Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Date of Institution
01.07.1980
Arguments concluded
12.09.2014
Date of decision
08.12.2014
Judgment:
1.
collected
during
investigation,
Central
Bureau
of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
accordingly
direct
that
the
committal
proceedings (Trial Case No.860/79, RC 1/75-CIA1 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Now accused
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
was
joined
by
accused
Vinayanand
(P.O.),
accused
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
(approver)
and
Vinayanand
(P.O.)
adopted
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
The inaugural
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
10
He took it to his
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
11
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
12
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
17
All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
18
163 witnesses (161 plus witness No. 125A & 126A): Approver
PW-1
Madan
Mohan
Khanjarpur
on
13.07.1974.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
19
PW-3
Mahinder
Parshad
Sahu
eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975Identified 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
20
at
Collectorate
Patna)
took
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
21
at
Collectorate
Patna).
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
22
He has
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
23
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
24
to prove receiving of
Mishra
to
Sub-Inspector
He is
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
25
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
26
seen
sarsari
(cursory)
look
on
these
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
27
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
28
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.
He proved rukka
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
29
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
30
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
31
PW-31
Sh.
I.C.
Tiwari
was
the
obtaining
specimen
of
writing
of
accused
Sh.
Satnam
Singh
was
the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
32
accused
Ranjan
Dwivedi
and
Gopalji.
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
33
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
34
Ex.P-8 and
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
35
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
36
(Reservation Slip
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
37
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
was brought
to Patna by
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
38
He has
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
39
Ticket
Examiner
(Railways)
on
This document
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
40
recovered
during
search
of
accused
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
41
He proved his
He has been
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
42
Invitation
Cards
and
issuance
of
the
the Requisition
Slip
Ex.PW-6/A
for
for
three
railway
tickets
from
The
Assistant
Comptroller
from
the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
43
of
Bithan,
Samastipur, Bihar.
PS
Hassanpur,
District
PW-37,
who
Prosecution has
proved
printing
of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
44
of
SP,
GRP,
Muzaffarpur,
in
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
45
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
46
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
47
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
48
in
September 1974.
Army
Medical
Core
in
From Training
Vinod Goel
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 D41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. He knew
Santoshanand,
whose
original
name
was
He gave training to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
50
Vikram.
The
married
to
Ram
Aasrey
(Proclaimed
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
51
16.12.1974
Ex.PW-71/DA
by
Ranjan
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
52
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
53
Memo Ex.PW-76/B, Handing over Memo Ex.PW76/A. The file contains two Powers of Attorneys,
one Bail Bond and one Personal Bond Mark PW76/A-1 to A-4. (Either party does not refer these
documents and testimony of PW-76).
The
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
54
He has been
by
pointing
(approver).
towards
PW-2
Vikram
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
55
He
Sh.
J.S.
Bhagriya
was
the
He also seized
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
56
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
57
January 1975.
He received information on
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
58
Rameshwar
Parsad
Yadav.
He stated
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
59
There were
Ex.PW-68/DA,
two
telegrams
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
60
He remained
He has been
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
61
Ex.PW-93/J
of
P.R.
Chopra,
General
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
62
persons
Samastipur.
to
the
Railway
Hospital,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
63
Ex.PW-9/C
furnished
by
Budheshawaranand.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
64
Notes
Ex.PW-97/A.
He
is
also
He is
He was treated
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
65
He
After
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
66
Assistant
Station
Master,
MG
Lines,
Sh.
I.P.
Sharma
has
been
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
67
Medical
College
and
Hospital,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
68
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
69
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
70
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
71
as
an
Accountant
and
Manager
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
72
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
73
(Accused Ranjan
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
74
These diaries
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
75
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
76
was present
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
77
PW-121 Sh. P.K. Mishra, the then SubInspector 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
78
SASHATRA
KRANTIKARI
CHHATRA
were brought
to
Railway
Hospital,
on
4.8.1975,
he
seized
the
Railway
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
79
writing
and
signing
and
to
identify
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
80
on
22.9.1975
in
the
office
of
He is
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
81
Delhi,
remained
associated
with
the
of
the
case
RC
No.11/1975
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
82
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
83
Reservation Chart Mark PW-47/A of 2-tier and 3tier 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
of
Intelligence
Branch,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
84
Parsu
Ram
Singh;
and
recovered
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
85
thereafter.
PW-136 Sh. Akhilesh Parsad: Neither
party referred his deposition during arguments.
PW-137
Sh.
S.K.
Ghosh,
the
then
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
86
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
87
time
worker
with
this
newspaper
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
88
He
Sh.
Stenographer
Pushpender
to
Chief
Kumar
Judicial
Since he only
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
89
Hand
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
90
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
91
Search
Memo
Ex.PW-91/A
bearing
tally
with
his
specimens
signature/handwriting.
