LN Mishra Assassination Case Judgement

IN THE COURT OF SH.
VINOD GOEL, DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI-110032.
Sessions Case No. 01/2006
Unique case ID No. 02402R0000061980
Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.)
Versus
1. Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @
Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit S/o Sh. Narendra Narain Verma R/o
Village Parsauni Kishun, PS Pipra, Distt. East Champaran, Bihar.
(Accused No. 1)
2. Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @
Misri Lal Yadav S/o Sh. Madhusudan Lal Yadav R/o Village Chikni
Phulka, PS Singheshwarsthan, Distt. Saharsa, Bihar. (Accused No. 2)
3. Ram Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi S/o Late Ram Dev
Dwivedi R/o Village & Post Dharharwa, PS Bela, Distt. Sitamarhi
(Bihar), presently resident of 31, National Park, Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
(Accused No. 3).
4. Ram Nagina Prasad @ Bhaiya S/o Late Mohan Prasad R/o
Kumarpara, Ichhapore, PS Noapara, Distt. 24 Parganas. (Discharged
on 21.1.1981)
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.

Decided on 08th December 2014.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
5. Arteshanand Avadhoot @ Ratan Kumar @ Arjun Yadav S/o

Govind Yadav R/o Ukhadhi, PS Barbigha, Distt. Monghyer, Bihar.
(Died on 25.2.2004)
6. Ram Rup @ Ram Swarup S/o Sheonandan Sharma R/o Tehla PS
Kotwali, Gaya, Bihar. (Discharged on 21.1.1981)
7.
Gopalji @ Krishna Mohan Singh S/o Late Baidyanath Prasad
Singh R/o Village & PS Chautham, Distt. Monghyer. (Accused No. 7)

FIR Nos.
PS
U/s.
: RC-01/75, RC-02/75, RC-13/75 and RC-14/75.

: CBI/ACU-VI
: 120-B/302/307/326/324 IPC and Sec. 4 & 5 of
Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
Date of Institution
01.07.1980
Arguments concluded
12.09.2014
Date of decision
08.12.2014
Judgment:
1.
Based on circumstantial evidence and the statement of two
approvers namely Visheshwaranand @ Vijay @ Madan Mohan

Srivastava and Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass, supported by other
evidence
collected
during
investigation,
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation (hereinafter referred to as C.B.I.) filed charge sheet

against the accused persons no. 1 to 7 and Vinayanand, Ram Kumar

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Singh, Ram Aasrey Parsad, Vikram and Visheshwaranand before

Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 12.11.1975 (Ex.PW-151/D). In
the charge sheet, the prosecution kept Rudranand Avadhoot,
Shankaranand Avadhoot, Mahender Prasad Singh and Lakhan Pain in
column No. 2 and they were not sent for trial. On 27.10.1975, by a
common order, the court of CJM, Patna granted pardon to
accused/approver Visheshwaranand @ Vijay @ Madan Mohan
Srivastava and Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass in case no. RC-1/75,
was accepted by them on the same day. Accused Vinayanand
Avadhoot @ Jagdish @ Ram Mohan @ Anant Kumar was declared a
Proclaimed Offender on 10.7.1980 by the order of CMM, Delhi. The
Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna on 20.1.1976, declared
accused Ram Kumar Singh @ Surendra Kumar and accused Ram
Aasrey Prasad as Proclaimed Offenders.
2.
By an order dated 17.12.1979 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India transferred this case to Delhi in Transfer Petition No. 69 of 1979

titled as "Attorney General of India vs. Santoshanand Avadhoot &
Others", which reads as under:Heard Counsel.
We do not consider it necessary to examine
whether the allegations made by the CBI and the
State of Bihar against each other are true. That
would involve undertaking a needlessly protracted
inquiry the result of which may unconsciously
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
affect the course of trial. However, having regard

to the overall picture, which emerges out of the
rival pleadings of the CBI, and the State of Bihar
we are of the opinion that it is in the interest of
justice to transfer the case from the State of Bihar
to Delhi.
We
accordingly
direct
that
the
committal
proceedings (Trial Case No.860/79, RC 1/75-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.
made by the parties against each other, particularly

the allegations made against the officers of the
Bihar State Government. We direct that the trial
shall proceed expeditiously. The Stay Order,
earlier granted by this Court, of the proceedings in
the Revision Application shall be discharged.
The approver shall be transferred from Danapur
Jail, Patna, Bihar, to the Central Jail in Delhi. We
direct that no officer of the CBI or any other Police
Officer shall visit or interview or in any other
manner contact the approver without the previous
permission in writing of the committal court or the
Sessions Court, as the case may be.
The Revision Application pending in the Patna
High Court shall be disposed of within two weeks
from today.
Five sealed covers which were produced by Dr.
L.M. Singhvi on behalf of the State of Bihar before
us may be returned to Dr. Singhvi.
3.
The accused persons were committed by the court of learned
CMM, Delhi to Sessions Court on 23.5.1980. My Ld. Predecessor

discharged the accused no.4 Ram Nagina Prasad and accused no.6
Ram Roop @ Ram Swaroop, by an order dated 21.01.1981 and further
proceeded to frame charges against Accused No.1, 2, 3, 5 & 7. During
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
the pendency of the trial, accused no.5 Arteshanand Avadhoot @

Ratan Kumar @ Arjun Yadav has died on 25.2.2004.
Now accused
no.1, 2, 3 and 7 are facing trial before this court.

4.
On 02.01.1975, the then Railway Minister late Lalit Narain
Mishra arrived at Samastipur Railway Station, Bihar to inaugurate the

opening of a Board Gauge Railway Line from Samastipur to
Muzaffarpur. In the evening as soon as Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra
finished his speech and was to step down from the Dais, accused
Sudevanand threw a hand grenade, which exploded. This resulted into
death of Lalit Narain Mishra, Surya Narain Jha MLC (Bihar) and Ram
Kishore Prasad Singh, a Railway Clerk besides causing grievous
injuries to eight persons and hurt to eighteen persons. A case No.1/75
dated 02.01.1975 was registered with PS GRPS Samastipur. This case,
through notification dated 03.01.1975 issued by the Government of
Bihar, was transferred to C.B.I. for investigation. Accordingly RC1/75-CIU was registered with SPE, CIU, C.B.I., New Delhi. Initially,
local police of Patna investigated the case and subsequently
investigation was taken over by CID, Bihar and on 10.01.1975, the
investigation was taken over by C.B.I.
1) Factual Matrix
5.
The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that one Prabhat
Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti @ Baba, the then employee of

Jamalpur Workshop, Eastern Railway, founded Anand Marg
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Parcharak Sangh on 09.01.1955. The followers of Anand Marg

regarded him as incarnation of God like Shiva and Krishna. The object
of the Anand Marg was to establish 'Sadvipra Raj', a government of
moralists. In order to achieve this, a cadre of full time workers known
as Avadhoots was created by Anand Murti. He also formed several
wings of the cult including Vishwa Shanti Sena (VSS) and the workers
of this organization were trained in use of arms with a view to
establish Sadvipra Raj by use of force, if necessary. Prabhat Ranjan
Sarkar @ Anand Murti was arrested on 29.12.1971 at Patna on the
charge of criminal conspiracy to annihilate such followers who had
defected from the organization. He was prosecuted along with other
accused on the charges of murder, conspiracy etc. in the Court of
Sessions at Patna. When Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti could
not secure his release in accordance with law, a false propaganda was
set afoot that he was being maltreated in jail, and to compel the
government for his release, two Anand Margies Divyanand and
Dineshwaranand committed self-immolation at Patna and Delhi
respectively in 1973. Messages purported to have been sent by P.R.
Sarkar from jail exhorted his followers to prove their bravery by
bringing him out of jail and not to rest until they kill their enemies.
Demonstrations and gheroas were organized for release of Prabhat
Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti. Having failed under law, a
Revolutionary Group was formed around July 1973 at Patna. This
group
was
joined

by
accused
Vinayanand
(P.O.),
accused
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Visheshwaranand (approver) and some others for securing his release

by pressurizing the Government by recourse to violent acts. Accused
Visheshwaranand
(approver)
and
Vinayanand
pseudonyms Vijay and Jagdish respectively.
(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.
In order to achieve the object, accused Ram Aasrey Prasad,
(P.O.) obtained five bombs and other accused Vinayanand,

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Visheshwaranand and Santoshanand procured arms and ammunitions

and handed over the same to one Gopalji R/o Village Chautham (A-7
in the charge sheet).
7.
On 07.01.1974, an attempt was made on the life of
Madhavanand at the Collectorate, Patna where he was brought for

grant of pardon in the above said case where Anand Murti and others
were accused. Proclaimed Offender Vinayanand attempted to kill the
approver Madhavanand by throwing a live hand grenade on him but it
did not explode. After throwing a live hand grenade on him, accused
Vinayanand (P.O.) escaped and jumped into the River Ganga but was
apprehended while his other companions managed to escape. A case
no. 24 (1) 74 u/s 120-B/302/307 IPC was registered on the complaint
of Naik Chandi Mishra at PS Kotwali, Patna. This case was later on
transferred to C.B.I. vide RC-14/75 CIU.
In July 1974, accused
Vikram (approver) joined the conspiracy and he brought three hand

grenades from Delhi to Bhagalpur in a packet, given to him by the
accused Santoshanand to be delivered to one Budheshawaranand
Avadhoot @ Tyageshwaranand @ Amar Singh (deceased). On
13.7.1974, Budheshawaranand was arrested at Maqbara (tomb),
Chhotti Khanjarpur (Bhagalpur), close to Anand Marg Primary School
at Bhagalpur for being in possession of a bag (jhola) containing three
hand grenades. However, Vikram (approver) escaped. A case u/s 25
and 27 Arms Act and section 3/5 of Explosive Substances Act was
registered against accused Budheshawaranand at PS Kotwali,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
Bhagalpur. Investigation of this case was transferred to C.B.I. vide RC

13/75 registered on 15.09.1975.
8.
In furtherance of conspiracy, the conspirators planned the
murder of Late Lalit Narain Mishra, who was to arrive on 02.01.1975

at Samastipur Railway Station for inauguration of Broad Gauge
Railway Line from Samastipur to Muzaffarpur.
The inaugural
function was to be held at Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway

Station on a grand scale. Entry to this function was regulated by
means of passes/badges/invitation cards.
9.
Prosecution alleges that the accused Ranjan Dwivedi (A-3),
active member of Anand Marg, reached Samastipur on or about

01.01.1975 by bus along with Santoshanand (A-1) and Sudevanand
(A-2). He managed to secure passes to enable himself, A-1 and A-2 to
gain entry to Platform No. 3. By this time, PW-2 Vikram (Approver)
had already reached Samastipur. A-1 had brought three hand grenades
with him. All of them entered the venue through the passes before the
arrival of Sh. L.N. Mishra. A-1, A-2 and PW-2 carried one hand
grenade each. Soon after Sh. L.N. Mishra arrived by a special train at
Samastipur Railway Station, all the above three i.e. A-1, A-2 and PW2 Vikram managed to reach close to the Rostrum from the Meter
Gauge side (Northern side) of Platform No. 3. Accused No. 2 threw a
live hand grenade on the Rostrum after the Railway Minister had
finished his speech, which exploded. This resulted in the death of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
10
three persons namely Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister, Surya

Narain Jha, MLC (Bihar) and Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore, a
Railway Clerk besides causing grievous injuries to eight persons and
hurt to eighteen persons. While running away after the blast, Vikram
(PW-2) threw his unused hand grenade on the Meter Gauge Line near
Platform No. 3. Later the same was picked up by a boy of 10 years old
namely Rajender Sahu, a cousin of Mahadev Sahu, Assistant Accounts
Officer, North-Eastern Railway, Samastipur.
He took it to his
residence in railway colony where it exploded accidentally causing

injuries to him as well as to his cousin. A-1, A-2 and PW-2 managed
to escape from the scene of crime unnoticed but were arrested
subsequently.
10.
On 03.01.1975, a manuscript in the name of Shashastra
Krantikari Chhatra Sangh was allegedly in the handwriting of A-1

was found at UNI Office, Patna along with a printed leaflet. The
manuscript claimed that the blast at Samastipur on 02.01.1975,
resulting in the death of Lalit Narain Mishra, was the beginning of an
era of revolution. It also warned the Government that its repressive
measures would not succeed. A-1 made an extra judicial confession
before Sh. Raj Singh and Sh. Shiv Raj Singh about his involvement in
the incident dated 02.01.1975. During the course of investigation
number of incriminating documents were recovered from of accused

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
11
Gopalji (A-7) showing inter se association of accused persons and

certain transactions of procurement of arms.
2) Order on Charge and Charges framed
11.
My Ld. Predecessor on 21.01.1981 discharged the accused Ram
Nagina Prasad and Ram Roop. He ordered to frame the charges

against accused namely A-1, A-2, A-3 and Arteshanand and A-7. My
Ld. Predecessor has framed eight charges in number and for the
convenience to understand the case I have given seriatim to the
charges as Charge No. 1 to Charge No. 8.
The Ld. Predecessor
accordingly framed the charges on 21.01.1981 against the accused

persons.
Charge No. 1 is framed against accused Santoshanand,
Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi, Arteshanand and Gopalji to the

effect that these accused persons along with proclaimed offenders
Ram Kumar and Vinayanand and Visheshwaranand approver
sometimes between September and November 1973 at Village
Trimohan (Ekchari), District Bhagalpur, Bihar agreed to do or cause to
be done illegal acts to wit, secure the release of Sh. Prabhat Ranjan
Sarkar @ Anand Murti by resorting to violent acts, by procuring arms
and ammunitions and by committing murders of Madhavanand, an
approver in a murder case against Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and others,
Sh. L. N. Mishra, the then Minister for Railways, Abdul Gaffoor, the
then Chief Minister of Bihar, Shri Puri and Sh. Hingorani, Officers of
CBI, Jail Doctor and Civil Surgeon, Patna, and accused Gopalji joined
the conspiracy later by holding meetings with the co-conspirators at
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
12
his house at Chautham and at his farmhouse at Tilihar, District

Monghyer and by collecting and keeping arms, ammunitions and hand
grenades, to accomplish the common design, and the accused Ram
Janam Dwivedi also joined the said criminal conspiracy, came to
Samastipur
with
accused
Santoshanand
and
Sudevanand
on
01.01.1975, and arranged three entry Passes for them and approver
Vikram to reach Dais on Platform No. 3 at Samastipur Railway
Station on 02.01.1975 and murder L.N. Mishra and thereby they
committed an offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section
120-B of IPC.
12.
Substantive Charge No. 2 is framed against accused no. 3 Ram
Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at

Platform No. 3, Railway Station, Samastipur, he abetted accused
Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver Vikram in commission of an
offence to murder L. N. Mishra, which was committed in consequence
of his abetment when accused Sudevanand threw a live hand grenade
on the Dais, which got exploded and L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha
and Ram Kishore Parsad Singh Kishore were murdered, and thus
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with
section 109/112 IPC; and he on the said date and place abetted
Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver Vikram to throw a live hand
grenade on the Dais during inaugural function and thereby caused
grievous hurt to Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij
Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N. Parsad, Ajay Kumar, Kapil
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.
Substantive Charge No. 3
is framed against accused
Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri

Lal Yadav to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at about 05.30 PM at
Platform No. 3, Railway Station Samastipur, he did commit murders
of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha, Ram Kishore Prasad Singh
Kishore by throwing a live hand grenade on the Dais and thus by
intentionally causing their death and he thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC; that he on the said date, time
and place voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Ram Bhagat Paswan,
Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N.
Parsad, Ajay Kumar, Kapil Dev Narain Singh, Smt. Lalita Devi by
throwing a live hand grenade on the Dais and thereby he committed an
offence punishable under Section 326 IPC; and that he on the said
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.
Charge No. 4 is framed against accused Santoshanand
Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar @

Vishwajit and Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @
Doctor @ Misri Lal Yadav to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at about
05.30 PM at Platform No. 3, Railway Station Samastipur, both of
them along with approver Vikram in furtherance of their common
intention caused murder of L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha and Ram
Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore by intentionally causing their death
when a live hand grenade was thrown on the Dais by Sudevanand and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with
section 34 IPC; and that both of them on the said date, time and place
along with approver Vikram, they all voluntarily caused "grievous
hurt" to Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan
Sharma, Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N. Parsad, Ajay Kumar, Kapil Dev
Narain Singh, Smt. Lalita Devi when a live hand grenade thrown by
Sudevanand exploded on the Dais and thereby committed an offence
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.
Charge No. 5 is framed against accused (i) Santoshanand @
Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit, (ii)

Lal Yadav, (iii) Ram Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi (iv)
Arteshanand @ Ratan Kumar @ Arjun Yadav, (v) Gopalji @ Krishan
Mohan Singh to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at about 05.30 PM at
Platform No. 3, Railway Station, Samastipur, they along with Ram
Kumar and Vinayanand proclaimed offenders and approver Vikram in
pursuance of the criminal conspiracy voluntarily did commit murder
of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha, Ram Kishore Prasad Singh
Kishore by intentionally causing their death when a live hand grenade
was thrown at the Dais by Sudevanand and thereby committed offence
punishable under Section 302 read with section 120-B IPC; and that
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.
Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @

Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit to the effect that between June and July,
1974 in Delhi, he was in possession of three live hand grenades and he
intended by means thereof to endanger human live or to cause injury
to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
17
live or cause serious injury to property and thereby committed an

offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908.
17.

Lal Yadav to the effect that he on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur was in
possession of a live hand grenade and he intended by means thereof to
endanger human life or to cause injury to property or to enable any
other person by means thereof to endanger live or cause serious injury
to property and thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
18.
Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @

Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at
Samastipur, he was in possession of three live hand grenades and he
intended by means thereof to endanger human live or to cause injury
to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger
live or cause serious injury to property and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908.
19.
All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
18
3) Gist of Prosecution Evidence

20.
To prove its case prosecution i.e. C.B.I. examined the following
163 witnesses (161 plus witness No. 125A & 126A): Approver
PW-1
Madan
Mohan
Srivastava @ Aacharya Madan @ Kapalic @

Aacharya Visheshwaranand @ Vijay has been
an Anand Margi between 1964 to February 1974.
He is examined to prove the criminal conspiracy
hatched in October 1973 to kill (i) Madhavanand,
an approver in a case U/s 302 IPC against Anand
Murti, (ii) L.N. Mishra, (iii) Abdul Gaffoor, (iv)
Mr. Puri, (v) Mr. Hingorani, CBI, (vi) Jail Doctor
and (vii) Civil Surgeon of Patna.
Approver PW-2 Jaldhar Dass @ Vikram
@ Subir also an Anand Margi since 1965. He is
examined to prove his role in criminal conspiracy
since June 1974. He carried a letter and a packet
(containing three bombs) given to him by A-1 for
delivery to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur,
which was later seized by the police at a tomb in
Chhotti
Khanjarpur
on
13.07.1974.
Budheshawaranand was arrested. PW-2 escaped

and later participated along with others in the
crime to kill L.N. Mishra on 02.01.1975.

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
eyewitness to the incident dated 2.1.1975. He is

examined to prove that this boy picked up the
bomb left by PW-2 on the railway track which
later exploded at the house of Mahadev Sahu. He
also suffered injuries.
PW-5 Vishwanath Thakur, the then SubInspector, RPF, Samastipur. He is examined to
prove that he accompanied PW-6 Virender Kumar
Ojha to the quarters of PW-6, where accused
Ranjan Dwivedi came to meet PW-6, requesting
for train reservation for his Bhabhi (brothers wife)
and mother, and to prove the conversation between
accused Ranjan Dwivedi and PW-6. He identifies
accused A-1 and A-3 in the court.
PW-6 Virender Kumar Ojha, the then
Prosecuting Sub-Inspector of Railways - identifies
A-3; speaks that A-3 introduced A-1 and A-2 to

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
20
him and further speaks that A-3 requested for

arrangement of reservation of tickets for his sisterin-law and mother in the presence of PW-5.
Further identifies A-1 and A-2 as found in the
civilian dress on the date of incident. Further
speaks about their presence in the venue at the
time of incident - speaks of having seen A-3
procuring three entry passes from a Congress
worker; handing over the same to A-1 and A-2 and
retaining one with him - he arranged reservations
as requested by A-3 as per the Requisition Slip
Ex.PW-6/A, containing the address of A-3 as C/o
V.K. Ojha (PW-6), PP RPF SPS - eyewitness to
the presence of A-1, A-2 and A-3 near the spot on
the date of incident till 4 PM - identifies the
Badges/Passes resembling Ex.P-8.
PW-7 Sh. A.R. Ghosh, a photographer of
CID, Bihar, on 07.01.1974 (relating to attack on
Madhavanand,
at
Collectorate
Patna)
took
photographs of the scene of the crime. Identifies

photographs Ex.P-4, negative of which is Ex.PW7/21. Secondly, he took photographs of the scene
of crime at Railway Station, Samastipur on
03.01.1975. The negatives are Ex.PW-7/23 to

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
21
Ex.PW-7/40 and photographs are Ex.PW-7/41 to

Ex.PW-7/58.
PW-8 Ct. Jai Kishan Singh, the then
Guard, Sadar Treasury, Patna - eyewitness to the
incident dated 07.01.1974 (relating to attack on
Madhavanand,
at
Collectorate
Patna).
He
identified the attacker through the photograph

Ex.P-4 (that of Vinayanand).
PW-9 Sh. Chandi Mishra, the then Naik
posted in Police Line, Gaya, a party in the escort
troop of Madhavanand - eyewitness to the incident
dated 07.01.1974 - identifies the photograph Ex.P4 as that of the attacker - speaks of rukka Ex.PW9/A based on which FIR No. 24 of 1974 Ex.PW92/A was registered with PS Kotwali, Patna.
PW-10 Kailash Singh - driver with Police
Lines, Gaya - eyewitness to the incident dated
7.1.1974; brought Madhavanand in the police jeep
no. BRB-1400 from Central Jail, Gaya to
Collectorate at Patna - identifies the photograph
Ex.P-4 as that of the person throwing the hand
grenade on Madhavanand.
PW-11 Raj Singh - an Anand Margi since
1967 - speaks of his acquaintance with A-1 since

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
22
1968/69 - speaks about extra judicial confession

made by A-1 before him on 20.03.1095 regarding
the attack on L.N Mishra at Samastipur, Railway
Station in which L.N Mishra died.
PW-12 Manohar Lal, the then LDC with
Chief Engineer, CPWD- an eyewitness to CBI
Officer obtaining specimen handwriting Ex.PW12/A to PW-12/E of A-2 on 5.8.1975, in the
presence of his colleague Sh. Uma Shankar.
PW-13 Shiv Raj Singh - Anand Margi - an
employee of IARI, Delhi - a close acquaintance of
A-1 who used to visit him in the hostel of IARI,
Pusa, Delhi - eye witness to A-1 handing over a
packet and letter to PW-2 to be delivered to
Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur.
PW-14 Prahlad Chander Dass, Manager
of Dalubabu Dharamshala, Bhagalpur.
He has
been examined to prove the entry of stay dated

1.4.1974 in the Register Ex.PW-14/A in the name
of Ramesh Singh.
He proved that photograph
Ex.P-3 to be of one Ramesh Singh who stayed

alone in the Dharamshala and left on 2.4.1975.
PW-15 Sukhdev Sahu - Anand Margi since
1968. He is examined to prove the fact that at the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
23
instance of Aacharya Chitbhashanand, he allowed

stay of Amar Singh @ Budheshawaranand in June
1974 in his house at Village Purani, Distt. Saharsa,
Bihar - speaks of Amar Singh introducing PW-2 as
Subir Kumar on 04.07.1974 and both stayed in his
house - identifies PW-2 in the court as Subir
Kumar - proves the letters Ex.PW-15/A and PW15/B (recovered from Budheshawaranand from Ex.
P-7), which he had earlier given to Amar Singh.
He also identified Photograph Ex.P-3 as that of
Amar Singh (Budheshawaranand).
PW-16 Sh. Laxman Parsad is a Bar Man
of Republic Hotel, Patna since 1955 - speaks that
that Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, the then Chief Minister of
Bihar, used to visit their Hotel- speaks of PW-1
staying under the pseudonym of S.K. Gupta of
Karol Bagh, Delhi.
PW-17 Sh. Sudershan Banerjee another
employee of Hotel Republic, Patna - identifies the
writing and signatures of S.K. Singha, an
employee of Hotel Republic; to prove the copy of
the Bill Ex.PW-17/A, Ex.PW-17/A-1 Visitors
Register Ex.PW-1/P and Voucher Ex.PW-1/R as in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
24
the handwriting of Sher Khil, another employee of

their hotel.
PW-18 Gokhla Nand Sahai was the Officer
Incharge, PS Kotwali, Patna in January 1974. He
has been examined
to prove receiving of
information regarding attack on Madhavanand

dated 7.1.1974.
Chandi
Mishra
He dictated the statement of

(PW-9)
to
Sub-Inspector
Girijanand Ex.PW-9/A which was sent to PS

through ASI Durga Parsad for registration of the
case by endorsement Ex.PW-18/A bearing his
signatures.
PW-19 Sh. Purshottam Kumar is son of
the owner of Aadarsh Lodge, Indore.
He is
examined to prove Visitors Register Ex.P-5 of

their Lodge, containing entries dated 26.08.1973
Ex.PW-1/K and another entry dated 10.09.1973
Ex.PW-1/M in the name of visitor Vijay Kumar
bearing the signatures of the visitor at point
Ex.PW-1/N and Ex.PW-1/L. He is also witness to
the seizure memo Ex.PW-19/A by which PW-83
PW-83 Sh. M.P. Sharma, Inspector CBI seized the
register.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
25
(Note: This Vijay Kumar is none else but

approver PW-1)
PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmed - the Staff
Reporter, UNI, Patna Bureau, at the relevant time Examined to prove that on 03.01.1975,
manuscript Ex.PW-2/B with a printed leaflet

Ex.PW-20/A which were found in his office. He
showed these documents to Bureau Chief PW-21
Dharya Nand Jha, also shown PW-22 on 4.1.1975.
These documents were seized by CBI in July 1975
vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B in the presence of
Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) and Dhaneshwar Singh. He
has been examined to prove that Chief of their
Bureau PW-21 Sh. Dharya Nand Jha was working
with him in the same office. PW-22 Sh. Chander
Mohan Mishra was Special Correspondent of
Patriot and Link Papers at Patna.
PW-21 Sh. Dharya Nand Jha was the
Bureau Manager, UNI, Patna, in the year 1975.
He has been examined to prove that he knew PW20 Farzand Ahmed, a staff reporter in their office.
They knew PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra,
Special Correspondent for Patriot and Link. He
has been examined to prove the receiving of these

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
26
documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A in their

office by PW-20 on 03.01.1975. On 3.1.1975, he
had
seen
sarsari
(cursory)
look
on
these
documents, which were given to him by PW-20

Farzand Ahmed. He asked him (PW-20) to keep
these documents with him and next day these
documents were shown to PW-22 Chander Mohan
Mishra.
He is also an attesting witness of the
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B for taking these

documents in possession from PW-20 Sh. Farzand
Ahmed by CBI in his presence and that of
Dineshwar Singh.
PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra was
Journalist attached with Delhi paper Patriot and
weekly paper Link in January 1975. He has been
examined to prove that he knew PW-21 Dharya
Nand Jha and the fact that on 4.1.1975, he found
PW-20 Farzand Ahmed and PW-21 D.N. Jha
available in their office when PW-20 Farzand
Ahmed had shown him two leaflets Ex.PW-2/B
and Ex.PW-20/A. He returned both the leaflets to
PW-20 and prepared a report, which was published
in the Link weekly dated 12.1.1975 Ex.PW-22/A.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
27
PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar is the son of the

owner of the Ashok Niketan @ Ashok Lodge,
Patna - examined to prove that A-1 took a room on
rent in their lodge, speaks of A-1 to write his name
and address in the notebook Ex.PW-23/A at point
PW-2/C with a pseudonym of Binod Kumar - seen
A-2, Arteshanand and PW-2 addressing A-1 as
"Boss" - identified A-1, A-2 and PW-2 in the court
- also speaks that A-1 used to wear hearing aid witness to the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-23/B which
was prepared after taking into possession the said
notebook Ex.PW-23/A by CBI.
PW-24 Ct. Shiv Balak Singh - eyewitness
to the incident dated 13.07.1974 along with SubInspector Ram Aadhar Ram. Speaks of the incident
at Maqbara at Chhotti Khanjarpur where he found
PW-2 and Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh further speaks of his chasing PW-2, who escaped identifies PW-2 in the court - identifies material
objects seized - three hand grenades Ex.P-11,
Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13, one revolver Ex.P-14, two
live cartridges Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16 and bag Ex.P-7.
He also identified the photograph Ex.P-3 of the
person apprehended, who gave his name to the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
28
police as Ramesh Singh @ Suresh Singh @ Suraj

Prakash. (Note: the photograph
is that of
Budheshawaranand)
PW-25 Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram was
the Incharge of PS Brari, District Bhagalpur on
13.07.1974. He has been examined to prove the
incident dated 13.7.1974 relating to Maqbara,
Khanjarpur. He along with PW-24 Ct. Shiv Balak
Singh went to Maqbara, Chhotti Khanjarpur
Chowk and found two strangers; and on making
enquiry he was not satisfied and one person
carrying the bag threw it towards the other person,
who again threw it towards the first man. He
secured the first man and the bag fell down on the
ground, and then he lifted it.
PW-24 Ct. Shiv
Balak Singh unsuccessfully chased the other man.

He is also examined to prove recovery of bag
Ex.P-7, three hand grenades Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13,
one revolver Ex.P-14, two live cartridges Ex.P-15
and Ex.P-16, two letters Ex.PW-15/A and PW15/B, 5 papers Ex.PW-25/A to Ex.PW-25/E, vide
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-25/F.
He proved rukka
Ex.PW-25/G and endorsement on the rukka

Ex.PW-25/G1 and the photograph of the person

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
29
Ex.P-3 who was apprehended and stated that he

has now died. He identified PW-2 Vikram, who
was chased unsuccessfully by PW-24 Ct. Shiv
Balak Singh.
PW-26 Sh. Narender Parsad Issar was the
worker of Congress (I) in the year 1974-75. He is
an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975.
He is also examined to prove the occurrence of the
explosion and injuries sustained by many persons
including Railway Minister L.N. Mishra.
He
assisted Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and took him to

Saloon. He also proved rough Site Plan Ex.PW26/DB.
PW-27 Sh. Paras Nath Singh was the
Railway Guard, Narkatiaganj, District Champaran,
Bihar, in the year 1975 - an Anand Margi since
1968 - speaks of PW-2 visiting him during 1974
and after January 1975 with a request to arrange
for arms and ammunitions - Speaks of Vikram
meeting Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80), Khub Lal
and other Anand Margies - Vikram made an extra
judicial confession before him that they were
responsible for the bomb blast at Samastipur and

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
30
throwing of hand grenade on Chief Justice at

Delhi.
PW-28 Brij Nandan Parsad was the DIG,
Darbhanga Range in the year 1974 - aware of the
programs of the Minister - narrated the itinerary of
the Minister - an eyewitness to the incident dated
02.01.1975 - also suffered injuries in the
explosion.
PW-29 Sh. K.K. Dey was the Assistant
Director in Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation
Directorate.
He has been examined to prove
obtaining of specimen handwriting of accused

Santoshanand on nine sheets Ex.PW-29/A in his
presence and that of his colleague Sh. Naresh
Kumar by CBI officers on 10.7.1975.
PW-30 Sh. W.R. Chopra was the official
of Reserve Bank of India on 11.7.1975. He has
been examined to prove that Sh. Sardari Lal of
CBI obtained specimen handwriting and signatures
of accused Ranjan Dwivedi Ex.PW-30/1 to
Ex.PW-30/14 and Ex.PW-30/55 to Ex.PW-30/57
in his presence and that of his colleague Sh. R.K.
Jain.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
31
PW-31
Sh.
I.C.
Tiwari
was
the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

on 14.8.1975.
obtaining
specimen
of
writing
of
accused
Sudevanand in his court, which are Ex.PW-31/A-1

to Ex.PW-31/A-3.
PW-32
Sh.
Satnam
Singh
was
the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

on 11.8.1975.
obtaining of specimen handwriting of accused

Santoshanand on three sheets, which are Ex.PW32/A-1 to PW-32/A-3.
PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal Prakash - Anand
Margi since 1957 and Office Secretary of PBI (one
of the wings of Anand Marg). He has been
examined to prove the existence of various wings
of Anand Marg Organisation, the purpose of the
organization and to prove that accused no.1 was
Editor of Prout at D-41, South Extension, Part-I,
New Delhi. He knew Santoshanand; whose real
name was Ghanshyam Parsad and his fathers
name was Narinder Narain Verma. He had seen
Santoshanand writing & signing in English and
Hindi. He identified him. He knew and identified

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
32
accused
Ranjan
Dwivedi
and
Gopalji.
He
identified that the documents Q-3 (Ex.PW-2/N=

Ex.PW-33/A) and Q-2 (Ex.PW-2/B) & Q-1
(Ex.PW-2/C) to be in the handwriting of accused
Santoshanand. He deposed that PW-2 Vikram used
to sell papers. He also proved the handwriting of
accused Sudevanand on exercise book Ex.PW33/B to Ex.PW-33/D. He left Anand Marg in 1971.
PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra was the
Junior Instructor in ITI of Indore. He joined Anand
Marg in the year 1967. He has been examined to
prove that he was given diksha by Aacharya
Visheshwaranand (PW-1) in 1967. He identified
him in the court as Visheshwaranand @ Madan
Mohan Srivastava and deposed that in the year
1973, Visheshwaranand asked him whether he
could arrange arms and ammunitions. PW-1 gave
him Rs.400/- to purchase a pistol or revolver in
August 1973 and again visited him after 15/20
days, when PW-34 told him that he could not
arrange the same and will send back the amount by
money order.
PW-35 Sh. Umakant Chaudhary is a
cousin of Sh. R.K. Singh Kishore (victim). He has

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
33
been examined to prove the Inquest Proceedings

Ex.PW-35/B in respect of dead body of Sh. R.K.
Singh Kishore, who succumbed to his injuries in
Railway Hospital, Samastipur on 3.1.1975. He
identified his photograph Ex.PW-35/A.
PW-36 Sh. Baidyanath Parsad Sinha is
owner of Baijnath Press at Bhagalpur. He is
examined to prove that he was approached by 2/3
persons including Amar Singh, whose photograph
he identified as Ex.P-3. They wanted to get a
pamphlet printed from his press. He proved the
proof Ex.PW-2/D (2 sheets) wherein Amar Singh
made corrections at point A, B, C, D and
D1.
PW-37 Sh. Virender Narain Poddar is a
student and son of the owner of Ajay Printing
Press, Samastipur. He is examined to prove that
100 Congress Sewa Dal Badges like Ex.P-9 (which
is actually Ex.P-8 in the folder R-4) were printed
in their press on 01.01.1975 for inaugural function
to be held at Samastipur Railway Station on
02.01.1975. The Badge Ex.P-8 was seized vide
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-37/A.
(On the request of
accused no.1 and 2, another similar Badge was got

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
34
produced in the court from PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan

Sharma, an independent witness, in his crossexamination, which was exhibited as Ex.PW57/DA (available in folder R-7).
Ex.P-8 and
Ex.PW-57/DA are similar in all respect and reads

as under: -
PW-38 Sh. Suresh Parsad was a Cycle

Stand Keeper, r/o Doudpur, Shahpur, District
Patna. He has come in the dock to prove that a
Personal Search of Ghanshyam Parsad @ Jitender
Kumar was carried on 17.06.1975 at 9.00 or 9.30
PM at Railway Station, Patna. He identified that
person in the court, pointing out towards accused
Santoshanand. At the time of his search, accused
Santoshanand was wearing pant and shirt and not
sporting beard or long hair.
He also proved that
the said accused was carrying a jhola (handbag).

