 minutes and during this period, he narrated about the attack on Chief Justice of India and throwing of bomb on L.N. Mishra. He inquired from him as to whether they had hand in that incident, he nodded his head in the affirmative and narrated the facts. He further explained that with regard to L.N. Mishra's case, Santoshanand had narrated "See the Lilla of Baba that we had thrown only one hand grenade at Samastipur and L.N. Mishra died although he had CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 772 superficial injuries as compared to others, who had sustained grievous injuries, but survived". He did inform the police what Santoshanand disclosed to him and he has no courage to do so.
695. In the lengthy cross-examination running into 50 pages of PW- 11 Sh. Raj Singh spread over several dates, the defence had only got repeated the examination-in-chief and they could not cause any dent in his testimony. The defence does not deride visit of accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver Vikram to the house of PW- 11 from 19.03.1975 to 23.03.1975 by giving him suggestion that "While coming to his house along with Vikram and Sudevanand, Santoshanand was having a bag of black colour". The defence has also got elicited on their own that their visit to the house of PW-11 during this period by again giving him the suggestion that the wife of PW-11 told him that Santoshanand had left his black bag and that the bag brought by Santoshanand on 20.03.1975 was not in his hand in the Evening. The defence has further got admitted their visit on 23.03.1975 as well by giving him suggestion that PW-11 had seen Santoshanand in the court at the time of deposition after 23.03.1975.
696. The prosecution has examined PW-11 to prove extra judicial confession made by accused Santoshanand before him that they were responsible for killing of late Sh. L.N. Mishra in Samastipur bomb blast. The exact words are already mentioned in the chief, which are CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 773 got confirmed by the accused in their cross-examination. This extra judicial confession by accused Santoshanand was never shattered by the accused persons in the cross-examination of PW-11. This court finds that the testimony of PW-11 has been consistent and trustworthy without any ornamentation and hence believable.
697. It would be not out of place to note the findings of the Hon'ble High Court in Crl. A. 436 and 443 of 1976 DD 14.08.2014, MANU/DE/1873/2014 filed by accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi (pertaining to the incident of attack on the then CJI A.N. Ray in RC No. 11/75). The Hon'ble High Court while dealing with almost identical testimonies of PW-11 and PW-13 herein {PW-57 Raj Singh and PW-55 Shiv Raj Singh, the witnesses examined in the files of the above said appeals} has given its verdict in the following: -
"63. In the instant case, the extra judicial confessions made by A-1 are free from any suspicion as to their voluntary character and have also a ring of truth in it. There is nothing improbable in A-1s making extra judicial confessions to these independent witnesses. The witnesses have reproduced the exact words used by A-1 as nearly as possible to convey that A-1 and his companions were the perpetrators of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 774 crime. These extra judicial confessions can be relied upon along with other evidence for conviction and are incriminating circumstances against A-1."
63) Details of the victims in the Bomb blast.
698. It is necessary to note the details of the victims in the bomb blast. Apart from causing death of three persons in the incident, 8 persons as per the charge sheet, had suffered "grievous hurt" and 18 suffered "hurt". The prosecution could not examine all the injured persons, but examined some of them, hence the details of such of the injured are tabulated in two categories viz. those victims covered by charge U/s. 326 IPC and table of the victims covered under the charge U/s. 324 IPC.
699. The names of the dead in the incident for which the charge under Section 302 IPC framed, are Sh. L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha and Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore.
64) Details of injured persons covered U/s. 326 IPC.
Sr. Name of Whether MLC/Injury Report
No. Injured examined /Medical Report
as a
witness
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 775
(i) DIG PW-28 Ex.PW-104/A B.N. Prasad (Available in Folder R-14) (Brij Nandan Examined at Janta Clinic on Prasad) 3.1.1975.
He suffered Grievous injuries.
Splinters on right side of chest
and in abdomen
(ii) Brij Mohan PW-57 Ex.PW-93/E
Sharma (Available in Folder R-29)
30 years R/o
Village Bithan Admitted in Railway Hospital
on 2.1.1975 at 18.15 hrs.
Discharged on 14.1.1975.
(iii) Ajay Kumar PW-58 Ex.PW-97/A
10 years (Available in Folder R-14)
Nawab Clinic
(iv) Ram Bhagat PW85 Ex.PW-93/H = Ex.PW-107/G
Paswan (Available in Folder R-29)
MP
40 years Admitted on 2.1.1975 in
Railway Hospital, Samastipur at
18.15 hrs.
Discharged on 3.1.1975
Ex.PW-104/B Dated 14.1.1975
(Available in Folder R-14)
Injury Report of Janta clinic
Fracture shaft of meta tarsal
bone of right foot.
(v) Ram Vinod Not Ex.PW-93/D =PW-107/E
examined. (Available in Folder R-29)
Sharma
42 years Admitted in Railway Hospital,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 776 Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15 hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975.
* However, PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai deposed that Ram Vinod Sharma was injured. PW-
85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan stated that Ram Vinod Sharma was present on the Dais.
(vi) Kapil Dev Not Ex.PW-93/F
Narain Singh examined. (Available in Folder R-29)
MLA
56 years Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975
on request.
* However, PW-85 Sh. Ram
Bhagat Paswan stated that Kapil
Dev Narain Singh was on Dais.
PW113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai also
stated that he was present on the
Dais.
(vii) Kailash Pati Not Ex.PW-93/G
Singh examined. (Available in Folder R-29)
46 years
Ex.PW-112/A
(Available in Folder R-14)
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975
on request.
Also admitted in Darbhanga
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 777 Hospital.
Suffered comminuted fracture both bones lower 3rd of left leg.
* However, PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai stated that he was present on the Dais.
(viii) Smt. Lalita Not Ex.PW-116/A
Devi Singh (Available in Folder R-29)
examined
35 years
Admitted in Railway Hospital
on 2.1.1975 and discharged on
23.1.1975.
Suffered Fracture Metacarpal
(left hand)
65) Details of injured covered under charge U/s 324 IPC.
Sr. Name Whether MLC/
examined
No. Report
as a
witness
(i) Sh. Jayant PW 127 Ex.PW-93/S =Ex.PW-107/K
Banerjee (Available in Folder R-29)
33 years
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. Discharged on 5.1.1975.
No fracture.
(ii) Umesh Prasad PW56 No document
Singh
(iii) Jagan Nath CW3
Mishra
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 778
(iv) Rama Kant Not Ex.PW-93/N =Ex.PW-107/D Jha examined. (Available in Folder R-29) 48 years Dr. T.D. Nandi PW-107 No fracture.
Admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur on 2.1.1975 Discharged on 4.1.1975 * However, PW-113 Raj Dev Rai stated that he was on Dais
(v) Baleshwar Examined Ex.PW-93/R =Ex.PW-107/B Ram 45 years as CW-5 (Available in Folder R-29) MLA-Ex Admitted in Railway Hospital, Minister Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15 hrs. and discharged on request on 3.1.1975.
Dr. T.D. Nandi
(vi) Suresh Prasad Not Ex.PW-93/L
Singh examined. Admission No.3601
46 years
(Available in Folder R-29)
Advocate
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975
on request.
* However, PW-113 Sh. Raj
Dev Rai stated that he was
present on the Dais.
(vii) Jamuna Prasad Not Ex.PW-93/P
Mandal examined. (Available in Folder R-29)
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 779 65 years Admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15 hrs. and discharged on 4.1.1975 X-ray Pelvis No fracture.
* However, PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai stated that his cloths were blood stained when he gave assistance to Ram Vinod Sharma and Jamuna Mandal
(viii) P.R. Chopra Not Ex.PW-93/J 53 years examined. (Available in Folder R-29) Admission No.3582 Admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur on 2.1.1975 and discharged on 3.1.1975.
* However, PW-116 K.M. Sinha stated that Mr. Chopra (GM) who was standing on Dais was lifted to give medical aid.
(ix) Bisheshwar Not Ex.PW-93/V= Ex.PW-107/J
Rai (Available in Folder R-29)
examined
28 years
No fracture
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at
18.15 hrs. and discharged on
4.1.1975
(x) Satender Not Ex.PW-93/T
Parshad Singh (Available in Folder R-29)
examined
30 years
No fracture
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 780 hrs. and discharged on 4.1.1975 on request
(xi) Parmanand Not Ex.PW-93/W=Ex.PW-107/H Jha, (Available in Folder R-29) examined 42 years Admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15 hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975 on request.
(xii) Suraj Not Ex.PW-93/U
Chaudhary 60 (Available in Folder R-29)
examined
years
X-ray left leg
No fracture
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. and discharged on 7.1.1975
on request.
(xiii) Smt. Noor Not Ex.PW-93/Q
Jahan 35 years (Available in Folder R-29)
examined
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. and discharged on 4.1.1975
(xiv) Suraj Narain Not Ex.PW-93/O
Mandal (Available in Folder R-29)
examined
45 years
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 and
discharged on 3.1.1975
(xv) Pramod Not Ex.PW-93/M
Prasad (Available in Folder F-29)
examined
23 years
Admission No.3602
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 02.1.1975 at
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 781 18.15 hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975 (xvi) I.D. Sharma Not Ex.PW-93/Y examined (xvii) Naval Kishore Not Ex.PW-93/K =Ex.PW-107/C 38 years (Available in Folder R-29) examined Admission No.3582 Admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur on 2.1.1975 and discharged on 3.1.1975 (xviii) C.S. Not PW-97 Dr. S.N. Nawab Chaudhary examined Admitted at 1815 hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975.
700. PW-28 Sh. Brij Nandan Prashad, DIG, deposed that when he was standing behind the Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra, there was a blast and he fell down and became unconscious on the Dais. On regaining consciousness, he found himself in Samastipur Hospital. He was taken to Nawab Clinic, Darbhanga due to strike in Medical College, Darbhanga and he was operated upon thrice and he was also flown to America for treatment. All his intestines came out and there were 50 splinters in his body. He could join duty only after 8 months. PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari, Chief Public Relation Officer, deposed that after the Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra concluded his speech and took turn, there was loud explosion and he noticed splinters and smoke. Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra received injuries and was taken to his MR Carriage on BG Lines. PW-56 Sh. Umesh Prasad CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 782 Singh deposed in the explosion, he sustained injuries and was taken to Samastipur Hospital. He was given first aid. Then he went to Patna and got himself treated in Popular Nursing Home for 10 days. PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, deposed that there was an explosion on the Munch in which he received serious injuries on his both legs. He was taken to Railway Hospital where he remained admitted for 12 days. He received injuries with splinters in the explosion and one splinter is still in his foot. He had to remain in the house for about one year during which he would not do heavy work and there was fracture in his foot. PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar deposed he heard explosion and also sustained injuries on his chest. He jumped from the Dais and became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself in Janta Clinic, Darbhanga under the treatment of Dr. S.N. Nawab. PW-60 Sh. R.N. Rai deposed that there was a blast on the Dais and there was smoke. DIG B.N. Prasad was on the Munch who was crying. Sh. L.N. Mishra also received injuries. He assisted Hawaldar in bringing DIG Sh. B.N. Prasad from the Dais and then he along with Security Man Rattan Singh and 2-3 persons rendered assistance to Sh. L.N. Mishra and took him to Saloon of the Special Train. PW-65 Sh. Vishwanath Deputy SP deposed that there was a blast with loud sound when Railway Minister was still on the Dais. The Railway Minister and several other persons on the Dais sustained injuries. He shifted injured persons to the nearby hospital. PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP, deposed that he along with Ram Sukumari Devi, Sh.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 783 Kapil Dev Singh, Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma and others were on the Dais and the explosion took place there. He received injuries on his both legs due to explosion and became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself at Dr. Nawab's Clinic, Darbhanga, and remained admitted for about 3 weeks and suffered fracture in right leg. He could not work for about 6 months due to fracture and injury. He used to suffer pain due to injury. After discharge from Dr. Nawab's Clinic, he remained admitted in Willingdon Hospital in New Delhi in the month of February 1975. Still seven splinters were in his leg. PW-109 Sh. Mohan Kumar Jha deposed as having heard a loud explosion and noticed that some persons were bringing Railway Minister to the Saloon.
701. PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat stated that Sh. Baleshwar Ram, Sh. Rama Kant Jha accompanied Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra on the Dais. There were 30/35 persons on the Dais including Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, Sh. Rama Kant Jha, Sh. Baleshwar Ram Sh. Y.P. Mandal, Sh. Surya Narain Jha, Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma, Sh. Ram Sukumari Devi, Sh. Ram Naresh Singh, Sh. Suresh Prasad Singh, Advocate, Sh. Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, and Sh. Kapil Dev Narain Singh. After concluding his speech moved 2-3 steps that he heard some sound and then smoke appeared and he realized to be a bomb blast. He saw Sh. L.N. Mishra was about to fall but Sukumari Devi assisted him by holding him in her hand. He lifted Ram Vinod Sharma in injured condition and handed over to others to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 784 remove him to hospital. Thereafter with the help of others, he lifted Jamuna Mandal who was removed to Hospital. He noticed that Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken to Special Train and was made to sit in the Train. CW-3 Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra an injured, deposed that he and his eldest brother Sh. L.N. Mishra got injured in the incident on 2.1.1975 at Samastipur Railway Platform and L.N. Mishra succumbed to his injuries on 3.1.1975 at Danapur Railway Hospital.
702. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha deposed that after finishing his speech, Sh. L.N. Mishra spoke "Jai Hind", took a turn towards his back and in the meanwhile there was flash on the Dais followed by smoke and thunder sound. He heard cries from the Dais. He found that General Manager Sh. Chopra, standing on the Dais was lifted for giving him medical aid.
66) Medical Evidence
703. Now this leads me to refer the statement of the doctors who have examined the victims of bomb blast that took place on the Dais at Platform No.3, Samastipur Railway Station, Samastipur.
704. According to the charges framed against the accused persons, three persons namely Sh. L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minister, Sh. Surya Narain Jha, (whose name is mentioned as Suraj Narain Jha in the charge framed against accused persons) and Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore have died. Further eight persons namely Ram CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 785 Bhagat Paswan (PW-85), Kailash Pati Singh, whose name is mentioned in the charge framed as Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57), Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N. Parsad (PW-28), Ajay Kumar (PW-58), Kapil Dev Narain Singh and Smt. Lalita Devi have suffered "grievous hurt".
In addition, Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3), Rama Kant Jha, Jayant Banerjee (PW-127), Baleshwar Ram, Suresh Parshad Singh, Umesh Parshad Singh (PW-56), Bisheshwar Rai, Satender Parsad Singh, Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudhary, Smt. Noor Jahan, Jamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narain Mandal, Pramod Parshad, I.D. Sharma, Naval Kishore, P.R. Chopra and C.S. Chaudhary have suffered "hurt".
705. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur in January 1975 deposed that in those days Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107), Dr. M.N. Sharma, Dr. A. Sain, Dr. P.C. Gupta, Dr. M. Banerjee and Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) were also working in the same Hospital. He had seen them writing and signing and he could identify their writing and signatures. On 2.1.1975, he was on emergency duty in North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur from 12.30 PM to 4.30 PM and from 5.30 PM to 8.30 AM on 03.1.1975. His residence was hardly at a distance, which could be covered within 5 minutes from the Hospital. On that day i.e. on 02.1.1975 at about 6.00 P.M., he was on duty in the Hospital. He received information on telephone at his residence and on that basis he reached the Hospital at about 06.00 PM. He received a message about CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 786 a bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons have suffered injuries in that bomb blast who, were to be brought to their Hospital. He immediately rushed to the Hospital. Many injured persons were brought there in the emergency. He has written particulars of these persons on their Bed Head Tickets.
706. PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi, the then AMO, Railway Hospital, Samastipur testified that on 02.1.1975 he joined his duty in the Hospital at 4.45 PM and on that day at about 6 PM while he was standing outside OPD, one patient came having injuries caused by bomb blast. He rendered him first aid in the Emergency Room. While he was providing him first aid, at that time about 25-30 injured persons came in the Hospital. They were shifted to Indoor Hospital. Several doctors came simultaneously and they all became busy in rendering medical aid to those injured persons.
707. In his cross-examination, PW-107 Dr. T.D Nandi it is elicited that all these patients were medico-legal cases. The public brought them to hospital but he did not mention who brought them. He did not give any information to the police about these persons. However, many persons including VIPs and the police officers were moving about in the Hospital. His opinion that the injury could be caused by bomb explosion was based on his observation while examining the patients.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 787
708. PW-95 Dr. Mohinder Nath Sharma deposed that during the year 1974-75 he was posted as Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, Samastipur. On 02.1.1975, there was an inauguration of BG Lines from Samastipur to Muzaffarpur. Railway Minister was to inaugurate the previously mentioned BG Lines. Dr. R. K. Sinha (PW-94) was deputed to accompany the Railway Minister from Darbhanga to Samastipur and thereafter he was to accompany Sh. L.N. Mishra. Dr. P.C. Bhalla, Chief Medical Officer was also to accompany Railway Minister from Darbhanga to Samastipur. On 2.1.1975, Dr. P. C. Bhalla & Dr. R.K. Sinha (PW-94) accompanied Railway Minister from Darbhanga to Samastipur in Special Train, which reached behind the schedule. On 2.1.1975 he along with Sh. Uppal, Chief Engineer (Construction) went to Railway Station, Samastipur at about 4.30 PM before arrival of Special Train. Dr. K.M. Sinha, AMO (PW-116), was also present with him. After arrival of Special Train, Sh. L. N . Mishra, Railway Minister, came on the Munch. Sh. L.N. Mishra delivered the speech. At that time, he (PW-95) was standing in front of the Rostrum. After concluding his speech, Sh. L.N. Mishra took a turn and then there was an explosion with a flash. There was commotion on the Munch. There were cries from the Munch. Many persons present on the Munch sustained injuries. He provided first aid to some persons on the Munch with the assistance of Dr. K.M. Sinha and arranged to send the injured persons to the Railway Hospital, Samastipur. All the injured persons were brought to the Railway CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 788 Hospital, Samastipur. Bed Head Tickets of patients, who were treated in Railway Hospital, were prepared. His work was to supervise the treatment. He himself also treated some. Their injuries were noted on the Bed Head Tickets and from Bed Head Tickets, Injury Reports were prepared. He proved the Injury Report Ex.PW-95/A bearing his signatures at point 'A' and it was prepared from the Bed Head Tickets (Ex.PW-95/A is available in Folder R-6). In the Injury Report Ex.PW-95/A, details of injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra and Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3) were noted from the writing brought by Dr. R.K. Sinha (PW-94). Vide forwarding letter dated 9.1.1975 Ex.PW-95/B, injury chart was sent to District Superintendent, Railway Police Camp, Samastipur. (Ex.PW-95/B is available in Folder R-6). Later on i.e. on 17.1.1975, he issued a corrigendum Mark PW-95/A regarding some injuries of three patients. It bears his writing and signatures at point 'A'. The Injury Chart Ex.PW-95/A is summary of injured persons, their names, age, sex, address, details of injuries, nature of injuries and date of discharge. In this Chart, injuries of Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Singh, Smt. Lalita Devi, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma and R.K.P.S. Kishore are mentioned "grievous". Injuries of Parmanand Jha, Bisheshwar Prasad, Suraj Chaudhary, Satender Prasad Singh, Jayant Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram, K.D. N. Singh, Noor Jahan Begum, Mahender Sahu, Yamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narain Mandal, Rama Kant Jha, MLC, Pramod Parsad, Suresh Prasad Singh, Rajender Sahu, I.D. Sharma, Nawal Kishore Singh, P.R. Chopra and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 789 Jagan Nath Mishra are mentioned to be simple. It is mentioned that Jagan Nath Mishra and L.N. Mishra were taken to Railway Hospital, Danapur for treatment. The injuries of Ram Bhagat Paswan (PW-85), Smt. Lalita Devi, Ram Vinod Sharma, R.K.P.S. Kishore (deceased) and Kailash Pati Sinha were found "grievous". The examination of all those injured persons was done in his presence and supervision and their injuries were also noted under his supervision. The grievous injuries of persons referred by him could be caused by Bomb blast. On 31.1.1975, twenty two Bed Head Tickets Ex.PW-93/A, Ex.PW- 93/B, Ex.PW-93/D to Ex.PW-93/H, Ex.PW-93/J to Ex.PW-93/U and Ex.PW-93/W to Ex.PW-93/Y were handed over by him to Sub- Inspector, CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-95/C which bears his signatures at point "A". These Bed Head Tickets and Seizure Memo are available in Folder R-29.
709. In his cross-examination PW-95 Dr. Mohinder Nath Sharma answered that after taking the X-ray they found splinters in bodies of many injured persons. In some cases, the splinters of those injured were removed by operation. He admitted that Ex.PW-95/A is the carbon copy and replied that it was typed by his steno. He answered that X-ray number plate is not mentioned in Ex.PW-95/A but the findings of the Radiologist is recorded. Those X-rays were seen by him also during the course of treatment. He has denied the suggestion that his opinion is based only on the writing of the Radiologist. He did not realize that it was necessary to mention that X-ray was advised CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 790 and then the number of X-rays should be written along with the opinion of the Radiologist. He did not know whether it was necessary for a doctor issuing medico legal certificate and give the duration of the injuries as they did not deal with the medico legal cases in the Railways. He answered that in the chart Ex.PW-95/A the weapon used is not mentioned but stated that in the covering letter there is a mention that injuries were caused by exploded bomb.
710. PW-121 Sh. P. K. Mishra stated that in January, 1975 he was working as Sub-Inspector, CBI, New Delhi. On 31.1.1975, he was in the camp office of the CBI at Samastipur and prepared a Seizure Memo Ex.PW-95/C. It bears his signatures at point "A". Dr. M. N. Sharma (PW-95) handed over him Bed Head Tickets of 22 injured persons of the bomb blast at Samastipur Railway Station. He has incorporated the names of all injured persons in the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-95/C. These Bed Head Tickets also include Bed Head Tickets of the persons who received injuries at the house of M.P. Sahu. Dr. M. N. Sharma signed this memo at point "B" in his presence. In his cross-examination, PW-121 Sh. P.K. Mishra stated that he did not associate any public witness at the time of taking into possession these Bed Head Tickets.
711. In his cross-examination, Dr. S. M. Nawab stated that he did not remember having given personally the Register Mark PW-97/A to any CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 791 CBI officer. He is not in a position to say after going through this register Mark PW-97/A as to who handed over it to CBI.
712. PW-114 Dr. Bhupender Parshad Singh, the then Demonstrator in Anatomy in Darbhanga Medical College deposed that in January, 1975 there was general strike by the doctors of Bihar Health Service and Indian Medical Association. They were not treating the patients in the Hospitals during those days of strike, but emergent patients were admitted at the Janta Clinic, the temporary arrangement. It also maintained a Register Mark PW-97/A of this Janta Clinic. He was the organizer and so the Superintendent of Janta Clinic. To the possible extent, they prepared Bed Head Tickets in respect of those patients coming to that Janta Clinic. On 26.2.1975, he handed over the Register Mark PW-97/A and three Bed Head Ticket of Ajay Kumar (PW-58), Kapil Dev Narain Singh and Kailash Pati Singh to CBI Officer vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-114/A. (Seizure Memo Ex.PW-114/A is available in Folder R-31)
713. In his cross-examination, PW-114 Dr. Bhupender Parshad Singh answered that they were running Janta Clinic without the permission of the government. The decision of maintaining Janta Clinic was of their Association in the interest of public. They were not charging any fees from the patients who were treated. There was no question of their working hours since they were on strike. They did not have a clerk in the temporary set up. House Surgeon on duty used CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 792 to prepare the record of patients. After the strike was called off, those records were preserved. The Register Mark PW-97/A is one of such record. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that no record was handed over by him to CBI or that his signatures were obtained on the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-114/A without seizing it.
67) Death of three persons in the incident at Samastipur.
714. As per the case of prosecution, three injured persons Sh. L.N. Mishra, Sh. Ram Kishore Parshad Singh and Sh. Surya Narain Jha who had suffered injuries in the Samastipur bomb blast on 02.1.1975 at about 6.00 PM succumbed to their injuries.
(i) Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore
715. The prosecution has examined six witnesses in respect of Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur deposed that he had seen Bed Head Tickets of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore, who was a Clerk in D.E.N. Office at Samastipur. He recorded the particulars in the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/A at 6.15 PM. The writing at point "A" and "C" on the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/A is in his handwriting. The injuries of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh were noted by Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-94) at point "B" on Ex.PW-93/A whose writing he identified. He had also seen the injuries of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh. As per the entries on the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 793 Bed Head Ticket, Ram Kishore Prasad Singh was having crush injuries on both legs with profuse bleeding. There were also multiple lacerated injuries on both the legs and feet with part of the feet missing. The pulse of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh was imperceptible. His blood pressure was not recordable. He was in a shock. Witness recorded his observation on the Bed Head Ticket at point "D". This patient was under the constant supervision and treatment of Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107). The witness along with Medical Superintendent Dr. N.N. Sharma, and Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) attended the patient. During this period, patient's condition was very low and it kept on deteriorating without any sign of improvement, despite the treatment. The patient was put on oxygen from the very beginning and a note to this effect in his handwriting is at point "F" on the Bed Head Ticket. He also attended the patient on 03.1.1975 at 2.20 AM when his pulse was still imperceptible. He made correct note at point "G" on the Bed Head Ticket. Dr. S. Khare attended to this patient at 05.00 AM and 6.00 AM vide noting at point "H" in the handwriting of Dr. S. Khare, which he identified. The condition of the patient was kept on deteriorating despite treatment. He attended this patient at 07.00 AM on 03.1.1975 when he was gasping. All best possible treatment was given to the patient in consultation with the Medical Superintendent Dr. N.N. Sharma but there was no improvement. The treatment was given to the patient between 7.00 AM to 7.45 AM. The patient died at 7.45 AM due to cardiac respiratory failure. He made correct writing at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 794 point "K" on the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/A. He had given the time of death of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh on the first page at point "C". His Death Certificate Ex.PW-93/B was issued which bears his signatures at point 'A'. Memo about his death was sent to Officer, Incharge, GRPS Samastipur, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW-93/C.
716. PW-107 Dr. T. D. Nandi, the then AMO, Railway Hospital, Samastipur stated on 2.1.1975 at about 6 PM, approximately 25-30 injured persons came in the Hospital. He saw Bed Head Ticket no. 3598 Ex.PW-93/A bearing his endorsement Ex.PW-107/A in respect of Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad Singh and he found following injuries on his person:-
1. Crush injury on both legs (grievous injuries with profuse bleeding.)
2. Multiple lacerated injuries on both the legs and feet with part of feet missing accompanied with profuse bleeding.
He further testified that treatment was given to the patient till 11.30 PM which is mentioned at point "E" in his handwriting. The patient Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad Singh died at 07.45 AM on 03.1.1975 due to before said injuries. These injuries were caused by bomb blast and all these injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. These injuries of Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad Singh were caused within half an hour of his examination. On the said Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/A, age of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 795 mentioned as 35 years and designation as Clerk and admitted on 02.1.1975 at 06.15 PM and died at 7.45 AM on 3.1.1975.
717. PW-35 Sh. Uma Kant Chaudhary deposed that deceased Sh. R.K. Kishore was his cousin brother and thus identified his photograph Ex.PW-35/A. On 03.1.1975, the police took Inquest Proceedings in respect of dead body of his cousin brother Sh. R. K. Kishore, which he identified. Inquest Report Ex.PW-35/B was prepared in his presence. It bears his signatures at point "A". His cousin brother Sh. R. K. Kishore died in Railway Hospital, Samastipur on 03.1.1975. His body was searched when his father took out some papers from his pocket. He took out these papers and handed over to Police on 05.1.1975. Production List Ex.PW-35/C was prepared in respect of those papers on 05.1.1975 on which he recorded his correct endorsement with signatures at point "A". Ex.P-17 is one of the papers, which were recovered from the body of Sh. R.K. Kishore, and it bears his endorsement Ex.PW-35/D. This slip/document Ex.P-17 is again exhibited as Ex.PW-48/A. This slip was issued by Assistant Engineer (Construction) NE Railway, Samastipur to the effect that the bearer of the slip is a Railway representative of Engineering Department, permitted to attend the ceremony at Samastipur on 02.1.1975. On this slip Ex.P-17 (Ex.PW-48/A) also bears the endorsement Ex.PW-35/D dated 05.1.1975 of PW-35 to the effect that this was recovered from the pocket of deceased Ram Kishore and is produced. Inquest Report Ex.PW-35/B, Production list Ex.PW-35/C CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 796 and Slip Ex.P-17 (Ex.PW-48/A = Ex.PW-35/D) are available in Folder R-31. The photograph of R.K. Singh Kishore Ex.PW-35/A is available in Folder R-16.
718. PW-46 Constable Ram Krishan Bankira testified that on 03.1.1975, he was posted as a constable at GRP Samastipur. On that day at about 03.45 PM, the dead body of Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore was entrusted to him and Constable Doodh Nath along with the Inquest Papers for taking it to Mortuary at Samastipur. They took the body to Mortuary. Post Mortem examination was conducted on 04.1.1975 and thereafter, dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Nobody tampered with the dead body during the period it remained in their custody. He identified the photograph of Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore Ex.PW-35/A. The doctor handed over to them the bloodstained clothes of the deceased, which they deposited in the Police Station without being tampered with by anyone.
719. PW-52 Sh. Jagdish Parshad Sinha, the then ASI, GRP, Samastipur testified that on 03.1.1975 at about 2.30 PM he received a Requisition Ex.PW-52/A (Dated 3.1.1975) from DSP K.D. Singh for taking Inquest Proceedings in respect of dead body lying in Railway Hospital. A Memo was also received from the Hospital in this regard. He along with two constables went to Railway Hospital for Inquest Proceedings. He found dead body of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 797 the Hospital. He prepared the Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-35/B in respect of his dead body correctly. It bears his signatures at point A. The signatures of witnesses appear at point "B" and "C" on the Inquest Report. He entrusted the dead body along with inquest papers to Constable Doodh Nath Mishra and Bankira (PW-46) for getting post mortem examination. He also prepared an application addressed to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur to depute some doctor to conduct post mortem examination. Doctors were on strike from 01.1.1975 and on that account; an application was moved to CJM, Samastipur for deputing some doctor. Ex.PW-52/C is the carbon copy of application (dated 03.1.1975) addressed to CJM, Samastipur, which he prepared with the original in the same process and it bears his signatures. After post mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased were brought by Constable Bankira (PW-46).
(Requisition Ex.PW-52/A & Report made to CJM Ex.PW-52/C are available in Folder R-16.)
720. PW-88 Dr. N. L. Jha, the then Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur testified that on 03.1.1975 at 4.30 PM the dead body of Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore S/o Sh. Kailash Bihari Singh of village Meghaul PS Charya Bariarpur was received. The address of dead was given as Clerk, DEN Office, Samastipur, NE Railway. Constable Doodh Nath Mishra and Roy Krishan Banril (PW-46) brought this dead body. He was directed by Civil Surgeon, Samastipur to conduct post mortem examination on the dead body of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 798 Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore on 03.1.1975 after 5.00 PM. There was a direction of Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Civil Surgeon, Samastipur for conducting the post mortem on that dead body. Post mortems were not conducted after 05.00 PM, thus it was not done on 03.1.1975. On 04.1.1975, at 9.00 AM he conducted the post mortem. The body of Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore was identified by Constable Doodh Nath Mishra and Constable Roy Kishan Baril (PW-46). Inquest papers and other papers were also put up before him along with the dead body. The deceased was about 32 years of age. He was of average built. Both sides of heart were empty, lungs, liver, spleen and both kidneys were pale. He found following injuries on his dead body:-
1. Both the feet were completely smashed.
2. There was a lacerated wound 6" x 5" into muscle deep on the left calf with charring around it.
3. There were numerous lacerated penetrating wounds on both the lower limb, with great damage to the soft tissues underneath.
4. Stitched lacerated wound on the left elbow on the front part (3/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep.
5. There were charring around the wounds.
The pajama (trouser) of the left leg was partly burnt. The lower part of the right socks was absent and upper part was still there. No splinter could be found. On internal examination he found that both CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 799 sides of the heart were empty, lungs, small intestine, large intestine, liver, spleen and both kidneys were pale. Urinary bladder was empty and stomach contained liquid substance. He stated that in his opinion cause of death was due to above said injuries, all the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course, and these injuries could be caused by firearm and by splinters of an exploded hand grenade. All the injuries were ante mortem. The death took place because of shock and hemorrhage leading to cardiac respiratory failure. His correct Report is Ex.PW-88/A. It was filled up in his hand and bears his signatures at point "A". He has denied the suggestion that he prepared Post-Mortem Examination Report at the instance of local police without actually conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body. As per the Post Mortem Report dated 4.1.1975 Ex.PW-88/A, the age of the deceased Ram Kishore Prasad Singh was about 32 years.
(This report Ex.PW-88/A is available in Folder R-31.)
721. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur and PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi, AMO of Railway Hospital, Samastipur, proved admission of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore there on 02.1.1975 at about 06.15 PM. They found him with crush injury on both legs (grievous injuries) with profuse bleeding and parts of feet missing vide Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/A with endorsement Ex.PW-107/A thereon. In the opinion CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 800 of the doctor (PW-107), these injuries could be caused by bomb blast and all these injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also opined that duration of these injuries could be half an hour of his examination. He succumbed to his injuries at 7.45 AM on 3.1.1975. PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, who conducted post mortem on the body of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore, aged 32 years, on 4.1.1975 vide report Ex.PW-88/A found several injuries on his body including injuries on both feet. In his opinion, such injuries could be caused by firearm and splinters of an exploded hand grenade and all injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. With regard to the victim Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore, no prosecution witness has orally stated that he was seen/present at or around the Dais on Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station on 2.1.1975 at about 6.00 PM when the hand grenade thrown, got exploded. Nevertheless, the documentary evidence Ex.PW-48/A (Ex. P-17) corroborated with regard to its veracity through the witnesses PW-35 gives the fair account of his presence at the scene of episode becoming a victim. Hence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore has suffered injuries in the said bomb blast at Platform No.3 Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975, and he succumbed to his injuries on 03.01.1975.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 801
(ii) Surya Narain Jha
722. I have already referred the statement of PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai. He deposed that Surya Narain Jha along with many others nam ed by him attended the function at Samastipur. He deposed that there was an explosion after conclusion of the speech by the Minister. People started falling, and then he realised that it was a bomb blast.
723. PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, the then Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur testified that from 1.1.1975 to 25.1.1975, all the doctors in Government service in Bihar including himself were on cease work (strike). On 02.1.1975, he received information that some persons came to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur with injuries received in a bomb blast. On humanitarian grounds, he went to Hospital to attend them. He went to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur on that day at about 6.30/6.45 PM. As far as he recollected, he examined four patients in Operation Theater. He examined DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28), MLC Surya Narain Jha (deceased), another MLC whose name he did not recollect and one boy Ajay Kumar (PW-58) aged 11/12 years. The injuries of B.N. Parshad (PW-28), Surya Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-
58) were found grievous in nature. Glucose saline drip was given to DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28). After the first aid to B.N. Parshad (PW-
28), Surya Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-58), they advised that they might be shifted to Darbhanga Medical College. The injuries of MLC whose name he could not recollect were simple in nature. That MLC was discharged after giving him first aid. Father CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 802 of Ajay Kumar was in local police and he (Ajay Kumar) was shifted immediately from Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. Many relatives of B.N. Prasad (PW-28) and Surya Narain Jha (deceased) came to Hospital and took them to Medical College Hospital, Darbhanga same night. He stated that the injuries, which he found on the person of Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28), Sh. Suraj Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-58) and another MLC on 02.1.1975 in Sadar Hospital, Samastipur could also be caused by bomb blast.
724. In his cross-examination PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha answered that these four persons (Sh. B.N. Prasad, Sh. Suraj Narain Jha, Ajay Kumar and another) were not admitted in the Hospital since there was no other doctor except him. He examined them one by one. The doctors were on cease work (strike) demanding service benefits. He did not prepare any record in respect of their name, parentage or injuries and came to know about name of these four injured persons from Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, District Magistrate, Samastipur and others including relations of the injured. He has given their names out of memory. He did not remember whether ski gram of the injured was taken in the Hospital or not. He found the injuries to be of grievous nature without having with him their skiagram. He verbally prescribed medicines and treatment for these injured persons and they were given treatment as per his advice.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 803
725. PW-99 Sh. Ram Chander Mishra deposed that Surya Narain Jha was his foofa (husband of father's sister), who was the MLC. On 02.1.1975, Sh. Surya Narain Jha went to Samastipur to attend inaugural function of Railway Line. He reached Lahariya Sarai at about 09.00 PM or 10.00 PM in an ambulance in an injured condition. The witness used to reside with his foofa Sh. Surya Narain Jha throughout. The residence of Dr. S.K. Sarkar (PW-100) is just opposite to their house. Sh. Surya Narain Jha was first attended by Dr. S. K. Sarkar and then by Dr. Shambhu Nath Chaudhary and Dr. Ansari (PW-123). He was then shifted to clinic of Dr. Nawab where Janta Clinic was being run, attended by the doctors who were otherwise on strike. From Janta Clinic, Sh. Surya Narain Jha was shifted to Darbhanga Medical College. He was admitted in Darbhanga Medical College at about 12.00 Mid Night on the night intervening 2 nd and 3rd January 1975. Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Dr. Ansari and others operated upon him in the Medical College. There were improvements in the condition of Sh. Surya Narain Jha after the operation but he expired on 04.1.1975 at about 07.00 PM. They, the family members of Sh. Jha did not want post mortem examination to be conducted on his body and requested to do away with it. The dead body was handed over to them without post mortem. The dead body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was taken to Congress Bhawan, Balbhatarpur and then to the residence of Sh. Jha and thereafter cremated. As far as he remembered, dead body was handed over to him in the Hospital.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 804
726. In his cross-examination PW-99 it is elicited that none from the public came in the Ambulance at the residence of Sh. Jha, except a doctor and one compounder. He could not say whether Dr. S.K. Sarkar and Dr. Ansari gave treatment to Sh. Jha at his residence before the injured was shifted to Dr. Nawab's Clinic. Sh. Surya Narain Jha was X-rayed in Dr. Nawab's Clinic and the doctors in that clinic were already busy in the operation of a child. He did not remember the time at which the operation of Sh. Jha was concluded but it took about 2/3 hours. He had seen Sh. Jha at about 04.00 AM on 3.1.1975 when he was brought to the ward. Sh. Jha was not in a position to speak throughout until his death. It was elicited that a big crowd of 10,000 or 20,000 persons assembled and demanded that post-mortem be not conducted on the body of Sh. Jha. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that he was living with Sh. Jha who had treated him like his child and he had love and affection for him. He answered that proper treatment was given to Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
727. PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab, Private Practitioner of Janta Clinic, Darbhanga, aged about 72 years, deposed that he retired as Principal, Darbhanga Medical College in 1969 and thereafter he has been engaged in private practice at Darbhanga. He has been running his own clinic at Darbhanga. He treated mainly surgical cases. He deposed that on 2nd and 3rd January 1975 he was at Darbhanga and in those days government doctors were on strike. His junior doctors CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 805 requested him to allow his clinic to be run as temporary, free Janta Clinic. He was supervising the doctors. On 02.1.1975 in the Evening, he heard Bomb blast took place at Samastipur. He immediately invited all the junior doctors of Darbhanga Medical College who were on strike to cooperate with him and treat the casualties arising out of Samastipur blast.
728. Sh. Suraj Narain Jha also came to his Clinic. Sh. Suraj Narain Jha suffered blast injuries on his chest and was sent to Darbhanga Medical College. In his cross-examination, he answered that he does not have any record in respect of Sh. Suraj Narain Jha.
729. PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagander testified that he passed MBBS from Bangalore Medical College in January 1973. He was commissioned in September 1973. In 1975, he was Medical Officer posted at Officers Training School, AMC, Centre, Lucknow. On first January 1975 he was ordered to go to Darbhanga to aid the Civil Authority for running their Hospital. He was posted to Darbhanga Medical College & Hospital. As the doctors in the entire State of Bihar were on strike w.e.f. 1.1.1975 and on that account services of military doctors were requisitioned. He has seen the Bed Head Ticket No.14 Ex.PW-101/A of Surya Narain Jha MLC in his handwriting at the encircled portion with red pen and bears his signatures. (Ex.PW- 101/A is available in Folder R-6). On 02.1.1975 late in night, he was informed that Mr. Surya Narain Jha was being brought to the Hospital CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 806 in serious condition. Some persons claiming themselves to be relatives of Sh. Surya Narain Jha met him. A request was made to him to permit Dr. Sarkar (PW-100) to operate upon Sh. Surya Narain Jha. He contacted his superior on telephone immediately and with their approval, he allowed Dr. Sarkar to operate upon Sh. Surya Narain Jha provided he undertook full responsibility of treatment and after care and the consequences. Dr. Sarkar took the responsibility. He then admitted the patient Sh. Surya Narain Jha. Ex.PW-101/A is his correct endorsement regarding admission of Sh. Jha in the Hospital. Dr. A.I. Lendhay (PW-66) was his colleague. He saw him writing and signing and can identify his writing and signatures. Ex.PW-66/A (Available in Folder R-6) is in hand of Dr. A.I. Lendhay (PW-66).
In his lengthy cross-examination, the defence suggested to the witness that there was complete chaos at Darbhanga, Samastipur and in whole of the State of Bihar with regard to the medical treatment because of strike by the doctors. It was further suggested by the Ld. Defence Counsel in his cross-examination that there was loss of blood of Surya Narain Jha on account of lack of medical facility.
730. PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar deposed that in the year 1975 he was working as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Surgery at Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. He along with other doctors was on strike at the time of bomb blast at Samastipur. Military doctors were running the Hospital of Darbhanga Medical CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 807 College during that period of strike by the doctors. He has seen the Bed Head Ticket No. 132 dated 02.1.1975 in respect of Sh. Surya Narain Jha MLC Ex.PW-100/A (Available in Folder R-6) and the portion encircled with red pencil on this Bed Head Ticket was correctly recorded by him and bears his signatures at point "A". Sh. Surya Narain Jha was brought to his residence in injured condition in an ambulance and he examined him in the ambulance itself. His residence was just opposite to residence of Sh. Jha. His general condition was very low. He, finding his very serious condition, called Dr. S.N. Chaudhary and Dr. Ansari. He was with Sh. Jha thereafter. Dr. S.N. Chawdhry and Dr. Ansari also examined Sh. Jha. They all three doctors decided to shift him to Janta Clinic immediately, which was functioning at Dr. Nawab's Clinic. All the Government doctors were on strike and not attending the patients in the Hospital for that reason. They were running Janta Clinic. Sh. Jha was shifted to Janta Clinic but they found that the patient could not be properly treated there and so he was shifted to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. He operated upon Sh. Surya Narain Jha with the assistance of Dr. Ansari & Dr. Ganguli. Before shifting Sh. Jha to Darbhanga Medical College, he obtained permission of his colleagues to treat Sh. Jha in the Medical College. He operated upon Sh. Surya Narain Jha in his individual capacity and so was the case with Dr. Ansari and Dr. Ganguli. He can identify the writing and signatures of Dr. Ansari since he has been working with him and he had seen him writing and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 808 signing. The writing Ex.PW-100/B-1 to Ex.PW-100/B-5 encircled with blue pencil on the Bed Head Ticket is in the handwriting of Dr. Ansari, whereas writing Ex.PW-100/A-1 to Ex.PW-100/A-3 (Available in Folder R-6) encircled with red pencil on this Bed Head Ticket is in his own handwriting. Before operation, he found following injuries on the person of Sh. Surya Narain Jha:-
1. One small injury about 1/4" in diameter over the pericardial region;
2. Small opening over the left inter costal space;
3. One penetrating wound/ninth intercostals space on left side;
4. An injury under bandage on right leg; It was a compound fracture of tibia;
5. Clinically, an injury was found on the chest thoracic with collection of blood;
He noted all these injuries on Bed Head Ticket at Sh. Surya Narain Jha. He operated upon Sh. Jha with the assistance of Dr. Ansari and Dr. Ganguli. He operated upon a part of the chest and the whole of the abdomen. During operation, he noticed perforation injuries in the stomach, which was repaired. He also noticed perforated injuries transverse colon, which he repaired. There was also engorment of blood at the root of mesentery. He suspected foreign body in the mesentery but it could not be detected and the detection was hazardous. Inside the abdomen, it was full of blood and faecal matter.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 809 He has mentioned all these details in the Bed Head Ticket of Surya Narain Jha. The splinters of an exploded bomb could cause all these injuries. Sh. Jha survived for about 36 hours after the operation and then expired and all these injuries were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
731. In his cross-examination PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar replied that Sh. Jha was sinking when he examined him first. He was optimistic about the survival of Mr. Jha while operating upon him. He admitted that foreign body entering into human body because of an explosion travel in the body. It all depends on the site of injury to prevent further flow of blood if patient is immediately taken for treatment and even by immediate operation. He enquired about the previous ailment of Surya Narain Jha before he gave treatment. He was his next-door neighbor and he (Sh. Jha) used to approach him for each ailment. He was not suffering from diabetes.
732. PW-123 Dr. A. H. Ansari testified that in January 1975 he was posted as Chest Surgeon, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga. He knew Dr. Siriraj Hassan and Dr. S.K. Sarkar and they were posted with him in Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital in the year 1975. All doctors in the service of Bihar Government were on cease work during the period from 01.1.1975 to 24.1.1975. He himself, Dr. Siriraj Hassan and Dr. S.K. Sarkar were also on cease work during that period. Army doctors were running this hospital CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 810 during that period. On 02.1.1975 at about 10.30/11.00 PM, he was present at his residence outside the premises of Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. At that time, he was called by his senior colleagues at the residence of Sh. Jha MLC to examine him. He went to the residence of Sh. Jha along with Dr. S.N. Chaudhary, the then Head of the Department of Surgery. Dr. S. K. Sarkar examined Sh. Jha and his condition was very low. They decided that he should be operated upon at once. He was then shifted to Janta Clinic in Dr. Nawab's Clinic and then to Darbhanga Medical College from Janta Clinic. They decided to operate upon Sh. Jha despite their being on cease work. Health Service Association took this decision on special request made by wife of Sh. Jha. On the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW- 100/B-3, writing Ex.PW-100/B-1 and Ex.PW-100/B-2 (Available in Folder R-6) are in his hand with his signatures. He made this correct writing. He also identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Siriraj Hassan at point "C" on this Bed Head Ticket as he had seen writing and signing Dr. Siriraj Hassan. Sh. Surya Narain Jha was operated upon by a team of three doctors i.e. Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Dr. Siriraj Hassan and he himself. He carried out the operation of putting in inter-coastal chest drainage on the left side under local anesthesia. Immediately two pints of blood and large number of air were discharged under water-sealed bottle. The chest tube was left inside. Instructions were given for post operative management as under: -
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 811 "(i) Gentle suction of the tube in the chest made in the water seal
(ii) Chest X-ray in the bed"
On completion of the operation, he examined Sh. Surya Narain Jha on 3.1.1975 on a request of attending army doctors. On examination he found that the patient was in the process of putting in semi-erect position, which apparently made him feel better but on further examination his general condition was still poor with a cyanosis persistent. Chest tube was adjusted that drained the stale blood and air particularly on gentle suction. Some 30 to 40 cc of dark blood was aspirated. This made the splash disappear but heart sounds still appeared feeble and distant. The patient died on 4.1.1975. He was however not present by the side of the patient at the time of his death. A small metallic foreign body was noticed in the abdomen. In his opinion, that splinter caused the death of Sh. Jha. The internal damage found in the person of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. He with his signatures correctly noted writing Ex.PW-100/B-4 and PW-100/B-5 (Available in Folder R-6).