PW-161 Sh. Rameshwar Sharma has been
Deputy
Secretary,
Finance
Department,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
92
Bihar Government.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
93
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
94
He became
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
95
He was
by
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
96
5) Defence Witnesses
22.
He is
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
97
He has
defence
examined
him
to
elicit
that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
98
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
99
messages
dated
30.12.1974
and
25.12.1974
has
examined
Chief
Medical
Lok
Adalat,
Supaul
and
retired
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
100
Sh.
Arun
Shourie
the
then
It was also
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
101
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
102
Dr.
Ashok
Kumar
Thakur
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
103
village
Chautham, has
been
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
104
Report-1 Ex.DW-26/2, Interim Report-2 Ex.DW26/3 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
Assistant,
Sh.
Arms
Prabhat
Kumar
Licensing
Singh,
Department,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
105
The
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
106
Sh.
D.P.
of
Police,
Ojha,
the
then
Samastipur
from
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
107
1975,
he
(accused
Santoshanand
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
108
top-secret
inquiry
and
gave
his
Report
According to DW-40,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
109
Sh.
Deepak
Jain,
another
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
110
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
111
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
112
7) Clubbing of Investigations
26.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
114
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
115
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
116
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
117
For the foregoing reasons and the case law discussed above, the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
118
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
119
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
120
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
121
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 Honble 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.
On
12.05.1975, his confessional statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr. PC.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
122
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. Rays 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
123
2/1975
were
clubbed/amalgamated
by
the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
124
(iii)
Following the
statement
was
completed
His
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
125
@ Madan
Mohan
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
126
granted bail by the Honble High Court and as such, PW-1 was
ordered to be bailed out by the court of CJM, Patna.
36.
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 crossexamination, 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
127
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
128
37.
As
already
concluded
the
stereo-type
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
129
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
130
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..
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
131
40.
To decide
Similar view has been taken by our own Honble 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
132
since
it
was
in
his
own
cannot
be
treated
as
done
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
133
proceeding
or
before
any
officer
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
134
that
circumstances
any
under
statements
as
which
was
it
to
the
taken,
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
Vinod Goel
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.
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.
The
Vinod Goel
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.PW2/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
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
139
Lordships'
view
it
would
be
particularly
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
140
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
141
Magistrate
should
have
been
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
142
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
143
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
144
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
145
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
146
does not see any ground to discard the prosecution case for nonexamining 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)
sanctity to all such court records and statement made on oath at any
stage of investigation or trial.
(ii)
Vinod Goel
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.
Ms. Sima Gulati, Ld. Counsel for accused Gopalji argued that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
148
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
149
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
150
55.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
151
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
152
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
153
in
criminal
proceeding.
Such
Vinod Goel
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
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
155
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.PW1/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 crossexamination 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
156
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
157
60.
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Therefore, it is
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
159
64.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
160
66.
proceeds
on
the uncorroborated
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
161
can
lawfully
rests
upon
his
some
independent
witness
tending
to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
162
incriminate
the
particular
accused
in
the
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 Honble 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
163
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".
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
164
71.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
165
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.
Though there is
SCC 630, the Honble 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
166
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
167
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
168
of
material
particulars,
of
course
to
believe
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
169
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.
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.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
170
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
171
PW-1 participated in
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
172
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
173
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 BoatClub 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
174
80.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
175
Prakashanand at the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
176
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
177
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
178
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
179
Manager at Jaipur.
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
180
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
181
These four
statements Ex.PW-2/DD, Ex.PW-2/DK, Ex.PW-2/DB and Ex.PW2/DE of PW-2 are thus recorded by the police officer much before
confessional statement by PW-2.
police
officer/investigation
officer,
being
incriminatory.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
182
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
183
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
184
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
185
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
186
be
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
187
Vinod Goel
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.
On
denied the suggestion that these are bogus and fabricated documents.
91.
Vinod Goel
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 R4. 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 PW61 at Point A as also at Point Ex.PW-61/B. This is available in
Folder R-12.
92.
Vinod Goel
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.
suggestion that the police forged the documents Ex.PW-2/E, Ex.PW2/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
Vinod Goel
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,
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
192
Ex.PW-82/A is the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
193
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
194
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
195
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
196
Vikram on above said bank documents Ex.PW-2/F at point A, Ex.PW2/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
He testified that
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
197
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
198
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
199
Vinod Goel
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.