He identified and proved that the a Diary Book,
other articles, Cash of Rs.3,921/- and some change
and a Ticket of Punjab Mail were recovered from
his personal search. Hearing Aid was recovered in
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
35
a packet from the pocket of his pant. An Exercise

Book Ex.P-22, copy of which is Ex.PW-38/E-1 to
PW-38/E-72 was also seized from him. A Seizure
Memo Ex.P-148 in summoned file of Session Case
No. 9 of 1976, copy of which is Ex.PW-38/A was
prepared in three sheets and bears his signatures.
The person also gave his name as Santoshanand.
PW-39 Sh. Rajender Thukral was the
officer of the State Bank of India in July 1975. He
has come in the witness box to prove that DSP
Sardari Lal obtained specimen handwriting and
signatures of accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his
presence and that of his colleague Sh. B.K. Tuteja
in July 1975. Those specimen handwriting and
signatures of accused Ranjan Dwivedi are Ex.P-63
to Ex.P-66 and Ex.P-71 to Ex.P-76 in the
summoned file of Sessions Case No.9/76 Photostat
copies of which are Ex.PW-39/A and Ex.PW39/B. In his presence, specimen handwriting of
accused Santoshanand was obtained by DSP
Sardari Lal and that of Sh. B.K. Tuteja, which are
Ex.PW-39/L-1 to Ex.PW-39/L-10.
PW-40 Sh. R.K. Ghai was the Head
Reservation Clerk at Samastipur Railway Station.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
36
Prosecution has examined him to prove the

Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A for reservation in the
name of Sh. R. Dwivedi, M/o Dwivedi and Ms.
Tara Devi. It bears his initials at point A. He
proved Seizure Memo Mark PW-40/A (which was
later on exhibited as Ex.PW-54/A) by deposing
that it bears the signatures of Sh. G. P. Gupta,
(PW-54) Reservation Supervisor at Samastipur
Railway Station. Later on, Sh. G.P. Gupta has also
been examined as PW-54.
(Reservation Slip
Ex.PW-6/A is admitted by accused Ranjan

Dwivedi).
PW-41 Sh. A.R.K. Sahai was the Inspector
(Income Tax) in the Office of Commissioner,
Patna - examined to prove obtaining of specimen
handwriting of Ram Aasrey Parsad Ex.PW-41/A-1
to Ex.PW-41/A-7 and that of Gopalji Ex.PW-41/B1 to Ex.PW-41/B-10 by Sh. N.N. Singh of CBI in
his presence and that of (PW-74) Sh. N.U. Ghani,
Income Tax Inspector.
PW-42 Mahant Krishan Mohan Dass is a
resident of Chhotti Khanjarpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar eyewitness to - incident at Maqbara, Chhotti
Khanjarpur, Bhagalpur - witness to the recovery of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
37
various articles including bag, three hand grenades,

one country-made pistol, two letters etc. from the
person, who was arrested by Inspector Ram
Aadhar Ram and Constable Shiv Balak Singh. The
person
arrested
told
his
name
as
Suresh
(Budheshawaranand).
PW-43 Sh. B. Lal was the Government
Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government
of India, Shimla. He has come in the witness box
to prove his Expert Opinion/Report with regard to
handwriting and signatures of accused persons.
PW-44 Sh. S.S. Vartak was the Principal,
ITI, Chhindwara in the year 1974 who brought
leave application dated 16.12.1973 of Manohar
Darve on medical ground Ex.PW-44/A for the
period from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973 without
enclosing medical certificate. It was sanctioned as
Earned Leave on 26.12.1973.
He has been
examined to corroborate the testimony of approver

PW-1 that in or about 2 nd week of December 1973,
Manohar Darve
was brought
to Patna by
Sudevanand and Arteshanand to manufacture

arms/revolver and they were not successful in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
38
getting revolver manufactured from Manohar

Darve.
PW-45 Sh. Ishwar Chander Mishra is the
nephew of Sh. Surya Narain Jha, who had died due
to injuries suffered in the Samastipur bomb blast.
He has been examined to prove injuries sustained
by his foofa (husband of fathers sister) Sh. Surya
Narain Jha in bomb blast at Railway Station
platform, Samastipur on 02.01.1975 and later on
he succumbed to his injuries on 04.01.1975. He
also proved Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-45/A in
respect of dead body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
PW-46 Sh. Ram Kishan Bankira was the
Constable posted at GRP, Samastipur.
He has
been examined to prove that on 03.01.1975, the

dead body of said Ram Kishore Parsad Singh
Kishore was entrusted to him and Constable
Dhood Nath with inquest papers to take the body
to the Mortuary, Samastipur. The postmortem on
his body was conducted on 4.1.1975. He identified
the photograph Ex.PW-35/A of the deceased. He
also identified the body before the doctor. After
postmortem, he handed over the body to his
relatives.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
39
PW-47 Krishan Kumar Shukla was the

Travelling
Ticket
Examiner
(Railways)
on
03.01.1975 on Assam Mail from Kanpur to New

Delhi.
He is examined to prove the entries in
respect of berth no. 2, 3 & 5 in Reservation Chart

Mark PW-47/A and he found the persons
mentioned therein travelling from Samastipur to
New Delhi in Coach no. 3954.
This document
Reservation Chart has now been exhibited as Ex.

PW-47/A for the reasons mentioned at the relevant
portion of the judgment.
PW-48 Sh. M.K. Gupta was the Assistant
Engineer (Construction), Samastipur Railway,
from December 1974 and January 1975. He has
come in the witness box to prove that he got
constructed a Rostrum on the platform between
MG (Meter Gauge) and BG (Broad Gauge) Lines
for inaugural function on 2.1.1975 and to prove
that there was no tampering with the Rostrum till
start of the function.
He proved slips like
Ext.PW48/A were issued before the function to the

departmental persons.
This slip was recovered
from the coat pocket of deceased Ram Kishore

Singh Kishore, a clerk of the Railway.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
40
PW-49 Sh. B.M. Gupta was the Deputy

Director, Ministry of Works and Housing. He has
been examined to prove the Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-49/A by which documents and articles
were
recovered
during
search
of
accused
Santoshanand in his presence and that of an officer

of Archeological Department Sh. Chisti and ASI
Kishori Lal at D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New
Delhi by DSP Girdhari Lal of CBI. Santoshanand
claimed to be Incharge there.
PW-50 Sh. R.L. Bhagat was Additional
P.P. at Parliament Street Courts. He used to appear
before the Court of Sh. M.K. Chawla, the then
Additional Sessions Judge, in a case U/s 306/120B IPC vide FIR no. 209/24.4.1973, PS Tilak Marg,
decided on 7.4.1975 relating to self-immolation by
Dineshwaranand, an Anand Margi. Santoshanand
and another were proclaimed offenders and
accused Ranjan Dwivedi used to appear for them
in that case.
PW-51 Sh. N.G. Kundu was the Controller
of Explosives, East Circle, Calcutta. He has come
in the witness box to prove that on 04.01.1975 on
requisition of ASP, Railway Police, he visited the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
41
Rostrum at Platform No. 3, Samastipur Railway

Station. He again visited the place on 05.01.1975
and found some metallic splinters, remittance of
igniters, etc. on the Rostrum.
He proved his
Preliminary Report Ex.PW-51/A. He also visited

bungalow of Mahadev Sahu on 04.1.1975 and
found remnants of explosive of same type, which
exploded at Platform No.3, Samastipur, vide his
Preliminary Report Ex.PW-51/D.
PW-52 Sh. Jagdish Parsad Sinha was the
ASI, GRP, Samastipur, in January and February
1975.
He has been examined to prove Inquest
Proceedings in respect of Ram Kishore Parsad

Singh (Ex.PW-52/B), application Ex.PW-52/C
submitted to CJM for post-mortem in respect of
body of Ram Kishore Parsad Singh and Handing
Over Memo Ex.PW-52/D about some articles kept
in Malkhana, which were sealed with the seal of
CFSL.
PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari was the Chief
Public Relations Officer, North East Railways, in
July 1974 to September 1977.
He has been
examined to prove the preparation of the inaugural

programme to be held on 02.01.1975 for BG Lines

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
42
between Samastipur and Muzaffarpur by L.N.

Mishra at 01.00 PM and his visits to Delhi to
finalize the details of the function and publication
of
Invitation
Cards
and
issuance
of
the
advertisements. He is an eyewitness to the incident

dated 02.01.1975 and narrated the same.
PW-54 Sh. Ganesh Parsad Gupta was the
Reservation Supervisor (Railways), Samastipur in
the year 1975. He has come in the witness box to
prove
the Requisition
Slip
Ex.PW-6/A
for
reservation bearing initial of Reservation Clerk Sh.

R.K. Ghai (PW-40).
reservation
for
He has deposed that the
three
railway
tickets
from
Samastipur to Delhi pertaining to accused Ranjan

Dwivedi and his two family members.
The
Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A was seized by CBI

vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-54/A. He also deposed
that one coach from Samastipur to New Delhi used
to be attached with Assam Mail. (Reservation Slip
Ex.PW-6/A is admitted by accused Ranjan
Dwivedi).
PW-55 Sh. V.K. Dhakane, has retired as
Deputy
Assistant
Comptroller
from
the
Comptrollerate of Inspection and Immenuation,

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
43
Karkoi in the year 1977. He remained posted in

Ordinance Factory at Jabalpur as Technical
Supervisor.
He worked as Forensic Expert to
prove the handwriting and signatures of Sh. G.V.

Kaieho, the then Assistant Comptroller, on letters
Ex.PW-51/H and PW-51/J in the year 1975.
PW-56 Sh. Umed Parsad Singh was the
MLC, Bihar, in January 1975. He was on Dias at
Platform no.3 of Railway Station Samastipur and
an eyewitness to the incident dated 2.1.1975. He
also sustained injuries.
PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, an
independent witness, who had been a former
teacher, ex-serviceman and social worker, is a
resident
of
Bithan,
Samastipur, Bihar.
PS
Hassanpur,
District
He was on the Dais of
Platform no. 3 of Railway Station Samastipur and

an eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975. He
also sustained grievous injuries.
examined
PW-37,
who
Prosecution has
proved
printing
of
Congress Sewa Dal badges/cards like Ex.P-8,

however defence got produced in the court similar
Badge brought by PW-57 in his cross-examination,
which is exhibited as Ex.PW-57/DA. He deposed

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
44
about issuing of such Badges to him and eight

persons who accompanied him on 02.01.1975 in
order to make entry in the function.
PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar is a resident of
Mohalla Mithanpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. He is an
eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975. At
the time of incident, he was aged about 11 years.
He could come on the Dias since he was son of the
then Incharge, GRP, Railway Station, Samastipur.
He narrated the incident dated 02.01.1975. He
sustained grievous injuries.
PW-59 Sh. Hari Narain Parsad was the
Executive Magistrate at Khagaul, District Patna,
Bihar, in January 1975. He has been examined to
prove Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-59/A on the
body of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister.
Inquest Proceedings were conducted on 3.1.1975
at Railway Hospital, Danapur in his presence.
PW-60 Sh. R.N. Rai was the Officer
Incharge, Railway Station, Siwaan under the
jurisdiction
of
SP,
GRP,
Muzaffarpur,
in
December 1974 and January 1975. He deposed

that he escorted Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra
in ring round duty to his Saloon in the Special

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
45
Train from Lahariya Sarai to Samastipur. He is an

eyewitness to the incident dated 02.01.1975 and
narrated that Sh. L.N. Mishra and DIG B.N. Parsad
(PW-28) sustained injuries, Sh. L.N. Mishra was
removed to Saloon at B.G. Lines in a Special Train
and DIG B.N. Parsad (PW-28) was escorted to a
vehicle outside the Railway Station. Special Train
left Samastipur at 08.00 PM for Danapur and he
travelled with the Minister in that Saloon.
He
came to know about the death of Sh. L.N. Mishra

on 03.1.1975 at Barauni.
PW-61 Sh. Kesri Singh was the Branch
Manager, Union Bank of India, Johari Bazaar,
Jaipur.
He handed over Saving Bank Account
Opening Form and Specimen Signatures Card

(Ex.PW-2/G and Ex.PW-2/H) in respect of Saving
Bank Account No. 2638 in the name of Vikram
Kumar to CBI officers vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW61/1.
PW-62 Sh. Sachinder Krishan Chonbedar
was the Assistant Station Master, Samastipur in
January 1975.
maintaining of two Registers i.e. Train Detention

Register (Ex.PW-62/A) and Train Signal Register

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
46
(Mark PW-62/A) and that Special BG Train was

on platform no.5 which was to go to Muzaffarpur
and it was brought on line no.9 from line no.1
through West End. The Engine number mentioned
at entry Ex.PW-62/A in the register, took the train
to Danapur from Samastipur Railway Station and
entry Ex.PW-62/B is mentioned in Train Signal
Register as Mark PW-62/B.
PW-63 Sh. D.K. Maharishi was the
General Manager, Jaipur Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd., Jaipur. He has been examined to prove
that on 08.6.1975 vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-63/A
CBI seized three documents i.e. Account Opening
Form Ex.PW-2/E, Specimen Signature Card
Ex.PW-2/F and Original Resolution Ex.PW-2/N,
which were given by Anand Printers operated by
Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand.
PW-64 Sh. K.K. Tripathi was the Joint
Secretary (Finance) in the year 1975. He has been
examined to prove consent of the Government of
Bihar for investigation of the case no. 1, GRP
Samastipur dated 02.01.1975 vide Notification
Ex.PW-64/E dated 03.01.1975 and case no.1 PS
Samastipur dated 02.01.1975 vide Notification

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
47
Ex.PW-64/D dated 03.01.1975 by SPE U/s. 6 of

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. He has
also proved the consent of the Bihar Government
to investigate the case no.24 of Patna Kotwali and
case no. 71 of 13.7.1974 of PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur
by Delhi Special Police u/s 6 of DSPE Act vide
Notifications Ex.PW-64/A and Ex.PW-64/B both
dated 13.9.1975. He also proved the Order Ex.PW64/C, which is the consent of the competent
authority for prosecution of eight persons u/s 4 and
5 of Explosive Substance Act namely (i) Ram
Aasrey Parsad; (ii) Santoshanand Avadhoot @
Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar
@ Vishwajit; (iii) Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ram
Chander @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri Lal Yadav;
(iv) Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass; (v)
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Vijay @ Madan
Mohan Srivastava; (vi) Vinayanand Avadhoot @
Jagdish @ Ram Mohan @ Anand Kumar; (vii)
Gopalji @ Krishan Mohan Singh and (viii) Ram
Nagina Parsad @ Bhaiya.
PW-65 Vishwanath, the then Deputy SP,
Samastipur, in January 1975. He is an eyewitness
to the incident dated 2.1.1975 in which Sh. L.N.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
48
Mishra, Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and others

sustained injuries. He proved carbon copy of his
Report Ex.PW-65/A vide which he asked the
Incharge, GRP, Samastipur for registration of the
FIR U/s 120-B/307 IPC and U/s 3 & 4 Explosive
Substance Act. In his re-examination at page no.
2136, he proved the original writing Ex.PW-65/B,
which he gave to GRP, PS Samastipur for
registration of the case.
PW-66 Major Dr. A.I. Lendkhy was
commissioned
in
September 1974.
Army
Medical
Core
in
He passed his M.B.B.S.
examination in the year 1971.
From Training
School, Lucknow, he was sent to Medical College,

Darbhanga on 01.01.1975 and remained there until
24.01.1975.
He has been examined to prove that
on 04.01.1975, he examined a person namely;

Surya Narain Jha at 08.00 AM in the hospital and
found him dead. He made an endorsement Ex.PW66/A on the Bed Head Ticket.
PW-67 Sh. Ali Waris Khan, a resident of
South Gandhi Maidan, Patna, to prove that the then
Chief Minister of Bihar Abdul Gaffoor used to
visit their house during the years 1973 and 1974.

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
Ghanshyam Parsad. He had seen Santoshanand

writing and signing and identified his handwriting
Ex.PW-2/B in Hindi and Ex.PW-2/C in English,
Ex.PW-33/A in Hindi, writing Mark A-1 to A-72
in Kohinoor Exercise Book Mark P-22. He had
also seen Vikram, who used to distribute the
papers and saw him writing and signing. The
original name of Vikram was Jaldhar Dass.
Vikram used to work at Ranchi and from there he
brought Vikram to Delhi.
He gave training to
Vikram at Varanasi and identified Santoshanand

and Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass in the court. He also
identified Form Ex.PW-2/A, which is filled in the
handwriting of Vikram and bears his signatures.
He also proved other documents Ex.PW-2/E,
Ex.PW-2/F, Ex.PW-2/G, Ex.PW-2/H, Ex.PW-2/J
and Ex.PW-2/K to be in the handwriting of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
50
Vikram.
He also identified accused Ranjan
Dwivedi present in the court as he knew him due

to his visits in their office at South Extension, PartI, New Delhi.
PW-69 Sh. Shashi Nath Mishra (His
testimony is not referred by either party).
The
testimony of this witness is otherwise not relevant

for adjudication of the case.
PW-70 Sh. Madan Lal. His sister Phulwati
was
married
to
Ram
Aasrey
(Proclaimed
Offender). Marriage of sister Kaushalya was fixed

for 29th or 30th May 1975. One or two days prior
to that, Puri Sahib and N.N. Sahai, officers of CBI,
brought Ram Aasrey to their house in the presence
of Banwari.
At that time, his sister Phulwati
brought out two boxes with her when Ram Aasrey

took out one diary from one of the boxes and
handed over the same to Puri Sahib and Note Book
Ex.P-149, was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW70/A.
PW-71 Sh. Brindaban Pandey was the
Assistant Jailor, Central Jail, Patna, in December
1974. He has been examined to prove Register
Ex.P-150 of visitors to under trial prisoners in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
51
Central Jail, Patna, for the period from 14.5.1974

to 9.1.1975. He proved the filing of an application
dated
16.12.1974
Ex.PW-71/DA
by
Ranjan
Dwivedi and Ram Tanuk Singh to seek permission

to interview Anand Murtiji. Sh. Anand Murti was
confined to Central Jail, Patna. Vide order dated
16.12.1974 Ex.PW-71/A, the then Superintendent,
Central Jail, Patna allowed interview in the
presence of Assistant Jailor. He has proved the
entry dated 17.12.1974 in the Register Ex.P-150
regarding interview of Ram Tanuk Singh and
Ranjan Dwivedi with Anand Murti. He identified
Ranjan Dwivedi (Ram Janam Dwivedi) in the
court, who came for interview with Anand Murtiji
on 17.12.1974. (This fact is admitted by accused
Ranjan Dwivedi).
PW-72 Sh. Ram Chander Mishar is a
resident of Samastipur in whose presence and that
of Suraj Parshad Singh, articles like tarpaulin,
durries, gaddas, masands, jajams, etc. were taken
into possession by CID, Bihar Police on 4.1.1975
at the spot at Railway Station, Samastipur vide list
Ex.PW-72/A. He identified those articles.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
52
PW-73 Sh. Shobha Kant Jha was a worker

on Tea-Stall at Platform No.8 of Railway Station,
Samastipur in January 1975. He has been
examined to prove the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-73/A
by which the articles from the spot like wooden
sleepers, dari, etc. were taken into possession by
CID, Bihar Police on 5.1.1975.
PW-74 Sh. M.U. Ghani was the Income
Tax Inspector at Patna, who along with Sh. A.R.K.
Sahai (PW41) went to CBI office on 2.6.1975. In
their presence specimen handwriting of accused
Ram Aasrey Parsad Ex.PW-41/A-1 to Ex.PW41/A-7 and that of accused Gopalji Ex.PW-41/B-1
to Ex.PW-41/B-10 were obtained by the CBI
officer.
PW-75 Sh. R.N. Rai was the Executive
Magistrate, Bhagalpur, Sadar. (Either party does
not refer his testimony).
The testimony of this
witness is otherwise not relevant for adjudication

of the matter.
PW-76 Sh. Pramod Parsad Singh was the
Reader/Assistant in the court of S.D.O., Sadar,
Bhagalpur. He handed over a file of court case of
GR No. 815/72 to CBI Inspector vide Seizure

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
testimony of this witness is otherwise not relevant

for adjudication of the case.
PW-77 Sh. Ram Bahadur Deo. (Either
party does not refer his testimony). The testimony
of this witness is otherwise not relevant for
adjudication of the matter.
PW-78 Sh. M.P. Dubey. (His testimony is
not referred by either party). The testimony of this
witness is otherwise not relevant for adjudication
of the dispute.
PW-79 Sh. R.P. Mathur was the Manager,
Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Jaipur. He handed
over documents mentioned in Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-79/A on 14.5.1976 to PW-82 Sh. Hoshiyar
Singh, DSP, CBI. He handed over Account
Opening Form Ex.PW-2/J.
He also handed over
Specimen Signature Card Ex.PW-2/K to another

officer of CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/B.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
54
PW-80 Sh. Roop Nath Mishra - Anand

Margi. He took diksha in 1958.
He has been
examined to corroborate testimony of approver

Vikram (PW-2) that he tried to procure arms and
ammunitions from him and PW-27 Sh. Paras Nath.
He is also examined to prove that he met Subir
(PW-2) at the house of Paras Nath Singh (PW-27)
at Narkatiaganj in the year 1974 after one and a
half month of Dusshera. He identified Subir in the
court
by
pointing
(approver).
towards
PW-2
Vikram
Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) at his
residence introduced Subir to him (PW 80).

Thereafter, Subir visited PW-80 Roop Nath Mishra
where Ram Aasrey met them and Ram Aasrey
called Subir as Vikram at Chamua Railway halt.
They stayed at his house.
PW-81 Sh. Dev Narain Parsad is a local
resident of Samastipur. He accompanied a CBI
Officer to Ajay Printing Press and the Badge
Ex.P-8 was seized from the owner of the press Sh.
Shiv Narain Poddar (PW-37) vide Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-37/A.
PW-82 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh was Deputy
SP, CBI in the year 1976. On 14.5.1976, he seized

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
55
Account Opening Form Ex.PW-2/J and copy of

Statement of Account Mark PW-82/A in respect of
Account No. 2775 in the name of Anand Printers
operated by Vikram Kumar vide Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-79/A. He also took into possession copy
of the Statement of Account Mark PW-63/A of
account no.239 in the name of Anand Printers
operated by Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand vide
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-82/B.
PW-83 Sh. M.P. Sharma was the CBI
Inspector, New Delhi, in September 1975.
He
seized the Visitors Register Ex.P-5 vide Seizure

Memo Ex.PW-19/A from Sh. Purshottam Dass
(PW-19) of Aadarsh Hindu Lodge, Indore (M.P.),
which was also known as Gujarati Lodge. This
register contained entries of a visitor Vijay Kumar
on 26.08.1973 and 10.09.1973. This Vijay Kumar
is none as but PW-1.
PW-84
Sh.
J.S.
Bhagriya
was
the
Inspector, CBI, Jaipur, in June 1976. He seized

documents Ex.PW-2/E, Ex.PW-2/F, Ex.PW-2/N
from Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vide
He also seized
document Ex.PW-2/K vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
56
79/B from Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Jaipur.

He also seized documents Ex.PW-2/G and Ex.PW2/H vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-61/A from Kesri
Singh of Union Bank of India, Jaipur.
PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, the then
MP in the year 1975, is an eyewitness to the
incident dated 02.01.1975. He was present on the
munch (Dais) at the Platform No.3 of the Railway
Station, Samastipur. He sustained grievous injuries
on his both legs and admitted in Dr. Nawabs
Clinic, Darbhanga. He narrated the incident dated
02.01.1975.
PW-86 Sh. Rameshwar Sen was the
Incharge, PS GRP, Samastipur, on 02.1.1975. He
has been examined to prove that he received the
handwritten Rukka Ex.PW-65/B on 02.1.1975 at
08.00 PM. He recorded his endorsement Ex.PW86/A on Report Ex.PW-65/B sent to him by PW65 Sh. Vishwanath, the then Dy. S.P., Samastipur.
He proved the FIR Ex.PW-86/B, which was
correctly written by him in his own handwriting
bearing his signatures.
PW-87 Sh. Sidh Nath Ram was the
ASI/Incharge, PS Khagaul, District Patna in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
57
January 1975.
He received information on
03.01.1975 at 3.00 AM to the effect that Railway

Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra had been admitted in
Railway Hospital, Danapur with injuries because
of bomb blast. He visited there between 9 AM and
10 AM. Doctor told him at about 9.30 AM about
the death of Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra.
He remained in Operation Theater from the time
since his reaching the Railway Hospital until the
doctor gave him information about the death of Sh.
L.N. Mishra. He is examined to prove the Inquest
Proceedings Ex.PW-59/A on the body of L.N
Mishra in the Recovery Room of Railway
Hospital, Danapur in the presence of witnesses and
to prove the fact that on the direction of District
Magistrate, Patna, the dead body of Sh. L.N.
Mishra was handed over to his relatives without
postmortem examination.
PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha was the Medical
Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur in January
1975. He has been examined to prove that from
01.01.1975 to 25.01.1975, all the doctors in
Government Service in Bihar including him
himself were on cease work (strike). He received

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
58
information on 02.1.01975 about the bomb blast.

On humanitarian grounds, he went to Sadar
Hospital to attend injured persons. He examined
DIG B.N. Parsad, MLC Sh. Surya Narain Jha,
another MLC, whose name he did not recollect and
one boy Ajay Kumar (PW-58). He conducted
postmortem examination on the body of Ram
Kishore Parsad Singh on 04.01.1975.
PW-89
Rameshwar
Parsad
Yadav.
Neither party referred his testimony, which is

otherwise not relevant for adjudication of the case.
PW-90 Sh. Dalip Rai was the Special
Inspector, Police Station, Azamgarh.
He stated
that the record of Criminal Case No. 160 dated

16.2.1973 U/s 380 IPC PS Kotwali, Azamgarh was
not traceable.
PW-91 Sh. Parsu Ram Singh, who
remained employed and resided at Chautham from
1972 to 1978 with one Murariji. He has been
examined to prove that he knew accused Gopalji
@ Krishan Mohan Singh resident of Chautham and
he identified him in the court. He is also examined
to prove that CID Officers carried out a search in
the house of Gopalji at Village Chautham on

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
59
17.05.1975 at about 5.00 AM. Several items were

recovered from his house in his presence and that
of Neel Mohan Singh vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW91/A. He identified his signatures on the Seizure
Memo. Gopalji was present when the search was
carried out. Gopalji was arrested after completion
of the search. He deposed that during house search
of Gopalji, 8 brass Badges bearing letters VSS
Ex.P-150 to Ex.P-157, cloth Badges Ex.P-158 to
Ex.P-173, brass badges Ex.P-174 to Ex.P-176,
white metal badges Ex.P-177 to Ex.P-178, his Gun
License Book Ex.P-185 and a book in English
Ex.P-186 were found and seized.
There were
numerous papers including diaries, copies, letters

and loose papers, which were found in a tin box
Mark A-1. He identified some of the documents
like Ex.PW-33/A (Ex.PW-2/M), Ex.PW-33/B,
Ex.PW-43/F,
Ex.PW-68/DA,
two
telegrams
Ex.PW-1/S and Ex.PW-1/O, which were found in

the said tin box and seized after the search. He
identified his signature at point A and that of other
witness Neel Mohan Singh at point B on Ex.P-185,
English Book Ex.P-186 and other documents

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
60
recovered from there. He proved arrest of Gopalji

on that day after search.
PW-92 Sh. G.N. Singh was the Second
Officer in PS Kotwali Patna in March 1973 till
May 1974 when he became Incharge, PS Kotwali
Patna. He has been examined to prove that he
received information about bomb blast at Patna
Collectorate and visited the spot along with ASI
Rameshwar Parsad Singh, ASI Durga Parsad
Singh and SI Gokhla Nand Sahai. He has also
proved the statement of Chandi Mishra Naik (PW9) Ex.PW-9/A and endorsement thereon Ex.PW18/A in the handwriting of Gokhla Nand Sahai
(PW-18) and FIR Ex.PW-92/A.
He remained
Investigating Officer of the case initially.

PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta was the Assistant
Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital,
Samastipur in January 1975.
He has been
examined to prove that in those days Dr. T.D.

Nandi, Dr. N.N. Sharma, Dr. A. Sen, Dr. P.C.
Gupta, Dr. N. Banerjee and Dr. K.M. Sinha were
working in the Hospital and he had seen them
writing and signing. He proved various Bed Head
Tickets of the injured persons of Samastipur Bomb

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
61
Blast, brought in the hospital on 02.1.1975. Those

Bed Head Tickets are consisting of Ex.PW-93/A of
Ram Kishore Parsad Singh, Ex.PW-93/D of Ram
Vinod Sharma,
Ex.PW-93/E of Brij Mohan
Sharma, Ex.PW-93/F of Kapil Deo Narain Singh,

MLA, Ex.PW-93/G of
Kailash Pati Singh,
Advocate, Ex.PW-93/H of Ram Bhagat Paswan,

MP,
Ex.PW-93/J
of
P.R.
Chopra,
General
Manager, Railways, Gorakhpur, Ex.PW-93/K of

Naval Kishore Singh, Ex.PW-93/L of Suresh
Parsad, Advocate, Ex.PW-93/M of Pramod Parsad,
Ex.PW-93/N of Rama Kant Jha MLC, Ex.PW93/O of Suraj Narain Mandal, Ex.PW-93/P of
Jamuna Parsad Mandal, Ex.PW-93/Q of Smt. Noor
Jahan Begum, Ex.PW-93/R of Baleshwar Ram,
MLA, Ex.PW-93/S of Sh. J. Banerjee, Signal
Inspector, Samastipur, Ex.PW-93/T of Satender
Parsad Singh, Ex.PW-93/U of Suresh Chaudhary,
Ex.PW-93/V of Bisheshwar Rai, Ex.PW-93/W of
Parmanand Jha, Ex.PW-93/X of Rajender s/o Sh.
M.D. Sahu and Ex.PW-93/Y of Dr. I.D. Sharma.
He also proved Death Certificate of Ram Kishore
Parsad Singh Ex.PW-93/B and Memo as Ex.PW93/C.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
62
PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha was the Assistant

Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital,
Samastipur in January 1975. He has been
examined to prove that he accompanied Dr. P.C.
Bhalla, Chief Medical Officer to Darbhanga on
02.01.1975 in the jeep in the Morning and then by
Special Train from Darbhanga to Samastipur and
to prove Special Train stopped at Platform No.3,
Railway Station, Samastipur. At about 6.00 PM,
he heard Chief Security Officer shouting and
calling for CMO. He is also examined to prove the
injuries suffered by Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan
Nath Mishra in the incident of Bomb blast dated
02.1.1975 and to prove injury chart Ex.PW-94/A.
PW-95 Dr. Mahender Nath Sharma was
the Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital,
Samastipur in the year 1975. He is examined to
prove that he was also present at Samastipur
Railway Station on 02.01.1975 at the time of the
incident in question; he gave first aid to some
persons on the munch (Dais) itself with the
assistance of Dr. K.M. Sinha and arranged to send
injured
persons
Samastipur.

to
the
Railway
Hospital,
Doctors examined injured Ram
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
63
Bhagat Paswan, Smt. Lalita Devi, Ram Kishore

Parsad Singh Kishore and Kailash Pati Sinha in his
presence and their injuries were found grievous.
He is also examined to prove the Injury Report of
Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra
Ex.PW-95/A with forwarding letter Ex.PW-95/B.
He handed over Bed Head Tickets of injured
persons Ex.PW-93/W, Ex.PW-93/H, Ex.PW-93/B,
Ex.PW-93/U, Ex.PW-93/T, Ex.PW-93/S, Ex.PW93/R, Ex.PW-93/G, Ex.PW-93/F, Ex.PW-93/Q,
Ex.PW-93/E, Ex.PW-93/D, Ex.PW-93/P, Ex.PW93/O, Ex.PW-93/N, Ex.PW-93/M, Ex.PW-93/L,
Ex.PW-93/X, Ex.PW-93/Y, Ex.PW-93/K, Ex.PW93/J and Ex.PW-93/A to Sub-Inspector of CBI
vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-95/C.
PW-96 Sh. Sadanand Jha is an Advocate.
He is examined to prove his Vakalatnamas Ex.PW96/A & Ex.PW-96/B on behalf of Aacharya
Budheshawaranand.
These Vakalatnamas were
filed before Executive Magistrate, Bhagalpur and

SDO, Bhagalpur, respectively in proceedings
under Section 107 Cr. PC. He also proved the Bail
Bond
Ex.PW-9/C
furnished
by
Budheshawaranand.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
64
PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab is a retired

Principal, Medical College, Darbhanga, in January
1975. He has been examined to prove the injury
report of Master Ajay Kumar (PW-58) vide
Operation
Notes
Ex.PW-97/A.
He
is
also
examined to prove that C.S. Chaudhary and Suraj

Narain Jha were treated as outdoor patient. He
deposed that B.N. Parsad DIG, Kailash Pati Singh,
Advocate, Kapil Deo Narain Singh, MLA, Bihar,
Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP, were also examined and
treated by him.
PW-98 Sh. Mohinder Nath Singh is the
person, whose revolver was allegedly stolen by
Din Pal Rai, Advocate (DW-24).
PW-99 Sh. Ram Chander Mishra is
another nephew of Surya Narain Jha. He deposed
that Surya Narain Jha was his foofa.
He is
examined to prove that Surya Narain Jha was

brought in an Ambulance in an injured condition.
Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Dr. Shambhu Nath Chaudhary and
Dr. Ansari treated him and thereafter, he was
shifted to Dr. Nawabs Clinic.
He was treated
there also and then he was shifted to Darbhanga

Medical College, where he died on 4.1.1975 at

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
65
about 07.00 PM. He is also examined to prove that

on their request, his dead body was handed over to
them without postmortem examination.
PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar was the Senior
Lecturer, Department of Surgery in Darbhanga
Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga. He has
been examined to prove the Bed Head Ticket
Ex.PW-100/A with Notes Ex.PW-100/A-1 to PW100/A-3 and Ex.PW-100/B-1 to B-5 in respect of
Surya Narain Jha, MLC. He deposed that he was
the neighbor of Surya Narain Jha, and the
treatment was given to Surya Narain Jha in Janta
Clinic of Dr. Nawabs Clinic. He was shifted to
Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, where
he was operated upon by him and Dr. A.H. Ansari
(PW-123). He deposed that Surya Narain Jha had
died after operation due to injuries caused in the
bomb blast.
PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender was the
Medical Officer, AM Central, Lucknow.
He
joined Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital

on 01.01.1975. He is examined to prove the Bed
Head Ticket Ex.PW-101/A of Surya Narain Jha,
who was admitted in serious condition.

After
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
66
taking permission of his seniors, he permitted

operation by Dr. Sarkar and admitted the patient.
PW-102 Sh. Adeshwari Parsad Sinha was
the
Assistant
Station
Master,
MG
Lines,
Samastipur in the year 1975. He is examined to

prove that down passenger Special Train came
from the Lahariya Sarai side and reached Railway
Station Samastipur at 5.12 PM with Rattan Lal as
its driver vide entry in the Register Ex.PW-102/A
and Ex.PW-102/B.
PW-103
Sh.
I.P.
Sharma
has
been
Inspector, CBI. He is examined to prove that he

arrested accused Santoshanand at Railway Station,
Patna on 17.6.1975 and seized various items vide
Personal Search Memo Ex.P-148. This Personal
Search Memo Ex.P-148 is in the summoned file,
copy of which is Ex.PW38/A. It was prepared in
the presence of two public witnesses Suresh Parsad
(PW-38) and Dev Kumar. Accused gave his name
as Jitender Kumar, then Ghanshyam Parsad and
then Santoshanand. At that time, he was wearing
shirt & pant. He had small hair on his head. He
was not sporting beard and moustaches. He was
carrying a jhola and some books in his hand.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
67
From his personal search, one 2nd class Railway

Ticket from Patna to Howrah, one hearing aid,
currency worth Rs.3,921/- and some change of
Rs.2.38, besides spectacles were recovered and
from jhola of accused Santoshanand, pants, shirts,
chaddar, soap case, some books and one wrist
watch were recovered. Correct/true copy of Ticket
is Ex.P-20; Ex.P-18 is packet; Ex.P-19 is hearing
aid; which were recovered from his personal
search. He recovered a Kohinoor Exercise Book
available Ex.P-22 in the summoned file and copy
of which is Ex.PW-38/E-1 to PW-38/E-72.
PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh was the
Professor and Head of Department (Surgery),
Darbhanga
Medical
College
and
Hospital,
Darbhanga in January 1975. He is examined to

prove that in January 1975 due to strike by the
government doctors, he along with the other
doctors was running a Janta Clinic in Dr. Nawabs
Clinic. He also proved the injuries of patients Ajay
Kumar (PW-58), B.N. Prasad (PW-28) vide Bed
Head Ticket Ex.PW-104/A and of Sh. Ram Bhagat
Paswan, M.P. (PW-85) vide Bed Head Ticket
Ex.PW-104/B.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
68
PW-105 Sh. Dass Narayan Sharma has

been examined to prove stay of Manohar Darve in
his building at Patna in December 1973 for 2/3
days.
PW-106 Sh. S.A.A. Razvi, was the SubInspector and Officer Incharge PS Lahariya Sarai,
Darbhanga. He is examined to prove that
postmortem on the body of Surya Narain Jha was
dispensed with by the Superintendant of Police on
the request of relatives, friends and sympathizers
of Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
PW-106A Kameshwar Prasad Sinha, was
the Assistant Sub Inspector PS Lahariya Sarai on
4.1.1975. He is examined to prove that he prepared
Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-45/A in respect of the
dead body of Surya Narain Jha and that the
postmortem on his body was dispensed with by
District Magistrate and Superintendant of Police
on the request of wife and relatives of Surya
Narain Jha.
PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi was the Medical
Officer, Railway Hospital, Samastipur, in January
1975. He came in the dock to prove that he
examined injured persons of Bomb blast on

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
69
2.1.1975 and to prove the injuries of those persons.