733. In his cross-examination PW-123 Dr. A.H. Ansari admitted that a person having bullet injuries or injuries in bomb explosion should be immediately given treatment and that the operation if found necessary should be performed immediately. He also admitted that sometimes CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 812 loss of time could prove fatal. He also admitted that immediate medical aid would prevent further damage to the body and the delay in taking the treatment has to be considered with reference to loss of blood. He stated that abdomen of Surya Narain Jha was also opened. He admitted the suggestion that the metallic body could not be extracted from the abdomen of Sh. Surya Narain Jha during the operation. To reply to the question he stated that the primary and foremost duty of the Surgeon performing the operation is to repair the damage with a view to save the patient and during the process, he may take out the foreign body if it can easily be done.
734. PW-66 Major Dr. A.I. Lendkhy testified that he did his MBBS in the year 1971 from Bombay University and he was commissioned in Army Medical Core in September 1974. From Training School, Lucknow, he was sent to Medical College, Darbhanga from 1.1.1975 to 24.1.1975 due to strike by the doctors. He did not remember who the Medical Superintendent of Darbhanga Medical College was. On 4.1.1975 the nurse on duty in the Hospital called him at 8.00 AM to attend patient Sh. Surya Narain Jha. He examined and found him dead. He correctly recorded his observation in the Bed Head Ticket of the patient. On examination, he made the following observation:-
"Pulse was not recordable, heart sound was absent, pupils were fixed and dilated."
Based on this observation, he declared the patient dead. He recorded endorsement Ex.PW-66/A (Available in Folder R-6) in his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 813 handwriting on the Bed Head Ticket and his signatures are at point "A". Before writing his endorsement, he had gone through the case sheet. The army doctors did not treat this patient. However, this is in his knowledge that besides others, Dr. Ansari (PW-123) and Dr. Sarkar (PW-100) treated the patient.
735. As per Bed Head Ticket No.14 Ex.PW-100/A the particulars of the patient Sh. Surya Narain Jha, MLC, Darbhanga, 52 years, with direction to admit the patient are mentioned in the handwriting of PW- 101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender on 2.1.1975. In the middle there is a request in the encircled blue portion Ex.PW-100/A-1 by Dr. A.H. Ansari (PW-123) which reads as under:-
"I was requested by Sh. Surya Narain Jha and his wife to undertake treatment on his various injuries. The Hospital Authorities has acceded to their desire and the President of the Health Services Association permitted me to undertake the operation in view of extra ordinary circumstances. I make it clear that I together with other doctors whose signatures appear below are participating in this operation at the DMCH in our individual private capacity and not as Government Servant on duty."
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 814 Dr. A.H. Ansari (PW-123), Dr. S.K. Sarkar (PW-100), and Dr. Siraj Hasan signed this request on dated 3.1.1975. This document find mentions the details of the injuries of the patient, which are exhibited as Ex.PW-100/A-1 to Ex.PW-100/A-3. The Other details of the condition of the patient and treatment are at point Ex.PW-100/B-3, Ex.PW-100/B-4 and Ex.PW-100/B-5. At the last page of the Bed Head Ticket, there is endorsement Ex.PW-66/A of death of Sh. Surya Narain Jha in handwriting of DW-66 Major Dr. A.I. Lendkhy.
(This report is available in Folder R-6)
736. PW-45 Sh. Ishwar Chander Mishra deposed that Surya Narain Jha MLC was his foofa who received injuries in the bomb blast at Railway Platform, Samastipur on 02.1.1975. He was brought to Darbhanga Medical College for treatment on the night on 02.1.1975. He died in Medical College Darbhanga in the morning of 04.1.1975 between 8.00 AM & 9.00 AM. The police prepared Inquest Report Ex.PW-45/A in respect of Sh. Surya Narain Jha which was signed by him. Inquest Report Ex.PW-45/A bears his signatures at point "A".
He had identified the dead body. The details of injuries found on body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha were mentioned in this Inquest Report. The post mortem on the body of Surya Narain Jha was not conducted and his dead body was taken to District Congress Office, Darbhanga. There it was kept for public Darshan. In his cross-examination, it is not disputed that Surya Narain Jha did not suffer injuries in the bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur on 2.1.1975. Inquest Report CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 815 Ex.PW-45/A in respect of Surya Narain Jha is available in Folder R-
31.
737. PW-106 Sh. S.A.A. Razvi, the then Sub-Inspector and Officer Incharge P.S. Lahariya Sarai, Darbhanga stated that on 04.1.1975 at 9.00 AM he received information on telephone from Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga about death of Surya Narain Jha. On that particular day, Government doctors were on cease work. Army Doctors were managing the Hospital. He deputed ASI Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (PW-106A) to go to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital for Inquest Proceedings and other formalities. He was to arrange for guard of honour for the body of Surya Narain Jha. For this reason, he personally did not go to Hospital for Inquest Proceedings. After arranging, for guard of honour, he went to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. There he came to know that the dead body had been taken to Congress Bhawan. Thereafter he went to Congress Bhawan and found dead body of Surya Narain Jha wrapped in a Tri-colour Flag. The guard of honour was presented there. ASI Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (PW-106A) was also present there. He came to know from ASI Kameshwar Parsad Sinha (PW- 106A) that relations, friends and sympathizers of Late Surya Narain Jha did not want that the post mortem be conducted. Superintendent of Police Sh. K.M. Sinha was present in Congress Bhawan. He had a talk with him on the subject, who discussed it with the then District Magistrate. The Superintendent of Police asked him to dispense with CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 816 the post mortem examination and accordingly there was no post mortem examination on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
738. In his cross-examination PW-106 Sh. S.A.A. Razvi replied that bomb blast took place at Samastipur and not at Darbhanga. He knew that a case had also been registered at Samastipur and not at Darbhanga. He admitted that Inquest Proceedings in respect of dead body of Surya Narain Jha were taken on account of unnatural death and that in case of trial, those Inquest Proceedings might be utilized. Regarding question of Defence Counsel whether feelings of relations of deceased that post mortem should not be conducted, were conveyed to Samastipur Police, he stated that ASI Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (PW-106A) wrote a supplementary case diary mentioning detail happening and were sent to Investigation Officer, GRP, Samastipur. It was not sent before post mortem examination on the body of Surya Narain Jha was dispensed with. He did not consider it improper or wrong since superior authorities discussed the matter and apparent cause of death was known. He had deputed Sh. Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (PW-106A) to take Inquest Proceedings since he was working under him.
739. PW-106A Sh. Kameshwar Parshad Sinha, the then Assistant Sub-Inspector, P.S. Lahariya Sarai deposed that on 04.1.1975 SI S.A.A Razvi (PW-106) directed him to go to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital to take Inquest Proceedings in respect of dead CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 817 body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha, MLC. He made an entry in the general diary of P.S. Lahariya Sarai at 9.00 AM for going to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. Thereafter he proceeded to the Hospital. He took Inquest Proceedings in respect of dead body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha in the presence of S/S Ravinder Nath Jha and Ishwar Chander Mishra. Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-45/A were correctly written by him in his own hand. The dead body of Surya Narain Jha was found on bed no. 132 of surgical ward. He found bandage in the chest, abdomen, and right side of the chest, below the right knee and above the left thigh on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha. He had written in Inquest Report the cause of injuries could be bomb blast. From the Hospital, the dead body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was taken to Congress office at Balbadarpur. He accompanied the dead body to Congress office and after reaching there, SI Razvi (PW-106) met him there. Post mortem examination on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was not conducted as wife and other relatives of Sh. Surya Narain Jha objected to the post-mortem examination. District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police gave permission and dispensed with the post- mortem examination. On coming back to the Police Station, he must have made another entry in the General Diary of the Police Station. Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-45/A bears his signatures at point "A".
740. In his cross-examination it is elicited that he had seen injuries of Sh. Surya Narain Jha on the night intervening 2 nd and 3rd January, 1975. As soon as the patients were being brought, they were being CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 818 taken to Janta Clinic. Four injured persons were sent to Janta Clinic. No other person except Sh. Surya Narain Jha was sent to the Hospital. DIG Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28) was one of those injured to whom first aid was already given at Samastipur. There were some bandages on the person of Sh. Surya Narain Jha when he was brought to the Hospital. Before he was sent to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, he had not removed his bandages to examine his injuries. During that night, they were busy in arranging for the medicines for DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28) and Surya Narain Jha. Before Surya Narain Jha was removed to the Operation Theater, his bandages had been removed and at that time, he had seen his injures. He could not remember the time, even approximately when Sh. Surya Narain Jha was sent to the Hospital. The bandages of Surya Narain Jha were removed before he was taken to Operation Theater. There was bleeding on the whole of his body below the neck. Blood was visible all over his body. There was bleeding from all his injuries. His clothes were smeared with blood. Besides dhoti he was having a chaddar, which was also stained with blood. H e did not suggest to SI Razvi (PW-106) or to any other Police Officer that since it was a case of GRP Samastipur, they may be consulted before taking decision as to whether the postmortem should be conducted or not. He categorically answered that post mortem examination on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was not conducted as his wife, other relatives CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 819 objected it, and District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police gave permission and dispensed with the post mortem examination.
741. The name of victim Sh. Surya Narain Jha is mentioned in the charge as Suraj Narain Jha. He was present on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station on 2.1.1975 at the time of bomb blast, which is evident from the statement of PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai. Immediately he was initially taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur where PW-88 Dr. N. L. Jha who has correctly stated his name as Surya Narain Jha treated him. He referred the patient to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga. However, he was taken in an ambulance and was examined by his neighbor Dr. S.K. Sarkar (PW-100). The House of Sh. Surya Narain Jha is situated just opposite to the house of Dr. S. K. Sarkar, which has been stated so by PW-99 Sh. Ram Chander Mishra and nephew of Sh. Surya Narain Jha and PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar himself. The doctors of Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital were also on strike and as per the statement of PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar, the patient was taken to Janta Clinic run by PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab who has also mentioned the name of the patient as Suraj Narain Jha. However, the doctors did not find Janta Clinic congenial for the operation of the victim and on medical advice of PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar and PW-123 Dr. A.H. Ansari, the patient was admitted in Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. He was admitted there only when PW-101 Dr. (Major) A. Nagender, Medical Officer obtained consent of Dr. Sarkar (PW-100) and Dr. Ansari (PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 820
123) to the effect that they shall operate the patient at their risk. Sh. Surya Narain Jha was operated upon and his name was rightly mentioned there as Surya Narain Jha. In view of the evidence of PW- 100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar, PW-123 Dr. A.H. Ansari and PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender, Sh. Surya Narain Jha succumbed to his injuries, which he suffered in the bomb blast on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station on 02.1.1975.
742. No doubt the post mortem was not conducted on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha as his relatives, friends and well-wishers made request apart from a persistent demand by the big crowd. Under sub- section 3 sub-clause (iv) of Section 174 of the "Code", it is provided that when there is any doubt regarding the cause of death or under sub-clause (v) thereof the Police Officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall forward body with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical man. There is no doubt and dispute that Sh. Surya Narain Jha suffered injuries in the bomb blast at Samastipur Railway Station on 02.1.1975. It has come in evidence of PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai that Sh. Surya Narain Jha was sitting on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur on 2.1.1975 when hand grenade thrown there got exploded. He was taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur where he was examined by PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha and then examined by Dr. S.K. Sarkar (PW-100) and Dr. A.H. Ansari (PW-123) and they shifted him to Janta Clinic. From there, he was taken to Darbhanga Medical CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 821 College and Hospital and operated upon. He succumbed to his injuries on 04.1.1975.
743. Thus the cause of death was apparent and he suffered grievous injuries in the bomb blast. Dr. Sarkar and Dr. Ansari have also explained cause of death. Examination of the body by the Civil Surgeon or other qualified man could be dispensed with, where there is no doubt regarding cause of death as elaborated herein before. It has also come in the statement of nephew of victim Surya Narain Jha, namely PW-99 Sh. Ram Chander Mishra that the family members of Sh. Jha did not want post mortem should be conducted on the body of Sh. Jha. A request was made to obtain the dead body without post mortem and accordingly the dead body was handed over to them without post mortem. It has also come in his cross-examination that about 10,000 or 20,000 persons got assembled who did not want post- mortem examination to be conducted on the body of Sh. Jha. PW- 106A Sh. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, the then Sub-Inspector PS Lahariya Sarai testified that post mortem on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was not conducted as wife and other relatives of Sh. Surya Narain Jha objected to the post mortem examination. It has also come in his statement that the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police gave permission and dispensed with the post mortem examination. In his cross-examination also, defence got it elicited that post mortem on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was not conducted as it was objected by his wife and relatives and the District Magistrate CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 822 and Superintendent of Police gave permission and dispensed with the post mortem.
744. Thus, there is no force in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that the post mortem examination was necessary to know the cause of death. They have not disputed that Sh. Surya Narain Jha, MLC has suffered injuries in the bomb blast. Immediately thereafter, he was taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur where PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha examined him. Since his condition was very serious and injuries were of grievous nature, he advised that he should be shifted to Darbhanga Medical College. The patient was brought in an Ambulance to the residence of Dr. S.K. Sarkar (PW-100) and at that time, his condition was very low. Dr. S.K. Sarkar (PW-100), Surgeon and deceased Surya Narain Jha, MLC were immediate neighbours. Dr. Sarkar (PW-
100) called Dr. S.N. Chaudhary and Dr. A.H. Ansari (PW-123). They decided to shift him to Janta Clinic and there they found that the patient could not be properly treated and so he was shifted to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital where Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Dr. A.H. Ansari and Dr. Ganguli operated upon him. PW-100 Dr. Sarkar stated that the splinters of an exploded bomb could cause all the injuries found on the person of Sh. Surya Narain Jha and all these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. During the operation, Dr. Sarkar noticed perforation injuries in the stomach. He suspected foreign body in the mesentery, which could not be detected as the detection, was hazardous. Inside the abdomen, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 823 it was full of blood and faecal matters. In his expert opinion, the splinters of an exploded bomb could cause these injuries and these injuries found on his person were individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Similarly, PW-123 Dr. A.H. Ansari testified that in his opinion splinters caused death of Sh. Surya Narain Jha and the internal damage found in the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, in view of this, it is apparent enough that Sh. Surya Narain Jha has succumbed to the injuries, which he suffered in the bomb blast at the Dais on Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975 at about 6.00 PM.
745. On 14.9.1983, the prosecution has examined Sh. Suraj Parsad as PW-125. Thereafter, Dr. M. Mohanti was examined as a prosecution witness on 28.9.1983 but he is again numbered as PW-125 instead of PW-126. Sh. R.P. Sinha was later on examined as prosecution witness on 15.9.1983 and he is given Serial No. as PW-126. To correct the clerical/typographical error, Dr. M. Mohanti is renumbered as PW- 125A instead of PW-125. Necessary correction is done.
(iii) L.N. Mishra succumbing to injuries ::
Jagan Nath Mishra suffering injuries
746. I have already referred the statement of various eye witnesses namely PW-26 Sh. Narinder Prasad Issar, PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari, PW-60 Sh. R.N. Rai, PW-65 Sh. Vishwanath, PW-109 Sh. Mohan CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 824 Kumar Jha, PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai, CW-3 Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra and CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta to the effect that in the bomb blast on the Dais at Platform No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur, the then Railway Minister Late Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra and his younger brother Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra suffered injuries. Both of them were taken to Saloon of Special Train. There, Dr. P.C. Bhalla, Chief Medical Officer and Dr. R.K. Sinha (PW-94), Assistant Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Samastipur examined them. CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta, the then Additional Private Secretary to Sh. L.N. Mishra stated that at Samastipur, he remained in the Saloon. When he was in the Saloon, he heard a loud noise, came out, and found that Sh. L.N. Mishra and Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra were being brought to Saloon in injured condition. Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra was bleeding from his legs and Sh. L.N. Mishra was injured but he could not see any mark. Dr. Bhalla, Railway Doctor, who was present on the Railway Station, immediately came to the Saloon. He started treating Sh. L.N. Mishra, who was in the small cabin. The doctor did not tell about seriousness of the injury; they decided to go to Danapur by the same train. On the way train stopped at Patna where lot of supporters of Sh. L.N. Mishra got down. Some supporters who were at Patna got in and son-in-law of Sh. L.N. Mishra met him at Patna. Dr. Sahi, who was an eminent Surgeon, also came into the Saloon and examined Sh. L.N. Mishra. There was doctor's strike going on in Patna on that day and they went to Danapur by Saloon. At Danapur, Sh. L. N. Mishra was removed to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 825 Military Hospital where military doctors and other doctors examined and treated him and he was declared dead on 03.1.1975.
747. In his cross-examination at the hand of Ld. Special P.P., CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta replied that Sh. L.N. Mishra's political work was more concentrated in Bihar. He has been with Sh. L.N. Mishra since 1965 until his death. In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he answered that he was not told by anyone about any injury or seriousness of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He admitted that Dr. Bhalla had accompanied Sh. L.N. Mishra from Samastipur to Danapur. Sh. L.N. Mishra did not complain of any abdominal pain in his presence and inside the cabin of Saloon only Dr. Bhalla and Sh. L.N. Mishra were there up to Patna. From Patna, Dr. Sahi and Dr.C.S. Jha (Son-in-law) were there up to Danapur. He came to know only in Danapur for the first time that Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken to Defence Colony & that he was serious and required to be operated upon. He replied that he was not aware if any postmortem on the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra was conducted or not as after reaching Danapur, son-in- law of Sh. L. N. Mishra had taken control of the situation. He also came to know from doctors of Sh. L.N. Mishra that two splinters from the bomb had speared his body and had gone up to his heart. He came to Delhi only after funeral of Sh. L.N. Mishra was over at his native place Balwa Bazaar. The decision to shift Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken by Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, MLC of Bihar. He stated that Sh. Ram CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 826 Vilas Jha (MLC) of Bihar Assembly who had come to the Saloon after the incident remained in the Saloon up to Danapur.
748. PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha, the then Assistant Medical Officer at Railway Hospital, Samastipur deposed that he was specialized in Anesthesia. On 01.1.1975, Dr. P. C. Bhalla was working as Chief Medical Officer and on the direction of Medical Superintendent, he accompanied Dr. P. C. Bhalla to Darbhanga on 02.1.1975 by jeep in the Morning. They traveled by Special Train from Darbhanga to Samastipur. Dr. P. C. Bhalla sat in the Saloon with the Railway Minister while he was sitting in another compartment. The Special Train reached Samastipur in the Evening at about 5.00 or 5.15 PM and stopped at Platform no. 3. The medical equipments, which were carried with them from Darbhanga to Samastipur, were shifted to first Class compartment of BG Special Train on Platform No.5. At about 6.00 PM he heard Chief Security Officer shouting calling for Chief Medical Officer. He informed Chief Security Officer that Chief Medical Officer was sitting in the compartment in the rear. In the meantime, a Railway employee came and informed him about the Railway Minister being injured in a bomb blast. He along with the staff went running to the Saloon of Railway Minister and CMO was also found running and they both reached the Saloon of Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra almost simultaneously. Dr. P.C. Bhalla examined Sh. L.N. Mishra in that Saloon. He also examined the wounds, which were given dressing. He saw true copy of Injury Chart CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 827 Ex.PW-94/A (available in folder R-14) in respect of Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra on which portion at point "A" is in his handwriting with his signatures. The original Chart, correct copy of which is Ex.PW-94/A was prepared by him at Danapur at about 1.00 AM on 03.1.1975.
(Ex.PW-94/A is available in Folder R-14)
749. On examining Sh. L.N. Mishra he found injuries on his person which were noted by him in the Chart (Ex.PW-94A). He noted following injuries on Sh. L.N. Mishra:-
1. Right Inguinal Region.
a) Two abrasions about 4" x ½"
b) One punctured wound about 3/4" in diameter below above wound.
2. Lacerated Injury about 1" x 1/2" on right thigh.
3. Lacerated Injury about 2" x1/2" on the left thigh.
4. Multiple small punctured wounds on both legs.
5. Complained of pain abdomen-suspected intra abdominal injury.
750. He did not note these injuries at the time of examining Sh. L.N. Mishra. He thought that after reaching the Hospital, the dressing would be changed and at that time, injuries would be noted. He generally examined Sh. L.N. Mishra. His pulse was 85 per minute and blood pressure was 150/90 of mercury. He was nervous. Chest was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 828 NAD and abdomen was soft. No rigidity was found. He did not have any talk with the Railway Minister but in his presence, Dr. P.C. Bhalla, talked to Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister. Dr. Bhalla wanted to take Sh. L.N. Mishra to Hospital at Samastipur but Sh. L.N. Mishra did not agree and wanted to go Darbhanga and gave an order in this regard. Sh. L.N. Mishra was given one Pathedin injection by the CMO. Sh. L.N. Mishra was sleeping though in between he was getting up and complaining of pain in the abdomen. After doing the dressing of Sh. L.N. Mishra, he was asked to examine Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, who was in other room of the same compartment and found following injuries on the person of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra: -
1. Lacerated injury about 2" x ¼" on the left leg, 4"
above the ankle.
2. There was another injury which was already dressed and on that account I had not examined that injury. It was in the popliteal region.
3. Multiple small punctured wound on the left leg.
751. He did the dressing of the injuries of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. He generally examined Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and made the following observation:-
Pulse was 80 per minute regular and fair. General condition was good, chest and CVS were N.A.D. Abdomen-soft No rigidity.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 829 He thereafter came to the CMO and had a discussion with him regarding the general condition of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. One Novalgin injection was given to Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra after discussion with Dr. P. C. Bhalla. Thereafter, he was attending both Sh. L.N. Mishra and Jagan Nath Mishra by visiting their rooms in that Saloon. The train reached Barauni and then Patna and then at Danapur. During this period, CMO was attending to Sh. L.N. Mishra. This Special Train reached Danapur Railway Station at about 11.30 PM. After sustaining of an injury in the abdomen initially, it remained soft but later, it became rigid. Sh. L.N. Mishra was complaining of pain in the abdomen when he was dressing his wounds. He and Dr. P.C. Bhalla after discussion had a suspicion about the injuries in the abdomen of L.N. Mishra but they could not get any clue of the injury. At about 10.00 PM when they crossed Barauni, Dr. Bhalla told him after examination of Sh. L.N. Mishra that some rigidity had appeared in the abdomen and pulse rate has increased. Once rigidity in abdomen appears, it would not be possible to hear the peristaltic sound. At the instance of Dr. P.C. Bhalla, he also examined Sh. L.N. Mishra and found rigidity while peristaltic sound was absent. Then they concluded that some injuries occurred to intestine but were not sure about the injuries to other organs. The pulse rate of Sh. L.N. Mishra was 120 when they reached Danapur. On reaching Danapur Railway Minister, Sh. L.N. Mishra expressed his desire of going to Railway Hospital, Danapur. Sh. L.N. Mishra was removed to Railway CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 830 Hospital, Danapur in an Ambulance. Dr. R.V.P. Sinha, Professor of Surgery and others doctors accompanied Sh. L.N. Mishra to Railway Hospital, Danapur. Dr. P. C. Bhalla and he himself did not accompany Sh. L.N. Mishra to Railway Hospital, Danapur in that ambulance and Dr. Bhalla went there by car and he went there on foot.
752. From Railway Hospital, Danapur he and Dr. P.C. Bhalla came to Railway Station. While sitting in the Saloon in which Sh. L.N. Mishra travelled, he prepared the Chart correct copy of which is Mark PW-94/A. His memory was fresh at the time of preparing the previously mentioned chart. Railway chart was submitted before the Ajit Nath Medical Expert Committee. This copy Mark PW-94/A was prepared before sending original chart to Ajit Nath Medical Expert Committee. He prepared this correct copy of Mark PW-94/A from the original chart. This document is already proved by the witness and has been exhibited as Ex.PW-94/A. Ex.PW-94/A is available in Folder R-14.
753. In his cross-examination PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha replied that he went to the Saloon of Sh. L.N. Mishra after coming to know about his receiving injuries and he found Dr. P.C. Bhalla, CMO, Ram Nandan, Dresser, P.V. Kanhaiya and 1-2 more persons. On the direction of Dr. P.C. Bhalla, he immediately started examining the wounds and their dressing. He personally did the dressing of the wounds of Sh. L.N. Mishra. Dr. P.C. Bhalla did not note the injuries. Dr. Bhalla did not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 831 ask him at that time or in the train thereafter to note down the injuries. There was no external bleeding from the abdomen of Sh. L.N. Mishra. At that time, he could not have visualized about internal bleeding. Even after he completed the dressing of the wounds of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Dr. P.C. Bhalla did not inform him that he suspected internal bleeding from the abdomen of the Railway Minister. There would be definitely a hole in the abdomen when a splinter of hand grenade enters the abdomen. He has seen punctured wounds in the abdomen of Sh. L.N. Mishra. On asking whether there would be bleeding outside or inside in case of a punctured wound in the abdomen on account of entry of a splinter of a bomb blast, he stated that there would be internal bleeding after sometime. It would be necessary that there would be external bleeding also, though in the case of excessive internal bleeding, some blood may come out. If the loss of blood is lesser than one liter, there would be no sign of this loss in the pulse rate and blood pressure. It does not make any difference whether the blood flows out of the body or it flows inside and in both circumstances, it would be loss of blood. He attended Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra after dressing of the wounds of Sh. L. N. Mishra. There was a bandage on one wound of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra before he examined him. He personally had not seen any other doctor examining Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. He took about 5/6 minutes for dressing the wounds of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and 5 minutes for his general examination after dressing of the wounds. He might have taken 5 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 832 minutes for general examination of Sh. L.N. Mishra and about 15/20 minutes in dressing of the wounds. Dr. P.C. Bhalla was taking blood pressure of Sh. L.N. Mishra after every 15 minutes approximately and every time he used to come to the room, where Sh. L.N. Mishra was lying from the room of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra in order to assist Dr. P.C. Bhalla. They did not record blood pressure of Sh. L.N. Mishra. It did not strike at that time that he should note down the injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. Even until the train reached Railway Station, Danapur at about 11.30 PM, it did not strike him that he should note down the injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. The original noting about the injuries was prepared by him in his own handwriting and copy thereof is Mark PW-94/A which was exhibited as Ex.PW-94/A. It was typed on 31.1.1975. In this document Ex.PW-94/A it is mentioned by PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha under his signatures that the original injury report and record or blood pressure and pulse and general condition is lying in his safe custody. He personally did not inform Sh. L.N. Mishra that in order to give proper treatment to him it was necessary to have X-ray or that his X-ray was to be taken and thereafter he could go to any place for treatment. He did not advise Dr. P.C. Bhalla to have such a talk with Sh. L.N. Mishra or others present in the Saloon. He replied that injury in abdomen may or may not be dangerous. He personally did not suggest to Sh. L.N. Mishra or to Dr. P.C. Bhalla that they were to accompany the Railway Minister to Danapur which journey would CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 833 take a couple of hours and so they must get X-ray of Sh. L.N. Mishra. Dr. P.C. Bhalla has also not given such suggestion in his presence and he did not have any discussion in this regard with Dr. P.C. Bhalla.
754. To the question when he was conscious of the fact that the rigidity might appear in the abdomen and peristaltic sound might be absent within a period of his suspecting the injury in the abdomen and on reaching Danapur would take about 3 hours, he replied that they thought that within this period of journey to Danapur, rigidity might not appear and thus there might not be absence of peristaltic sound. He did not remember about the time gap between receiving an internal injury in the abdomen and appearance of rigidity. He has denied the suggestion that he and Dr. P.C. Bhalla did not care for the health of Sh. L.N. Mishra or were not bothered. He also denied the suggestion that he and Dr. P.C. Bhalla did not provide proper treatment to Sh. L.N. Mishra or gave him false assurance or they gave wrong treatment. He also denied the suggestion that they purposely did not advise taking of X-ray.
755. PW-125A Dr. M. Mohanti who was present throughout in the Operation Theater during operation of Sh. L.N. Mishra at Railway Hospital, Danapur is relevant. He testified that on 02.1.1975, he was working as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Danapur and on that day at about 7.00 PM, he was present at his residence. He received a telephonic message from Dr. Saligram, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 834 DMO to the effect that he should reach Hospital immediately. Accordingly he reached Railway Hospital, Danapur. He met Dr. Saligram and Dr. S.P. Sinha. They asked him to ascertain whether the Operation Theatre and Wards were ready to receive the patients from Samastipur where persons received injuries at Railway Station, Samastipur. He checked up the Ward and Operation Theatre. Dr. Joshi, Medical Superintendent directed him to go to Patna with medicines and other equipments, which were sent by ambulance to Patna while he and Dr. Joshi went there on personal scooter. They reached Railway Station, Patna and on reaching Railway Station, Patna, they were directed to return to Danapur as per information conveyed to him by Dr. S.P. Sinha. They all the doctors returned to Danapur where ambulance was also brought. They were directed to return to Danapur since they came to know that the train in which injured Railway Minister was travelling would not stop at Patna and would proceed straight to Danapur. The Special Train carrying Sh. L.N. Mishra, Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and others arrived at Railway Station, Danapur at 12.00 midnight, of the night intervening 2nd and 3rd January, 1975. Both Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3) were sent to Railway Hospital, Danapur by ambulance. He also reached there. He examined Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. In the meanwhile, Dr. R.V.P. Sinha also arrived, examined Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3), and gave him (PW-125A) direction for treatment of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. He deposed that Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 835 118/E in respect of Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3) bears his endorsement at point A & B and he was discharged on 03.1.1975 at 10.35 AM. As per indoor case record of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra Ex.PW-118/E (Ex.PW-118/E is available in Folder R-7), he suffered injury on left leg and X-Ray was advised. He left Hospital by making request on 03.01.1975 at 10.35 AM.
756. PW-125A Dr. M. Mohanti further deposed that he was present in the Operation Theatre throughout the operation of Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra and he was present there as Anesthetist. Dr. I. K. Banga, Major, Army Hospital and Dr. Nasir Ahmad, Professor and Head of the Department were also present during the operation. He (PW-125A) prepared the correct note of Anesthesia and he correctly mentioned the details of other process of the operation. Ex.PW-125/A are the correct operation notes in his handwriting bearing his signatures at point "A" and that of Dr. I. K. Banga and Dr. Nasir Ahmad at point "B" & "C" respectively and they signed in his presence. Ex.PW-125/A are Anaesthetist Note of 3 pages mentioning all details of Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra which is written by PW-125A Dr. M. Mohanti and 2 more doctors.
(This document Ex.PW-125/A is available in folder R-37)
757. In his cross-examination PW-125A Dr. M. Mohanti replied that it was only a general examination of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and his injuries had already been dressed up. He did not mention whether the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 836 injuries of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra were incised wound or lacerated wound because of injuries having already been dressed up. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that as per history of Sh. L.N. Mishra he was an old case of I.H.D. (ischemic heart disease), hypertension and that he was taking Adelphane for normalizing blood pressure. He was taking Calmpose to reduce mental tension. He was also taking Pacetrane for checking and controlling the trembling of body. In heart disease and high blood pressure, there is chance of sodium retention in the body, which causes swelling of the whole body and may cause damage to the kidney. To remove sodium salt from the body, Lassix is used. As per history, Sh. L.N. Mishra was taking Lassix. He was also taking Amphicillin, which is high power anti-biotic. There was also history of urinary tract infection. Besides his duties as Anesthetist, he was performing general duties as Medical Officer. If a patient is brought to him complaining severe pain in the abdomen with suspected foreign body in the abdomen due to injury in the bomb blast, he would examine the patient immediately. If surgeon were available, he would immediately seek the advice of the surgeon and obey their directions. If the patient who is a victim of entry of any foreign body in his abdomen, the general condition of that patient is to be assessed by the doctor first. Necessary investigation and necessitation measures should be confirmed and as soon as general condition is found to a stage where anaesthesia and surgery can be done, at that stage operation can be done.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 837
758. PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha, the then Assistant Divisional Medical Officer (Surgery), Danapur Railway Hospital, District Patna testified that in January, 1975, Dr. D.C. Joshi was Divisional Medical Superintendent and Dr. Saligram was posted as Divisional Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Danapur. On 02.1.1975 in the evening, he heard about a bomb blast at Samastipur and suffering of injuries by the Railway Minister along with some other persons. He went to Emergency Room to confirm the message and met Dr. Saligram who asked him to make preparations and arrangement for receiving patients when they happened to come to their Hospital. He also instructed him (PW-118) to keep the Operation Theatre ready for any emergency operation. Thereafter he met Dr. D.C. Joshi who instructed him to go to Patna along with emergency medicines and equipments in Ambulance with some doctors and Para-medical staff. Accordingly, he along with other staff left Danapur by ambulance and reached Patna at 8.30/9.00 PM. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Mohanti followed his ambulance on a scooter for Patna. The Divisional Superintendent, Danapur conveyed him instructions that he should return to Hospital, Danapur. Accordingly, he returned to Danapur and went to Railway Station, Danapur. He was told that train would not stop at Patna and reach Railway Station, Danapur. He knew Dr. R.V.P. Sinha, who was Professor and Head of the Department of Surgery, Patna Medical College. He met him at Railway Station, Danapur. Train carrying Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra arrived at Railway Station, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 838 Danapur in the mid Night. Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra also arrived by the same train. Both of them were taken to Railway Hospital, Danapur and he followed them. Sh. L.N. Mishra was kept in the Recovery Room attached to the Operation Theatre. He examined Sh. L.N. Mishra in the Recovery Room. He noted his complaints and also the injuries found on his person. He perused record i.e. Medical Folder having the proceedings of Medical Expert Committee appointed by Bihar Government, brought by Dy. SP Sh. Shyam Singh on the order of the Court; he saw Indoor Record relating to Sh. L.N. Mishra prepared in Railway Hospital, Danapur. As per record, Sh. L.N. Mishra was admitted in Railway Hospital, Danapur at 12.05 AM on 3.1.1975. In the Indoor Ticket Ex.PW-118/A, (available in folder R-
37) he has written the correct particulars at point "A". He correctly recorded the injuries on the person of Sh. L.N. Mishra in this Indoor Record. He received following injuries on his person:-
1. Multiple lacerated injuries in right foot and right thigh - skin deep.
2. Lacerated wound with skin scorched margin 1" X ¾" X peritoneal deep X peritoneal cavity directing upwards and medially 3" below right interior superior iliac spine with bleeding.
3. Irregular contused area above injury no.2 measuring 2% 2"X 3" skin intact.
4. Abrasion 3" X 1" over right iliac region.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 839
5. Lacerated would ½" X ¼" about 3" above left knee, knee fat anterior.
He testified that duration of these injuries was about six hours. These injuries could be the result of splinters of an exploded bomb. The patient was conscious. His pulse was 140 per minute, respiration was 40 minute (labored) and blood pressure was 170/98 MM of mercury. His abdomen was distended and rigid all over and bowels sounds were absent. There was nothing abnormal in the heart. Prof. (Dr.) R.V.P. Sinha and Major Mahender Singh of Army were called to examine and do the needful to the patient Sh. L.N. Mishra. Prof. R.V.P. Sinha after examining gave necessary advice at 12.30 AM. He correctly recorded the advice given by Prof. Sinha at point "B" on Ex.PW- 118/A. He recorded the correct injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra at point "C" on Ex.PW-118/A. (Ex.PW-118/A is available in Folder R-37)
759. PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha further deposed that Sh. L.N. Mishra was operated upon by a team of doctors and he was throughout present in the Operation Theater during the operation till the death of Sh. L.N. Mishra in the Operation Theater itself. Prof. (Dr.) R.V.P. Sinha, Dr. U.N. Sahi (Prof.), Dr. Major Mohinder Singh and Dr. P. B. Parshad were the Surgeons who operated upon Sh. L.N. Mishra. He and four other doctors assisted them. The operation notes were prepared in his presence by Dr. M. L. Singh. Three Anesthetists were present during CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 840 the operation. Sh. L.N. Mishra was complaining of severe pain in the abdomen all over when he was examined by him and Professor (Dr.) R.V. P. Sinha. He was thoroughly investigated prior to operation as noted below:-
(i) Complete blood examination.
(ii) Blood Urea Estimation.
(iii) Blood Sugar Estimation.
(iv) Urine Routine Examination.
(v) X-Ray abdomen in erect position
(vi) X-Ray Chest.
(vii) X-Ray Pelvis.
(viii) X-Ray both thighs.
(ix) X-Ray right foot.
760. He had seen the reports in respect of all the before said investigations prior to the operation. In those days, Dr. L.P. Gupta was the Radiologist in Railway Hospital, Danapur. He is conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. L.P. Gupta as he had seen him writing and signing and also received writing from him in the course of his duties. He had seen the Skiagram and reports of the Radiologist relating to L.N. Mishra that night. Ex.PW-118/B is the Report of Dr. L.P. Gupta, Radiologist, in his hand-writing with his signature at point 'A'.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 841
761. This is X-ray report of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister, available in Folder R-37. As per X-ray report Ex.PW-118/B, there were multiple radio opaque foreign body in right foot, two radio opaque foreign body in abdomen of different sizes on right side and radio opaque foreign body in both thighs and wet firms were shown to the Surgeons in X-ray room.
762. It has also come in deposition of PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha that there was two-radio opaque foreign body in the abdomen of different sizes. There was multiple radio opaque foreign body on the right foot. Radio opaque foreign body was also found in both the thighs. Anesthesia was started by Dr. Banga and Dr. Mohanti at 3.00 AM on 3.1.1975. Prof. Nasir Ahmad of Patna Medical College and Hospital also joined them at 4.00 AM on 03.1.1975. The patient got frequent attacks of cyanosis on open ether, gas and oxygen. No intubation could be done due to his short neck. At that stage Prof. U.N. Sahi, Dr. P. B. Parshad, Dr. M.L. Singh, Dr. S.N. Mishra and Dr. R.P. Sinha, Surgeons of Patna Medical College and Hospital too examined him. Cardiologist Dr. A.K. Thakur of Patna Medical College and Hospital also examined him. His ECG was normal. The general condition of the patient was not good and it was deteriorating. So it was decided to operate upon Sh. L.N. Mishra as quickly as possible. The operation was started at 5.00 AM. On opening the peritoneal cavity, gas came out. There was collection of faecal matter in the peritoneal cavity. On exploration, following visceral injuries were noticed:-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 842
1. Two perforations half inch long each through jejunum about 1½ x feet from jugdo-jejunum flexure.
2. Two perforations in the sigmoid colon through and through.
3. Two perforations through and through in the ilium 6" from ileo-caecal junction.
4. Appendix was completely divided half inch from its junction with caesium.
5. Posterior medial leaf of mesentery torn avulsed and bleeding.
6. One metallic foreign body was found free in the peritoneal cavity at the route of mesentery causing a through and through hole in the mesentery.
763. PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha further deposed that the following procedure was adopted:-
1. All the perforations were closed in two layers using atraumagi 2/o catgut and silk.
2. The appendix was removed and the torn stum was buried by the usual method.
3. The foreign body was removed and preserved.
4. Ileo-transverse colostomy was done because after closure of the performation near the ileoc aecal CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 843 angle, the lauman of the ileum was very much narrow.
5. Peritoneal toilet was done about one litra of blood and peritoneal exutate were moped out.
764. PW-118 Sh. S.P. Sinha further stated that abdominal closure was started at 8.10 AM while the last stitches were given in the ractus sheath. Cardiac arrest was announced by Anesthetist. Immediately external cardiac massage was started. Because of constitution of the chest wall and obesity and the external massage was not effective, and therefore quickly a left thoraco-tomy was done through fifth inter costal space and internal cardiac massage was started. Later on, it was difficult to maintain oxygenation without indo-tracheal tube, traciohtomy was done, oxygenation started. Cardiac massage and indo-tracheal oxygenation were continued but the ventricles of the heart started dilating and the beats become poorer and feeble. Gradually the heart stopped and could not be revived. Cardiac massage was continued until 9.30 AM on 03.1.1975 when the patient was declared dead. He proved the Operation Notes Ex.PW-118/C (available in Folder R-37) in the hands of Dr. M.L. Singh, whose handwriting and signatures were identified by him since he had seen him writing and signing. He also identified the signatures of Dr. Prof. R.V.P. Sinha at point "A" on the Operation Notes. He issued Death Certificate at point 'D' on Indoor Record Ex.PW-118/A which is in his handwriting and bears his signatures. The patient expired due to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 844 extensive intra-abdominal injuries and cardio respiratory failure at 9.30 AM on 03.1.1975. These injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He stated that he would be in a position to identify the foreign body recovered from the person of Sh. L. N. Mishra during operation time. During his deposition one sealed parcel with seal of MS Eastern Railway, Danapur, was opened in the court from which one phial was taken out and from which metallic piece Ex.P-192 was taken out. He also identified the metallic piece Ex.P-192 to be the same foreign body recovered from the person of L. N. Mishra during the operation. He stated that it was sealed in the phial in his presence.
765. As per this document i.e. Indoor case record of Late Sh. L.N. Mishra Ex.PW-118/C (available in Folder R-37) it is mentioned that on 3.1.1975 Sh. L.N. Mishra aged about 53 years was examined at 0030 hrs. by Prof. (Dr.) R.V. P. Sinha (MS, FRCS) that the patient was having history of injury due to bomb explosion at about 5.00 PM at Samastipur. He sustained multiple injuries. He was fully conscious and complaining of severe pain in the abdomen. Dr. Sheo Narain Singh also examined him. His abdomen was found distended, bowel sound absent. He was advised and given various medicines, IV Fluid and blood transfusion as also oxygen inhalation. His several investigations like blood picture, blood urea, blood sugar, urine routine, x-ray abdomen, x-ray pelvis, x-ray chest, x-ray of both thighs were prescribed. It is mentioned that his x-ray abdomen showed a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 845 foreign body. He passed clear urine before operation. Then there is mention that Sh. L.N. Mishra was operated upon and the operation started at 5 AM. Details of the operation and findings are also find mentioned therein. At that time, four surgeons, Dr. R.V. P. Sinha, Professor (Dr.) U.N. Sahi, Dr. (Maj.) Mohinder Singh and Dr. P.V. Prasad were present. Dr. M.L. Sinha, Dr. D.C. Joshi and Dr. S. Sinha assisted the Surgeons. Anesthetists Dr. N. Ahmed, Dr. M. Mohanti, Dr. (Maj.) I.K. Banga were present. During the operation, one metallic foreign body was found free in the peritoneal cavity at the root of mesentery causing a thorough hole in the mesentery. The foreign body was removed and preserved. The abdominal closure was started at 8.10 AM while the last stitch was given, the Anesthetist for which immediately external cardiac massage announced cardiac arrest and other necessary treatment was given. He was declared dead at 09.30 AM on 03.01.1975.
766. In his further statement PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha testified that he had seen Dr. D.C. Joshi, his Divisional Medical Superintendent, and he can identify his handwriting and signatures. Dr. D.C. Joshi conveyed Information regarding death of Sh. L.N. Mishra to Police Station, Khagaul. Carbon copy of Information is Ex.PW-118/D. It bears signatures of Dr. D.C. Joshi at point "A". (Available in Folder R-37). Vide this document Dr. D.C. Joshi, MS Danapur informed police station Khagaul (Patna) about handing over dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra to police, which had taken it to Sadaquat Ashram at about CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 846 11.30 AM.) He testified that during Inquest Proceedings in respect of the dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra, he identified the dead body.
767. With regard to Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha further deposed that in the Railway Hospital, Danapur at 10.30 AM on 3.1.1975, Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra was admitted. He proved Indoor Ticket Ex.PW-118/E in respect of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra in which he correctly mentioned his particulars. In the Indoor case record writing point "B" and "C" are in his handwriting. He was discharged from the Hospital on 03.01.1975 at 10.35 AM at his own request vide endorsement recorded by him at Point "D" on Ex.PW-118/E. (Available in Folder R-7).
768. In his cross-examination PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha replied that as far as he recollected, the patient (Sh. L.N. Mishra) was in great agony and on that account he examined him hurriedly leaving further details for his senior doctors. Complete history about the ailments of Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken by his senior colleagues and by Anesthetist. He admitted that in the history mentioned in the case record in respect of Sh. L. N. Mishra by Anesthetist that it was an old case of IHD. Anesthetist has also mentioned in the history that the ECG showed sinus tachy cardiac (increased heart rate). History showed that he was suffering from hypertension also. He also admitted that as per the old history he was suffering from high blood pressure for which he was taking Adelphane. History also indicates that patient was taking CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 847 Calmpose. Calmpose is generally taken to ease tension. He admitted that as per the history Sh. L.N. Mishra was taking Adelphane, Calmpose, Pacitone, Codylen, Lassix and capsule Amphicillin. He also admitted that there was past history of urinary tract infection and chest infection. He was also taking Duvadilon to increase circulatory flow of blood. He answered that in case of a patient suffering injuries due to bomb blast, the aim of the operation is not to extract the foreign body but to repair the damage done by the foreign body. The question as to whether the patient could be operated upon immediately or not would be decided keeping in view the condition of the patient. If the general condition of the patient is very weak and the patient is not fit for anesthesia or general condition is low, they would necessitate the patient for few hours. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that he has recorded the duration of the injuries of the patient only after fully examining the patient. He recorded time of admission and duration of injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra at the same time at which the injuries were recorded in the Bed Head Ticket.