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-
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
202
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
203
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
204
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
205
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
206
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
207
consistent and coherent testimony of this witness only had redrawn the
entire examination-in-chief.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
208
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
209
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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
210
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).
suggestion that PW-1, who was present in the court is not the
Visheshwaranand.
the
identity
of
PW-1
Madan
Mohan
Srivastava
as
Vinod Goel
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 PW34 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
213
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
214
Vinod Goel
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, PW11, 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
216
explanations manifestly makes it clear that this witness has been dillydallying to reveal the truth. At times, he shows ignorance with regard
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
218
Dwivedi has written the portion Q-15-A in his said diary Ex.PW-43/Z6 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
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
220
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
223
know that police was searching for Santoshanand after selfimmolation 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
224
While
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
225
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
226
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
227
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
228
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
229
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
230
he
himself,
Vinayanand
(Proclaimed
Offender),
Arteshanand,
he
himself,
Vinayanand,
Arteshanand,
Sudevanand,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
231
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
233
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
234
Vinod Goel
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
(Santoshanand) got his haircut short and his beard was shaved.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
236
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
237
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
238
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
239
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
241
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
243
suggests that there were confabulations among PW-2, PW-27 and PW80 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
244
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
245
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
247
Vinod Goel
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 countrymade 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
249
that
he
informed
Ram
Aasrey,
He told the
Rudranand
and
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
252
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
253
Vinod Goel
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).
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
255
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
256
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
257
He denied the
that
this
Register
manipulated/interpolated/fabricated.
Ex.P-5
was
either
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
258
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
260
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
261
in
the
Visitors
Register
Ex.P-5
(of
Aadarsh
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
262
Vinod Goel
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 PW126A 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
265
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
267
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
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
269
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
270
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
271
examination in chief nor in his 164 statement. This aspect of crossexamination is only a bulwark on the part of the defence to confound
and confuse the witness and to mislead the court. The crossexamination 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination 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 Honble 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 Honble 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
275
Anand Margies took place on the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar
Singh.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
possession of 3 cartridges of the same bore for use in the revolver and
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
that
at
that
time
Avadhoot
Tyageshwaranand
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
280
201. The accused persons have examined Sh. Deen Pal Rai as DW24. 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,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
281
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
282
Vinod Goel
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
Arteshanand.
Vinayanand,
Shankaranand,
Sudevanand
and
Vinayanand in Judo, use of 12 bore guns, extent of energy of countrymade bomb and how to throw and handle it.
Subsequently,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
284
Therefore,
procuring of this weapon i.e. stolen revolver from Din Pal Rai, which
entailed his prosecution resulting into his acquittal as stated by PW90, 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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)
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
286
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
287
Arteshanand,
Sudevanand,
Santoshanand,
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
290
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
291
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
292
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
293
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
294
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
296
Vinod Goel
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 Honble 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 Honble 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.
Vinod Goel
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 Honble 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 crossexamined 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
299
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
302
He did not
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
305
He deposed that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
306
Vinod Goel
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 fathers 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
308
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
309
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
311
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
314
Vinod Goel
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 PW1 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
316
Reception.
Republic for the first time, they used to take advance from him. The
visitor to Hotel Republic used to make entry in the Visitors 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
Vinod Goel
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 Visitors 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 Visitors 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
318
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
319
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
320
handed over sheet from the Visitors 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 Visitors 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
321
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Visitors 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 Visitors 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 Visitors 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 (D154) 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
323
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
324
He
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
326
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
327
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
328
He remained under
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
329
Vinod Goel
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.PW1/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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
331
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
332
Vinod Goel
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.PW17/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
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
Vinod Goel
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 visitors.
250. Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Gulati then argued that the Cash
Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9) and Visitors 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 PW126A, who has also identified these signatures on Cash Vouchers
Ex.PW-1/R and Visitors 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 PW1, 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
Visitors 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
Visitors Register of Hotel Republic has not been filed and the
prosecution has only filed a loose sheet of the Visitors 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 Visitors
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 Honble Supreme Court in Central Bureau
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
338
be
permanent
and
the
papers
used
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
339
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
340
transactions
or
the
like;
statement
and
meaning
the
latter
give
it
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
341
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
342
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
343
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
344
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
345
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
346
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
347
Then,
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.
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.
nearby. He did not see any police officer moving thereabout on that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
348
The cross-
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
350
of
hand
grenade
by
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
351
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
352
Vinod Goel
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
January (1974).
Merely
because
PW-1
did
not
state in his
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
354
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
355
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 2-2 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
356
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
(When
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
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
360
In fact, such a
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
361
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 2025 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
Vinod Goel
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 (PW10) 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.
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
363
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
Vinod Goel
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
(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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
365
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
366
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
370
(When
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
371
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
372
statement he did not tell the colour of the chaddar, in which the
assailant had wrapped himself.