He proved Bed Head Tickets of such persons:(i) Ram Kishore Parsad Singh Bed Head
Ticket No.3598 Ex.PW-93/A with his endorsement
Ex.PW-107/A, (ii) Bineshwar Ram, MLA vide
Bed Head Ticket No.3595 Ex.PW-93/R, with his
notes Ex.PW-107/B, (iii) Sh. Naval Kishore Singh
vide Bed Head Ticket No.3596 Ex.PW-93/K with
his notes Ex.PW-107/C, (iv) Sh. Rama Kant Jha
vide Bed Head Ticket No.3599 Ex.PW-93/N with
his writing Ex.PW-107/D, (v) Ram Vinod Sharma
vide Bed Head Ticket No.3600 Ex.PW-93/D with
his writing Ex.PW-107/E and F, (vi) Ram Bhagat
Paswan vide Bed Head Ticket No.3584 Ex.PW93/H with his writing Ex.PW-107/G, (vii) Parma
Nand Jha vide Bed Head Ticket No.3586 Ex.PW93/W with his writing Ex.PW-107/H, (viii) Sh.
Bineshwar Rai vide Bed Head Ticket No.1535
Ex.PW-93/B with his writing Ex.PW-107/J, and
(ix) Sh. J. Banerjee vide his Bed Head Ticket
No.3883 Ex.PW-93/S with his writing Ex.PW107/K. Later on Ram Kishore Parsad Singh
succumbed to his injuries.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
70
PW-108 Sh. Arun Chander Dass: Neither

party referred his testimony during the arguments.
PW-109 Sh. Mohan Kumar Jha, a distant
relative of Sh. L.N. Mishra, who is an eyewitness
to the incident at Samastipur Railway Station dated
2.1.1975. He travelled with the Railway Minister
from Lahariya Sarai to Samastipur.
PW-110 Sh. S.S. Pachauri was the
Assistant Medical Engineer, Samastipur Division
during the months of December 1974 and January
1975 with Railways. He has come in the witness
box to prove that he examined the Engine of the
Special Train on 2.1.1975, which was to carry
Railway Minister L.N. Mishra from Darbhanga to
Samastipur and that Railway Minister travelled in
Saloon from Railway Station, Lahariya Sarai at
4.10 PM and reached Samastipur at 5.10 PM. He
also proved that on reaching Special Train at
Platform No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur,
Railway Minister alighted from the train, which
remained stationed there for about 10 minutes and
then, it was moved on giving of signal by the
Station Master and special B.G. train left
Samastipur between 7.30 PM and 8.00 PM.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
71
PW-111 Sh. Surinder Vikram Singh had

worked
as
an
Accountant
and
Manager
(Administration) with M/s Shabnam Engineering

and Foundry Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur. He knew
accused Ranjan Dwivedi @ Ram Janam Dwivedi
who had worked as Executive Assistant to the
Director (Incharge). There he saw Ram Janam
Dwivedi writing and signing. He identified the
writing of accused Ranjan Dwivedi in Diaries
Ex.P-124, ExP-127 and ExP-123 in the summoned
file of RC-11/1975 and Photostat copies of which
are Q-15, Q-15A, Q-15B, Q-15C, Q-15D (Ex.P124), Q-20 (Ex.P-127), Q-14, Q-14A and Q-13A
(purse diary Ex.P-123). (Later on Accused Ranjan
Dwivedi admitted the diaries and his writing
therein).
PW-112 Dr. Rohini Raman Ganguli was
the Professor and Head of the Department of
Orthopedic Surgery, Darbhanga Medical College
and Hospital in January 1975. She is examined to
prove that due to strike in the form of Cease
Work by doctors, they were giving treatment in
Nawabs Clinic.
On 03.01.1975, she operated
upon Kailash Pati Singh and treated him. She also

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
72
treated Kapil Deo Narain Singh and proved the

Bed Head Ticket of Kailash Pati Singh Mark PW112/A and Bed Head Ticket of Kapil Deo Narain
Singh Mark PW-112/B.
PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai is an eyewitness
to the incident dated 2.1.1975 at Platform No.3 of
Railway Station, Samastipur and occupied chair in
3rd row on the Dais and garlanded L.N. Mishra. He
saw 30/35 persons on the Dais. Those persons
include Jagan Nath Mishra, Rama Kant Jha,
Baleshwar Ram, Y.P. Mandal, Surya Narain Jha,
Ram Vinod Sharma, Ram Sukumari, Ram Naresh
Singh, Suresh Parsad Singh, Kailash Pati Singh,
Advocate and Kapil Deo Narain Singh. The
function was presided over by Sh. Baleshwar Ram,
who welcomed the Railway Minister; and after
finishing of speech by L.N. Mishra, when he took
turn and moved 2-3 steps, he heard some sound
and saw smoke appeared there. He lifted Ram
Vinod Sharma in an injured condition and handed
over him to others to remove him to the hospital.
He proved in cross-examination, printing of
Congress Sewa Dal Badges as he discussed this
issue with Rama Kant Jha and Baleshwar Ram and

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
73
Railway Authorities permitted Sewa Dal Workers

to be present with Sewa Dal Badges.
PW-114 Dr. Bhupender Parsad Singh, is
the then Demonstrator in Anatomy, Darbhanga
Medical College, in January 1975. He has
appeared in the witness box to prove that the
doctors of Bihar Health Services and Indian
Medical Association were on general strike and
patients were admitted in emergency in Janta
Clinic. He handed over the Register Mark PW97/A and three Bed Head Tickets of Ajay Kumar,
Kapil Deo Narain Singh and Kailash Pati Singh to
a CBI Officer vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-114/A.
PW-115 Sh. Laxmi Narain Vishnu Dutt
Kumar is a witness to the search carried out at the
house of Ranjan Dwivedi.
(Accused Ranjan
Dwivedi did not come present on the day, witness

was examined and identity of accused was not
disputed.) The witness identified the Diary Ex.P127, Anand Marg Diary Ex.P-124 and Pocketcum-Purse Diary Ex.P-123 in the summoned file
of Session Case No.9/76 (RC-11/1975) and pages
bearing writing Q-20 (Ex.P-127), Q-15, Q-15A, Q15B (Ex.P-124), Q-13, Q-13A, Q-14 and Q-14A

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
74
(Ex.P-123) were signed by him.
These diaries
were seized vide Seizure Memo Mark P-137 and

copy of Search List is Ex.PW-115/B.
PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha, the then Assistant
Medical Officer, North-East Railway Divisional
Hospital, Samastipur is an eyewitness to the
incident dated 02.01.1975 at Platform No.3 of the
Railway Station, Samastipur. On direction of Dr.
M.N. Sharma, he came to Hospital and supervised
medical aid. He himself also treated some of the
patients. He proved Bed Head Ticket of Brij
Mohan Sharma Ex.PW-93/E bearing his own
handwriting on the said Bed Head Ticket at point
E, Bed Head Ticket No.3588 Ex.PW-93/G of
Kailash Pati Singh, Bed Head Ticket No.3605
Ex.PW-116/A of Smt. Lalita Devi Sinha, Bed
Head Ticket No.3604 of Mahender Sahu, nephew
of M.D. Sahu Ex.PW-16/B, Bed Head Ticket
No.3603 of Rajender S/o M.D. Sahu Ex.PW-93/X,
Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-90/K of Nawal Kishore
Singh, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/L of Suresh
Parsad Singh, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/M of
Pramod Parsad, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/O of
Suraj Narain Mandal, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
75
93/P of Yamuna Parsad Mandal, Bed Head Ticket

Ex.PW-93/F of Kapil Deo Narain Singh, Bed Head
Ticket Ex.PW-93/E of Satender Parsad Singh and
Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/U of Suraj Chaudhary.
All these patients were examined and treated by
him.
PW-117 Sh. Chander Nath Mukherjee is
the Assistant Jailor, Central Jail, Patna from
November 1974 to March 1975. He proved the Jail
Register Ex.P-150 having entry dated 17.12.1974
Ex.PW-71/C vide which Ram Tanuk Singh and
Ram Janam Dwivedi had an interview with Sh.
P.R. Sarkar in the Central Jail, Patna, in view of
the order of Superintendent, Central Jail Ex.PW71/A.
PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha was the Assistant
Divisional Medical Officer, (Surgery), Danapur
Railway Hospital, Patna in January 1975. He is
examined to prove Railway Minister Sh. L.N.
Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra arrived at
Railway Station, Danapur and they were taken to
Railway Hospital, Danapur. Sh. L.N. Mishra was
kept in recovery room. He examined L.N. Mishra
at Danapur and recorded his injuries which L.N.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
76
Mishra suffered vide Indoor Ticket Ex.PW-118/A.

He
was present
in the Operation Theater
throughout during the operation until the death of

Sh. L.N. Mishra in the Operation Theater itself.
Prof. (Dr.) R.V.P. Sinha, Dr. U.N. Sahi (Prof.), Dr.
Major Mohinder Singh and Dr. P. B. Parshad were
the Surgeons who operated upon Sh. L.N. Mishra.
He and four other doctors assisted them. The
operation notes were prepared in his presence by
Dr. M. L. Singh. Three Anesthetists were present
during the operation. Sh. L.N. Mishra was
complaining of severe pain in the abdomen all over
when he was examined by him and Professor (Dr.)
R.V. P. Sinha.
He also proved Indoor Ticket
Ex.PW-118/E of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. He is

also examined to prove the treatment given to Sh.
L.N. Mishra and that the patient (L.N. Mishra) was
declared dead at 9.30 AM on 3.1.1975.
PW-119 Sh. Deo Chand, UDC Income Tax
on 7.12.1971. Neither party referred his deposition
during arguments.
PW-120 Sh. Umesh, Deputy S.P.: Neither
party referred his deposition during arguments.

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
Hospital, Darbhanga, has been examined to prove

that he examined Surya Narain Jha on 02.01.1975
and 03.01.1975 and the patient died on 04.01.1975.
PW-124 Sh. K.N. Tiwari, Inspector of
Police with CBI at Shilong in January 1975, has
been examined to prove obtaining of specimen
handwriting and signatures of accused Krishan
Mohan Singh @ Gopalji at Patna. Specimen
handwriting and signatures are Ex.PW-41/B-1 to
Ex.PW-41/B-10. These were obtained in the
presence of Sh. A.R.K. Sahai and Sh. M.U. Gunny.
He also proved the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
78
signed by PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmed, PW-21 Sh.

D.N. Jha and Dineshwar Singh. By this Seizure
Memo Ex.PW-20/B, a manuscript in Hindi bearing
title
SASHATRA
KRANTIKARI
CHHATRA
SANGH- PRESS SAMAGRI (one sheet) and one

leaflet of Shashastra Krantikari Sangh were seized
from Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20).
PW-125 Sh. Suraj Parsad: Neither party
referred his deposition during arguments.
PW-125A Dr. M. Mohanti was Assistant
Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Danapur on 2nd
January 1975. He has been has been examined to
prove the fact that both L.N. Mishra and J.N.
Mishra
were brought
to
Railway
Hospital,
Danapur by ambulance & he examined Dr. J.N.

Mishra vide Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-118/E. He,
as an Anesthetist, remained present in the
Operation Theater throughout the operation of
L.N. Mishra; and his notes Ex.PW-125/A.
PW-126 Sh. R.P. Sinha, Inspector, CBI in
the year 1975 at Patna has been examined to prove
that
on
4.8.1975,
he
seized
the
Railway
Reservation Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A vide


Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
79
PW-126 (now numbered as PW-126A) Sh.

Maheshwar Parsad has been examined to prove
that he had worked with PW-1 Madan Mohan
Srivastava in the office of SDO, PWD, Lahariya
Sarai, from the year 1961 to 1975. He had seen
him
writing
and
signing
and
to
identify
handwriting and signatures of PW-1 Madan

Mohan Srivastava on Visitors Register Ex.P-5 as
Vijay Kumar at point Ex.PW-1/L and Ex.PW1/N and to identify handwriting and signatures of
PW-1 on sheet of Hotel Republic, Patna as S.K.
Gupta Ex.PW-1/Q, Ex.PW-1/P (Q8) and Cash
Voucher Ex.PW1/R (Q-9).
PW-127 Sh. Jayant Banerjee, the then
Signal Inspector, Samastipur Railway Station, in
January 1975, who is an eyewitness to the incident
dated 02.01.1975. He proved that he was at Dais
on Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station
on 02.01.1975 at 5/5.15 PM and a blast took place
at the end of the speech by the Railway Minister
and he jumped out of the Dais and suffered injuries
on his person and he was removed to the hospital
by the staff.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
80
PW-128 Sh. Prem Kumar Srivastava:

Neither party referred his deposition being
irrelevant.
PW-129 Narinder Nath Singh, the then
Inspector, CBI, Patna on instructions of Chief I.O.
Sh. H.L. Ahuja remained associated with the
investigation of this case from March 1975 to
November 1975. He proved the Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-129/B vide which he seized one voucher
Ex.PW-1/R from Sh. Clifford Boile, Manager of
the Hotel Republic. He also proved obtaining of
specimen writings and signatures on 15 sheets
Ex.PW-1/W-1 to PW-1/W-15 of Madan Mohan
Srivastava
on
22.9.1975
in
the
office
of
Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Darbhanga in the

presence of RBP Yadav, the PA to Superintendent
Engineer.
PW-130 Sh. H.P. Singh, the then Deputy
SP (Economic Offence Branch), CBI, who
received written orders from Joint Director, CBI to
assist Chief Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja
and remained associated with the investigation of
this case from 10.1.1975 to April 1975.
He is
examined to prove Bed Head Tickets of Ajay

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
81
Kumar, Kailash Pati Singh, Kapil Deo Narain

Singh, MLA from Dr. Upinder Prasad Singh,
Demonstrator, Darbhanga Medical College and
Hospital vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-114/A and to
prove seizure of Bed Head Ticket of Sh. Surya
Narain Jha vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-130/A from
the Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital.
PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh, Deputy SP of
CBI, New Delhi, remained associated with the
investigation of the case from 08.01.1975 to
29.8.1976. He proved seizure of two copies of
pamphlet Shashastra Kranti Hamara Rasta from
Baijnath Printing Press, Bhagalpur Ex.PW-36/A
vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-36/B; Seizure of
Badge Ex.P-8 from Ajay Printing Press vide
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-27/A; and seizure of Note
Book Ex.PW-23/A from Ashok Niketan, Patna
vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-23/B.
PW-132 Sh. B.R. Puri, Deputy SP, CBI,
New
Delhi,
remained
associated
with
the
investigation of the case from May 1975 to

September 1975. He also remained associated with
investigation
of
the
case
RC
No.11/1975
pertaining to the attack on the then Chief Justice of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
82
India Sh. Ray. He is examined to prove seizure of

Note Book Ex.P-149 from accused Ram Aasrey
Parsad Singh vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-70/A;
and carrying out search in the house of Ranjan
Dwivedi in RC-11/75 and seized three Diaries vide
Seizure Memo Ex.P-137 in summoned file,
Photostat copy of which is Ex.PW-115/B dated
6.7.1975. The seized diaries are Pocket-cum-Purse
Diary Ex.P-123, Anand Marg Diary Ex.P-124 and
Table Diary Ex.P-127. The writing Mark Q-13, Q13A, Q-14 and Q-14A were in existence in Purse
Diary Ex.P-123 at the time of seizure. Ex.PW43/AA-194 is Photostat copy of Q-13 and Q-13A,
Ex.PW-43/AA-195 is Photostat copy of Q-14 and
Q-14A. The writing Mark Q-15, Q-15A, Q-15B,
Q-15C and Q-15D existed in Anand Marg Diary
Ex.P-124 in addition to other writing at the time of
its seizure. The Photostat copy of Q-15 and Q15A is Ex.PW43/AA-197, of Q-15B and Q-15C is
Ex.PW43/AA-198 and of Q-15 D is Ex.PW43/AA199. Writing Q-20 was existing in Table Diary
Ex.P-127 in addition to other writing at the time of
seizure. Its Photostat copy is Ex.PW-43/AA-200.
He is also examined to prove seizure of

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
Avadhoot at Railway Station, Patna and searched

his person and seized his personal belongings
regarding which a Seizure Memo was prepared.
At that time, accused Santoshanand was in civilian
dress and was not wearing the clothes of Avadhoot.
He identified him in the court.
PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, the then
Inspector, Intelligence Bureau/Special Branch,
Bihar Police Head Quarter at Patna, took over
investigation of the case vide FIR no.24 (1 of
1974) PS Patna Kotwali, from Sub Inspector Girija
Nandan Singh (PW-92). He deposed about arrest
of approver PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @
Visheshwaranand on 29.4.1975 by him from the
house of Deputy SP C.D. Parsad where Dy. SP
Jata Shankar Khan

of
Intelligence
Branch,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
84
Darbhanga after arrest brought him on 28.04.1975.

He is also examined to prove recording of
statement of Madan Mohan Srivastava and seizure
of two sheets of Visitors Register bearing entries
Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q, Bill Book Ex.PW17/A vide Seizure Memo dated 3.5.1975 Ex.PW134/A of Hotel Republic, Patna, where Madan
Mohan Srivastava stayed under assumed name of
Shankar Kumar Gupta (S.K. Gupta). He carried
out search in the house of Gopalji at Chautham on
the night intervening 16th and 17 th May 1975 in the
presence of witnesses Neel Mohan Singh and
(PW-91)
Parsu
Ram
Singh;
and
recovered
documents and articles vide Seizure Memo

Ex.PW-91/A.
The documents recovered from
house search of Gopalji include Slip Ex.PW-2/M,

Manuscript Ex.PW-33/D, Ex.PW-43/F, Copy of
Telegram Mark PW-91/A-5, Telegrams Ex.PW1/S and Ex.PW-1/O.
PW-135 Sh. Girija Nandan Parsad. He is
the person, at whose house Vikram, Santoshanand,
Sudevanand stayed on the night of 1.1.1975. His
examination in chief was recorded on 11.07.1984
and at the request of Defence Counsel, his cross-

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
85
examination was deferred.
He did not appear
thereafter.
PW-136 Sh. Akhilesh Parsad: Neither
party referred his deposition during arguments.
PW-137
Sh.
S.K.
Ghosh,
the
then
Inspector, CBI, remained associated with the

investigation of the case relating to murder of Sh.
L.N. Mishra with effect from 25.1.1975. On
8.2.1975 from Sh. J.P. Sinha (PW-52), ASI GRP
Samastipur, he collected several articles viz.
Pillow, bed sheet, smeared with blood stains, burnt
bed sheets, cotton mattresses, tarpaulin etc. and put
in a hessian cover, stitched and sealed and then put
in wooden box.
Document Ex.PW-52/D was
prepared.
PW-138 Sh. R.P. Malhotra was the Deputy
Comptroller of Explosive from 1972 to 1976 at
Calcutta. He examined remnants of exploded hand
grenade at Collectorate, Patna relating Case no. 24
dated 7.1.1974 PS Patna Kotwali and proved the
Report Ex.PW-138/C. He examined three hand
grenades relating to incident dated 13.7.1974 at
tomb, Khanjarpur District Bhagalpur and proved
Report Ex.PW-138/A and Ex. PW-138/B.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
86
PW-139 Sh. Bipin Bihari Singh, the then

Section
Officer, District Board, Samastipur,
visited the spot at Railway Station, Samastipur on

5.1.1975 & prepared the Draft Plan Ex.PW-139/A.
On 7.1.1975, he visited house of Sh. M.D. Sahu
and prepared Site Plan Ex.PW-138/B.
PW-140 Sh. Alok Nath Chatterjee, the
then Sub Inspector who carried three articles given
to him by Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) in Patna
Kotwali in case FIR no.24/74 to Controller of
Explosives at Esplanade, Calcutta on 6.4.1974
along with covering letter and delivered against the
Receipt Ex.PW-140/A.
PW-141 Mr. Richard Amrinder Biswas,
Dy. S.P. Patna: Neither party referred his
deposition during arguments.
PW-142 Sh. Sarju Pa rsad Verma, the then
Incharge PS Samastipur in January 1975 inspected
the house of Mahender Sahu. He is examined to
prove that FIR no. 1 of 1975 Ex.PW-142/B PS
Samastipur, which was registered in Police Station
on his rukka Ex.PW-142/A, and he investigated
the case and handed over the investigation to CID,
Bihar.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
87
PW-143 Sh. Ram Naresh Parsad had

worked as Advertisement Manager of newspaper
Vishwabandhu from the year 1972 to 1976. He
deposed that photograph of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor
used to be printed in the newspaper sometimes and
Sh. N.N. Verma (father of Santoshanand) was a
part
time
worker
with
this
newspaper
Vishwabandhu during this period.

PW-144 Sh. Sudershan Singh, was the
Constable with PS Barari, District Bhagalpur and
on 16.1.1975, he took one sealed parcel of
grenades from Bhagalpur to Calcutta and deposited
the same with Explosive Officer at Calcutta.
Sealed parcel was given to him by Sh. Ram
Aadhar Ram, Incharge, Police Station, Barari.
PW-145 Sh. Khusheshwar Singh was the
Mukhiya of village Akhtiarpur Khajuri, Distt.
Samastipur. He has been examined to prove the
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-145/A for seizure of pieces
of bomb exploded at the house of Mahadev Sahu
in his presence.
PW-146 Inspector Nageshwar Parsad
Singh had worked with Deputy SP S.K.N. Singh
and identified his writing on the case diary of Case

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
88
Diary of GRP Case no. 1/75 relating to murder of

L.N. Mishra. In the Case Diary, statement of (PW65) Vishwanath Singh, Deputy Superintendant of
Police, Samastipur is recorded in the hands of
Deputy Superintendant of Police S.K.N. Singh. In
his cross-examination, he admitted his statement
ExPW-65/DA as correct.
PW-147 Clifford Boile, the then Manager
of the Hotel Republic Patna, from January 1975 to
June 1976 has been examined to prove the record
of their Hotel which was seized by CBI vide
Seizure Memo dated 19.9.1975 Ex.PW-129/B and
to prove the voucher, bill and visitors book which
bear his signatures. He proved sheet of Visitor
Register Ex.PW-1/P, cash voucher Ex.PW-1/R and
Bill contained in Bill Book Ex.PW-17/A.
He
handed over cash voucher Ex.PW-1/R to Bihar

Police Officer.
PW-148
Banerjee,
Sh.
Stenographer
Pushpender
to
Chief
Kumar
Judicial
Magistrate, Samastipur, who brought record of FIR

No. 1 (1)/75 dated 2.1.1975.
Since he only
brought the record of FIR in a packet with the seal

of the court of CJM, Samastipur for the purpose of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
89
filing only in this court, his statement was recorded

without oath. His statement was not referred
during the course of arguments by both the sides.
PW-149 Sh. Ram Pujan Singh, the then
constable GRP Samastipur in January 1975 took
two sealed packets and two open letters from
Officer, PS Samastipur to Controller of Explosive,
Calcutta against receipt Ex.PW-138/D and Ex.PW138/E.
PW-150 Major Prabhash Chander Dass,
the then Captain posted at Danapur (Bihar and
Orissa Sub Area) who visited the Collectorate
Compound, Patna on 07.01.1974 and examined the
site and found a live hand grenade fitted with base
plug and not having a pin. He got cleared the
place and called for some sand bags.
Hand
grenade was destroyed. The blast was loud. He

found some splinters of hand grenade and a broken
spring and base plug.
PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja, the then DSP,
CBI was the main Investigation Officer of the
case, who took over investigation in the case with
effect from 10.1.1975.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
90
PW-152 Sh. K.D. Upadhaya, ASI, GRP

Samastipur, who brought the special diary for the
period from 3.12.1974 to 14.1.1975 of GRP
Samastipur and FIR Register for the period from
8.11.1974 to 2.4.1975.
PW-153 Sh. Kamal Bandhu, was the then
Ahlmad of the court. Neither the Prosecution nor
the Defence referred his testimony being not
relevant to the facts in issue.
PW-154 Sh. Yasser Arafat, Inspector of
CBI.
Neither the Prosecution nor the defence
referred his testimony being not relevant to the

facts in issue.
PW-155 Sh. Harish Goyal, Inspector, CBI
Neither the Prosecution nor the defence referred
his testimony being not relevant to the facts in
issue.
PW-156 Sh. Naresh Kumar, ASI, CBI.
issue.
PW-157 Sh. Prashant Kumar, Assistant
with Finance Department, Government of Bihar.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
91

issue.
PW-158 Sh. Lalit Khullar, Sub Inspector,
CBI.
Neither the Prosecution nor the defence
referred his testimony being not relevant to the

facts in issue.
PW-159 Sh. Sudhanshu Kumar Sinha
identified signatures and handwritings of his father
Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) on documents
Ex.PW-159/A, Ex.PW-159/B, Ex.PW-159/C and
Ex.PW-159/D.
PW-160 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Deputy
GEQD, Shimla. He has given his expert opinion
that
Search
Memo
Ex.PW-91/A
bearing
signature/handwriting of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P.

Sinha
tally
with
his
specimens
signature/handwriting.
PW-161 Sh. Rameshwar Sharma has been
Deputy
Secretary,
Finance
Department,
Government of Bihar. (Either party did not refer

his testimony).
4) Court Witnesses
21.
On the directions of Honble Supreme Court, the following

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
92
Court Witnesses were examined and gist of their evidence is as

under:CW-1 Sh. K.P. Sinha, S.P. (Rural) Patna
did not bring the tape of conversation between
Rehman, Jailor, Samastipur and Arun Kumar
Mishra recorded during investigation as he had
handed over the same to Sh. I.C. Dwivedi, the then
DIG, CBI on 26.3.1975.
CW-2 Sh. Jiya Lal Arya, the then District
Magistrate, Samastipur is an eyewitness to the
incident of 2 nd January 1975. He was behind the
Dais. He took Sh. L.N. Mishra to Saloon where
doctors were there. Invitees were permitted to sit
on Dais and police officials regulated entry.
Danapur is about 90 KM. from Samastipur.
CW-3 Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra, brother of
Sh. L.N. Mishra is also an eyewitness to the
incident as Samastipur dated 02.01.1975. He also
suffered injuries in the bomb explosion. He does
not know even if postmortem on the body of his
brother was conducted or not. He has joined
politics in 1968.
He was Irrigation Minister in
Bihar Government.

He has been thrice Chief
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
93
Minister of Bihar and once Minister in Central

Government.
CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta is the then
Additional Private Secretary of Lalit Narain
Mishra in 1974-75. He accompanied L.N. Mishra
and his brother Jagan Nath Mishra from Delhi to
Patna by Air.
From Patna, they went by State
aircraft to Darbhanga and from there by train to

Samastipur. At Samastipur, Sh. L.N. Mishra got
down from Saloon and went to venue and he
himself remained in Saloon, as they were to go to
Muzaffarpur. He heard a loud noise and found
L.N. Mishra and J.N. Mishra were being brought
in injured condition.
Dr. Bhalla immediately
started treating Sh. L.N. Mishra. They decided to

go to Danapur by same train. The decision to take
Saloon to Danapur was taken by Dr. Jagan Nath
Mishra. Dr. Bhalla did not tell about any serious
injury. Sh. L.N. Mishra did not complain of any
abdominal pain in his presence during journey.
Son-in-law Sh. C.S. Jha (now deceased) of Sh.
L.N. Mishra and eminent Surgeon Dr. Sahi got in
the rail at Patna and examined Sh. L.N. Mishra.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
94
He had worked with L.N. Mishra since 1965. The

political work area of Mishra was State of Bihar.
CW-5 Sh. Baleshwar Ram, aged 78 years,
a local leader, who presided over the meeting as
per desire of L.N. Mishra is also an eyewitness. He
suffered 44 splinters in the body.
He became
unconscious and found himself in Railway

Hospital, Samastipur and then taken to Patna at his
residence.
CW-6 Sh. Partap Singh, aged 72 years,
retired Chief Engineer, NE Railway was standing
at a distance of 30/35 feet in front of Dais at the
time of Samastipur incident, and he heard a blast.
Injured persons were removed to Railway Hospital
and other places.
CW-7 Sh. Jwala Partap Singh, Officer
Incharge, Chhapra GR Police in 1975, was deputed
to escort Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra up to Dais and
back. He along with other officers was there in
plain clothes. He suddenly heard an explosion,
which he thought to be bursting of a cracker but
found to be a bomb.
He and other officers
removed Sh. L.N. Mishra to Saloon. He had no

information of any threat to L.N. Mishra.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
95
CW-8 Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur, he was

initially arrested on 8.2.1975. He made a
confessional statement under Section 164 Cr. PC
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
He was
released on bail on 05.6.1975 by Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Samastipur under Section 167 (2) (a)
of the Cr. PC. Subsequently, on application of
Investigating Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur on 20.11.1975,
discharged him from the case. He claimed that he
made confessional statement under pressure of
police.
CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra, he was
also initially arrested on 8.2.1975. Investigating
Officer filed an application for recording his
statement under Section 164 Cr. PC. On 15.4.1975,
CW-9 filed an application that he does not want to
make any statement. He was released on bail on
14.6.1975
by
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Samastipur under Section 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC.

Subsequently, on application of Investigating
Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Samastipur on 20.11.1975 discharged him also.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
96
5) Defence Witnesses
22.
In support of their case, the accused persons examined
following defence witnesses: DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot.

He has been examined to demolish the case of the
prosecution that there were different wings of
Anand Marg and to support claim of accused
Ranjan Dwivedi that SS written by him in his
diary denotes Sectorial Secretary.
DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand Avadhoot. He
is examined on the same lines of DW-1.
DW-3 Aacharya Keshwanand Avadhoot.
He has been examined to state the purpose of Rally
at Boat club, New Delhi and to support the defence
of accused Ranjan Dwivedi that SS stands for
Sectorial Secretary.
DW-4 Sh. Rajeshwar Chaubey.
He is
married to sister of accused Ranjan Dwivedi and

thus closely related to him. Ranjan Dwivedi
examined him to support his explanation with
regard to his scribblings in the diary that DW-4
conveyed the consent of brother of accused Ranjan
Dwivedi settled in America for marriage of Ranjan
Dwivedi with a foreign girl Ms. Pateresia. He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
97
deposed that Ranjan Dwivedi started living with

him since January 1973 until September 1974, &
Ranjan Dwivedi has been junior with Sh. V.M.
Tarkunde, Senior Advocate. They did not help
PW-6 Virender Kumar Ojha when he came to
Delhi for treatment of his wife in AIIMS Hospital.
DW-5 Sh. Bhartendu Sharma.
He has
been examined to state that the Book Who killed

L.N. Mishra is the publication of 1979. It is a
compilation of several articles by different authors.
DW-6 Sh. Narender Singh, Senior Court
Assistant posted in the Honble Supreme Court has
been examined regarding copies of the affidavits
Ex.DW-6/A to Ex.DW-6/E filed in before said
Transfer Petition of the present case.
DW-7 Aacharya Ramanand Avadhoot.
The
defence
examined
him
to
elicit
that
Baba/Anand Murti was poisoned in the jail on

12.02.1973.
DW-8 Sh. Tara Chand Jain. The defence
examined him to dispel the prosecution's case that
Vikram (PW-2) remained posted at Anand Marg
Printing Press at Jaipur and opened three bank
accounts in different banks. However, DW-2

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
98
corroborated the statement of PW-2 Sh. Vikram

that they were having joint account in the name of
M/s. Anand Printers with Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank, M.I. Road, Jaipur and he testified
that they were running a press under the name and
style of M/s. Anand Printers of Anand Marga.
Vikram Kumar (PW-2) was posted there as Press
Manager from 1972 to 1974.
DW-9 Sh. Sushil Kumar Verma has been
examined by accused Santoshanand to repel the
prosecution case that his father Narender Narain
Verma was working in the editorial staff of
newspaper PRADEEP published from Patna
from where accused Santoshanand brought a
photograph of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister
of Bihar.
DW-10 Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then Private
Secretary of late Sh. L.N. Mishra from 1964 till his
death, has been examined by accused Sudevanand
to discredit the testimony of prosecution witnesses
that there was no threat to the life of late Sh. L.N.
Mishra, prior to 2.1.1975. However, DW-10 has
expressed his unawareness of receiving wireless

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
99
messages
dated
30.12.1974
and
25.12.1974
regarding any attempt to kill late Sh. L.N. Mishra.

DW-11 Dr. Aruneshwar Parsad: The
defence
has
examined
Chief
Medical
Superintendant, East Central Railway Hospital,

Danapur. However, both the accused persons as
well as the prosecution did not refer his testimony,
as the same is not connected to facts in issue.
DW-12 Sh. R.J.M. Pillai, Chief Secretary,
State of Bihar, who brought the unsigned copy of
the opinion given by Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior
Advocate, Supreme Court of India Mark PW151/DQ = Mark DW-12/A (Folder R-57) and copy
of report of Secret Inquiry dated 24.10.1978
Ex.DW-12/B submitted to the then Chief Minister
by Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40).
DW-13 Sh. Chanchal Kumar, Secretary to
the Chief Minister of Bihar, Patna. He did not
bring the summoned record from the Secretariat of
the Chief Minister. Both the accused persons as
well as the prosecution did not refer his testimony,
since his testimony did not touch the facts in issue.
DW-14 Sh. Mahender Narain Singh,
Chairman,

Lok
Adalat,
Supaul
and
retired
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
100
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chhapra,

has been examined by accused Gopalji to demolish
the prosecution case that he is a resident of village
Chautham and search was carried out by the
prosecution at village Chautham.
DW-15 Sh. Harender Kumar Singh, a
resident of village Trimohan, PS Kahalgaon, has
been examined by the defence to cut the case of
the prosecution that criminal conspiracy was
hatched at the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar
Singh (Proclaimed Offender) in October 1973.
DW-16
Sh.
Arun
Shourie
the
then
Executive Editor of Indian Express and writer of

the introduction of the Book Ex.DW-5/B Who
killed L.N. Mishra? has been examined by the
defence to suggest that there is a different angle to
the story put forth by the prosecution. The story
sought to be put forth through this witness is
purely based on hearsay evidence. He suggested
the names of perpetrators of the crime as
mentioned by DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai in his report.
Sh. Sahai has mentioned the names of Arun Kumar
Thakur (CW-8), Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9) and
Shiv Shankar @ Vishwakarma.

It was also
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
101
suggested through the witness based on the report

of DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai that these perpetrators
were acting concertedly at the behest of one Sh.
Ram Bilas Jha, who in turn was a stooge of Sh.
Yashpal Kapoor. It is also suggested through this
witness based on report of DW-40 that said Sh.
Yashpal Kapoor was allegedly at loggerheads
politically with Sh. L.N. Mishra, who was
enjoying the political influence with the then
Prime Minister, to eliminate the said L.N. Mishra
for political gains.
DW-17 Sh. Manmohan Bhatkal, who is
the printer of the Book Ex.DW-5/B Who killed
L.N. Mishra? has been examined to state that they
have printed the book as per the manuscript.
DW-18 Sh. Harish Kishore Shaiy, the then
Under Secretary Home, Government of Bihar in
the year 1979, when he filed his affidavit Ex.DW6/E on behalf of State of Bihar before the Honble
Supreme Court of India.
DW-19 Sh. Mahender Singh was an active
member of the Anand Marg Organization. He has
been examined by the defence to state that he used
to take interest in organization for opening school

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
102
and Dharam Parchar etc. His testimony neither

has been referred during the course of arguments
by the Ld. Defence Counsel nor does the same
touch the facts in issue.
DW-20
Dr.
Ashok
Kumar
Thakur
conducted ECG of late Sh. L.N. Mishra before he

was operated upon. He has been examined by the
defence to state that his ECG was normal before
the operation. He was not a memb er of the team of
the doctors, who operated upon late Sh. L.N.
Mishra at Railway Hospital, Danapur.
DW-21 Sh. Niranjan Dev, resident of
village Bitia, District West Champaran, Bihar, who
is the son of late Sh. Khoob Lal, whose name was
referred by PW-27 Sh. Paras Nath Singh and PW80 Sh. Roop Nath Mishra in their respective
statements. He has been examined by the defence
to depose that some Anand Margies used to visit
his father at his shop, but they did not visit their
home.
DW-22 Sh. Rajender Narain Dash, the
then Home Secretary, State of Bihar, has been
examined by the defence. He was out of Bihar in
the first week of January 1975 at the time of bomb

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
103
blast. At the time of arguments his testimony was

neither referred by the defence nor by the
prosecution.
DW-23 Sh. Chander Mohan Singh @
Rattanjee, of
village
Chautham, has
been
examined by accused Gopalji to demolish the case

of the prosecution that Gopalji had residential
house in village Chautham or farmland (Kamath)
in village Tilihar and Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91)
had deposed at the instance of his employer Sh.
Murariji, who had been on inimical terms with
Gopalji.
DW-24 Sh. Deen Pal Rai, Advocate of
Azamgarh has been examined to discard the
prosecution case that he had supplied one revolver
to PW-1.
DW-25 Sh. Vijay Kumar Mishra, who is
son of late Sh. L.N. Mishra, has been examined by
the defence to state that his father had no enmity
with Anand Marg or its followers.
DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand, Under Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, who brought a printed
copy of the Report Ex.DW-26/1 of One Man
Commission of Inquiry headed by Honble Mr.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
104
Justice K.K. Mathew.
He also brought Interim
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
Collectorate, Saharsa, has been examined by

accused Gopalji to prove his Gun Licence Ex.DW14/C was issued at the address of Village
Chautham.
DW-31 Sh. Ghutran Jha @ Laxmi Kant
Jha, a servant of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA,
has been examined by the accused Gopalji to belie
the case of the prosecution that Gopalji was
arrested from his residence at Chautham after
carrying out the search on 17.05.1975.
The
witness stated that Gopalji was arrested from the

flat of his uncle Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA at
Patna.
DW-32 Sh. Krishna Kumar Singh, of
village Chautham has been examined by accused
Gopalji to show that in his presence no search was
taken out in the house of maternal grandfather
(Nana) of accused Gopalji.
DW-33 Sh. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Circle
Inspector, Block Beldaur, Khagaria, has been
examined by accused Gopalji to prove that the
farmhouse (Kamath) at village Tilihar was washed
away in the flood of Kosi River in the year 197273 and to prove his Report Ex.DW-28/2. He gave

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
106
this report Ex.DW-28/2 on hearsay version of

some unknown village persons.
DW-34
Superintendant
Sh.
D.P.
of
Police,
Ojha,
the
then
Samastipur
from
February, 1973 to 1975, has been examined by the

accused persons to prove that he also investigated
the case initially in relation to Bomb blast at
Samastipur; that he arrested and interrogated Sh.
Arun Kumar Thakur, Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra and
Sh. Shankar Shah. He has also been examined to
prove that on direction of Sh. Shashi Bhushan
Sahai, DIG (DW-40), he visited Danapur Jail in
the year 1978 to meet Vikram and on his direction,
the statement of Vikram was tape recorded by the
Jailor.
DW-35 Sh. Sudhendhu Bhushan Dass,
Assistant in the office of Sub-Divisional Office,
Supaul, who brought the original Electoral Roll of
1975 of village Burail, who filed the copy thereof
as Ex.DW-35/1, which bears entry no. 1253 in the
name of Krishan Mohan Singh. He has been
examined by accused Gopalji to prove that he is a
resident of village Burail.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
107
DW-36 Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and

Fingerprint Expert, has been examined by accused
Santoshanand to demolish the case of the
prosecution that the disputed writing Q1 to Q3 are
written by the same person that is Santoshanand,
whos admitted/specimen writing are marked A-1
to A-72 and S-1 to S-44.
DW-37 Sh. Pranavanand Avadhoot, the
then Office Secretary of Anand Marg Organization
during the year 1971 to 1975 at Patna, has been
examined by the accused Santoshanand that during
the period from December, 1974 to first week of
January,
1975,
he
(accused
Santoshanand
Avadhoot) was at Patna. In this manner, accused

Santoshanand has taken the defence of Alibi.
DW-38 Sh. B.N. Srivastava, Handwriting
and Fingerprint Expert, has been examined by
accused Gopalji that the writing including figure
work Q-1 and Q-2 on Search Memo Ex.PW-91/A
has not been written by the writer of specimen
writing S-1 to S-3 namely Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW134).
DW-39 Sh. Alok Chaturvedi, Resident
Commissioner, Government of Bihar, posted in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
108
Delhi, who brought the original Report dated

24.10.1978 Ex.DW-40/A of Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW40).
DW-40 Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai (the
then DIG, CID Bihar from 01.01.1975 to
November 1975) has been examined to aver that
after submitting the charge sheet by CBI, on
directions of the then Chief Minister, he conducted
a
top-secret
inquiry
and
gave
his
Report
24.10.1978 Ex.DW-40/A (also Ex.DW-12/B) to

the then Chief Minister.
According to DW-40,
accused persons have been falsely implicated in

this case and suspected that the crime dated
02.01.1975 was committed by Sh. Arun Kumar
Thakur (CW-8), Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9),
Sh. Shiv Shankar @ Vishwakarma, Sh. Ram Bilas
Jha and Sh. Yashpal Kapoor.
DW-41 Sh. Bhupender Narain Singh, has
been examined by accused Gopalji to depose that
on 17.05.1975, Gopalji was taken away by the
police from the flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh,
MLA at Patna. Accused Gopalji through this
witness want to repel the case of the prosecution
that a search was carried out at the house of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
109
Gopalji at Village Chautham and after the search,

he was arrested there and taken to the police
station.
DW-42 Sh. Samrender Narain Singh, a
cousin brother of accused Gopalji, has been
examined by him, again on the point that accused
Gopalji was taken away by the police from the
house of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA at Pa tna.
DW-43
Sh.
Deepak
Jain,
another
Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, who has been

examined by accused Gopalji that the writing Q1
and Q2 on the Seizure Memo dated 17.05.1975
Ex.PW-91/A does not match with the specimen
handwriting of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha.
23.
I have heard Ld. Special Public Prosecutor Sh. N.K. Sharma
and Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate, Ms.
Sima Gulati, Advocate, Sh. Ashwani Kumar Bali, Amicus Curiae for
accused Santoshanand, Sh. Feroz Ahmed and Sh. R.S. Sharma,
Advocates for accused Sudevanand, Ms. Sima Gulati and Sh. Anuj
Kumar, Advocates for accused Gopalji and accused Ranjan Dwivedi
in person at length. I have carefully perused the material available on
the record. Certain basic and rudimentary aspects argued by the
learned Defence Counsel which are pure questions debatable in law
are being taken up at the threshold for adjudication.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
110
6) Defect in charge- effect

24.
It is argued by ld. Defence Counsel that as per the case of
prosecution, Vinayanand, Arteshanand and Ram Kumar have not

participated in the crime at Samastipur on 02.01.1975 and only the
accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Vikram
approver have participated there.
However, they pointed out that
while framing the charges under Sections 120-B & 302 IPC with
regard to the incident dated 2.1.1975 for throwing hand grenade on the
Dais at Platform No.3, Samastipur Railway Station to kill L.N. Mishra
the names of Vinayanand, Arteshanand and Ram Kumar are also
mentioned to suggest that their participation in the said crime.
Nevertheless, there is no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence
Counsel as admittedly, it is nowhere the case of the prosecution that
Vinayanand, Arteshanand and Ram Kumar have participated in the
crime dated 02.01.1975 along with Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram
Janam Dwivedi and approver Vikram. This is mentioned neither in the
charge sheet nor in the order dated 21.01.1981 by which the point of
charge was decided by my Learned Predecessor. The Ld. Defence
Counsel merely pointed out the defect in the charge framed against the
accused persons during the course of their respective arguments; they
did not submit how this prejudiced their defence or the course of trial.
The law governing the subject is that no technical formula of words
but the substance, whether the matter was explained to the accused
and whether accused understood as to what he was being tried for is to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
111
be considered and nothing more. This is so held by the Honble

Supreme Court in Bhoor Singh and another. Vs. State of Punjab
1974 SCC (Crl.) 664. Further, it has also been held by the Honble
Supreme Court in K. Prema S Rao and Another Vs. Yadla
Siriniwas Rao & Others 2003 (1) SCC 217 that Section 215 allows
the criminal court to ignore any error in stating either the offence or
the particulars required to be stated in the charge, if the accused was
not, in fact, misled by such error or omission in framing the charge,
and it has not occasioned a failure of justice. Section 215 Cr. PC
provides that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars
required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the
offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case
as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or
omission and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
25.
The information about involvement of persons namely
Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Vikram

approver in the crime at Railway Station, Samastipur had already been
conveyed to accused persons. In the circumstances, when the defence
has failed to point out as to how the trial has prejudiced them, this
court is unable to sail with the defence that the clerical error in the
charge occasioned any failure of justice to the accused persons in view
of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhoor Singh & in
K. Prema S Rao (supra).