769. PW-87 Inspector Sidh Nath Ram deposed that during night intervening 2nd & 3rd January, 1975, he was Incharge of P.S. Khagaul, Distt. Patna. On 03.1.1975, at about 3.00 AM, information was received from Railway Hospital, Danapur that Railway Minister, Sh. L.N. Mishra was admitted in the Hospital with injuries on account of a bomb blast. He, thereafter, went to Railway Hospital, Danapur. At that time, Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra was in the Operation CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 848 Theatre. On that day between 9.00 AM and 10.00 AM, he was present in the Railway Hospital, Danapur. At about 9.35 AM, Doctors told him about the death of Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra. Sh. L.N. Mishra remained in the Operation Theatre from the time of his reaching the Railway Hospital till Doctor gave him the information about his death. He took Inquest Proceedings on the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra in the Recovery Room of Railway Hospital in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Hari Narain Prashad, Executive Magistrate (PW-59) and Nasiruddin. Ex.PW-59/A is the correct Inquest Report in respect of dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra which he prepared. (Available in Folder R-7). It bears his signatures at point "C". It was signed by S/S H. N. Parshad (PW-59) and Nasiruddin at point "A" & "B" respectively in his presence. Before start of Inquest Proceedings, Dr. S.P. Sinha (PW-118) had shown him death certificate of Sh. L.N. Mishra which is Mark PW-87/A. (It was later on exhibited as Ex.PW-118/A) He wanted to get post mortem examination on the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra. However, the relatives of Railway Minister and public did not want post-mortem examination and they wanted to take the dead body to Sadaquat Ashram. At that time, District Magistrate through City Superintendent of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police were also present. He wrote a petition and submitted to District Magistrate, City S.P. and Sr. Superintendent of Police with request to give necessary orders as to whether the dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra should be sent for post mortem examination CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 849 or not. The District Magistrate passed the order on his petition that dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra be handed over to his relatives without post mortem examination and he accordingly handed over the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra to the relations. They took the dead body to Sadaquat Ashram, Danapur that was at a distance of 8 km from the Railway Hospital.
770. In his cross-examination PW-87 Inspector Sidh Nath Ram replied that written information was received from the doctor of Railway Hospital, Danapur that the Railway Minister received injuries in a bomb blast. The cause of death in the Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-59/A was written by him based on report of the doctor. He did not obtain any MLC or any other document from the doctor relating to Sh. L.N. Mishra but he had seen death certificate in respect of Sh. L.N. Mishra shown by the doctor. On 3.1.1975, he reached Railway Hospital, Danapur at about 3.30 AM. He stayed there for about half an hour and then he returned to Police Station Khagaul. He again went to Railway Hospital, Danapur and reached there at about 6.45 AM. He personally did not go inside the Operation Theater. About 25/30 persons were present in the Railway Hospital, Danapur when he went there for the first time at about 3.30 AM. He found about 300/400 persons in the Hospital on reaching there at about 6.45 AM. He has given a copy of the Inquest Proceedings to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and he took the original one to police station. Dr. S.P. Sinha had identified the dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He did not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 850 remember the name of the relation of Sh. L.N. Mishra to whom the dead body was delivered.
771. PW-59 Sh. Hari Narain Parshad, the then Executive Magistrate at Khagaul, District Patna testified that Railway Hospital, Danapur was within their jurisdiction. On 03.1.1975 at 10.00 AM, Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-59/A about the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra were prepared by the police in his presence in the Railway Hospital, Danapur. It bears his signatures at point "A". Mr. Nasiruddin was another witness of Inquest Proceedings who also signed in his presence at point "B". Sh. S.N. Ram (PW-87) who signed at point "C" prepared this Inquest Report.
772. PW-151 Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja deposed that at page no. 3563 that vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-151/C (D-24), he seized the copies of the Bed Head Ticket etc. of Sh. L.N. Mishra from Eastern Railway, Danapur. Mark-151/C-1 to C-8 are the same copies of Bed Head Tickets etc. seized by him vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW- 151/C. (Seizure Memo Ex.PW-151/C is available in folder R-6)
773. The Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that there was acute delay in providing medical treatment to Sh. L.N. Mishra at the instance of Sh. Ram Vilas Jha who is known as "Boss Jha". They argued that the medical facilities were available at Samastipur CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 851 Railway Hospital as also in the Sadar Hospital, Samastipur but Sh. L.N. Mishra was not taken to either of these hospitals for his treatment on the direction of his political boss of Sh. Ram Bilas Jha in Delhi. They have also referred to the statement of PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha who stated that Sh. L.N. Mishra has desired to go to Darbhanga and instead of taking him to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, he was taken to Danapur and the Late Sh. L.N. Mishra reached there at about 11.30 PM, which worsened his condition. From Danapur Railway Station, he was shifted to Railway Hospital, Danapur, which is very small hospital. He was operated upon only at about 4.00 AM on 3.1.1975 and thus he did not succumb to the injuries of bomb blast but due to not providing him medical aid at the appropriate time on direction of Sh. Ram Vilas Jha. The prosecution has intentionally not examined Dr. P.C. Bhalla and any of the surgeons, who operated upon Sh. L.N. Mishra. They further argued that there is no investigation by the investigating agency as to who was the person responsible for this delay in medical aid, which was purposely withheld so that the Minister could die.
774. This court cannot be oblivious of the fact that PW-88 Dr. N. L. Jha, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, having deposed in the very cross-examination by the accused that on 02.1.1975 there was no other doctor available except the witness at the local Sadar Hospital. The statement of PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta reveals that 23 persons who sustained injuries in the bomb blast on 02.01.1975 were CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 852 admitted at about 18.15 hrs on that day. They were brought, examined and admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur. A perusal of Bed Head Tickets of all the 23 patients shows that 11 patients have left the Hospital on the next date i.e. on 03.1.1975 under request to the Medical Officer. Five patients out of 11 patients have also mentioned that they are leaving the Hospital at their wish for better treatment. Four patients have left the Hospital on 04.1.1975 on request, one patient left the Hospital on 07.1.1975 on request and one patient on 14.1.1975 on request. It gives the only impression to this court that the patients who were admitted with the bomb blast injuries on 02.1.1975 at 18.15 hours were not satisfied with the treatment provided there; that is why they have left the Hospital by making necessary request.
775. Court witness (CW-4) Sh. V. P. Gupta who has been the Additional Private Secretary of the Railway Minister, Sh. L.N. Mishra deposed that they have decided to go to Danapur for his treatment. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that this decision was taken by Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3). PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari, the then Chief Public Relation Officer, North-Eastern Railway deposed that Ram Vilas Jha informed him that the Minister would like to go to Patna and he conveyed it to CW-4 Sh. V.P. Gupta. PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha deposed that Dr. P.C. Bhalla, CMO wanted to take Sh. L.N. Mishra to Hospital at Samastipur but Sh. L.N. Mishra wanted to go to Darbhanga. In cross-examination of PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 853 Nagender, MBBS, the then Medical Officer at Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, the Defence Counsel have themselves given suggestion that there was complete chaos at Darbhanga, Samastipur and whole of Bihar as the doctors were on strike. Further, the defence has given him another suggestion that there was loss of blood of Surya Narain Jha because of lack of medical facility also. It has already come in the statement of PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar, PW-123 Dr. A.H. Ansari and PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender that there was complete strike by the doctors in the State of Bihar and on personal request of Dr. Sarkar, the operation of Surya Narain Jha (deceased) was conducted thereon subject to request and at his own responsibility. It has come in the statement of PW-66 Major A.I. Lendkhy, MBBS, that the Army Doctors did not treat this patient. PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender and PW-66 Major (Dr.) A.I. Lendkhy were newly appointed MBBS doctors and they were deputed in the Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital from 01.1.1975 due to strike by the doctors. By giving the suggestion to PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender by the Ld. Defence Counsel, they have admitted that there was complete chaos in Darbhanga and Samastipur with regard to the medical treatment and there was no medical facility available in Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. At the cost of repetition, one needs to note that at Samastipur, there were two Hospitals, i.e. Sadar Hospital and Railway Hospital. In Sadar Hospital, only one doctor PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha was available. In Railway Hospital, Samastipur, out of 23 patients of bomb CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 854 blast, 17 have left by making request, mostly next day. Admittedly, Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister belonged to the State of Bihar and was the brother of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, who also suffered injuries in the incident, was accompanying him. Further, the Special Train carrying Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra left for Danapur at 08.00 PM i.e. after about two hours of injuries suffered by Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. There were several options available before them to have treatment at Samastipur, Darbhanga, Patna and Danapur. By now from evidence, I have dealt with options of Samastipur and Darbhanga where treatment was not preferred as no proper medical facilities were available in both Hospitals at Samastipur and Darbhanga. CW-4 Sh. V.P. Gupta deposed that there was doctor's strike in Patna on that day. The son- in-law of Railway Minister namely Dr. C.S. Jha and Dr. Sahi, an eminent Surgeon boarded the Special Train to Danapur. It appears that due to lack of medical facility in the Samastipur and Darbhanga, both the brothers L.N. Mishra and Jagan Nath Mishra took a proper decision to go to Danapur. Even if it is accepted from the statement of PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari that he was informed by Sh. Ram Bilas Jha that the Minister has desired to go to Patna, the son-in-law of Railway Minister namely Dr. C.S. Jha along with eminent Surgeon Dr. S. Sahi has boarded the Special Train carrying Sh. L.N. Mishra from Patna. It has come in the statement of CW-4 Sh. V.P. Gupta that son-in-law of Sh. L.N. Mishra took control of the situation, who was a medical CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 855 expert. Had there been any proper medical facility available in Patna, the Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra would have preferred Patna. Several doctors were present to treat Sh. L.N. Mishra on his reaching at Danapur at 11.30 PM on that day. From the statement of PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha, it has come out that Professor (Dr.) R.V.P. Sinha, Professor (Dr.) U.N. Sahi, Dr. (Maj.) Mohinder Singh and Dr. P.B. Prasad were the part of the team of surgeons who operated upon Sh. L.N. Mishra and they were assisted by him and 4 other doctors. Three Anesthetists were present during the operation. Dr. M.L. Singh, Dr. S.N. Mishra and Dr. R.P. Sinha Surgeons of Patna Medical College & Hospital also examined Sh. L.N. Mishra. Dr. U.N. Sahi and Dr. P.B. Prasad (Surgeons) were also of Patna Medical College and Hospital. Cardiologist Dr. A.K. Thakur of Patna Medical College and Hospital also examined him. Therefore, every possible, conceivable medical facility was available at Danapur, Hospital including the supervision, treatment by a team of experts. Moreover, CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta deposed that Sh. L.N. Mishra did not complain of any abdominal pain during journey. Even, PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha deposed that there was no rigidity felt by Dr. P.C. Bhalla and PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha until 10 PM when they crossed Barauni. At that time, Dr. Bhalla told PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha about some rigidity that had appeared in the abdomen. CW-7 Sh. Jawala Pratap Singh Officer Incharge GRP, Chapra, who was on escort duty with Sh. L.N. Mishra testified that at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 856 that time the doctors of Bihar were on strike and for that reason Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken to Railway Hospital, Danapur.
776. DW-25 Sh. Vijay Kumar Mishra, who is son of Late Sh. L.N. Mishra reached Danapur at 10.30 PM on 02.01.1975. He met his father at about 01.30 AM while being L.N. Mishra being taken for X- Ray. His father expressed being well though he had splinters on the upper side of the thigh. When inquired, he was informed that his father has desired to be taken to Danapur Hospital.
777. Before the surgery, Sh. L.N. Mishra was thoroughly investigated with regard to his blood urea, blood sugar and urine. His X-ray of abdomen in erect position, X-ray chest, X-ray pelvis and X- ray right thigh were taken and as per the X-ray report, two radio opaque foreign bodies of different size were found in his abdomen. Multiple radio opaque foreign bodies on his right foot and radio opaque in both thighs were found.
778. Despite their best efforts, and treatment and operation, Sh. L.N. Mishra succumbed to his injuries at 9.30 AM on 3.1.1975. PW-118 has deposed that the patient expired due to intra-abdominal injuries and cardio respiratory failure and these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
779. The foreign body recovered from the person of Sh. L.N. Mishra during operation was sealed with the seal of MS, Eastern Railway, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 857 Danapur in a phial. It was opened in the court and metallic piece Ex.P- 192 was taken out, PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha identified this foreign body having been recovered from the person of Sh. L.N. Mishra during the operation, and he confirmed that it was sealed in the phial in his presence.
780. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that post mortem on the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra was not conducted to find the cause of his death. It has come in the statement of PW-87 Inspector Sidh Nath Ram that the relatives of the Railway Minister and public did not want post mortem and they wanted to take the dead body to Sadaquat Ashram. At that time District Magistrate, City Superintendent of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police were present. The District Magistrate directed to hand over the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra to his relatives without post mortem and accordingly, dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra was handed over to his relatives.
781. I have already referred that under sub-section 3 sub-clause (iv) of Section 174 of Cr. PC, 1973, whenever there is any doubt regarding the cause of death or under sub-clause (v) thereof police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall forward body with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical man.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 858 Apparently the death was due to injuries on vital parts of his body by the splinters of bomb; there was no necessity of his postmortem.
782. Even from the evidence it is gathered that there was no suggestion in the cross-examination of PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha that treatment was delayed by him and by Dr. P.C. Bhalla at the instance of Sh. Ram Bilas Jha or by any person. The cross-examination of PW- 125A Dr. M. Mohanti and PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha also does not shatter their assertion that metallic piece Ex.P-192 was found and recovered from the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra.
783. Moreover, in explanation (2) to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
"CHAPTER XVI OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY Of Offences Affecting Life
299. Culpable homicide - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 859 Explanation 2.- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented."
In view of clear explanation (2) to Section 299 of Indian Penal Code, even if there was some delay in providing medical treatment to Sh. L.N. Mishra (in this case there being no such intentional delay caused by the medical experts), the accused persons cannot escape the rigour of law and claim benefit of doubt.
784. The defence has examined Sh. Vinay Kumar Mishra as DW-25, who is son of late Sh. L.N. Mishra. It has come in his testimony that at the time of incident of Bomb explosion at Samastipur, he was 28 years of age. His father had gone to inaugurate Broad Gauge Line at Samastipur on 02.01.1975. At that time, his uncle Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3) was also present at the spot. Since Darbhanga is at a distance of 32 KM from Samastipur, they thought it fit that he be taken to Darbhanga Hospital. Thereafter, they came to know that he was being taken to Patna. Subsequently, they came to know that his father was being brought to Danapur. His brother-in-law and a doctor by profession Sh. C.S. Jha and late Hemant Jha were also with the witness. At Danapur Railway Hospital, he met his father, when he was being taken for X-ray, he talked to his father at about 01.30 AM. His CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 860 father had expressed being well though he had splinters on the upper left side of the thigh.
When enquired, he was informed that his father had desired to be taken to Danapur Hospital. His father was conscious till 02.00 AM, when he lastly saw him before operation. He overheard that his father had passed away at about 06.00 AM on 03.01.1975. It was soon confirmed and it means he died during or after the Operation.
In his cross-examination, DW-25 answered that he does not know as to why the train was late at Samastipur for leaving to Danapur. Admittedly, he was not present at the spot and he could not give any eyewitness account.
785. A close scrutiny of the testimony of DW-25 Sh. Vinay Kumar Mishra reflects that he met his father and talked to him at about 01.30 AM, obviously on 03.01.1975 and his father expressed being well though he had splinters on the upper right side of his left thigh and then the witness deposed that his father had desired to be taken to Danapur Hospital, as already deposed that decision for Danapur was taken by CW-3. The deposition of DW-25 read with the evidence of PW-118 supported by detailed operation notes Ex.PW-118/A and Ex.PW-118/C, shows that one foreign metallic body was found free in the peritoneal cavity at the root of mesentery causing a thorough hole in the mesentery. Therefore, the testimony of DW-25 is of no help to the accused persons.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 861
786. The defence has examined DW-20 Dr. Ashok Kumar Thakur to prove that late Sh. L.N. Mishra was not suffering from any heart ailment. DW-20 testified that on request of one of the relatives of late Sh. L.N. Mishra, he conducted ECG examination of Sh. L.N. Mishra and at that time there were many senior doctors present in the Operation Theater. He had stated that all those doctors were no more at the time of the deposition. His statement was recorded before Ajit Nath Medical Expert Committee on 14.2.1975 and his statement is Ex.DW-20/A. (This is available in Folder R-37).
In his cross-examination, he admitted that Dr. R.V.P. Sinha was heading the team of doctors, who were operating upon Late Sh. L.N. Mishra at that time and he (DW-20) was not its member.
He did not stay in the Operation Theater after recording ECG. A perusal of the evidence of this witness shows that he does not impute any negligence to any of the doctors who have attended to or treated or operated upon Late Sh. L.N. Mishra. He has only referred to examination of ECG conducted on the person of Sh. L.N. Mishra prior to his operation. In his deposition he has not referred to his ECG report also. Admittedly, he was not present in the Operation Theater during the treatment and operation of Late Sh. L.N. Mishra.
787. Defence wants to adumbrate that death of Sh. L.N. Mishra is due to medical negligence. In order to substantiate their version, the defence has heavily relied on the statement of DW-20 Dr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, Ex.DW-20/A which he reportedly made before Ajit CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 862 Nath Medical Expert Committee. In view of the above arguments, this court has closely examined the document Ex.DW-20/A. After going through the said document, this court does not find any clue to comment on the death of Sh. L.N. Mishra due to medical negligence. Statement Ex.DW-20/A only reaffirms that DW-20 had conducted only ECG examination on the person of Sh. L.N. Mishra. Statement only shows that ECG revealed that Sh. L.N. Mishra had no heart problem. It further shows that after operation of his abdomen, the blood pressure of Sh. L.N. Mishra started dropping and he suffered cardiac arrest. This witness stated that cardiac arrest was a surprise to him. Further close scrutiny of the operation notes proved by Dr. S.P. Sinha (PW-118) as referred in the earlier Paras of the judgement, splinters were found in the abdomen of Sh. L.N. Mishra and one metallic piece was extracted which is Ex.P-192. The removal of splinters, extraction of metallic piece from the abdomen naturally leads to loss of blood due to internal injuries in the intestine, veins and arteries. The injuries also damaged the capillary of the blood circulatory system, which is common prudence for which no specific medical knowledge is required. Under these circumstances, the blood pressure naturally comes down i.e. affects the flow of blood to the heart. Given these circumstances and the context, it is undesirable as to how a medical doctor (DW-20) finds surprise to the cause of death. This witness did not elaborate much in his examination which would CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 863 help the case of the defence. Furthermore, the opinion is not supported by any scientific medical data or ECG report or other experts' opinion.
788. This court cannot also be oblivious to the testimony of PW-93 Dr. S.M. Gupta who treated Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore whose deposition that the patient who also suffered injury due to the blast died owing to cardiac respiratory failure. From this testimony of PW-93, this court draws sustenance to sail that opinion of other doctors that Late Sh. L.N. Mishra had suffered cardiac arrest consequent to the bomb blast which led to his death. Likewise the PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of said Ram Kishore Prasad Singh also opined that the deceased died because of cardiac arrest owing to the blast. Therefore, the opinion of DW-20, showing surprise can be said to be motivated to favour the accused persons and has no medical and legal base.
789. Following is the details of persons, their Bed Head Tickets with treatment record, date admission and discharge, who initially took treatment at Samastipur Railway Hospital, but sought discharge on request for better treatment:-
Sr. Name of the Patient & Date of Admission Date of Exhibit of Bed Head & Time Discharge No. Ticket & reason CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 864
1. Rama Kant Jha 2.1.1975 at 18.15 4.1.1975 on Ex.PW-93/N = Ex.PW- hrs. request 107/D
2. Satender Prasad Singh 2.1.1975 at 18.15 4.1.1975 on Ex.PW-93/T hrs. request
3. Nawal Kishore Singh 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975 on Ex.PW-93/K = Ex.PW- hrs. request 107/C
4. Brij Mohan Sharma 2.1.1975 at 18.15 14.1.1975 on (PW-57) hrs. request Ex.PW-93/E
5. Baleshwar Ram (CW- 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975 on
5) request hrs. Ex.PW-93/R = Ex.PW-
107/B
6. Suraj Narain Mandal 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975 on Ex.PW-93/O request (leaving at hrs. his risk for better treatment)
7. Yamuna Prasad 2.1.1975 at 18.15 4.1.1975 on Mandal hrs. request Ex.PW-93/P
8. Ram Vinod Sharma 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975 on Ex.PW-93/D = Ex.PW- hrs. request 107/E
9. Ram Kishore Prasad 2.1.1975 at 18.15 Died on 3.1.1975 Singh Ex.PW-93/A = hrs. at 7.45 AM (PW-
Ex.PW-107/A 107 Dr. T.D.
Nandi stated that
treatment given to
him up to 11.30
PM on 2.1.1975
though he died on
3.1.1975 at
7.45AM. Bed
Head Ticket also
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 865 shows that after 11.30 PM, he was given medicines at 6 AM on 3.1.1975.
10. Suresh Prasad Singh, 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975 Advocate hrs. on request Ex.PW-93/L
11. Pramod Prasad 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975 Ex.PW-93/M hrs. on request
12. Kailash Pati Singh 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975. Left Advocate hrs. Hospital for better Ex.PW-93/G treatment at his will
13. Smt. Noor Jahan 2.1.1975 at 18.15 4.1.1975 Begum hrs. on request Ex.PW-93/Q
14. Kapil Deo Narain 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975. Left Singh hrs. Hospital for better Ex.PW-93/F treatment at his will.
15. Suraj Chaudhary 2.1.1975 at 18.15 7.1.1975 on Ex.PW-93/U hrs. request
16. Ram Bhagat Paswan 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975 on Ex.PW-93/H = Ex.PW- hrs. request for better 107/G treatment.
17. Parmanand Jha 2.1.1975 at 18.15 3.1.1975 on Ex.PW-93/W = hrs. request Ex.PW-107/H
68) Victims of grievous hurt
(i) Ram Bhagat Paswan
790. Ram Bhagat Paswan (PW-85) has suffered injuries in the bomb blast at Samastipur Railway Station on 2.1.1975. He has testified that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 866 he has suffered injuries on both of his legs because of the explosion and became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself at Dr. Nawab's clinic, Darbhanga and remained in the clinic for about three weeks. He suffered fracture in his right leg. He could not work for about six months due to fracture and injuries. He used to suffer pain due to injuries and fracture. After his discharge from Dr. Nawab's Clinic, Darbhanga, he remained admitted in Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, for about a month. Still seven splinters are present in his legs.
(Ex.PW-93/H is the Bed Head Ticket of Ram Bhagat Paswan and his other medical papers are Ex.PW-104/B).
791. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur testified that on 02.1.1975 he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to their hospital. At about the same time on 02.1.1975 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP (PW-85) was admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur in injured condition. He has correctly written the particulars in respect of Ram Bhagat Paswan on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/H at point 'A'. At point 'B' there is writing in the hand of Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107), at point 'C' and 'F' and 'G' there is handwriting of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-16). Dr. K.M. Sinha discharged CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 867 this patient from the Hospital on 3.1.1975 regarding which there is endorsement at point 'A'.
792. PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi further deposed that the Bed Head Ticket no. 3584 Ex.PW-93/H is in respect of Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan (PW-85). He was admitted in the Hospital on 2.1.1975 and he observed the following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound half inch into one third inch on the mid part of right thigh.
2. One circular wound ¼" in diameter penetrating medial aspect of right leg upper part.
3. Three penetrating wound ¼ inches in diameter on the entromedial aspect of right leg.
4. Lacerated wound 2" x half inch, on dorsem of right foot with suspected fracture on the right foot.
5. Lacerated wound ¼" x ¼" on the posterior right forearm at its lower third.
He made note of these injuries at Ex.PW-107/G on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/H correctly. He advised X-ray of the right foot. The injuries in this case were also of the duration within half an hour and could be caused by bomb explosion.
793. PW-97 Dr. Nawab further testified that on 3.1.1975 in the morning Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Kapil Dev Narain Singh, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 868 MLA, Bihar and Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP (PW-85) were also brought to his clinic with injuries due to bomb blast. He had an occasion to examine them and they were admitted in his clinic. He deposed that Kailash Pati Singh had suffered comminuted fracture of Tibia Fibula (left side) due to bomb blast. His injuries were grievous as he suffered fracture of bones of the left leg.
794. PW-104 Dr. Naveen Prasad Singh further testified that on 03.1.1975 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP (PW-85) was admitted in the Janta Clinic, Darbhanga at 10 PM who was referred from Railway Hospital where he was admitted on 02.1.1975. He found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound about 2" X ½" X ½" deep on dorsum of right foot.
2. Penetrating lacerated wound in the right leg on medial size lower part ½ X ½".
3. A penetrating lacerated wound in the middle of right leg on medial size.
4. Lacerated wound ¼ " X ¼" X ¼" on medial side of right knee.
5. Penetrating lacerated wound in left leg on anterior aspect just below the knee joint.
6. Fracture shaft of first metatarsal bone of right foot, compound, communicating opposite first wound above described.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 869
7. One small circular abrasion 3" below umbilicus.
8. Multiple small circular abrasions on front of right side.
He stated that Ex.PW-104/B is the Injury Statement of Ram Bhagat Paswan (PW-85) which was written by his junior doctor correctly on his dictation and bears his signatures at point A and B. He further stated that injury no. 6 was grievous in nature and weapon used for causing these injuries could be possibly splinters from some explosive substance and the portion X to X on Ex.PW-104/B is in his handwriting. The name of B.N. Prasad appear at Serial No.156 and of Ram Bhagat Paswan at Serial No.188 in Register Mark PW-97/A. (Injury statement Ex.PW-104/A and Ex.PW-
104/B are available in Folder R-14 and MLC Ex.PW-93/H is available in Folder R-29).
795. In his cross-examination, PW-104 Dr. Naveen Prasad Singh stated that he noticed the injuries and fracture of Ram Bhagat Paswan at the time he was examined. X-ray was not done for this fracture of Ram Bhagat Paswan. However, his X-ray was taken on the other part because of the presence of suspected splinters. Since it was an open wound and fracture could not be noted. He has mentioned on the Bed Head Ticket of Ram Bhagat Paswan about splinters. In the case of Ram Bhagat Paswan splinters were present in his right leg and it was not taken out.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 870
796. From this statement of PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi and Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/H and PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh, it is conclusively proved that Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan has suffered grievous injuries due to bomb blast on the Dais at Platform No.3 Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975.
(ii) Kailash Pati Singh
797. Though the name of this person is mentioned as Kailash Pati Mishra in the charge and in fact, his name is Kailash Pati Singh. He has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution but there is sufficient evidence in the statement of PW-103 Sh. Raj Dev Rai that just before the bomb blast on the Dais at Platform No.3, Samastipur Railway Station on 2.1.1975 after conclusion of the speech by Sh. L.N. Mishra, Sh. Kailash Pati Singh was also sitting there. Immediately thereafter at about 6.15 PM on 2.1.1975 he was brought to the Railway Hospital, Samastipur. He was examined by Dr. S.N. Gupta (PW-93).
798. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. He stated that on 2.1.1975, he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to their hospital. He stated that at about the same time on 2.1.1975 Sh. Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Samastipur was also CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 871 admitted in Railway Hospital at bed no.4. He has correctly recorded his particulars at point 'A' on the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/G. Writings at point 'B' and 'C' on this Bed Head Ticket are in the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116). He found comminuted fracture of both bones of lower third of the left leg regarding which he made noting at point 'G' on the Bed Head Ticket on the Ex.PW-93/G.
799. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further testified that Bed Head Ticket no. 3588 in respect of Kailash Pati Singh Ex.PW-93/G is also in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta whose handwriting he identified. This patient was also examined by him (PW-116) and he found the following injuries on his person:-
1. Semilunal lacerated wound 1½ on dorsum of right foot over first metatarsal 1 ½ " 1/2" x 1/4".
2. Abrasion over the medial malleous of right leg.
3. Penetrating wound 1/4" x ½" x 3/4" medial side right knee.
4. Semi-lunal lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" (one inch below injury no. 3).
5. Abrasion over left petala 1" x 1/4".
6. Compound fracture lacerated wound 1" x 3/4"
(middle 1/3rd of left leg in front side).
On x-ray, it was found that there was comminuted fracture on both knees in the lower third of the left leg corresponding to injury no. (6).
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 872 These injuries could be possible by bomb blast. Nature of injuries was grievous. The injuries of Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57) and Kailash Pati Singh could have resulted in death had they not been given proper treatment.
800. PW-97 Dr. Nawab further testified that on 3.1.1975 in the morning Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Kapil Dev Narain Singh, MLA, Bihar and Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP (PW-85) were also brought to his clinic with injuries due to bomb blast. He had an occasion to examine them and they were admitted in his clinic. He stated that Kailash Pati Singh had suffered comminuted fracture of Tibia Fibula (left side) due to bomb blast. His injuries were grievous as he suffered fracture of bones of the left leg.
801. PW-112 Dr. Rohini Raman Ganguli, the then Prof. & Head of the Department Orthopaedic Surgery, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga, deposed that Bihar doctors had ceased work. Dr. Nawab was running a clinic known as "Nawab Clinic" in Darbhanga. The doctors of Bihar Government were giving treatment to patients in Dr. Nawab's Clinic under Indian Medical Association. He had seen the Bed Head Ticket dated 3.1.1975 of Kailash Pati Singh and had operated upon Sh. Kailash Pati Singh. He found following injuries on his person:-
1. Comminuted/compound fracture on left tibia.
2. Abrasion over the left hypochondrium CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 873 He had seen X-ray plates of Sh. Kailash Pati Singh which confirmed the comminuted compound fracture of left tibia. On 3.1.1975, under general anesthesia, wound excision of compound fracture was done (left side). The penetrating injury of the right knee was exised and metallic foreign body was removed from the joint. The limbs were plastered. The operation notes on the Bed Head Ticket No.186 of Kailash Pati Singh were written on his dictation. The operation notes on Bed Head Ticket Mark PW-112/A at point A were written in his presence. Splinters of an explosive bomb could cause the wounds of Kailash Pati Singh. He suffered grievous injuries. Had the patient been not treated, these could have resulted in his death. In his cross-
examination, she stated that metallic foreign body removed from knee joint of Sh. Kailash Pati Singh was preserved in a sealed parcel and handed over to someone in Clinic. (Mark PW-112/A in available in Folder R-14.) It is mentioned therein that the patient was examined by Prof. R.R. Ganguli at 10.30 AM. The patient was admitted on 3.1.1975 vide no.186/3.1.1975. This document stand proved as it was written on his dictation and is now exhibited as Ex.PW-112/A.
802. Therefore, as per this medical evidence of PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha and PW-112 Dr. Rohini Raman Ganguli and medical record, it is proved that Kailash Pati Singh suffered grievous injury in the bomb blast on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 874
(iii) Brij Mohan Sharma
803. Prosecution has examined independent public witness Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma as PW-57. He was present on the Dais at Platform No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975. He (PW-57) was advised by Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan to garland the Railway Minister when he concludes his speech and may give him Maanpatra. After the Railway Minister concluded his speech, he moved towards him and garlanded the Railway Minister who moved one or two steps towards the stairs. At that time there was an explosion on the Munch in which he received serious injuries on his both feet. He was taken to the Railway Hospital, Samastipur where he remained admitted for 12 days. He received injuries with splinters from that explosion and one splinter is still in his foot. He has to remain at his house for about one year during which he could not do heavy work and there was a fracture of his foot.
804. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur stated that on 2.1.1975 he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to their hospital. He stated that at about the same time on 2.1.1975 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57) of village Bithan was also admitted in Railway Hospital on bed no.9. At point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 875 Ex.PW-93/E, he has correctly recorded his particulars. Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116), who had also advised treatment, to the patient, noted the injuries of this patient on this Bed Head Ticket at point 'B'. Dr. Sinha has also noted the follow up treatment for patient. This patient was also treated by Dr. P.C. Gupta, Dr. N.N. Prasad, Dr. M. Banerjee, Dr. K.M. Sinha, Dr. T.D. Nandi, Dr. N.N. Bhaumi. The patient was discharged on his request on 14.1.1975.
805. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway, Divisional Hospital, Samastipur stated that on 02.1.1975 at about 4.30/5.00 PM he along with Dr. M.N. Sharma, Medical Superintendent of Hospital, some Engineers and Railway Officers went to Railway Station, Samastipur on Platform no. 3. On direction of Dr. M.N. Sharma, he rushed to the Hospital, contacted the doctors on telephone and rang up emergency bell for summoning of the doctors and staff due to emergency. He supervised the medical aid to the injured, which were brought to the Hospital and he himself treated some of the patients. He arranged to accommodate the injured persons in the ward. He has seen the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E of Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57). The name and particulars are written in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta whose handwriting he was acquainted of as he had seen him writing and signing as a colleague. The writing portion encircled red at Point 'P' is in his handwriting. The patient/injured had the following injuries:-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 876
1. Lacerated wound half inch into quarter inch on the right side lateral aspect, upper part.
2. Lacerated wound half inch into 1/4" of the lower part of the thigh.
3. Lacerated wound one 1½" x 1" on the posterior aspect of right thigh (mid part).
4. Lacerated wound one inch into one inch on the posterior aspect of right thigh below injury no. 3.
5. Lacerated wound half inch into 1/4" on the calf of the right leg.
6. Lacerated wound 2" x ½" on the lateral aspect of right leg (mid part).
7. Lacerated wound 2½" x 1" lower part right leg lateral aspect.
8. Lacerated wound 2½" x 1" on the posterior aspect of the right ankle.
9. Lacerated wound 1" x ¼" on the right heel.
10. Lacerated wound 3" x 1" on the right calf.
11. Lacerated wound 3" x 1", one inch below injury no. 10.
12. Lacerated wound 1½ " x ½" (half inch deep left thigh lower part on the back).
13. One small punctured wound medial aspect of left leg 1/4" circular.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 877 The portion 'E' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E is also in his handwriting. He stated that generally lacerated wounds are caused by bomb blast. Splinters could cause these injuries. The injuries of Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57) were grievous in nature as X-Ray of Brij Mohan Sharma revealed fracture of right fibula lower end with multiple foreign bodies in the left knee.
806. In his cross-examination PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha replied that in his presence no splinter was taken out from the person of the injured examined by him. Lacerated wound could be caused either by bomb blast or by any other force. The entry of foreign body found on the person of Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57) was radio-opaque metallic. The Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E of Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57) indicates that he was operated upon but he could not read from the Bed Head Ticket as to who performed the operation. He did not prepare separate medico-legal certificate in respect of these injured persons. Quite a number of patients came in the hospital after the incident and their primary duty was to render medical aid to the injured persons and on that account duration of injury was not mentioned in the Bed Head Tickets. He was dealing with the patients for giving treatment and not from the view point of "medico-legal cases" so he did not mention the duration of their injury even subsequently. He was aware that the patients referred by him in his examination-in-chief were of "medico-legal cases" but his primary duty was to render medical aid to the patients first.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 878
807. In view of statement of injured PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta and PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha and his injuries and treatment recorded on his Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E, Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma has suffered grievous injuries in the bomb blast on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur.
(iv) Ram Vinod Sharma
808. Though the prosecution has not examined the injured Ram Vinod Sharma as a witness yet it is found in the testimony of PW-85 that Ram Sukumari Devi, Ram Vinod Sharma and Sh. Kapil Deo Narain Singh were sitting on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station at the time of bomb blast. PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai has also testified that Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma was on the Dais at that time and after the bomb blast, his (PW-113) clothes got blood stained when he (PW-113) rendered help to Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma and Jamuna Mandal. Immediately after the bomb blast on the Railway Station, Samastipur, the victims including Ram Vinod Sharma were brought to Samastipur Railway Hospital.
809. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur stated that on 2.1.1975 he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 879 their hospital. He stated that at about the same time on 2.1.1975 Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma was also admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur on bed no.16 in injured condition. At point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/D, he has correctly recorded his particulars. Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) noted injuries of Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/D at point 'B'. The team of doctors gave him the treatment. The patient got himself discharged at his own risk.
810. PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi further deposed that he has seen Bed Head Ticket no. 3600 Ex.PW-93/D in respect of Ram Vinod Sharma. He found following injuries on his person:-
1. One lacerated wound 1" x ¾" lateral aspect of left thigh at its upper third.
2. One incised wound 1" x half inch over the tubercle of left knee.
3. One lacerated wound 1½" x 1" antrolateral aspect of left leg and its middle third.
4. Another wound one inch apart from the injury no.3 each ¾" x 1/3".
5. Lacerated wound 1 ½' X ½" on the lateral part of dorsum of left foot.
6. Fracture both bones left leg.
7. Lacerated injury 2"x 1" medial aspect of right heals with suspected fracture.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 880 He stated that writing Ex.PW-107/E and Ex.PW-107/F on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/D of Ram Vinod Sharma was correctly recorded by him. The patient left the Hospital at his own request. Out of the injuries observed by him, two injuries were of suspected fracture but the patient could not be X-rayed. The duration of injuries was half an hour and could be caused by a bomb explosion.
811. It has been proved from the statement of PW-85 Ram Bhagat Paswan, PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai, PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta and PW- 107 Dr. T.D. Nandi that the victim Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma has suffered grievous injuries in the bomb blast on Dais at Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975.
(v) B.N. Prasad
812. I have already referred the statement of this injured PW-28 Sh. B.N. Prasad, DIG Darbhanga, who was standing near the Dais on the Platform No.3 Railway Station, Samastipur, and as there was demonstration, he was going to make a request to the Railway Minister to conclude his speech. By the time, Sh. B. N. Prasad (PW-
28) approached the Railway Minister and he had concluded his speech. He (Railway Minister) was facing West side and took a turn. He (PW-28) stood behind just by the side of the Railway Minister, he must have moved one-step, and thereafter there was a blast on the Dais. After the Minister had concluded his speech, persons from public started raising slogans 'Lalit Babu Jindabad' and some persons CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 881 moved ahead to garland the Railway Minister. He fell down and had a feeling that someone had attempted with some firearm. He was happy as he considered that he had saved the Railway Minister though he received injuries risking his own life. He (PW-28) was taken to Samastipur Hospital where he became unconscious on the Dais and on regaining consciousness, he found himself in Samastipur Hospital. He stated that in those days there was strike in the Medical College, Darbhanga and he was taken to Nawab clinic, Darbhanga and remained admitted there as Indoor Patient for about three months. He was operated upon thrice and was flown to America for further treatment. Almost all of his intestines came out, there were about 50 splinters in his body, and 25 are still in his body. He joined duties about 8 months later.
813. Soon after the incident the victim Sh. B.N. Prasad, DIG, Darbhanga was taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, where he was examined by PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, the then Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, the then Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur testified that from 1.1.1975 to 25.1.1975, all the doctors in Government service in Bihar including himself were on cease work (strike). On 2.1.1975, information was received that some persons came to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur with injuries received in a bomb blast and on humanitarian ground, he went to Hospital to attend them. He went to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur on that day at about 6.30/6.45 PM. As far as he recollected, he examined CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 882 four patients in Operation Theater. He examined DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28), MLC Surya Narain Jha (deceased), another MLC whose name he did not recollect and one boy Ajay Kumar (PW-58) aged 11/12 years. The injuries of B.N. Parshad (PW-28), Surya Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-58) were of very serious and of grievous nature. Glucose saline drip was given to DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28). After giving first aid to B.N. Parshad (PW-28), Surya Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-58), they advised that they might be shifted to Darbhanga Medical College. The injuries of MLC whose name he could not recollect were simple in nature. That MLC was discharged after giving him first aid. Father of Ajay Kumar was in local police and he (Ajay Kumar) was shifted immediately from Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. Many relatives of B.N. Prasad (PW-28) and Surya Narain Jha (deceased) came to Hospital and took them to Medical College Hospital, Darbhanga same night.
814. He testified that the injuries which he found on the person of Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28), Sh. Suraj Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-58) and another MLC on 2.1.1975 in Sadar Hospital, Samastipur could also be caused by bomb blast.
815. In his cross-examination PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha answered that these four persons (Sh. B.N. Prasad, Sh. Suraj Narain Jha, Ajay Kumar and another) were not admitted in the Hospital since there was no doctor except him. The doctors were on cease work strike for CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 883 getting service benefits. He did not prepare any record in respect of their name, parentage or injuries and he came to know about name of these four injured persons from Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Samastipur and others including relations of the injured. He has given their names by memory. He did not remember whether ski-grams of the injured were taken in the Hospital or not. He found their injuries to be of grievous nature without having with him their ski-grams. He verbally prescribed medicines and treatment for these injured persons and they were given treatment as per his advice.
816. PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh further stated that on 3.1.1975 at 5 AM DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28) was admitted in Janta Clinic. He and Dr. S.M. Nawab attended him. They operated upon him jointly. His injury statement dated 14.1.1975 Ex.PW-104/A (Available in Folder R-14) bears his signatures at point A and B. It was prepared on his dictation. He observed the following injuries on the person of DIG B.N. Prasad: -
1. Multiple, punctured, lacerated wound of varying size from ¼" to 1/2" X varying depth over anterior medial part of both thigh and legs.
2. Lacerated wound one inch X 1/3" X skin deep, over penis, anteriorly.
3. Two penetrating lacerated wounds each ½" X 1/3"
into abdominal cavity over left iliac fossae CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 884 (Laprotomy revealed lacerated perforation half inch diameter over the sigmoid colon).
4. Punctured lacerated 1/3" X 1/3" abdominal wall over the epigastrium directed upward.
5. Punctured lacerated wound 1/3" X 1/3" into chest wall directed upward.
6. Lacerated wound 3/4" X 1/3" skin deep over the right shoulder.
7. Punctured lacerated wound 1/2" X 1/3" into muscle deep over medial aspects of right arm.
8. Bruise 4" diameter over right pectoral region.
9. Multiple punctured wound of varying size 1/4" X 1/3" very left hip region.
He stated that duration of injuries were within 12 hours. He got the patient x-rayed and saw the skiagram himself. He was his friend. He accompanied him from Samastipur to Darbhanga, nature of injuries of B.N. Prasad was grievous, and nature of weapon used was splinters from some explosive substance. Portion "X" to "X" on Ex.-PW104/A was correctly written by him with his own hands. In his cross examination, PW-104 Dr. Naveen Prasad Singh stated that in case of DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28) splinters were present on his chest but no attempt was made to take it out. In case of DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28) he had seen his X-ray just after 5 minutes it was X-rayed in the X-ray room itself on 3.1.1975. This has not been mentioned in Ex.PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 885 104/A (of Sh. B.N. Prasad) as they were more concerned about the treatment of the patient.
(Ex.PW-104/A is available in Folder R-14)
817. PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab of Janta Clinic testified that on the same night, he also attended to Sh. B.N. Prasad, DIG Police (PW-28) who also had suffered severe injuries. The main serious injuries on the person of Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28) were the following:-
1. Two penetrating lacerated wounds, each ½ X 1/3 inch penetrating into the abdominal cavity (left iliac fossa).
2. Laparotomy revealed lacerated perforation ½ inch in diameter of the sigmoid colon.
In addition to the aforesaid injuries, he had many other shrapnel wounds.
818. PW-97 Dr. Nawab further deposed that all the injuries found on the person of Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28) could be caused by the splinters of an exploded hand grenade. Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28) was brought to his clinic in the early hours of 3.1.1975 and duration of the injuries was within 12 hours. Injuries found on B.N. Prasad were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He himself operated upon Sh. B. N. Prasad (PW-28) with assistance of other doctors. He accompanied Sh. B. N. Prasad (PW-28) to USA for CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 886 further treatment. Despite all the treatment given to Sh. B.N. Prasad in India and abroad, he still has a hernia in his abdomen for which he has to wear a belt corset. All splinters could not be taken out from the person of Sh. B. N. Prasad.
819. In his cross examination PW-97 Dr. Nawab replied that he knew DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28) earlier as he is brother of one of his students. He (PW-97) was going to USA to meet his children and Sh. B.N. Prasad expressed his desire to accompany him for getting help from his sons who were practicing in USA as Surgeons. DIG B.N. Prasad was operated upon in USA in his presence but the operation was not successful. As far as he remembered, one or two splinters were removed from lower extremity of B.N. Prasad (PW-28).
820. It is thus established from testimony of PW-28 Sh. Brij Nandan Prasad and PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh and PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab that Sh. Brij Nandan Prasad, DIG suffered grievous injuries in the bomb blast that took place on the Dais of Platform no.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975.
(vi) Ajay Kumar
821. PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar, aged about 10/11 years at that time and son of Incharge, GRP, Samastipur, stated that he (PW-58) took one garland from a person standing there and went to the Rostrum to garland the Railway Minister. The Railway Minister concluded his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 887 speech 2/3 minutes after his reaching the Rostrum and after concluding his speech, the Railway Minister took a turn and moved 1/2 steps ahead. He (PW-58) also moved 1/2 steps forward in order to garland the Railway Minister and in the meantime he heard explosion and received injuries on his chest. He (PW-58) jumped from the Dais and became unconscious and on regaining consciousness, he found himself in Janta clinic, Darbhanga where he remained under the treatment of Dr. S.M. Nawab.
822. PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, the then Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur deposed that from 1.1.1975 to 25.1.1975, all the doctors in Government service in Bihar including himself were on cease work (strike). On 2.1.1975, information was received that some persons came to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur with injuries received in a bomb blast and on humanitarian grounds, he went to Hospital to attend them. He went to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur on that day at about 6.30/6.45 PM. As far as he recollected, he examined four patients in Operation Theater. He examined DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28), MLC Surya Narain Jha (deceased), another MLC whose name he did not recollect and one boy Ajay Kumar (PW-58) aged 11/12 years. The injuries of B.N. Parshad (PW-28), Surya Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-
58) were of very serious and of grievous nature. Glucose saline drip was given to DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28). After giving first aid to B.N. Parshad (PW-28), Surya Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-
58), they advised that they might be shifted to Darbhanga Medical CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 888 College. The injuries of MLC whose name he could not recollect were simple in nature. That MLC was discharged after giving him first aid. Father of Ajay Kumar was in local police and he (Ajay Kumar) was shifted immediately from Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. Many relatives of B.N. Prasad (PW-28) and Surya Narain Jha (deceased) came to Hospital and took them to Medical College Hospital, Darbhanga same night.
823. He stated that the injuries, which he found on the person of Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28), Sh. Suraj Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-58) and another MLC on 02.1.1975 in Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, could also be caused by bomb blast.
824. PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab, Private Practitioner of Janta Clinic, Darbhanga, aged about 72 years, stated that he retired as Principal, Darbhanga Medical College in 1969 and thereafter he has been engaged in private practice at Darbhanga. He has been running his own clinic at Darbhanga. He treats mainly surgical cases. He stated that on 2 nd and 3rd January 1975 he was at Darbhanga and in those days government doctors were on strike. His junior doctors requested him to allow his clinic to be run as free Janta Clinic. He was supervising the doctors. On 2.1.1975 in the Evening, he heard a rumour of Bomb blast at Samastipur involving Sh. L. N. Mishra and others. He immediately invited all the junior doctors of Darbhanga Medical College who were on strike to cooperate with him and treat CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 889 any casualties which may arrive to his clinic from Samastipur. The Doctors, who were running Janta Clinic under his supervision though on strike in Darbhanga Medical College, maintained a Register in respect of the patients treated by them. The particulars of those patients treated in the Janta Clinic were entered in the Register Mark PW-97/A. (Available in Folder R-22). He has seen this Register Mark PW-97/A in which there are entries from 1.1.1975 to 24.1.1975. The first person to reach Samastipur was named Ajay Kumar (PW-
58), S/o Police Inspector N. P. Sinha, aged 12 years and his condition was desperate and he was gasping due to loss of blood. He attended this patient. His condition was so bad that he had to donate his own blood to enable him to stand the operation, which was performed by him. It was a thoraco-abdominal with laceration of the left lung diaphragm, left lobe of liver and stomach. Splinters of exploded hand grenade could cause this injury of Ajay Kumar. The injury was caused about six hours earlier. He prepared correct operation notes in respect of Ajay Kumar (PW-58) and signed it. Ex.PW-97/A is the operation notes of Ajay Kumar (PW-58) in his handwriting which are correct and bears his signatures. Injuries of Ajay Kumar were very dangerous and sufficient in ordinary course of events to cause death.
825. I have perused the Register Mark PW-97/A. This is bound register containing the details of the patients i.e. the name, address, age, disease, treatment and remarks with signatures. There are two CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 890 columns one dealing with Sr. No. and other dealing with registration no. No doubt there are certain overwriting found in first column of Sr. No. However, there is no error or discrepancy or overwriting in the registration no. and other columns. The registration numbers are in seriatim number. It is not necessary that the proprietor of clinic Dr. S.M. Nawab should have written it in his own handwriting. He testified that this Register was maintained in his clinic. PW-104 Dr. Naveen Prasad Singh handed over this register to I.O. This register was maintained in due course in the clinic and this falls within the definition of "Fact" as defined in S. 3 (1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also within definition of a "document". As document stand proved and now it is exhibited as Ex.PW-97/X. This register reflect that at registration no.153, 154 and 155, patients namely Ajay Kumar, C.S. Chaudhary and Suraj Narain Jha, respectively were admitted on 2.1.1975, Sh. B.N. Prasad on 3.1.1975 at Register No.156. At registration No.184, 185, 186, 187 and 188 Sh. Suraj Narain Mandal, Surinder Prasad Chawdhry, Kailash Pati Singh, Kapil Deo Narain Sharma and Ram Bilas Paswan respectively were admitted on 3.1.1975.
(EX.PW-97/A Operation Notes are available in Folder R-14 and Register Mark PW-97/A is available in Folder R-22)
826. In his cross examination PW-97 Dr. Nawab answered that many X-rays of Ajay Kumar were taken subsequently during his stay in is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 891 Clinic. In the notes in respect of Ajay Kumar, there is no mention about his age but by his memory, he stated that his age was about 12 years. He stated that the operation notes Ex.PW-97/A do not bear his signatures but these were in his handwriting.
827. PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh testified that in January 1975 he was posted at Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga. He is MBBS, MS. In January 1975, the government doctors have ceased the work. Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital was under the management and control of Army doctors. On humanitarian grounds they were running Janta Clinic at Dr. Nawab's Clinic. He stated that on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd January, 1975, a number of patients were brought to Janta Clinic. One Admission Register Mark PW-97/A (which is available in the folder R-14) was maintained at Janta Clinic. One patient Ajay Kumar was also brought to this Janta Clinic. He was examined by him. Dr. S. M. Nawab operated upon him. This patient Ajay Kumar was in a very critical condition.
828. From the statement of PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar, PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh and PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab, it is proved that Sh. Ajay Kumar sustained grievous injuries in the bomb blast on the Dais at Platform No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 892
69) Victims of Hurt.
(i) Kapil Deo Narain Singh
829. The prosecution has not examined him as its witness. PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan and PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai have stated in their respective statements that he was also one of the persons who were sitting on the Dais at Platform no.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur at the time of bomb blast. He was immediately brought in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur where he was examined PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. He stated that on 02.01.1975 at about the same time Sh. Kapil Deo Narain, MLA was admitted in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur on bed no.6. He has correctly recorded his particulars at point 'A' on his Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/F. Noting at point 'B' and 'C' on this Bed Head Ticket are in hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116). He left the hospital on 03.01.1975 of his own will for better treatment.
830. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that Bed Head Ticket no. 3590 in respect of Kapil Deo Narain Singh, MLA, is Ex.PW-93/F. The particulars on this Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/F at Point 'A' are in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta, which he identified. He examined the patient and found following injuries:-
1. Lacerated wound 2" X 1" into muscle deep on the lateral aspect of right thigh at the junction of upper 2/3rd and lower 1/3rd.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 893
2. Two small punctured wounds ¼" X ¼" X 1" deep on the right thigh medial aspect.
3. Superficial burn injury over right leg lateral aspect.
4. Lacerated wound 2" X 1" X muscle deep right axilliary region.
He correctly recorded injuries at portion "B" of the said Bed Head Ticket. All injuries could be caused by splinters of an exploded bomb.
831. PW-112 Dr. Rohini Raman Ganguli further testified that he has seen Bed Head Ticket no. 187 dated 3.1.1975 Mark PW-112/B (available in Folder R-14) in respect of Kapil Deo Narain Singh. He saw this patient firstly on 3.1.1975 in Janta Clinic and he stitched the infected wounds and removed the stitches. The wounds were in right axilla, right thigh and leg. He opened the stitches. The wounds were infected, wounds were drained and packed with antibiotics. Somebody must have assisted him while treating the injuries of Kapil Deo Narain Singh. The details of treatment given to Kapil Deo Narain Singh were written on his Bed Head Ticket on his dictation. In Bed Head Ticket Mark PW-112/B, operation notes were written at point 'A' in his presence on his dictation. From what is written at point 'A' on Mark PW-112/B, he cannot say that injuries of Kapil Deo Narain Singh were serious. In her cross-examination, she proved Bed Head Ticket Mark PW-112/B by saying that this is in the handwriting of Dr. K.P. Pandey whose signatures and writing she identified. So, this CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 894 document is now exhibited as Ex.PW-112/B. These injuries could be caused by hard blunt substance or by splinters of an explosive of hand grenade.
(Ex.PW-112/B is available in Folder R-14)
832. PW-97 Dr. Nawab further testified that on 03.1.1975 in the morning Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Kapil Deo Narain Singh, MLA, Bihar and Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP (PW-85) were also brought to his clinic with injuries due to bomb blast. He had an occasion to examine them and they were admitted in his clinic.
833. Perusal of the injuries as stated by Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) and mentioned in the Bed Head Ticket and statement of PW-112 Dr. Rohini Raman Ganguli, does not show that he has suffered any fracture and grievous injuries. The injuries appear to be simple one. Hence, the prosecution has proved that in the said bomb blast, Kapil Deo Narain Singh suffered "hurt".
(ii) Rama Kant Jha
834. Though the prosecution has not examined this injured as its witness yet it has come in the evidence of PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai that Sh. Rama Kant Jha was sitting on the Dais on 02.01.1975 at Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station. Soon after the blast, he was immediately brought to the Railway Hospital, Samastipur and he was examined by PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 895 Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. He stated that on 2.1.1975, he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to their hospital. At about the same time on 2.1.1975 Sh. Rama Kant Jha, MLC of village Sonpur was admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur in injured condition on bed no.15. At point 'A', he has correctly recorded the particulars of Ram Kant Jha on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/N. The writing at point-B, C and D on this Bed Head Ticket are in the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) and at point 'E' in the hand of Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107). This patient was discharged on his request on 04.01.1975.
835. PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi further deposed that he had seen Bed Head Ticket no. 3599 of Rama Kant Jha, who was admitted in the Hospital on the same day due to bomb explosion injuries. He found the following injuries on his person, which are as under:-
1. Small multiple three penetrating injuries left leg and left ankle ¼" circular each.
The patient was x-rayed and two foreign bodies i.e. splinters were taken out. However, he suffered no fracture. Splinters were not taken out by him or in his presence and only splinters were detected. He correctly noted injuries in his handwriting at point Ex.PW-107/D on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/N. The duration of his injuries was half CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 896 an hour before he examined the patient. The injuries were simple in nature.
836. In view of the deposition of PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai, Dr. S.N. Gupta (PW-93) and PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi and Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/N, prosecution has conclusively proved its case that Rama Kant Jha suffered "hurt" in the bomb blast on Dais at Platform No.3, Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975.
(iii) Jayant Banerjee
837. PW-127 Sh. Jayant Banerjee testified that at the time of blast on the Dais of Platform No.3, he was standing on the Dais. He jumped down from the Dais wherefrom his staff removed him to Hospital. He received injuries on his left arm and right buttock. Immediately he was brought to Samastipur Railway Station Hospital at the same time and PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North- Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur, examined him. PW-93 deposed that on 02.1.1975, he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some injured in the bomb blast were to be brought to their hospital. At about the same time on 02.1.1975, Sh. J. Banerjee, Signal Inspector, Samastipur was also admitted in Railway Hospital, Samastipur in injured condition on bed no.12. He has mentioned his correct particulars at point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/S. Dr. K.M. Sinha had written on this Bed Head Ticket at point 'B' and 'E' CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 897 and Dr. M. Banerjee had written at point 'C'. This patient was discharged on 05.01.1975 under writing of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) at point 'F'.
838. PW-107 Dr. T.D Nandi further deposed that he had seen Bed Head Ticket No.3883 Ex.PW-93/S pertaining to Sh. J. Banerjee, who was admitted in the Hospital on 2.1.1975 at 6.15 PM. He examined the injured and found following injuries on his person:-
1. Multiple penetrating injury left forearm below the elbow.
2. Multiple penetrating injury on the left buttock.
He testified stated that he correctly recorded the injuries at point Ex.PW-107/K on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/S. Prior to him, this patient was examined by Dr. M. Banerjee. He is familiar with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. M. Banerjee who was working with him and identified his writing at point X to Y on Ex.PW-93/S. There was suspected fracture on left forearm. Duration of the injury was within half an hour and could be caused by bomb explosion.
839. No X-Ray report has been filed. From the deposition of Dr. S.N. Gupta (PW-93) and of Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107) and the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/S, it is evident that Sh. J. Banerjee suffered "hurt" in the said bomb blast which took place at Platform No.3 of the Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 898
(iv) Baleshwar Ram
840. This injured has been examined as a court witness as CW-5. He presided over the function on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur Railway Station and got injured in the bomb blast and later on he came to know that he got 44 splinters in his body. He became unconscious within 15 seconds of the blast. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in Samastipur Railway Hospital.
841. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur testified that on that day at about the same time Sh. Baleshwar Ram, MLA was also admitted in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur in an injured condition. He has recorded his correct particulars at point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/R. The writing at point 'B' and 'D' are in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) and at point 'C' in the hand of Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107). His correct handwriting is at point 'E' on this Bed Head Ticket. This patient was discharged on his request on 3.1.1975 regarding which there is an endorsement at point 'F' on the Bed Head Ticket in the hand of Dr. T.D. Nandi. As per this Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/R (Available in the Folder R-29) CW-5 suffered injuries in the upper part of left leg, tenderness on the first metatarsal of the left foot, multiple injury with small abrasions on the middle part of the left leg, small abrasions on the middle part of the left thigh. X-ray of his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 899 left foot and left leg were advised but there is no report of the X-ray examination.
842. PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi further deposed that Bed Head Ticket 3595 pertain to Sh. Bineshwar Ram MLA. (His name is wrongly written as Bineshwar Ram instead of Baleshwar Ram, MLA.) He was admitted in the Hospital in an injured condition and injuries were due to Bomb explosion. He observed the injuries and made a detailed note on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/R. His correct writing in this Bed Head Ticket is Ex.PW-107/B encircled with red colour. He found following injuries on his person:-
1. Two incised wound 1" apart in the upper part of the left leg 2½" below the tubercle of left knee. (½" X ½" each).
2. Patient complained of tenderness pain on first metatarsal left foot.
3. Defused swelling 1 X 1 ½" X 1" with a small abrasion over it at the mid of left leg over left shift.
4. One small abrasion half inch x ¼" on the mid part of left thigh.
5. Patient complained of tenderness on the left little finger.
6. Lacerated injury half inch into ¼" on palmer aspect of left little finger.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 900 He stated that patient was discharged on his own request on 3.1.1975 and an endorsement in his handwriting is at point F on the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/R. The nature of injuries of Bineshwar Ram MLA was simple. His injuries were caused half an hour before he examined him.
843. Thus, it has been proved from the testimonies of CW-5 Sh. Baleshwar Ram, PW 93 Dr. S.N. Gupta and PW 107 Dr. T.D. Nandi & his Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/R that Sh. Baleshwar Ram has suffered "hurt" in the bomb blast that took place on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975.
(v) Suresh Prasad Singh
844. Prosecution has not examined Sh. Suresh Prasad Singh as a prosecution witness; however, PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai has testified that Sh. Suresh Prasad Singh, Advocate was present on the Dais of Platform No.3, Samastipur Railway Station at the time of the bomb blast. Immediately after the bomb blast, he was brought to Railway Hospital, Samastipur where he was examined. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur testified that on the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975, at about the same time Sh. Suresh Prasad, Advocate was admitted in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur in an injured condition on bed no.17. He has correctly recorded his particulars at point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/L in respect of Sh. Suresh Prasad Singh. Noting at point CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 901 'A', 'B' and 'C' on the Bed Head Ticket are in the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116). He made correct writing on it at point 'D'. This patient was discharged on 3.1.1975 regarding which endorsement at point 'E' is in the handwriting of Dr. K.M. Sinha on the Bed Head Ticket.
845. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/L pertain to Suresh Parshad Singh. The particulars at point 'A' are in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta, which he identified. On examination, he found following injuries on his person:
1. Small punctured wound 1/4" circular skin deep on left thigh 2" below groin medially.
2. Small abrasion medial size of left thigh upper part.
3. Small abrasion lower part, lateral side of abdominal wall.
846. From the depositions of PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai, PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha and documentary evidence, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/L, it is proved that patient Sh. Suresh Prasad has suffered "hurt" in the bomb blast that took place on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur.
(vi) Umesh Prasad Singh
847. Sh. Umesh Prasad Singh (PW-56) deposed that on 02.01.1975 he was towards left hand of the Railway Minister where there was a blast and he received injuries and was taken to Samastipur Hospital in CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 902 a jeep. He was given first aid and an injection where from he returned to Railway Station. He then went to Patna and got himself treated in a Popular Nursing Home for about 10 days. No medical papers, Bed Head Tickets, or prescription of Sh. Umesh Prasad Singh is placed on record. PW-56 Sh. Umesh Prasad Singh has not specified his injuries. However, the oral testimony of this witness is not shattered in the cross-examination, hence his oral testimony is accepted since at the time of explosion on the Dais, he was standing just towards the left hand of the Railway Minister.
(vii) Parmanand Jha
848. Prosecution has not examined Sh. Parmanand Jha as its witness. However, it has come in the deposition of PW-109 Sh. Mohan Kumar Jha that Sh. Parmanand Jha has come to Samastipur from Lahariya Sarai in the Special Train to attend the function. Immediately after the incident, Sh. Parmanand Jha was brought to the Railway Hospital, Samastipur where he was examined by PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. He stated that on the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975, at about same time Sh. Parmanand Jha of village Harini was also admitted in the said Hospital in injured condition. He has written his correct particulars at point 'A' on his Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/W. The writing on this Bed Head at point 'B' and 'C' are in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) and Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107) respectively. He was discharged from the Hospital on 3.1.1975 on his request regarding CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 903 which Dr. K.M. Sinha recorded endorsement at point 'E' on this Bed Head Ticket.
849. PW-107 Dr. T.D Nandi further testified that he had seen Bed Head Ticket No. 3586 Ex.PW-93/W in respect of Parmanand Jha. He was admitted in the aforesaid Hospital on 2.1.1975 at 6.15 PM. On examination he found following injuries on his person:-
1. One abrasion ¼" in diameter on the medial part of the right leg at its middle third.
2. Lacerated injury half inch x ¼" on left hypothener minnance.
He correctly recorded the portion Ex.PW-107/H on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/W. The duration of the injury was half an hour and could be caused by bomb explosion. Nature of injuries was simple.
850. From the deposition of PW-109 Sh. Mohan Kumar Jha, Dr. S.N. Gupta, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/W and testimony of Dr. T.D. Nandi, it is proved that Sh. Parmanand Jha suffered "hurt" in his right leg due to bomb blast that took place on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975.
(viii) Jamuna Prasad Mandal
851. Prosecution has not examined Jamuna Prasad Mandal as its witness. However, it has come in the deposition of PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai that his clothes were blood stained when he gave assistance to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 904 Sh. Jamuna Prasad Mandal and Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma after the bomb blast on Dais at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur. Immediately thereafter Sh. Jamuna Prasad Mandal was brought to the Samastipur Railway Hospital. There he was examined by PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta testified that on the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975, at about same time Sh. Jamuna Prasad Mandal, MP was also admitted in the said Hospital in injured condition on bed no.8. Ex.PW-93/P is the Bed Head Ticket on which he recorded his correct particulars at point 'A'. Writing at point 'B' and 'F' are in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116), at point 'D' of Dr. P.C. Gupta and at point 'E' of Dr. N.N. Prasad. It also bears his handwriting at point 'C' on this Bed Head Ticket. The patient was discharged on 4.1.1975 regarding which there is an endorsement at point 'G' on the Bed Head Ticket in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116).
852. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/P pertain to Jamuna Parshad Mandal. His particulars at point 'A' are in the handwriting Dr. S.N. Gupta that he identified. He examined the patient and found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound 1" X ¼" on the anterior aspect of rt. knee.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 905
2. Lacerated ½" X ¼" on the same portion lateral aspect.
3. Penetrating wound on the medial aspect of rt. thigh lower part circular in shape with quarter inch diameter.
On X-ray it was found that foreign body was present in the lower part of right thigh. Injuries were simple in nature and patient was discharged on 4.1.1975.
853. From the depositions of PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai, Dr. S.N. Gupta (PW-93), Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) and Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/P, it is proved that Sh. Jamuna Prasad Mandal suffered "hurt" in his right knee and right thigh and foreign body was found present in lower part of his right thigh in the bomb blast that took place on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur.
(ix) P.R. Chopra
854. The prosecution has not examined Sh. P.R. Chopra, General Manager, Railways as its witness. However, it has come in the statement PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha that Sh. Chopra, General Manager, who was sitting on the Dais, was lifted for giving him medical aid. He was immediately brought to Railway Hospital, Samastipur where he was examined by Dr. S.N. Gupta the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. PW-93 Dr. S.N. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 906 Gupta testified that on the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975, at about same time Sh. P.R. Chopra, General Manager (Railways), Gorakhpur was also admitted in the said Hospital in injured condition. He was directly taken to the Operation Theatre and thereafter he was kept in the chamber of the Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital, Samastipur. He has correctly recorded the particulars of Sh. P.R. Chopra on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/J at point 'A'. The writing at point 'B' on Bed Head Ticket is in the handwriting of Dr. A. Sain. The patient left the Hospital on 3.1.1975.
855. A perusal of the Bed Head Tickets Ex.PW-93/J pertain to Sh. P.R. Chopra, General Manager (Railways), Gorakhpur shows that he was aged 53 years. He was admitted on 2.1.1975 at 6.15 PM. He was found to have suffered several injuries on various parts of his body. Seven injuries have been mentioned on the Bed Head Ticket, which includes injury/wounds on his left chest. The injuries are not legible. He was given several injections and medicines. He was discharged from the Hospital on 3.1.1975. Thus, it is prove d from the deposition of PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha, PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta and Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/J that in the bomb blast on the Dais at Platform No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur Sh. P.R. Chopra has suffered "hurt" on his person.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 907
70) Injured unexamined.
856 As already discussed under the caption of "Testimony of Eyewitnesses other than PW-2 and PW-65" reveal that at the time of explosion there were 30 to 40 persons were on Dais and most of them received injuries and received treatment in Railway Hospital, Samastipur. Nine injured out of them could not be examined by the prosecution. However, the documentary evidence consisting of Bed Head Tickets of these nine persons have been proved on record. Their Bed Head Tickets bear their name, age, time of admission, history of the patient, the details of the injury, treatment given and date of discharge. It is mentioned in their Bed Head Tickets that they had suffered injuries in the bomb blast at Railway Station Samastipur on 02.01.1975 and time of their admission in the hospital is contemporaneous to the incident. The incident had taken place at about 06.00 PM and their time of admission is mentioned in all these Bed Head Tickets is 1815 hrs. on 02.01.1975. The details of these witnesses are as under.
(i) Lalita Devi
857. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that Bed Head Ticket no. 3605 of Smt. Lalita Devi Sinha Ex.PW-116/A is in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta which he identified. He also identified the handwriting & signatures of Dr. Banerjee on red encircled portion 'B'. On X-Ray, it was found that there was fracture in the second metatarsal of the left hand and there was foreign body also in the left CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 908 knee. He had also seen the patient and made entries of her treatment on the said Bed Head Ticket at point C to G and all the injuries could be caused by a bomb blast. Hence, she suffered grievous hurt.
(ii) Bisheshwar Rai
858. Dr. S.N. Gupta the then Assistant Medical Officer, North- Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta testified that on the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975, at about same time Sh. Bisheshwar Rai of village Bahadurpur was admitted in the said Hospital in injured condition. He has correctly recorded his particulars on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/V at point 'A'. The writing 'B' and 'D' on this Bed Head Ticket are in the hands of Dr. T.D. Nandi and Dr. N.N. Bhaumik. The writing at point 'E' and 'F' are in the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha and his correct writing is at point 'C'. The patient was discharged on 3.1.1975.
859. PW-107 Dr. T.D Nandi further deposed that he had seen Bed Head Ticket No. 1535 in respect of Bisheshwar Rai and he found the following injuries on his person : -
1. One abrasion half inch x ¼" medial part of right leg anteriorly.
He correctly recorded portion Ex.PW-107/J on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/V and stated that the patient was admitted in the Hospital on 2.1.1975 at 6.15 PM and discharged on 3.1.1975. Duration of the injuries were within half an hour and could be caused by bomb explosion and nature of injuries were simple.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 909
(iii) Satender Prasad Singh
860. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur stated that on 2.1.1975, at about same time Sh. Satender Prasad Singh of village Naya Nagar, Samastipur was admitted in the said Hospital in injured condition. He has correctly recorded his particulars on at point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/T. This Bed Head Ticket bears the handwriting at point 'B' and 'D' of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-107) and Dr. P.C. Gupta. His own writing is at point 'C'. The patient was discharged on 4.1.1975 on his request vide endorsement on the Bed Head Ticket at point 'E' in the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha.
861. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E pertains to Satender Parshad Singh. At point 'A', particulars are in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta. He examined the patient and found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound right thigh medial aspect ¾" X 1/2" X skin deep.
2. Lacerated wound medial aspect of left thigh ¾" X ½" X skin deep.
3. Lacerated wound medial aspect of left thigh ½" X quarter inch X skin deep (1" below injury no.2).
On X-ray foreign body was seen in the left thigh. He correctly recorded the injuries at portion mark "D" of the said Bed Head Ticket.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 910 The injury was simple in nature and patient was discharged on 4.1.1975. Splinters could cause these injuries.
(iv) Suraj Chaudhary
862. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta deposed that on 2.1.1975, he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to their hospital. On the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975 at about same time Sh. Suraj Chaudhary of village Chhatona was admitted in the said Hospital in injured condition. He has correctly recorded his particulars on at point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/U. The handwriting at point 'B' and 'E' on this Bed Head Ticket are of Dr. K.M. Sinha. The patient was discharged on 7.1.1975 on his request regarding which an endorsement at point "B" and 'E' on the Bed Head Ticket is in the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116).
863. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that Bed Head Ticket No. 3587 Ex.PW-93/U pertains to Suraj Chaudhary. Particulars at point 'A' on the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/U are in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta, which he identified. He himself examined the patient who was found to have suffered simple injuries. On examination of the patient he found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound 4 ½" X ½" on the right chest diagonally placed from right nipple to mid-
sternum.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 911
2. Abrasion 2" X 2" on the right shin with swelling around it.
3. Lacerated wound in front of left leg mid-part ¾" X ½" X skin deep.
4. Lacerated wound half inch X quarter inch on the dorsum of left hand on the base of 5th meta-carpal. There were found small multiple foreign body in the left leg.
He correctly recorded the injuries at portion "B" of this Bed Head Ticket. These injuries could be possible by splinters of an exploded bomb. The injuries are simple in nature and patient was discharged on 7.1.1975.
(v) Noor Jahan Begum
864. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta deposed that on 2.1.1975, he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to their hospital. PW-93 testified that on the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975 at about same time Smt. Noor Jahan Begum was also admitted in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur in injured condition. He has recorded her correct particulars on at point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/Q. The handwriting at point 'B' 'C' and 'D' on this Bed Head Ticket are in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116), at point 'F' in the hand of Dr. M. Banerjee and at point 'E' in his handwriting. This patient was CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 912 discharged on 4.1.1975 under the handwriting of Dr. K.M. Sinha at point 'J'.
865. A perusal of Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/Q reflected that Smt. Noor Jahan Begum, aged about 35 years was brought to the hospital on 2.1.1975 at 18.15 hours. She was found to have suffered lacerated wounds 4" X 1½" skin deep in the interior aspect of the right thigh in the middle and another injury on the back of right knee. She was given medicines and injections and discharged from the hospital on request on 4.1.1975.
(vi) Suraj Narain Mandal
866. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur deposed that on 2.1.1975 at about same time Sh. Suraj Narain Mandal of village Samastipur was also admitted in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur in injured condition. He has recorded his correct particulars on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/O at point "A". Noting at point 'B' 'C' and 'D' on this Bed Head Ticket are in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116). His own handwriting is at point 'F'. The patient was discharged from the Hospital on 3.1.1975 on his request vide his own endorsement at point 'D'.
867. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that Bed Head Ticket No.3591 pertains to Suraj Narain Mandal Ex.PW-93/O. The writing 'A' on this Bed Head Ticket is in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 913 which he identified. He examined the patient and found following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound 1" X ¼" by the rt. side of spine mid-part.
2. Lacerated would 1" X ½" skin deep on the rt.
buttock.
He correctly recorded the injuries at point B on the said Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/O. These injuries could be possible by splinters of a hand grenade. The injuries were, however, simple and patient was discharged on the next day.
(vii) Pramod Prasad
868. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur deposed that on 2.1.1975 at about same time Sh. Pramod Prasad working as R.A.S.M., Samastipur was also admitted in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur in injured condition. He has recorded his correct particulars on at point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/M at point 'A'. The writing at point 'B' on this Bed Head Ticket are in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116).
869. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/M pertain to Pramod Parsad. His particulars were entered by Dr. S.N. Gupta at point 'A'. He recorded injuries of the patient at point 'B'. The injury was an abrasion 1" X 1/6" on front of right knee CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 914 on the cap. The injury was simple in nature and patient was discharged on 3.1.1975.
(viii) Naval Kishore Singh
870. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur testified that on 2.1.1975, at about same time Sh. Naval Kishore Singh was admitted in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur in injured condition. He has recorded his correct particulars on at point 'A' on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW- 93/K at point 'A'. Noting at point 'B' and 'C' are in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116). Noting at point 'E' is in the hand of Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107). PW-93 has written the correct note at point 'D' on this Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/K. The patient left the Hospital on 3.1.1975 and endorsement to this effect is at point 'F' in the hand of Sh. K.M. Sinha (PW-116).
871. PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi further deposed that he had seen Bed Head Ticket No.3596 relating to Naval Kishore Singh. He was also admitted in the Hospital on account of injuries of bomb explosion. He found following injuries on his person:-
Penetrating wound left thigh at its upper 3rd half inch x ¼" x half inch.
He made endorsement in his own handwriting on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/K, which is encircled red and is Ex.PW-107/C. This injury CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 915 was due to bomb explosion and duration was half an hour before his examining the patient. The patient was discharged on 03.1.1975.
872. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-90/K pertain to Naval Kishore Singh. The particulars at point 'A' are in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta. He (PW-116) examined the patient and found following injuries on his person:-
Penetrating injury left thigh at its upper third 1/2"
X ¾" X ½" exterior part.
The injury was simple in nature and patient was discharged on the next day.
(ix) C.S. Chaudhary
873. PW-97 Dr. Nawab further testified that at about the same time Sh. C. S. Chaudhary and Sh. Suraj Narain Jha (deceased) also came to his clinic. Sh. C.S. Chaudhary also had blast injury and was treated as out-door patient.
874. As mentioned in Para No. 856, these nine injured have not been examined by the prosecution though it is mentioned in their Bed Head Tickets that they had suffered injuries in the bomb blast at Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975 and time of their admission is contemporaneous to the time of incident. It is common prudence that in such an incident, the explosion, which damages a huge area many people get injured and out of shock and fear of further grilling by the investigative agencies and further considering their recuperation or the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 916 special circumstances, which compel them from moving from place to place in search of their livelihood; such of the injured from the floating population do not turn up before the courts nor would be available during the investigation and also trial. The defence have also not shattered during the cross-examination of PW-93, PW-97, PW-107 and PW-116 that the injuries of these victims were not suffered by them in the bomb blast. Keeping in mind of this peculiarity of the case and further considering the documentary evidence of their medical record consisting of bed head tickets referring the injuries and the cause with the history of the patient found therein, I have no hesitation to hold that all of them though not examined before the court, have suffered injuries/hurt in the incident.
71) Conspiracy continued......
875. The evidence on record on this subject is traced to the statement of PW-2. He testified that on the evening of 03.01.1975, he came to know that L.N. Mishra had died. He stayed in Anand Margi School at Chakia. After about 15 days, accused Sudevanand came to him at Chakia and enquired from him (PW-2) about the hand grenade, which was given to him (PW-2) and he replied that while fleeing away from the spot, the hand grenade was dropped from his hand on the railway track, and the real fact was that he had deliberately thrown it there but he gave him to understand as if the hand grenade had accidentally dropped from his hand. Sudevanand told him that he should come to Chautham after two/three days at the house of Gopalji and he went to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 917 Chautham accordingly and from there, he went to Tilihar where he met Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Arteshanand and Gopalji. He testified that Santoshanand also enquired from him with regard to hand grenade given to him and he informed him the same. Then Santoshanand emphasized that they should collect arms to the maximum extent and he (PW-2) should go to Indo-Nepal border and meet Anand Margies residing at the nearby places.
876. Thereafter, PW-2 visited Paras Nath, Guard (PW-27) at Narkatiaganj but could not get any arms from him. He also met Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) at Village Chamua who also did not give him any arms. PW-2 further deposed that he met Paras Nath (PW-27) for the third time in February, 1975 and stayed with him for 2/3 days at Narkatiaganj at his house and told him that money was required to purchase arms and suggested that there were two ways, one to loot Government Treasury or secondly to loot affluent and wealthy persons. As far as he recollected he met Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) at his house or at the house of PW-80. After February 1975, he probably met Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) in the month of March 1975 and he had talked to him regarding arms and revealed his real name as 'Vikram'. He again went to meet him at Narkatiaganj in the month of April 1975 and told him about the incident at Samastipur and killing of Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra and they i.e. he himself (PW-2), Sudevanand and Santoshanand were responsible for killing. He also told him that on 20.3.1975, hand grenades were thrown by them i.e. by PW-2, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 918 Santoshanand and Sudevanand on Chief Justice of India in New Delhi. He further deposed that in May, 1975 a meeting was held at Tilihar at the place of Gopalji, which was attended by him, Gopalji, Santoshanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand and Tapas Kumar Banerjee. He deposed that Sudevanand informed in the meeting that the Baba Ji had sent a message from the Jail that Anand Margies who were left in the organization were brave persons (JO ANANDMARGI BACH GAYE HAIN WO BAHADUR HAIN) and Baba further desired that Anand Margies who are left in the organization would have to give their parichay i.e. they would have to prove that they are Anand Margies in the real sense. He further deposed that he was arrested on 24.07.1975 along with Sudevanand at Bhagalpur by the Bihar Police.
877. In his cross-examination, PW-2 replied that he met Paras Nath (PW-27) after about 30 or 35 days of Samastipur incident. He did not talk to him about Samastipur incident in the month of February, but he talked to him about it in the month of April (1975). He further answered that he met Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) in the month of February (1975), but could not remember whether he met Khub Lal. When he met Paras Nath in April 1975, no other person was present along with him. Probably, he met Paras Nath on 15th or 20th April 1975. He did not talk to Paras Nath about Samastipur incident. He met Santoshanand after Samastipur incident at Tilihar. He again met him at Tilihar in the month of March, thereafter meeting used to take CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 919 place sometime at Rajgir or in New Delhi. He came to Delhi with Sudevanand on 19.03.1975.
878. PW-27 Paras Nath Singh deposed that Subir had come to him alone in February, 1975 and he stayed with him for 2-3 days and Subir enquired from him if he could find out any source for arranging arms & ammunition and he (PW-27) asked him not to have any talk with him on the subject. Subir again came to him in March, 1975 and reminded him about the source for arranging arms and ammunition and he again asked him not to have any talk with him on the subject and this time also he stayed with him for 2-3 days. Subir again came to him in April, 1975 lastly and he stayed with him for 2-3 days and informed him that they are useless persons as they could not do anything for procuring money, arms & ammunition to bring revolution. Subir informed him that they were responsible for bomb blast at Samastipur and throwing of hand grenades on Chief Justice in Delhi and he (PW-27) told him that he should not visit him and thereafter Subir did not visit him again. He also deposed that information which Subir gave him in April, 1975 about Samastipur bomb blast was conveyed by him to Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80). He informed Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) that Subir was a dangerous man and he will not permit him to stay and also requested Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) not to permit Subir to stay with him. He further testified that on 3rd visit of Subir, on his enquiry he told him that his other name was Vikram.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 920
879. It is found in the cross-examination of PW-27 that this witness appeared as a witness in the case concerning the attack on Chief Justice of India also. It is further elicited that when Subir told him that they had flung the hand grenades on CJI and a bomb at Samastipur, this witness did not inquire as to who were the other companions. He further answered that he refused to assist Subir in arranging arms and ammunitions. The cross-examination does not go to discredit the visit of Subir post Samastipur events for collection of arms and ammunitions.
880. PW-80 Roop Nath Mishra deposed that Subir came to his house in February/March 1975. He met him at the house of Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) at Narkatiaganj. He also testified that since 1958, he knew Ram Aasrey, who was an old worker of Anand Marg and in Feb.1975, at Chamua Railway halt, Ram Aasrey called Subir as Vikram and they came to his (PW-80) house and prior to that he was not knowing that Subir had another name as Vikram.
In his cross-examination, PW-80 answered that he had seen Vikram only three times. He talked to him on two occasions and third time he met him in February/March.
881. After a careful scrutiny of the evidence regarding the visits of PW-2 to various places post Samastipur event, the evidence of PW-27 and PW-80 establishes that there have been efforts made by PW-2 to pool the resources for procuring arms and ammunitions in their CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 921 continued efforts to secure the release of their cult head on behalf of all the accused at the directions of accused Santoshanand. It also transpires that PW-2 has made extra judicial confession before PW-27 regarding his participation in the Samastipur incident.
882. It is also pertinent to note that thereafter there was an attempt on the life of the Hon'ble CJI at New Delhi on 20.03.1975 and the accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi were convicted by the CBI Court in RC No. 11/1975 (SC-09/1986) and an Appeal was preferred on behalf of accused persons in which the convictions of Santoshanand and Sudevanand were upheld (MANU/DE/1873/2014).
72) Tape-recorded version of PW-2 by Jailor Danapur - CW-9's version by Samastipur Jailor
- legality : relevancy - retracted confession of CW-8.
883. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that initially during investigation Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8), Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9) and Shiv Shankar @ Vishwakarma were arrested by the prosecution. The background alleged is that there was a conspiracy hatched at the house of one Raghunath Pandey at the behest of Sh. Ram Bilas Jha (MLC), a henchman of Sh. Yashpal Kapoor, in December 1974. Pursuant to this, three hand grenades were brought by Shiv Shankar Sharma @ Shiv Sharma @ Vishwakarma on 01.01.1975. These three persons Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur, Arun CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 922 Kumar Mishra and Shiv Shankar Sharma @ Shiv Sharma @ Vishwakarma were present on the Dais at Platform No. 3 on 02.01.1975 and after the speech of Sh. L.N. Mishra was over, Shiv Sharma rolled over the bomb towards the Rostrum, which got exploded. They have also argued that even Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-
9) had made confessional statement under Section 164 Cr. PC before the Judicial Magistrate of the incident dated 02.01.1975. The Investigation Officer had also filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate to record the confession of Arun Kumar Mishra, but he did not make the statement before the Magistrate.
884. The Ld. Defence Counsel has also submitted that subsequently in Samastipur Jail, the Jailor has recorded the conversation with Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9) in a tape, in which he has admitted his involvement in the crime. It is submitted on behalf of the defence that the Investigation Officer has not mentioned anything as to why these persons were let off subsequently without any reason or justification and due to the imposition of emergency accused persons have been falsely implicated. Based on these arguments, the Ld. Defence Counsel submits that the accused had shown strong hypothesis and as such accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
885. They further argued that the approver Vikram had conversation with the Jailor Haider Ali in Danapur Jail. The said Jailor has recorded his statement in a tape on 30.09.1978. They referred the transcriptions CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 923 of the tape, which were filed by officers of the State of Bihar and the same are Mark-Z and Mark-Z-1. They submitted that the tape was played in the court and Vikram has admitted his voice therein. It is argued on behalf of the defence that in his tape-recorded statement, approver PW-2 Vikram has retracted his earlier statement made by him under Section 164 of the Cr. PC before the ACMM, Delhi.
886. Per contra, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor submits that it was the initial stage of investigation when Arun Kumar Thakur, Arun Kumar Mishra and some other persons were interrogated and arrested by the police. When sufficient evidence was found against the accused facing the trial, final report under Section 173 of the Cr. PC was filed. The Ld. Special PP has also pointed out that those persons, who were arrested as suspects in the case including Arun Kumar Thakur, Arun Kumar Mishra and others were later on discharged by the competent court. He further argued that the order of discharge was never challenged by the accused persons before the revisional or appellate court. He further urges that the statement of PW-2 Vikram in this case is congruent and replica of the statement he made in the case pertaining to the attack on CJI at Delhi after the Samastipur incident. In the said case, the statement of Vikram has been held cogent and believable and therefore this court has to believe the version of PW-2 alone by discarding every hypothesis. The Ld. Special PP points out that Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur and Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra have been CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 924 examined as CW-8 and CW-9 respectively, in their capacity as court witnesses.
887. To appreciate these rival contentions, it is necessary to refer the statement of both these persons Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8) and Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9).
888. CW-8 Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur deposed that he is not aware anything about the case relating to murder of Sh. L.N. Mishra. In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he answered that he was arrested in this case probably in the first week of February 1975 from his residence in his village by the then S.P. Sh. D.P. Ojha (DW-
34) himself. Before his arrest, none of the police officials met him. Initially, he was taken to the residence of S.P, where he was kept for the whole night. Then he was taken to Inspection Bungalow at Dal Singh Sarai in District Samastipur. He was kept in handcuffs. He was given beatings. His family members were inquiring about him day and night. He was 17 or 18 years of age at that time. He used to be tortured by the police. He did not complain against the police before the Magistrate for having kept him in custody as he was under
pressure. He was under threat of liquidation of his family by the police. He informed the Magistrate of the facts, which were tutored to him by the police. He deposed that Magistrate gave him in custody of I.B for two days and thereafter he was sent to Bankipur Jail, Patna. He admitted that proceedings recorded by CJM, Samastipur dated CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 925 21.02.1975 bears his signatures at Point A on all pages and also at point B. His statement is Ex.CW-8/A. He further deposed that he made the statement as he used to be beaten and was under threat. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that his entire statement is false. He deposed that whatever statement has been recorded in Ex.CW-8/A has been made by him on asking of the police. He was kept alone in I.B Bungalow for about 15 days and also in the Jail. He did not know any person by the name of Shankar Sahu. He met Arun Kumar Mishra for the first time after he (CW-8) was released from Jail. He deposed that his house was searched after 4 or 5 days of his arrest. He was not in his house at that time. He has denied the suggestion that he went to the house of Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9) on 01.01.1975. He had never seen Shankar Singh Vishwakarma @ Shiv Shankar. He also does not know any person by the name of Joginder Raut. He has denied the suggestion that he was arrested by Sh. K.P. Sinha. He has denied the suggestion that he was standing near the Rostrum, where meeting of Lalit Narain Mishra took place on the fateful day. He has also denied that Arun Kumar Mishra was his companion or that he was with him with hand grenade near the Dais.
He also denied the suggestion that his colleague Shiv Shankar Vishwakarma took out pin from hand grenade as soon as Lalit Narain Mishra finished his speech and rolled it towards the Rostrum. He also denied the suggestion that he, Arun Kumar Mishra and Shiv Shankar Sharma had done it on asking of their Boss Jha. He deposed that he is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 926 not aware that "Boss Jha" was known as Ram Bilas Jha. He has heard the name of Yashpal Kapoor but does not know him.
889. In his further cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, CW-8 further answered that he was not aware about the news of visit of L.N. Mishra prior to the incident. He was in Samastipur, when he came to know of the incident. He did not go anywhere after the news. He does not know any Harish Chand Rai, Tea Vendor of Platform No. 2, Samastipur. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that his family members never came to meet him in the Inspection Bungalow. He firstly met Sh. Anjali Kumar in Buxar Jail and he informed him about the torture at the hands of the police. He was not medically examined. He testified that the statement given by him in this court is correct one and the statement recorded by the Magistrate was not correct. In his cross-examination by Ld. Special PP, CW-8 replied that at the time when his statement was recorded by the Magistrate in his chamber, S.P. Police was also present.
890. Record reveals that on 29.05.1975, Arun Kumar Thakur filed an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur for bail under Section 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC and in this application he alleged that he had been put to undue pressure, threat, coercion, torture and promises and that his confessional statement is nothing but an outcome of brain of the police. This application was considered by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 05.06.1975 and accordingly, his bail CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 927 application under Section 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC was allowed and CW- 8 was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.
Further, on 18.06.1975, an application was filed by Arun Kumar Thakur to reject his confessional statement being nullity on the ground that before the alleged confessional statement, he was subjected to torture and tutoring by the police in their custody. However, vide order of even date, the Ld. CJM ordered that the legality of the recorded statement might be looked into by the trial court only and petition may be kept on record.
891. The record further reveals that an application dated 16.09.1975 was filed under Section 169 of Cr. PC by Investigation Officer/Deputy SP Sh. H.L. Ahuja in the court of CJM, Samastipur Ex.PW-151/DGG on 17.10.1975 for discharge of Arun Kumar Thakur, Arun Kumar Mishra, Sheo Narain Lal Vishwakarma @ Shiv Sharma, Uma Kant Jha, Joginder Raut, Shiv Nath Rai, Dukhit Rai and Vinod Kumar on the ground that investigation is at concluding stage and it has been found that these persons are not involved in the conspiracy or in the commission of offence. On the said application on 20.11.1975, the court of Ld. CJM, Samastipur passed an order and accordingly discharged the said accused persons namely Arun Kumar Mishra, Arun Kumar Thakur, Shiv Narain Lal Vishwakarma, Uma Kant Jha, Yogender Raut, Dukhat Rai and Shiv Nath Rai from the case in RC- 1/75.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 928
892. A perusal of the above said statement of CW-8 Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur reflects that Sh. D.P. Ojha (DW-34) of the State Police arrested him in Samastipur bomb blast case in February 1975. He made his confession before the Magistrate. However, he has not owned the statement and retracted the said statement. He has explained that during his custody and interrogation, he was tortured and given beatings. He further explained that he was under threat of liquidation of his family by the police. He made a tutored statement to the police. Though, he has admitted that the statement Ex.CW-8/A made by him before the CJM, Samastipur bears his signatures, yet the statement was recorded before the CJM, Samastipur during the course of investigation under Chapter XII titled as "Information to the Police and their powers to investigate". This statement/evidence collected by the prosecution during the investigation of the case is not "legal evidence". This court can rely upon to adjudicate only on that statement, which is "legal evidence". This has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijender etc. Vs. State of Delhi, 1997 (1) Crimes 158 (SC) and relevant Para 25 of the Judgment reads as under: -
".........The result of investigation under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code is a conclusion that an Investigating Officer draws on the basis of materials collected during investigation and such conclusion can only form CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 929 the basis of a competent Court to take cognizance thereupon under Section 190(1)(b) Cr. PC and to proceed with the case for trial, where the materials collected during investigation are to be translated into legal evidence. The trial Court is then required to base its conclusion solely on the evidence adduced during the trial; and it cannot rely on the investigation or the result thereof. Since this is an elementary principle of criminal law, we need not delete (sic.) (dilate/debate) on this point any further......".
In view of the above discussion, it is to be reiterated that CW-8 was initially arrested as a suspect in this matter. During investigation, he was released on bail under Section 167 (2) (a) of the Cr. PC. He has alleged that his statement made before MM is the result of torture and coercion. He has also filed an application before the Magistrate for cancellation of his earlier confession.
Subsequently, finding no evidence against him in the crime, IO filed an application for his discharge under Section 169 of Cr. PC and on 20.11.1975, this application was allowed by the competent court and CW-8 was accordingly discharged. The same remained unchallenged and attained finality. Even otherwise, the confessional statement made by CW-8 is not legal evidence worth considering for CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 930 adjudication of the case in view of the judgment of Vijendra's case (supra).
893. CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra deposed that he does not know anything about Lalit Narain Mishra's case. In his cross-examination by the accused persons, he replied that he was arrested in Lalit Narain Mishra's case from his residence by S.P., Samastipur. At that time, he was a student. Initially he was taken to the office of S.P., then to his residence where he was kept for two days and thereafter he was kept at Dal Singh Sarai i.e. Inspection Bungalow, where senior Police Officers used to visit him for interrogation. He was kept alone in fetters. He was never produced before the Magistrate. He admitted that the application Ex.CW-9/A dated 01.04.1975 appears to be in his handwriting. He explained that this might have been got written from him while he was in jail. He also admitted that the application dated 14.04.1975 Ex.CW-9/B is in his handwriting. He was neither willing nor made any statement before the Magistrate. He has denied the suggestion that he along with Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8) planned to kill Lalit Narain Mishra. He was unable to recognize Sh. Ram Bilas Jha, MLC of the area. He has denied the suggestion that he did the job on asking of Sh. Ram Bilas Jha. He further denied the suggestion that Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8) and two others were his accomplices. He further denied the suggestion that he was taken to the house of one Sh. Raghunath Pandey by Sh. Ram Bilas Jha in December 1974. He further denied the suggestion that at the house of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 931 Sh. Raghunath Pandey, a conspiracy was hatched to do this job on asking of Sh. Ram Bilas Jha. He has denied the suggestion that he gave training to Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur and Shiv Sharma @ Vishwakarma as to how to handle grenade and how to take out pin from it. He has also denied the suggestion that he along with Shiv Sharma and Arun Kumar Thakur planned that Shiv Sharma would roll the grenade on the Rostrum of the Platform and if the bomb does not explode, Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur will throw the bomb. He has also denied the suggestion that as per planning, an Ambassador Car of Raghunath Pandey was kept parked at the Platform and in case both attempts failed, L.N. Mishra was to be killed at Narayanpur and Narain Swaroop was the driver of the said car. He has also denied the suggestion that three hand grenades were brought by Shiv Narain Sharma @ Shiv Sharma @ Vishwakarma. He also denied the suggestion that on 01.01.1975, he called Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur and Shiv Sharma at his residence. He further denied the suggestion that he, Arun Kumar Thakur and Shiv Sharma and one more person reached at the Dais on Platform No. 3 on 02.01.1975 and after the speech of L.N. Mishra, Shiv Sharma rolled over the bomb towards the Rostrum, which got exploded.
894. In his further cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, CW-9 replied that he never intended to go to make a statement before the Magistrate, as the statement given to him by Superintendent of Police Sh. Ojha was containing incorrect facts. He used to be given a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 932 written statement and was asked to write this statement in his own handwriting under pressure. Rehman was the Jailor at Samastipur, who used to meet him in his cell. On a particular date sometime near Holi, he was called by the Jailor at the gate of the Jail, when he gave him some papers and told him that it was the statement, which he was to make before the Magistrate and then S.P. was very much annoyed with him. When he went through the statement, he found all facts to be false. Before the Jailor talked to him, he offered him breakfast. He was threatened that if he did not sign the statement, he would be again remanded. He also asked him to read the statement and return the same to the Jailor. He has denied the suggestion that by taking the name of God, he was asked by the Jailor to speak the truth. He was not sure whether the Jailor recorded his statement on a tape recorder on that day. He has denied the suggestion that later on he came to know about the search that was carried at his house. He identified the signature of his grandfather on the Seizure Memo for the purpose of identification exhibited as Ex.CW-9/E and identified the notebook Ex.CW-9/C and Ex.CW-9/D. He deposed that he did not remember whether he was released under the order of a Magistrate or a Judge. He could not identify the voice of Rehman Jailor as he had met him only once or twice, however, he could identify his own voice. During his examination, the tape was played a little bit in respect of the transcription Ex.ZX, which was prepared by the court of MM. The tape could not be played further on its getting broken while playing.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 933
895. During his deposition, the cassette Ex.D-1/C-60 was played in the court. Before playing the cassette the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 08.01.1986 sent the same to Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi for preparing the transcription. The transcription was accordingly prepared by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 24.01.1986 in the presence of the Ld. Special PP, accused persons and their respective Defence Counsel. The Metropolitan Magistrate has prepared the transcription by playing it on a deck.
It is nowhere mentioned as to who identified the voices in the cassette, however CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra was not present before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 24.01.1986. (The Photostat copy of the transcription Ex.ZX is available in part XXIV).
896. The cassette was got repaired from CFSL and was again played in the court. In his further cross-examination, CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra has denied his voices, which are mentioned in the transcription Ex.ZX at point A to A, B to B, C to C, R to R, R1 to R1, S to S, V to V, Y to Y, Z to Z, Z1 to Z1, Z2 to Z2, A2 to A2, A3 to A3, A4 to A4, A6 to A6, A8 to A8, B2 to B2, B4 to B4, C2 to C2, C4 to C4, C6 to C6, C7 to C7, C8 to C8. He deposed that he is not sure about his voices, which are mentioned in the transcription at points D to D, J to J, L to L, N to N, P to P and T to T. He admitted his voice at point-F to F only, where it is mentioned that "Sir Samastipur ke SP vageraha se hum baat nahi karenge kyonki un logo ne thokha de kar marvaya CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 934 hai aur rassi laga kar sir bhandva diye the". Cassette is Ex.CW-9/X. It is also exhibited as Ex.D-1/9A and Ex.D-1/A/1. This is available in R-318).
897. In his further cross-examination by the Ld. Special PP, CW-9 replied that he was tortured, when he remained in police custody for 15 or 20 days and given electric shock and put on ice. The police wanted him to confess the crime and offered him Rs.5,00,000/-, which he refused. He could not identify the voices in the tape, which were played in the court ascribing to the voice of Jailor.
898. Record reveals that CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur on 14.04.1975 that he did not want to make any statement in the case. This application is Ex.CW-9/B. On 15.04.1975, the Ld. CJM, Patna has taken note of the application that since Arun Kumar Mishra did not want to confess and has declined to make confession. Record further reveals that on 14.06.1975, Ld. CJM, Samastipur has ordered release of Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra on bail under Section 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC. I have already mentioned herein before that on application of the IO, CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra was also discharged from the case RC-1/75 on 20.11.1975 by the CJM, Samastipur.
(Application and orders are available in R-71) CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 935
899. It is worth mentioning here that the Jailor Rehman, who has allegedly recorded the statement of CW-9 in a tape, has not been examined. CW-9 has denied his voice in the cassette played in the court, except only one sentence, which is not at all incriminatory. The accused persons have not got played the cassette in the court during the examination of defence witnesses to get identified whether the cassette contained voice of CW-9. No officer of State of Bihar or Samastipur Jail has been examined whether the cassette was sealed soon after recording the alleged conversation between Jailor and CW- 9 to dispel all doubts of tampering of the cassette. The law on the admissibility of tape recorded version is well settled. In Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh, 1986 AIR (SC) 3, a Bench of Hon'ble three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the following tests for determining the admissibility of tape recorded version as under: -
1. The voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or other persons recognizing his voice. Where the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof will be required to determine whether or not it was the voice of the alleged speaker.
2. The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence: direct or circumstantial. 3.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 936 Possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of, the tape-recorded statement must be totally excluded.
4. The tape-recorded statement must be relevant.
5. The recorded cassette must be sealed and must be kept in safe or official custody.
6. The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances.
900. The ruling of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCR 417, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the essential conditions which, if fulfilled or satisfied, would make a tape-recorded statement admissible otherwise not; and observed thus: -
"Tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of the voice; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record."
901. Tested on the touchstone of the tests and safeguards, enumerated above, I am of the opinion that the defence has miserably failed to approve the authenticity of the cassette as well as the accuracy of the voice purportedly made by the CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 937 Mishra. In view of the discussion, there is no force in the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that the confessional statement of CW-8 and purported tape-recorded statement of CW-9 are relevant for consideration to adjudicate the matter and it is not such a hypothesis to give any benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Merely because, he was arrested during investigation as a suspect does not mean that there was some evidence against him. Many persons including CW-9 were arrested in this case by the Investigation Officer and ultimately, Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused persons facing the trial. In the meanwhile, CW-9 was granted bail by the competent court U/s. 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC. He has not owned his alleged voice in the conversation recorded by Jailor Rehman in Samastipur Jail except only one dialogue, which is not incriminatory at all. The defence has failed to prove that the voice in the cassette was of CW-9 and there was no scope of tampering with the cassette, soon after the conversation was recorded in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh's case and R.M. Malkhani's case (supra). Even otherwise, it has come in his deposition that he was subject to torture in the Jail and he was made to read from a prepared statement. There is no evidence at all on the record to show involvement CW-9 in the crime. When there was no evidence against him, on filing of application before the competent court, he was discharged by the court on 20.11.1975, which order has attained finality.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 938
902. Now, I propose to deal with the issue of recording of conversation between the Jailor and PW-2 Vikram in Danapur Jail on 30.09.1978. In this regard, the defence has cross-examined PW-2 in detail. In his cross-examination, PW-2 answered that on 30.09.1978, he was in Danapur Sub-Jail. At that time, there was a Jailor namely Haider Ali and a Doctor namely D. Ram. He testified that on 30.09.1978, there was a conversation between him, Jailor and the Doctor in his compartment and at that time, they told him that some officers of Bihar Government wanted to meet him and he was taken to the office from his compartment. He was introduced to two officers of Bihar Government. He was told that one of them was Home Secretary and the other was Law Secretary. He has denied the suggestion that he was tutored by CBI. He has also denied that CBI officers gave him severe beatings on his leg or he suffered wounds on his body.
903. At Page No. 38 of cross-examination of PW-2, it is mentioned that Sh. D. Goburdhan, Advocate for Bihar Government has supplied a transcript "Mark-Z" to the court on 25.05.1981. It is mentioned in the order dated 04.06.1981 of the Predecessor of this court that tape was summoned from the Government of Bihar pursuant to the application moved by Sh. P.P. Grover, Advocate on behalf of the accused. Sh. D. Goburdhan, Advocate of Bihar Government produced the tape as received by him from the Bihar Government. As per the order sheet dated 09.07.1981 of my Ld. Predecessor, the sealed CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 939 envelopes believed to contain the cassette was opened in the presence of the accused persons and counsel for the parties and it was directed that tape-recorder would be played to compare the transcript or prepare another one. The tape was played but the court found certain omissions here and there and the cassette was ordered to be re-sealed.
Sealed envelope was opened again in the court on 10.07.1981 and tape-recorder was played. Another transcription Mark-Z-1 sent by the Bihar Government was corrected. Here it is pertinent to note that on that day, Vikram was not present in the court and it is not on the record as to whether the cassette found in the envelope was a sealed one or not. It is also not in evidence that the cassette was not tampered with after recording the voice/conversation with PW-2 by the Jailor. The Jailor of Danapur Jail has also not been examined as a witness. PW-2 was not present in the court, when the transcription Mark-Z-1 was corrected. It is also not mentioned in the order sheet as to who identified the voices contained in the tape. On 15.07.1981 onward, PW-2 was further cross-examined on several dates by the defence and he was confronted with this second transcription Mark-Z- 1 without playing the tape on the tape-recorder. The record reveals on 19.08.1981, during his cross-examination, PW-2 requested the court that tape should be played on the tape-recorder to know whether it contained his voice. Then the tape was played on the tape-recorder and a sealed parcel containing the cassette was taken out. PW-2 admitted his voice, which is mentioned in the transcription Mark-Z-1 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 940 from the portion from R-1, R-2 R-3, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-11, A-1, A-2, A-13, R-15, R-16, R-17, R-18, R-19, R-21, R-22 and R-23. However, he testified that he had read out this statement from a typed one. He did not know that his statement was being tape-recorded. After hearing the tape-recorder in the court, he could say that it was recorded during his rehearsal. In his further cross-examination, PW-2 replied that CID Officers of Bihar Police used to come to Patna Jail carrying an attaché and they had asked him to read out a typed matter. He answered that when he was reading the statement, one attaché case was kept lying at a distance of 5 or 6 feet from him. He has denied the suggestion that tape-recorded statement is a voluntary disclosure made by him or that the tape was not recorded during rehearsal. In his further cross-examination, PW-2 answered that Jailor at Danapur told him that the Government has withdrawn the case against him and DIR warrant was removed and there was no question of giving him pardon. He further replied that statement before the Jailor was obtained from him by coercion and the same is incorrect. He answered that he was lodged in Danapur Jail on 03.01.1977 and prior to that he was in Tihar Central Jail. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that in Danapur Jail, several officers of CBI namely Sh. B.R. Puri, Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Sh. M.P. Singh amongst others visited him several times or that CBI officers used to make cash payment to him in the presence of Haider Ali, Assistant Jailor, Danapur Sub-Jail. He deposed that he refused to see his mother as he had seen her accompanied by many Anand Margi CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 941 in the court. He has also refused to meet her in the Jail and had given it in the writing to the Jailor. He replied that he met his mother only once in Danapur Jail during his confinement there and elsewhere. PW- 2 in his further cross-examination deposed that he was threatened by them that in case he does not read out the statement given to him, he would be killed by falsely showing that he had made an attempt to escape from the jail. He testified that whatever tape-recorded statement was elicited from him had been done by threat of being beaten and killed. He has read out from a prepared typed statement. He testified that he has narrated to the Chief Secretary that he is being pressurized to make a false statement and Chief Secretary informed him that Bihar Government did not want to pursue the case and he should make the statement in the manner, his officers asking him to do so. He made the statement as he was told to do by the Law Secretary and Home Secretary and later on he came to know that those officers were SP and DSP. He deposed that he had stated what was desired by Jailor and Doctor, as they used to intimidate him.
(These transcriptions Mark-Z and Mark-Z-1 are available in File No. R-43- I to VII).
904. Prosecution has placed on record three letters, which were received by them from approver PW-2 Vikram after filing of the charge sheet alleging that he had been tortured in the Jail by the Jailor, Doctor and officers of CID, Bihar and he was compelled to make a statement. On this point, it is elicited by the defence from PW-2 in his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 942 cross-examination that he had written in the letter for shifting him outside for safety, since he feared death without telling the truth. It is important to note that these letters were got exhibited by the defence in cross-examination of PW-2. He deposed that in the inland letter Ex.PW-2/DG, he did not mention the names of the police officers. He admitted that on the inland letter Ex.PW-2/DG, he has mentioned the address of Sh. M.P. Singh in his handwriting at point Ex.PW-2/DG-2. He testified that the letter Ex.PW-2/DH is in his handwriting. He used to send the letters to Sh. M.P. Singh, DSP, CBI at his official address Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Establishment, CIU (P) Branch, East Block, Sector-7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. He was shown the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1, where this address of M.P. Singh is not found mentioned. He admitted that the writing encircled 'X' on the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 is in his handwriting. (On this envelope, at point X, the address of "Mr. M.P. Singh, DSP, CBI" is mentioned). He replied that the correction at Point A & B on t he letter Ex.PW-2/DH are in his handwriting. He deposed that he had gone through this letter and corrected the mistakes. He admitted that envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 does not bear any Indian Postal Stamp. He asserted that the letter Ex.PW-2/DJ and address on the envelope Ex.PW-2/DJ-1 are in his handwriting, but he has not mentioned sender's name and address on the envelope. He further deposed that the address on the envelope Ex.PW-2/DJ-1 pertaining to letter Ex.PW- 2/DJ is also in his handwriting. In his further cross-examination, PW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 943 2 deposed that there is no interpolation or change of date in the letter Ex.PW-2/DJ at Point X-1. He has denied the suggestion that CBI got written a letter from a person well conversant with English language and then a letter on loose paper was got written from him and produced in the court along with Envelope Ex.PW-2/DJ for the first time.
905. In his re-examination, PW-2 deposed at Page No. 335 that the letter Ex.PW-2/DH consisting of ten pages in English is in his handwriting and the date is 20.08.79. He deposed that the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 was sent to him by Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia from England, who was earlier an approver in a Bank Van Robbery case. In his further cross-examination after re-examination, PW-2 deposed that the writing Ex.PW-2/DH-2 on the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 is in the handwriting of Sh. Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia, who remained with him for two years in Tihar Jail and after his release from Jail, he went to England. Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia was kept in his room in the Jail. He is not aware of his complete address, but the locality is "Betfont Road, Middleex". In his further cross-examination, PW-2 admitted the suggestion that he had written the letter Ex.PW-2/DJ in December 1978, letter Ex.PW-2/DH in February 1979 and third letter Ex.PW- 2/DG approximately during that period. He denied the suggestion that his three letters filed by the CBI in the court during cross-examination are forged one and prepared during the pendency of the proceedings.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 944 He also denied the suggestion that he has been on pay role of CBI and deposed falsely.
906. I have perused the blue colour inland Letter, which is from the outer side given the exhibit mark as Ex.PW-2/DG and its contents portion inside are given exhibit mark as Ex.PW-2/DG-1. This letter addressed to Sh. M.P. Singh, DSP, CBI, Special Police Establishment, CIU Branch, East Block-VII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. It bears the round stamp of the Post Office "Danapur Cantt." dated 25.07.1979 and RL (i.e. Registered Letter) No. 1298 of D. Cantt. It also bears the round postal stamp of the receiving Post Office R.K. Puram dated 28.07.1979. In this letter, PW-2 has written to DSP, CBI that the officers of CID used to visit and threaten him to make a statement in the court against CBI and on 01st June, 17-20 June, those persons came and told him that they would not allow CBI to proceed with the case. He further mentioned that Jailor and Doctor had directed him to make the statement against CBI to the effect that this case has been fabricated against innocent persons. He has further mentioned that the Jailor has started enough pressure on him and there was a threat to his life in Bihar otherwise, he would have to depart this world. No doubt, the sender name is mentioned as "P.P. Singh, Beli Road, Patna", which appears to have been written by PW-2 for security purposes and for ensuring that the letter reaches to the addressee i.e. CBI, without being caught or seen by Jailor or CID persons.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 945
907. I have also seen letter Ex.PW-2/DH, which is written on 10 pages of a lined notebook. This letter dated 20.08.1979 has been written by Vikram in poor English language. He has detailed his grievance in this letter to the effect that Jailor and Doctor had visited him on several dates in September, October, November and December 1978 and January to March 1979 to pressurize him to make the statement in the court. He has further mentioned that he was tortured and beaten by them and they have also given him a typed copy of a paper in question answer form and DIG asked him to give those answers and his voice had been recorded. This letter was addressed to Mr. M.P. Singh, DSP, CBI in the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1. On the front portion of the envelope, PW-2 struck out his name and address. This envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 bears the round postal stamp of "Hounston, Middlesex, dated 10.08.1979 and a sticker with the inscription of "By air mail Par Avion" is pasted on the left top corner. It also bears a postal ticket of UK. It does not bear any stamp of any Indian Post Office. It does not bear the name of the sender. However, on this envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1, the name of "Mr. Vikram, C/o Jailor Sahib, Danapur Sub Jail, Danapur (Patna) 801503, Bihar, India" is struck out and above this address, this name and address "Mr. M.P. Singh, DSP, CBI" is mentioned.
908. Ex.PW-2/DJ is third letter in Hindi written by Vikram, which was received in the office of CBI, New Delhi on 22.12.1978. This CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 946 was found to contain in the envelope Ex.PW-2/DJ-1. This is addressed to Dy. Superintendant of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment, CIU (P) Branch, East Block-VII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. This bears the round stamp of the Post Office Danapur Cantt. dated 19.12.1978. It also bears the round shaped postal stamp dated 21.12.1978 of Delhi Post Office having Pin No. 110001. The stamp dated 21.12.1978 must be of GPO. Then there is another round stamp of "Rama Krishna Puram Post Office" on which the impression of the date is not completely visible.
In this letter also, he has written his grievance against the Jailor informing him that Home Secretary and Law Secretary, Bihar would be visiting the Jail and he (PW-2) was directed to speak everything in the court. Next day, those persons introduced to Home Secretary and Law Secretary and Jailor had slapped him four or five times and then on instructions of the Jailor, a constable, who was standing near the gate, was called and he gave him beatings by fists several times. He was tortured. They directed him to make only the statement, which they have given him. On third day, they had given him a written paper and compelled to read it.
909. Prosecution has examined Deputy SP Sh. M.P. Singh, CBI, New Delhi as PW-131, who remained associated with the investigation of this case from 08.01.1975 to 29.08.1976 and he has assisted Chief Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Deputy SP, CBI (PW-151) in the Investigation as per his directions. All these letters CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 947 from Vikram were received by Sh. M.P. Singh (PW-131). The defence has asked this witness about the above said three letters, which he received from PW-2. PW-131 replied in his cross-examination that he received three letters from Vikram (PW-2). He answered that he did not contact Vikram to ascertain whether he wrote these letters. He knew that Vikram was approver and lodged at Danapur Jail in Patna. He did not visit the Jail, where Vikram was detained. He has denied the suggestion that he has got written these letters from PW-2 and for that reason he had not gone to Vikram to confirm whether he had written these letters. He admitted that he received the letter Ex.PW- 2/DG-1 in July 1979 and he handed over this letter within a couple of days to the Chief Investigation Officer. He answered that the letter Ex.PW-2/DH contained in the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 was received by a constable of Patna Office of CBI on his return to the Patna Branch Office from field duty. The constable, on inquiry, told him that someone has delivered this letter, but could not give him the particulars.
910. In his further cross-examination, PW-2 denied the suggestion of the defence that CBI has persuaded him to write a letter to the Chief Justice of India during the Transfer Application of this case from Bihar Court to Delhi Court and he voluntarily stated that he of his own had written a letter to the Chief Justice of India. He has mentioned in the letter to the Chief Justice of India as to how his statement has been obtained, which was tape-recorded and he would be prepared to tell CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 948 the truth to the Chief Justice in this respect. He also mentioned in the letter that a typed statement was supplied to him. He replied that he had written a similar letter to CBI, Delhi one or two month before writing letter to Chief Justice of India. He did not go to post the letters and gave the same to the workers, who came to him for the purpose of cleaning or serving him meals. He had addressed the letter written to CBI to Sh. M.P. Singh, who was DSP at the address of R.K. Puram. In his further cross-examination by accused Ranjan Dwivedi, PW-2 denied the suggestion that CBI got written these letters from him in Delhi and two of these letters were got written during the pendency of the proceedings in this court. He voluntarily stated that he had written these letters from Danapur Jail. He explained that Jail authorities used to provide postal stationary. He stated that the copy book on which letters Ex.PW-2/DJ and Ex.PW-2/DH was provided to him by the Jailor and from that copy book, he had taken out these sheets. Regarding this blue slip pasted on the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1, he again explained that he had received this envelope from a foreign country and he put the letter in this envelope and gave it to Mushakati with the instructions that he would find Sh. M.P. Singh at 2/8, Bailey Road, where the letter was to be delivered by hand otherwise he should put it another envelope and post it after pasting the slip containing the address. He did not remember the date of writing third letter Ex.PW-2/DG-1, but it was written around February 1979.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 949
911. The Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati and Sh. Feroz Ahmad, Advocates, have argued that these letters have been filed by the prosecution after filing of the charge-sheet and should not be considered. They further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that these letters are in the handwriting of PW-2 and that prosecution has filed these forged and fabricated letters and envelopes only to create evidence. They also argued that prosecution has filed these fabricated letters with malafide intention in order to persuade this case not to rely upon the tape-recorded version of PW-2 Vikram in Danapur Jail.
912. I have scrutinized the statement of PW-2 on the aforesaid points of sending letters by him. The prosecution has not filed on record any letter written by PW-2 to the Chief Justice of India regarding his grievance that he was subject to torture in the Jail or that he was made to speak from a prepared statement, which was tape recorded. However, by giving the suggestion to PW-2 by the defence that CBI got written from him a letter to CJI during the pendency of the Transfer Petition, has admitted that PW-2 had written a letter to CJI as claimed by him. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted the suggestion of the defence that on the letter Ex.PW-2/DG, he has mentioned the address of Sh. M.P. Singh in his handwriting at point Ex.PW-2/DG-2. The defence in the cross-examination has not discredited the testimony of PW-2 that he had written the letter Ex.PW-2/DG. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 950 suggestion of the defence that at Point "X" on the envelope Ex.PW- 2/DH-1, where the address of the addressee is mentioned, is in his handwriting. At point "X", the name and designation of the addressee "Sh. M.P. Singh, DSP, CBI" is mentioned. In his further cross- examination he has explained that he had given it to Mushakati with the instructions that he would find Sh. M.P. Singh at 2/8, Bailey Road, where the letter was to be delivered by hand otherwise he should put it another envelope and post it after pasting the slip containing the address. It is found in the testimony of PW-2 that the letter Ex.PW- 2/DH is in his handwriting. The defence has not at all discredited the PW-2 in his cross-examination that the letter Ex.PW-2/DH was not in his handwriting or that he had not given this letter to Mushakati for delivery to Sh. M.P. Singh. The defence has also not shattered the assertion of PW-2 that the letter Ex.PW-2/DJ and the address on the envelope Ex.PW-2/DJ-1 are not in his handwriting in his cross- examination. Rather, the defence has admitted that the letter Ex.PW- 2/DJ pertained to the envelope Ex.PW-DJ-1. PW-2 has further admitted the suggestion of the defence that he had written the letter Ex.PW-2/DJ in the mother of December 1978, letter Ex.PW-2/DH in February 1979 and letter Ex.PW-2/DJ around February 1979. By giving the suggestion to PW-2 in his cross-examination that CBI got written these letters from him in Delhi, also by itself suggest admission on behalf of the defence that these letters are in the handwriting of PW-2. Further, the defence has admitted the writing of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 951 these letters in the handwriting of PW-2 by giving suggestion to PW- 131 that he got written these letters from PW-2 and for that reason he had not gone to Vikram to confirm whether he had written these letters. Moreover, all these three letters and two envelopes were got exhibited in the cross-examination of PW-2 by the defence and that by itself indicate admission of the documents by them.
913. In view of the above discussion, there is no force in the arguments of the Ld. Defence Counsel that CBI should have proved that these three letters and two envelopes are the handwriting of PW-2. These letters sufficiently establish that approver PW-2, while being kept in Danapur Jail was subject to extreme torture and harassment at the hands of Jailor, Jail Doctor and officers of CID and establishment and he was made to make a statement by the Jailor to retract his confession made to Ld. ACMM, Delhi.
914. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that after arrest of Arun Kumar Thakur and Arun Kumar Mishra by the prosecution and recording of confessional statement of Arun Kumar Thakur, the investigating agency, which is under the control of Central Government, changed the line of investigation without any justification and falsely implicated Anand Margies with malafide intention. They argued that this was the deliberate attempt of CBI under the pressure of the Central Government to divert the attention from real culprits. They argued that the then Director of CBI Sh. D. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 952 Sen was about to retire in November 1975 and he was granted extension in service as Director, CBI and he was also awarded Padama Bhushan Award on the following Republic Day. They also submitted that the wife of late Sh. L.N. Mishra has lodged a complaint on the basis of which the then Chief Minister has ordered a "secret inquiry", which was conducted by the then DIG, CID, Bihar namely Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai (DW-40). It was pointed out that even as per report of DIG, the crime dated 02.01.1975 was not committed by the Anand Margies facing the trial, but by Arun Kumar Thakur, Arun Kumar Mishra and Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma on the direction of Sh. Ram Bilas Jha (MLC), who was known as "Boss Jha". The report of Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai (DW-40) was considered by Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate on the direction of the then Chief Minister and he has also filed his report in favour of accused persons. Based on these submissions, the Ld. Defence Counsel submits that this is a straight hypothesis, which goes in favour of the accused persons and they should be given benefit of doubt.
915. Here, I would like to refer the relevant evidence pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel. Ex.DW-12/C is copy of the letter No.946 dated 30.8.1978 written by the then Chief Minister of Bihar addressed to the then Prime Minister of India mentioning therein that pursuant to the confidential one to one discussion, he had directed for secret enquiry in respect of murder of Late Sh. L.N. Mishra. After the completion of the secret enquiry, he would send him a copy and if he CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 953 (Prime Minister) is satisfied, he (Prime Minister) might take up the matter with the Central Bureau of Investigation. Photocopy of the report submitted by Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40) dated 24.10.1978 is Ex.DW-12/B. The carbon copy of report of Sh. S.B. Sahai is Ex.DW- 40/1. The letter Ex.DW-12/C and Photostat copy of the report of DW- 40 are Ex.DW-12/B are available in Part-XXIV. The carbon copy of the report of DW-40 is Ex.DW-40/1, which is available in Folder R-
309.
916. Defence has examined Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai, the then DIG, CID, Bihar as DW-40. He proved copy of his affidavit dated 11.12.1979, which he filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court Ex.DW-6/A (Available in Folder R-57). In his affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court DW-40 deposed that 18 CBI officers led by D.N. Ahuja, DIG, CBI left New Delhi for Bihar on 03.1.1975 by a Special Plane and arrived at Samastipur in the forenoon of 04.1.1975. They have assisted the CBI team in the investigation of both these cases of Samastipur from 04.1.1975 to 10.1.1975. The CBI had taken over the investigation of the case from State CID on 10.1.1975. At that time, they have passed information to CBI relating to two suspects. CBI formally arrested both these suspects in Mishra's murder case on 08.1.1975 after recovery of some incriminatory documents from their house and statement of eyewitness Shankar before the CID and CBI. Sh. Shankar made a statement to CID & CBI to the effect that he had seen both these Arun Kumars running away from near the Rostrum at CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 954 the conclusion of Late Sh. L.N. Mishra's speech and immediately preceding the blast. Arun Kumar Thakur made a voluntary statement regarding his complicity in the bomb blast. He made inculpatory statement and regarding complicity of his friend Arun Kumar Mishra and one accomplice Sheo Narain Sharma and an outsider named "Boss Jha", the man behind the crime. On initial interrogation of Arun Kumar Mishra, he mentioned the names of Uma Kant Jha and Joginder Raut as instigators of the crime and on close enquiry allegations against them were found incorrect.
917. DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai deposed that he received an order from the then Chief Minister, Bihar to conduct a "confidential enquiry" into the case relating to the murder of Sh. L.N. Mishra vide his "top secret"
letter No.946 dated 30.8.1978 and pursuant to that direction he made a "confidential enquiry" with the assistance of Sh. D.P. Ojha (DW-34) and Sh. K.P. Sinha, DSP, CID. After completion of the "confidential enquiry", he submitted a detailed "Top Secret Report" to the then Chief Minister, Bihar vide memo no.51/C dated 24.10.1978. The then Chief Minister, Bihar requested Sh. V.M. Tarkunde to give his legal opinion on the confidential enquiry report regarding L.N. Mishra murder case. Sh. Tarkunde prepared his opinion and submitted to the then Chief Minister, Bihar.
918. In his examination-in-chief DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai testified that he was aware of the incident of bomb attack on 02.1.1975 was made CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 955 on L. N. Mishra. He visited the place of occurrence on 03.1.1975. FIR was lodged and CID Bihar started investigation until 09.1.1975. CBI has taken over the investigation of the case on 10.1.1975. However, CID, Bihar kept assisting CBI until 3rd week of March 1975. After 3rd Week of March, CID Bihar was disassociated with the investigation of the case and thereafter CBI did everything. He made enquiry through his officers about the role of Vikram (PW-2) and Madan Mohan Srivastava (PW-1) in this case. He authorized Jailor and Supdt. of Jail, Danapur to record the statement of Vikram on a tape recorder. The tape-recorded statement of Vikram was not given to him but he heard it. It was between Sh. D.P. Ahuja, SP (Vigilance) and Sh. K.P. Sinha, Dy. SP, CID. The then Chief Secretary, Sh. Ram Subramanium personally talked to Vikram's cell in Danapur Jail and was satisfied. The statement of Vikram recorded as taped by Danapur Jailor was contradictory to his earlier statement. Under the order of Chief Minister, Bihar, he met Sh. Tarkunde after submitting his Report Ex.DW-40/1. He also met Sh. Arun Shourie (DW-16) in Delhi and discussed the case. He informed Sh. Arun Shourie (DW-16) that as per his findings, the present case investigated by CBI is false. The object of his enquiry was to find out the truth as Smt. Kameshwari Mishra wife of late Sh. L.N. Mishra lodged a complaint to the Chief Minister, Bihar that wrong persons have been implicated. The then CM of Bihar asked him to make an enquiry. He submitted his report dated 24.10.1978 running into 21 pages Ex.DW-40/1 to the then CM, Bihar CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 956 through the Chief Secretary. He associated Sh. D.P. Ojha, the then SP (Vigilance) and Sh. K.P. Sinha, DSP, CID actively in conduct of the enquiry. He knew the fact that CBI had already filed charge sheet. He conducted a "secret enquiry" as per the direction of the CM, Bihar.
919. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that he personally did not record the statement of any witnesses. He prepared the rough notes based on which he prepared his report Ex.DW-40/1. He did not preserve those rough notes. He did not record the statement of Smt. Kameshwari Mishra in writing. He did not know whether Smt. Kameshwari Mishra made her complaint to the then Chief Minister, Bihar in writing or orally. He did not submit enclosure of any statements or rough notes with his enquiry report Ex.DW-40/1. He is not aware if the State Government or Central Government took any action on submitting the report. To a question whether any attempt was made to file any additional charge sheet in the concerned court, he replied that he did not know since in the year 1979 he went on deputation out of the State of Bihar. He did not know personally about Madan Mohan Srivastava. He deposed that the officers assisting him made a specific enquiry about antecedents and involvement in this case. He interrogated Vikram in Danapur Jail and examined him after his statement was tape recorded by the Jailor. He did not record his statement formally. Before tape recording of the statement of Vikram, he did not see him in the jail. He had not authorized the Jailor and Superintendent of Danapur Jail in writing to record the statement of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 957 Vikram on a tape recorder. He did not know if this fact was recorded in any case diary. He was not personally present when the statement of Vikram was tape recorded and hence could not say what were the circumstances and conditions at the time when the statement of Vikram was tape recorded.
920. I have perused the Report Ex.DW-40/1. DW-40 Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai has emerged with the following conclusion of his secret enquiry:-
"1. Names of two Arun Kumars figured as suspects in the murder in the very first week of investigation. Subsequently, a natural eye witness, Shankar, claimed identification of Arun Kumar Thakur and Arun Kumar Mishra on the spot of the bomb blast. Arun Kumar Thakur made a judicial confession on 21.2.75 about the crime in which he named Arun Kumar Mishra, Sheo Narain Sharma and one unknown person, besides himself. He also mentioned about the Boss "Jha" as a planner of the crime.
2. While the search to identify Boss "Jha" was going on, the other accused Arun Kumar Mishra made certain disclosures in Samastipur Jail before the Jailor Sri Rehman giving some details of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 958 conspiracy and revealing the name of Ram Bilas Jha as the planner of the crime.
3. The disclosure of the name of Ram Bilash Jha as one of the main conspirators behind the murder brought about a sea change in the attitude of the C.B.I. towards this line of investigation. This line of investigation was abruptly closed and valuable evidence obtained during the first three months of investigation was completely suppressed.
4. The main reason behind suppression of this line of investigation was that Ram Bilash Jha was a close associate of Sri Yashpal Kapoor and also had direct contact with Smt. Gandhi. Sri D. Sen, the then Director of the C.B.I., had clearly told Smt. Kameshwari Mishra that to mention Ram Bilash Jha's name in this case would lead to Sh. Yashpal Kapoor and further up.
5. Smt. Gandhi's keen interest in this affair is evident from the query she made from Sri Ghafoor, the then Chief Minister, Bihar, in the last week of March, 1975 about some alleged favour shown to the Samastipur jailor, Sri Rahman. Since the Samastipur Jailor had succeeded in ascertaining the name of Sri Ram Bilash Jha as one CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 959 of the planners of the murder, Smt. Gandhi was obviously unhappy with the Jailor and the then Chief Minister, Sri Ghafoor. No wonder that Sri D. Sen, the then Director of the C.B.I. could not dare pursue the investigation against Ram Bilash Jha.
6. Sri Yashpal Kapoor's sojourn in Bihar before and after the bomb blast and his movements during this period appear to be highly suspicious. Close association between Ram Bilash Jha and Sri Yashpal Kapoor is a well known fact. In the circumstances, there is a clear suspicion about Sri Yashpal Kapoor and Ram Bilash Jha having jointly planned Sri L.N. Mishra's murder.
7. The subsequent investigation of this case by the C.B.I. implicating some Anand Margis was a part of the deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real culprits who were close to the seat of power. In this attempt false confessional statements were extorted by means of physical torture and inhuman third degree methods. Due processes of law and rules of jail Manuals were open flouted to keep the principal tutored witness of the cooked-up case under constant terror and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 960 undue influence. The whole case was built up by the C.B.I. under the cover of the emergency when legal processes were under great strains. Charge- sheet was submitted against the Anand Margis by the C.B.I. on 10th November, 1975. It is not without significant that Sh. D. Sen, who was due to retire in November, 1975, was granted extension of service as Director of the C.B.I. He was also decorated with 'Padam Bhushan' on the following Republic day".
921. Admittedly, in this case the charge sheet was filed by Investigation Officer on 12.11.1975 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Committal proceedings were still pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna, where after the tender of pardon, both the approvers Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass @ Subir and Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay were to be examined as a witness, taking the cognizance of the offence as required under sub-clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 306 of Cr. PC. I have appreciated the issue in my subsequent paragraphs of this judgment as to how the accused persons in collusion with the Authorities, Jailor and Jail Doctor did not allow the same to be completed in order to build and put pressure on approver Vikram lying in Danapur Jail to retract from his confessional statement. This was also done to blame and defame CBI for his making confessional CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 961 statement before the ACMM, Delhi on 16.08.1975 and 18.08.1975 and consequent grant of pardon to him on 27.10.1975. Much after filing of the charge sheet, the then Chief Minister of the State of Bihar vide Letter No. 946 dated 30.08.1978 Ex.PW-12/C directed "Secret Inquiry" to be conducted by the officers of the State. Here it is worth mentioning that vide notification No. 54 dated 03.01.1975 Ex.PW- 64/D, the Governor of Bihar gave the consent of the Government of Bihar to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for extension of their powers and jurisdiction in the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of the offences with regard to case No. 1 of 02.01.1975, PS Samastipur. Vide notification No. 55 dated 03.01.1975 Ex.PW-64/E, the Governor of Bihar gave the consent of the Government of Bihar to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for extension of their powers and jurisdiction in the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of the offences with regard to case No. 1 of 02.01.1975, PS Samastipur GRPS. Vide notification dated 13.09.1975 Ex.PW-64/A, the Governor of Bihar has also given its consent to Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in respect of FIR No. 24 dated 07.01.1974 PS Kotwali Patna. The Governor of Bihar has also accorded the consent of Government of Bihar vide notification Ex. PW-64/B dated 13.09.1975, to the members of Delhi Special Police CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 962 Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in respect of FIR No. 71 dated 13.07.1974 PS Kotwali Bhagalpur.
(All four notifications Ex.PW-64/A, Ex.PW-64/B, Ex.PW-64/D and Ex.PW-64/E are available in Folder R-7) The Governor of Bihar by order No. 6905 dated 27.12.1975 Ex.PW- 64/C has also accorded the consent of the Government of Bihar for the prosecution and trial of the charge sheeted persons for the offences under Section 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 in respect of the above said FIRs dated 07.01.1974, 13.07.1974 and 02.01.1975.
(The notification Ex.PW-64/C is available in Folder R-68)
922. Here, it would be profitable to advert to sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Cr. PC, which reads as under: -
"(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer Incharge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 963 sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).
923. A plain reading of section 173 of Cr. PC reflects that even after filing of the Final Investigation Report by the Investigation Officer, under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Cr. PC, the Magistrate may direct the investigation officer on his request to conduct further investigations and report to the Magistrate under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Cr. PC. In this regard, a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be referred to. Suffice it to refer the one of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Dalmia Vs. C.B.I. 2008 (AIR) SC 78, that: -
"16. Indisputably, the power of the investigating officer to make a prayer for making further investigation in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a charge sheet under Sub-section (2) thereof has been filed. A further investigation is permissible even if order of cognizance of offence has been taken by the Magistrate."
924. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reeta Naag Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2009 (9) SCC 129, that the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 964 power of the Investigating Officer to make a prayer for conducting further investigation in terms of Section 173 (8) of Cr. PC is not taken away only because a charge- sheet has been filed under Section 173(2) and a further investigation is permissible even if cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. The relevant Para of the judgment reads as under: -
"17. In addition to the above, the decision of this Court in Randhir Singh Rana's case (supra) also makes it clear that after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report and after appearance of the accused, a Judicial Magistrate cannot of his own order further investigation in the case, though such an order could be passed on the application of the investigating authorities. The view expressed in Randhir Singh Rana's case (supra) finds support in the decision of this Court in the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, 2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 283 : 2007(5) RAJ 182 : [(2007)8 SCC 770], wherein while considering various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code including Section 173 thereof, this Court held that so long as the charge-sheet is not filed within the meaning of Section 173(2) Criminal Procedure Code, investigation remains pending. But, even the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 965 filing of a charge-sheet did not preclude an Investigating Officer from carrying on further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code It was also observed that the power of the Investigating Officer to make a prayer for conducting further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code is not taken away only because a charge- sheet has been filed under Section 173(2) and a further investigation is permissible even if cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate.
18. Although, the decision in Dinesh Dalmia's case (supra) was rendered in the context of the applicability of Section 167(2) and the proviso thereto, when a charge-sheet has not been filed, the interpretation of the provisions of Section 173(8) in the said decision is relevant in the facts of this case also.
19. What emerges from the above-mentioned decisions of this Court is that once a charge-sheet is filed under Section 173(2) Criminal Procedure Code and either charge is framed or the accused are discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a protest petition, take cognizance of the offence CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 966 complained of or on the application made by the investigating authorities permit further investigation under Section 173(8). The Magistrate cannot suo moto direct a further investigation under Section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code or direct a re-investigation into a case on account of the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code."
925. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Others, 2013 (5) SCC 762, that the Magistrate has power to direct further investigation after filing of a police report in terms of section 173 (8) of Cr. PC and the relevant Para are quoted below: -
"30. Having analysed the provisions of the Code and the various judgments as afore-indicated, we would state the following conclusions in regard to the powers of a magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 173(8) and Section 156(3) of the Code:
1. The Magistrate has no power to direct 'reinvestigation' or 'fresh investigation' (de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of a police report.\
2. A Magistrate has the power to direct 'further investigation' after filing of a police report in terms of Section 173(6) of the Code.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 967
3. The view expressed in (2) above is in conformity with the principle of law stated in Bhagwant Singh's case (supra) by a three Judge Bench and thus in conformity with the doctrine of precedence.
4. Neither the scheme of the Code nor any specific provision therein bars exercise of such jurisdiction by the Magistrate. The language of Section 173(2) cannot be construed so restrictively as to deprive the Magistrate of such powers particularly in face of the provisions of Section 156(3) and the language of Section 173(8) itself. In fact, such power would have to be read into the language of Section 173(8).
5. The Code is a procedural document, thus, it must receive a construction which would advance the cause of justice and legislative object sought to be achieved. It does not stand to reason that the legislature provided power of further investigation to the police even after filing a report, but intended to curtail the power of the Court to the extent that even where the facts of the case and the ends of justice demand, the Court can still not direct the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 968 investigating agency to conduct further investigation which it could do on its own.
6. It has been a procedure of proprietary that the police has to seek permission of the Court to continue 'further investigation' and file supplementary charge-sheet. This approach has been approved by this Court in a number of judgments. This as such would support the view that we are taking in the present case."
926. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the position in law under Section 173 of the Cr. PC regarding the powers of Magistrate for directing further investigations in Hemant Dhasmana Versus Central Bureau of Investigation 2001 (7) SCC 536, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon its previous judgment and the relevant Para reads as under: -
"18. In Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another, 1985(2) SCC 537 a three- Judge Bench of this Court has said, though in a slightly different context, that three options are open to the court on receipt of a report under Section 173(2) of the Code, when such report states that no offence has been committed by the persons accused in the complaint. They are:
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 969 (1) The court may accept and drop the proceedings; or (2) The court may disagree with the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process if it takes the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further; or (3) The court may direct further investigation to be made by the police.
927. In view of the relevant provision i.e. Section 173 (8) of Cr. PC and also the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is only the court/Magistrate, which can direct further investigations on the request of the Investigation Officer.
928. In the present case, it is the then Chief Minister of the State of Bihar, who had vide Order dated 30.08.1978 Ex.PW-12/C has ordered further investigation by the officers of Government of Bihar, pursuant to which the investigation was conducted by DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai, the then DIG, CID, Bihar. Precise question that arises for consideration is whether the report of such investigation has any legal sanctity under the provisions of Cr. PC and what value could be attached to such a report. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 envisages under what circumstances further investigation could be ordered and who could order such an investigation. Chapter XII of the Code of Cr. PC deals with the role of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 970 the police and the powers of the police to investigate with regard to crimes.
929. This Code does not permit conducting of an enquiry on the orders of a Chief Minister of a State or ordering thereof by him, who is a political and executive head of the State. All the information with regard to the cognizable and non-cognizable offence is to be made only to the jurisdictional police. Upon registering an FIR or obtaining permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate, the police can proceed to investigate and submit its report to the Magistrate concerned. Upon submission of such a report, the powers are vested with the Magistrate alone and none else to order for further investigation u/s 173 (8) of Cr. PC. A bare perusal of the above provision shows that this section does not limit the powers of the Magistrate and it is the Magistrate, who alone can direct further investigation; obviously when such Magistrate finds reasons to order for further investigation after considering the report and submissions made to him by the Investigation Officer or aggrieved person.
930. Therefore, the scheme of the Cr. PC does not permit the political and executive head of a State to order for further investigation. The manner in which such an order is passed by the Chief Minister titling it as a "secret enquiry" cannot be considered as a report u/s 173 of Cr. PC. Therefore, this court concludes that this CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 971 report and whatever the findings thereof does not have any legal sanctity.
931. Further, when the Governor of State of Bihar had already given the consent of the Government of Bihar to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, to conduct investigations in respect of all the four cases vide FIR No. 1 of 1975, PS Samastipur GRPS, FIR No. 1 of 1975 PS Samastipur, FIR No. 24 dated 07.01.1974 PS Kotwali Patna and FIR No. 71 dated 13.07.1974 PS Kotwali Bhagalpur vide notifications Ex.PW-64/D, Ex.PW-65/E, Ex.PW-64/A and Ex.PW- 64/B, the political and executive head of the State i.e. the Chief Minister cannot withdraw even its consent what to talk of conducting "secret inquiry" by officer of the State. In this regard, a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, 1998 AIR (SC) 2001, can be referred to. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that after filing of the charge sheet, if any further investigation is to be made, it is the C.B.I. alone which can do so, as it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State Government.