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
373
Madhavanand during
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
374
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
375
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
376
He identified the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
377
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
378
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 1 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
379
Vinod Goel
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.
vehicles.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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 SubInspector 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
384
He was promoted as
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
385
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
386
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
387
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
388
Vinod Goel
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 Honble 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
390
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
391
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
392
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
393
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
394
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
395
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
396
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
397
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
398
He took
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
399
Ram Kumar
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
400
statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC tha t he came to the house of Sham Lal Dass
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
402
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
403
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
404
At that time,
Secretary sent him a telegram that Baba was seriously ill and he (PW1) 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
405
He
Government gives quota of papers for all journals but they have not
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
406
He
also
denied
the
suggestion
that
real
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
407
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
408
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
409
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
410
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 PW1 Madan Mohan Srivastava is also known as Visheshwaranand.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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-
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
413
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
414
Visheshwaranand,
sometimes
as
Aacharya
The words
In his cross-examination, he
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
415
of
Anand
Marga Primary
This is in the
of
23.10.1972.
Visheshwaranand
Avadhoot
(PW-1)
with
date
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
416
telegram bears the round postal stamp of Jabalpur Post Office and
bears its date as 16.01.1973.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
417
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
418
He deposed that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
419
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
420
slip)
relating
to
Madan
Mohan
Srivastava.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
421
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
422
Following
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
423
(iv)
there
were
highly
placed
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
424
only
job
throughout
his
stay
in
the
(PW-134)
in
his
cross-examination
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
425
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
426
it was appearing.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
427
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
428
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
429
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
430
Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M,
Ex.PW-68/A, which bears his signature at point A and that of Sh. Neel
Mohan Singh at point B.
prepared at the spot and it bears his signature at point A and that of Sh.
Neel Mohan Singh at point B.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
432
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination of PW-1, the defence asked the witness as to where the
decision to keep the arms and ammunitions at Gopaljis 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 crossexamination 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
434
namely Smt.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
436
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
437
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.PW134/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.
Vinod Goel
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 19711972. 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: -
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
439
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
440
arrived
at
your
house
at
Nobody came to my
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
441
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
442
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
443
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
444
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
445
I am innocent.
CBI
The
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
446
Mishra
also
made
dying
The further
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
447
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
448
Ans.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
449
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
450
(D-60)
and
all
these
recovered/seized
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
451
Ans.:
do
not
know.
The
recovered
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
452
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
453
Murariji was a
(PS
Beldaur)
but
the
aforesaid
That in the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
454
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
455
Chautham or Tilihar ?
Ans. I think, I did not.
Q.
he
told
A-1
about
the
delivery
of
the
packet
to
Vinod Goel
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
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
457
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
458
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
459
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
460
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
461
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
462
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
463
Murariji, another Anand Margi of their Village, who left Anand Marg
after arrest of Guru/Anand Murti in the year 1971.
Thereafter,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
464
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
465
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
466
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
467
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.PWCBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
468
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
469
361.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
470
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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 his cross-
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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 MLAs 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
477
Chaudhary.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
479
To compare the
questioned writing of Sh. M.M.P. Sinha on the Seizure Memo Ex.PW91/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.DW38/1, 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
480
He took the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
481
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
483
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
484
an illegal act, or
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
485
(2)
committed
to
co-operate
for
the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
486
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
487
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 Honble 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
488
case
where
the
agreement
is
for
conspiracy
alleged
is
with
regard
to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
489
these
requirements
and
ingredients
are
Direct
It is not
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
490
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
491
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
492
the
consummation
of
the
intended
another,
amongst
the
conspirators.
In
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
493
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
494
crime
of
conspiracy.
Offence
of
criminal
may
be
proved
by
necessary
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
495
design
is
sufficient.
Surrounding
of
Supreme
Court
reported
as
Usman
Mohammad
Hussain
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
496
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
497
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
498
Vinod Goel
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 Honble 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
500
could
be
subjected
to
cross-
Vinod Goel
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 PW2, 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
been duly
Vinod Goel
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 Oclock 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
505
However, PW-13
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
506
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
507
the testimony of PW-2 has been corroborated by the version of PW13. 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
508
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
509
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
510
press. The defence failed to belie that Ex.P-3 was not the photograph
of Amar Singh.
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
Vinod Goel
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 Q12. (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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
512
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
513
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
514
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
515
Khanjarpur
on
13.07.1974
and
at
that
time,
Vinod Goel
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. PW2 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.
Vinod Goel
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).
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
520
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
522
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
523
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
524
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
26.07.1974 is available in Folder R-1)
dated
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
526
Ex.PW-138/B
is
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
527
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
528
PW-2
had
been
sent
by
Santoshanand.
On
13.07.1974,
Bhagalpur.
There
PW-25
apprehended
PW-2
in the presence
of
PW-13
to
be
delivered
to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
529
and arrest of
530
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
531
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
532
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
534
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
536
Vinod Goel
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 1 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
538
Nath Singh (PW-27) was present apart from him when talk about
release of Anand Murti by Krantikari.
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 crossexamination 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 crossexamination, 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination 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.