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
112
7) Clubbing of Investigations
26.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 7.1.1974 an attempt was
made on the life of Madhavanand at Collectorate, Patna regarding

which an FIR No. 24/1974 (Ex.PW-92/A) was registered with PS
Kotwali, Patna and when the matter was assigned to C.B.I., they
registered an FIR vide RC-14/1975.
They further submitted that
regarding incident at Tomb (Maqbara), Khanjarpur dated 13.7.1974,

an FIR No.71 dated 13.7.1974 was also registered with PS Kotwali,
Bhagalpur and when the matter was assigned for investigation to
C.B.I., they registered an FIR vide RC-13/1975. Regarding the
incident dated 02.01.1975 at Railway Station, Samastipur, GRP
Samastipur Railway Station lodged an FIR no.1/1975 dated
02.01.1975 and when the matter was assigned to C.B.I., they
registered an FIR vide RC-1/1975. Regarding the explosion of the
hand grenade at the house of Sh. Mahadev Sahu, an FIR no.1/75 dated
02.01.1975 was registered with PS Samastipur, Bihar and when the
matter was assigned to C.B.I., they registered an FIR vide RC-2/1975.
Regarding all these four matters, the Central Bureau of Investigation
filed a common charge sheet before the Special Judicial Magistrate,
Patna on 12.11.1975. It is testified by the Investigation Officer PW151 H.L. Ahuja at page no. 3559 of his statement that after discussion
with the C.I.D., Bihar and local police officers, the investigations of
both these cases bearing no. RC-1/1975 & RC-2/1975 were
amalgamated on 10.1.1975 itself. At page no.3581 of his statement,
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.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there is no such procedure in
the Cr. PC. authorizing an Investigating Officer to consolidate the

investigation of the cases and that too without permission of the
concerned judicial Magistrate. They argued that for this reason, the
accused have been grossly prejudiced as this illegality goes to the root
of the matter; and on this ground alone, the accused persons are liable
to be acquitted. Per contra it is submitted by the Ld. Special PP that
the investigations into such inter-twined facts, which are sequential
like separate levers in the chain necessarily makes the investigating
agency to look into with a broader spectrum. It is the case of the
prosecution that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy which was
hatched at the roof of the house of Ram Kumar at village Trimohan,
an attempt was made on the life of Madhavanand who was an
approver in a murder case against Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand
Murti @ Baba, head of Anand Marg Organization. An FIR No. 24/74
was registered with PS Kotwali Patna. It is also the case of the
prosecution that arms were got collected and some hand grenades
were being carried out from Delhi to Bhagalpur by Vikram (PW-2) on
asking of accused Santoshanand to execute the criminal conspiracy
hatched at Trimohan. As directed by Santoshanand, those hand
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
114
grenades were delivered to Budheshawaranand and they were carrying

the same in a Jhola (bag) when Budheshawaranand was apprehended
at said Tomb at Khanjarpur & Vikram ran away and an FIR No. 71
dated 13.07.1974 was registered at PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur. In
furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, a hand grenade was thrown at
the Dais of Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station on
02.01.1975, which led to murder of the then Railway Minister Sh.
L.N. Mishra and two more persons, and several persons were injured.
An FIR No. 1 of 1975 with PS GRP Samastipur was registered. As
per the case of the prosecution, the approver Vikram dropped the hand
grenade at the railway track at Samastipur Railway Station, which was
picked up by PW-4 Rajinder Parshad Nayak, who took it to the house,
and he had shown it to his cousin PW-3 Mahinder Parshad Sahu and
the hand grenade exploded in their house. An FIR No. 1 of 1975 was
registered with PS Samastipur. All these incidents have taken place in
pursuant to deep-rooted criminal conspiracy and admittedly, there is
no bar in the Cr. PC that investigation officer cannot consolidate the
investigations of these cases and file a common charge sheet. The
similar point has come up before the Honble Supreme Court in C.
Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (SC) : 2010 (9) SCC 567 and
relevant Para 28 of the judgment reads as under :28. The submission on behalf of the appellants
that two crimes bearing Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000
could not be clubbed together, has also no merit

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
115
for the simple reason that if the cases are

considered, keeping in view the totality of the
circumstances and the sequence in which the two
incidents occurred, taking into consideration the
evidence of drivers and conductors/cleaners of the
vehicles involved in the first incident and the
evidence of C. Ramasundaram V.A.O., (PW.87),
we reach the inescapable conclusion that the
second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the
first occurrence. The damage caused to the public
transport vehicles and the consequential burning of
the University bus remained part of one and the
same incident. Merely because two separate
complaints had been lodged, did not mean that
they could not be clubbed together and one charge
sheet could not be filed (See: T.T. Antony v. State
of Kerala & Ors. 2001(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 436
: (2001) 6 SCC 181).
28.
Though it is not an illegality and there is no bar in the Cr. PC
from clubbing the investigations of the connected cases, yet it should

have been brought to the notice of the court at the initial stage of trial
by the accused persons if they felt aggrieved by the action of the
investigation officer. It is held by our own Honble High Court in
Dr. R.R. Kishore vs. C.B.I. (2006) 3 JCC 1758 (Para 28 and 29) that

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
116
where cognizance is taken on the basis of an illegal investigation; no

objection is taken at the initial stage; trial proceeds to its conclusion
and results in conviction, the same can be set aside only if it has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. Relevant Para 28 and 29 reads as
under:28. After examining the aforesaid decision of the
Privy Council as well as of the Supreme Court, the
following principles emerge:1. If cognizance is taken on the basis of
such an illegal investigation and no objection is
taken at the initial stages and the trial proceeds to
its conclusion and results in conviction then the
same can be set aside only if it has resulted in a
miscarriage of justice.
2. However, if the illegal investigation is
brought to the notice of the Trial Court at the
initial stages then the court ought not to proceed
with the trial and be a mute spectator to the
illegality and contravention of a mandatory
provision but should direct reinvestigation so that
defect in investigation is cured.
29.
It follows that if, at the initial stage of trial,
the illegality of investigation is brought to the

notice of the court and yet the Trial Court

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
117
continues with the trial then, such proceedings

would be liable to be set aside by the High Court
in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction..
29.
For the foregoing reasons and the case law discussed above, the
following points emerge inexorably on record: (a)
That clubbing of investigations is not
specifically barred under Cr. PC;

(b)
That the case law recognizes the clubbing of
investigations pertaining to the same genre of

events culminating into a triable offence, as held
by the Honble Supreme Court in C. Muniappans
case (supra)
(c)
It is worthwhile to note that initial meeting
of mind resulting into conspiracy hatched at the

terrace of the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan,
and deliberation, carrying of similar intentions,
consensus among the parties, their conceiving the
common intention to liquidate the defector of their
cult Sh. Madhavanand, and the acts done in
pursuance of achieving the goal to get released the
"Cult Head" by means unknown to law, have led
the accused persons in the overt acts of collecting
the arms and ammunitions, like hand grenades,
pistols and subsequent events, like attempt on life
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
118
of Madhavanand at Collectorate, Patna (FIR No.

24/1974, PS Kotwali, Patna) are all sequential
facts sprouting from the ill conceived intentions
for which four separate FIRs were registered. In
this case, the first FIR No. 24/1974, PS Kotwali,
Patna deals with an attempt on the life of
Madhavanand, the defector of the cult, pursuant to
the conspiracy in a larger goal and this attempt on
his life is the starting point of an overt act. The
second FIR No. 71/1974 dated 13.07.1974,
registered with PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur, pertained
to carrying of hand grenades and arms by
Budheshawaranand @ Tyageshwaranand @ Amar
Singh (since deceased) and Vikram @ Jaldhar
Dass @ Subir (PW-2) as a second event arising
from the same conspiracy. This is further followed
by the most macabre event in which the then
Union Railway Minister Late Sh. L.N. Mishra, one
MLC Sh. Surya Narain Jha and a railway clerk Sh.
Ram Kishore Singh Kishore were disincarnated
and resulting into grievous injuries to eight persons
and causing hurt to 18 persons. Consequently, an
FIR No. 1/75, PS GRP, Samastipur Railway
Station was lodged on 02.01.1975. The 4th FIR

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
119
No. 1/75, PS Samastipur dealt with an explosion of

a hand grenade at the house of an innocent railway
employee in the railway colony adjoining the
Railway Station, Samastipur resulting into injuries
to two siblings of the railway employees.
(d)
Needless to say that as per case of
prosecution, incident dated 02.01.1975 vide FIR

No.1/75 PS GRP Samastipur, explosion had taken
place due to the grenade flung by A-2 in pursuance
to conspiracy & another carried by PW-2
(approver), which could not be used, and dropped
by him on railway track while fleeing and A-1
could not use his grenade as one flung by A-2
exploded. These facts cannot be looked at,
investigated or understood in isolation. Hence,
from the progression of investigation conducted
separately was later on rightly felt by IO PW-151
to club them to project a wholesome picture and
not a piecemeal investigation, which would have
clashed with the collection of facts resulting into
futility. Therefore, considering the progression of
the case, sequence of events for achieving the end
result to put the crime into justice, it was most
expedient, warranted and wanted in the ends of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
120
justice to consolidate the investigations of all the

afore said four FIRs. Hence, I see no reason to
reject the charge sheet per se on this ground.
(e)
The defence had never objected to or
pointed out this defect, as now argued by them, at

the time of framing the charges. I do not see any
specific prejudice having been caused to any of the
accused during the course of trial.
8) Effect of Pardon
30.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that pardon has been
granted to PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Aacharya Madan @

Kapalic @ Aacharya Visheshwaranand @ Vijay and to PW-2 Jaldhar
Dass @ Vikram @ Subir by a common order dated 27.10.1975 by the
court of CJM, Patna in FIR bearing no. RC-1/1975 but they have not
been granted pardon in other three cases. It is also argued that the
accused in all four FIRs are different persons. As per the case of the
prosecution, PW-2 joined the criminal conspiracy in the year 1974
whereas the alleged criminal conspiracy was hatched at village
Trimohan in October 1973, and this order of pardon cannot be treated
for three other FIRs. For this reason, the Ld. Defence Counsel argued
that the statement of approvers PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be looked into
by this court. It is to be kept in mind that the investigating officer Sh.
H.L. Ahuja has already amalgamated the investigation of two cases of
RC-1/1975 (FIR No. 1/75 dated 2.1.1975 PS GRP, Samastipur) & RCCBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
121
2/1975 (FIR No. 1/75, PS Samastipur) on 10.01.1975, the day he took

over the investigations on behalf of C.B.I. Subsequently on 15.9.1975,
he amalgamated the investigation of FIRs no.RC-13/1975 (FIR No.
71/1974 PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur & RC-14/1975 (FIR No. 24/1974
Patna Kotwali) with RC-1/1975. After amalgamation of investigation
of all the four cases and subsequent to filing of the common charge
sheet, the order of pardon was granted by Ld. CJM, Patna on
27.10.1975 and for that reason, Ld. CJM has mentioned the number of
main case RC-1/1975 in the title of its order. So, there is no force in
the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that statement of approvers
PW-1 and PW-2 in cases other than RC-1/1975 is not relevant.
31.
There is also no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel
that Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava (PW-1) was arrested only in the
case registered vide FIR No. 24/1974 (RC-14/1975) and not in other 3
cases and accused Vikram (PW-2) was not arrested in the present case.
They argued that accused Vikram (PW-2) was arrested in a case
registered in New Delhi for attack on the then CJI 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.
Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava was already released on bail on
08.05.1975 in Patna Kotwali case vide FIR No. 24/1974.
On
12.05.1975, his confessional statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr. PC.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
122
He was granted pardon on 27.10.1975 and as such there was no

occasion for the Investigation Officer to take him in custody under u/s
306 (4) (b) of Cr. PC.
33.
So far as approver Vikram is concerned, he was arrested on
24.07.1975 in a case of attack on the then CJI Honble Mr. Justice

A.N. Ray and turned approver.
Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently
urged that accused Vikram was not at all arrested in this case and
order of pardon is per se void ab initio. This court has ventured to
peruse the entire old voluminous record of this case and found that
there is no force in the argument. Record reveals that during the
investigation, Sh. H. L. Ahuja moved an application in the present
case before CMM, Delhi on 12.08.1975. The accused Vikram was
produced in RC-11/1975 (A.N. 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
123
statement on that day. The statement of Vikram was completed on

18.08.1975, which is Ex.PW-2/L.
This statement of Vikram was
ordered to be sent in sealed cover to Special Magistrate (CBI) Patna.

(All these proceedings are available in File No. is R-43-5.) It is,
thus, clear that before making confessional statement, the accused
Vikram was taken into custody by the court and after recording his
statement by ACMM, Delhi, he was granted pardon on 27.10.1975 by
CJM, Patna.
34.
To sum up the contention of the defence to attack the order
granting pardon to PW-2 is based on the following grounds: (a)
that grant of pardon in one case RC-1/1975
cannot be read in evidence in other three cases.

(b)
that the grant of pardon in RC-1/1975 is
itself illegal as he was never arrested prior to grant

him pardon in the present case.
While dealing with the above said arguments, it is to be delineated
that: (i)
the investigations of RC-1/1975 and RC-
2/1975
were
clubbed/amalgamated
by
the
Investigating Officer on 10.01.1975.

(ii)
the investigation of RC-13/1975 and RC-
14/1975 were clubbed with RC-1/1975 by the

Investigating Officer on 15.09.1975.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
124
(iii)
the Judicial Record found in File No. R-43-5
dispels all the doubts as regards the arrest of

Vikram (approver). Firstly, he was arrested and
produced before the Ld. ACMM, Delhi on
12.08.1975, and later on, 16.08.1975 when he
expressed his desire to confess.
Following the
judicial norms in taking down the confessional

statement, the Ld. ACMM had adjourned the
matter for 14.08.1975 and 16.08.1975.
confessional
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
tenable grounds to strike at the root of prosecution on the above

contentions of the defence.
9) Whether the pardon to PW-1 is tainted?
35.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that PW-1 Madan Mohan
Srivastava @ Aacharya Visheshwaranand Avadhoot could not have

been made an approver in this case as he had filed an application for
grant him bail claiming innocence on 03.05.1975 through one Sh.
Radha Raman Prasad, Advocate. The Ld. Defence Counsel pointed
out that in his bail application, it is pleaded by PW-1 that he is quite
innocent and had been falsely implicated and arrested on 30.04.1975
with incorrect and baseless allegations and the court has already
granted bail to other co-accused persons. (This bail application is
available at page no.186 of Folder R-4). A perusal of the relevant
record reveals that this bail application was not signed by PW-1. It
bears only signatures of his counsel. The court of CJM, Patna granted
him bail vide order dated 08.05.1975. (This bail order is available at
page no.81 of Folder R-9). In the order granting bail, it is, inter-alia,
mentioned that accused Visheshwaranand
@ Madan
Mohan
Srivastava @ Vijay had been produced from police custody.
He
submitted to the court of CJM, Patna that no ill treatment was given to
him. The investigating officer filed memo of evidence against him
(PW-1) and it was noted by the court of CJM, Patna that the main
accused Vinayanand, who was arrested at the spot, had already been

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.
In this regard, ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate
has relied upon a judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Rampal

Pithwa Rahidass v. State of Maharashtra 1994 SCC (2) 685. The
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that approver must not exculpate himself
from the crime and if he participates in crime, only then he can be an
approver.
I have gone through the judgment in Rampal Pithwa
Rahidass (supra). The judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for
the defence is distinguishable. PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava did
not sign the application filed for bail on his behalf and it is merely
signed by Sh. Radha Raman Prasad, Advocate. In his 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
127
Counsel, the approver Ram Charan was arrested on 07.07.1984 in

some other case to touch a cycle parked on the side of the road u/s
379/511 IPC and during interrogation, as per prosecution, approver
Ram Charan disclosed having participated in a decoity on a highway.
The complainant of that case u/s 379/511 IPC did not say that any
attempt was made to steal his cycle. The approver was not produced
by the investigation officer before the Magistrate to record his
statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. While accused Ram Charan was in police
custody, another accused Murari died in police custody on 10.07.1984
and within a few days of his death, he made confessional statement of
his own. After more than 2 years of his arrest, he submitted an
application seeking bail from judicial lock-up pleading therein that he
was being forced to become an eye witness in the case though he
knew nothing about crime and the bail was declined. Suddenly, of his
own on 01.04.1987, accused Ram Charan filed an application to
become an approver and to make disclosure of all the facts about
which he had stated in his earlier application dated 17.01.1987, where
he pleaded that he knew nothing.
Even in his application dated
01.04.1987 he, inter-alia, stated that persons against whom the case
for dacoity and murder have been filed were responsible for murder
and that I was only looking after their clothes.
In these
circumstances, coupled with many others, the Honble Supreme

Court has held that his testimony is not worthy of acceptance.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
128
37.
Therefore, the judgment relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel is
quite distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present

case. Moreover, u/s 306 Cr. PC., an accomplice may be any person
supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to
an offence, and with a view to obtain evidence of such person, the
Magistrate may grant him pardon at any stage of investigation or
enquiry or trial, subject to his making a full and true disclosure within
his knowledge relating to the offence. At the cost of repetition, this
court is to concisely state that: (i)
The bail application is not the conscious
effort of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @

Aacharya Visheshwaranand Avadhoot and the
same cannot be the basis for grant or refusal of
pardon.
(ii)
As
already
concluded
the
stereo-type
language employed by an Advocate, that too

instructed by relatives of the incarcerated person
who stated that the accused is innocent cannot in
my view invalidate the rights open to any accused
seeking pardon under Section 306 of the Cr. PC.
(iii)
Even if bail application is taken at the face
value, the mere assertion that the applicant was

innocent cannot nullify his right to invoke the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
129
protections guaranteed under Section 306 of the

Cr. PC.
38.
One cannot oblivious of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that in the administration of criminal justice, Law of

Precedents alone has no much relevance; criminal case cannot be
decided in colour of precedents unless facts and circumstances in a
cited case are in pari materia in all respects with the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand. In his regard, it has been held by
the Honble Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh alias Photti v. State
of A.P. AIR 2004 SC 4545 that unless and until the facts and
circumstances in a cited case are in pari materia in all respects with
the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it would not be proper
to treat an earlier case as a precedent to arrive at a definite conclusion.
The relevant Para of the judgment reads as under:
11. A reading of the above judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel for the appellants does
indicate that this Court in the said cases held that
certain acts as found in those cases did not indicate
the sharing of common intention. But we have to
bear in mind that the facts appreciated in the above
judgments and inference drawn have been so done
by the Courts not in isolation but on the totality of
the circumstances found in those cases. The
totality of circumstances could hardly be ever
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
130
similar in all cases. Therefore, unless and until the

facts and circumstances in a cited case is in pari
materia in all respects with the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, it will not be
proper to treat an earlier case as a precedent to
arrive at a definite conclusion.
39.
Similar view has been taken by Honble Supreme Court in
Punjab National Bank v. R.L. Vaid and others AIR 2004 SC 4269
and relevant Para 5 reads as under :5. ..There is always peril in treating the words
of a judgment as though they are words in a
Legislative enactment and it is to be remembered
that judicial utterances are made in the setting of
the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial
flexibility, one additional or different fact may
make a difference between conclusions in two
cases. Disposal of cases by merely placing reliance
on a decision is not proper. Precedent should be
followed only so far as it marks the path of justice,
but you must cut out the dead wood and trim off
the side branches else you will find yourself lost in
thickets and branches, said Lord Denning, while
speaking in the matter of applying precedents..

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
131
40.
Same principle of law has been laid down by the Honble
Supreme Court in Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao and another vs.

State of A.P. AIR 2004 SC 132 and relevant Para of the judgment
reads as under:9. Each case, more particular a criminal case
depends on its own facts and a close similarity
between one case and another is not enough to
warrant like treatment because a significant detail
may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases,
one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as
said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one
case against the colour of another.
To decide
therefore on which side of the line a case falls, the

broad resemblance to another case is not at all
decisive
41.
Similar view has been taken by our own 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,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
132
the judgments would have to be considered as adjudication of the

particular issue before the court.
42.
Thence for the clear disposition of law on the subject, I am
making it clear that no sanctity can be attached to the workings in the

bail application of approver for the following reasons: (a)
In Rampal Pithwa (supra), it was held that
bail application of approver as having been made

conscientiously
since
it
was
in
his
own
handwriting claiming himself as innocent.

(b)
That in the instant case, bail application on
behalf of PW-1 was moved at the behest of

relatives of the approver.
(c)
Such application at the behest of relatives of
approver was moved in a routine manner,

following a standard format, normally used by the
practicing lawyers on criminal side. Such an
application
cannot
be
treated
as
done
conscientiously by the PW1 himself.

(d)
I have already delineated the facts and
position of law to hold that no sanctity can be

attached to the wordings in the bail application
only to defeat the true purpose of a remorseful
accused, who wants to unscramble the truth before
the Temple of Justice.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
133
10) Effect of Non-examination of Magistrate

43.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the Judicial Magistrate, who
had recorded the confessional statement of PW-1 Madan Mohan

Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay and the ACMM, Delhi, who
recorded the confessional statement of PW-2 Vikram @ Subir @
Jaldhar Dass u/s 164 Cr. PC, have not been examined to prove that
they voluntarily made their respective statements. Thus, the Ld.
Defence Counsel argued that the order of pardon granted to PW-1 and
PW-2 is of no avail to the prosecution and consequently, the statement
of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be looked into. However, this argument of
Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati is devoid of any merit in view
of Section 80 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under: 80. Presumption as to documents produced as
record of evidence Whenever any document is
produced before any Court, purporting to be a
record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any
part of the evidence, given by a witness in a
judicial
proceeding
or
before
any
officer
authorized by law to take such evidence, or to be a

statement or confession by any prisoner or accused
person, taken in accordance with law, and
purporting to be signed by any Judge or
Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
134
Court shall presume that the document is

genuine;
that
circumstances
any
under
statements
as
which
was
it
to
the
taken,
purporting to be made by the person signing it, are

true, and that such evidence, statement or
confession was duly taken.
44.
PW-1 testified that Ex.PW-1/X is his statement, which he made
on 12.05.1975 in the court of SDM Sh. B.K. Derhgawan and bears his
signatures at points A and B. He confirmed that he had given this
statement
(Ex.PW-1/X)
voluntarily
without
any
pressure
or
inducement. In his cross-examination, PW-1 testified that his

statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC was recorded from 8.30 AM to 12.30
PM.
This was not recorded by putting question to him and he
admitted on his own. On 12.05.1975, he was shown his statement by

Ld. CJM and asked him whether it was correct. He saw his statement
and admitted the same to be correct. In his further cross-examination,
PW-1 testified that before recording his statement on 12.05.1975, he
was not told that he had been made an approver. On 27.10.1975,
when he appeared before CJM, Patna, he was told that he was given
pardon and made an approver. When he appeared before the CJM, he
was alone and later on, he came to know that one Vikram had also
been produced before CJM. He signed as Madan Mohan Srivastava
since the CJM had written his name as Madan Mohan Srivastava @
Visheshwaranand. He denied the suggestion that his statement
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.
He has also denied the suggestion that he
accepted the pardon blindfolded under pressure of the police. He

asserted that the Magistrate had explained him the meaning of
conditional pardon and asked him if his statement was correct and
truthful and would be ready to state the facts truly and correctly in
future. He has also denied the suggestion that he was persuaded to
make a statement before the Magistrate or was tutored later on for
making further statement in the court.
45.
The statement of PW-1 dated 12.05.1975 Ex.PW-1/X (is
available in the Folder R-4), reveals that this statement was recorded
by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna authorized by
CJM, Patna regarding the offence committed at Patna Collectorate
premises on 07th day of January, 1974 at about 10.30 AM. The SDJM,
Patna has also complied with the mandatory requirement of section
164 (4) of the Cr. PC.
46.
PW-2 further deposed that after his arrest, he was brought to
Delhi on 28.07.1975 and was lodged in Tihar Jail. A Magistrate in

Delhi recorded his statement in the month of August 1975.
The
Magistrate told him his designation. He (PW-2) had given that

statement before the Magistrate voluntarily and willingly. As far as he
recalled, his statement was recorded two days after his production
before the Magistrate. On first occasion, his statement was recorded
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.
PW-1 has testified that he attended the court of CJM, Patna on
27.10.1975. On that day, he was granted Pardon by the court. He

accepted the Pardon vide his acceptance Ex.PW-1/Y voluntarily. PW2 has testified that he accepted the order of Pardon Ex.PW-1/Y by his
writing Mark-X in his hand and bears his signature with date as
27.10.1975.
He was not given any promise nor was put under
pressure by any person. The order of Pardon dated 27.10.1975 passed

by the court of CJM, Patna in RC-1/75 under Section 120-B/302/307
IPC is available in Folder R-65 and this order of Pardon was
accepted by PW-1 and PW-2.
48.
This point as to whether the Magistrate, who has recorded the
statement of a person under Section 164 of the Cr. PC is to be

examined during trial to depose the factum of recording of the
statement of such person, has come up for interpretation before the
Privy Council as also before the Honble Supreme Court. It has been
consistently held that the Magistrate is not required to appear during
trial to depose since presumption is attached under Section 80 of the
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
unfortunate if Magistrates were asked at all

generally to act rather as police officers than as
judicial persons; to be by reason of their position
freed from the disability that attaches to police
officers under Section 162 of the Code; and to be
at the same time freed, notwithstanding their
position as Magistrates, from any obligation to
make records under section 164. In the result they
would indeed be relegated to the position of
ordinary citizens as witnesses and then would be
required to depose to matters transacted by them in
their official capacity unregulated by any statutory
rules of procedure or conduct whatever. Their
Lordships are, however, clearly of opinion that this
unfortunate position cannot in future arise because,
in their opinion, the effect of the statute is clearly
to prescribe the mode in which confessions are to
be dealt with by Magistrates when made during an
investigation, and to render inadmissible any
attempt to deal with them in the method proposed
in the present case. The evidence of Mr. Vasisht
should therefore in the opinion of their Lordships,
have been rejected by the Court. The admission in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
140
evidence of Mr. Vasisht's memorandum, such as it

was, is a minor point. It does not appear to have
been used by him merely to refresh his memory,
but to have been put in as a document. This is of
no great importance, because if the oral evidence
was allowed, perhaps no more mischief was done
by the admission of the memorandum; but it has
always to be remembered that weight, or apparent
weight, is lent to oral testimony by a written
version of it closely related in time to the events
described, and it is an additional objection to the
proceedings under review that such a record as this
should have been admitted in evidence.
49.
Then, this question came up before the Honble Supreme Court
in Bhagwan Singh Versus The State of Punjab, 1952 AIR (SC)

214, and the relevant Para of the judgment reads as under: 28. Now, the certificate of the Committing
Magistrate endorsed on the deposition sheet states
that the deposition was read out to the witness and
that the witness admitted it to be correct. The
Court is bound to accept this as correct under
Section 80 of the Evidence Act until it is proved to
be untrue. The burden is on the person seeking to
displace the statutory presumption and if he
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
141
chooses to rely on the testimony of a witness

which the Court is not prepared to believe the
matter ends there. The duty displacing the
presumption lies on the person who questions it.
The Court is, of course, bound to consider such
evidence as is adduced but it is not bound to
believe such evidence nor is there any duty
whatever on the Court to conduct an enquiry on its
own. There is nothing in this point. But we again
wish to discountenance the suggestion that the
Committing
Magistrate
should
have
been
examined to prove the truth of his certificate and

we endorse the remarks we made in 'Kashmera
Singh v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh', Cri
Appeal No. 53 of 1951 (SC), based on the decision
of the Privy Council in 'Nazir Ahmad v. King
Emperor', AIR 1936 PC 253 AT P. 258, regarding
the undesirability of any such practice.
29. But even if the fact be true that the deposition
was not read over, that would only amount to a
curable irregularity and, as the Privy Council
observed in 'Abdul Rehman v. Emperor', AIR 1927
PC 44 at pp. 46, 47, in the absence of prejudice
which must be disclosed in an affidavit which

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
142
shows exactly where the record departs from what

the witness actually said, there is no point in the
objection. The object of the reading over
prescribed by Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is not to enable the witness to change
his story but to ensure that the record faithfully and
accurately embodies the gist of what the witness
actually said. Therefore, before prejudice can be
substantiated on this score, it must be disclosed by
affidavit exactly where the inaccuracy lies.
50.
Thereafter, this question again came up before the Honble
Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh and others,

1964 AIR (SC) 358, and the relevant Para of the judgment reads as
under: 7. In Nazir Ahmed's case, 63 Ind App 372 the
Judicial Committee observed that the principle
applied in Taylor v. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch. D 426 to
a Court, namely, that where a power is given to do
a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be
done in that way or not at all and that other
methods of performance are necessarily forbidden,
applied to judicial officers making a record under
Section 164 and, therefore, held that the magistrate

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
143
could not give oral evidence of the confession

made to him which he had purported to record
under Section 164 of the Code. It was said that
otherwise all the precautions and safeguards laid
down in Sections 164 and 364, both of which had
to be read together, would become of such trifling
value as to be almost idle and that "it would be an
unnatural construction to hold that any other
procedure was permitted than that which is laid
down with such minute particularity in the sections
themselves."
8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1
Ch D 426 is well recognized and is founded on
sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has
conferred a power to do an act and has laid down
the method in which that power has to be
exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the
act in any other manner than that which has been
prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if
this were not so, the statutory provision might as
well not have been enacted. A magistrate,
therefore, cannot in the course of investigation
record a confession except in the manner laid
down in Section 164. The power to record the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
144
confession had obviously been given so that the

confession might be proved by the record of it
made in the manner laid down. If proof of the
confession by other means was permissible, the
whole provision of Section 164 including the
safeguards contained in it for the protection of
accused persons would be rendered nugatory. The
section, therefore, by conferring on magistrate the
power to record statements or confessions, by
necessary implication, prohibited a magistrate
from giving oral evidence of the statements or
confessions made to him.
51.
This question again came up before the Honble Supreme Court
in Madi Ganga Vs. State of Orissa, 1981 AIR (SC) 1165, and the
relevant Para of the judgment reads as under: With regard to the confessional statement made to
the Magistrate his submission was that it should
have been excluded from the evidence as the
Magistrate was not examined to prove it.
5. We desire to express no opinion on the
question whether the extra-judicial confession
made to P.Ws. 2 to 5 is barred under Section 24 of
the Evidence Act. It is unnecessary for us to say

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
145
anything on this question, since we are satisfied

that the learned Sessions Judge was wholly wrong
in excluding and the High Court was certainly
right in acting upon the confessional statement
made to the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has
put to the accused all the necessary questions to
satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary.
He has also appended the necessary certificate. We
do not accept Shri Jain's submission that the
learned Magistrate should have been examined as
a witness. Section 80 of the Evidence Act makes
the examination of the Magistrate unnecessary. It
authorises the Court to presume that the document
is genuine, that any statements as to the
circumstances under which it was taken are true
and that such confession was truly taken in
accordance with law. Shri Jain submitted that if the
Magistrate had been examined as a witness, the
accused might have been in a position to show, by
cross-examination that the confession recorded by
the Magistrate was not voluntary. The Magistrate
has appended a certificate that he was satisfied that
the confession was voluntary. No circumstance has
been brought out in the evidence justifying the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
146
calling of the Magistrate as a witness. We do not

think that the circumstances of the case justify any
comment on the alleged failure of the prosecution
to examine the Magistrate as a witness.
52.
Having discussed the settled position of law as above, this court
does not see any ground to discard the prosecution case for 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)
Section 80 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 attaches judicial
sanctity to all such court records and statement made on oath at any
stage of investigation or trial.
(ii)
Such statements cannot be ignored unless and until the
defence point out that the same were involuntary.

(iii)
Non-examination of Magistrate would not be fatal to the
case of the prosecution as held in Nazir Ahmed by Privy Council,

and in Singhara Singhs case (supra), Bhagwan Singhs case
(supra) and in Madi Gangas case (supra) by Honble Supreme
Court and mandate of law to be culled out as done above.
(iv)
The confessional statements per se carry the due
certificates of the Magistrates recording the confessions as required by

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.
11) Whether PW-1 was induced?

53.
Ms. Sima Gulati, Ld. Counsel for accused Gopalji argued that
the approver PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand

was induced of his reinstatement after about 11 years of his
termination from service and as such, his confessional statement and
consequent statement made in the court cannot be relied upon. She
argued that PW-1 was working in the office of Superintendent
Engineer, PWD, Darbhanga, from where he resigned in the year 1964
and he was arrested on 29.04.1975 and the Superintendent Engineer
on 30.04.1975 communicated his reinstatement to him. PW-1 has
applied vide application Ex.PW-1/C in March 1964 for permission to
leave the station. He also sent a telegram Ex.PW-1/D dated 16.3.1964
for extension of leave. He submitted his resignation letter dated
15.04.1964 Ex.PW-1/E. She argued that PW-1 was granted bail on
08.05.1975 and his confessional statement u/s 164 Cr. PC on
application of the investigating officer was recorded on 12.05.1975
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
148
and he rejoined the service on 13.05.1975 and he was granted pardon

by the CJM, Patna on 27.10.1975. She argued that application for
reinstatement is pre-dated and does not bear any date and stamp of
receiving in the office. She argued that in his application, PW-1 has
mentioned that he remained moving from one place to another and
later on filed a false medical certificate to the effect that he was
suffering from a mental disease melancholia from 1964 to 1974.
54.
Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon judgment of Honble
Supreme Court in Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal : 2002

(7) SCC 334 wherein it has been held as under :
28. That brings us to another angle i.e.
acceptability of the confession. Section 24 of the
Evidence Act interdicts a confession if it appears
to the court to be the result of any inducement,
threat or promise in certain conditions. The
principle therein is that confession must be
voluntary. It must be the outcome of his own free
will inspired by the sound of his own conscience to
speak nothing but the truth.
30. In Words and Phrases by John B. Saunders, 3rd
Edn., Vol. 4, p. 401, "voluntary" is defined as:
"The classic statement of the principle is that of
Lord Sumner in Ibrahim v. R., 1914 AC 599 :
(1914-15) All England Reporter Rep 874 : 111
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
149
LT 20 (PC), (AC at p. 609) where he said, "it has

long been established as a positive rule of English
criminal law that no statement by an accused is
admissible in evidence against him unless it is
shown by the prosecution to be a voluntary
statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained
from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of
advantage exercised or held out by a person in
authority. The principle is as old as Lord Hale".
However, in five of the eleven textbooks cited to
us support is to be found for a narrow and rather
technical meaning of the word "voluntary".
According to this view, "voluntary" means merely
that the statement has not been made in
consequence of (i) some promise of advantage or
some threat, (ii) of a temporal character, (iii) held
out or made by a person in authority, and (iv)
relating to the charge in the sense that it implies
that the accused's position in the contemplated
proceedings will or may be better or worse
according to whether or not the statement is made.
R.V. Power, 1914 AC 599 : (1914-15) All Er Rep
874 : 111 LT 20 (PC) (All England Reporter at
pp. 454, 455), per Cantley, V."