932. In view of this law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even if further investigation was required to be done, it was for the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment, who should have been approached by the State Government to make a request to the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 972 concerned Magistrate to obtain permission to further investigate matter. Further, when the charge sheet had already been filed on 12.11.1975, which was pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna for consideration, no efforts have been made by the State of Bihar to move the Jurisdictional Magistrate either directly or through Delhi Special Police Establishment for permission to conduct further investigations in the cases.
933. Moreover, DW-40 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not authorized the Jailor and Superintendant Jail of Danapur Jail in writing to record the statement of Vikram. DW-40 is stated to have met Vikram in Danapur Jail, but he has not personally recorded his statement in writing. He has also not mentioned in his report as to when he had visited Danapur Jail to have meeting with the approver Vikram. He has claimed that Chief Secretary of the State had also visited Vikram in the Jail and talked to him. DW-40 does not claim that Chief Secretary had also taken the statement of Vikram in writing. Chief Secretary has also not been examined. No record of the Jail has been filed as to when Chief Secretary had visited the Jail at Danapur to meet Vikram. DW-40 has admitted in his deposition that he was aware of filing of the charge sheet by the CBI and surprisingly he had continued with the "secret inquiry". He also admitted that he personally did not record the statement of any of the witnesses. He claimed to have prepared rough notes on the basis of which he prepared the report Ex.DW-40/1, which have also not been placed on CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 973 record. He also admitted that he did not record the statement of widow of the deceased. He also admitted that he was not aware under what circumstances and conditions, the statement of Vikram was tape- recorded. He has not annexed the copies of the statement of the witnesses, who have been examined by him or the officers assisting him.
On the other hand, the testimony of PW-2, who deposed that he was put under threat, torture and pressure by the Jailor and officers of CID Bihar and Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Law Secretary asking him to retract his confession made before the Magistrate, is further corroborated by the version of DW-40, who said that he visited the Jail and interacted the Vikram in his Cell and further admits the visits of Chief Secretary also.
In view of the above discussion, the report of DW-40 can only be described to be an opinion of an individual without any evidence and sanctity of law. Therefore, such a report does not call for any scrutiny or indulgence of this court to adjudicate or consider in accordance with law.
934. The defence has examined DW-12 Sh. R.J.M. Pillai, Chief Secretary, State of Bihar. He filed the unsigned copy of the opinion of Sh. V.M. Tarkunde Mark DW-12/A. He also placed on record copy of Report of Inquiry dated 24.10.1978 into Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra's murder case of Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40), which was exhibited as Ex.DW-12/B. He also placed on record a copy of the letter dated CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 974 26.8.1978 sent by Sh. Karpuri Thakur, the then Chief Minister of Bihar to the then Prime Minister Ex.DW-12/C. In his cross- examination, DW-12 answered that Sh. Tarkunde had given only his opinion and not any inquiry report. He admitted the suggestion of the prosecution that opinion of Sh. Tarkunde is based on the report of the then DIG Sh. Sahai (DW-40).
935. It is argued by accused Ranjan Dwivedi in person, Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate and also by Sh. Feroz Ahmad, Advocate that Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate, had also given his report that the Anand Margies facing the trial are innocent and real culprits have been let off by the CBI at the instance of the then Ruling Party at Centre. They have referred the Photostat copy of Tarkunde's opinion Mark DW-12/A, which was exhibited as DW-16/A. (This is available in Part-XXIV). (A similar Photostat copy of the report along with the covering letter dated 15.02.1978 Mark PW-151/DQ of Sh. V.M. Tarkunde is also available in Folder R-57). Unsigned Photostat copy of Tarkunde's Report Mark DW-12/A was exhibited as DW-16/A, subject to objection by Ld. Special PP. In the covering letter Mark PW-151/DQ, Sh. Tarkunde has written to the then Chief Minister that pursuant to his talk on 15.02.1979 and subsequent letter dated 09.02.1979, he had gone through the relevant documents and had three conferences with Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40) and some other officers of the Government of Bihar and prepared his legal opinion. I have gone through this unsigned Photostat copy of legal opinion of Sh. V.M. CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 975 Tarkunde and found that this opinion is entirely based on confidential report dated 24.10.1978 Ex.DW-40/1 of Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40), which is discarded by this court as beyond the scope of Cr. PC.
936. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Special PP has pointed out that DW-4 Sh. Rajeshwar Chaubey, who is the husband of sister of accused Ranjan Dwivedi, has testified that Ranjan Dwivedi started living with him since January 1973 till September 1974 and that Ranjan Dwivedi had been junior with Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate. The Ld. Special PP has also pointed out a copy of the Order dated 31.03.1978 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1978 titled as Ram Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi Versus State of Bihar and another, by which accused Ranjan Dwivedi was directed to be released on bail on furnishing security of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. This order reflects that Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate had appeared for Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi. The Ld. Special PP also pointed out that Ranjan Dwivedi has been junior to Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this fact has been admitted by Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. PC. While answering Q. No.374, in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, Ranjan Dwivedi stated that in the year 1973 he came to Delhi and joined Supreme Court Bar Association. He stated that since he was a radical humanist, he came in contact with Mr. Justice V.M. Tarkunde, who helped him to come CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 976 to the Supreme Court and worked there as a junior till he was arrested in the year 1975. While replying Q. No.9, he stated that from a member radical humanist headed by Ex. Chief Justice V.M. Tarkunde, he became disciple of Anand Murtiji only based on his concept of humanity and his relation to God as expressed in his book 'Human Society' Part I & II. He stated that during this period, he developed association with Anand Marg because of defending their cases including self-immolation case against Santoshanand and he met Sh. Anand Murtiji and was inspired by his two books "Human Society"
Part I & II and subsequently, he accepted him as his Guru. In the Appeal titled as "Santoshanand Avdoot Vs. State, Manu/DE/1873/2014", pertaining to the case of attack on the then Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Ray, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which is an offshoot of criminal conspiracy to get Baba released, while upholding the conviction of accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand in Para No. 99 of the judgment, our Hon'ble High Court has also recorded the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the State that the report of Justice Tarkunde was only an opinion and not a piece of evidence and there was conflict of interest in submitting the report as accused Ranjan Dwivedi was one of his juniors and was represented by him in the case. I have already held in the preceding Para that this report of Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40) does not require any indulgence and consideration of this court for adjudication of the case and since the report of Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 977 Advocate is based on the report of Sh. S.B. Sahai Ex.DW-40/1, the said opinion has no value and is not at all relevant.
937. The Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Feroz Ahmad has referred to the deposition of Sh. Arun Shourie, former Executive Editor of Indian Express, who had been examined by them as DW-16. He is the writer of the Book Ex.DW-5/B, titled as "Who killed L.N. Mishra". The defence has also examined DW-5 Bhartendu Shah, Branch Manager with M/s. Popular Prakashan with Darya Ganj, Delhi. He has been examined to prove the publication of the book by the said firm titled as "who killed L.N. Mishra". He testified that this is a compilation of various articles written by various persons whose name appeared on the second page of the book Ex.DW-5/B. On 15.02.2008, the court recorded his testimony. He had been working with Popular Prakashan only for the last three years and Ex.DW-5/B is a publication of the year 1979.
938. Unless the authors of these various articles, which are compiled in the said book and those persons, who were consulted by such writer, are examined in the Court and the other party i.e. the Prosecution is given an opportunity to test their veracity on touchstone of the cross-examination, no evidentiary value can be attached to the collection of such articles though presented under compilation in a book form.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 978
939. Further on this point, the defence has also examined Sh. Manohar S. Bhatkal as DW-17, the Printer of the book "who killed L.N. Mishra" Ex.DW-5/B. He deposed that printing of the said book had taken place in his press. The book was printed as per the original manuscript given by the publisher. Popular Prakashan is the publisher of the book and Sh. Ram Dass Bhatkal is its Managing Director. They did not retain the original manuscript and returned to the publisher M/s Popular Book Depot (Printing Division). He has no knowledge as to who is in possession of manuscript. He has no personal knowledge about the articles written in the book.
940. The defence has examined one of the writers of the articles published in the said book "who killed L.N. Mishra" Sh. Arun Shourie as DW-16. He testified that in the year 1979, he was the Executive Editor of Indian Express. He has written the introduction of the book Ex.DW-5/B titled as "who killed L.N. Mishra". Sh. B.M. Sinha, the then Chief Reporter, Indian Express in Delhi used to report him (DW-
16) and the said book is a compilation of articles Mark B, C and D of Sh. B.M. Sinha, who is no more. Articles E & F written by him are also reproduction of articles published in the newspaper Indian Express from 27th May, 1979 to 30th May, 1979. The book also contains reproduction of interviews of Sh. V.M. Tarkunde and Sh. Karpuri Thakur, which are Mark H & G. It is elicited in his cross- examination that Sh. B.M. Sinha gave him an account of what he had found after meeting the concerned officers and then he cleared his CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 979 articles. He had written his own articles with more information and a detailed study of the report of Mathew Commission. He had also discussed the matter with Sh. Karpuri Thakur, who was the then Chief Minister of Bihar and informed him that he had doubts about circumstances, which led to the death of late L.N. Mishra and requested the Central Government to reopen the investigation. He (CM Bihar) had requested Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate to examine the evidence and give his own opinion. Sh. Karpuri Thakur told him (DW-16) that he was pressing the Central Government to reopen the case and for that purpose, he met officials of CBI, Home Minister and the Prime Minister. According to Sh. Karpuri Thakur, the Prime Minister told him that an inquiry was going on and proper procedure would be to seek an independent legal opinion and entrusted the task to Sh. V.M. Tarkunde. He (DW-16) was close to Sh. Tarkunde and thus he was in touch with him almost every second or third day. He deposed that he met Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40) and Sh. D.P. Ojha (DW-34) in connection with the murder of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He further stated that the Home Minister made a statement in the Lok Sabha on 26.03.1975 that four persons have made confession and one of them had recorded the confession before the Magistrate. The extract of debate held in Rajya Sabha on 27.02.1975 are Ex.DW-16/B & Ex.DW-16/C. These were exhibited subject to objections by Ld. Special PP.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 980
941. In his cross-examination, DW-16 testified that the book Ex.DW-5/B is compilation of articles, which appeared in Indian Express at the relevant time. He admitted that the manuscript of the articles published in book Ex.DW-5/B are not available with him and might not be available with Indian Express. He testified that whatever investigation had been done before publishing the articles in Indian Express, was done by Indian Express of their own and without any authority from the Central Government or State Government. He voluntarily stated that newspapers do not seek any permission from any authority before conducting investigations. He did not examine those persons, whose names are mentioned in the beginning of said book. He deposed that important investigation by the reporters used to be submitted in writing but without their signatures. In case report was to be published, he used to direct News Editors orally to do the needful. Sh. D. P. Ahuja (DW-34) and Sh. S. B. Sahai (DW-40), the police officers, who initially investigated the case, met him and had shown him their report of investigation. His publication was based Tarkunde report, his meeting with said two police officers, their investigation reports and his personal interaction with Sh. Tarkunde. His articles E & F in Ex.DW-5/B are based on Tarkunde's report, his interaction with Tarkunde. He deposed that what was stated by two police officers Sh. Ojha & Sh. Sahai and mentioned in Mathew Commission Report Mark G, is reproduction of articles published in Indian Express and its record would be with the Reporter.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 981
942. A perusal of statement of DW-16 Sh. Arun Shourie reflect that the articles published in the book "who killed L.N. Mishra" are consisting of the compilation given to him by Sh. B.M. Sinha, Reporter of Indian Express, who has not been examined. Manuscript of any of the article has not been placed on record. The articles E & F written by him are based on his interaction with Sh. Tarkunde, and report of Sh. V.M. Tarkunde and interaction with Sh. Sahai and Sh. Ojha. Sh. Sahai and Sh. Ojha have been examined as DW-34 and DW-40 respectively and I have already appreciated the testimony of DW-40 and discarded his report in my judgment and opinion of Sh. Tarkunde based on report of DW-40 is inconsequential.
943. At best, the evidence of DW-16 Sh. Arun Shourie can be treated as "hear-say" evidence. His versions are mere collection of statements made to him by various persons. In the absence of such authentic sources from which these statements have flown, the witness becomes a secondary source having no firsthand knowledge or competence to swear to such of the facts he deposes. Therefore, the Courts of law have been time and again, by a catena of rulings held that 'newspaper Reports are mere "hear-say" and no evidentiary value can be attached to such articles. In one such judgment title d as M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, 2005 AIR (SC) 790, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in the case and appearance of such material in any article in the media would CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 982 certainly interfere with the administration of justice and media should not indulge in such trial when the matter is sub judice. The relevant Para of the judgment reads as under: -
"9. Having gone through the records, we find one disturbing factor which we feel is necessary to comment upon in the interest of justice. The death of Chandni took place on 28th February, 2002 and the complaint in this regard was registered and the investigation was in progress. The application for grant of anticipatory bail was disposed of by the High Court of Calcutta on 13.2.2004 and special leave petition was pending before this Court. Even then an article has appeared in a magazine called 'Saga' titled "Doomed by Dowry" written by one Kakoli Poddar based on her interview of the family of the deceased giving version of the tragedy and extensively quoting the father of the deceased as to his version of the case. The facts narrated therein are all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in this case and we have no hesitation that this type of articles appearing in the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice. We deprecate this practice and caution the publisher, editor and the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 983 journalist who was responsible for the said article against indulging in such trial by media when the issue is subjudiced. However, to prevent any further issue being raised in this regard, we treat this matter as closed and hope that the others concerned in journalism would take note of this displeasure expressed by us for interfering with the administration of justice."
944. Further, in another judgment titled as State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, 1997 AIR (SC) 3986, the Hon'ble Supreme has held in Para No. 36 that there is procedure established by law governing the conduct of trial of a person accused of an offence. A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice. A judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and he is to be guided strictly by rules of law.
73) Findings pursuant to orders of Hon'ble SCI in W.P. 268 of 1987 (DD: 10.12.1991).
945. I have already held that tape-recorded statement of Vikram was obtained by the authorities, Jailor and Doctor of Danapur Jail under coercion, threat and pressure on 30.09.1978. The Ld. Special PP pointed out that the Attorney General of India on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation had to file a Transfer Petition No. 69 of 1979 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for transfer the case CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 984 outside the State of Bihar preferably in Delhi and also transfer the approver Vikram, who was confined in Danapur Sub-Jail to a Jail outside the State of Bihar, preferably in Delhi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.12.1979 has transferred the case without going into merits of the allegations leveled by CBI and State Government against each other.
946. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi has alleged in his W.P. No. 268 of 1987 (decided on 10.12.1991) that he was arrested on 06.07.1975 and was not produced before the Patna Courts in the Samastipur case till 19.12.1976 and all this while, the CBI has been obtaining extension of his remand without producing him before the Patna courts and without even notice to him. He has also alleged that until he was produced in Patna courts in December 1976, he did not know that he was also implicated in L.N. Mishra's murder case. The charge sheet was filed only in December, 1975 and long prior thereto he had become entitled to release under Section 167 Cr. PC. He has also alleged that even though he was granted bail by Delhi High Court in Appeal preferred against his conviction in the case relating to Chief Justice Ray, he was not released because of his implication in L.N. Mishra's case and he continued to be in Jail till March 1978, when he was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme and his incarceration from 21.01.1977, the date grant of bail by Delhi High Court up to 30.03.1978 is illegal and unconstitutional and it vitiates the entire proceedings.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 985 The W.P. No. 268/1987 was decided by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme along with other petition titled as Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others Versus R.S. Nayak and Another, 1992 (1) SCC 225 and in Para No. 96 of the judgment, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that it would not be proper to pronounce upon the correctness or otherwise of the said respect in this Writ Petition and if indeed any such illegalities have been committed, they shall be taken into consideration by the court as and when the case comes up for final disposal.
947. In this backdrop, I have endeavoured to peruse the entire old record of the case including Part-XXXIII, which contains all order sheets of the case No. 1/1975 before Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna. It is revealed that Ranjan Dwivedi was not arrested in this case during the investigation. Even during the course of arguments, despite asking of the court, Ranjan Dwivedi could not p in point any document on the record to show his arrest in this case. In fact, an application dated 22.07.1975 Ex.PW-151/O (available in Folder R-65) was filed by the IO Sh. H.L. Ahuja before Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna to the effect that accused Ranjan Dwivedi is an accused in RC-11/1975 relating to an attempt made on the life of Chief Justice of India and is in judicial custody under the order of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and this accused Ranjan Dwivedi is wanted in Samastipur case, his custody warrant may be sent to the court of CMM, Delhi. I have CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 986 already referred the deposition of PW-132 and search witness PW-115 and held that A-3 was arrested on 06.07.1975 in RC-11/75.
On this application itself, there is order dated 24.07.1975 passed by the Ld. SJM, Patna "Allowed. Issue custody W/A as prayed requests the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to direct the production of the accused before this court".
948. At Page No. 46 of Folder R-65, there is a letter dated 07.08.1975 by Sh. T.S. Oberoi, CMM, Delhi, addressed to Superintendant Jail, Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi to the effect that a custody warrant has been received from the court of Sh. S.N. Gupta, Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Patna regarding involvement of Ranjan Dwivedi S/o Ram Dev Dwivedi, R/o Village Dharharwa, PS Bela, District Sitamarhi, Bihar, which may be kept on record and copy of this letter was forwarded to the court of Sh. S.N. Gupta, Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna with reference to his letter dated 24.07.1975 with intimation that accused Ranjan Dwivedi at present cannot be transferred as he is wanted by the investigating agency of CBI in RC- 11/1975.
949. The record reveals that on filing of charge sheet on 12.11.1975, the cognizance was taken by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The court noticed that 12 accused persons are named in column 1, who have been sent up for trial and four accused persons namely Rudranand Avadhoot, Shankaranand Avadhoot, Mahender Prasad CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 987 Singh and Lakhan Pain have not been sent up for trial and hence the court discharged these four persons.
On that day i.e. 12.11.1975, an application was also filed for issuance of production warrant against four accused persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad, since they were under jail custody at the Central Jail, Delhi. This prayer was allowed and it was ordered that a letter be sent to CMM, Delhi for the production of the said four accused persons from the Central Jail at Delhi in the court of Special JM, Patna on 24.11.1975. However, these accused persons were not produced and accordingly on 24.11.1975, the court of Special JM, Patna noted the non production of these four accused persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad and it was ordered that their production may be awaited.
950. However, on 08.12.1975, the court of Special JM, Patna noted having received a letter dated 20.11.1975 from CMM, Delhi that these four persons Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad are facing trial in RC-11/75 and they cannot be produced. On 20.01.1976, the court of Special Magistrate, Patna again ordered for issuance of production warrant against these four accused persons. On 14.02.1976, the court of Special Magistrate, Patna noticed that these four accused persons were not produced. On 16.02.1976 the court of Special Magistrate, Patna again noticed that these four accused persons were not produced.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 988
951. Admittedly, in Session Case No. 9/1976 arising out of RC- 11/75 relating to attack on the then CJI Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Ray, on 28.10.1976, accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ram Janam Dwivedi were convicted by the court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge and order of sentence was passed against them on 01.11.1976. The court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 18.11.1976, again ordered for issuance of production warrants against Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ram Janam Dwivedi for 06.12.1976. Record further reveals that on 20.12.1976, eight accused persons including Sudevanand Avadhoot, Santoshanand Avadhoot and Ranjan Dwivedi were produced before Special Magistrate, Patna and copies of Police Papers (charge sheet) were supplied to them. The record reveals that before the Special Magistrate, Patna, bail orders of Ranjan Dwivedi were received on 05.04.1978 and on the same day, after acceptance of the bail bond and issuance of release of order, by CJM, Patna, they were taken on record. Subsequent to release on bail, Ranjan Dwivedi has also appeared in person on 07.04.1978 before Incharge, Special JMIC, Patna. So, there is no basis in the allegation of accused Ranjan Dwivedi that he was arrested in this case on 06.07.1975. Though the production warrants against him were issued by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna, but he was not produced in this case till 20.12.1976. Obviously, his incarceration in the present case had been only been w.e.f. 20.12.1976 till he was released on bail on 05.04.1978, when on receiving the bail order, he was released.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 989
74) Delay caused in completion of committal proceedings.
952. On 12.11.1975, charge sheet was filed before Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Cognizance was taken. The court noticed that 12 accused persons are named in column 1, who were sent up for trial and four accused persons namely Rudranand Avadhoot, Shankaranand Avadhoot, Mahender Prasad Singh and Lakhan Pain have not been sent up for trial and hence the competent court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna discharged these four persons on that day itself. However, at the same time, an application on behalf of prosecution was also filed for issuance of production warrant against four accused persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad, since they were under jail custody at the Central Jail, Delhi in Sessions case No. 09 of 1975 relating to attack on . This prayer was allowed and it was ordered that a letter be sent to CMM, Delhi for the production of the said four accused persons from the Central Jail at Delhi in the court of Special JM, Patna on 24.11.1975. As mentioned herein before, these four accused persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad were not produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate till 20.12.1976. In fact, as per record, on 20.12.1976, all eight accused persons including Sudevanand Avadhoot, Santoshanand Avadhoot and Ranjan Dwivedi appeared before Special Magistrate, Patna. Copies of Police Papers were supplied to them. On 03.01.1977, an application CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 990 was filed on behalf of the Prosecution for summoning record & the order dated 27.10.1975 of CMM, Patna granting conditional pardon to PW-1 and PW-2. The case was then adjourned by Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna for 17.01.1977 for recording of statement of both the approvers and directions were issued for production of approver Vikram from Danapur Jail and summing of other approver Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan Srivastava.
953. Now, the proceedings in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna in this case from 17.01.1977 till the case was transferred by Special Judicial Magistrate on 21.02.1980 on directions of the Apex Court, transferring the case from State of Bihar to Delhi, reveal startling and shocking affairs. As per the proceedings, the accused persons in collusion with the Jailor, Jail Doctor and Jail Superintendant of Phulwari Sharif Jail and authorities stopped coming to the court in order to stall completion of committal proceedings so that the statement of approver Vikram is not recorded and in the meanwhile they were successful in putting pressure by torture and threat on Vikram to make a statement, which was recorded by the Jailor, without any authority and jurisdiction in a tape. I have already discussed that the approver Vikram has testified in the court that he was subject to torture, threat and coercion at the hands of Jailor, Jail Doctor and Jail Superintendant and officers of CID Bihar and he was compelled to read and speak from a prepared statement. At the cost of repetition, Vikram had sent three letters to the CBI officers, which CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 991 makes his version to be correct one and believable. As per the record, the accused persons in collusion with Jailor, Jail Doctor and Jail Superintendant and officers of CID Bihar had made a strategy that between 17.01.1977 and 21.02.1980 that some of the accused would not appear before the Special Judicial Magistrate or that if all of them appeared Vikram would not be produced from the Danapur Jail so that statement of the approver Vikram is not recorded. As per the record approver Vikram was produced only on 02.05.1977, 06.07.1977, 11.07.1977, 21.07.1977, 28.07.1977 and 25.07.1978 only and on these dates all the accused were not produced from Phulwari Sharif Jail deliberately with malafide intention on one pretext or another. During this period, all accused persons were produced from Phulwari Sharif Jail only on 01.04.1977, 16.05.1977, 30.05.1977, 22.06.1977 and 28.08.1978 and on these five dates approver Vikram was not escorted before the Special Judicial Magistrate. On 17.01.1977 and on some other dates, it was reported on the production warrants that the accused persons lying in Phulwari Sharif Jail have expressed their inability to appear before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna on the date fixed. On some of the dates, it was reported that some of the accused persons have refused to come from the Jail to attend the court on 28.02.1977 and 28.03.1977. On some other dates, it was reported that particular accused or accused persons were suffering from stomach pain or loose motions or pain in the ear without even medical certificate. The Special Judicial Magistrate had ordered even for their CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 992 proper check-up by the Civil Surgeon. On several dates the Special Judicial Magistrate had directed that Jail Superintendant and Jailor shall ensure the presence of accused persons in the court on the next date of hearing. Despite this, the order of the Special Judicial Magistrate was not complied with and ultimately on 05.01.1978, the Special Judicial Magistrate was constrained to write to I.G. Prison, I.G. Police and Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar for ensuring the presence of accused persons in the court on the next date of hearing, so that his directions are adhered to. Record also divulges that on 31.01.1977, 28.02.1977, 28.03.1977, 02.05.1977, 06.07.1977, 11.07.1977, 21.07.1977, 28.07.1977, 11.08.1977, 25.08.1977, 06.09.1977, 20.09.1977, 04.10.1977, 17.10.1977, 18.10.1977, 01.12.1977, 14.12.1977, 05.01.1978, 18.01.1978, 15.02.1978, 01.03.1978, 03.04.1978, 01.05.1978, 29.05.1978, 15.06.1978, 29.06.1978, 11.07.1978, 22.07.1978, 25.07.1978, 17.08.1978, 11.09.1978, 16.09.1978, 25.09.1978, 17.11.1978, 01.12.1978, 15.12.1978, 15.02.1979, 01.03.1979, 16.03.1979, 24.03.1979, 07.04.1979, 21.04.1979, 19.05.1978 & 16.06.1979 that only some of the accused were produced from Phulwari Sharif Jail as statement of approver Vikram could not be recorded in the absence of the other accused persons. On each & every date of hearing, accused have filed one application or many applications in order to drag the proceedings and the work of the then Ld. Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna is really appreciable as he has by reasoned long hand written orders CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 993 disposed off all those applications. The Ld. Special Judicial Magistrate did not find any merit in those applications, which used to be filed on almost each and every date of hearing. Not only before the committal Magistrate, even during the trial the accused persons have left no stone unturned in delaying the trial and it would be worth mentioning that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dismissing Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 200 of 2011 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 205 of 2011 filed by accused Ranjan Dwivedi and accused Sudevanand Avadhoot on 17.08.2012 by a Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu (as his Lordship then was and now decorating the highest office in hierarchy of Judiciary as Chief Justice of India) that the accused persons were successful in dragging on the proceedings to a stage, where it is drawn further it might snap the Justice Delivery System and Para No. 25 of the Judgment reads as under: -
"25. The learned Senior Counsel would tell us, please don't look who caused the delay in completing the trial but only look at whether there is a delay in completion of the trial and if it is there, please put a big "full stop" for the trial. In our view, this submission of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted by us, in view of observations by this Court in P. Ramachandra's case (supra). Before parting with the case, we should certainly give credit to our judicial officers, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 994 who have painstakingly suffered with all the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused in dragging on with the proceedings for nearly thirty seven years. They are not to be blamed at all. In fact, they do deserve appreciation while conducting such trials where one of the accused is not only Bachelor of Laws but also Bachelor of Literature. We certainly say that our system has not failed, but, accused was successful in dragging on the proceedings to a stage where, if it is drawn further, it may snap the Justice Delivery System. We are also conscious of the fact that more that thirty Judges had tried this case at one stage or the other, but, all of them have taken care to see that the trial is completed at the earliest. They are not to be blamed and certainly the system has not be blamed, but, positively, somebody has succeeded in his or in their attempt. The system has done its best, but, has not achieved the expected result and certainly, will not fit into the category of cases where (late) N.A. Palkhiwala, one of the most outstanding Senior Advocates in the Country had said that "......the law may or may not be an ass, but in India it is certainly a snail and our cases CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 995 proceed at a pace which would be regarded as unduly slow in a community of snails".
Therefore, we say, we will not buy this argument of the learned Senior Counsel that there is systemic failure. Therefore, in our view at this stage the one and the only direction that requires to be issued is to directed the learned trial judge to take up the case on day to day basis and conclude the proceedings as early as possible, without granting unnecessary and unwarranted adjournments."
954. Earlier also, accused Ranjan Dwivedi had filed a W.P. 268 of 1987 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for quashing of the proceedings on the ground of delay in trial, which was heard by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Singh, the then Chief Justice, along with the petition titled as Abdul Rehman Antulay & Others Vs. R.S. Nayak & Another, reported as 1992 (1) SCC 225, and while dismissing the petition of accused Ranjan Dwivedi on 10.12.1991, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para No. 95 of its ruling that "It is clear from the material placed before us that the prosecution cannot be held guilty of any delaying tactics or for that matter, for causing any delay in the conduct of trial from the date the criminal proceedings were transferred to Delhi. The proceedings of the court for this period placed before us by the respondents do clearly establish that during CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 996 this period the prosecution has always been anxious to go on with the trial. That the trial could not be concluded so far is for reasons for which prosecution cannot be held responsible. ............Thus, it is clear that from 1979 onwards (when the proceedings were transferred to Delhi court) the prosecution cannot be said to be guilty of any delay. This much is practically beyond dispute".
955. The Jailor, Jail Superintendant, Jail Doctor, Officers of CID Bihar including Sh. D.P. Ojha (DW-34), Sh. K.P. Sinha and others have got recorded the statement of the approver Vikram in a tape in Danapur Jail on 30.09.1978, when he was compelled under torture a nd coercion to speak from a prepared statement. I have already referred that the approver Vikram was not escorted to Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna for completion of committal proceedings by the Jail Authorities. Even after 30.09.1978, he was never produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna and on 21.02.1980, on the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case was transferred to CMM, Delhi. Therefore, approver Vikram had even no opportunity to explain to the court about the torture meted out to him in the Jail. The defence got exhibited the statement of approver Vikram as Ex.PW-2/DF, which was recorded before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 21.04.1980, 21.04.1980, 24.04.1980 and 07.05.1980 to complete the committal proceedings and there approver Vikram got first available opportunity to inform the court that the Home Secretary and Law Secretary of the Bihar Government repeatedly came to Jail and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 997 the Jailor Haider Ali and Doctor D. Ram, Superintendant of Jail used to take him to the office, whenever these officers came there and he used to be given beatings. He used to be frightened and intimidated and they used to tell him that the Bihar Government did not want to prosecute this case and wanted to withdraw it and they threatened him to kill, if he did not make a statement according to their dictate. He further stated before the Ld. CMM that under those circumstances he was compelled to give a statement from a prepared one and his voice was then tape recorded.
956. In view of this discussion mentioning the chronological events, this court comes to the conclusion that the approver Vikram, while in custody in Danapur Jail was subject to undue torture at the hands of Jailor, Jail Doctor, Superintendant Jail, Officers of CID Bihar including the highest officials of the Bihar Government the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary and Home Secretary, and the approver Vikram was forced to read from a prepared statement under coercion and threat to retract from his confessional statement recorded by Ld. ACMM, Delhi under Section 164 of Cr. PC. This fact is further reflected from his legal evidence recorded before my Learned Predecessor during trial and corroborated by his letters written to the officers of the CBI in due course.
957. As per the record of Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna the Mother Smt. Jhuna Devi and Brother Sh. Parmanand Singh of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 998 approver Vikram moved application on 12.08.1977 to the effect that they wanted to meet approver Vikram in the Jail as there was threat to his life. Subsequently, they were allowed to meet Vikram in the Jail. He refused to meet them but the Jailor directed him to meet them in view of the order of the court. PW-2 Vikram has testified in the court that he did not meet his mother and brother as he saw his mother and brother accompanied by several Anand Margies. Obviously, those Anand Margies had accompanied his mother and brother to put pressure on Vikram to retract from his confessional statement. These facts fortifies the version of Vikram that he was compelled to read from a prepared statement under threat and coercion of Jailor, Jail Doctor and officers of CID Bihar, who have used extra constitutional methods, not known to the la w. The above observation becomes more significant to understand the version of approver PW-2 that there had been undue pressure, threat or coercion by the authorities as well as the vested interests not to speak the truth before the courts and further terrorizing him by extra constitutional methods to retract the confessional statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC. Being consternated by such tactics on the part of the other accused and through the Jail authorities, Jail Doctor and officers of CID, Bihar and all high dignitaries in the State Government, in the garb of a discreet inquiry ordered by the then Chief Minister to DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai, PW-2 Vikram had written certain letters, which are part of the documentary evidence in this case. I have already discerned by CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 999 dilating the above letters in the earlier part of my judgment concerning these documentary evidence, which will take care of the observations at Para (b) in Para No. 30 in Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra). In fact, there was no retraction of his statement later despite the illegal taped conversation, which I discard as unknown to law. The special feature of the version of PW-2 in his confessional statement, followed by the statement recorded by the committal Magistrate, who allowed the cross-examination and the extensive, searching, disarrayed and repetitive cross-examination during trial running into about 350 pages spread on several dates, had been consistent, non-wavering, comprehensive, leaving no room to doubt the same as tutored. Further, his statement is supported by the documentary evidence of his letters also. This court also sees that PW-2 had endured many inducements, threats, tactics, and manhandling but spoken truth. All the efforts of other accused to win over him either by hook or crook went in vain.
75) Report of Mathew's Commission of Inquiry.
958. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Feroz Ahmed, Advocate submitted that the Central Government has constituted one man commission of Inquiry, headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.K. Mathew and it should be considered by this court. The defence has examined DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. DW-26 brought with him a copy of Report of One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1000 K.K. Mathew. He testified that the copy of Report is Ex.DW-26/1. He deposed that the evidence and other material that surfaced before the said One Man Commission of Inquiry, is not traceable despite best efforts. Even, the file that pertains to the appointment of One Man Commission of Inquiry is not traceable despite best efforts. He also brought authenticated copy of Interim Report-I and Interim Report-II of Shah Commission of Inquiry Ex.DW-26/2 and Ex.DW-26/3 respectively and final Shah Commission of Inquiry Report is Ex.DW- 26/4. He also brought the original statement of Sh. D. Sain, a witness recorded before Shah Commission of Inquiry which is Ex.DW-26/5.
959. In the cross examination of DW-26, it is elicited that original report of Mathew Commission of Inquiry is not traceable and he cannot say when the copy of Inquiry Report Ex.DW-26/1 was printed and at whose instance. Ex.DW-26/2 was not authenticated in his presence. He also could not say as to when it was authenticated and whose signatures appeared at point 'A' of Ex.DW-26/2. Ex.DW-26/3 was not authenticated in his presence at point 'A'. He also could not say as to when it was authenticated and whose signatures appeared at point 'A' of Ex.DW-26/3. He also could not identify the signatures at point 'A' on the Report Ex.DW-26/4. He admitted that the statement Ex.DW-26/5 is not signed by the deponent or Attesting Officer at running page no.39.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1001
960. From the testimony of DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand, it is evident that the evidence and other material that surfaced before the One Man Commission of Inquiry was not traceable despite best efforts. Even the file pertaining to the appointment of One Man Commission of Inquiry was not traceable. When the evidence and other material relied upon by the One Man Commission of Inquiry on the basis of which the Report dated 09.05.1977 Ex.DW-26/1 has been given is not available, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry is not per se admissible in evidence. Furthermore, since those persons who had appeared as witnesses before the Commission of Inquiry are not examined in this Court and both sides i.e. Prosecution and the accused persons having been given no opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses, no value is attached to their statement which they have allegedly made before the Commission of Inquiry.
961. I have also gone through the Report dated 09.05.1977 Ex.DW- 26/1 of One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice, K.K. Mathew to enquire into the incident of explosion that took place on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur Ex.DW-26/1. My scrutiny of the Report of Inquiry revealed that accused Santoshanand Avadhoot, Sudevanand Avadhoot and Ranjan Dwivedi appeared before the Commission and filed preliminary objections to the examination of any of the Prosecution witnesses to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that (i) they would have to face virtually two trials, one before the Commission to defend their CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1002 reputation against imputation of the murder and other before the trial court to maintain their innocence so that they might escape conviction for murder and sentence for the same; (ii) that the Commission could not arrive at any conclusion beyond reasonable doubt by examining only the key witnesses but would have to record all the evidence relied on by the Prosecution as well as that offered by defence in order to find out the true facts and circumstances; (iii) that the finding of the Commission one way or the other would embarrass the trial court and influence its judgment; (iv) that there is every likelihood that the accused would be prejudiced if the Commission were to find that the version of the facts and circumstances set out in the charge-sheet are true and (v) that the Commission would be virtually converting itself into a parallel court to find the facts and circumstances relating to explosion on the basis of evidence relied upon by the Prosecution for proving its case before the criminal court. After hearing the arguments, the relevant extract of the observations made by One Man Commission Inquiry reads as under:-
"12. when the established criminal court is seized of the case and has to go into the facts and circumstances pertaining to the explosion in order to find the guilt or innocence of the accused, the Commission does not think it expedient or proper that it should also examine the same evidence for arriving at the finding on facts and circumstances CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1003 of the case as any finding by the Commission would certainly embarrass the trial court. If any inquiry has to be conducted by the Commission and a finding as regards the facts and circumstances relating to other explosion has to be arrived at on the basis of the evidence to be adduced before the criminal court, then the invisible a fact of such a finding as a brooding omnipresence in the mind of the trial court cannot be denied by anyone who makes a realistic approach to the question. If in the inquiry, the Commission were to come to a conclusion different from that to be reached by the criminal court, - notwithstanding the marginal difference in the standard of proof between the two proceedings which will be discussed more fully hereafter - neither the finding of the Commission nor the judgment of the criminal court would inspire confidence in the public. This would defeat the very purpose of appointing the Commission".
"14. It is said that the object of an inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act is a probe to find the truth whereas that of a criminal trial is to find the guilt of the accused. The Commission thinks CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1004 that the object of every criminal trial is to find the truth of the facts and circumstances relating to the occurrence and then find the guilt or otherwise of the accused by applying the relevant law. Truth is not self-evident and can be reached by Court mostly through fallible media of human agency and a criminal court by applying the more rigorous standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt might not be satisfied about the truth of facts as easily as a Commission conducting investigation. It is because this exacting standard of proof that when a criminal court feels a reasonable doubt that the evidence before it does not reveal the truth or the whole truth, the accused is entitled to an acquittal........................................................"
"15. The situation, when the terms of reference were framed by the Government and the Commission was appointed, was totally different from one obtaining today. At that time the perpetrators of the crime were not known either to the police or to the public. There was wild speculation among the public as to the perpetrators of the crime and it had political overtones. Now, an independent investigating agency after a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1005 thorough investigation that it was the accused who were concerned in the commission of the crime and it is on that basis that the charge-sheet has been filed before the court. Whether the facts and circumstances stated in the charge-sheet are true is a matter to be decided by the trial court after taking evidence. While interpreting the terms of reference, one has to take into account the subsequent developments. One principle which is helpful in construing the terms of reference is to ask and answer the question viz., if the situation obtaining today were present to the mind of the government when it framed the terms of reference, whether it would have asked the Commission to go into the facts and circumstances pertaining to the explosion............................................................."
"16. It is very pertinent, nay, very significant to note that in spite of written invitation to the public published in all important newspaper no person or agency has come forward with any alternative theory as to how the explosion took place and the person or person concerned in it which is either plausible or worthy of consideration. It must also be remembered that there is no investigating CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1006 agency under the control of the Commission. If the theory of the prosecution before the criminal court as to how the explosion took place is rejected by the Commission, the Commission will not be able to find the facts and circumstances relating to the explosion as there is no other alternative theory before it. This in effect means that in order to find the facts and circumstances pertaining to the explosion as required by the terms and reference the only option left to the Commission is to the accept the version of the Prosecution before the criminal court. In other words, if the Commission were to find that the prosecution case is not acceptable, then there is no way of answering the terms of reference relating to facts and circumstances."
"17. The Commission gave anxious thoughts to all the aspects of the question but in view of the circumstances stated above, the conclusion became in escapable that it is neither just nor expedient to enter any finding on the facts and circumstances pertaining to the explosion."
962. In view of this, when the evidence that surfaced before the Commission of Inquiry brought on the record of this Court being not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1007 traceable, the report of One Man Inquiry is not relevant for the adjudication of the case. Furthermore, the persons who have been examined before the Commission have not been examined in this case to enable both the sides to cross examine those witnesses. The One Man Commission of Inquiry has also concluded by observing that it is neither just nor expedient to enter any finding on the facts and circumstances pertaining to the explosion. Moreover, the original report of One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.K. Mathew has not been brought by the witnesses being not traceable and DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand could not say as to when this copy Ex.DW-26/1 was printed and at whose instance. The original report Ex.DW-26/1 is not available and no one has authenticated or certified Ex.DW-26/1 to be the true printed copy of the Commission of Inquiry. Therefore, this report is not worthy of consideration for adjudication of the present lis as observed by his Lordship K.K. Mathew himself.
963. Similarly, the witness DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand has brought interim reports Ex.DW-26/2 and Ex.DW-26/3 which are authenticated at point 'A' and DW-26 testified that he could not say as to when these were authenticated and whose signatures appeared at point 'A' where these were authenticated. He also could not identify the signatures at point 'A' of the report of Shah Commission Ex.DW-26/4. He has admitted that the statement Ex.DW-26/5 is not signed either by the deponent or the attesting officer except at running page no.39.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1008 Even at page no.39, the initials of the deponent are not legible. Further, at the cost of repetition, the persons who appeared before the Shah Commission of Inquiry have not been examined in this Court to enable both the parties to cross examine them and as such, these reports are not relevant piece of evidence for the consideration of this Court. Moreo ver, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Venkatakrishnan Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 11 SCC 737, that the report of the Commission of Inquiry is not admissible in evidence and the relevant extract from the judgment reads as under: -
"The Committee was not a court. It did not render any decision. It was merely a fact finding body. It was constituted for a limited purpose. Contents of the report, therefore, without formal proof, could not have been taken in evidence.
A Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in M.V. Rajwade v. Dr. S.M. Hassan, [AIR 1954 Nagpur 71] following the judgment of the Privy Council In Re. Maharaja Madhava Singh LR, [(1905) 31 IA 239], held that a Commission is a fact finding body meant only to instruct the mind of the Government without producing any document of a judicial nature and that findings of a CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1009 Commission of Inquiry were not as definitive as a judgment.
Similarly in Branjnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain [1955] SCR 955, this Court held that the Commission appointed under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, was not a court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. [See also Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279, Puhupram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968) MPLJ 629. Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra, 1992(2) RCR(Criminal) 616 : [1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 521].] Accordingly, the Janakiraman committee report was not admissible in evidence. The report in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not a judgment. The report may facilitate investigation but cannot form basis of conviction and sentencing of the accused. For the said purpose the report was wholly inadmissible in evidence."
964. The defence has summoned DW-6 Sh. Narender Singh, Senior Court Assistant of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Record Section) who has brought certified copies of affidavits, which were filed in said Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 69/1979 titled as "Attorney General of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1010 India Vs. Santoshanand Avadhoot and others". The copies of affidavits are Ex.DW-6/A to Ex.DW-6/E (available in folder R-57). The mode of proof of execution of these documents was objected to by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor obviously for the reasons that these affidavits could be proved only by examining the deponent of respective affidavits. These affidavits are of six persons, out of which the defence has examined DW-18 Sh. Hari Kishore Shaiy, Under Secretary, Government of Bihar to prove his affidavit Ex.DW-6/E, DW-34 Sh. D.P. Ojha, SP Vigilance, Government of Bihar to prove his affidavit Ex.DW-6/D and DW-40 Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai, the then DIG, CID Bihar to prove his affidavit Ex.DW-6/A. As the deponents of other three affidavits have not been examined, the same are not being considered being inadmissible in evidence. I have already appreciated the testimony of DW-40 Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai and his report. The defence has examined DW-18 Sh. Hari Kishore Shaiy, the then Under Secretary (Home) in the Government of Bihar, in the year 1979, who testified that he filed his affidavit Ex.DW-6/E before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on behalf of Government of Bihar in the said Transfer Petition. There is no specific relevant averment in his affidavit and the same is also not referred by the Ld. Defence Counsel in their respective arguments.
965. DW-34 Sh. D.P. Ojha, the then Superintendent of Police, Samastipur deposed that he remained associated with the investigation in relation to the bomb blast that took place on the Dais at the Platform CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1011 No. 3 of the Railway Station, Samastipur since its inception. Since this case was a matter of high magnitude, the investigation in this case was taken over by CID on the next day of incident. CBI had taken over the investigation of this case he continued extend to his logistic support to CBI as and when asked for. He never interrogated Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8). He did not arrest Arun Kumar Thakur. He was associated with CID when statement of Arun Kumar Thakur came to be recorded under Section 164 of Cr. PC. He was not aware whether Arun Kumar Mishra also wanted to make his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC. He did not visit Arun Kumar Thakur and Arun Kumar Mishra in the Jail. However, Inquiry was being conducted by Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40) DIG, Vigilance under the orders of Government of India. He was associated with the said Inquiry and visited Danapur Jail along with Sh. K.P. Singh, DSP, CID to conduct Inquiry from the inmate there. He did not remember whether the name of inmate was Vikram. When he was S.P. Samastipur, many Journalists used to come to him to know the facts and progress of the case. He did not try to influence anyone. He never met Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate or B.M. Sinha, Chief Reporter of Indian Express, to brief them on the facts of the case. He filed an affidavit in the Transfer Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is Ex.DW-6/D. In Para No. 9 of his affidavit Ex.DW-6/D, he had deposed that he never made any attempt to contact Sh. Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan Srivastava for the purpose of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1012 exercising or effecting a pressure on him to resile from his earlier statement.
966. In his cross-examination, DW-34 Sh. D.P. Ojha testified that he was aware that the person namely Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand detailed in his affidavit Ex.DW-6/D became an approver during investigation of this case by CBI. He has denied the suggestion that Arun Kumar Thakur was kept at Dal Singh Sarai in handcuffs and given beatings or that Arun Kumar Thakur made his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC at his instance or under his threat and coercion. He also denied the suggestion that Arun Kumar Mishra was arrested by him and kept at Inspection Bungalow, Dal Singh Sarai on his instructions. He has also denied the suggestion that Jailor Rehman made Arun Kumar Mishra read the statement written by him (DW-34) and recorded the said statement in a tape.
967. A scrutiny of the deposition of DW-34 reflects that he has admitted that the approver PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava has his alias name Visheshwaranand. He has mentioned this alias name of PW-1 not only in his affidavit Ex.DW-6/D filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but also in his deposition in this court on 18.03.2009 at the time of cross-examination by the Ld. Special PP. Despite this, the defence has chosen not to re-examine him and this conduct of defence clearly reveal that they have admitted the position presented by the prosecution that Madan Mohan Srivastava has his alias name as CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1013 Visheshwaranand. Thus, the testimony of DW-6 Sh. D.P. Ojha fortifies the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava that he was also known as Visheshwaranand after taking diksha as Avadhoot. His admission that he visited Danapur Jail along with Sh. K.P. Singh, DSP, CID fortifies the version of PW-2 Sh. Vikram that officers of CID, Bihar used to visit and torture him in Danapur Jail and he was made to read a prepared statement at their instance and that of Jailor, Jail Superintendant and Jail Doctor against CBI retracting his confessional statement.