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
meeting
of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
540
Vinod Goel
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).
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
542
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.PW23/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
544
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
546
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
547
It bears his
Vinod Goel
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.PW23/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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
549
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
550
(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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
551
deceased) brought PW-2 at Chautham and introduced each other to A7 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
552
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.
Vinod Goel
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 fullsleeved 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.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
556
Vinod Goel
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. Rays 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 Rays case, in his statement under Section 161 and 164
Cr. PC of that case.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
558
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
559
up to his chest level. His own height is 57. 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
560
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
There might be
Vinod Goel
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.
When the
Vinod Goel
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 further
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
564
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
565
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
566
It is also
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
567
Vinod Goel
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
as
and
the
corroborative
evidence
inspires
confidence
including
the
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
570
Therefore, it is
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
571
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
572
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
573
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
574
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
575
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
576
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
577
One Youth
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
578
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 (PW81). The size of the Badge is 3.5 inches X 2.75 inches. Here it is
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
579
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
580
He also
He has also
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
581
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
582
I, however
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
583
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
584
argued that prosecution had not seized the Register kept at the first
class waiting room at the Railway Station, Samastipur to show that A3 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.
Vinod Goel
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-
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
586
litigation with the brother-in-law of A-3 namely Mr. Chaubey (DW4). 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.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
588
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
589
on 02.01.1975.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
590
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
591
Vinod Goel
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.PW65/B with his signatures. First Information Report No. 1/75 at Ex.PW86/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.PW65/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 crossexamination, 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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
593
The Railway
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
594
purpose of all the police officials was to prevent the mischief and keep
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
595
(PW-86 has
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
596
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
597
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
598
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
600
Vinod Goel
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.
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
Vinod Goel
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 flowerbed and he has just kept it there. He had not seen any hand grenade
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
603
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
604
It is also
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
605
Dais, where 20 or 30 persons were present. Sh. Baleshwar Ram (CW5) welcomed the Minister.
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.PW26/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.PW26/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
607
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
609
In the cross-
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
610
Ex.PW-53/A
is
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.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
612
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
613
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
614
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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:-
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
617
Railway Minister.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
621
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
623
This
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
625
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
628
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
629
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
630
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
632
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
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
634
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
636
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
637
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.
Vinod Goel
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 doctors 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 CW4 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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, PW65, 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 crossCBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
645
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.
Vinod Goel
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. PW53 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
3.5x 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
649
Narain Poddar deposed that his father owned Ajay Printing Press at
Samastipur since 1970.
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.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
651
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
652
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
655
The
Vinod Goel
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 (PW37) 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
657
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
658
Vinod Goel
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
He also
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
660
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
661
On 07.1.1975, he
Vinod Goel
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.PW139/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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
664
Vinod Goel
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.P38 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.PW52/D from Shri J.P. Sinha, ASI, GRP, Samastipur (PW-52).
He
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
667
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
669
following marking:A
F
G
594. Ex.PW-51/A
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
is
Preliminary
handwritten
Report
dated
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.PW51/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
672
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
673
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
674
Ex.PW-51/F is
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
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination, 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
676
601. A conjoint reading of the deposition of PW-72, PW-73 and PW51 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.
Vinod Goel
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-NitroToluene) and on explosion this could endanger human life.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
678
Vinod Goel
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.PW20/A in the bundle for January 1975 and these two documents were
taken into possession by CBI Officers vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW20/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.PW20/A at points A, B & C.
(Ex.PW-2/B is available in Folder R-4. Ex.PW20/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
Vinod Goel
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 crossexamination 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
681
- ,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
682
.. ., ,
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
683
Therefore, it is an
methods
to
avenge
their
actions.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
684
, -
1.
2. - -
,
3. -, ,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
685
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
686
These
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
687
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
688
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
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 crossexamination, 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
691
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
692
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
693
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
694
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
695
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
696
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
697
New
Delhi.
(He
correctly
identified
accused
Santoshanand.
He
identified
the
writing of
Vinod Goel
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 (Q3) 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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 (Q1), 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.PW2/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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 Q3 was described to be Ex.PW-2/N in his statement instead of Ex.PW2/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.PW2/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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:
3900/-
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
Santoshanand.
Specimen
writing
of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
703
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
704
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
705
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
706
Vinod Goel
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 Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble 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.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
708
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
709
In this
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
710
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
711
factual
formulated
the
aspects,
the
following
larger
questions
Bench
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
712
self-
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
713
specimen writing or of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
714
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
715
the
statement,
though
that
fact,
in
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
716
has
gone
beyond
this
strict
literal
and
02.02.2002
addressed
by
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
717
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
718
Vinod Goel
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).
shown both these documents to Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21), who
after going through these documents asked Sh. Farzand Ahmed (PW20) 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.PW2/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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
720
Ashok
Kumar
has
also
identified
PW-2
Vikram,
accused
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
721
changed his name as Bharat has not been discredited in his crossexamination 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 PW134 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.