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
150
55.
To buttress her arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel also referred
another judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Aloke Nath Dutta

vs. State of West Bengal 2007 (12) SCC 230 and relevant Para 86
and 87 of the judgment read as under:86. Confession ordinarily is admissible in
evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon.
Confession may under certain circumstances and
subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary
from time to time form the basis for conviction. It
is, however, trite that for the said purpose the court
has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of
the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession;
(iii) corroboration.
87. This Court in Shankaria v. State of
Rajasthan [(1978) 3 SCC 435] stated the law
thus:
"22. This confession was retracted by the appellant
when he was examined at the trial Under Section
313 Criminal Procedure Code on June 14, 1975. It
is well settled that a confession, if voluntarily and
truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt.
Therefore, when in a capital case the prosecution
demands a conviction of the accused, primarily on
the basis of his confession recorded Under Section
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
151
164 Criminal Procedure Code, the Court must

apply a double test:
(1)
Whether
the
confession
was
perfectly
voluntary?
(2) If so, whether it is true and trustworthy?
Satisfaction of the first test is a sine quo non for its
admissibility in evidence. If the confession appears
to the Court to have been caused by any
inducement, threat or promise such as is mentioned
in Section 24, Evidence Act, it must be excluded
and rejected brevimanu. In such a case, the
question of proceeding further to apply the second
test does not arise. If the first test is satisfied, the
Court must before acting upon the confession
reach the finding that what is stated therein is true
and reliable. For judging, the reliability of such a
confession or for that matter of any substantive
piece of evidence there is no rigid canon of
universal application. Even so, one broad method,
which may be useful in most cases for evaluating a
confession, may be indicated. The Court should
carefully examine the confession and compare it
with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the
surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
152
case. If on such examination and comparison, the

confession appears to be a probable catalogue of
events and naturally fits in with the rest of the
evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it
may be taken to have satisfied the second test."
56.
The Ld. Defence Counsel has cited another judgment of
Honble Supreme Court in
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot
Sandhu 2005 (11) SCC 600 on the same point and Para 8 of the
judgment reads as under :8. Law regarding confessions
We start with the confessions. Under the general
law of the land as reflected in the Indian Evidence
Act, no confession made to a police officer can be
proved against an accused. 'Confessions' - which is
a terminology used in criminal law is a species of
'admissions' as defined in Section 17 of the Indian
Evidence Act. An admission is a statement - oral
or documentary, which enables the court to draw
an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.
It is trite to say that every confession must
necessarily be an admission, but, every admission
does not necessarily amount to a confession. While
Sections 17 to 23 deal with admissions, the law as
to confessions is embodied in Sections 24 to 30 of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
153
the Evidence Act. Section 25 bars proof of a

confession made to a police officer. Section 26
goes a step further and prohibits proof of
confession made by any person while he is in the
custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 24
lays down the obvious rule that a confession made
under any inducement, threat or promise becomes
irrelevant
in
criminal
proceeding.
Such
inducement, threat or promise need not be proved

to the hilt. If it appears to the court that the making
of the confession was caused by any inducement,
threat or promise proceeding from a person in
authority, the confession is liable to be excluded
from evidence. The expression 'appears' connotes
that the Court need not go to the extent of holding
that the threat etc. has in fact been proved. If the
facts and circumstances emerging from the
evidence adduced make it reasonably probable that
the confession could be the result of threat,
inducement or pressure, the court will refrain from
acting on such confession, even if it be a
confession made to a Magistrate or a person other
than police officer..

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
application submitted by him to his employer dated 19.08.1974

addressed to Superintendant Engineer, Darbhanga Circle, to the effect
that he was appointed as a Correspondence Clerk and joined circle
office on 8.8.1961 and remained on duty till 15.03.1964 and due to
family problems he left home and remained moving from one holy
place to another and he has no source of subsistence to give relief to
his old parents and he being the only son came to his senses and came
back to his parents and he may be allowed to join duty. He deposed
that he had submitted a reminder Ex.PW-1/G in connection with his
reinstatement to the Superintendent Engineer which was received in
the receipt section at serial no. 7276 dated 19.09.1974. He received an
office order from Superintendant Engineer on 30.04.1975 to join
service and at that time he was not present in his house and he
received the letter only on his return to home on 13.05.1975 when he
was relieved from the court of SDM, Patna as he was attending his
court date for his statement which was completed on 12.05.1975 under
Section 164 Cr. PC and he gave his joining report Ex.PW-1/B on
13.05.1975.
PW-1 further testified that Ex.PW-1/X is statement,
which he made on 12.05.1975 in the court of SDM Sh. B.K.

Derhgawan and bear his signatures at point A and B and he gave his
statement voluntarily without any pressure or inducement.
He
attended the court of CJM, Patna on 27.10.1975 when pardon was

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
155
granted to him and he accepted the pardon voluntarily vide his

acceptance Ex.PW-1/Y.
58.
It is elicited in his cross-examination that in the note Ex.PW-
1/DD, it was mentioned that one Udit Narain Mishra, Clerk, who was
posted at Khagaria under the jurisdiction of Superintendant Engineer,
was reinstated after a gap of 6/7 years and his case was cited as a
precedent to recommend his appointment. In the cross-examination,
PW-1 further replied that he personally submitted application Ex.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.
I have perused the Service Book of PW-1 (which is available
in folder R-26) and at page no. 44, there is an application submitted

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
156
by PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava addressed to Superintendent

Engineer, PWD, Darbhanga dated 19.08.1974 Ex.PW-1/A to the effect
that he was mentally disturbed. He pleaded therein that to save him
and his parents from starvation he may be allowed to join the services.
This application was duly received in the office of Superintendent
Engineer, PWD, Darbhanga, at Serial No.6428 on 26.08.1974 with the
seal of the office. Ex.PW-1/G is the reminder dated 17.9.1974 as per
which he again requested Superintendent Engineer to join services and
this has been received in the office of Superintendent Engineer, PWD,
Darbhanga at serial no.7276 on 18.9.1974 with the seal of the office.
By office note Ex.PW-1/DD dated 04.10.1974, there is reference of
reinstatement of a previous employee after about six years of
termination of his service.
There are various office notes for
recommendations in favour of PW-1 vide Ex.PW-1/DD (Dated

4.10.1974) and other office notes and formal approval was issued on
12.4.1975. He was appointed on 30.04.1975 as per office note at
Ex.PW-1/H. He received this communication on his return to home on
13.5.1974 after recording his statement u/s 164 Cr. PC on 12.5.1975.
He submitted his joining report Ex.PW-1/B on 13.5.1975. However,
his application for reinstatement was allowed vide orders Ex.PW-1/H
as per the service book on 12.4.1975 yet his case was recommended
on 04.10.1974 vide office note Ex.PW-1/DD and some other office
notes of subsequent dates.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
157
60.
The argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-1 has mentioned
in the letter for reinstatement that he was moving from one holy place
to another which cannot be believed. After considering the statement
in his cross-examination that PW-1 having mentioned Ashram as
symbolical meaning, the argument does not sound to any reason. He
further testified in his cross-examination that as the Government was
not going well with Anand Marg, he did not mention that he had
joined Anand Marg and symbolically mentioned that his parents had
become old in his application Ex.PW-1/A.
61.
The above said facts including the dates of submitting
application dated 26.8.1974 for reinstatement received in office on

26.08.1974, reminder dated 17.09.1974, office note and consequential
communication of his reinstatement clearly shows that PW-1 Madan
Mohan Srivastava had applied for his reinstatement long before he
was arrested.
It was almost nine months after his prayer for
reinstatement, his case was also recommended for reinstatement on

04.10.1974 as per office notes Ex.PW-1/DD and other office notes,
and appointment order was issued on 12.04.1975. It clearly reflects
that the recommendation of reinstatement was already issued by the
concerned appropriate authority even much before his arrest.
Therefore, the arguments that PW-1 was induced to turn an approver
after his arrest with a luring is highly improbable and is nothing but a
figment of imagination by the accused persons with sole purpose to
save their skin and mud-slinging the PW-1 and prosecuting agency.
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.
This case is based on statement of two approvers namely (i)
Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay (PW-1) and

(ii) Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass (PW-2).
Therefore, it is
necessary to find out the legal position regarding law on

accomplices/approvers.
63.
It is appropriate to refer to Section 133 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 along with Illustration (b) to Section 114 which read as
under:"133. Accomplice - An accomplice shall be a
competent witness against an accused person; and
a conviction is not illegal merely because it
proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice."
Illustration (b) to Section 114.
(b) That an accomplice is unworthy of credit,
unless he is corroborated in material particulars."
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
159
64.
An approver is a person, who has actively participated in the
crime, and facts which are known to approver cannot be known to

other persons. He is the best person to tell the facts but his evidence
requires corroboration in material particulars which depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.
65.
Dealing with the scope and ambit of the above-noted two
provisions, the Honble Supreme Court, in Bhiva Doulu Patil v.

State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 599 has held that
both the sections are part of one subject and have to be considered
together. It has further been held: (Para 7)
"The combined effect of Sections 133 and
Illustration (b) to Section 114, may be stated as
follows:
According to the former, which is a Rule of law,
an accomplice is competent to give evidence and
to the latter, which is a Rule of practice it is
usually unsafe to convict upon his testimony alone.
Therefore, though the conviction of an accused on
the testimony of an accomplice cannot be said to
be illegal yet the courts will, as a matter of
practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness
without corroboration in material particulars."

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
160
66.
The very same principle was reiterated in Mohd. Husain Umar
Kochra etc. v. K. S. Dalipsinghji and another, (1969) 3 SCC 429

and it was held: (Para 21).
".... The combined effect of Sections 133 and 114,
Illustration (b) is that though a conviction based
upon accomplice evidence is legal, the Court will
not accept such evidence unless it is corroborated
in material particulars. The corroboration must
connect the accused with the crime. It may be
direct or circumstantial. It is not necessary that the
corroboration should confirm all the circumstances
of the crime. It is sufficient if the corroboration is
in material particulars. The corroboration must be
from an independent source. One accomplice
cannot corroborate another."
67.
Both the sections have also been interpreted by the Honble
Supreme Court in Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura 2011 (9) SCC

479 in the following words (Para No. 11 & 12):11. Though a conviction is not illegal merely
because it
proceeds
on
the uncorroborated
testimony of an approver, yet the universal practice

is not to convict upon the testimony of an
accomplice unless it is corroborated in material
particulars. The evidence of an approver does not
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
161
differ from the evidence of any other witness save

in one particular aspect, namely, that the evidence
of an accomplice is regarded ab initio as open to
grave suspicion.
12. If the suspicion which attaches to the evidence
of an accomplice be not removed, that evidence
should not be acted upon unless corroborated in
some material particulars; but if the suspicion
attaching to the accomplice's evidence be removed,
then that evidence may be acted upon even though
uncorroborated, and the guilt of the accused may
be established upon the evidence alone.
68.
Very recently, these provisions came up for consideration
before the Honble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. State of

Punjab 2012(1) SCC 10, which laid down the following principle:18. An accomplice is a competent witness and
conviction
can
lawfully
rests
upon
his
uncorroborated testimony, yet the court is entitled

to presume and may indeed, be justified in
presuming in the generality of cases that no
reliance can be placed on the evidence of an
accomplice unless the evidence is corroborated in
material particulars, which means that there has to
be
some

independent
witness
tending
to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
162
incriminate
the
particular
accused
in
the
commission of the crime. (Vide: Rameshwar v.

The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 Supreme
Court 54; and Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 637).
21.
In view of the above, the law on the issue
can be summarized to the effect that the deposition

of an accomplice in a crime who has not been
made an accused/put to trial, can be relied upon,
however, the evidence is required to be considered
with care and caution. An accomplice who has not
been put on trial is a competent witness as he
deposes in the court after taking oath and there is
no prohibition in any law not to act upon his
deposition without corroboration.
69.
The approver is not required to prove entire prosecution story or
even all the material particulars and if such a view is adopted, it would
render evidence of the accomplice wholly superfluous. This is so held
by 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
163
render the evidence of the accomplice wholly

superfluous. On the other hand, it would not be
safe to act upon such evidence merely because it is
corroborated in minor particulars or incidental
details because, in such a case, corroboration does
not afford the necessary assurance that the main
story disclosed by the approver can be reasonably
and safely accepted as true.
70.
In Bhubon Sahu v. The King, (AIR 1949 PC 257), it was
observed that the rule requiring corroboration for acting upon the
evidence of an accomplice is a rule of prudence. However, the rule of
prudence assumes great significance when its reliability on the
touchstone of credibility is examined. If it is found credible and
cogent, the Court can record a conviction even on the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice. On the subject of the credibility of the
testimony of an accomplice, the proposition that an accomplice must
be corroborated does not mean that there must be cumulative or
independent testimony to the same facts to which he has testified. At
the same time, the presumption available under Section 114 of the
Evidence Act is of significance. It says that the Court may presume
that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in
"material particulars".

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
164
71.
Section 133 of the Evidence Act expressly provides that an
accomplice is a competent witness and the conviction is not illegal

merely because it proceeds on an uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice. In other words, this section renders admissible such
uncorroborated testimony. Nevertheless, this Section has to be read
along with Section 114, illustration (b). The latter section empowers
the Court to presume the existence of certain facts and the illustration
elucidates what the Court may presume and make clear by means of
examples as to what facts the Court shall have regard in considering
whether or not maxims illustrated apply to a given case. Illustration
(b) in express terms says that accomplice is unworthy of credit unless
he is corroborated in material particulars. The Statute permits the
conviction of an accused based on uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice but the rule of prudence embodied in illustration (b) to
Section 114 of the Evidence Act strikes a note of warning, cautioning
the Court that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be believed
unless corroborated in material particulars. In other words, the rule is
that the necessity of corroboration is a matter of prudence except when
it is safe to dispense with such corroboration must be clearly present in
the mind of the Judge. (See Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar
AIR 1994 SC 2420.)
72.
Although Section 114 illustration (b) provides that the Court
may presume that the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit

unless corroborated, "may" is not must and no decision of Court can
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
165
make it must. The Court is not obliged to hold that he is unworthy of

credit. It ultimately depends upon the Court's view as to the credibility
of evidence tendered by an accomplice.
73.
Further, the Honble Supreme Court in State of T.N. v.
Suresh and another 1998 SC 1044 has laid down the following
principle:Thus, the law is not that the evidence of an
accomplice deserves outright rejection if there is
no corroboration.
What is required is to adopt
great circumspection and care when dealing with

the evidence of an accomplice.
Though there is
no legal necessity to seek corroboration of

accomplices evidence it is desirable that Court
seeks reassuring circumstances to satisfy the
judicial conscience that the evidence is true.
74.
In Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri v. State of Jharkhand : 2007 (12)
SCC 630, the 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
circumstance in the sense that the independent

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
166
evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of

the complainant or the accomplice, should in itself
be sufficient to sustain conviction. As Lord
Readings says 'Indeed, if it were required that the accomplice
should be confirmed in every detail of the crime,
his evidence would not be essential to the case, it
would be merely confirmatory of other and
independent testimony.'
27. All that is required is that there must be some
additional evidence rendering it probable that the
story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true
and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.
28. Secondly, the independent evidence must not
only make it safe to believe that the crime was
committed but must in some way reasonably
connect or tend to connect the accused with it by
confirming
in some material particular the
testimony of the accomplice or complainant that

the accused committed the crime. This does not
mean that the corroboration as to identify must
extend to all the circumstances necessary to
identify the accused with the offence. Again, all
that is necessary is that there would be independent

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
167
evidence, which will make it reasonably safe to

believe the witness's story that the accused was the
one, or among those, who committed the offence.
The reason for this part of the rule is that "a man who has been guilty of a crime himself will
always be able to relate the facts of the case, and if
the confirmation be only on the truth of that
history, without identifying the persons, that is
really no corroboration at all ...... It would not at all
tend to show that the party accused participated in
it."
29. Thirdly, the corroboration must come from
independent sources and thus ordinarily the
testimony of one accomplice would not be
sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of
course the circumstances may be such as to make
it safe to dispense with the necessity of
corroboration and in those special circumstances a
conviction so based would not be illegal. I say this
because it was contended that the mother in this
case was not an independent source.
30. Fourthly, the corroboration need not be direct
evidence that the accused committed the crime. It
is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
168
of his connection with the crime. Were it

otherwise, "many crimes which are usually
committed between accomplices in secret, such as
incest, offences with females' (or unnatural
offences) 'could never be brought to justice". [See:
M.O. Shamsudhin vs. State of Kerala 1995 (3)
SCC 351.
31. The above position was highlighted in K.
Hashim vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2005(1) SCC
237.
Thus, the statements of approvers PW-1 and PW-2 may be safely
looked into but subject to their reliability and prudent test of
corroboration
of
material
particulars,
of
course
to
believe
uncorroborated testimony also based on the circumstantial evidence

that is presented by the prosecution. At the same time the court cannot
ignore the guidelines under the above Supreme Court rulings that an
accomplice need not stand the test of proving each and every
circumstance, since the chain of events that follow the material
particulars corroborated would speak for itself. "It would not be right
that expect that such independent corroboration should cover the
whole of the prosecution story or even all the material particulars. If
such a view is adopted it would render the evidence of the accomplice
wholly superfluous" (Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh- supra).

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
169
13) Prelude to criminal conspiracy, Anand

Marg - founder - wings - objects.
75.
Now I shall proceed to examine the evidence placed on record
to arrive at the adjudication of the charges, for which, this court filed
that the subject may be divided under different captions for the
purposes of understanding the case of the prosecution and that of the
defence.
76.
PW-1 deposed that he remained associated with Anand Marg
from the year 1964 to February 1974. He joined Civil Defence (Urban
Home Guard) as a part time worker in the year 1962 and at that time
Sh. S.N. Srivastava was S.P. and one Sham Lal Dass was the
Company Commander.
Both of them were the followers of Anand
Marg. Sh. Munshi Singh, Hawaldar, who was working there, was also
an Anand Margi and he used to give training in Urban Home Guard.
Sh. S.N. Srivastava and Sham Lal Dass influenced him with the
philosophy of Anand Marg and he learnt Sadhna from Sham Lal Dass.
He along with Sham Lal Dass was taken to Muzaffarpur to attend
Dharam Chakra and to meet Anand Murti. On 15.3.1964, he met
Prakashanand Avadhoot, P.A of Anand Murti and then he met Anand
Murti whose real name was Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (P.R. Sarkar) and
followers used to call him Guru/Marg Guru/Anand Murti. He sat
before him and Anand Murti shut his eyes and pulled his ears. On the
direction of Anand Murti, he confessed to his bad deeds and Anand
Murti asked him to enlist three lac people in the field of Anand Marg.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
170
He became full time worker by submitting an application to

Prakashanand Avadhoot.
He addressed his application to General
Secretary, Anand Marg.
He was Sh. P.K. Chatterjee. He sent a
telegram for one-month leave to his employer. He went to Jamalpur.

He stayed for 3 or 4 days in the Ashram of Anand Marg. At the
instance of P.K. Chatterjee, General Secretary, he went to Anand
Nagar where he stayed for 3 or 4 days. Then he was sent to Patna in
the office of PFI (Progressive Federation of India) which is a wing of
Anand Marg. Vishokanand Avadhoot was the Chief Secretary of PFI.
He remained there for two or three months. He was made Tatvik and
Aacharya of Anand Marg. He was appointed Provincial Secretary of
PFI of M.P. in August 1964 and was sent to Bhopal. Sh. Bharat
Bhushan Aggarwal was the Organizing Secretary at Bhopal. From
Bhopal, he went to Jabalpur.
He met Arteshanand there (he was
present in the court). Thereafter, he was sent to Banaras for training

in Sewa Dharam Mission, a wing of Anand Marg Organization. From
Banaras, he came to Jamalpur. There he received Kapalik Diksha
from Anand Murti in the year 1965. For that purpose, he brought two
human skulls from Ganga River and Diksha as Avadhoot was given to
him by Prakashanand on behalf of Anand Murti. From that night, he
started wearing saffron clothes and was rechristened as Aacharya
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot. As an Avadhoot, he was to wear lungi,
kurta, a turban of saffron colour and one has to sport long beard and
moustaches and carry a kirpan in his hand. He went to Indore where

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
171
they started publishing monthly and fortnightly papers/magazines of

PFI to propagate the teaching of PFI & Anand Marg. He testified that
Voluntary Social Service @ Vishwa Shanti Sena (V.S.S.) is a Para
Military Wing of Anand Marg and Aacharya Ram Aasrey of Arrah
was the Chief Trainee Organizer of V.S.S.
PW-1 participated in
V.S.S. Camp and he used to give training. He was appointed Area

Commander of VSS.
State of Maharashtra, M.P., Rajasthan and
Gujarat were put under his supervision. His Headquarters was at 20,
Ulta Mount Road, Bombay. His duties were to select volunteers and
give them training and to materialize Anand Marg programme. He
remained Area Commander of V.S.S until 1970. In the year 1970, a
camp was held in Gaya (Bihar) and he fell ill and remained on bed for
six months. From there, he went to Ranchi in May 1971 to attend
Dharam Maha Chakra- a congregation of devotees held twice in a
year addressed by Anand Murti. From Ranchi, he came to Ludhiana
and then to Delhi. At Delhi, Aacharya Santoshanand Avadhoot
(Accused No.1), whose original name was Ghanshyam and whose
father was working for PRADEEP and Vishwabandhu published
from Patna, was working for the organisation. He knew Santoshanand
even before. From Ranchi, he was transferred to PBI (Proutist Block
of India), a political wing of Anand Marg. Then he was posted at
Anand Marg Primary School, Bilaspur. He worked there at Bilaspur
until August 1972, when he was transferred to Jabalpur as Principal,
Anand Marg Primary School and worked there until July 1978. In

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
172
February 1973, he was called in Delhi for Rally at Boat-Club for

pressing release of Baba. He was arrested. After his release, he went
from Delhi to Jabalpur. It was impressed upon in the mind of workers
that Anand Murti was seriously ill so that the followers work with
renewed zeal. He deposed that Headquarters of Anand Marg was at
Patna. ERAWS (Education Relief and Welfare Section) was another
wing of Anand Marg. He went back to Ranchi from where he was
transferred to political wing of Anand Marg known as Proutist Block
of India and made Incharge of Sholapur and Kolhapur diocese. He
deposed that there was also a Revolutionary Group of Anand Marg.
He identified all accused persons i.e. accused no.1 Santoshanand,
accused no.2 Sudevanand, accused no.3 Ranjan Dwivedi and accused
no.7 Gopalji in the Court correctly.
77.
In his cross-examination, PW-1 further testified that he stated
before the Magistrate that Anand Murti caught him by his ear and
asked him to confess his faults and when confronted with his previous
statement, it was not found recorded. He did not remember whether
he stated before the Magistrate that as punishment, he was asked by
Anand Murti to enroll three lacs persons in the Organisation and when
confronted with his previous statement, the word punishment was
not found mentioned. Simply because in his previous statement there
is no mention that Anand Murti caught his ear or that the word
punishment is not mentioned, PW-1 cannot be said to have made
any improvement as it was a matter of detail and elaboration. Here it is
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
173
relevant to mention that in his cross-examination, the defence has not

discredited the original name of A-1 as Ghanshyam. The defence did
not shatter his deposition that the father of A-1 was working in the
editorial staff of newspapers PRADEEP and Vishwabandhu. As
such the testimony of PW-1 on the other points goes unrebutted and
the same are not demolished in the cross-examination and therefore,
the testimony of PW-1 cannot be discarded in so far as the facts
deposed regarding the organisation - founder - objects - the role of
PW-1 in it and the different wings the organisation. The competency
of the witness to identify A-1, A-2, A-3 & A-7 was never questioned.
78.
Thus it is evident from the testimony PW-1 that there was an
organisation called Anand Marg, and Sh. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (P.R.
Sarkar), the head of the organization, used to be called as Guru/Marg
Guru/Anand Murti by his followers. PW-1 joined Anand Marg in
1964. He was appointed Provincial Secretary of PFI in August 1964.
He remained posted at various places namely Bhopal, Jabalpur,
Banaras, Jamshedpur, Ranchi, Ludhiana, Indore on various posts in
Anand Marg including Area Commander of VSS. He was posted as
Principal, Anand Marg Primacy School and worked there until July
1978. In 1973, he was called in Delhi for attending Rally at 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
174
(VSS) a Para military wing, (iv) ERAWS (Education Relief and

Welfare Section) and (v) Political Wing PBI (Proutist Block of India).
There was a Revolutionary Group of Anand Marg. It also comes out
from his statement that original name of accused no.1 Santoshanand
was Ghanshyam and his father was working in editorial staff of paper
PRADEEP & Vishwabandhu published from Patna and he knew
accused no.1 Santoshanand prior to that. PW-1 was rechristened as
Aacharya Visheshwaranand in the year 1965 after he took Diksha as
Avadhoot.
It also comes out from the testimony of PW-1 Madan
Mohan Srivastava that after he took Diksha in the year 1965, he

started putting on saffron clothes. As an Avadhoot, he started wearing
lungi, kurta, a turban of saffron colour and sporting long hair, beard
and moustaches and carrying a kirpan.
79.
A close reading of his testimony reveals that this witness had
withstood searching and elaborate cross examination at the hands of

the accused and nothing is elicited to discard his testimony which is
accurate on every count concerning the subject in discussion. It is
note-worthy to mention that the accused could not smash his
testimony as regards his long association with Anand Marg.
80.
PW-2 Jaldhar Dass @ Vikram @ Subir, another approver,
deposed that he originally belonged to Village Trar, District

Bhagalpur. He had studied up to 11th standard. In the year 1965, he

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
175
met Aacharya Pashupatiji, a Pracharak of Anand Marg and took

Diksha from him. Sh. P.R. Sarkar, referred to as Anand Murti, was
supreme head of Anand Marg organization. He was also known as
Baba/Marg Guru. He deposed that full time training as Anand Margi
used to be imparted in the institution Sewa Dharam Mission, a branch
of Anand Marg, located at Banaras. He went to Banaras under the
direction of Pashupatiji for getting training as a full time worker of
Anand Marg towards the end of 1968.
There, he met Aacharya
Prakashanand and after one week, he filled up a Form Ex.PW-2/A,

which is in his own handwriting and bears his signatures at points A &
B. Copy of this form was sent to his guardian. He remained there for
about 4-5 months after receiving training. Until then his name was
Jaldhar Das and after conclusion of the training, he was rechristened
as Vikram. The handwriting and signatures of PW-2 on Form Ex.PW2/A have been identified by PW-68.
81.
PW-2 further testified that Prakashanand informed him that
Anand Murti had rechristened him as Vikram. At that time,

Headquarter of Anand Marg was at Ranchi.
Prakashanand at the
conclusion of the training gave him a closed envelope addressed to

Vishokanand, PA to Anand Murti, for being delivered at Ranchi. On
reaching Ranchi, he delivered the envelope to Vishokanand. He stayed
there (at Ranchi) for 3-4 days and then he was given posting order for
Chinsura (WB) as Press Manager of Anand Marg Printing Press in
June/July 1969. He deposed that he remained there until the end of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
176
1969, when he received telegram from Aacharya Advetanand from

Ranchi whereby he was called to Ranchi. Aacharya Advetanand (PW68 Sudhir Kumar Basedar) was Finance Secretary of Proutist Forum
of India, a wing of Anand Marg, and its headquarter was located at D41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. The posting of Advetanand was at
New Delhi but at that time, he was at Ranchi. He stayed at Ranchi for
a day or so when Advetanand brought him to New Delhi. On the
ground floor of D-41, South Extension, Part-1, there was a printing
press and on the first floor, there was office of Proutist Forum of
India. A newspaper by the name of Prout and a magazine Education
and culture used to be published from this premises. 1st Floor of
Building was also used for boarding and lodging. Advetanand
introduced him there at New Delhi to Santoshanand. (The witness
correctly identified accused Santoshanand in the Court). He further
testified that Santoshanand was working as Editor of the newspaper
Prout and magazine Education and culture. All the workers
including Santoshanand used to practice Sadhna on the first floor and
once a week, Dharam chakra used to be held in the building. Anand
Margies coming from other districts used to participate therein.
Accused Santoshanand used to attire in the same dress in which he
appears in the Court. PW-2 deposed that Santoshanand earlier sported
long beard, long hair, wears saffron colour turban, saffron colour kurta
and Tehmad and waist band. He (PW-2) met accused Ranjan Dwivedi
and Sudevanand in South Extension building. (The witness has

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
177
correctly identified both the accused Ranjan Dwivedi and Sudevanand

in the Court). PW-2 further deposed that Sudevanand also used to
appear in the similar clothes in which he is clad now (as on the date of
deposition). He deposed that Sudevanand had posting as Anand Margi
Avadhoot in UP and Ranjan Dwivedi was from Bihar and he used to
live in Delhi in that building for 2-3 days and sometimes only for 2
hours and Santoshanand lived there permanently in the said building.
82.
It is also found in his testimony that accused Santoshanand used
to write in his presence and he can identify his writing and signatures.
He stayed there with Santoshanand up to end of the year 1972, when
he (PW-2) was posted at Jaipur as Press Manager of Anand Printers.
During 3 years stay at D-41, South Extension, he used to work on the
press and distribute publications. He used to compose the writings of
Santoshanand. One Dhaneshanand, who was living in D-41, South
Extension, was the Chief Secretary of Proutist Forum of India. At the
end of year 1972, he was posted at Jaipur as Press Manager of Anand
Printers belonging to Anand Marg Organisation. He received this
order from the Head Office at Ranchi through Sh. Dhaneshanand. He
went to Jaipur and remained posted there until June 1974. In between,
he came to Delhi in April 1973, when a Rally was organized in Delhi
to demand release of Anand Murti, who was confined in Patna Jail at
that time. He came there at D-41, South Extension-1 at the end of June
1974. He was directed to join Delhi Printing Press until Jaipur Press
was repaired. He came to D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. There
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
178
he met Dhaneshanand, Chief Secretary had told him that Jaipur

Printing Press was out of repair and substantial amount was required
for putting it into the working order. At that time, Santoshanand was
not found there.
He came to know that police was searching
Santoshanand after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand at Purana

Quilla, New Delhi. Dineshwaranand prior to his death used to come
to D-41, South Extension, New Delhi. After one or two days of his
reaching there, at the end of June 1974, accused Santoshanand met
him in the market of South Extension-I, New Delhi. At that time,
Santoshanand was wearing pant, shirt and he got his haircut. He was
putting a hearing aid in his ear. He was sporting short moustaches.
His beard was shaven.
83.
In his cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he had taken
Diksha when he was in 9th Class and at that time he would be 15 or 16

years of age. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that a copy of
Application Form (Ex.PW-2/A), which was filled up at Banaras in the
beginning of 1969, was sent to his parents. He also admitted the
suggestion of the defence that he stayed in Delhi for 2 or 3 years,
when he came from Ranchi. He was sent to Jaipur for being appointed
as Manager of the Press.
He further testified that he worked as
Manager with the Printing Press of Anand Marg at Jaipur. The press
went out of order in March 1974. He used to maintain accounts of all
the expenses on working this press. He admitted the suggestion of the
defence at Page No. 91 that he came to Delhi in 1969 and remained
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
179
there up to the end of 1972. In his further cross-examination, PW-2

testified that the Press at Jaipur was already registered in the name of
Anand Marg and declaration had already been given before he went
there. He was not aware whether such declaration had to be given
every year. It was a small printing press and such formalities could be
spared.
He has denied the suggestion that he was not the Press
Manager at Jaipur.
The local committee of Anand Marg by a
Resolution had authorized him to operate the bank account. The joint
account was in his name and that of Tara Chand (DW-8), which was
opened with an initial deposit of Rs.100/-.
84.
While going through the deposition of PW-2, I found that his
examination-in-chief is recorded from Page No. 1 to 29 (running Page

No. 145 to 173) on 28.04.1981, 29.04.1981, 30.04.1981 and
22.05.1981 and he has been cross-examined at length on several dates
by the Defence Counsel separately from 22.05.1981 to 13.11.1981
from Page No. 29 to 338 (running Page No. 173 to 483). The defence
has confronted the witness with his several statements, which are
consisting of (i) Ex.PW-2/DA, which is the statement made by PW-2
before the court of Ld. ASJ in A.N. Rays case, (ii) Ex.PW-2/DB,
which is the statement of PW-2 under Section 161 of Cr. PC recorded
on 10.08.1975 by Sh. B.R. Puri in A.N. Rays case, (iii) Ex.PW-2/DC,
which is the statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 164 Cr. PC in
A.N. Rays case, (iv) Ex.PW-2/DD is a two page copy of the
statement of PW-2 recorded on 24.07.1975 & 25.07.1975 under
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
180
Section 161 Cr. PC in FIR No. 71 of 1974 known as Bhagalpur case,

(v) Ex.PW-2/DE is the statement of PW-2 recorded on 09.08.1975
under Section 161 Cr. PC by Sh. B.R. Puri in Samastipur Bomb Blast
case, (vi) Ex.PW-2/DF is the statement of PW-2 recorded in the
Committal Court i.e. CMM, Delhi on several dates from 21.04.1980 to
07.05.1980, (vii) Ex.PW-2/DK is the statement of PW-2 dated
24.07.1975 under Section 161 Cr. PC in DIR Case, PS Kotwali,
Bhagalpur No. 50/71 75, (viii) Ex.PW-2/L, which is a statement under
Section 164 Cr. PC of PW-2 recorded in this case on 16.08.1975 and
18.08.1975 by the court of Sh. R.D. Aggarwal, the then Ld. ACMM,
Delhi, and (ix) Transcriptions Mark-Z and Mark-1 of alleged taperecorded statement of PW-2 dated 30.09.1978 at Danapur Jail between
PW-2 and the Jailor. The defence has mainly confronted PW-2 in his
lengthy cross-examination with his statements, which were recorded
prior to his making his confessional statement under Section 164 of
Cr. PC on 16.08.1975 and 18.08.1975 in this case and tape-recorded
statement dated 30.09.1978.
The statement Ex.PW-2/DD was
recorded on 24.07.1975 and 25.07.1975, when he was arrested in

Bhagalpur case vide FIR No. 71/1974. This is a cyclostyled copy.
Ex.PW-2/DK is a handwritten copy of statement under Section 161
Cr. PC recorded by the IO dated 24.07.1975 in DIR Case of PS
Kotwali, Bhagalpur in case NO. 50/71 75. Ex.PW-2/DB is the copy of
the statement dated 10.08.1975 under Section 161 Cr. PC in A.N.
Rays case.
Ex.PW-2/DE is a statement dated 09.08.1975 under

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
181
Section 161 Cr. PC in Samastipur Bomb Blast case.
These four
statements Ex.PW-2/DD, Ex.PW-2/DK, Ex.PW-2/DB and Ex.PW2/DE of PW-2 are thus recorded by the police officer much before
confessional statement by PW-2.
Ld. Defence Counsel have
confronted these statements to PW-2 in order to project that there are

improvements in the statement of the approver and hence his
testimony is not believable. Here it is profitable to refer Section 161 of
Cr. PC. Under sub-section 1 of Section 161, Investigation Officer or
designated police officer may examine orally any person supposed
to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Under
sub-section 2, such person shall be bound to answer truly all
questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than
the questions, the answers to which would have a tendency to expose
him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. PW-2 was an
accused in DIR case, PS Kotwali case, A.N. Rays case and in the
present case and as such, he could not have answered the questions of
the
police
officer/investigation
officer,
being
incriminatory.
Admittedly, such statement of PW-2 had not led to any discovery of

any fact or article, within the meaning of Section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, a witness may be cross-examined as to his previous statement
made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to the
matter in question, without such writing being shown to him or being
proved.
It is relevant that while understanding the scope of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
182
confrontation/cross-examination of a witness (not an accused), the

statements may be put to him without showing to same to him. It is
very much necessary to understand that all the statements of PW-2 at
Ex.PW-2/DD, Ex.PW-2/DK, Ex.PW-2/DB and Ex.PW-2/DE recorded
by the police officer/investigation officer, after arrest of PW-2 in the
capacity of a suspect and an accused. Therefore, these statements do
not stand in the same footing and definition of a witness as laid
down under Section 161 of Cr. PC, so that they may be confronted in
cross-examination under Section 145 Cr. PC. At the time of recording
these statements, he was not a witness of the prosecution. At the time
when PW-2 made these statements before the police in Bhagalpur case
or in DIR Bhagalpur case or in A.N. Rays case or in the present case,
he was not knowing that he would be granted pardon one day and that
might be the reasons for some omissions in those statements under
Section 161 of Cr. PC. In this regard, reference can be given to a
judgment of Apex Court in Madan Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab
1970 (2) SCC 733 and relevant Para 8 reads as under:There was also nothing to show that the approver
in his statement before the Magistrate, who passed
the order granting him pardon, had not mentioned
the names of the appellant and the said Danesh
Kumar and had not referred to the roles played by
them as deposed to by him in the Trial Court. It
was possibly because no such omission was found