76) Registration of FIR by CBI.
968. I have already dealt with the issue of registration of FIR with Police Station Kotwali, Patna with regard to the incident of attack on Madhavanand bearing FIR No. 24/1974 Ex.PW-92/A, with regard to the carrying of explosives vide FIR No. 71 of 13.07.1974 vide Rukka Ex.PW-25/G and endorsement Ex.PW-25/G-1 with PS Kotwali Bhagalpur, FIR No. 1/1975 with PS GRP Samastipur Ex.PW-86/B with regard to the incident of bomb blast at Samastipur Railway Station and FIR No. 1/1975 Ex.PW-142/B with PS Samastipur with regard to incident of bomb blast at the house of Mahadev Sahu. The investigation of both the incidents at Samastipur were transferred to CBI on 07.01.1975 and Sh. H.L. Ahuja (PW-151), Deputy SP, CBI took over the investigations of both these cases.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1014
969. PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja deposed that he was posted at Deputy SP, CBI at Delhi from November 1969 to January 1980. He was associated with the investigation of this case at Samastipur with effect from 10.01.1975. RC No. 1 of 1975 was registered with CBI in New Delhi in respect of Samastipur bomb blast and Ex.PW-151/A is the carbon copy of the original FIR. RC No. 2 of 1975 was registered in Delhi in respect of bomb blast at the house of Mahadev Sahu at Samastipur and Ex.PW-151/B is the carbon copy of FIR No. RC 2 of 1975. Both these FIRs Ex.PW-151/A and Ex.PW-151/B are available in Folder R-31. The investigation of these cases was entrusted to him by Sh. N.K. Singh, SP, CBI, New Delhi. He is acquainted with the writings and signatures of Sh. N.K. Singh as he had seen him writing and signing. He identified the signatures of Sh. N.K. Singh on both the FIRs Ex.PW-151/A and Ex.PW-151/B. He received both these FIRs on 10.01.1975. He had taken up the investigation of these cases from Deputy SP K.P. Sinha of Bihar Police, CID. He reached Samastipur on 08.01.1975 and both these cases were being investigated by Deputy SP K.P. Sinha, who was being assisted by team of officers Sh. S.B Sahai, D IG, CID, Sh. A.N. Trivedi, DIG, CID and Sh. D.P. Ojha, SP, Samastipur. PW-151 further deposed that on 10.1.1975, the CBI team at Samastipur included he himself, Sh. P.V. Hingorani, Joint Director-cum-IG, CBI, Sh. D.N. Ahuja DIG, Sh. Harbans Singh, SP, Sh. S.P. Singh, Dy. SP and Inspectors Sh. M.P. Singh, Sh. K.N. Tiwari, Sh. N.C. Jha and others. He deposed that from CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1015 time to time, after 10.1.1975 other officers Sh. I.C. Tiwari, DIG, Sh. Badri Sharma, SP, Sh. B.R. Puri, Dy. SP, Sh. P.N. Shukla Dy. SP, Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Dy. SP, Inspectors N.N. Singh, S.K. Ghosh, I.P. Sharma, A.K. Malhotra and M.P. Sharma and other were associated in the investigation of this case. After 10.1.1975, Inspector Umesh, A. Prashad, J.R. Bagaria, R.A. Sharma and P.K. Mishra were also associated in the investigation of these cases. After discussion with the CID and local officers, the investigation of both these cases RC- 1/1975 and RC-2/1975 was amalgamated on 10.1.1975 itself. On 10.1.1975, a meeting took place between the Director-cum-IG CBI and Director General, Bihar Police Force and others and it was decided that inspite of the transfer of investigation of the two cases to CBI, the local police and CID would remain actively associated in the investigation of these two cases on account of their local knowledge and he sent a formal requisition to Dy. SP Sh. K.P. Sinha of Bihar Police CID and authorized Sh. K.P. Sinha Dy. SP and his officers to collect intelligence and develop clues, interrogate persons and record statements U/s. 161 Cr. PC. etc. He further deposed that the case relating to the attempt on the life of Madhavanand was later on transferred to CBI and on 15.9.1975, the case was registered with CBI as RC-14 of 1975 and investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He identified the signatures of Sh. Ravinder Singh, SP CBI on the FIR RC-14/1975 at Point A. He also deposed that case vide FIR No. 71 of 1974 was registered at Bhagalpur relating to recovery of hand CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1016 grenades from Budheshawaranand Avadhoot on 13.7.1974 and investigation of this case was also transferred to CBI and on 15.9.1975 RC No. 13 of 1975 was registered at Delhi and investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He identified the signatures of Sh. Ravinder Singh, SP, CBI on this FIR RC-13/1975 at Point A. He received the copy of these two FIRs at Delhi on 15.9.1975 itself and investigation of these two FIRs were amalgamated by him with the investigation of this case RC-1 of 1975 on 15.9.1975. These FIRs are left out to be exhibited, though PW-151 has identified the signatures thereon of the concerned officers. As such, the FIR RC No. 14/1975 is now exhibited as Ex.PW-151/A-1 and the FIR RC No. 13/1975 is now exhibited as Ex.PW-151/A-2.
77) Arrest of Santoshanand.
970. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused Santoshanand that the accused was not arrested in the present case but only in RC- 11/1975. I have seen the complete old record, which speaks otherwise. In case No. 24/1974 of PS Kotwali Patna, on 09.05.1975, the Ld. CJM, Patna on filing of an application by the IO that there was valuable evidence against Santoshanand Avadhoot, Arteshanand Avadhoot and Sudevanand Avadhoot, ordered for issuance of Non- Bailable Warrants against them. (Available in Folder R-9). As per the record, accused Santoshanand was arrested on 17.06.1975 at Patna Railway Station in this case. IO PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja filed an application on 18.06.1975, which is Ex.PW-151/L (available in R-65) CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1017 before Special Magistrate, Patna for police remand of accused Santoshanand and as per the order sheet of Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, the accused Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Jitender Kumar Singh, S/o Narendra Narain Verma, R/o; Village Pursauni Kisu, Post Office Pipra, District Champran, was produced under custody BAPARDA and prayer of the IO for his remand for 15 days was allowed. As per the record of case No. 24/1974 PS Kotwali Patna, (available in Folder R-9), Santoshanand himself filed an application on 03.07.1975 before the Ld. CJM, Patna that he is in custody of Police Remand in connection with RC No. 1/75. This is reflected in the order sheet dated 03.07.1975.
971. The record further reveal (in Folder R-65) that Sh. T.S. Oberoi, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi sent a letter to Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patna dated 01.07.1975 to the effect that accused Santoshanand was produced before him in RC-11/1975 and he was informed that the court of Special Judicial Patna has remanded him for 14 days in RC-1/1975 and was required to be produced on 02.07.1975 and since this accused Santoshanand has been remanded in police custody by CMM, Delhi, IO of the case would not be producing him before the court at Patna. Thereafter, Santoshanand remained in the judicial custody in RC-11/1975. The record reveals that on filing of charge sheet on 12.11.1975, the cognizance was taken by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The court noticed that 12 accused persons are named in column 1, who have been sent up for trial and four CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1018 accused persons namely Rudranand Avadhoot, Shankaranand Avadhoot, Mahender Prasad Singh and Lakhan Pain have not been sent up for trial and hence the court discharged these four persons. On that day i.e. 12.11.1975, an application was also filed for issuance of production warrant against four accused persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad, since they were under jail custody at the Central Jail, Delhi. This prayer was allowed and it was ordered that a letter be sent to CMM, Delhi for the production of the said four accused persons from the Central Jail at Delhi in the court of Special JM, Patna on 24.11.1975. However, these accused persons were not produced and accordingly on 24.11.1975, the court of Special JM, Patna noted the non production of these four accused persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad and it was ordered that their production may be awaited. However, on 08.12.1975, the court of Special JM, Patna noted having received a letter dated 20.11.1975 from CMM, Delhi that these four persons Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad are facing trial in RC-11/75 and they cannot be produced. On 20.01.1976, the court of Special Magistrate, Patna again ordered for issuance of production warrant against these four accused persons. On 14.02.1976, the court of Special Magistrate, Patna noticed that these four accused persons were not produced. On 16.02.1976 the court of Special Magistrate, Patna again noticed that these four accused CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1019 persons were not produced. He was produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna in RC-1/1975 only on 20.12.1976 pursuant to the production warrants admittedly after his conviction in A.N. Ray's case.
972. PW-103 Sh. I.P. Sharma, Inspector CBI deposed that on 17.6.1975, he was at Patna in connection with the investigation RC- 1/75-CIA-1. On that day, at about 9.30 or 9.45 PM, an information was received that one accused of the case RC-1/75 was available at the Railway Station, Patna. He along with Dy. SP Shukla and his source reached Railway Station at about 10.15 PM. At that time, Punjab Mail was to arrive at Railway Station, Patna, which was to leave for Howrah. This train was late by about half an hour on that day and before arrival of Punjab Mail, he came to know from his source that the accused was sitting on one bench at Platform no. 1. They then saw Platform No.1 and his source pointed towards a man sitting on the bench and immediately thereafter he was challenged and apprehended. He deposed that he was Santoshanand. (The witness correctly identified accused Santoshanand in the court by pointing towards him). At that time, Santoshanand was wearing shirt and pant. He was having small hairs on his head and was not sporting beard or mustaches. Santoshanand was having a jhola while sitting on a bench and he was carrying some books in his hands. On enquiry, he gave his name as Jitender Kumar. PW-103 took him to GRP Police Station on Platform No. 1 itself, where two witnesses namely Suresh Prashad CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1020 (PW-38) and Dev Kumar were called and after their arrival, he conducted personal search of accused Santoshanand. He also searched his jhola. From personal search of Santoshanand, one second class Railway ticket from Patna to Howrah, one hearing aid, currency worth Rs.3,921/- and change worth Rs.2.08/- paisa besides spectacles were recovered. From the jhola of Santoshanand, pants, shirts, chaddar, soap-case, some books and one wrist watch were also recovered. He prepared the Search Memo in respect of the recoveries made from Santoshanand dated 17.06.1975 correctly. The record of Session case No. 9 of 1976 was brought from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and in that file the witness after perusing the personal search memo dated 17.06.1975 deposed that it was correctly prepared by him. This document in the summoned file was already Ex.P-148. He deposed that it bears his signatures and that of Suresh Prashad (PW-38), Dev Kumar and Dy. SP Sh. Shukla. The correct copy of Search Memo is Ex.PW-38/A (available in Folder R-7). On the Railway ticket, he obtained the signatures of both the public witnesses and after seeing the original second class railway ticket Ex.P-147, in the summoned file, PW-103 deposed that its correct Photostat copy is Ex.P-20 (available in Folder R-7). Ex.P-18 is the packet and Ex.P-19 is the hearing aid, which he recovered from the personal search of accused Santoshanand. The Photostat copy of the Kohinoor Exercise Book Ex.P-22 recovered from Santoshanand from his jhola is Ex.PW-33/E- 1 to E-72 (available in Folder R-15). He also obtained signatures of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1021 the witnesses on each page of the Kohinoor Exercise Book before taking into possession. Ex.P-189 Kaam Sutra, Ex.P-190 Guerrilla Warfare and Ex.P-191 Jai Prakash Ki Sampoorn Kranti Ka Asli Chehra, which were also recovered from Santoshanand. He obtained signatures of both the said witnesses on the first and last three books before taking them into possession. He also made inquiry from Santoshanand in the Police Station, where he gave his name as Ghanshyam Parshad and thereafter as Santoshanand.
973. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand, PW-103 has denied the suggestion that the books Ex.P-189 to Ex.P-191 were not recovered from the accused Santoshanand or the same have been planted on him. He has also denied the suggestion that Santoshanand was in saffron attire or sporting beard and moustaches and long hairs or that he got his beard and moustaches cut. He deposed that Santoshanand was not using hearing aid at the time, he was apprehended. He has denied the suggestion that hearing aid has been planted having recovered from the pant of the accused Santoshanand. He has also denied the suggestion that at the time of his arrest, he has given his name as Santoshanand and not the name as Jitender Kumar or Ghanshyam Prasad. He deposed that Santoshanand was arrested by him at Platform No. 1 of the Railway Station, Patna. In his further cross- examination on behalf of accused Gopalji and Arteshanand, he admitted the suggestion that they were in search of accused CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1022 Santoshanand 3 or 4 months before his arrest. He also admitted the suggestion that accused Santoshanand was wanted in this very Samastipur case.
974. The prosecution has examined the search witness PW-38 Sh. Suresh Prashad. He deposed that on 17.6.1975, at about 9/9.30 PM, he was called at Patna, Police Station GRP. At that time, he was present at the cycle stand within the premises of Railway Station, Patna. He deposed that personal search of Ghanshyam Prashad @ Jitender Kumar was to be taken and a man with such name was present with them. He identified him correctly in the court by pointing out towards Accused No.1 Santoshanand. He deposed that at that time Ghanshyam Prashad @ Jitender Kumar was wearing pant and shirt and not sporting any beard or long hairs. It was the time of the arrival of Punjab Mail at the Railway Station, Patna which was to go to Calcutta. The train was late by half an hour on that day. He also deposed that hearing aid in a packet was recovered from the pocket of the pant of Ghanshyam Prashad. He identified the packet Ex.P-18 and hearing aid Ex.P-19, which were recovered from the personal search of Ghanshyam Prashad. Rs.3,921/- and some change were also recovered from his personal search apart from a ticket of Punjab Mail. He identified the railway ticket Ex.P-147 recovered from the possession of Ghanshyam Prashad, which was available in the file of sessions case no. 9 of 1976 and the Photostat copy of the same is on the record which is Ex.P-20 (available in Folder R-7). He identified CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1023 his signatures with date on the original ticket, which was also signed by Dev Kumar in his presence. He was having a jhola which contained one diary book. A Seizure Memo Ex.P-148, available in the said summoned file was prepared. He signed this seizure memo consisting of three sheets and identified his signatures. An Exercise Book Ex.P-22 in the summoned file also bears his signatures. The Photostat copy of the Seizure Memo is Ex.PW-38/A. Photostat copies of the Exercise Book are Ex.PW-33/E-1 to Ex.PW-33/E-72 (available in folder R-15). He further deposed that the accused had given his name as Santoshanand also.
(The Photostat copy of the seizure memo Ex.PW-38/A and ticket Ex.P-7 are available in folder R-7.)
975. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Gopalji and Arteshanand, PW-38 deposed that he was told that this man was arrested in L.N. Mishra case. His cycle stand was situated within the premises of Railway Station and it was situated at a distance of more than 100 paces from the PS GRP. In his presence, one pant and one Ganji (Baniyan) were recovered from the accused Ghanshyam Prashad. Interestingly, accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi did not cross examine the witness despite opportunity.
976. PW-133 Sh. Purshottam Narayan Shukla, Dy. SP. CBI deposed that on 17.6.1975, he along with Inspector I.P. Sharma (PW-103) went CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1024 to Railway Station, Patna and arrested Santoshanand Avadhoot from the Railway Station, Patna. He searched his person after arrest. He seized the personal belongings recovered from Santoshanand regarding which a seizure memo was correctly prepared. Santoshanand was in a civilian dress and not wearing the clothes of Avadhoot at the time of his arrest. He was not sporting beard and the witness has correctly identified him in the court by pointing toward Accused No.1 Santoshanand. In his cross-examination, PW-133 deposed that accused Santoshanand was arrested from the Platform of the Railway Station, Patna. He was shifted to GRP Post within one or two minutes of his arrest. Lot of people were present on the Platform including passengers, vendors, stall holders and railway officials at the time of his arrest. The personal search of accused Santoshanand was not taken at the place of his arrest. Before his arrest, he was aware that he was wanted in Samastipur bomb blast case. The articles recovered from the personal search of Santoshanand were not converted into a sealed parcel.
977. PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja with regard to arrest of Santoshanand deposed that on 17.6.1975, Santoshanand was brought to him in custody by DSP P.N. Shukla (PW-133) and Inspector I.P. Sharma (PW-103) at Patna and he correctly identified the accused Santoshanand in the court. On 17.6.1975, he was in plain clothes and wearing pant and a shirt and he was not in saffron attire and was not sporting beard and mustaches. He deposed that Sh. DSP P.N. Shukla CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1025 (PW-133) and Inspector I.P. Sharma (PW-103) produced the articles along with Seizure Memo before him. The exercise book Ex.P-22 available in the summoned file is the same, which was produced by DSP P.N. Shukla and Inspector I.P. Sharma before him with accused Santoshanand. Similarly, the Railway ticket Ex.P-147 in the said file of RC-11/1975 was kept in an envelope. The hearing aid Ex.P-18 and accessories Ex.P-19 were also produced by DSP P.N. Shukla and Inspector I.P. Sharma. In his cross-examination, PW-151 deposed that in this case police remand of Santoshanand was obtained from Patna and thereafter he was brought to Delhi. At Page No. 3806 of his deposition, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that after his arrest at Railway Station, Patna, Santoshanand was produced before him and next day his police remand for 14 days was obtained.
978. It is found that the accused Santoshanand has not shattered the deposition of PW-103 that he was not arrested from Railway Station, Patna. He has only given the suggestion that the said books were not recovered from him and he was in saffron attire and sporting beard and moustaches and long hair with a turban. He has not discredited the testimony of PW-103 about recovery of pants and shirts from his jhola. He has not suggested to the witness as to what enmity he had with him or that why would he plant the recovery upon him. Moreover, the copy of the railway ticket Ex.P-20 reflects that it was purchased to go from Patna to Howrah and its recovery from the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1026 person of the accused Santoshanand is not derided in the cross- examination of PW-103. A perusal of copy of the Search Memo Ex.PW-38/A also reflects that various articles apart from currency notes of more than Rs.3921/-, coins of Rs.2.38, Railway Ticket, Goggle, fountain pen, a bus ticket, a hearing aid instrument with battery in a small casket, one green pant, one check pant, three shirts, one Ganji (Baniyan), one exercise book were recovered in the presence of Sh. Suresh Prashad (PW-38) and Dev Kumar Singh and search memo is prepared by Sh. I.P. Sharma (PW-103) and also signed by Sh. P.N. Shukla (PW-133). A perusal of the testimony of PW-38 and PW-133 reflects that the accused persons including Santoshanand has not shattered their deposition that Santoshanand was arrested from the platform of Railway Station, Patna and that he was not sporting moustaches and beard and long hair and was in the attire of a common person wearing pant and shirt. The record reveal that on 20.12.1976, accused Santoshanand filed an application before Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna that the articles, which were seized by CBI on 17.06.1975 at Patna at the time of his arrest may be delivered to him and on 03.01.1977, Ld. Special Judicial Magistrate has allowed that application. In that application also, the accused Santoshanand has no where pleaded that all the articles mentioned in the seizure memo were not recovered from him. Here it is relevant to mention that in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, accused Santoshanand answered the questions No. 228 and denied having been arrested on 17.06.1975 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1027 on Platform No. 1 of the Railway Station and he claimed that he was arrested from his office. He further claimed that he was paraded after his arrest from his office at Railway Platform and before that he was taken to CBI Office, where his form and appearance was changed and he was not carrying anything at that time. While replying question No. 231, he stated that excepting the cash amount, the other articles are shown to be fake recovery and this cash was also taken from his office. Again while replying question No. 232 to the effect that he was carrying pant, shirt, books, exercise books and preparation of seizure memo, he stated that all these items were planted and whatever belongs to him, he got them back after obtaining permission from the court. A perusal of the application dated 20.12.1976 (available in Folder R-68, at Sr. No. 67) reflects that the accused Santoshanand had claimed back 11 items including the cash of Rs.3923.38, fountain pain, wrist watch, goggles, book about Jai Prakash Narayan etc. From this discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that the accused Santoshanand was arrested at Railway Station, Patna by the CBI officers and his search was taken in the presence of witnesses including PW-38 and the correct seizure memo Ex.PW-38/A was prepared in which there is mention of recovery of cash amount of Rs.3928.38, two pants, three shirts, exercise book, hearing aid with battery. When accused Santoshanand was arrested on 17.06.1975 at the Railway Station, Patna, he was not in saffron attire of Avadhoot and was wearing pant and shirt. Not only that, he was also carrying CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1028 two pants and three shirts in his jhola. He was not sporting beard and moustaches and long hair. This further proves the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-6, PW-11, PW-13, PW-33 and PW-68 that the accused Santoshanand has discarded the saffron attire of Avadhoot and got cut his moustaches and long hair and beard shaved after formation of a Revolutionary Group.
78) Arrest of Gopalji.
979. The Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati and Sh. Anuj Kumar, Advocates submitted that accused Gopalji was arrested only in case No. 24/1974 pertaining to attack on Madhavanand on 17.05.1975. I have already dealt with this issue that he was arrested on 17.05.1975 from his house at Chautham after completing the search proceedings. As per the order sheet of the case No. 24/1974 PS Kotwali Patna (available in Folder R-9), on application of the Investigation Officer, accused Gopalji was remanded to police custody for 15 days and was to be produced on 02.06.1975. It is vehemently argued by them that he was never arrested in RC-1/1975 relating to the incident of Samastipur Railway Station. However, the record reveals otherwise. As per the order sheet dated 02.06.1975 of the Ld. CJM, Patna in the case No. 24/1974 (available in Folder R-9), on filing of application by DSP, CBI that accused Gopalji @ Krishan Mohan Singh is also wanted in RC No. 1/1975 relating to murder of Late L.N. Mishra and others, the court ordered that accused Gopalji @ Krishan Mohan Singh be forwarded to the court of Special Magistrate, Patna. The CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1029 record of the file of Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna, pertaining to the case No. 1 of 1975, GRPS Samastipur (File No. Part-33), it is revealed that on filing an application Ex.PW-151/K by the IO on 02.06.1975 (available in Folder R-65), Special Magistrate allowed police remand of accused Gopalji @ Krishna Mohan Singh, R/o Chautham for ten days from that day in case No. 1/1975, PS Samastipur GRP relating to deep rooted conspiracy to kill L.N. Mishra. On 12.06.1975, he was produced before the court and his remand on application by Sh. H.L. Ahuja of the even date, was extended till 16.06.1975. On 16.06.1975, accused Gopalji was sent to jail custody. On 18.09.1975, accused Gopalji was granted bail by the Special JM under Section 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC, subject to furnishing bail bond of Rs.3000/- with two sureties of the like amount. On 12.11.1975, the court of Special JM, Patna has ordered for issuance of the production warrant against Gopalji @ Krishna Mohan Singh to the Superintendant Jail, Phulwari Sharif. On 08.12.1975 and 20.01.1975, Gopalji was produced in the court. On 18.12.1976, the court again ordered for production of Gopalji on 20.12.1976. On 23.02.1976, an application was filed by Gopalji from Jail asking for copy of charge sheet. On 02.06.1976, accused Gopalji filed an application to supply him copy of the statement of PW-1. On 18.06.1976 and 30.07.1976, the court of Special Magistrate noticed that Gopalji has not been produced. On 13.08.1976, the court of Special Magistrate, Patna again noticed that Gopalji has not been produced. On 08.04.1977, the bail CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1030 granted to accused Gopalji under Section 167 (2) (a) Cr. PC was cancelled by Special Magistrate.
79) Arrest of Sudevanand.
980. In case No. 24/1974 of PS Kotwali Patna, on 09.05.1975, the Ld. CJM, Patna on filing of an application by the IO that there was valuable evidence against Santoshanand Avadhoot, Arteshanand Avadhoot and Sudevanand Avadhoot, ordered for issuance of Non- Bailable Warrants against them. (Available in Folder R-9).
981. The approver PW 2 Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass deposed that he was arrested along with accused Sudevanand on 24.7.1975 at Bhagalpur. In his further cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that Sudevanand met him at Bhagalpur on the date of their arrest and at that time, he was already present there. He reached Bhagalpur same day or one day before his arrest. He deposed that Sudevanand came on 24.07.1975 by train and he (PW-2) received him at the Railway Station. He has denied the suggestion that he and Sudevanand came together from Chakia to Bhagalpur. He voluntarily stated that they came separately from each other. In his further cross-examination, the Ld. Defence Counsel has given suggestion at Page No. 326 and 327 admitting that PW-2 and Sudevanand were knowing each other and the relevant portion of the deposition reads as under: -
"Q. Is it or not that the train coming from Patna to Bhagalpur on 24th July 1975 was late?
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1031 Ans. I do not remember.
It is however, correct that Sudevanand was to come to Bhagalpur by that train. But I cannot say if he was to come from Patna.
It is correct that I had prior intimation that Sudevanand was coming. It is also correct that I had information as to by which train he was coming.
Q. Did the train come there in time?
Ans. I do not remember.
I did meet Sudevanand at the railway station."
This deposition has not been shattered in the cross-examination by the accused persons including Sudevanand. Rather, it has been admitted in the cross-examination of PW-2 by the defence that accused Sudevanand and Vikram were known to each other prior to their arrest on 24.07.1975.
982. As per the order sheet dated 25.07.1975 of case No. 24/1974 PS Kotwali Patna (available in Folder R-9), a requisition was received from DSP, Patna for issuance of production warrant against Sudevanand Avadhoot who was in custody at Bhagalpur Jail and accordingly production warrants were issued for 01.08.1975.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1032
983. However, on 01.08.1975, a copy of order was received by CJM, Patna from CMM, Delhi in RC No. 11/1975. Thereafter, accused was forwarded by CMM, Delhi in case No. 24/1974 to the court of CJM, Patna on 08.09.1975 and he was sent to Judicial Custody. On 15.11.1975, an application dated 12.11.1975 (available in Folder R-
18) was moved by Sh. H.L. Ahuja, DSP stating therein that they have filed the charge sheet in this case No. 24/1974, RC No. 1/1975 and Bhagalpur case before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna and during investigation local police i.e. CID Bihar had arrested accused persons mentioned in the enclosed list (27 persons), who were subsequently released on bail and no evidence has been found against them and they might be discharged in Patna Kotwali case No. 24/1974. Ld. CJM, Patna vide order dated 15.11.1975 discharged the said 27 accused persons from this case. Ld. CJM also ordered for sending of the record to the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna. (The order of Ld. SJM, Patna dated 15.11.1975 is available in Folder R-9).
984. As per the order sheet dated 08.10.1975 of Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna, a petition dated 03.09.1975 praying for issuance of judicial custody warrant in respect of accused Sudevanand @ Misri Lal Yadav and Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass was filed. It was prayed that custody warrant be issued to CMM, Delhi as they are lodged in Central Jail, Delhi under the order of CMM, Delhi in RC- 11/1975 relating to the attempt to murder Hon'ble A.N. Ray, Chief CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1033 Justice of Supreme Court of India. However, the court of Special Judicial Magistrate ordered that he cannot issue such production warrant to a sister or superior court and as and when the trial against them is over, Jail Authorities be intimated to produce the accused persons in his court. He also ordered for issuance of direction to the Jail Authorities in case RC-11/1975 and also a letter to CMM, Delhi.
985. On 12.11.1975, an application was also filed for issuance of production warrant against four accused persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad, since they were under jail custody at the Central Jail, Delhi. This prayer was allowed and it was ordered that a letter be sent to CMM, Delhi for the production of the said four accused persons from the Central Jail at Delhi in the court of Special JM, Patna on 24.11.1975. The said four accused persons including Sudevanand were finally produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna in RC-1/1975 only on 20.12.1976 pursuant to the production warrants admittedly after his conviction in A.N. Ray's case.
986. Investigation Officer PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja deposed in his cross-examination on behalf of accused Sudevanand at Page No. 3806 that Sudevanand was arrested at Bhagalpur along with Vikram and from there he was brought to Delhi and taken on police remand in the case relating to attack on life of Chief Justice Ray. Application in other cases was moved towards the end of July 1975. In this regard, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1034 PW-120 Sh. Umesh Deputy SP, stated at Page No. 2529 that on 27.07.1975, he escorted Sudevanand and Vikram from Bhagalpur and reached Delhi on 28.07.1975 and they were produced before the CMM, Delhi.
80) Appreciation of other DWs.
987. The accused persons have examined DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot so as to demolish the Prosecution theory that Anand Marg had no wings like Proutist Block of India, its Revolutionary Group, the publication wing with its printing presses at Delhi and Jaipur, PFI (Proutist Forum of India), SDM (Sewa Dharam Mission etc.) vehemently spoken to and proved through the Prosecution witnesses PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay, PW-2 Sh. Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass @ Subir, PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar, PW-33 Ujjawal Prakash, which is discussed earlier and further to support the explanation offered by accused Ram Dwivedi with regard to word "SS" scribbled by him in his diary appeared as evidence against him.
988. DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot on oath deposed that "SS" stands for Sectorial Secretary. In his examination in chief he elaborated that there were RS (Regional Secretary), DS (Diocese Secretary), DTS (District Level Secretary), BS (Block Level Secretary) PS (Panchayat Secretary) and VS (Village Secretary) in the organization as propounded by the founder. It is noteworthy that DW-
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1035 1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot did not name the person who held the alleged post as "SS". According to him "SS" is the next to the General Secretary and third in the order of succession; founder being the head and the General Secretary would be next to him. The organization is divided globally into nine sectors and Sectorial Secretary is head of one such sector.
989. Except the oral testimony, this defence witness has not produced the constitution and bye-laws of Anand Marg to substantiate and supplant his ocular testimony; he produced three volumes of code of conduct titled as "Ananda Marga Caryacarya" (Ex.DW-1/1 to Ex.DW-1/3) but conveniently did not produce the constitution and bye-laws of the cult Anand Marg; this suppression and concealment and withholding of constitution or bye-laws by DW-1 does not come to persuade this court to draw any other inference with regard to "SS" found in the diary of the accused Ranjan Dwivedi Ex.PW-43/Z-6 (Q- 15 & Q-15-A) and Ex.PW-43/Z-5 (Q-14 & Q-14-A) than to conclude that the accused Ranjan Dwivedi as having referred to accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand by writing "SS" in his said diary.
990. DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot admitted that he took Sanyas in the year 1962 after joining Anand Marg in 1961 and Sh. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti @ Baba as its founder.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1036
991. DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot testified that there is no revolutionary wing but he admitted that the founder of the cult propounded an economic theory 'Prout'. He also admitted knowing Advocate Deen Pal Rai DW-24. However, Deen Pal Rai while being examined by the defence as DW-24 deposed that he did not know Rudranand (DW-1). He also admits having known Madhavanand, who later parted with the organization. He concedes with regard to arrest of the cult founder in the year 1971 in a murder case and remained in jail for seven years. He also admitted filing of bail applications of Baba in several courts. In his further examination in chief, he advocates that organization does not believe in violence, it did not have enmity with Madhavanand. However, in his cross- examination, it is elicited that Madhavanand became an Approver against their cult Head Baba and for this reason, their organization was not happy with him. He has shown his unawareness if Vinayanand attacked on Madhavanand on 07.01.1974. He admitted that he himself was arrested in attempt to murder Madhavanand by CBI.
992. It is seen from his cross-examination that he knew all the accused persons including Arteshanand (since deceased) and also Shankaranand (DW-2) and Paras Nath (PW-27). In his cross- examination he also admitted that there were self-immolations not only in India but also in Germany, USA, Sweden, Philippines. He knew Vinayanand but he could not identify the photo of Vinayanand CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1037 Ex.P-3. He admitted knowing Ram Kumar (Proclaimed Offender) living in Trimohan but conveniently deposed that he had no intimacy with him. He further admitted that Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra was influential in the Central Government.
993. Initially, he denied there was any Rally organized to get Baba released from jail. Then, he stated that Rallies were organized in Delhi, Calcutta & Patna on different dates. Further, he twisted and deposed that no gherao or demonstrations were held to pressurize the Government to release Baba from jail. Again, he said that he was unaware of a Rally organized in 1973 at Boat Club, New Delhi or that Ranjan Dwivedi gave Court arrest.
994. In the above backdrop, one could conclusively say with common prudence that (i) DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot, the senior most monk being associated with founder and organization ever since 1961, is the proponent and committed to the cause of Anand Marg. He had long association with the accused persons. He himself was arrested by CBI as a suspect on attack on Madhavanand. Thus, it is quite but natural for him to speak such of the half-truths only lest the guilt of the confident associates face peril in serious accusation like this, which they adverted for the sake of their revered Guru. He knew all the accused persons since 1960 and he has ill-will against Prosecution for their arrest. Thus, DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot is a partisan, interested and biased witness. The deposition CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1038 of this partisan witness to demolish the objective of its mis- adventures, the formation of Revolutionary Group, to achieve unlawful goal, the conspiracy which are overwhelmingly seen and proved through the corroborated testimony as discussed earlier, outweighs the defence theory. In view of the above, no value can be attached to the oral testimony of DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot. The documentary evidence produced through this witness does not go to suggest the innocence of the accused persons at all.
995. Accused persons have also examined DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand, who claimed himself to be Dharam Parchar Secretary to counter the Prosecution case that Anand Marg had no wing of Progressive Federation of India, no organ as VSS (Voluntary Social Service) or (Vishwa Shanti Sewa), no wing of Proutist Block of India regarding which Prosecution has examined PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand, PW-2 Sh. Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass @ Subir, PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal Prakash and PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar and further to supplant the explanation given by accused Ranjan Dwivedi with regard to the word "SS" scribbled by him in his diary as evidence against him having made reference to accused Santoshanand and accused Sudevanand. He has also been examined by the accused persons that there was another Visheshwaranand who was having his alias name as Hanslal and wanted in this case and that PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava is an imposter and not a real Visheshwaranand.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1039
996. In his statement DW-2 claimed himself to be Dharam Parchar Secretary in Anand Marg and joined this organisation in 1959 and informed about the structure of Anand Marg and that its in hierarchy, there are Aacharya (Pirodha Pramakh) President as (General Secretary), SS (Sectorial Secretary), RS (Regional Secretary), DS (Diocese Secretary), DTS (Distt. Secretary), BS (Block Secretary), PS (Panchayat Secretary) and VS (Village Secretary). However, like DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand, he has also failed to mention the name of person who held the alleged post as SS (Sectorial Secretary). Except this oral testimony, this witness has also not produced the Constitution or bye-laws of the Anand Marg in support of his testimony. The suppression of the Constitution or bye-laws by DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand, this Court is unable to deduce anything other than conclusion with regard to "SS" as mentioned in the diary of accused Ranjan Dwivedi Ex.PW-43/Z-6 (Q-15 & Q-15-A) and Ex.PW-43/Z-5 (Q-14 & Q-14 A) that Ranjan Dwivedi as having referred to Santoshanand and Sudevanand as "SS" in his said Diaries.
997. DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand has deposed that Baba Anand Murti was arrested in the year 1970 on murder charge and released by the order of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in August, 1978. He himself was arrested four years after the arrest of Baba (i.e. in the year 1974) and released after lifting of the Emergency.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1040
998. DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand has been claiming himself to be Dharam Parchar Secretary and joined Anand Marg in 1959. He knew accused persons facing the trial and recognized them. He also knew Ram Aasrey (Proclaimed offender) but he has suppressed the fact by showing his unawareness if bail application of Anand Murti was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or that a rally was organized at Boat Club, New Delhi in February 1973 as a mark of protest for non-release of Baba or that accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi gave their Court arrest in the Rally. He could not dare to deny all these important events though he claimed to have been holding position of a Secretary and joined organisation in 1959.
999. This witness is not dependable since this witness claims on the one hand to be the Parcharak (Propagator) of Anand Marg, knowing Visheshwaranand with a cut mark on his nostril and on the other hand, is unaware of the status and role of that Visheshwaranand in the Organization and further unaware of their Guru having been denied bail and the subsequent protests. DW-2 also could not tell about the post of Dharam Parcharak Secretary as it does not find anywhere in the hierarchy of Anand Marg stated by him.
1000. He himself claimed to have been arrested by CBI as a suspect for attack on Madhavanand and he knew and recognized all the accused persons. He is one of the oldest associate and follower of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1041 Anand Marg and its cult since 1959, it is only and exclusively for this reason, he has deposed in the Court to help the accused persons.
1001. In view of the above said discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that DW-2 has been a closed friend/associate of the accused persons and all of them were known to him. Hence, he is also a partisan, interested and biased witness and his testimony does not inspire any confidence.
1002. The defence has examined DW-3 Aacharya Keshavanand again to demolish the case of the Prosecution that a Rally was organized in April 1973 at Boat Club, New Delhi to pressurize the Government to release their cult head Sh. Anand Murti and to substantiate the explanation offered by accused Ranjan Dwivedi with regard to the words "SS" scribbled by him in his diary Ex.PW-43/Z-6 (Q-15 & Q-15-A) and Ex.PW-43/Z-5 (Q-14 & Q-14-A) which indicates that he met accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand in the bus from Muzaffarpur to Samastipur on 01.01.1975.
1003. DW-3 Aacharya Keshavanand as per his examination-in-chief joined the Anand Marg in the year 1962 and became an Avadhoot in 1967. He testified about the hierarchy of Anand Marg in which at the top there is Pirodha Pramukh, the President and thereafter General Secretary followed by SS (Sectorial Secretary). It also appeared in his statement that Anand Marg is a registered body in District Puruliya CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1042 (West Bengal) and they have their constitution by the name "Anand Marg Parcharak Sangh". He remained Regional Secretary of Anand Marg in the year 1968 in Bombay region and in the year 1969-70 for Bangalore region. He joined as General Secretary in the year 1973. He deposed to have been arrested in January 1974 for attack on Madhavanand, a defector along with 27 persons. He was released on bail in June 1974. He was again arrested under MISA on 14.01.1975 and released after lifting of emergency. It has also come in his further deposition that Baba was arrested on 29.12.1971 in defector's murder case and was not released on bail but was acquitted in August, 1978. At that time, he was Acting General Secretary. He claimed that Baba was poisoned on 12.02.1973 as narrated to him by PA of Baba namely Ramanand (DW-7). He knew accused Santoshanand since 1968-69 and accused Sudevanand since 1968. In the year 1972, Santoshanand was Incharge of 'Prout' newspaper which was published from Delhi. They had the records of memberships, designations, Avadhoot and their postings and transfers but it was destroyed/ransacked by the CBI. In his cross-examination, DW-3 admitted that there were self- immolations by their two Avadhoots in Germany, one in USA and Philippines each and three in India. They have self-immolated not only to ask for release of Baba but also to institute an inquiry about poisoning of Baba in jail. He testified that Rally held at Boat Club, New Delhi in 1973 was not for pressurizing the Government to release Baba but to highlight the poisoning incident of Babaji and to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1043 constitute a judicial inquiry. He admitted that accused persons facing the trial are known to him.
1004. Despite the fact that Anand Marg is a registered body and has its constitution, this witness has also suppressed the material fact of bringing on record the constitution and bye-laws to show the structure and hierarchy of Anand Marg organization as to whether there was any post of Sectorial Secretary. He did not disclose the name who was the Sectorial Secretary in the year 1974-75. If Baba was poisoned, they are supposed to have lodged complaint with the Jail Authorities, concerned Court and Police Authorities but he neither lodged any complaint nor filed any such copy. He himself admitted that he was arrested in January 1974 in a case relating to attack on Madhavanand and released on bail in June 1974. Accused persons are known to him being the active member of Anand Marg. He has been associated with the Anand Murti, the founder of their cult since joining Anand Marg in 1962 and for him also it is quite natural but to make the statement suitable and favourable to the accused persons and thus he is also interested, partisan and biased witness and no value can be attached to the deposition of such witness.
1005. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi has examined DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 to prove the hierarchy in the Anand Marg Organisation so as to dispel the case of the prosecution that scribblings in his diary the alphabets used by him as "SS" stands for Santoshanand and CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1044 Sudevanand, but they failed to file the Constitution or the bye-laws of the organisation. DW-2 himself claimed to be Dharam Parchar Secretary, which does not find anywhere in the hierarchy of the Anand Marg. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi has claimed in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC that Ram Tanuk Singh was the Legal Secretary, which also does not find in the hierarchy of Anand Marg Organisation. PW-2 has claimed that he reported to the Chief Secretary Sh. Dhaneshanand at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. PW-1 has also deposed that he himself was Provincial Secretary. PW-1 has also named Sh. Vishokanand as Chief Secretary of the Organization and Sh. Bharat Bhushan Aggarwal as Organizing Secretary at Bhopal. DW-37 has claimed himself to be the Office Secretary of the Anand Marg. PW-68 claimed that he was previously Chief Training Secretary and then Area Secretary, Bombay, Finance Secretary in Delhi and also as Press and Paper Secretary. In his cross-examination, there is a reference of one Puniyanand as Chief Secretary. However, in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons including Ranjan Dwivedi never put his case that there was a post of Sectorial Secretary in the organisation or that there was no post of Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary, Press and Paper Secretary, Office Secretary. Admittedly, the word "Sectorial" is not found in any dictionary even on the internet. Admittedly, it is also not a coined word. The post of Sectorial Secretary is also never heard in the common parlance. Therefore, the defence raised by accused Ranjan CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1045 Dwivedi that in his diary the scribblings "SS" stands for Sectorial Secretary does not hold water.
1006. The defence has examined DW-7 Aacharya Ramananda, an Avadhoot Anand Margi since 1962, on the point that their cult head was poisoned in Delhi on 12.02.1973. He joined Anand Marg in 1962 and became an Avadhoot in the year 1965 when diksha was given to him by Anand Murti. He was posted as Personal Secretary of their cult head, Anand Murti, on 01.10.1971. Sh. Anand Murti was arrested on 29.12.1971 and released on 2nd August 1978. He deposed that while in jail, Baba was given inhuman treatment. The atmosphere was uncongenial. On 12.02.1973, Baba was poisoned while in jail and he came to know the next day when he went to meet Baba. He met General Secretary of their cult, many Anand Margies and went abroad. He met many political leaders and requested them to pressurize the government for a judicial inquiry and to ensure that no torture is inflicted on Baba and other Anand Margies in jail. He went to UN Building at New York and London and met Under Secretary of United Nations. He knows all the accused persons facing the trial. He had seen accused Ranjan Dwivedi meeting Baba for legal consultations. He knew accused Santoshanand and accused Sudevanand ever since 1966-67.
1007. In his cross-examination, DW-7 replied that he used to go to meet Baba every day in the Morning. He did not lodge any complaint CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1046 about inhuman treatment meted out to Baba. He voluntarily stated that organization made a complaint and he asked the General Secretary to do so. He did not meet the Jailor to inform about the condition of Baba and he called the Jail Doctor who came on his asking. Doctor informed him that a tablet was administered to Baba on 12.2.1973 at about 11.00 PM. He remained with Baba on 13.2.1973 for about half an hour. He admitted that Sudevanand, Santoshanand and Gopalji have been active members of Anand Marg since long and Ranjan Dwivedi has been a member since 1974. The persons, who committed self-immolations, were near and dear to Baba. They were all the Avadhoots. He has denied the suggestion that false information was spread by senior members of Anand Marg to instigate fellow members of Anand Marg against the government to put pressure for release of Baba from Jail.
1008. Neither DW-7, who claimed to be the Personal Secretary of Baba nor DW-3 Aacharya Keshavanand Avadhoot, who claimed to be General Secretary of Anand Marg, filed any copy of complaint. DW- 7 admitted that no complaint was lodged by them with any authority for meeting out alleged inhuman treatment to Babaji. DW-7 is attached to Anand Marg since 1962 and remained even Personal Secretary to Baba, their cult head. He knew all the accused persons and out of them accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Gopalji have been active members of Anand Marg since long and accused Ranjan Dwivedi only from 1974 and it is quite but natural for him to speak to CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1047 dispel the theory of prosecution that the rallies were organized in Delhi and Patna in April 1973 to pressurize the government to release Baba which has already been proved by the statement of PW-1, PW-2, PW-11, PW-13, PW-50, PW-68 PW-122 and admitted by accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. After careful appreciation, the accidence of his deposition is that, a) he admits cult head of Anand Marg was arrested; b) there was resentment in cult over arrest and treatment of Baba at jail; c) all four accused were acquainted to him; d) he does not have any firsthand knowledge regarding the overtures of a group of cult and their activities in securing the release of Baba except the misadventure of some cult members in self-immolations and demonstrations; e) being a confident of cult head he deposed partially the facts; f) his testimony does not go to uproot the acts of accused in laying conspiracy and the acts followed, which are spoken by prosecution witnesses. As a result, the testimony of DW-7 does not help the accused persons.
1009. In their defence, accused Ranjan Dwivedi has examined his brother-in-law i.e. husband of his sister Sh. Rajeshwar Chaubey as DW-4 in order to support his explanation with respect to his admitting noting in his diary dated 03.01.1975 (Q-15-B), contents of the relevant portion of the diary reads as under:-
"Reached Delhi and received by Rajeshwarji at the station. News of the first phase of the drama heard at the station.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1048 Met Arun, Maya, Prabhaji and others and could not resist myself."
1010. DW-4 has also been examined by accused Ranjan Dwivedi to persuade this Court to discard the testimony of his distant relative PW- 6 Sh. Virender Kumar Ojha, who deposed that accused Ranjan Dwivedi was in the company of Santoshanand and Sudevanand on 01.01.1975 and 02.01.1975. It has come in the testimony of DW-4 that Ranjan Dwivedi started living with him since January 1973 till September 1974. He deposed that accused Ranjan Dwivedi had been junior with Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate and since the receipts of Ranjan Dwivedi were not much, they were looking after his bread and butter. On 03.01.1975, he received Ranjan Dwivedi, his mother and sister-in-law at New Delhi Railway Station and they came to his house. He informed Ranjan Dwivedi about his discussions he had with his elder brother Sh. Sita Ram Dwivedi, a resident of America that his brother had agreed to his proposed alliance with an American girl Ms. Patersia. At that time, one more family consisting of two ladies and one gentleman came to Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi and they also expressed happiness. Later on, Ranjan Dwivedi married to Ms. Patersia in 1975 at Patna. He further testified that Sh. Virender Kumar Ojha (PW-6), who is a distant relative working in Railways at Samastipur, came with his wife for treatment of his wife in AIIMS Hospital in June 1974 and at that time, Ranjan Dwivedi used to stay CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1049 with him. They could not help Sh. Virender Kumar Ojha in treatment of his wife.
1011. In the cross-examination of DW-4, it has come out that he had no talk with Ranjan Dwivedi about his visit to Delhi on 03.01.1975 and he had prior information about visit of Ranjan Dwivedi, his mother and bhabhi on 03.01.1975. He received this information from his eldest brother-in-law Sh. S.R. Dwivedi, who was living in America.