Vinod Goel
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.PW2/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". PW23 has identified not only Santoshanand but also Sudevanand,
Arteshanand and Vikram in the court correctly.
His capacity to
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
724
documentary
evidence
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
726
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
727
On
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
728
This
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
729
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
731
elicited that he was given the carbon copy and the same is Mark PW47/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
732
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
733
He also
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
734
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 Q15-B and Q-15-C is Ex.PW-43/AA-198 and of Q-15-D is Ex.PW43/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
Vinod Goel
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/AA200 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-
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
736
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 2 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
737
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 & PW115 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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 Honble 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
740
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
741
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
742
658. The Diary Ex.P-123 was filed in A.N. Rays case and its
juxtapose copies are Ex.PW-43/AA-194 (Q-13, Q-13-A), Ex.PW43/AA-195
(Q-14A).
(Available in Folder R-119). Similar juxtapose copies of diary Ex.P123 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. Rays 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
743
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
746
In this regard, I
He deposed that
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
747
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-
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
748
He
deposed (page 3568) that the Seizure Memo dated 13.11.1975 Ex.PW151/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
749
The
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
750
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
751
in proving
752
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
753
A false answer/
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 Vinays motherin-law, whose husband had died only a few days
earlier, and all were in distress. Even Vinay had
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
754
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 thanksgiving 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
756
that
this
accused
was
successful
in
getting
entry
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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: -
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
758
Vinod Goel
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 fiance, 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
760
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
761
Vinod Goel
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,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
763
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
764
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
765
much tainted his continuance in the Union Cabinet would be ununderstandable 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
766
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
767
He asked
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
768
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
769
when he comes.
Santoshanand
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
770
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
771
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
772
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
773
in
A-1s
There is nothing
making
extra
judicial
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
774
crime.
Name of
Injured
Whether
examined
as a
witness
MLC/Injury Report
/Medical Report
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
775
(i)
(ii)
DIG
B.N. Prasad
(Brij Nandan
Prasad)
PW-28
Brij Mohan
PW-57
Sharma
30 years R/o
Village Bithan
Ex.PW-104/A
(Available in Folder R-14)
Examined at Janta Clinic on
3.1.1975.
He suffered Grievous injuries.
Splinters on right side of chest
and in abdomen
Ex.PW-93/E
(Available in Folder R-29)
Admitted in Railway Hospital
on 2.1.1975 at 18.15 hrs.
Discharged on 14.1.1975.
(iii)
Ajay Kumar
10 years
PW-58
Ex.PW-97/A
(Available in Folder R-14)
Nawab Clinic
(iv)
Ram Bhagat
Paswan
MP
40 years
PW85
Ex.PW-93/H = Ex.PW-107/G
(Available in Folder R-29)
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)
(v)
Ram Vinod
Sharma
42 years
776
Kapil Dev
Narain Singh
MLA
56 years
Not
Ex.PW-93/F
examined. (Available in Folder R-29)
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
Singh
46 years
Not
Ex.PW-93/G
examined. (Available in Folder R-29)
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
777
Hospital.
Suffered comminuted fracture
both bones lower 3rd of left leg.
(viii)
Smt. Lalita
Devi Singh
35 years
Not
examined
Name
No.
(i)
Sh. Jayant
Banerjee
33 years
Whether
examined
as a
witness
PW 127
MLC/
Report
Ex.PW-93/S =Ex.PW-107/K
(Available in Folder R-29)
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. Discharged on 5.1.1975.
No fracture.
(ii)
(iii)
Umesh Prasad
Singh
Jagan Nath
PW56
No document
CW3
Mishra
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
778
(iv)
Rama Kant
Jha
48 years
Not
Ex.PW-93/N =Ex.PW-107/D
examined. (Available in Folder R-29)
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
Ram 45 years
MLA-Ex
Minister
(vi)
Suresh Prasad
Singh
46 years
Advocate
(vii)
Examined
as CW-5
Ex.PW-93/R =Ex.PW-107/B
(Available in Folder R-29)
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. and discharged on request
on 3.1.1975.
Dr. T.D. Nandi
Not
Ex.PW-93/L
examined. Admission No.3601
(Available in Folder R-29)
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975
on request.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
779
65 years
(viii)
P.R. Chopra
53 years
(ix)
(x)
Bisheshwar
Rai
28 years
Satender
Parshad Singh
30 years
Not
examined
Not
examined
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
780
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
Parmanand
Jha,
42 years
Not
Suraj
Chaudhary 60
years
Not
examined
examined
Not
Smt. Noor
Jahan 35 years
examined
Suraj Narain
Mandal
45 years
Pramod
Prasad
23 years
Not
examined
Not
examined
Ex.PW-93/W=Ex.PW-107/H
(Available in Folder R-29)
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975
on request.