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
183
in his statement before the Magistrate that the

refusal by the Trial Judge to bring on record the
omission in the police statement was not relied on
the High Court. It may be that when the approver
gave his police statement he did not know that he
would be granted pardon and possibly for that
reason had not come out with all the facts known
to him and he did so while he was making his
statement before the Magistrate as he knew by then
that he would be tendered pardon on condition that
he would disclose all the facts known to him. The
omission in the police statement, therefore, by
itself would not necessarily have rendered his
evidence unreliable. In considering whether the
approver's evidence passed the test of reliability,
the Court would have to consider whether taken as
a whole and in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case it was a credible version
or not. Taking all the facts and circumstances of
the case proved before the Trial Court, we think
that despite the said omission, the approver's
version was credible.
Therefore, the defence could not have confronted PW-2 with these
statements Ex.PW-2/DD, Ex.PW-2/DK, Ex.PW-2/DB and Ex.PWCBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
184
2/DE. Even otherwise, the improvements thus pointed out by the

learned Defence Counsel by referring the same are explanatory in
nature, though per se the same could not be looked into under law.
The statements Ex.PW-2/DD, Ex.PW-2/DB, Ex.PW-2/DE, Ex.PW2/DK and Ex.PW-2/L are available in R-43. Ex.PW-2/DA is available
in R-30. Ex.PW-2/DC is available in R-32. Ex.PW-2/DF is available
in R-56).
85.
There is yet another statement of Vikram (PW-2), which was
tape-recorded by the Jailor Haider Ali of Danapur Jail on 30.09.1978

and transcription whereof are Mark-Z and Mark-Z-1, which were filed
on behalf of State of Bihar by their counsel during the trial before my
Ld. Predecessor. Subsequently, the cassette in which the conversation
of Vikram was tape-recorded is also placed on record. The tape was
played in the court and PW-2 Vikram admitted his voice in the
cassette, however he has explained in his detailed cross-examination
that he used to be tortured by the Jailor and Doctor D. Ram of the Jail
and police officers of CID Bihar. He has also explained that he was
given a prepared statement and on their asking he was made to
rehearse of speaking from the prepared statement under coercion. He
has also explained that he had written letters to CBI and CJI.
However, one inland letter Ex.PW-2/DG and two letters written on the
pages of a notebook Ex.PW-2/DH and Ex.PW-2/DJ have been placed
on record in original along with the envelopes. These letters are sent
to DSP, CBI, New Delhi informing them of the torture meted out to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
185
him and to pressurize to make a statement blaming CBI of the torture,

which led him to become an approver. The ld. Defence Counsel also
confronted PW-2 with this statement. The Ld. Special PP argued that
this statement has not been owned by PW-2 in his cross-examination
and has explained that it had been obtained under coercion and
pressure by the officers of CID. Admittedly, in this case the charge
sheet was filed by the prosecution on 12.11.1975 and the conversation
with PW-2 with Jailor was recorded in the tape on 30.09.1978, when
the matter was sub judice before the court of CJM, Patna. I have dealt
with this issue in detail in later part of the judgment and found that
Vikram was made to read from a prepared statement under coercion.
Even otherwise, he could not be confronted with this statement, which
was tape-recorded on 30.09.1978 in view of the law laid down by a
three Honble Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in a
case State of N.C.T. of Delhi Vs. Mukesh, (2013) 2 SCC 587,
holding therein that From the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure
and the Evidence Act, it appears that the investigation and the
materials collected by the prosecution prior to the filing of the charge
sheet under Section 161 of Cr. PC are material for the purposes of
Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The expression previous
statements made used in Section 145 of the Evidence Act, cannot, in
our view, be extended to include statements made by a witness, after
the filing of the charge-sheet... The Honble Supreme Court in
this case has relied upon its illustrious judgment of a Bench of six

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
186
Honble Judges in Tahsildar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh, AIR 1959, SC 1012, wherein it was held that previous
statement would
be
such statements as made during the
investigation. In the present case, when the charge sheet had already
been filed on 12.11.1975, the subsequent statement dated 30.09.1978,
which was obtained under coercion, cannot be put to the witness i.e.
approver PW-2 in his cross-examination to confront him. In view of
the above, the net result of such of the improvements, omissions or
clarifications obtained during the cross-examination of PW-2 are
nugatory and of no consequence.
86.
To corroborate the testimony of PW-2 about his posting in the
printing press at Jaipur, Prosecution has examined certain witnesses

and it would be profitable to refer the same. This will corroborate the
deposition of PW-2 Vikram that he was part and parcel of Anand
Marg organization and remained posted in printing press of Anand
Marg Organization of Jaipur from the year 1972 to June 1974,
thereafter again came to work at Delhi Press, met A-1 and was a privy
to the crime and he made a true disclosure of the facts in his
deposition in this court.
87.
It is seen from the cross-examination that the accused instead of
trying to demolish the deposition of this witness, strangely posed

certain questions which are nothing but repetition of examination in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
187
chief which solidifies the testimony of PW-2 as regards the subject in

discussion.
88.
PW-2 further testified that he opened an account with Union
Bank of India at Jaipur in the name of Vikram Kumar only vide

application Ex.PW-2/G which bears his signatures at points A, B & F.
He also identified his signatures at point "F" on the specimen
signature card Ex.PW-2/H of the said bank. Even this fact is not
shattered in the cross examination and the same is corroborated by
documentary evidence.
89.
PW-61 Sh. Kesri Singh, an officer of Union Bank of India
deposed that in August 1973, he was posted as officer of Union Bank

of India at Jaipur and in June 1976, he was Branch Manager at Johari
Bazaar Branch of Union Bank of India at Jaipur. On 9.6.1976, he
handed over documents i.e. Saving Bank Account Opening Form and
Specimen Signature Card of SB a/c no. 2638 Ex.PW-2/G and Ex.PW2/H respectively of Vikram Kumar to the CBI officer vide Seizure
Memo Ex.PW-61/A which bear his signatures at point A. In his reexamination at Page No. 1076, he deposed that he also handed over
copy of entries in the SB A/C no. 2638 to CBI officer on 9.6.1976,
which is Mark PW-61/A and his signatures are at point A which are
Ex.PW-61/B. In his cross-examination, PW-61 testified that neither he
had seen Vikram nor he knew him. He would not be able to identify
Vikram. The account was not opened in his presence. He admitted that
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.
PW-84 Sh. J.S. Bhagaria, Inspector, CBI deposed that in June
1976 he was working as Inspector CBI at Jaipur Branch.
On
09.06.1976, he went to Union Bank of India, Jaipur and met Sh.

Kesri Singh (PW-61) and prepared correct seizure memo Ex.PW-61/A
in respect of documents Ex.PW-2/G and Ex.PW-2/H which were
taken in possession from Sh. Kesri Singh. He had also taken into
possession a true copy of the statement of account from Sh. Kesri
Singh which is Mark PW-61/A.
In his cross-examination, PW-84
denied the suggestion that these are bogus and fabricated documents.
91.
Seizure Memo dated 09.06.1976 Ex.PW-61/A by which original
Account Opening Form and Specimen Signature Card of SB Account

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.
PW-2 further testified that he opened an account in Jaipur
Central Co-operative Bank vide application form Ex.PW-2/E in the

name of Vikram Kumar and one Tara Chand Jain bearing his
signatures at points A & B and that of Tara Chand Jain at point C. He
also identified his signatures at point A on the Specimen Signature

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.
PW-63 Sh. D.K. Maharishi testified that in June 1976, he was
working as General Manager, Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank

Limited, Jaipur. On 8.6.1976, some officer of CBI came to make
enquiry regarding account in the name of Vikram Kumar operated
during the year 1972-73. On his direction, Branch Manager brought
the Account Opening Application Forms, which included one account
of Anand Printers operated by Tara Chand and Vikram Kumar. A
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-63/A was prepared and it bears his signatures
at point A. The CBI officer took three documents i.e. Accounts
Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card and Original Resolution of
Anand Printers Ex.PW-2/E, Ex.PW-2/F and Ex.PW-2/N respectively
into his possession. He (PW-63) made his correct endorsement at
Point A on these three documents. He also testified that Sh. Sat
Narain Bhukhmariya was Branch Manager and Sh. Bhukhmariya had
worked under him (PW-63) from 1963 to 1978. At that time, he had
seen him writing and signing and identified his signatures on copy of
statement of account Mark PW-63/A at points Ex.PW-63/B-1 to
Ex.PW-63/B-6.
In his cross-examination, PW-63 has denied the
suggestion that the police forged the documents Ex.PW-2/E, Ex.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,
Dy. SP/Investigation Officer asked him to go to Jaipur and find out

any account in the name of Anand Printers or Vikram Kumar in
Mercantile Co-operative Bank and Jaipur Central Co-Operative Bank
and Jaipur. Accordingly, he went to Jaipur. On 14.5.1976, he met Sh.
S.N. Bhukhmariya and requested him to find out account in the name
of Anand Printers or Vikram Kumar. He took into possession copy of
statement of account no. 239 in the name of Anand Printers operated
by Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-82/B.
Sh. S.N. Bhukhmariya signed on each page of statement of account
Ex.PW-63/B-1 to PW-63/B-6 and this account was found lying closed.
In his cross-examination, PW-63 has denied the suggestion that
Seizure Memo was prepared in local police station.
95.
Ex.PW-2/E is Application Form for Opening Current Account
No. 239 with Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. dated 20.05.1972
by Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand Jain of Anand Printers, Jaipur. It
bears the signatures of Vikram Kumar at point A and B and Tara
Chand Jain at Point C. Vikram Kumar is designated as Press Manager.
Ex.PW-2/F is Specimen Signature Card of Account No. 239 and it
bears signatures of Vikram Kumar at point A and that of Tara Chand
at point B. Ex.PW-2/E and Ex.PW-2/F are available in Folder R-4.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
192
Ex.PW-2/N is the copy of Resolution of Anand Printers dated

25.05.1972 for opening an account with Jaipur Central Co-operative
Bank to be operated by Vikram Kumar and Tara Chand Jain. This is
available in Folder R-12. Mark PW-63/A with signatures of PW-63
thereon Ex.PW-63/B-1 to Ex.PW-63/B-6 is a copy of statement of
account of Anand Printers in respect of account No. 239 issued by The
Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Limited. It is mentioned in the last
that this account was closed on 18.05.1973. This is available in
Folder R-12. Ex.PW-63/A is the Seizure Memo dated 08.06.1976 by
which Sh. J.S. Bhagaria (PW-84) of CBI seized Account Opening
Form of Account No. 239, Resolution dated 20.05.1972 of Anand
Printers and one sheet of Specimen Signature Card from Sh. D.K.
Maharishi (PW-63), GM of Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
Jaipur.
This is available in Folder R-12.
Ex.PW-82/A is the
Seizure Memo dated 14.05.1976 in respect of seizure of copy of

Statement of Account No. 239 by Sh. Hoshiyar Singh (PW-82),
Deputy SP, CBI from Sh. S.N. Bhukhmariya, Branch Manager, Jaipur
Central Co-operative Bank Limited. This is also available in Folder
R-12.
96.
PW-2 went on to say about opening of third account in
Mercantile Bank, Jaipur in the name of Anand Printers vide account

opening form Ex.PW-2/J bearing his signatures at points A & B as
Vikram Kumar. He also identified his signatures at points A & B on

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
193
the specimen signature card Ex.PW-2/K. He deposed that Anand

Printers was the press belonging to Anand Marg.
97.
PW-79 Sh. R.P. Mathur while speaking on oath deposed that in
May, 1976, he was working as Manager, Mercantile Co-operative

Bank, Jaipur and on 14.5.1976 vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/A, he
handed over Account Opening Form Ex.PW-2/J to Dy. SP Hoshiyar
Singh (PW-82). He deposed that on 9.6.1976 another officer came to
him to whom he handed over the document Ex.PW-2/K (Specimen
Signatures Card) vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/B. Nothing came out
in his cross-examination, which is worth mentioning.
98.
PW-82 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh Dy. SP, CBI in continuation of his
testimony deposed that he went to Jaipur and met Sh. R.P. Mathur,
(PW-79) Manager of the Mercantile Co-operative Bank at Jaipur on
14.5.1976. He also met Sh. S.N. Bhukhmariya. He found current
account No. 2775 in the name of Anand Printers operated by Vikram
Kumar and vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-79/A, he took into possession
Account Opening Form Ex.PW-2/J and copy of statement of account
Mark PW-82/A. In his cross-examination, he could not inform as to
who prepared copy of statement of account Mark PW-82/A. He
requested Sh. S.N. Bhukhmariya to find out about the account of
Anand Printers or Vikram Kumar. He did not know as to who
produced the statement of account Mark PW-63/A before him and
who prepared it. He denied the suggestion that he personally did not
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
194
go to Mercantile Co-operative Bank or that he asked the Bank Officer

to produce the document before him in the local police station.
Ex.PW-79/A is the Seizure Memo dated 14.05.1976 by which Sh.
Hoshiyar Singh (PW-82), Deputy SP, CBI seized Account Opening
Form, Specimen Signature Card of Sh. Vikram Kumar of Account No.
2775 and copy of statement of account from Sh. R.P. Mathur (PW79), Manager, The Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur. This is
available in Folder R-12. Ex.PW-79/B is the Seizure Memo dated
09.06.1976 by which Sh. J.S. Bhagaria seized original account
opening form in respect of account no. 2775 dated 15.12.1973 of M/s.
Anand Printers, operated by Vikram Kumar, was seized from Sh. R.P.
Mathur, Manager, The Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur.
This is available in Folder R-12. Ex.PW-2/J is Account Opening
Form in respect of Account No. 2775 dated 15.12.1973 in the name of
Vikram Kumar of M/s. Anand Printers, Jaipur bearing signatures of
Vikram Kumar at point A & B with The Mercantile Co-operative
Bank Ltd., Jaipur. This is available in Folder R-4. Ex.PW-2/K is
Specimen Signature Card of this account with The Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jaipur and it bears the signatures of Vikram
Kumar at point A and B. This is also available in Folder R-4. Mark
PW-82/A is a copy statement of account for account no. 2775 issued
by The Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur for the period from
15.12.1973 to 13.05.1974. This account was closed on 13.5.1974.
This is available in Folder R-12. This 3rd Account was closed on

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
195
13.5.1974 and it further corroborates the testimony of PW-2 that

Jaipur Printing press was out of order and in the end of June 1974, on
direction, he came to work in Delhi press printing press.
99.
On material particulars, the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 find
further independent corroboration by the deposition of PW-68 Sh.

Sudhir Kumar Basedar (Aacharya Advetanand Avadhoot). PW-68
testifies that he joined Anand Marg in the year 1962 and became
whole time worker in the year 1965 and Anand Murti gave him name
as Aacharya Advetanand Avadhoot and he was designated as Chief
Training Secretary of Sewa Dharam Mission at Varanasi. He deposed
that he was also sent to Jaipur in Proutist Federation of India (PFI), a
wing of Anand Marg. He was also posted in Delhi as Secretary of PFI
at its office C-18, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi and thereafter in
D-41, South Extension Part-1 and accused Santoshanand was the
Editor of Hindi Prout and residing in the office at D-41, South
Extension Part-1, New Delhi. He also identified accused no.1
Santoshanand and deposed that his original name was Ghanshyam
Prasad and accused no.1 was working under him. He also identified
accused no. 3 Ranjan Dwivedi since accused no. 3 used to visit their
office in South Extension Part-1 and was in their organisation. He
further deposed that Vikram used to work in the press at Ranchi and
from there he brought him to Delhi. He had imparted training to
Vikram at Varanasi and after training at Sewa Dharam Mission
Training Centre, Varanasi, Vikram was sent to Printing Press, Ranchi.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
196
He testified that original name of Vikram was Jaldhar Dass. He had

seen Vikram writing and signing.
He identified the signatures of
Vikram on above said bank documents Ex.PW-2/F at point A, Ex.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
beatings on two or three times, as he could not complete the

establishment of 191 Printing Presses. To a question by the defence
that he was given beatings a number of times, to which PW-68 replied
that he was given beatings two or three times.
He testified that
sometimes Anand Murti used to give him beatings on hands and

sometimes on his hips with a stick. He (Anand Murti) also used to
give beating to the others, who were not in a position to carry out his
orders. Anand Murti used to have a Danda (stick) with him, which he
used to take out from the almirah by asking them to spread their hands
and sometimes on their hips. He has denied the suggestion of the
defence that he left Anand Marg because of giving beatings to him by
Anand Murti. They used to address Mrs. Anand Murti as Marg Mata.
Her name was Mrs. Uma Sarkar. He admitted the suggestion of the
defence that she had defected from Anand Marg. He was not aware if
Mrs. Uma Shankar had organized a parallel organization.
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
197
addressed a press conference in the presence of Marg Mataji and he

did not call Mrs. Uma Shankar there. He did not join any procession
at boat club but self-immolation took place to press for release of
Anand Murti. He deposed that there was no editorial board and his
name did not appear as editor on the paper published from D-41,
South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi, but his articles did appear in the
magazine with his name. He has denied the suggestion that he was
never in this organization or that he never lived or worked at D-41,
South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi, that he embezzled or stolen the
funds of the organization. He has also denied the suggestion that he
did not know Vikram or that he had not seen him writing or signing,
or that he has deposed at the instance of CBI and due to hatred
towards the organization of Anand Marg or that for that reason he had
wrongly identified the signatures of Vikram. In his further crossexamination, he testified that he did not have any quarrel with
Santoshanand Avadhoot or others residing in D-41, South Extension,
Part-I, New Delhi, before he left. He was having cordial relations
with Santoshanand Avadhoot and others during his stay at D-41,
South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. Santoshanand and others did not
give him any threat during his stay in D-41, South Extension, Part-I,
New Delhi.
He has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly
identified the writing of Santoshanand.

101. PW-68 has identified the writing and signatures of PW-2 on
these bank documents Ex PW-2/F at point A, Ex PW-2/E at point B &
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
198
C, Ex PW-2/J at point A & B, Ex PW-2/K at point A & B, Ex PW-2/G

at point A, B & F and Ex PW-2/H at point K and thus it corroborates
the statement of PW-2 that he was sent to Jaipur in a press of Anand
Marg Organization namely Anand Printers. He opened 3 different
bank accounts at Jaipur with three different banks i.e. Jaipur Central
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur, Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Jaipur & Union Bank of India, Jaipur. However, Vikram Kumar (PW2) has opened the account in Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
with another Anand Margi Sh. Tara Chand Jain, who has been
examined by the defence as DW-8.
102. While dissecting the evidence of the above witness PW-68 in
the backdrop of the cross-examination conducted, it is very clear that
this witness was a member and a close associate of the founder Anand
Murti. The cross examination itself concretizes the case of prosecution
about the Anand Marg, its wings, the rude behavior of its founder and
the participation of PW-2 in the organisation. The cross-examination
never could backlash the deposition of PW-68 that he was associated
with the organisation. Further, it gets solidified that PW-68 was
assigned with the task of establishing 191 Printing Presses of the
Organization throughout the length and breadth of the country. He
was unable to achieve those targets. He was also being caned by the
cult head. The line of cross-examination shows that the founder head
was treating him badly. The line of cross-examination does not go to
demolish that this witness had a close acquaintance with the writings
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
199
of approver PW-2 Vikram and accused Santoshanand. The defence

only gave suggestions that he was not aware of the writings of these
two persons, but the defence in their very cross-examination got
elicited that he was associated with the organization and that he was
given beatings by the founder head. The defence could not shake the
testimony of PW-68 with regard to his posting in Sewa Dharam
Mission at Varanasi or at Ranchi or at D-41, South Extension, Part-I,
New Delhi. The line of cross-examination manifestly assures that this
witness was closely associated and knew the bickering between the
cult head and his wife. Such was the intimate association as is elicited
by the defence. In fact, the defence went to put counter and contrary
suggestions to this witness. After careful scrutiny of the testimony of
this witness, this court finds no reason to disbelieve his testimony as
regards his association with Anand Marg, his knowledge with regard
to the founder and the objects of Anand Marg, its activities like
printing the propaganda material, its various wings and particularly his
knowledge and acquaintance with regard to handwriting and
signatures of accused Santoshanand and approver PW-2, who were
working with him in the organization particularly and specifically in at
D-41, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi and with Vikram at Sewa
Dharam Mission Centre of the Organization at Varanasi.
103. The testimony of PW-2 finds further corroboration from the
deposition by defence witness DW-8 Sh. Tara Chand Jain. Therefore,
this court finds appropriate to mention what has emerged in his
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.
After Vikram Kumar (PW-2)
joined the press, it went under the losses and at the orders of Centre,
he removed him after October 1974. At the time of removal of Vikram
Kumar (PW-2), there was no money in tha t bank account. It has come
in his cross-examination that he joined Anand Marg in 1962 as a full
timer. The first bank account of the organization was opened in the
year 1972 in Central Co-operative Bank after Vikram Kumar (PW-2)
came to Jaipur. He admitted his signatures on the document Ex.PW-

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
202
deposition of DW-8 not only suggests that testimony of PW-2 to be

truthful but also confirm that PW-68 is also a reliable witness. At the
cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to reiterate that PW-68 has
identified the handwriting and signatures of Approver Vikram (PW-2)
on various before-mentioned documents and also of accused
Santoshanand on his writings.
105. The depositions of approvers PW-1 and PW-2 also find
independent corroboration from the statement of PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal
Prakash. PW-33 testified that he joined Anand Marg at Bhagalpur in
the year 1957 when he was a student. He joined service with M/s. Tata
Iron and Steel Company in January 1960 at Jamshedpur, and in the
year 1966 on asking of Anand Murti, he resigned. He deposed that
there was Angika Samaj wing of Prout. In January 1970, he was sent
by Anand Murti as Office Secretary of PBI, Delhi. He remained there
up to October 1971. There was an Office of PFI (Proutist Forum of
India) a wing of Anand Marg at D-41, South Extension, Part-1 and
Prout Daily and magazine Education and Culture used to be
published from this place and accused No.1 Santoshanand was the
Editor of this newspaper Prout. The original name of accused
Santoshanand was Ghanshyam Prasad and name of his father was
Narinder Narain Verma. Sh. Narinder Narain Verma used to work in
LIC and was also a Journalist with Vishwabandhu, a daily paper
published from Patna. Sh. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar/Anand Murti was the
founder of Anand Marg, who propounded the theory of Progressive
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
203
Utilization Theory commonly known as PROUT and he created five

wings to propagate his theory which are BSS (Bishav Shanti Sena)
(2 nd name Volunteer Social Service), ERAWS, PFI (Proutist Forum
of India), PBI (Proutist Block of India) and SDM (Sewa Dharam
Mission). He identified accused Santoshanand in the court and stated
that he used to meet Santoshanand and he saw him in Maha Chakra at
Patna. He also identified accused no.2 Sudevanand in the court and
stated that he was Deputy Chief Secretary, North Region of PBI. He
also identified PW-2 Vikram and stated that he used to sell the
publications as a full time Anand Margi. He also identified accused
Gopalji. He stated that he can identify accused Ranjan Dwivedi and
counsel for accused Ranjan Dwivedi stated that he does not
challenge/dispute his identity. (Meaning thereby had Ranjan Dwivedi
been present in the court he would have been identified by PW-33).
106. In his cross-examination, the version of PW-33 is never
shattered as regards his joining Anand Marg at Bhagalpur in the year
1957 as a student or that there was Angika Samaj wing of Prout. All
the other aspects of his different capacities in the organization, the
wings of the organisation, its publications, the role of A-1 as the
Editor of "Prout" at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi, his
capability to identify to PW-2, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-7 goes
unrebutted. The deposition of this witness that A-2 was the Deputy
Chief Secretary, Northern Region of PBI and his competence in
identifying him are also not shattered in the cross-examination. The
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
204
cross-examination failed to destabilize the say of PW-33 as regards the

father of A-1 having worked with LIC as well as a Journalist for
"Vishwabandhu". The defence has tried to extract full address of his
shop where he was carrying the business of clothes and PW-33
declined the request of the learned Defence Counsel for security
reasons.
107. However, PW-33 deposed that he was having his shop at Patna
as well as in Delhi. Then the witness on asking of the learned Defence
Counsel declined to give the names of his children for security
reasons. In fact, by making such bone testing cross-examination as
regards the address of the witness and children (as on the date of
deposition) throws a clumsy situation giving room to different
interpretations including the mal-intentions of the accused, when the
defence chose to cross-examine without questioning the identity of the
witness.
108. The statements of both approvers PW-1 and PW-2 have been
further independently corroborated by the statement of PW-11 Sh. Raj
Singh. He deposed that in the year 1967, he took Diksha of Anand
Marg from one Aacharya Lallan Singh at Delhi and in that connection,
he used to visit North Avenue for attending Dharam Chakra for doing
Sadhna. Sh. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar used to be called Anand Murti as
well as Baba and Tarak Brahma and he had Darshan of Baba at 93,
North Avenue which was the residence of Sh. Shashi Ranjan, MP, in
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
205
the year 1970. He (PW-11) testified that he was residing at D-29,

Ward No.1, Mehrauli, New Delhi and his residence was at an isolated
place adjoining abadi. On the other side of his residence, there was
jungle and graveyard and for this reason, Avadhoots used to come to
his residence to do kapalik Sadhna during amavas nights and for such
Sadhna, the Avadhoots used to have a bag containing human skulls
and some daggers as sadhna used to be done in jungle. He also
testified that preaching of Anand Marg was to establish a Sadvipra
Samaj i.e. the rule of moralist. He deposed that their preachings
included worshiping truth, observation of celibacy and regular
sadhna/prayer and they called only those persons as moralist, who
were primarily Anand Margies and were strictly following a moral
code. PW-11 further deposed that he knew accused Santoshanand
present in the Court since the year 1968-1969 (correctly identified).
During those days, accused Santoshanand was working as an Editor of
Prout of Anand Marg, which was published from premises No. D-41,
South Extension Part-I, New Delhi and that the said accused used to
come regularly to his residence for Kapalik sadhna. He had also seen
Vikram as he used to be present at D-41, South Extension Part-I, (New
Delhi), whenever he went there.
109. In his cross-examination, PW-11 admitted the suggestion of the
defence that he made a statement before the Magistrate since he was
assured of protection by the CBI. He deposed that he was assured of
protection by Sh. Puri of CBI. He testified that in the year 1973,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
206
police came to his house once or twice to enquire about Santoshanand

in connection with self-immolation of Dineshwaranand as to whether
Santoshanand visited his house and he replied in the negative. Police
visited him one or two days after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand
to find out whether Santoshanand was present in his house or not. He
did not know at that time whether Santoshanand was a Proclaimed
Offender. He was unaware of any Sanstha (Society) by the name of
PBI. He however knew about one paper Prout being published by
the organisation. He was aware of a training institute at Banaras. He
deposed that the persons working in the press used to live in the upper
premises. It is Vikram, Santoshanand and one Dada @ Deen Dayal
apart from the others, were working in the Press. Vikram used to
deliver Prout at his place and sometimes he himself used to collect
it. Avadhoots generally used to visit his house at Mehrauli even prior
to 1973. From 1967, Avadhoots used to visit his house almost
regularly every Amavas night for Kapalic Sadhna. Between 1973 &
1974, after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand, one or two
Avadhoots visited his house. He did not visit D-41, South Extension
Part-I during this period. He was also not getting Prout paper
regularly. The defence has not disputed the version of PW-11 that he
had been a Anand Margi and his residence was situated at Mehrauli
where Avadhoots including accused Santoshanand used to come
frequently for doing Sadhna. His competency to identify A-1, A-3
and PW-2 was never derided by the defence.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
207
110. The evidence of PW-11 is in consistence with the testimonies of

PW-33 and PW-68, which material particulars gets corroborated with
the testimony of PW-2.
The defence instead of shattering the
consistent and coherent testimony of this witness only had redrawn the
entire examination-in-chief.
From the opening lines of the cross-
examination, it is felt that the defence wanted to project that this

witness is tainted since he met certain CBI officers. It should be borne
in mind that their very cross-examination suggests that this witness
had sought protection considering the gravity of the charges against
the accused.
The defence has utterly failed to establish that this
witness is tainted or tutored or inimically disposed towards the

accused.
111. PW-13 Sh. Shiv Raj deposed that he has been an Anand Margi
since 1964, when he took Diksha from Aacharya Deepanand. He
joined as Research Assistant, Shimla and came to Delhi in September
1972 for obtaining Ph.D. degree and stayed in the Hostel of Indian
Agricultural Research Institute (PUSA), New Delhi until 29.05.1975.
Aacharya Santoshanand Avadhoot used to visit him and at that time,
he used to sport long hair, beard and mustaches and he used to be in
attire of Avadhoot. He also used to wear hearing aid. (This witness
has correctly identified accused Santoshanand in the court by pointing
towards him). In those days, Santoshanand was editor of paper Prout
published from D-41, South Extension Part I, New Delhi. He also
deposed that Anand Murti was in jail and Santoshanand used to tell
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
208
about the philosophy of Prout. Santoshanand used to say something

should be done to get Anand Murti released.
112. In his cross-examination, PW-13 replied that office of Anand
Marg is situated at D-41, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi only. He
came in contact with Santoshanand after coming to Delhi and very
much impressed from his talks. He met accused Santoshanand for the
first time in October 1972 in Delhi in the Hostel. Prior to that, he
knew Santoshanand only by his name and he had not seen his face.
He was introduced to him by his two friends namely Sh. Ranbir Singh
and Sh. Kamal Dhari, while they were sitting in the room of Kamal
Dhari. PW-13 further deposed that Santoshanand continued visiting
them in the Hostel between January 1973 and April 1973.
113. The deposition of PW-13 that he had been an Anand Margi
since 1967 or that he shifted to Delhi in 1972 and residing in hostel or
about posting of A-1 as Editor of Prout at D-41, South Extension-I,
New Delhi or visit of A-1 to PW-13 in his saffron attire and
appearance of a mendicant or his competency to identify PW-13 are
not shattered in his cross-examination by the defence. His crossexamination elicited reiteration of the facts deposed by the witness.
114. PW-34 Jagat Ram Dogra was the Junior Instructor, ITI, Indore
(MP) and he joined Anand Marg in the year 1967. He deposed that he
was given Diksha by Aacharya Visheshwaranand (PW-1) in the year

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
209
1967. PW-34 identified PW-1 Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan

Srivastava in the court, and stated that in the year 1973, PW-1 came to
him and enquired whether he could arrange arms and ammunitions.
He (PW-34) replied that he would see to it in case of need. At that
time, PW-1 gave him Rs.400/- to purchase pistol or revolver. PW-1
came to him in the month of August 1973 in plain dress, though,
earlier he used to meet him in Bhagva dress. PW-1 again came to him
after 15 or 20 days and he enquired whether he (PW-34) could make
arrangement of the arms or not, to which he replied in negative. PW-1
demanded back his money from him. He (PW-34) had already spent
the amount and he assured PW-1 that he might leave his address and
he would send the amount by money order. Later on, he sent back the
amount by money order.
115. In his cross-examination, PW-34 asserted that he stopped active
participation in Anand Marg somewhere in 1974. He admitted the
suggestion of the defence that he lost faith in Anand Murti Ji after
coming to know about his arrest in the newspapers. He could not
remember the date, month and year of the arrest of Anand Murti Ji.
He testified about attending one Dharam Maha Chakra but could
not remember its date, month and year.
He was not able to
differentiate between Aacharya and Avadhoot, but stated that the word
Aacharya is used with an Avadhoot. He was detained in MISA in
the year 1975 from Jabalpur, but he could not remember the date and
month, when he was detained.
At that time, there was ban on

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
210
Government servants joining Anand Marg. He was released from

detention under MISA in the month of January 1977. His statement
was recorded by CBI two or three days prior his detention under
MISA.
He has denied the suggestion that he was released from
detention under MISA only on giving promise that he will stick to his
statement, which he gave to CBI. He has denied the suggestion that
he was not attending the office since August 1975. He admitted the
suggestion of the defence that the Magistrate recorded his statement
on 26.09.1975. He replied that he was arrested in the evening of
26.09.1975 after sunset. He has denied the suggestion that Aacharya
Visheshwaranand is an agent of CBI or that he did not have any
meeting with him or that he did not have any talk with him or that he
(PW-1) did not give him (PW-34) Rs.400/- or that he (PW-34) did not
send back this amount to him (PW-1).
This witness denied the
suggestion that PW-1, who was present in the court is not the
Visheshwaranand.
He testified that he did not tell CBI in his
statement (u/s. 161 Cr. PC) that he could identify Aacharya

Visheshwaranand or that he was given Diksha by the said person.
(When PW-34
was confronted with his previous statement
Ex.PW34/DA, it was not found recorded). He deposed that he was not

given any other name while taking Diksha.
116. This witness (PW-34) has been examined by the prosecution to
prove
the
identity
of
PW-1
Madan
Mohan
Srivastava
as
Visheshwaranand of Anand Marg and PW-34 has specifically deposed

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
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
213
all a fact in issue to be considered for the purposes of unraveling the

truth concerning the charges. This improvement pointed out is only
peripheral in nature and only surrounding a shadow which is
unconcerned with the charges, this court is unable to sail with the
argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that these improvements would
strike at the very root of prosecution story.
119. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused Santoshanand
admitted that he is an Anand Margi. He stated that there was no office
of Anand Marg at D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi, but was
of Prout and he was sometimes the Editor thereof. He also admitted
that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti used to be called as
Baba being the founder of Anand Marg Organisation. He further
admitted that Anand Murti propounded the theory of PROUT. He
stated that the founder was considered by his followers as 'Tarak
Brahma' that is God incarnate like Krishna and Shiva. He also stated
that there were different cadres of Anand Margies, namely, whole
timers, Aacharya, Avadhoots and Anand Margies. He admitted that he
was editor of the monthly magazine 'Education and Culture' and at that
time 'PROUT' was a weekly and not a daily magazine. He only denies
that D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi was used as office of
Anand Marg and ground floor was used for printing press, first floor
was used for editorial purpose and Anand Margies used to stay at
Anand Marg Ashram situated at Hari Nagar and Anand Margies used
to stay there. He also admitted that he was working in Delhi as Editor
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
214
of English and Hindi Prout. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi while

answering under Section 313 Cr. PC stated that dozens of Sanyasis of
Anand Marg used to stay at D-41, a three-storey building and Dharam
Chakra used to be conducted on the 1st Floor of the building which he
attended few times. However, Ranjan Dwivedi could not say whether
Santoshanand used to reside at D-41, South Extension Part II, New
Delhi permanently.
120. It is established from the testimony of Approvers PW-1 and
PW-2 that Prout has been a wing of Anand Marg Organization. This
fact has also been corroborated by PW-11, PW-13, PW-33, and PW68. It has also come in the testimony of PW-2 that Santoshanand used
to live at D-41, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi and there was
printing press on the ground floor and office of Proutist Forum of
India on the first floor. It is also established from their deposition that
first floor building was also used for boarding and lodging. Accused
Ranjan Dwivedi also used to live in this building for 2 or 3 days or
sometimes only for two hours. The statement of PW-68 on the point
that Santoshanand, Editor of Hindi Prout and of English Prout
Weekly was residing in the office D-41, South Extension Part-I, New
Delhi, went unrebutted and unchallenged by the defence. Thus, the
explanation of Santoshanand becomes not satisfactory.
121. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC accused Sudevanand stated that
he is a follower of Anand Marg. He admitted that Prabhat Ranjan
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
216
utilization. He further admitted that Anand Murti was considered by

his followers as 'Tarak Brahma'. He stated that he never participated
in any of the Dharam Maha Chakras. When asked about different
cadres of Anand Margies namely (1) Whole timers (2) Aacharya @
Avadhoot & (3) Anand Margies, he stated that he has been simply an
initiate and had never been a member of Anand Marg Parcharak
Sangh or its cadres. He admitted that on becoming Avadhoot, one had
to wear loongi, kurta, turban of saffron colour and had to sporting long
flowing beard and moustaches and carry a kirpan in his hand. He
admitted that few times he visited D-41, South Extension, Part-1 for
attending Dharam Chakra.
He stated that dozens of Sanyasis of
Anand Margies used to stay at D-41, a three-storey building and

Dharam Chakra used to be conducted on the 1st Floor of the building
which he attended few times. He stated that he could not say whether
Santoshanand used to reside at D-41, South Extension Part II, New
Delhi permanently. While replying question no.201, he admitted that
he used to visit Anand Marg office at D-41, South Extension, Part-1,
New Delhi.
He further stated that after he developed inclination
towards Anand Marg philosophy, he used to attend their spiritual

congregations known as Dharma Chakra as and when invited by
them. He stated that he started visiting the this place at New Delhi in
the year 1973 when he shifted to Delhi.
A close look of his
explanations manifestly makes it clear that this witness has been 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
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
220
Anand Marg participated in the rally. Firstly, they had assembled in

Parade Ground opposite Red Fort and from there a procession was
taken to Boat Club. Sudevanand, Ranjan Dwivedi and Santoshanand
joined the rally apart from many other Anand Margies. Some of them
were arrested at Boat Club and he himself was arrested from D-41,
South Extension-I, New Delhi. At that time, Sudevanand came from
U.P. and many persons were arrested from D-41, South Extension,
Part-I, New Delhi. He remained in jail for one and a half months.
When he was released, Sudevanand was still in Jail. After his release
from Tihar Jail in connection with April, 1973 rally in Delhi, he
returned to Jaipur and came back to D-41, South Extension at the end
of June 1974.
128. In his statement U/s 313 Cr. PC, accused Santoshanand
admitted that Anand Murti was arrested in Ranchi Bomb Case and
defector's murder case in the year 1971. He admitted that Anand Murti
continued in custody and his bail application was rejected up to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and prayer for transfer of that case outside the
State of Bihar was also turned down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
He stated that in April 1973, a rally was organised in Delhi not for the
release of Anand Murti but to show the protest for administering
poison to Anand Murti in jail.