1012. Admittedly, Ranjan Dwivedi is very close relative of DW-4 Sh. Rajeshwar Chaubey. He has not testified at all that Sh. Virender Kumar Ojha (PW-6) was having any grudge or ever felt offended for not accompanying with them to AIIMS hospital for treatment of his wife. I have already discussed that writing in the hands of Ranjan Dwivedi dated 03.01.1975 has no connection with the alleged consent of his brother to marry with Ms. Patersia. Therefore, accused Ranjan Dwivedi or his co-accused cannot claim any benefit from the testimony of DW-4 Rajeshwar Chaubey. This witness neither does speak anything to counter the Prosecution version nor does swear to tender any plausible explanation to the entries in the diary of Ranjan Dwivedi. The diary entries were not even shown by the defence to seek an explanation on the entries in diary and this witness has spoken to superficial events unconnected to the facts in issue or contents of diary of accused Ranjan Dwivedi. He did not name the members of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1050 other family consisting of two ladies and one male, who came at the Railway Station to receive Ranjan Dwivedi. The names of those persons are mentioned by Ranjan Dwivedi in his diary as Arun, Maya, Prabhaji and others. He also could not elaborate their relation with Ranjan Dwivedi. Ranjan Dwivedi is brother of wife of DW-4 and they are closely related to each other. The words "could not resist myself"
are mentioned by him with reference to those persons, who were more than three and this writing has no connection with the alleged information conveyed to him by DW-4 Sh. Rajeshwar Chaubey. Had it been so, Ranjan Dwivedi must have overjoyed and could have written it in the diary specifically. So, accused Ranjan Dwivedi cannot take any benefit from the deposition of DW-4.
1013. Accused Santoshanand had taken defence of alibi that on the date of incident i.e. 02.01.1975 at Samastipur, he was at Patna. To prove his defence the accused Santoshanand has examined only one witness DW-37 Sh. Pranavanand Avadhoot, who claimed to be the son of the cult head Sh. Anand Murti, deposed that he has been a fulltime worker of Anand Marg Organisation. During the period from 1971 to 1975, he was working as Office Secretary of Anand Marg Organisation. He knew accused Santoshanand, present in the court, and he was posted at Patna in their cult sometimes in second half of February 1973. He further testified that during the period from December 1974 to first week of January 1975, accused Santoshanand Avadhoot was at Patna. In his cross-examination, DW-37 deposed that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1051 as an Office Secretary, his duty was to take care of the day to day affairs of the office. During his tenure, five or six persons used to remain in the office permanently, while other persons attached to their office, used to do outdoor work. He further testified that accused Santoshanand was posted as Manager (Public Relation) in the office and accused Santoshanand was not to do any outdoor work. He stated that no attendance register was maintained in their office. He voluntarily stated that they had volunteers. He could not remember the day when anyone of the volunteers fell sick or stayed away in attending the office. He stated that Santoshanand did not go away from the office even for a day from middle of February 1973 to January 1975. He admitted the suggestion of the prosecution that Anand Murti was arrested on 29.12.1971 in a murder case and he came out of the Jail in the year 1978.
1014. A scrutiny of the deposition of PW-37 reveals that he is committed to Anand Marg Organisation in as much as he has stated the name of his father as Anand Murti, who is the cult head. He also admitted that he is an Avadhoot and a fulltime worker of Anand Marg. He admitted that their cult head was arrested on 29.12.1971 in a murder case. He also knew that Baba was released from Jail in 1978. He claimed to be Office Secretary of the organisation at Patna and about posting of Santoshanand as Manager (Public Relation) in the office at Patna. In his statement even under Section 313 Cr. PC, Santoshanand has not explained that he had worked as Manager CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1052 (Public Relation) with the Anand Marg Organisation. He has only explained while replying Q. No. 183 to Q. No. 211 that he had never visited Samastipur in his life; He did not visit Samastipur on the relevant day; he was not present in Samastipur on the said date; he did not stay in the waiting room of the first class; and he did not know Vikram, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi. He did not explain that he was posted as Manager (Public Relation) in the office at Patna. DW- 37 has not placed on record any document to show that he was working as Office Secretary at Patna or Santoshanand was working as Manager (Public Relation) there. Accused Santoshanand has not put to any of the prosecution witness that he was working as Manager (Public Relation) in Anand Marg Organisation. No other defence witnesses have also stated so about Santoshanand. DW-37 is clever enough to answer that no attendance register was maintained in their office. If there were five or six persons, working in the same office, neither of them has been examined. The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place and plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 Supreme Court 911. In view of this discussion, I found that deposition of DW-37 does not inspire any confidence and he has CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1053 turned up in the witness box to depose only to help his colleague in the organisation. Moreover, in the examination-in-chief, he deposed that Santoshanand remained at Patna Office from December 1975 to first week of January 1975, whereas in his cross-examination, he extended the period from middle of February 1973 to January 1975. As such, accused Santoshanand has failed to prove the plea of alibi burden of which lie heavy on him. When the accused having taken the plea of alibi fails to prove it by cogent evidence, the consequence would be an adverse inference against that accused person and this would add an additional link in the chain in case of circumstantial evidence. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sushil Sharma Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2014 (4) SCC 317", that "the evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant has not been able to prove the defence of alibi. Adverse inference needs to be drawn from this fact. False defence of alibi indeed forms a vital link in the chain of circumstances." Similarly it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahabuddin Vs. State of Assam, 2012 (13) SCC 213, that if the accused does not give any explanation in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. PC about the plea of alibi, an adverse inference is to be drawn against him and plea of alibi is liable to be disbelieved.
1015. Now while turning to the facts of the present case, as discussed herein before, it has been established by the testimony of approver Vikram PW-2 that Santoshanand and Sudevanand arrived at Samastipur Railway Station from Muzaffarpur along with Ranjan CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1054 Dwivedi on 01.01.1975 and he met Santoshanand and Sudevanand there. Further, it is established from the testimony of PW-5 that he accompanied PW-6 with Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi to Samastipur Railway Station on the evening of 01.01.1975, where they were introduced by Ranjan Dwivedi to accused Santoshanand. This is further corroborated by PW-6 that on 01.01.1975, he along with his friend (PW-5) and accused Ranjan Dwivedi visited Samastipur Railway Station, where Ranjan Dwivedi introduced them to Santoshanand as his distant relative and friend. Next day also i.e. on 02.01.1975, PW-6 met Santoshanand and Sudevanand with Ranjan Dwivedi and he was introduced to Sudevanand also. He also found Santoshanand and Sudevanand at the venue of Samastipur Railway Station on
02.01.1975 about 12.00 Noon and again at about 03.30 PM. Therefore, it has been conclusively established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Santoshanand was very much present at Samastipur Railway Station from the evening of 01.01.1975 till the evening of 02.01.1975. Thus, accused Santoshanand has failed to prove the plea of alibi and the same is hereby rejected. This adds additional link in completing the chain of the circumstances.
81) Consent by the State of Bihar to CBI for investigation.
1016. Immediately after the incident on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur Railway Station, it was the Bihar Police, who was conducting the investigations, which was taken over by CID, Bihar. Subsequently, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1055 the State of Bihar has granted its consent for investigation to Delhi Special Police Establishment i.e. CBI on 03.01.1975 with regard to both the incidents of Samastipur dated 02.01.1975. Subsequently, the State of Bihar has also given its consent to Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigations in the cases vide FIR No. 24 dated 07.01.1974 PS Kotwali Patna and FIR No. 71 dated 13.07.1974 of PS Kotwali Bhagalpur on 13.09.1975. To prove this, prosecution has examined the then Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar Sh. K.K. Tripathi as PW-64.
1017. PW-64 Sh. K.K. Tripathi deposed that the Government of Bihar gave consent for investigation of case No. 1 dated 02.1.1975 of GRP, Samastipur and Case No. 1 dated 02.1.1975 of PS Samastipur U/s. 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. He also deposed that investigation of the case No. 24 dated 07.01.1974 PS Patna Kotwali and case No. 71 dated 13.7.1974 of PS Kotwali Bhagalpur were also allowed to be investigated by DSPE by the Government of Bihar U/s. 6 of the said Act. These two Notifications were published on 13.09.1975. The Gazette Notifications of Government of Bihar are Ex.PW-64/A and Ex.PW-64/B. Sh. D.N. Ahuja, DIG CBI wrote a letter dated 17.12.1975 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar requesting for consent of the competent authority for prosecution of eight accused persons under Section 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act. He also sent certain documents i.e. Report of Investigation and copy of Notification of the Government of India dated 14.05.1957.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1056 The request was in respect of Patna Kotwali Case No. 24/1974, Bhagalpur Case No. 71/1974 and Samastipur GRP Case No. 1/1975. He deposed that vide order No. 6905 dated 27.12.1975 Ex.PW-64/C, consent was granted by the Government of Bihar for the prosecution of the persons (i) Ram Aasrey, (ii) Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit, (iii) Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri Lal Yadav, (iv) Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass, (v) Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Vijay @ Madan Mohan Srivastava,
(vi) Vinayanand Avadhoot @ Jagdish @ Ram Mohan @ Anand Kumar, (vii) Gopalji @ Krishan Mohan Singh and (viii) Ram Nagina Prasad @ Bhaiya. He also deposed that with respect to case No. 1 PS Samastipur, Notification Ex.PW-64/D was issued on 03.01.1975 and similarly Notification Ex.PW-64/E was issued on 03.01.1975 by the Government of Bihar under his signatures with respect to investigation of the case No. 1 dated 02.01.1975, GRP Samastipur.
1018. In his cross-examination, PW-64 deposed that one Thakur made a confessional statement before the Magistrate, but his name does not appear in the Order Ex.PW-64/C. He deposed that the order Ex.PW-64/C was prepared in his office and his office has put up before him the whole file along with the draft consent order and then he sent the file to the Law department for vetting. He has denied the suggestion that he has not applied his mind before the consent was given.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1057 1019. As per the Notification No. 54 dated 03.01.1975 Ex.PW-64/D, the Governor of Bihar gave the consent of the Government of Bihar to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for extension of their powers and jurisdiction in the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of the offences with regard to case No. 1 of 02.01.1975, PS Samastipur. Further, by Notification No. 55 dated 03.01.1975 Ex.PW-65/E, the Governor of Bihar gave the consent of the Government of Bihar to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for extension of their powers and jurisdiction in the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of the offences with regard to case No. 1 of 02.01.1975, PS Samastipur GRPS. Later on, by Notification dated 13.09.1975 Ex.PW-64/A, the Governor of Bihar has also given its consent to Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in respect of FIR No. 24 dated 07.01.1974 PS Kotwali Patna. Simultaneously, on that day, the Governor of Bihar has also accorded the consent of Government of Bihar vide notification Ex.PW-64/B dated 13.09.1975, to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in respect of FIR No. 71 dated 13.07.1974 PS Kotwali Bhagalpur.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1058 (All four notifications Ex.PW-64/A, Ex.PW-64/B, Ex.PW-64/D and Ex.PW-64/E are available in Folder R-7) The Governor of Bihar by order No. 6905 dated 27.12.1975 Ex.PW- 64/C has also accorded the consent of the Government of Bihar for the prosecution and trial of the charge sheeted persons for the offences under Section 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 in respect of the above said FIRs dated 07.01.1974, 13.07.1974 and 02.01.1975.
(The notification Ex.PW-64/C is available in Folder R-68) 1020. Having discussed the entire gamut of the events leading to the present prosecution, which are proved under different heads for the sake of convenience and for the sake of understanding the case and further having analyzed the evidence by appreciating the same in the context of the law governing the subject, this court now hastens to answer the charges framed against the accused as hereunder.
82) Conclusion:-
(i) Charge No. 1.
1021. The charge No. 1 framed by my Ld. Predecessor against accused (1) Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu, (2) Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Bharat @ Misri Lal Yadav, (3) Ram Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi s/o Late Ram Dev Dwivedi, CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1059 (4) Arteshanand Avadhoot (ABATED UPON HIS DEATH), (7) Gopalji @ Krishna Mohan Singh.
1022. It is alleged against them that at Trimohan in the year 1973, all the above persons (except Gopalji and Ranjan Dwivedi) along with three Proclaimed Offenders namely Ram Kumar, Vinayanand and Ram Aasrey and the approver Visheshwaranand have conceived an idea to secure the release of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti by the means unknown to law. They conspired with such an objective to do certain violent acts to eliminate one Madhavanand, Sh. L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minister, Abdul Gaffoor, the then Chief Minister of Bihar, Officers of CBI Sh. Puri and Sh. Hingorani, Jail Doctor and Civil Surgeon, Patna and that the A-7 Gopalji joined the conspiracy later by convening the meetings of the conspirators at his house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar and collected and kept arms, ammunitions and hand grenades to accomplish the common design and that Ram Janam Dwivedi (A-3) joined the conspiracy at Samastipur on 01.01.1975 and arranged the entry passes for the accused persons Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver Vikram to reach the spot namely the Platform No. 3 of Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975 and murdered Sh. L.N. Mishra, and thus all of them were charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy, punishable under Section 120-B of IPC.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1060 1023. It is pertinent to mention that the above act of conspiracy springs from several factors. To understand these factors, we need to comprehend as to who this Anand Murti @ Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is? The said person is a cult figure. The said Anand Murti (1921-1990) was an Ex-employee of the Indian Railways. He is no more now. He had developed certain interests in the occultism, religion, spirituality, philosophy, yoga, metaphysics etc. He had developed his own ideas to the material life and living, which he wanted to propagate. He was successful in his mission, gathered a huge following in the North- Eastern India, North India, and abroad. It seems that he had developed certain socio-economic theories also and the ultimate goal of his philosophy is to spread the Ananda (Bliss) and an orderly society, which he called the SADVIPRA SAMAJ, a society based on morality. The cult head had an object of setting up SDVIPRA RAJ, a rule of moralist. It is revealed from the record that under peculiar circumstances, he was arrested in a case of murder of one of his followers. He was kept in Jail. All the efforts of his followers to have him enlarged on bail, had failed. The followers were given an impression that the establishment and the Jail authorities had conceived evil designs to finish him off. Thus, further impression was spread that the cult head namely Anand Murti is being poisoned in the Jail. The forlorn and resented followers wanted their Guru, also called Baba, be released by hook or crook. They resorted to unconstitutional methods for securing his release. It is a matter of record that some of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1061 the followers have taken out processions, conducted protests, pressurized the State and Union Governments, and even went to the extent of self-immolations to have him released in their unflinching love and affection towards their Guru. When they failed by all their means, the followers of the cult known as Anand Marg consisting of several wings and cadres including Monks known as Avadhoots, who don saffron clothes, showing separate and distinct identity of their personality by growing beards, unkempt hair and adhering to special code of dress and conduct, have resorted to the means not known to the law. The accused hereinabove are the followers of the cult known as Anand Marga.
1024. Thus, the persons facing trial, with a living image seated in their heart, conceived the conspiracy. The entire case is based on the Approvers' statement and the circumstantial evidence. I have already discussed the legal aspects canvassed on behalf of the accused with regard to the legalities such as defect in the charge sheet, clubbing of investigations of four cases, legality of grant of pardon to the accomplices, the Approvers' statement, non-examination of the Magistrate recording the statements under Section 164 of Cr. PC, the stigma attached to the statement of approver PW-1 as regards the inducement of his re-employment, the snapping of conspiracy by PW- 1 etc. in the foregoing chapters of this judgment. In order to arrive at the conclusions based on the ocular testimony of numerous witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, defence and such of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1062 witnesses called by the court and after wading through the voluminous documentary evidence, I have distinctly analyzed each and every aspect of criminal conspiracy under different headings owing to the special circumstances, which forms the part of the conspiracy in the background of the peculiarity of this case. Each of the circumstances categorized under different chapters with suitable captions, the summary of my findings rendered therein separately with reasons recorded therein after appreciating the evidence, is being summarized, which would lead to my conclusion on the above charge.
1025. I have already held that cumulative effect of the evidence conclusively establishes that there was a cult known as Anand Marg, which was established by Anand Murti @ Baba @ Guru @ Tarak Brahma @ Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. There were several wings of this cult known as PFI (Progressive Federation of India), Sewa Dharam Mission, Voluntary Social Service/Vishwa Shanti Sena (VSS), ERAWS (Education Relief and Welfare Section) and Political Wing PBI (Proutist Block of India). It had also a Revolutionary Group formed only with an aim to secure the release of the cult head. It is also revealed from the evidence that the cadres included Monks, Yoga Teachers, Sadhaks and Avadhoots. The evidence also shows that the Organization had a publication wing to propagate the ideas of the organization, its philosophy and the need to establish a society based on morality, for which it had some printing units at Delhi, Jaipur, Indore and Ranchi etc. From the entire evidence, this court did not CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1063 find anything to disbelieve that there was no such Organization founded by Anand Murti and its wings. The accused facing the trial, did not demolish the ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, which is corroborated by the testimony of PW-11, PW-13, PW-33, PW-34, PW-61, PW-63, PW-68, PW-79, PW-83, PW-84 and DW-8.
1026. Though the defence had feigned in their arguments with regard to the formation of the Revolutionary Group, after going through the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, it becomes clear that there was a Revolutionary Group, corroborated by the acts of the accused and the Approvers spoken through the evidence of PW-27, PW-34 and PW-80 and that of the evidence of PW-19, who had proved the stay of PW-1 twice at Indore to secure arms to achieve the object conceived by the conspirators and the approvers. A comprehensive view of the evidence available on record do suggest indelibly the acts of the accused in procuring the arms and ammunitions and their sojourn undertaken in procuring the same for the purposes of achieving the object and the conduct of PW-1, PW-2, A-1 and A-2 in giving up their prescribed attire of a Monk and to live incognito till the object is achieved.
1027. In the backdrop of conspiracy hatched at Trimohan, I have already held that from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-11, PW-13, PW-33, PW-50 & PW-68, this court has concluded that that the Anand Margies did hold a Rally at Boat Club, New Delhi in the month of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1064 April, 1973 to pressurize the Government to release their cult head Anand Murti/Baba. This has been admitted by accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC and that one Aacharya Dineshwaranand committed self-immolation next day after the Rally at Purana Quila with the same purpose to pressurize the government. An FIR No. 209 dated 24.04.1973 was also registered with PS Tilak Marg, Delhi and accused Santoshanand was co-accused there.
1028. To further pressurize the Government for release of Baba, Anand Margies have taken out a demonstration and gherao of the then Chief Minister Sh. Abdul Gaffoor on 28.07.1973 at Patna. At that time, emotional slogans like "JAIL KA PHATAK TUTEGA, ANAND MURTI CHHUTEGA" were raised by the Anand Margies and they have gheraoed the Chief Minister Sh. Abdul Gaffoor at his residence and an FIR No. 68 dated 28.07.1973 was registered with PS Kotwali, Patna. This has been so arrived at in the earlier part of the judgment.
1029. When the Anand Margies failed to secure release of Baba, a Revolutionary Group was formed by one Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot, which was joined by Aacharya Ram Aasrey, Visheshwaranand, Vinayanand, approver Vikram, Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Arteshanand, Ram Kumar, Budheshawaranand and Gopalji. After formation of Revolutionary Group, PW-1, PW-2, Santoshanand, Sudevanand and others have changed their attire of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1065 Avadhoot and gave up saffron clothes, removed beard and moustaches and cut long hair to conceal their identity. Thereafter, some of the Avadhoots/Aacharya have propagated that Anand Murti was seriously ill to give an impression in the minds of the workers, so that they may work with renewed zeal for release of Baba, which is evident from the statement of PW-1, PW-2, PW-11, PW-13, PW-27, PW-33, PW-34, PW-68 and PW-80.
1030. Subsequently, in the month of August and September 1973, conspirators after their meeting with Ram Aasrey in the house owned by Prem Kumar at Patna, sent PW-1 to Indore to collect arms and ammunitions on payment from PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra, who had earlier received Diksha from PW-1 in the year 1967. During his both visits on 26.08.1973 and 10.09.1973, PW-1 has stayed in the Gujrati Lodge/Aadarsh Lodge, Indore under the pseudonym Vijay and this has been proved by PW-19 and the documentary evidence collected. The signatures and handwriting of PW-1 on the Visitor's Register in the handwriting of PW-1 have been proved by PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad.
1031. Thereafter, PW-1, Vinayanand, Shankaranand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand went to Trimohan, where Ram Kumar had given them training in use of arms and ammunitions, which is proved through the testimony of the approver PW-1, whose testimony as discussed in the judgment is credible, consistent and trustworthy.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1066 1032. Ultimately, in the month of October 1973, a criminal conspiracy was hatched on the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan and the meeting was attended by PW-1, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand and Ram Kumar and others. In the said meeting, it was decided to kill Madhavanand, L.N. Mishra, Abdul Gaffoor, Mr. Puri, Hingorani and others. The appreciation of evidence and the findings are dealt in the chapter with the caption "Criminal Conspiracy at Trimohan".
1033. I have already held that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, accused Budheshawaranand (since dead) suggested that in future the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan was not the appropriate place to keep arms and ammunitions and suggested the house of Gopalji at Chautham as alternative. It has also been held that PW-1, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand and Ram Kumar went to Bhagalpur at the house of Gopalji near Janta Library and there Santoshanand gave a letter in the name of one Saroj Kumar Biswas of Bangaon to PW-1 to bring the arms and ammunitions from him. At that time, the request of Santoshanand was accepted by accused Gopalji for holding the meeting at his house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar and for collection of arms and ammunitions. Meanwhile, PW-1 brought one country made revolver 303, two live cartridges and 110 other cartridges and he handed over the same to accused Gopalji. Thus, Gopalji has actively joined conspiracy by accepting the consignment of the arms and ammunitions. PW-1 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1067 informed Santoshanand that Mr. Biswas could not arrange hand grenades, but he was trying for it. Then after some parleys, Santoshanand and Vinayanand left for Bangaon to bring hand grenades from Mr. Biswas of Bangaon. As accused Santoshanand got late there, he sent a telegram under his assumed name of "Prabhu" addressed to Gopalji and this telegram Ex.PW-1/O was recovered from the house search of Gopalji on 17.05.1975 by PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha in the presence of PW-91. In order to make use of 110 cartridges, Arteshanand and Sudevanand left Chautham on the mission to get manufactured a firearm from Sh. Manohar Darve of Jabalpur, who was brought in the house at Gulzar Bagh, Patna, but Arteshanand and Sudevanand were not successful in their attempt, which is evident from the statement of PW-1, PW-44, PW-105.
1034. I have already held that subsequently in December 1973, arms and ammunitions were shifted from the house of Gopalji at Chautham to the house taken on rent at Gulzar Bagh, Patna.
1035. In order to execute the conspiracy to kill Abdul Gaffoor, Santoshanand deputed PW-1 to track the movements of Abdul Gaffoor at Patna, who used to visit Hotel Republic and also the house of a Muslim Family and as PW-1 had not seen Abdul Gaffoor personally, Santoshanand procured his photo from the office of newspaper "PRADEEP" or "VISHWABANDHU", where father of Santoshanand namely Sh. Narinder Narain Verma was working in the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1068 editorial section. On advice of accused Santoshanand, PW-1 has also visited at the residence of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor in the guise of a Businessman, saw him and the place well guarded. After his visit, PW-1 informed Santoshanand in the presence of Arteshanand and Sudevanand that it was such a guarded place that it would be impossible to escape after killing him. This is corroborated from the statements of PW-1, PW-33 and PW-143. The accused Santoshanand examined his brother Sushil Kumar as DW-19 but could not cause any dent in the case of the prosecution.
1036. On 29.12.1973, PW-1 under the assumed name of Shankar Kumar Gupta of Karol Bagh, Delhi stayed in Hotel Republic, Patna. This has been proved by the testimony of PW-1, PW-16, PW-17, PW- 126A, PW-129, PW-134 and PW-147 and record of the Hotel Republic. When it was reported by PW-1 that Abdul Gaffoor did not come to Hotel Republic, Patna, accused Santoshanand ascertained from someone that he used to visit a Muslim family near Palace Hotel, Opposite Gandhi Maidan Patna and gave a loaded revolver to PW-1. From 30.12.1973 to 04.01.1974, PW-1, Arteshanand and Sudevanand kept a watch during 08.00 PM to 12.00 Night on a rickshaw near Palace Hotel. Santoshanand himself used to supervise the action. This is evident from the statement of PW-1 and PW-67.
1037. Pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, on 05.01.1974, Vinayanand brought a hand grenade from Bangaon, which was shown CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1069 to PW-1, Arteshanand and Sudevanand at Gulzar Bagh House at Patna. After 2 or 3 hours, Santoshanand also reached there and suggested that they should leave Abdul Gaffoor for the time being and follow Madhavanand, who is scheduled to be produced before the District Magistrate, Patna on 07.01.1974 and accordingly an unsuccessful attempt was made by Vinayanand on the direction of accused Santoshanand to kill Madhavanand, who was an approver in a case registered against the cult head of Anand Marg namely Sh. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti, under Section 302 of IPC. This can be gleaned from the statement of PW-1, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-18, PW-92, PW-134, PW-138, PW-140 and PW-150.
1038. One day prior to attack on Madhavanand, after discussion among PW-1, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand and Santoshanand, on direction of Santoshanand, PW-1 left for Chautham on 06.01.1974 and reached there on 07.01.1974. He stayed at the house of Gopalji and after hearing the news of an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Madhavanand, on the advice of Gopalji, PW-1 shifted himself to farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar, where he stayed until 15.01.1974. As planned, when Santoshanand did not come there, PW- 1 came back from Tilihar to Chautham and after 2-3 days, Arteshanand and Sudevanand also reached there and a telegram Ex.PW-1/S was received on 17.01.1974 by Gopalji from Santoshanand under his assumed name of "Prabhu". After 1 or 2 days, Santoshanand also reached there and expressed regret that they CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1070 had not been successful in their mission and it was decided to bring Ram Kumar to chalk out further programme. The recovery of telegram Ex.PW-1/S from the house search of Gopalji at Chautham on 17.05.1975 and the corresponding evidence available is already discussed in the judgment at length. Attempt of PW-1 to bring Ram Kumar in the fourth week of January 1974, failed and then they went to Ram Kumar's house on 06.02.1974. Then on 06.02.1974, PW-1, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Ram Kumar and Tyageshwaranand participated in the meeting on 06.02.1974 at Trimohan. Santoshanand told them that they were short of arms and ammunitions and next meeting would be held on 15.02.1974 and everyone shall leave for convenient places for shelter. However, Tyageshwaranand @ Budheshawaranand was asked by Santoshanand that he should go Madhubani, where Abdul Gaffoor was fighting elections and to keep watch on his activities. Meanwhile, parents of PW-1 came to the house of Sham Lal Dass at Lahariya Sarai, and at that time PW-1 resolved that he would part company with the organization and Revolutionary Group as well. He did not attend the meeting at Trimohan on 15.02.1974. In the last week of February 1974, Ram Kumar could not impress PW-1 to accompany him and PW-1 informed that he would like to live with his parents. His marriage was solemnized on 02.06.1974 and after one month of his marriage Tyageshwaranand brought a letter from Santoshanand asking him to rejoin the organization, but he declined. After reading the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1071 letter, PW-1 handed over the same to Tyageshwaranand, who tore it off.
1039. From the above said discussion, this court is of the firm opinion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that in the month of October 1973, a conspiracy was hatched at the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan, which was attended by PW-1, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand and Ram Kumar and others. In the said meeting, it was agreed to secure release of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti by resorting to violent acts, by procuring arms and ammunitions and to commit murder of Madhavanand, L.N. Mishra, Abdul Gaffoor, Officers of CBI Sh. Puri and Hingorani, Jail Doctor and Civil Surgeon, Patna. It is also established on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gopalji subsequently joined this conspiracy, when he consented to hold meetings of the co-conspirators at his house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar and also started storing arms, ammunitions and hand grenades to accomplish the common design. It is also found from the evidence on record that approver Vikram had also joined the conspiracy in the end of June 1974, when he met accused Santoshanand in the market of South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi, which I have discussed under the different heads about the role of Vikram, the incident happened at Khanjarpur (Bhagalpur), participation at Chautham meetings of the Group, his visits to Indo- Nepal Border, attempts to secure arms by visiting several places CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1072 Narkatiaganj, Bitia, Chamua, Chakia and Rajgir etc. These have been dealt exhaustively qua the evidence available after duly appreciating the ocular and documentary testimony.
1040. I am satisfied that the prosecution established that Vikram was the part of the conspiracy and actively participated at every level after his meeting with A-1 in June 1974, visited Samastipur, arranged accommodation for himself and also for A-1 and A-2; saw Ranjan Dwivedi at Samastipur Railway Station, sneaked into the crowd at the venue where L.N. Mishra was to address with the help of a Pass procured through Ranjan Dwivedi, carried a hand grenade, which was left unattended on the railway track and disappeared thereon only to find again in the company of other accused at Chakia & Bhagalpur and was active till he turned an approver.
1041. The role of Ranjan Dwivedi is already discussed in detail. He joined conspiracy by visiting Samastipur along with Santoshanand and Sudevanand from Muzaffarpur by bus to make arrangement for Passes/Badges to reach the venue. (Per the testimonies of PW-2, PW- 5 and PW-6). The documentary evidence retrieved by the prosecution at the Railway Station concerning the Reservation Slip, Chart and the scribblings in his diary, which is discussed elsewhere conclusively establishes that he reached Samastipur, arranged the Passes for the accused and left before the scheduled function took place due to delay. It is also clear from his own admission under Section 313 Cr. PC that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1073 he met Baba on 17.12.1974 and his visits made to meet the Guru in the Jail is proved through documentary evidence. Therefore, this court does not find any reason to disbelieve the prosecution version proved through overwhelming oral and documentary evidence, which are highly trustworthy and cannot be discarded or read otherwise.
1042. Thus, the charge U/s. 120-B of IPC stands duly proved against all the accused persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ranjan Dwivedi @ Ram Janam Dwivedi and Gopalji. Accordingly, they are held guilty of the said offence.
(ii) Charge No. 2.
1043. This charge is against accused Ram Janam Dwivedi under Section 302 read with Section 109 and 112 of IPC for abetting Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Vikram in commission of an offence to murder L.N. Mishra, which was committed in consequence of his abetment when Sudevanand exploded live hand grenade on the Dais, which resulted in the death of L.N. Mishra, Surya Narain Jha and Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore. The other part of the charge is that Ram Janam Dwivedi had abetted Sudevanand and Santoshanand and Vikram to throw a live hand grenade on the Dais and thereby caused grievous hurt to eight persons namely Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N. Prasad, Ajay Kumar, Kapil Dev Narain Singh and Smt. Lalita Devi in addition to the murder of said three persons and committed the offence under CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1074 Section 326 read with Section 112 IPC. The other part of the charge is that Ram Janam Dwivedi has abetted Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Vikram to throw a live hand grenade on the Dais and thereby caused hurt to Jagan Nath Mishra, Rama Kant Jha, Jayant Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram, Suresh Prasad Singh, Umesh Prasad Singh, Bisheshwar Rai, Satender Prasad Singh, Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudahry, Smt. Noor Jahan, Jamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narayan Mandal, Pramod Prasad, I.D. Sharma, Naval Kishore, P.R. Chopra and C.S. Chaudhary and committed an offence under Section 324 read with Section 112 IPC.
1044. Before rendering the findings on the above charge which is exclusively against accused Ranjan Dwivedi under Section 302 r/w 109, 302 r/w 112, 326 r/w 112 and 324 r/w 112 IPC, this court cannot be oblivious of the omnibus charges against all the accused including the present accused for the offences under Section 302, 120-B IPC, 326 r/w 120-B & 324 r/w 120-B IPC is framed by my learned predecessor for the very acts in causing the deaths of three persons and injuries to several persons concerning the incident dated 02.01.1975.
1045. Having kept the same in mind, this court is of the opinion that since the present accused Ranjan Dwivedi against whom the instant charges are arraigned, need not be again charged for the offences for abetment in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1075 Court in Kehar Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1883 - which is reproduced for the benefit of understanding the implications and the redundancy of charging Section 109, 112 of IPC against a person who is already held guilty for the offence under Section 120-B of IPC under charge No. 1.
1046. I have already held in charge No. 1 that all the accused have participated actively in the criminal conspiracy which I have discussed elaborately and also I have come to the conclusion that all the accused including the proclaimed offenders had committed the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. In this backdrop, the ruling of Kehar Singh (Supra) comes into play and relevant Para reads as under:
"258. The concept of criminal conspiracy will be dealt with in detail a little later. For the present, it may be sufficient to state that the gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy created under Section 120-A is a bare agreement to commit an offence. It has been made punishable under Section 120-B. The offence of abetment created under the second clause of Section 107 requires that there must be something more than a mere conspiracy. There must be some act or illegal omission in pursuance of that conspiracy. That CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1076 would be evident by the wordings of Section 107 (Secondly) : "engages in any conspiracy..... for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy......"
The punishments for these two categories of crimes are also quite different. Section 109 Indian Penal Code is concerned only with the punishment abetments of for which no express provision is made under the Indian Penal Code. A charge under Section 109 should, therefore, be along with some other substantive offence committed in consequence of abetment. The offence of criminal conspiracy is, on the other hand, an independent offence. It is made punishable under Section 120-B for which a charge under Section 109 Indian Penal Code is unnecessary and indeed, inappropriate."
1047. It appears that my learned predecessor has framed this charge of abetment against accused Ranjan Dwivedi as an alternative charge. In view of this discussion, this charge becomes inconsequential, unnecessary and inappropriate in view of the charge under Section 120-B IPC having been already held as proved against all the accused including Ranjan Dwivedi. Thus, the present charge for abetment concerning the deaths and injuries is dropped being redundant.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1077
(iii) Charge No. 3.
1048. This charge is against accused Sudevanand under section 302 IPC for intentionally causing death of L. N. Mishra, Surya Narayan Jha and Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore, AND under section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to eight persons mentioned herein before AND under section 324 IPC for causing hurt to aforesaid eighteen persons by throwing a live hand grenade on the Dais at platform No. 3, Samastipur Railway Station on 02/01/1975 at about 05:30 PM.
1049. To answer this charge, the findings arrived by me under the different chapters, need not be repeated again. However, the gist of the prosecution case which is based on the sole testimony of PW-2 Vikram an approver in this case is highly corroborated in each and every point on material particulars and further corroborated by the circumstantial evidence which I have discussed throughout the judgment. This establishes the presence of A-1, A-2 and PW-2 near the rostrum at platform no. 3 Samastipur Railway Station on 02/01/1975, who entered the venue with the help of Passes arranged by A-3, who visited Samastipur on 01.01.1975 and visited the venue also twice on 02.01.1975. The then railway minister L.N. Mishra arrived to inaugurate B.G. Line late. In that function their presence is conclusively established not only by the sole testimony of PW-2 but by the circumstantial evidence that is gathered through the evidence of CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1078 other witnesses particularly PW-6 whose testimony is highly reliable, coherent and creditworthy. PW-6 had proved that he along with A-3 remained present along with the other accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand prior to the event at the spot but the event got delayed due to the late arrival of L.N. Mishra. By that time A-3 had left the venue at 04.00 PM. It is established from the testimony of PW-2 that it was Sudevanand who flung a hand grenade/bomb, which he carried with him. It is also established from the testimony of PW-2 that PW-2 himself and A-1 were also carrying one hand grenade each. The one flung by Sudevanand exploded on the Dais. There was commotion which resulted into injuries initially to many persons assembled on the Dais. The detailed testimony of several witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence clearly amplifies and establishes that all the dead and the injured were present on the Dias. In the said incident, Shri L.N. Mishra, who was seriously injured, was shifted for treatment to Danapur where he succumbed to his injuries on 03/01/1975 at 9:30 AM. One person Surya Narayan Jha succumbed to his injuries at Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital on 04/01/1975. The third injured Shri Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore succumbed to his injuries on 03.01.1975 in the railway hospital, Samastipur. All these deaths are as a result of severe injuries, internal bleeding, piercing of splinters of explosion in their bodies, mutilation of body in respect of Shri Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1079 1050. As discussed throughout the judgment under various chapters the prosecution is successful to prove that injured persons namely Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N. Parsad, Ajay Kumar, and Smt. Lalita Devi have suffered grievous hurt as a result of the explosion of hand grenade on the Dais on 02/01/1975 and the persons namely Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, Rama Kant Jha, Jayant Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram, Suresh Parshad Singh, Umesh Parshad Singh, Bisheshwar Rai, Satender Parsad Singh, Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudhary, Smt. Noor Jahan, Jamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narain Mandal, Pramod Parshad, Naval Kishore, P.R. Chopra, C.S. Chaudhary and Kapil Dev Narain Singh, suffered hurt due to the explosion of the bomb/grenade thrown/flung by accused Sudevanand who had intentionally and knowingly had caused it to explode on the Dais resulting into three deaths and injuries to several persons as above. After wading through the entire evidence both oral and documentary evidence running to several volumes, this court is satisfied that all the ingredients for the offences U/s. 302/326/324 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against this accused Sudevanand who had worked in tandem of criminal conspiracy with A-1, A-3, A-7, Ram Kumar and Vinayanand (both P.O.) and the approvers.
(iv) Charge No. 4.
1051. This charge is framed against accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand concerning the same incident under section 302 IPC read CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1080 with section 34 IPC, 326 IPC read with section 34 IPC and 324 IPC read with section 34 IPC. All the accused persons in the trial have already been charged and held guilty under section 120-B IPC for hatching criminal conspiracy to kill certain persons under charge no.1.
1052. Since the accused Sudevanand had been held guilty for the offences under sections 302/326/324 IPC, the other accused being part of the criminal conspiracy which has been proved, for which I have already held them guilty for the offence under section 120-B of IPC, while dealing with the charge, it becomes necessary to understand the thin difference between the common intention and criminal conspiracy. This court is conscious of the facts proved on record coupled with all the circumstantial evidence that Sudevanand has been very active and carried a hand grenade given to him by Santoshanand and both along with PW-2 were possessing explosives to create a mayhem at the venue with a common intention which sprang from the criminal conspiracy conceived by them along with others at Trimohan which was later on joined by approver Vikram PW-2 and accused Gopal Ji, followed by Ranjan Dwivedi for which I had already returned my findings.
1053. In this background it is noteworthy to analyze, understand the trappings, the thin difference, implications and affectations of the criminal conspiracy as described under sections 120A IPC and 120 B IPC, the common intention as found under section 34 of IPC. The CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1081 ruling of the Apex Court in Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 885 guides as under:-
"7. So far as Section 34 Indian Penal Code is concerned, it embodies the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act, the essence of that liability being the existence of a common intention. Participation in the commission of the offence in furtherance of the common intention invites its application. Section 109 Indian Penal Code on the other hand may be attracted even if the abettor is not present when the offence abetted is committed provided that he has instigated the commission of the offence or has engaged with one or more other persons in a conspiracy to commit an offence and pursuant to that conspiracy some act or illegal omission takes place or has intentionally aided the commission of an offence by an act or illegal omission. Turning to the charge under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code criminal conspiracy was made a substantive offence in 1913 by the introduction of Chapter V-A in the Indian Penal Code. Criminal conspiracy postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which is CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1082 not illegal. by illegal, means. It differs from other offences in that mere agreement is made an offence even if no step is taken to carry out that agreement. Though there is close association of conspiracy with incitement and abetment the substantive offence of criminal conspiracy is somewhat wider in amplitude than abetment by conspiracy as contemplated by Section 107 Indian Penal Code A conspiracy from its very nature is generally hatched in secret. It is, therefore, extremely rare that direct evidence in proof of conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholly disinterested quarters or from utter strangers. But, like other offences, criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed in most cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material. In fact because of the difficulties in having direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, once reasonable ground is shown for believing that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence then anything done by CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1083 anyone of them in reference to their common intention after the same is entertained becomes, according to the law of evidence, relevant for proving both conspiracy and the offences committed pursuant thereto........"
1054. Since, the offence under section 120-B IPC which carries a wider amplitude is already held proved against all the accused, though the common intention of Santoshanand and Sudevanand overlaps the criminal conspiracy. Considering the larger implications of proved criminal conspiracy, this court is of the view that holding the above two accused guilty of the offences coupled with the common intention as described under section 34 of IPC would amount to trumpeting again, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that section 120-B of IPC carries wider amplitude even if no steps is taken since section 120-B of IPC is by itself an offence made punishable in the year 1913. Thus, it is inevitable for this court to drop the above charge no. 4 as becoming nugatory.
(v) Charge No. 5.
1055. This charge is framed against accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Arteshanand (since dead), Gopal Ji and Ram Janam Dwivedi under section 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC, 326 IPC read with section 120-B IPC and 324 IPC read with section 120-B IPC in respect of death of above said three persons and grievous hurt to 7 CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1084 persons and hurt to eighteen persons in the bomb attack at Samastipur Railway Station on 02/01/1975 where the then Railway Minister L.N. Mishra was to inaugurate the B. G. Line by holding a function in which the bomb hurled by Sudevanand exploded resulting into the death of the minister also among the three dead.
1056. This is a substantial and omnibus charge against all the accused. This court has already held guilty of all the above accused for the offence under section 120-B of IPC in charge no. 1 for the reasons aforesaid in the judgment throughout. Likewise, this court has also held guilty Sudevanand for the offences under sections 302/324/326 IPC concerning the same incident under charge no. 2. Since the offence under section 120-B IPC is already held proved, the act of Sudevanand in committing in offences under sections 302/324/326 IPC concerning the same incident under charge no. 2 is binding on all the above accused equally, efficaciously under the principle of criminal joint liability recognized by sections 120A of IPC and 120-B of IPC.
1057. Thus, this court holds that A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-7 guilty for the offences under section 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC, 326 IPC read with section 120-B IPC and 324 IPC read with section 120-B IPC for causing the death of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Sh. Surya Narain Jha and Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore and grievous hurt to Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1085 Sharma, B.N. Parsad, Ajay Kumar, and Smt. Lalita Devi, and hurt to Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, Rama Kant Jha, Jayant Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram, Suresh Parshad Singh, Umesh Parshad Singh, Bisheshwar Rai, Satender Parsad Singh, Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudhary, Smt. Noor Jahan, Jamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narain Mandal, Pramod Parshad, Naval Kishore, P.R. Chopra, C.S. Chaudhary and Kapil Dev Narain Singh.
(vi) Charge No. 6.
1058. The charge No. 6 has been framed against accused Santoshanand that between June and July 1974 in Delhi, he was in possession of three live hand grenades and he intended by means thereof to endanger human life or cause injuries to the property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injuries to property and thereby committed an offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
1059. This court has already returned a finding with regard to the possession of the explosive substance by Santoshanand, which he handed over to PW-2. The consistent testimony of PW-2 corroborated by the testimony of PW-13, PW-15, PW-24, PW-25, PW-42 and PW- 138 along with the material objects seized i.e. Ex.P-7, P-11 to P-13 and documentary evidence Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B, clearly establishes that the accused Santoshanand had handed over a letter and a packet to PW-2 to be handed over to Budheshawaranand (since CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1086 dead) at Bhagalpur between June 1974 to First Week of July 1974. Accordingly, in the first week of July 1974, PW-2 carried and delivered the same to deceased Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. The photograph of Budheshawaranand Ex.P-3 is not demolished nor questioned by the accused. Rather, the same was got confirmed by the accused while cross-examining PW-151 at page No. 3825. According to the testimony of PW-2, the same was delivered and as instructed by the deceased Budheshawaranand, PW-2 and the deceased went to Khanjarpur (Bhagalpur) to a Maqbara on 13.07.1974, when suddenly the police party appeared and PW-2 escaped. Deceased Budheshawaranand, who kept the letter and packet in his bag (P-7), was arrested by the police and the police had seized the packet. The police found three hand grenades in the packet. When sent for scientific examination of the seized material in the packet, the same were revealed to contain hand grenades made of TNT (falling under Special category explosive substance as defined in Section 2 (b) of the said Act), which is an explosive substance and could endanger human life on explosion or cause injury to the property. The evidence of PW- 138 and the material objects seized at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13 establishes all the ingredients for the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. This court could not find anything to disbelieve the version of the prosecution from the entire material evidence presented before this court. Therefore, this charge is proved against CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1087 accused Santoshanand. Thus, accused Santoshanand is held guilty for the aforesaid offence also.
(vii) Charge No. 7.
1060. The instant charge is against accused Sudevanand accusing him of possessing a live hand grenade on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur and he intended by means thereof to endanger human life or to cause injury to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property and thus committed an offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
1061. While appreciating the entire evidence qua the accusations under the different chapters, this court has found reliable evidence from the testimony of PW-2 that it was Sudevanand who hurled a bomb/hand grenade on 02.01.1975 at the Rostrum injuring several persons out of them three succumbed to their injuries including the Railway Minister. The splinters have pierced into the bodies of the injured.
1062. The scientific report proved through PW-51 and his report at Ex.PW-51/A and the material objects like the splinters and the remnants of the shell of the hand grenade, which were exhibited as Mark "A to E" and referred in the report, inexorably proved that the hand grenade contained TNT (Tri-Nitro-Toluene)-(falling under Special category explosive substance as defined in Section 2 (b) of the CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1088 said Act)-which is an explosive substance and could endanger human life on explosion or cause injury to the property. Thus the evidence presented establishes that this charge is proved against accused Sudevanand. Hence, he is held guilty for the aforesaid offence also.
(viii) Charge No. 8.
1063. The present charge has been framed against accused Santoshanand that on 02.01.1975, while at Samastipur, he was in possession of three live hand grenades and he intended by means thereof to endanger human life or to cause injury to property or enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of The Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
1064. I have already held while answering the charge under the same provision as against accused Sudevanand, who having been given the explosive substance by the above accused Santoshanand, containing TNT (Tri-Nitro-Toluene)-(falling under Special category explosive substance as defined in Section 2 (b) of the said Act)-which is an explosive substance and could endanger human life on explosion or cause injury to the property, this court has found overwhelming evidence of the above accused possessing three hand grenades, which had passed on to the hands of PW-2 and Sudevanand and one retained by him (Santoshanand) and further one given to Sudevanand, which exploded upon its hurling by him, there is enough material to hold that CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1089 this accused possessed the explosive substance of special category on the date of incident i.e. 02.01.1975. Thus, this court hold Santoshanand guilty for the offence under Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 since all the ingredients for the said offence gets satisfied upon close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, who transcribed, typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the open court.
Delhi.
Dated: 08.12.2014 (Vinod Goel)
District & Sessions Judge
Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc. Vinod Goel
Decided on 08th December 2014. D&SJ (Shahdara) Page No. 1090