Ex.PW-93/U
(Available in Folder R-29)
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.
Ex.PW-93/Q
(Available in Folder R-29)
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs. and discharged on 4.1.1975
Ex.PW-93/O
(Available in Folder R-29)
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 and
discharged on 3.1.1975
Ex.PW-93/M
(Available in Folder F-29)
Admission No.3602
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 02.1.1975 at
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
781
(xvi)
I.D. Sharma
Not
examined
(xvii)
(xviii) C.S.
Chaudhary
Not
examined
Ex.PW-93/K =Ex.PW-107/C
(Available in Folder R-29)
Admission No.3582
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 and
discharged on 3.1.1975
PW-97 Dr. S.N. Nawab
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
782
Sh.
Paswan, MP, deposed that he along with Ram Sukumari Devi, Sh.
Vinod Goel
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. Nawabs 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
784
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
785
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
786
Vinod Goel
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.
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
788
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
789
He
did not realize that it was necessary to mention that X-ray was advised
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
791
Vinod Goel
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,
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
794
2.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
795
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
796
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
797
the Hospital.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
798
2.
3.
There
were
numerous
lacerated
penetrating
5.
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
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
800
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
801
Father
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
804
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
805
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
806
in serious condition.
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.
admitted the patient Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
He then
Ex.PW-101/A is his
Vinod Goel
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. Nawabs 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
808
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
810
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
811
"(i)
(ii)
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
812
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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 PW101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender on 2.1.1975.
undertake the
Vinod Goel
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.
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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Inquest Report
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
815
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
816
Vinod Goel
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.
Superintendent of Police gave permission and dispensed with the postmortem 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
be conducted or not.
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
819
Vinod Goel
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 PW100 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 subsection 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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
821
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 postmortem examination to be conducted on the body of Sh. Jha.
PW-
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
822
Surya Narain Jha, MLC were immediate neighbours. Dr. Sarkar (PW100) 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.
Vinod Goel
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 PW125A instead of PW-125. Necessary correction is done.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
825
Vinod Goel
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.
Samastipur.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
827
He noted
2.
3.
4.
5.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
2.
3.
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
829
One
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
830
Dr.
Vinod Goel
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.
wounds of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and 5 minutes for his general
examination after dressing of the wounds. He might have taken 5
Vinod Goel
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.
It was typed on
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
834
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.
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-
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
835
throughout
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
836
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.
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
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.
2.
3.
Irregular
contused
area
above
injury
no.2
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
839
5.
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.PW118/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
X-Ray Chest.
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
841
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
842
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
763. PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha further deposed that the following
procedure was adopted:1.
2.
3.
4.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
843
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
844
His several
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
845
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
846
847
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
He found about
He did not
Vinod Goel
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.PW151/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
851
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
853
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
854
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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 XRay. 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 Xray 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
857
Danapur in a phial. It was opened in the court and metallic piece Ex.P192 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
858
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
859
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
862
The removal of
Vinod Goel
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.
No.
of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
864
1.
4.1.1975 on
request
2.
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
4.1.1975 on
request
3.
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
3.1.1975 on
request
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
14.1.1975 on
request
2.1.1975 at 18.15
3.1.1975 on
request
7.
Yamuna Prasad
Mandal
Ex.PW-93/P
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
8.
3.1.1975 on
request
9.
Died on 3.1.1975
at 7.45 AM (PW107 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
4.
5.
6.
hrs.
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
3.1.1975 on
request (leaving at
his risk for better
treatment)
4.1.1975 on
request
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
865
10.
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
11.
Pramod Prasad
Ex.PW-93/M
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
3.1.1975
on request
12.
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
13.
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
3.1.1975. Left
Hospital for better
treatment at his
will
4.1.1975
on request
14.
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
15.
Suraj Chaudhary
Ex.PW-93/U
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
16.
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
17.
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
3.1.1975.
Left
Hospital for better
treatment at his
will.
7.1.1975 on
request
3.1.1975 on
request for better
treatment.
3.1.1975 on
request
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
866
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
867
2.
3.
4.
5.
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,
Vinod Goel
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
869
7.
8.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
871
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
872
2.
Vinod Goel
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).
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 crossexamination, 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
874
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
875
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:-
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
876
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
877
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
878
Vinod Goel
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
880
public started raising slogans Lalit Babu Jindabad and some persons
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
882
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
883
2.
3.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
884
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
In his cross
Vinod Goel
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.
2.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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 (PW58) 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 (PW58), they advised that they might be shifted to Darbhanga Medical
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
888
He was
Vinod Goel
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.
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 (PW58), 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.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
891
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
892
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
893
2.