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
Dineshwaranand was committed on the day following the rally in

Delhi.
133. The testimony of PW-13, which corroborates the version of
both approvers PW-1 and PW-2, is also corroborated by explanation
tendered by accused Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement under Section
313 Cr. PC when he admitted that rally was organized at Boat Club to
put pressure on the Government to secure the release of Anand Murti.
Juxtaposing this consolidated testimony, the explanation offered by
accused Santoshanand in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC that
rally was intended to protest not only for poisoning his cult head in the
jail but also for pressurizing his release is only to mislead this court.
134. PW-1 has further deposed about self-immolation by the cult
members of the Anand Marg Organization. He knew that Divyanand
Avadhoot and Dineshwaranand Avadhoot have committed selfimmolation for release of Anand Murti at Patna and Delhi
respectively. PW-2 also testified that he knew Dineshwaranand as he
used to visit at D-41, South ExtensionI, and subsequently
Dineshwaranand self-immolated at Purana Qila, New Delhi. PW-2
deposed that when he visited again at the above address, he came to
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
224
against his co-accused Santoshanand, who was declared a Proclaimed

Offender. He admitted that he was Defence Counsel and Sh. K.L.
Bhagat was the Prosecutor in the court. While replying Question No.
124, he also admitted that Dineshwaranand committed selfimmolation at Purana Quila, New Delhi and Santoshanand was
declared a Proclaimed Offender. He was defending Puniyanand and
Gunadishanand in self-immolation case. In his statement under
Section 313 Cr. PC accused Ranjan Dwivedi while replying Question
No. 66 stated that he did not know accused Santoshanand prior to his
arrest and he met him for the first time in jail after his arrest in this
case. While replying other questions he also stated that Santoshanand
used to reside in D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi.
While
answering question no. 366, Ranjan Dwivedi stated that he was

instructed to appear for Santoshanand and make pairvi in selfimmolation case then being conducted at Parliament Street Court, but
he does not recall meeting him since at that time he was hiding as an
accused and was later acquitted. He also stated that he used to write
him at times being helpful as a lawyer and also a fellow Margi. While
replying question No. 251, he stated that at the instance of Sh. Ram
Tanuk Singh, Advocate and the legal secretary of the Anand Marg he
started taking up their cases in Delhi and in this connection he used to
visit D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. PW-68 Sh. Sudhir
Kumar Basedar also testified in his cross-examination that there were

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
225
self-immolations by some members of Anand Marg to press the

release of Anand Murti.
136. Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, if read along with testimony of
PW-11, PW-13 and PW-68 coupled with the explanation given by
Ranjan Dwivedi, would definitely leads one to conclude that
Dineshwaranand committed self-immolation in the year 1973 inside
Purana Quila, New Delhi.
137. It is thus established that Anand Margies did hold a rally at Boat
Club, New Delhi to pressurize the government to release Anand
Murti/Baba. It has come in the testimony of PW-1 that this rally was
organized at Boat Club New Delhi in the month of February 1973.
However, PW-2 deposed that this rally was held in the month of April
1973. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi states that this rally was held in the
month of February 1973. An FIR No. 209 dated 24.04.1973 PS Tilak
Marg under Section 306/120-B IPC was registered against
Santoshanand and others. This fact of registration of FIR because of
self-immolation by Dineshwaranand is also admitted by accused
Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. PC.
Accused Ranjan Dwivedi had stated that this FIR was registered on
24.04.1973 against Santoshanand who was declared a Proclaimed
Offender. Since Dineshwaranand committed self-immolation, the day
following the rally as stated by PW-11 and accordingly an FIR was
registered on 24.04.1973, it has to be concluded that the rally was
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
226
organized at Boat Club New Delhi to pressurize the Government to

release Anand Murti from jail in the month of April 1973.
15) Rally at Patna and gherao of Abdul Gaffoor
138. The evidence of PW-1 does not help in any manner to render a
finding that there was a Rally at Patna or about gherao of Abdul
Gaffoor, CM of Bihar during 1973 since he deposed that he was not
present.
139. The testimony of PW-122 Sh. L.P. Tiwari, a Police Inspector
PS Kotwali, Patna, reflects that in July 1973, on 26.7.1973, an entry
Ex.PW-122/A was made in the Station Diary concerning the proposed
procession of Anand Margies. He also deposed that in his presence on
26.7.1973 an order of SDM, Patna U/s. 144 Cr. PC was received,
which is also incorporated in Station Diary Ex.PW-122/B. He further
deposed that on 27.7.1973, a procession of Anand Margies started
from Dinakar Community Hall and the police escorted 400 Anand
Margies wearing saffron clothes, who were raising slogans like JAIL
KA PHATAK TUTEGA ANAND MURTI CHHUTEGA and others.
He further deposed that R.P. Sharma, SI was deputed at the residence
of Chief Minister, Bihar. On 28.7.1973 at about 06.00 AM, he was
informed that 500/600 Anand Margies surrounded the residence of
Chief Minister, Bihar. He along with Sh. M.P. Dubey and others
rushed to the residence of the Chief Minister, Bihar and found Anand
Margies squatted there in large number at the main gate. They were
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
227
not permitted by police to go inside.
He also stated that Anand
Margies were carrying banners, Bhalaajs, Lathies and Pharsas at the

other gate. Sh. Nagender Tiwari, SDM took three representatives of
Anand Margies to the CM, who heard them.
140. He further deposed that the persons present outside the
residence of the CM attempted forcible entry to the residence and the
SDM warned them of promulgation Section 144 Cr. PC, directed them
to disperse, but to no avail. SDM declared their assembly unlawful
and protestors started brick bating, used Lathies, resulting in injuries
to Constables. 38 Anand Margies were arrested and a case No. 68
dated 28.7.1973 was registered with PS Kotwali, Patna vide FIR
Ex.PW-122/D.
141. In his cross-examination, PW-122 Sh. L.P. Tiwari answered
that it would not be possible for him to identify any one from amongst
those 39 persons arrested in that case No. 68 dated 28.07.1973 of PS
Kotwali Patna, due to lapse of time. He stated that original of Ex.PW122/D must be in the FIR register. In his statement to CBI Officer
(U/s. 161 Cr. PC) he had only referred the residence of Chief Minister,
without giving the name of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor as Chief Minister. He
has denied the suggestion that he intentionally introduced the name of
Sh. Abdul Gaffoor as Chief Minister at the instance of CBI officers.
He stated that in his statement to CBI officers, he informed that Anand
Margies were raising the slogans JAIL KA PHATAK TUTEGA
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
228
ANAND MOORTI CHHUTEGA. When the attention of the witness

was drawn to his statement Ex.PW-122/DA (u/s. 161 Cr. PC), he
admitted that there is no mention of this slogan specifically and
reference was only to rising of emotional slogans. He has denied the
suggestion that he has intentionally introduced this fact at the instance
of CBI. His version that SDM took three Anand Margies to the Chief
Minister, who gave them a patient hearing and asked them to meet
him in his chamber in the Secretariat at about 10.30 AM, was not
found recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr. PC.
142. In his cross-examination, the defence has not demolished the
fact of incidents on 26.07.1973, the procession of Anand Margies,
conversance at the CM residence, promulgation of Section 144 Cr PC
and consequent registration of the case. The deposition of this witness
PW-122 further corroborate the prosecution case that prior to criminal
conspiracy in question, there were demonstrations, rallies, protest and
self-immolations by Anand Margies to pressurize the government to
release Anand Murti from the Jail, who was arrested in the murder of a
defector.
16) Formation of Revolutionary Group
143. PW-1 deposed that he knew Vinayanand Avadhoot even earlier
and he was the Principal of Anand Marg Primary School at Banaras
and Rudranand Avadhoot was a senior worker of Anand Marg.
He
testified that at Patliputra, he and Vinayanand discussed and expressed

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
229
dissatisfaction about working of seniors Asimanand and Keshavanand,

as they could not secure release of Anand Murti from jail. They met
Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot, who told them that all peaceful
measures or methods to get Anand Murti released had failed and plan
to form a Revolutionary Group had been prepared. He deposed that
aim of this Revolutionary Group was to get released Anand Murti by
violent means, holding rallies and self-immolations. He deposed that
Rudranand told them that all those who were creating obstructions in
release of Anand Murti were enemies of the Organisation and they
were immoralists and deserved to be liquidated. He also stated that on
persuasion of Rudranand, both of them (PW-1 and Vinayanand) joined
the Revolutionary Group. Rudranand advised them to resign from the
Organization because in case of their arrest, it would bring a bad name
for the Organization and Anand Murti. As such, they resigned from
the Organisation by applications addressed to the General Secretary,
Anand Marg by July 1973.
Rudranand advised them to discard
saffron attire and get their beard and moustaches shaved and long hair
cut-short, and revert to plain clothes. Rudranand rechristened him as
Vijay and Vinayanand as Jagdish. He testified that real name of
Vinayanand was Ram Mohan.
They acted as per instructions of
Rudranand, who also told them that Aacharya Ram Aasrey

(Proclaimed Offender) has also joined the Revolutionary Group. He
knew Gopalji prior to that as they both used to attend VSS Camp.
Gopalji was Store Keeper at VSS Camp. PW-1 further testified that

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
230
he
himself,
Vinayanand
(Proclaimed
Offender),
Arteshanand,
Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Tyageshwaranand and Ram Kumar

(Proclaimed Offender) went to Bhagalpur. At Bhagalpur, near Janta
Library, they met Gopalji at his house. There, Santoshanand told PW1 that there was one Saroj Kumar Biswas at Bangaon and he (PW-1)
should go and bring arms and ammunitions from him. Santoshanand
gave him a letter addressed to Saroj Kumar Biswas. Santoshanand
then talked to Gopalji in presence of all of them that all the arms and
ammunitions collected shall be kept at the house at Chautham.
Santoshanand also told Gopalji that for the release of Anand Murti, a
Revolutionary Group had been formed and it has been resolved that
some persons were to be put to death and so, arms and ammunitions
was to be collected and kept at his house at Chautham. Gopalji was
also a staunch worker of VSS. At that time, Gopalji informed them
that their meetings would take place at both places at Chautham and at
a farmhouse belonging to him situated across River Kosi. At that
time,
he
himself,
Vinayanand,
Arteshanand,
Sudevanand,
Santoshanand, Tyageshwaranand and Ram Kumar were present.

144. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied that he had narrated
before the Magistrate that the aim of the Revolutionary Group was to
secure release of Baba by violent means like rallies and selfimmolations. He stated before the Magistrate u/s 164 of Cr. PC that
Budheshawaranand @ Tyageshwaranand told him that house of
Gopalji at Chautham would be appropriate as meeting place or
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
231
informed that Gopalji had come to Bhagalpur. (The witness was

confronted and this was not found recorded in his statement Ex.PW1/X about coming of Gopalji to Bhagalpur). He replied that as far as
he remembered, he had stated in his statement u/s 164 of Cr. PC that
in the presence of all of them Accused Santoshanand told Gopalji that
all the arms and ammunitions collected by them shall be kept at his
house at Chautham. (When confronted with his previous statement
Ex.PW-1/X, the name of the Gopalji and house were not found
mentioned). He had not stated in his statement under Section 164 of
Cr. PC that Santoshanand told Gopalji for release of Anand Murti, a
Revolutionary Group had been formed or that some persons were to
be put to death. He answered in his cross-examination that his name
was rechristened as Vijay from the day he joined the Revolutionary
Group.
145. The comprehensive and careful analysis of the evidence as
regards the formation of Revolutionary Group is to be appreciated as a
backdrop or the genesis leading to the conspiracy alleged by the
prosecution. There is no other angle by which this can be understood
other than the backdrop of events leading to the hatching of
conspiracy at Trimohan in October 1973. There is no formal charge of
forming Revolutionary Group but the backdrop is clearly stated by the
Prosecution by adducing the evidence of PW-1 which is discussed
above. The line of cross-examination does not discredit certain
members having avowed to secure the release of their cult head being
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
233
themselves like common man. PW-2 on asking of Santoshanand went

to Bhagalpur and delivered a packet & a letter in envelop to
Budheshawaranand. PW-2 testified that one Sukhdev Sahu (PW15)
had rented a room where Budheshawaranand was living with him and
he stayed in that room for 8/10 days and after 1 or 2 days,
Budheshawaranand brought him to Chautham at the house of Gopalji
and met him and he correctly identified him in the court. He did not
know him prior to that. At a distance 5 or 7 KM, Gopalji had a
farmhouse at Tilihar. Budheshawaranand introduced him to Gopalji as
a confident and devoted member of Revolutionary Group and he
himself was introduced to Gopalji as a member of Revolutionary
Group and that he had been sent there by Santoshanand. He came
back to Bhagalpur with Budheshawaranand after staying for one day
at Chautham.
147. In the cross-examination of PW-2, it is found that there was no
requirement to resign from the membership as Revolutionary Group
was the part of Anand Marg Organization. It is further revealed that
their Baba was confined in Jail.
In order to get him released, a
Revolutionary Group was formed and Santoshanand told them that by

eliminating the big personalities of the Government i.e. Ministers and
Smt. Indira Gandhi, the Government would be perplexed and they
would be able to secure release of Baba. Thus, the cross-examination
only fortifies that say of this second witness also about the formation

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
234
of Revolutionary Group and the accused could not elicit anything to

discredit him.
17) A-1, A-2, PW-1 & PW-2 turning incognito.
148. PW-1 deposed that after taking Diksha as Avadhoot in the year
1965, he donned the prescribed dress of a Monk in saffron colour,
wore lungi, kurta, turban and sporting long beard and mustaches and
grown long hair, carried a kirpan. In the last week of July 1973,
Rudranand persuaded him and Vinayanand to be Revolutionaries and
having acted upon his advice, both discarded the attire and appearance
of a Monk and took to plain clothes, rechristened them as "Vijay" and
"Jagdish" respectively. Rudranand also informed them that Aacharya
Ram Aasrey (Proclaimed Offender) had also joined the Revolutionary
Group. He further testified that Arteshanand Avadhoot and
Sudevanand Avadhoot, present in the court, were found present in
plain clothes at the house of Ram Kumar when PW-1 visited his house
at Trimohan along with Vinayanand and Shankaranand. PW-1 had
seen them in saffron robes earlier. PW-1 further testified that when he
returned from Indore and came to Trimohan, after 2 or 3 days,
Santoshanand came there and he was not sporting beard and long hair
and before that, he had seen him only as an Avadhoot (with saffron
clothes etc.) as he is identified in the court with the same saffron robes
and appearance.

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
the saffron clothes). He
(Santoshanand) got his haircut short and his beard was shaved.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
236
Santoshanand was putting a hearing aid in his ear. Santoshanand

called him initially and he identified his voice and met him. He
recognized him as he used to wear the hearing aid while working in
the printing press at South Extension. Santoshanand asked him as to
how he (PW-2) had come to Delhi and he (PW-2) replied that Jaipur
printing press was not in working order and so he was working on the
printing press at South Extension. Then, Santoshanand told him that
there were so many persons to work at the press but they wanted
reliable persons for the release of Baba. He (PW-2) told him that he
(PW-2) had sacrificed his life for the Baba and would be prepared to
do anything for his sake. Santoshanand asked him to meet him the
following day in the morning at the gate of Pusa Institute. Next
morning at 8 Oclock, he reached the gate of Pusa Institute where he
found Santoshanand and one Shiv Raj (PW-13) standing there. All the
three went to hostel room of Shiv Raj. Shiv Raj (PW-13) left for his
office. At that time, Santoshanand told him that it was difficult to get
Baba released by legal means and so many rallies and selfimmolations had been resorted to which had no effect on the
Government and the only way left was armed revolution by which
they would shake and compel the Government to release Baba.
Santoshanand also advised him to get his long haircut short and beard
shaved so that nobody should be able to recognize him that he was a
Anand Margi. Santoshanand at that time also told him that henceforth,
he would be called Subir and he himself would be known as Vinod.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
237
Santoshanand also told him that so far Sudevanand, Arteshanand and

Budheshawaranand had already joined the Revolutionary Group and
they had also discarded their saffron attire as Avadhoot and they had
been dressing themselves like a common man.
151. PW-2 further testified that Sudevanand also used to appear in
South Extension Building, Delhi in the similar clothes as he was clad
in the Court during evidence when he identified him.
152. It is found in the testimony of PW-11 Sh. Raj Singh that
Santoshanand used to visit his residence regularly for doing Sadhna.
After self-immolation by Dineshwaranand in the year 1973,
Santoshanand stopped coming to his residence for one year.
Thereafter, in April 1974, he came to his house at about 10 or 11 PM.
At that time, he was wearing a plain shirt and pant. He was not attired
in saffron clothes. At that time, he was clean-shaven. He had no long
hair. It took some time for him to recognize him as earlier he had seen
him in saffron attire with long beard. Santoshanand earlier used to
wear hearing aid and on that night, when Santoshanand took out his
hearing aid and fixed it in his ear, he could recognize him. He deposed
that thereafter, Santoshanand came to him on 7th or 8th March 1975.
Again, he along with Accused Sudevanand and Vikram (PW-2) came
to his residence on 19.3.1975 and they were in plain clothes i.e. pant
& shirt.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
238
153. In his cross-examination, PW-11 replied that he did not ask

Santoshanand in April 1974, when he visited his residence as to why
he got cut his long hair and why was he not wearing attire of
Avadhoot. He did not ask him as to where he was, what his source of
livelihood was, or whether he had left Anand Marg. He did not tell
him that police visited his place to make enquiry about him. He
informed Sh. Ahuja (I.O.) about visit of Santoshanand in plain clothes
after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand. He had not asked
Santoshanand on his visit on 7/8.3.1975 as to where he was for a year,
what his source of income was or whether he was still in Anand Marg
or left it. The defence chose silence on the facts in issue about the
earlier appearance of A-1, A-2 and PW-2, which was spoken to by this
witness in detail. Therefore, testimony of PW-11 is reliable.
154. PW-13 Sh. Shiv Raj Singh belongs to village Manturi Distt.
Azamgarh (UP). He took Diksha of Anand Marg in the year 1964
from Aacharya Deepanand and joined as Research Assistant with
Central Potato Research Institute at Shimla in February 1967. He
came to Delhi in September 1972 for obtaining Ph.D. Degree and
stayed there up to 29.5.1975. He was staying in the hostel of Indian
Agricultural Research Institute (PUSA) New Delhi. Aacharya
Santoshanand Avadhoot used to visit him, used to sport long hair,
beard and mustaches, used to be in attire of Avadhoot, and he was
using hearing aid. (This witness has also correctly identified accused
Santoshanand in the court). He further deposed that in those days
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
239
Santoshanand was editor of paper Prout published from D-41, South

Extension Part I, New Delhi and during those days, Anand Murti was
in jail. Further, in his testimony, it is found that Santoshanand used to
tell PW-13 about the philosophy of Prout. Santoshanand did not visit
him after self-immolation by Aacharya Dineshwaranand after Rally in
Delhi in April 1973 for some time and he came to him in April 1974.
At that time, he was not wearing attire of Avadhoot. He had no beard
or mustaches and had his haircut. He was wearing pant & shirt.
Santoshanand came to him in first week of July 1974 and stayed with
him. Next day, they went to Pusa Gate where one person met them.
Santoshanand introduced that person as Vikram. (He identified
Vikram in the court.) At that time, Vikram was having long hair with
sporting beard and mustaches. Then they came to Hostel.
Santoshanand & Vikram were talking to each other and he went to
laboratory. He returned to Hostel at about 3-4 PM. when he found
Santoshanand & Vikram in his room but at that time, Vikram was
having his hair cut short and was not having beard. The crossexamination reveals that in April 1974, when Santoshanand visited
him, he did not enquire from him as to why he had changed the attire
of Avadhoot but Santoshanand informed him of his own that he had
changed the dress as he was wanted in self-immolation case.
Santoshanand did not give him any threat when he came to him
without sporting long hair, beard and not in the attire of Avadhoot. He
also did not ask him as to what was his source of livelihood during last

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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
241
18) Efforts to collect arms and ammunitions.

157. PW-1 deposed that it was propagated that Anand Murti was
seriously ill only to create an impression in the minds of followers so
that they work with renewed zeal for release of Baba. PW-11 deposed
that in his presence, A-1 had stated that Baba had become very weak
in jail and they must make efforts to get him released from jail. A-1
further told him that it was difficult to get him freed by lawful means
and that is why they should adopt such means to shake the
government. A-1 also informed that he was prepared to sacrifice his
life for it. PW-1 further testified that when Sh. Dogra (PW-34) could
not arrange arms and ammunition, he (PW-1) returned from Indore
and came to Trimohan, where he along with Vinayanand was
undergoing training in arms and ammunition from Ram Kumar. At
that time, Shankaranand went away and A-1 came there after two or
three days incognito and at that time also, A-1 told him that all
peaceful methods for release of Anand Murti have failed.
158. PW-80 Sh. Roop Nath Mishra deposed that he took Diksha as
Anand Margi in 1958 from Aacharya Vishvanath Singh, a Veterinary
Surgeon at Narkatiaganj. In the year 1974 about 1 or 1 month after
Dusshera, he met Subir (PW-2) at the house of Paras Nath Singh
(PW-27) at Narkatiaganj. (He identified Subir by pointing toward
Vikram approver in the court.) Subir (PW-2) was introduced to him by
Paras Nath Singh (PW-27) at his residence by saying that he was a
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
testified that he declined, as he was a family man and a government

servant. A-1 informed him that they should collect arms &
ammunition but witness did not agree. A-1 used to stay with him in
his room. A-1 came to him in the first week of July 1974 and stayed
with him for the whole night and the next day he along with A-1 went
to PUSA gate where one person met them and he was introduced to
him as Vikram (PW-2) by A-1. PW-13 correctly identified approver
Vikram (PW-2) in the Court.
162. In his cross-examination, one finds that PW-13 replied that he
was of the view that they should explore lawful means. He could not
remember the date in April 1974 when A-1 visited him. In the crossexamination of PW-13, the defence has not even suggested that there
were no parleys of violent means took place between them. The
defence has also not derided the version of PW-13 that Santoshanand
informed him that they should collect arms & ammunition but he did

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
244
not agree. I find the testimony of PW-13 could not be demolished in

cross-examination on these points by the defence and the same calls
for taking cognizance at its full value. Even otherwise, the testimony
of PW-13 is reliable and trustworthy from which it comes out that A-1
has been inciting even PW-13 that violent means be adopted to get the
Baba released; for which they should collect arms and ammunitions
and sought his co-operation.
163. PW-2 deposed that A-1 incited PW-2 citing his commitment for
the cause and his vow to sacrifice his life for Baba in the context of
failure of legal means. While they met at the hostel room of PW-13,
A-1 further incited PW-2 that so many rallies and self-immolations
remained futile compelling them to take up arms. PW-2 stated that he
assured A-1 that be whatever the command, he would do so for release
of Baba. Then, at the behest of A-1, PW-2 turned incognito, took the
name Subir and A-1 assumed new name as Vinod.
164. PW-27, a resident of Indo-Nepal Border, testified that PW-2
informed him about the fate of Baba, being in jail, the failure of
efforts and the only course left being by revolution and force; to
achieve this object, arms and ammunition and money needed to be
collected and requested PW-27 to help PW-2 in this regard. Subir
requested him to arrange some arms and ammunition either himself or
through someone but PW-27 expressed his inability and then Subir

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
245
made a request to suggest some other source. PW-27 identified Subir

by pointing towards PW-2 Vikram in the court.
165. In his cross-examination, PW-27 replied that he refused to give
any assistance to Subir, when he initially asked him to help him in
arranging arms and ammunitions. He did not ask him not to talk to
him about the matter. On his next visit, PW-2 again asked him and
told him not to talk about the subject. PW-2 used to make a mention
about arranging arms and ammunitions and every time he used to tell
him not to talk in that regard.
165. A close scrutiny of the statement of PW-27 Sh. Paras Nath
Singh reflects that the defence has failed to erase that Subir (PW-2)
informed him that Baba was in custody and he was to be got released
by revolution and by using force. The defence was unsuccessful to
belie his version that Subir asked him to achieve the object, arms and
ammunition and money is to be collected. Therefore, the testimony of
PW-27 goes unrebutted.
166. The evidence discussed above makes it clear that PW-2 having
been exhorted and incited by A-1, visited Indo-Nepal Border and met
PW-27 and PW-80 and other Anand Margies in his efforts to
accumulate arms, ammunitions and money with a mistaken impression
that the cult head would be released from Jail by armed struggle. The

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.
One clean shaven Bengali
gentleman was sitting with him and on a wooden rack a Jhola

containing 5 country made bombs was kept. At that time, Gopalji
accompanied with one person came there to meet Ram Aasrey and
they talked secretly and went away. Prem Kumar also came there and
Aacharya Ram Aasrey introduced them to Prem Kumar as 'Vijay' and
'Jagdish'. They stayed in this house for 2-3 days and during those
days, he saw Rudranand and Shankaranand Avadhoot coming to meet
Ram Aasrey and talked secretly. On asking of Ram Aasrey, he along
with Vinayanand and Ram Aasrey came to Arrah. There Ram Aasrey
arranged their stay in Anand Marg Primary School, Arrah and Jhola
containing bombs was with him (PW-1). They stayed for 15 days.
Ram Aasrey arranged separate house for his stay on rent at Arrah in
the Bazaar (Market). Ram Aasrey used to come to meet them in the
school, they also used to go to him, and Aacharya Rudranand and
Shankaranand used to come to meet Aacharya Ram Aasrey at his
residence and in the school. They used to talk with Ram Aasrey
beyond their hearing, and Shankaranand talked to him and
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
247
Vinayanand secretly. Shankaranand told him that there were many

enemies of Anand Marg namely Mr. Puri and Hingorani of CBI, Jail
doctors and Civil Surgeon of Patna and Anand Marg defectors namely
Aacharya Vishokanand Avadhoot, former P.A of Anand Murti and
Aacharya Anand Kishore. He (PW-1) asked as to how this could be
achieved without weapons. Shankaranand informed him that one
Anand Margi Mr. Dogra, Instructor of ITI, Indore had told him that in
case of need, he would be able to provide arms and ammunitions.
Shankaranand gave him Rs.2, 000/- and asked PW-1 to go to Indore
and bring the weapons. Accordingly, he went to Indore and stayed
there for 2/3 days but Mr. Dogra could not succeed. He paid him Rs.
400/- to Mr. Dogra to procure weapons and told him that he would
collect the same on the next visit.
He came back to Arrah and
returned the balance amount to Aacharya Ram Aasrey. He further

stated that Shankaranand came there at the house of Ram Kumar at
Trimohan and asked him to go to Indore and bring arms and
ammunitions for which he had given money to Dogra. He deposed that
from Trimohan he came to Arrah and obtained money from Ram
Aasrey, which he returned to him and he went to Indore. He met Mr.
Dogra and Dogra told them that he had not been able to procure the
arms. Mr. Dogra was not having Rs. 400/- with him on hand and he
did not return the money and assured that he would send money to
Ram Kumar by procuring the address from him. PW-1 further testified

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
249
he replied Shankaranand that there was one Mr. Dogra, an Anand

Margi Instructor at ITI Indore and when he was at Indore, he told him
that he would be able to provide arms and ammunitions in case of
need. (When he was confronted with his statement under Section 164
of Cr. PC, these words did not find the mention).
Magistrate
that
he
informed
Ram
Aasrey,
He told the
Rudranand
and
Shankaranand at Arrah of his talks with Mr. Dogra. When he was

confronted with his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr. PC, it
was found mentioned that he informed Shankaranand at Arrah where
Rudranand and Shankaranand used to come to meet Ram Aasrey and
talk to him.
169.
A careful scrutiny of the deposition of PW-1 reveals that the
line of cross-examination and the suggestions made by the defence

almost proves the case of the prosecution as regards the examinationin-chief of PW-1 about his visiting the house of Ram Aasrey, the
meeting of several persons including Gopalji, the storing of arms in
the house of Ram Aasrey and the subsequent instructions, PW-1 had
received from Shankaranand to go to Indore and collect arms from
PW-34 of course which effort of PW-1 did not fructify. Therefore, the
material contradictions or improvements, if any as pointed by the
defence go to the oblivion.
170. This statement of PW-1 is further corroborated by the testimony
of PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra of Indore. PW-34 has identified PW-1
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
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.
He replied that he made
entire entry in the register in his own handwriting on his first stay
there. He did not remember whether in his second stay/visit, he wrote
the entire entry or only put his signatures against the entry in the
register. He stated that he could say only after seeing the entry. The
style of cross-examination instead of demolishing the deposition of
PW-1 rather fortified it and non furnishing of the details of the owner,
bearer, manager, the number of rooms, location thereof, etc. are all
unwanted details since no Lodger would go to the extent of
investigation of such details and naturally would not remember.
172. The testimony of approver PW-1 finds further corroboration

from the statement of PW-19 Sh. Purshottam Kumar, owner of the
Aadarsh Lodge, Indore. He testified that his father owns Aadarsh
Lodge, Indore. He along with four brothers has been working in the
said Aadarsh lodge with his father and they have engaged servants at
the lodge. He deposed that they have been maintaining a Register of
the Visitors of their Lodge. Sometimes, he makes entries in the
Register, sometimes his father does, sometimes by the visitor himself
and sometimes by the servants. The customer (i.e. visitor) signs the
last column of the entry in the Register. After seeing the Register
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
252
Ex.P-5, he deposed that this is in respect of their Aadarsh Lodge. He

proved the Register Ex.P-5 of Aadarsh Lodge and after perusing the
entry dated 26.8.1973 Ex.PW-1/K he deposed that the visitor at Point
Ex.PW-1/L has signed this encircled red portion. He also deposed that
the portion A, B and C encircled with blue pencil in the entry Ex.PW1/K is in hand of his father, which he identified. The portions D, E
and F encircled with red pencil in entry Ex.PW-1/K are in the hand of
servant Guman Singh whose handwriting and signatures he has
identified.
He identified that portions G, H, J and K encircled with
blue pencil in ExPW1/K to be in the hand of his brother Ramesh.

After perusing the entry dated 10.9.1973 Ex.PW-1/M in the Register
Ex.P-5, PW-19 also testified that this is an entry in respect of one
Vijay Kumar in his hand (PW-19) and the portion encircled with red
pencil in Ex.PW-1/M is in his hand (PW-19). He had obtained the
signatures of the customer at that very time in the last column of the
entry. The signatures Ex.PW-1/N were appended in his presence. The
portions encircled with blue pencil and Marked A and B of this entry
are in hands of his father, which he identified. The portion Mark C
and D and encircled with red pencil of this entry are in his
handwriting. The portion E and F are in the hand of his brother
Ramesh. Both these entries Ex.PW-1/K and PW-1/M are in respect of
Vijay Kumar and have been signed by the visitor as Vijay Kumar at
point Ex.PW-1/L and Ex.PW-1/N. He further stated that entries in the
Register (Ex.P-5) are made as per particulars given by the visitors.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
253
This Register Ex.P-5 was taken into possession by CBI on 30.9.1975

vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-19/A. The Seizure Memo Ex.PW-19/A
bears his signatures at point A, that of his brother Ramesh at point B
and their servant Guman Singh at point C. He, Ramesh and Guman
Singh at points A, B and C., also signed the last page of this Register.
His brother Ramesh, servant Guman Singh and he himself signed on
the front page of Register at Point B, C and A respectively. The last
but one leaf of the Register Ex.P-5 also bears his signature at Point A,
of Ramesh at Point B and Guman Singh at Point C. They appended
their signatures on 1 st, last and last but one page of the Register at the
time it was taken in possession by CBI. He has identified signatures
of his father, servant, Guman Singh and brother Ramesh since he had
seen them writing and signing. In the Register Ex.P-5, name of the
visitor in the entry Ex.PW-1/K is mentioned as Vijay Kumar Prabhat
and in the entry Ex.PW-1/M as Vijay Kumar Wald Prabhatji and
visitor has also signed as Vijay Kumar on both these entries at point
Ex PW-1/L and Ex PW-1/N.
173. In his cross-examination, PW-19 replied that police recorded his
statement. He informed the police about the entry dated 26.08.1973 in
his statement. (However, when confronted with the statement under
Section 161 of Cr. PC Ex.PW-19/DA any particular about the entry
dated 26.08.1973 was not found recorded). He explained that he had
not seen the entry dated 26.08.1973 at the time of taking into
possession the Register Ex.P-5 by the CBI. The marking with red
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).
He testified that the entry preceding and
following entry Ex.PW-1/5 is in the hands of his father. He deposed

that a bill book is maintained and bill is issued only if the customer
wants.
They did not issue any bill in respect of entry dated
10.09.1973. However, he asserted that there is mention of deposit of

money in this entry itself. He also deposed that there is deposit of
amount against all the entries on the page and for that reason he could
say that no bill was issued in respect of all those entries. Normally, a

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
255
government servant demands a bill. They do not maintain books of

account of their lodge. However, they have been paying licence fee
for their lodge. He did not know the amount, which was being paid as
licence fee by his father. He could not remember the age of the
customer to whom entry Ex.PW-1/M related.
The age of this
customer is mentioned in the entry. He did not sign the page having
the relevant entry in this register, when the CBI took it into
possession. He had seen this relevant entry in the register Ex.P-5 at
the time of taking it into possession by the CBI. After that, he had
seen the register on the date of his deposition in the court. He has
denied the suggestion that he has made this entry at the instance of
CBI or that he has been introduced as a false witness. The testimony
of this witness is not discredited if he had informed the police in his
previous statement that he would not be in a position to identify the
visitor namely Vijay (PW-1) which was not found recorded in his
previous statement. Accordingly he did not identify PW-1 in the court.
The cross-examination did not go to unsettle the documentary
evidence, which are proved on record and further corroborated by the
oral evidence of PW-1, PW-19 and that of the police officials, who
have seized the same, which discussion follows.
174. PW-83 Sh. M.P. Sharma, Inspector, has proved Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-19/A by which the Visitor's Register of Aadarsh Hindu Lodge
Ex.P-5 was seized. He was working as CBI Inspector with SIU-II,
New Delhi. He testified that on 24.09.1975, Deputy SP Sh. Ahuja,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
256
Investigation Officer of this case, directed him to go to Indore

(Madhya Pradesh) for partly investigating the case. He was directed
by Deputy SP Sh. Ahuja to make investigation and find out regarding
one Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Prabhat staying in some Gujrati Lodge at
Indore. He was also informed that Gujrati Lodge was near Bus Stand,
Indore. He was directed to verify from the record of that Gujrati
Lodge about the stay of said Vijay Kumar between the period August
1973 and November 1973. Accordingly, he reached Indore on 25th or
26th September, 1975 and went to Gujrati Hotels and Lodges near Bus
Stand Indore.
He visited Aadarsh Hindu Lodge, which was also
known as Gujrati Lodge and check up the entries in the Visitors

Register and found entry in respect of said Vijay Kumar.
Sh.
Purshottam Dass (PW-19) was the owner of that lodge from whom, he
took into possession that Register (Ex.P-5) vide Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-19/A. He correctly prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW-19/A
and bears his signature at point D. Sh. Purshottam Dass (PW-19) has
also signed at point A, his brother at point B and one servant at point
C in his presence. He identified the Register Ex.P-5, which he took
into possession from Sh. Purshottam Dass (PW-19) of Aadarsh Hindu
Lodge. The first, last and penultimate page of the Register were
signed by him, Purshottam Dass (PW-19) and two other witnesses
mentioned hereinbefore. He identified his signature at point D on the
Register Ex.P-5.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
257
175. In his cross-examination, PW-83 answered that name Gujrati

Lodge is not written on the Register Ex.P-5. He did not verify from
the office of District Magistrate, whether Aadarsh Hindu Lodge was
registered in the same name in that office. He admitted that there is no
serial number in the entries of Register Ex.P-5.
He denied the
suggestion that entry in respect of Vijay Kumar at page No. 21 of the

Register Ex.P-5 was inserted subsequently. He admitted that column
no. 1 of the register Ex.P-5 is of serial number. He also admitted that
the portion having serial number on page no. 21 pertaining to entry
Ex.PW-1/A is not there, which got torn off on account of use of the
register. He asserted that this register was in the same condition, when
he took into possession as it is now. He has denied the suggestion that
portion of page no. 21 was intentionally torn off in order to insert the
entry.
176. It is to be noted that this witness was cross-examined only on
behalf of accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand. The other accused
have failed to cross-examine the witness despite opportunity. It is to
be noted that the line of cross-examination restricted to the
suggestions
that
this
Register
manipulated/interpolated/fabricated.
Ex.P-5
was
either
For every suggestion, the
accused could only draw a negative answer from the witness and the
line of cross-examination does not go to establish that the register is
fabricated one and that the same is an implantation only to help the
prosecution. The vehement answer of the witness that the Register has
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
258
been in the same condition as it was when seized, is elicited in the

cross-examination, which inspires the court to arrive at the finding that
the register is not tampered with in any manner. Furthermore, this
witness PW-83 is an impartial official witness, who had no axe to
grind against these accused persons in manipulating the said Register.
The mere non-recording of statements of other persons to suggest the
name of Aadarsh Hindu Lodge, which was known as Gujrati Lodge,
would not discredit the documentary evidence and the credibility of
the witness.
177. This Visitors Register Ex.P-5 of Aadarsh Hindu Lodge, Indore
is available in Folder R-5. It is a bound register and duly paginated
from Sr. No.1 to 78 in Hindi numerals. The first relevant entry dated
26.8.1973 at 7.40 AM Ex.PW-1/K is in the name of Vijay Kumar.
Prabhat in Hindi and he stayed there up to 27.8.1973. This entry is in
the middle of the page no.21 of the Register and in continuation of
previous entries of 25th August 1973 followed by other five entries of
26th August 1973 and visitor has signed at Ex.PW-1/L as Vijay Kumar
in Hindi. The second relevant entry dated 10.9.1973 at 6.00 AM
Ex.PW-1/M, which is in the name of Vijay Kumar wald (son of)
Prabhat Ji in Hindi. He stayed there up to 11.9.1973. This entry is,
though a last entry on page no. 27, the visitor has signed in Hindi in
similar manner as Vijay Kumar at Ex.PW-1/N and this entry is
followed by ten more entries of 10.9.1973 on next page. It needs to be
noted upon careful scrutiny of the Register Ex.P-5 that the last column
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
260
the witness unbelievable. I have carefully considered this submission.