3.
4.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
894
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
895
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
896
PW-93
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
897
2.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
898
Vinod Goel
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
900
Noting at point
Vinod Goel
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.
2.
3.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
903
2.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
905
2.
3.
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.
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.
Vinod Goel
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
He
He was
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
907
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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, NorthEastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur.
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
909
2.
3.
He correctly
recorded the injuries at portion mark D of the said Bed Head Ticket.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
910
On
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
911
2.
3.
4.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
912
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
913
which he identified.
2.
Vinod Goel
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.PW93/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 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
Vinod Goel
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 X 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
916
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
917
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
918
He further
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
919
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
920
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
921
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
922
The
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
924
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
925
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
927
application under Section 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC was allowed and CW8 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 RC1/75.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
basis
of
materials
collected
during
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
929
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
930
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
931
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
933
Vinod Goel
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)
Vinod Goel
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 CW9 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 Honble three
Judges of the Honble 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
936
recorded
conversation
is
admissible
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
937
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
938
He testified that on
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
939
PW-2
Vinod Goel
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 attach and they had asked him to read out a typed matter.
He answered that when he was reading the statement, one attach 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
Vinod Goel
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. PW2 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
942
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
943
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
945
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
946
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.PW2/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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
950
suggestion of the defence that at Point X on the envelope Ex.PW2/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.
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
951
these letters in the handwriting of PW-2 by giving suggestion to PW131 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
952
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
953
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
954
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
955
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
958
Samastipur
Jailor
had
succeeded
in
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
959
In the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
960
It is not
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
961
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
962
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
963
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
964
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
965
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
966
authorities
permit
further
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
967
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
968
investigating
agency
to
conduct
further
'further
investigation'
and
file
Vinod Goel
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 Honble 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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.PW64/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 Honble Supreme Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of
Kerala, 1998 AIR (SC) 2001, can be referred to. It was held by the
Honble 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 Honble 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
972
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
973
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
974
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
975
Vinod Goel
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,
released,
while
upholding
the
conviction
of
accused
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
977
Vinod Goel
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 (DW16) 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.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
980
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
981
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
982
would
certainly
interfere
with
the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
983
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
985
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
986
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
988
951. Admittedly, in Session Case No. 9/1976 arising out of RC11/75 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
989
Vinod Goel
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.
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.
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
992
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,
Vinod Goel
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,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
994
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
995
slow
in
community
of
snails".
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
998
Being
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
999
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1000
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1001
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1003
finding
as
regards
the
facts
and
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1004
It is
framed
by
the Government
and
the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1005
While
interpreting
the
terms
of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1006
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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
producing
any
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1009
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1010
The copies of
As the
deponents of other three affidavits have not been examined, the same
are not being considered being inadmissible in evidence.
I have
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1011
any attempt to
contact Sh.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1012
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1013
Visheshwaranand.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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 RC1/1975 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1016
and on
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1017
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1019
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1021
suggestion that hearing aid has been planted having recovered from
the pant of the accused Santoshanand.
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.
Platform No. 1 of the Railway Station, Patna. In his further crossexamination on behalf of accused Gopalji and Arteshanand, he
admitted the suggestion that they were in search of accused
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1022
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1023
his signatures with date on the original ticket, which was also signed
by Dev Kumar in his presence.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1024
which
seizure
memo
was
correctly
prepared.
The articles
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1025
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1026
person of the accused Santoshanand is not derided in the crossexamination 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1027
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1029
Vinod Goel
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 NonBailable 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1031
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1032
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1033
warrant
against
four
accused
persons
namely
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1036
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1037
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1038
of this partisan witness to demolish the objective of its misadventures, 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
Visheshwaranand.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1039
However, like
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1040
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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 selfimmolations 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1043
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1044
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.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1046
DW-7 is
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1047
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1048
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1052
Supreme Court in Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981
Supreme Court 911.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1054
Vinod Goel
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1056
Yadav,
(iv)
Vikram
Subir
Jaldhar
Dass,
(v)
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1057
Later on, by
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1058
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1059
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1060
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1061
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1063
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1064
which
was
joined
by
Aacharya
Ram
Aasrey,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1065
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1066
PW-1
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1067
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1068
to
the
criminal conspiracy,
on
05.01.1974,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1069
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
was
received
on
17.01.1974
by
Gopalji
from
Vinod Goel
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
Sudevanand,
Santoshanand,
Ram
Kumar
and
However,
His
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1071
Vinod Goel
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, PW5 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1076
substantive
offence
committed
in
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1077
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1078
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1079
Vinod Goel
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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1081
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1082
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1083
both
conspiracy
and
the
offences
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1084
Vinod Goel
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 PW138 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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1086
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1087
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1088
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1089
(Vinod Goel)
District & Sessions Judge
Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1090