Needless to say that the prosecution also wants to connect the chain of
events as regards the stay of PW-1 by his assumed name Vijay, Vijay
wald Prabhat in the Lodge belonged to PW-19. Testimony of PW-19
that one Vijay stayed in his Lodge under the assumed name as above
is not demolished in the cross-examination. The defence had not
objected to marking of the Register Ex.P-5 through this witness. The
defence having not objected to marking of the Register cannot point
out these improvements in the testimony of PW-19 as prejudicing their
case in as much the statement/testimony is only to be looked into as a
connecting ring in the entire chain qua the purposes of proving the
stay of PW-1 at the Lodge. The deposition of this witness cannot be
looked in isolation since the Register maintained at the Lodge at Ex.P5 being the documentary evidence speaks louder than the witness
himself. The entries in the register dated 26.08.1973 are also found
recorded in due course of business of the said lodge. The defence
having not objected to marking this Register and the seizure thereof,
having been duly proved as mentioned above, the statement of PW-83
and PW-126A (whose evidence is discussed in the succeeding Para)
and the document speaking volumes louder than the mere omissions
by the police in recording the minute details as pointed by way of
improvements.
Thus, the improvements pointed out by the Ld.
Defence Counsel is mere trivial and does not go to the root of the
prosecution in proving the stay of PW-1 at the said Lodge situated in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
261
Indore, irrespective of the name of the Lodge whether it was known as

Gujrati Lodge or Aadarsh Hindu Lodge.
179. Statement of Sh. R.P. Sinha, Inspector, CBI, at its Patna Office
was examined on 15.09.1983 as PW-126. Subsequently, on
30.09.1983 one Sh. Maheshwar Prasad, Head Assistant, PWD was
examined, but he has also been numbered as PW-126, apparently due
to inadvertence and typographical error. This witness Sh. Maheshwar
Prasad is now re-numbered as PW-126A.
180. Moreover, PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad has identified the
signatures of PW-1 on the Visitor Register Ex.P-5 as Vijay Kumar
Prabhat to be in the handwriting of PW-1. He (PW-126A) testified
that in the year 1961, he was working in the office of SDO, PWD
Lahariya Sarai. He knew Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava (PW-1), who,
in those days was working as Correspondence Clerk in Darbhanga
circle of PWD. In the year 1975, Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava has
worked with him in the office of Superintendent Engineer, PWD,
Lahariya Sarai. He deposed that during this period from 1961 to 1975,
he had seen Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava writing and signing and for
that reason he identified his writing and signatures Ex.PW-1/L and
Ex.PW-1/N
in
the
Visitors
Register
Ex.P-5
(of
Aadarsh
Lodge/Gujrati Lodge, Indore). It is pertinent to mention that PW-1

Madan Mohan Srivastava has put these signatures as Vijay Kumar
Ex.PW-1/L and PW-1/N.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
262
181. In his cross-examination, PW-126A replied that without seeing

the entry in the register Ex.P-5, he could not say how Madan Mohan
Srivastava has written his name therein and whether he had written his
name as Madan Mohan Srivastava in the register Ex.P-5 and whether
the relevant entry in the register Ex.P-5 was in English or Hindi. He
did not remember whether he stated to the CBI Officer that in the year
1961 Madan Mohan Srivastava was working as Correspondence Clerk
in Darbhanga Circle of PWD. He asserted that Madan Mohan
Srivastava was working under him, when CBI Inspector Sh. N.N.
Singh also called Madan Mohan Srivastava. He did not remember
whether he stated to the Inspector Sh. N.N. Singh that he could
identify the writings and signatures of Madan Mohan Srivastava both
in English and Hindi or not. (He was confronted with the statement
under Section 161 of the Cr. PC Ex.PW-126/DA, where the words
Both Hindi and English were not found mentioned but the factum
mentioned was that he was acquainted with the writing and
signatures).
He has denied the suggestion that the writing and
signatures, which he identified to be in the handwriting of Madan

Mohan Srivastava are not in his handwriting. He testified that he was
the Section Incharge and only Madan Mohan Srivastava was working
under him.
182. The defence did not challenge the identity and posting of PW126A in the cross-examination of PW-126A or that he was working
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
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
and Arteshanand were present. He deposed that they remained at the

house of Ram Kumar for about 15 days. Arteshanand and A-2 also
stayed there during their stay. He further deposed that thereafter
Shankaranand Avadhoot came there who asked him to go to Indore
and bring arms and ammunition for which he (PW-1) had given
money to Mr. Dogra (PW-34). As such, from Trimohan, he (PW-1)
came to Arrah and obtained money, which he had returned to him.
Then he went to Indore and met Mr. Dogra. From Indore, he (PW-1)
came to Trimohan and met Shankaranand who was still present there
and narrated him the entire things. Shankaranand then went away and
after 2-3 days, Santoshanand came there in plain clothes. He was not
sporting beard and long hair and before that, he had seen him only in
the guise of an Avadhoot as he is found at the trial.
184. PW-1 further testified that A-1 told him that all peaceful
methods for release of Anand Murti have failed. A-1 brought a letter
from Aacharya Rudranand, addressed to Din Pal Rai, Advocate of
Azamgarh, who was also an Anand Margi. He knew Sh. Din Pal Rai,
Advocate prior to that since he used to participate in VSS Camps. In
the letter, it was written that the revolver be handed over to the bearer
of the letter. PW-1 further deposed that he came to Azamgarh with the
said letter and met Din Pal Rai, Advocate. He handed over the letter
of Aacharya Rudranand to Din Pal Rai and told him that Rudranand
and Santoshanand were busy in collecting arms. Din Pal Rai informed
him that in case, they are not able to procure arms, he (Din Pal Rai)
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
267
have also fired 3 or 4 shots. The target used to be sometime a sparrow

sitting on a tree. He might have fired 25/30 shots from an air gun in
which pellets are used. For targets, sometimes points to be fixed in
the wall and sometimes birds would be the made targets. He could not
see how far the fragments of bomb fell after explosion.
He
volunteered to state that they had taken shelter behind a wall in order
to save themselves. After that, they saw that the fragment had spread
within the radius of 10 yards. He stated in his statement under Section
164 of the Cr. PC that when bomb was exploded, there were present
Ram Aasrey, Sudevanand & Arteshanand. (When confronted with his
previous statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC, it was found
mentioned that these persons were told about the method of exploding
a country made bomb and that when Vinayanand threw the bomb, it
was exploded). He had not stated in his previous statement under
Section 164 of Cr. PC that they were taken to the banks of Ganga and
Ram Kumar explained how to take a aim with the revolver or that the
tree being made a target or a shot was fired by him for demonstration.
He also did not remember having stated that Ram Kumar then gave
the revolver to Sudevanand and then Sudevanand fired a shot. He was
confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-1/X wherein it was not
found recorded. He explained that he had not stated in detailed under
Section 164 of Cr. PC that he was given revolver to fire, he was able
to hit the target but Ram Kumar, and Sudevanand had missed the aim.
He had not stated in the statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC that

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
269
is also not disputed that in the cross-examination that Arteshanand and

Sudevanand were present there. The cross-examination rather fortifies
the presence of all the above persons including A-1, A-2, Vinayanand
(PO), Ram Kumar (PO) and Arteshanand (since deceased) at the time
of training in arms and ammunitions by Ram Kumar at Trimohan.
Mere omission or the improvement does not go to discredit the
testimony of this witness, insofar as, the defence being unable to
demolish the fact of their presence at Trimohan and the training in
arms.
21) Criminal Conspiracy at Trimohan
187. It has come in the deposition of PW-1 that when he came to
Trimohan and reported to accused Santoshanand (A-1), he found that
A-1 had brought a tape recorded speech titled as Parvachan
(sermons), which was delivered by Anand Murti at Nagpur Dharam
Maha Chakra (a religious congregation) and it was attended by A-1
also. He deposed that in the month of August/September or October
1971 (Upon court questions, the incident is related by the witness
having occurred during October 1973) on one night at the terrace of
house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan, he himself, Vinayanand,
Arteshanand, Sudevanand and Ram Kumar assembled. Tape recorded
speech Parvachan of Baba Anand Murti was played by A-1 and
then collective meditation was performed. (This was stated by PW-1
in the court on 13.02.1981 at Page Number 19 in his examination in
chief. While replying the court question at Page Number 122, PWCBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
270
1 clarified the month of the event to be October 1973, when meeting

took place at the terrace of house of Ram Kumar (Proclaimed
Offender) at Trimohan. He further clarified that it appeared to be a
typographical error at Page No. 19. He further clarified that it was
Dharam Maha Chakra that had taken place in October/November
1971. The recorded speech, which was played on that day on Tape
Recorder, pertained to this Dharam Maha Chakra delivered by Anand
Murti). When meditation was over, A-1 said that there were many
enemies of Anand Marg, who are to be finished because all peaceful
methods having failed, they had to adopt violent means. A-1 described
Madhavanand Avadhoot as enemy no. 1 as he had become approver in
the murder case against Anand Murti and deserted Anand Marg and he
should be liquidated first.
He described L.N. Mishra, the then
Railway Minister as enemy no. 2 and Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister

of Bihar as enemy no. 3 being puppet of L.N. Mishra who had ordered
lathi charge on Anand Margies. Santoshanand also described the Jail
Doctor and Civil Surgeon of Patna as enemies apart from Mr. Puri and
Hingorani of CBI. On the same night, Santoshanand assigned the duty
to Vinayanand to kill Madhavanand and he (PW-1) was given the duty
of killing Chief Minister Abdul Gaffoor. Sudevanand was assigned
duty to kill officers of CBI and Arteshanand was assigned the duty to
kill the Jail Doctor and Civil Surgeon of Patna but no duty was
assigned to Ram Kumar and regarding L.N. Mishra, it was resolved
that it would be decided later on as to who would be asked to kill him.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
271
188. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 that the tape

recorder was not played frequently but only it was done on that night.
He testified that in the tape-recorded message, it was not the message
of Anand Murti that all the peaceful methods have failed and violent
methods have to be adopted. He admitted the suggestion of the
defence that it is Santoshanand, who explained of his own that he had
a feeling that they should kill all the enemies by violent means. He
deposed that after playing the tape recorder, Santoshanand had said
that he had some inward feeling that all the enemies of Anand Marg
should be finished. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 replied
that in his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC, he has not given the
reason for killing Abdul Gaffoor as he ordered of lathi charge on
Anand Margies or for killing L.N. Mishra as Abdul Gaffoor was the
puppet of L.N. Mishra. He might have stated in his statement under
Section 164 of Cr. PC that Ram Kumar had said that if Madhavanand
Approver was killed, the entire government machinery would be
paralysed. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-1/X, it was
not found recorded.
(PW-1 has not attributed these words in his
examination in chief nor in his 164 statement. This aspect of 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.
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.
He has not stated in his previous
statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that Santoshanand refuted it

and said that Madhavanand should be liquidated as enemy no.1. He
might have stated that they all including Ram Kumar agreed to it and
to kill all other enemies. He had not stated in the statement under
Section 164 of the Cr. PC that it was decided to defer the duty of
killing of L.N. Mishra to someone else in future. He had also not
stated specifically that Ram Kumar was not given any duty at that
time.
190. There is no cross-examination by the defence as regards the
meeting held at the terrace of house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan in the
month of October 1973. They have also not challenged the veracity
and testimony of PW-1 that after playing tape recorded speech of
Anand Murti, Santoshanand exhorted them (Ram Kumar, PW-1,
Vinayanand, Arteshanand and Sudevanand) that Madhavanand, Abdul
Gaffoor, L.N. Mishra, Jail Doctors, Civil Surgeon, Hingorani and Puri
of CBI are to be killed. Thus, the testimony of this witness on these
vital points remains unrebutted and makes it creditworthy. It is also
not challenged in cross-examination of PW-1 that after meditation,
Santoshanand having said that there were many enemies of Anand
Marg, who were to be eliminated since all peaceful methods yielded
no results and they had to resort to violent means against the persons
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
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,
Honble Supreme Court of India has held in Srawan Singh Vs.

State of Punjab, 2002 ( 4) RCR ( Crl) 471 that it is a rule of essential
justice that whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself the
opportunity to put his case in cross-examination, it must follow that
the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted. Reference
can also be given to a latest judgment of the Apex court in Paulmeli
Vs. State of Tamilnadu through Inspector of Police, 2014 (4) RCR
335.
192. In order to belie the case of the prosecution that a criminal
conspiracy to kill Sh. Madhavanand, Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, Sh. L.N.
Mishra and others was hatched at the terrace of the house of Sh. Ram
Kumar Singh (Proclaimed Offender) at Trimohan, the defence has
examined DW-15 Sh. Harender Kumar Singh, a cousin of Sh. Ram
Kumar Singh. In his examination-in-chief, he has testified that he is
an Anand Margi since 1957. He had taken diksha at that time. Their
entire family is of Anand Margies. He deposed that accused Ram
Kumar Singh is his nephew and he has been residing in an adjacent
house. He testified that police arrested Ram Kumar Singh in 1974 and
he was released on bail after two and half month of his arrest. Anand
Margies used to visit him and then he would take them to Ram Kumar
Singh, if so desired by the visitor. To his knowledge, no meeting of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
275
Anand Margies took place on the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar
Singh.
In his examination-in-chief earlier, he testified that Ram
Kumar Singh might be handling firearms, as his father used to handle

the same. He deposed that he had not seen him doing so. In his crossexamination, it is revealed that he had joint farming with Ram Kumar
Singh and they used to divide the share of produce. Ram Kumar Singh
was his nephew. In his further elicited from his cross-examination
that DW-15 has confined his activities only to Kahalgaon Block,
which is situated at a distance of about 4 or 5 KMs from Trimohan.
Both of them used to attend Dharam Maha Chakra, which used to be
held for three days; there was a Railway Station in Trimohan in the
year 1972-1974, which was known as Ekchari. In his further crossexamination, he could not dare to deny whether any decision was
taken by Anand Margies to put pressure on the Government to release
Anand Murti.
193. This witness DW-15 is one of the oldest members of Anand
Marg, who has taken Diksha. When he had confined himself and his
activities to Village/Block Kahalgaon, which is situated at a distance
of 4 or 5 KMs from Trimohan, one wonders as to how could he say
that no meeting of the conspirators had taken place at the terrace of the
house of Ram Kumar Singh. DW-15 and Ram Kumar Singh had their
joint agriculture. Both of them used to attend Dharam Maha Chakra.
Like DW-1 and DW-3 he is also an interested, biased and partisan
witness and no reliance can be placed on his testimony.
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.
Ram Kumar was already in
possession of 3 cartridges of the same bore for use in the revolver and
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.
Then he (Ram Kumar) gave the revolver to
Sudevanand to aim a shot. Sudevanand fired a shot. Thereafter, he

(PW-1) was given the revolver to hit the target i.e. the tree. He was
able to hit the target, whereas Ram Kumar and A-2 missed the target.
Then they came back to his house where A-1 and Shankaranand were
present and revolver was shown to them and they approved it. He
deposed
that
at
that
time
Avadhoot
Tyageshwaranand
Budheshawaranand clad in saffron clothes also reached there. He was

VSS organizer of Bihar Province.
Probably he is dead now.
He knew him from before.
Budheshawaranand also approved the
revolver but he suggested that the house of Ram Kumar was not an
appropriate place for this purpose and house of Gopalji at Chautham,
Distt. Monghyer would be more appropriate for such like activities.
He also testified that Gopalji had come to Bhagalpur.
199. PW-98 Sh. Mohinder Nath Singh of Village Bara, District
Azamgarh (UP) stated that on 16.2.1973 at about 6.00 PM he was
going out to answer the call of the nature when Sh. Deen Pal Rai came
there. He was known to him. He asked Sh. Deen Pal Rai to wait in
the room and he will return soon. When he came back after 15/20
minutes, he found Sh. Deen Pal Rai in the room. He had kept his
Weblascot Revolver under his pillow during night and there were four
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.
He admitted the suggestion that Sh. Din Pal Rai was
acquitted. He was acquitted after his statement was recorded by the

CBI Officer.
200. PW-90 Sh. Dalip Rai, SI, PS Kotwali Azamgarh, deposed that
the record of crime case no. 160 dated 16.2.1973 under section 380
IPC PS Kotwali has been destroyed four years ago. In his crossexamination, he replied that Deen Pal Rai, Advocate was accused in
the case.
He was acquitted on 25.8.1976 by the court of CJM,
Azamgarh as per Crime Register No.4 brought by him. He stated that

he did not try to obtain certified copy of judgment as judicial file was
stated to be destroyed.
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,
Shankaranand etc. He further deposed that CBI lured and pressurized

him to be their witness in this case. In his cross-examination, DW-24
admitted that cult head was arrested in murder of one of the defectors,
which ended in acquittal, which he volunteered to say. He was not
aware of rejection of bail of his cult head. He is also not aware of any
Revolutionary Group.
He has denied the suggestion put by
Prosecution regarding his proximity with Rudranand, Rudranand

writing a letter to him and sending through Visheshwaranand and
Rudranand desiring a revolver to be procured from him through
Visheshwaranand. He also denied that Visheshwaranand met him and
talked about the revolver or that he has shown a revolver to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
281
Visheshwaranand during August/September 1973 or has given

demonstration of its working near a hillock. He further denied having
given a revolver to Visheshwaranand to be further given to Rudranand
or Santoshanand.
202. After going through the deposition of DW-24 Sh. Deen Pal Rai,
the question arises as to how much value can be attached to his
testimony. Admittedly, he is also an Anand Margi and took Diksha in
1968 from Aacharya Nirmohanand. He admits having met accused
persons and Anand Margies in the jail while this case was under
investigations since he claimed that CBI either lured him or
pressurized him to become their witness against the accused persons.
He has suppressed the fact by denying the suggestion of the
Prosecution that he knew Rudranand, an Anand Margi very closely.
In fact, Rudranand Avadhoot has also been examined by the defence
as DW-1 who has admitted/testified his examination-in-chief itself
that he knew Sh. Deen Pal Rai of Azamgarh. With this background,
his denials about securing a firearm are to be looked into. Though he
denied considering the background of his avowed affiliation and
attachment to the cult, his evidence is to be discarded as a piece of
canard. It must also be noted that this witness who was arrested
during emergency and further having been taken to custodial
interrogation by the CBI had avenged his arrest by speaking in favour
of the accused persons. His testimony is falling short of inspiring any
confidence in the mind of the Court in the backdrop of proved, profuse
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
282
and inspiring evidence of PW-1 Sh. Visheshwaranand corroborated by

other circumstances, which I have discussed supra.
23) Effect of acquittal of Din Pal Rai
203. The Ld. Defence Counsel argued that case of the prosecution is
falsified by statement of PW-90 Sh. Dalip Rai that Deen Pal Rai (DW24), who is alleged to have given revolver with cartridges to PW-1,
has been acquitted by the court of CJM, Azamgarh. Copy of judgment
has not been produced and DW-24 Deen Pal Rai has not stated even a
single word in his statement that he was acquitted. It is argued by Ld.
Defence Counsel that DW-24 Din Pal Rai had been acquitted of the
charge u/s 380 IPC for committing theft of the revolver of PW-98 Sh.
Mohinder Nath Singh which was allegedly given by Sh. Din Pal Rai to
PW-1 and prosecution is not able to prove this part of its case against
accused persons. The question is whether the said acquittal touches
centroid of conspiracy or whether it is only peripheral. Even if so
called acquittal is taken in its face value, whether the same would
shatter the chain of conspiracy. It is in evidence of PW-1 that
conspiracy was hatched at the roof of house of Ram Kumar at
Trimohan to kill Madhavanand, L.N. Mishra, Abdul Gaffoor and
others which is by itself an offence. To execute the criminal
conspiracy, arms and ammunitions were collected. Sh. Deen Pal Rai
(PW-24) was one of the sources from whom arms and ammunitions
were collected as per the case of the prosecution. Statement of PW-1
that he went twice to Indore to collect arms and ammunitions from
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
There at Trimohan, Ram Kumar trained PW-1 and
Vinayanand in Judo, use of 12 bore guns, extent of energy of countrymade bomb and how to throw and handle it.
Subsequently,
Santoshanand sent PW-1 to Sh. Saroj Kumar Biswas of Bangaon who

asked PW-1 to wait for some days, as he will try to procure arms and
ammunitions. PW-1 stayed there for 2/3 days and then Sh. Saroj
Kumar Biswas gave him a country-made revolver 303 with three live
cartridges and 110 cartridges which were of the type of 303. PW-1
gave all these to Gopalji, accused at Chautham. There Santoshanand
came after 1/2 days and PW-1 told him that hand grenades could not

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
284
be procured by Mr. Biswas and then Santoshanand and Vinayanand

went to Bangaon for the purpose.
204. Therefore, the conceived intentions have been proved to achieve
the end designs and it is natural human conduct that such person
would leave no stone unturned to reach the design.
Therefore,
procuring of this weapon i.e. stolen revolver from Din Pal Rai, which
entailed his prosecution resulting into his acquittal as stated by 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.
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)
suggested to A-1 that as Vinayanand could understand and speak

Bengali language, he should be sent to Bangaon for this purpose and
A-1 agreed to it. A-1 told him that he along with Vinayanand would
be going to Bangaon and if his return is delayed, he would send a
telegram in the name of 'Prabhu' and would come back by 2nd or 3rd
December 1973. He testified that he himself, Arteshanand, A-2 and
A-7 stayed back at Chautham. A-1 and Vinayanand did not come back
on 2nd or 3rd December 1973 and a telegram was received on 2 or 3rd

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
286
December 1973 from A-1. It was addressed to A-7 in which he

described himself as Prabhu. By this telegram, A-1 instructed them
that they should continue to stay on at Chautham.
(This telegram Ex.PW-1/O (D-67) is available in
Folder R-4).
206. A perusal of this telegram shows that it was dispatched from
Howrah and addressed to Gopalji, Chautham and the message is All
to wait, Prabu. This telegram was received by Gopalji in due course
of business at Chautham, Monghyer on 3.12.1973 as per postal stampcum-seal.
This was recovered from house search of Gopalji on
17.5.1975 when a search was carried out by PW-134 Sh. M.M.P.

Sinha, I.O., in the presence of two search witnesses namely Sh. Parsu
Ram Singh (PW-91) and Neel Mohan Singh. At the time of search,
both the recovery witnesses and the IO put their respective signatures.
Search Memo is Ex.PW-91/A.
207. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied that he did not state in
the statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that when he gave letter
of Santoshanand to a Bengali gentleman at Bangaon, he told him "that
he would try to procure arms and ammunitions and he should wait for
two or three days". He had also not stated that he told Santoshanand at
Chautham that Mr. Biswas had not been able to procure hand grenade
but was trying for it. He had also not stated that Santoshanand asked
him to go again to Bangaon to procure hand grenade from Mr. Biswas.
He had also not stated that he told Santoshanand that he was not
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
287
conversant with Bengali language or that Vinayanand who could

speak and understand this language should be sent and he agreed to it.
He had also not stated before the Magistrate that Santoshanand said
that he himself would go with Vinayanand to Bangaon and if his
return was late, he would send a telegram by the name of 'Prabhu'. He
had also not stated in such detail that Santoshanand told him that he
would come back by 2nd or 3rd December, 1973. He had also not
stated that he, Arteshanand, Sudevanand and Gopalji stayed back at
Chautham or that Santoshanand and Vinayanand did not return by 2nd
or 3rd December 1973. He had also not stated that this telegram was
received from Santoshanand in which he described himself as
'Prabhu'. He had also not stated in the statement under Section 164 of
Cr. PC that Santoshanand had written in this telegram that they should
continue to stay at Chautham.
208. The line of the cross-examination of PW-1 on the above points
indicate that the defence remained unsuccessful in belying that
Budheshawaranand @ Tyageshwaranand suggested that the house of
Ram Kumar at Trimohan was not appropriate place for this purpose
and house of Gopalji at Chautham at District Monghyer would be
appropriate place for such like activities. The cross-examination of
PW-1 also does not discredit the deposition of PW-1 that PW-1,
Vinayanand,
Arteshanand,
Sudevanand,
Santoshanand,
Tyageshwaranand and Ram Kumar went to Bhagalpur, near Janta

Library, where house of Gopalji was situated and Gopalji had come
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
silent to the assertion of PW-1 that Santoshanand informed Gopalji

about formation of a Revolutionary Group for the release of Anand
Murti and certain persons are to be eliminated & for this purpose arms
and ammunitions are to be collected, which shall be kept at his house
at Chautham. The Ld. Defence Counsel have pointed out certain
improvements of PW-1 qua his previous statement; that Biswas had
asked him to wait 2/3 days and that Santoshanand asked him to go
again to Bangaon.
Further, they pointed out the improvement
concerning PW-1 that he was not knowing Bengali language and

Santoshanand should send Vinayanand for the purpose. They further
brought the notice of the court to the improvement that Santoshanand
told that in case he does not reach by 2nd or 3 rd December, he would be
sending a telegram in the name of Prabhu. The improvements pointed
out by the Ld. Defence Counsel on the face of it are trivial and
explanatory in nature. PW-1 has narrated the complete facts of the

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
accepted the consignment of one revolver 303, two live cartridges of

this revolver and similar 110 cartridges from PW-1 at Chautham. He
also accepted one revolver brought by Vinayanand from Ram Kumar
at Chautham in the presence of PW-1. Therefore, the accused Gopalji

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
290
at that point of time has actively participated acceded to the designs of

such of the conspirators as described by PW-1. He further allowed
himself to be a part of such conspiracy, conceded and volunteered to
make use of his house for piling of arms. Hence, considering the
testimony, which is not shaken, the role of Gopalji in the conspiracy
and the acts succeeding thereon is proved on rec ord by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt.
209. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati that the
manuscript of telegram has not been seized by the IO and the record of
dispatch and delivery of the telegram has not been produced to prove
that the manuscript of the telegram was in the handwriting of
Santoshanand by describing himself as Prabhu or that it was delivered
to Gopalji. She argued that when accused Santoshanand had gone to
Bangaon, how it could be dispatched from Howrah when according to
Ld. Defence Counsel is at a distance of 100 KM from Bangaon. I do
not find any merit in these arguments. U/s 88 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 the court may presume that a message, forwarded from a
telegraph office to the person to whom such message purports to be
addressed, corresponds with a message delivered for transmission at
the office from which the message purports to be sent. A perusal of
this telegram Ex.PW-1/O shows that it was dispatched from Howrah
and addressed to Gopalji, Chautham and the message is All to wait,
Prabu. This also bears the postal stamp-cum-seal dated 03.12.1973.
This telegram was recovered from the house search of Gopalji by the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
291
IO PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha in the presence of search witnesses

including Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) on 17.05.1975 vide Seizure
Memo Ex.PW-91/A. This telegram rather corroborates the deposition
of the approver PW-1 that Santoshanand informed them that he along
with Vinayanand would go to Bangaon for collections of arms and
ammunitions and hand grenade from Saroj Kumar Biswas and if they
get late, he will send a telegram under the name of Prabhu. The name
of the sender mentioned in the telegram is Prabhu and this is addressed
to Gopalji.
Accused Santoshanand had asked the addressee to
continue to stay. The recovery of the telegram further indicates that it

was received by Gopalji in due course of business at Chautham,
Monghyer on 3.12.1973. Therefore, there was no occasion for seizure
of the manuscript of the telegram. There was no requirement of
producing the dispatch register and delivery receipt, when the original
telegram bearing the postal stamp/seal was recovered, seized from the
house of Gopalji, during the search. How accused Santoshanand came
to Howrah from Bangaon is within knowledge of accused
Santoshanand u/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, he
has not explained it in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC.
Moreover, it is not denied during the course of arguments that Howrah
falls between Bangaon and Chautham. The statement of PW-1 is
further corroborated by telegram Ex.PW-1/O regarding going of
Santoshanand along with Vinayanand to Bangaon for collection of
hand grenades from Mr. Saroj Kumar Biswas. This further

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
292
corroborates the testimony of PW-1 about his complicity and that of

Santoshanand and Gopalji in the criminal conspiracy.
210. PW-1 further testified that it was discussed by him, Gopalji,
Arteshanand and Sudevanand that 110 cartridges brought by him from
Mr. Saroj Kumar Biswas of Bangaon would be useless unless a
suitable weapon for these cartridges was got manufactured. He further
deposed that Arteshanand then stated that he would procure a weapon
for these cartridges from one Manohar Darve, an ITI Instructor at
Jabalpur, who was a staunch worker of VSS. As such, Arteshanand
and Sudevanand left Chautham on this mission. Santoshanand came
there 1-2 days after receipt of the telegram at Gopalji's house. He
deposed that Santoshanand told him that Vinayanand would stay at
Bangaon for the mission for which they had gone there. He further
deposed that before return of Vinayanand, Sudevanand and
Arteshanand to Chautham, he along with Santoshanand went to Patna
in or about 2nd week of December 1973. They both went to house,
which had been taken on rent at Gulzar Bagh. There Arteshanand and
Sudevanand met them who were already present. Arteshanand told
that he could not be successful in getting the arms manufactured by
Manohar Darve for which purpose he was brought to Patna. Darve
was not there at Patna when they reached there and had gone back.
211. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied that he has not
mentioned in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that in the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
293
absence of Santoshanand and Vinayanand, it was discussed at

Chautham that 110 cartridges brought from Bangaon would be useless
unless a weapon for the same was got manufactured. He did not state
that the job of manufacturing arms for use of 110 cartridges was
entrusted to Arteshanand. He has not stated before the Magistrate that
this was discussed amongst Gopalji, Arteshanand, Sudevanand and he
himself. He voluntarily explained that he had not made a detailed
statement.
212. The Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out certain improvements
in the statement of PW-1 during the course of his cross-examination,
to the effect that 110 cartridges would be useless unless a proper
weapon is got made or that duty to procure the arms was assigned to
Arteshanand. The course of cross-examination by the accused persons
does not discredit the visit of PW-1 with Santoshanand in the house at
Gulzar Bagh, where they met Arteshanand and Sudevanand. PW-1
has not stated in his examination in chief that duty to procure arms
was assigned to Arteshanand and therefore the question of stating
before the Magistrate in the previous statement does not arise.
Moreover, as per the deposition of PW-1, it is Arteshanand himself
who assured the co-conspirators that he would procure arms for those
110 cartridges. In fact, these are the matter of minor details, which all
were not required to be mentioned in the previous statement.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
294
213. The prosecution has examined PW-105 Sh. Dass Narayan

Sharma and PW-44 Sh. S.S. Vartak to prove that pursuant to the
criminal conspiracy, accused Arteshanand and Sudevanand tried to get
a weapon manufactured from Manohar Darve, so that said 110
cartridges are used. PW-44 Sh. S.S. Vartak, Principal, ITI,
Chhindwara, brought the leave application dated 16.12.1973 Ex.PW44/A of Manohar Darve and deposed that R.L. Malhotra was
Principal, ITI Chhindwara at that time and he (PW-44) has succeeded
him in the year 1974. He was able to identify the handwriting and
signature of Sh. R.L. Malhotra, as he had seen him writing and signing
since he took over the charge from him. He identified signatures of
Sh. Darve on application Ex.PW-44/A at point A and of Sh. Malhotra
on the order dated 28.12.1973 Ex.PW-44/B at point A. He testified
that Manohar Darve was Anand Margi. He was detained under MISA
in the year 1975.
(Ex.PW-44/DA is the order of the Director,
Employment and Training, Madhya Pradesh dated 15.07.1975,

wherein it is mentioned that M.S. Darve, ITI, Chhindwara had been
arrested and detained by Collector and District Magistrate,
Chhindwara under MISA on 04.07.1975 and M.S. Darve is placed
under suspension).
214. PW-44 admitted in his cross-examination that the application by
M.S. Darve was submitted on medical grounds. Ld. Defence Counsel
argued that when he was sick, he was not expected to come to Patna
and PW-1 had deposed that it was in or about 2nd week of December
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
216. Moreover, to avail medical leave only intimation is given and

formal application is submitted only after availing the medical leave
with medical certificate to take rest and fitness certificate. Medical
leave is never applied in advance. PW-1 has testified the relevant
period to be 2nd week of December 1973 by approximation.
Therefore, it could be from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973, which is proved
on record, when Manohar Darve remained on earned leave. This
application clearly corroborates the statement of approver PW-1 Sh.
Madan Mohan Srivastava that Manohar Darve was brought to Patna
for manufacturing arms/revolver in or about 2nd week of December
1973 and he has been on earned leave from 17.12.1973 to 22.12.1973.
Moreover, in the cross-examination, the defence has not controverted
his assertion that Manohar Darve was an Anand Margi. Ld. Defence
Counsel referred PW-105 Sh. Dass Narayan Sharma, who testified
that Sh. Radhey Mahto gave his property on rent @ Rs.20/- per month
to Aacharya Vinayanand. The house of Radhey Mahto is situated at
some distance in Mohalla Tulsi Mandi, Gulzar Bagh. He deposed that
once Aacharya Vinayanand brought a person Mohan and on asking,
he allowed that person to stay in the night. The witness was declared
hostile by the court and cross-examined by Ld. Special P.P. The
witness could not conceal the truth in his further cross-examination by
Ld. Special P.P. and it was successfully elicited that he did not
remember whether that Manohar stayed in the karkhana (workshop)
for 2/3 days or that he does not remember whether he stated to CBI

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.
Simply because a witness has been declared hostile and
made different statements at different times does not lead to

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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
299
220. In his cross-examination, when PW-1 was confronted with his

previous statement Ex.PW-1/X, it was also not found recorded therein
about his deposition that the arms and ammunitions kept at Gopaljis
house at Chautham were brought in the house at Gulzar Bagh. He
deposed that arms and ammunitions from Gopaljis house at
Chautham were not shifted to the house at Gulzar Bagh, Patna in his
presence and view but he voluntarily deposed that he had seen those
arms and ammunitions "with his own eyes" in the house at Gulzar
Bagh, Patna. When he was confronted with his previous statement the
words with own eyes were not found mentioned. He did not
remember the number of the house at Gulzar Bagh. He did not know
the name of the owner of the house but voluntarily stated that this
house was got rented by Das Narain Sharma, an Anand Margi. He
had seen the arms and ammunitions kept in a jhola in the house at
Gulzar Bagh. It is elicited in his cross-examination that decision to
keep the arms and ammunition at Gopalji's house at Chautham was
considered and taken at Bhagalpur and finally it was decided after
Gopalji met them at Bhagalpur.
221. In the cross-examination of PW-1, the accused persons failed to
demolish his testimony that arms were kept at the house at Chautham
initially or that the same were shifted in December, 1973 in the house
at Gulzar Bagh, Patna. When the basic fact of keeping the arms in
house at Chautham or shifting thereof to the house at Gulzar Bagh,
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
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
Sudevanand and Arteshanand, PW-1 went to the place near which

Abdul Gaffoor was residing. On return, they informed A-1 that he had
acquainted himself of the surroundings of the residence of Gaffoor
Saahib. Then A-1 suggested that he should go to the place of Abdul
Gaffoor in the guise of a businessman, and survey the situation from
the point of view whether action was possible there. He was provided
coat, pant and shoes to be put on by him. He (PW-1) went to his
house in the businesspersons guise, saw Abdul Gaffoor there, and
found that the place was well guarded. He told Santoshanand in the
presence of Arteshanand and Sudevanand that it was such a place
from where it would be impossible to run away/escape after killing
Gaffoor Sahib. He visited Bungalow of Abdul Gaffoor a week before
29.12.1973 at 04.00 or 05.00 PM.
224. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied that after seeing the
photograph, he had seen Abdul Gaffoor in person at his residence.
There was no register maintained at the entrance of his residence for
making entries by the visitors. There was no Pass system at his
residence. He did not remember the date of his visit to the residence
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
302
of Abdul Gaffoor but he visited him prior to his stay in Republic

Hotel. He has not stated in detail before the Magistrate that
Santoshanand told him that it would take time for Vinayanand to come
back and in the meantime he should follow Abdul Gaffoor but it was
not found mentioned in his statement Ex.PW-1/X. He replied that he
has not stated that accompanied by Sudevanand and Arteshanand, he
went to the places in the vicinity of area where Abdul Gaffoor was
residing and on returning he informed Santoshanand that he had
acquainted himself with the surroundings. He answered that he told
Santoshanand that it would not be possible to run away after killing
Abdul Gaffoor as the place was well guarded. He further testified that
he did not try to read the nameplate of the occupant of the adjacent
bungalow of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor. On the right side of the bungalow of
Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, there passes a road and on the left side, there was a
bungalow. He did not know the name of that road. That link road
meets the main road, which leads to the Secretariat. There was a
bungalow across the link road and as far as he remembers, those
bungalows were of the Ministers. He has denied the suggestion that
those are the private bungalows near the bungalow of Abdul Gaffoor.
He had not seen Mr. Abdul Gaffoor coming in and going from the
kothi but he had seen him present in his bungalow.
He did not
remember the date when he saw Abdul Gaffoor present in his

bungalow but it was before 29.12.1973 and time was 4.00 or 5.00
P.M. when he saw him. He has denied the suggestion that he had

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
Santoshanand to talk to the Chief Minister, if necessary to say that he

wanted to open a factory and in that connection, he wanted his
assistance to get land. He answered that had he been apprehended, he
would have given the same excuse. He did not take any paper with

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.
The defence has not
discredited PW-1 that accused Santoshanand brought a photograph of

Abdul Gaffoor from the office of newspaper either 'PRADEEP or
'Vishwabandhu'. The defence has also not derided the statement of
PW-1 that father of Santoshanand was working in the editorial staff of
these papers or that PW-1 saw the photograph of Abdul Gaffoor and
kept the same in the house at Gulzar Bagh. The defence has also
failed to dispute that PW-1 along with Sudevanand and Arteshanand,
went to the place in the area where Abdul Gaffoor was residing.
Therefore the testimony of PW-1 on these vital points goes
unchallenged and could not be demolished or belied and the same is
creditworthy.
226. PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal Prakash, whose testimony as regards his
association with Anand Marg, being familiar with the organization and
its publications and acquaintance with A-1 at Delhi as Editor is
already discussed in the previous captions. What is relevant for the
present is that the original name of accused Santoshanand was
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
305
Ghanshyam Prasad son of Narinder Narain Verma, who was an

employee of LIC and was also a Journalist working with the
newspaper Vishwabandhu, at Patna. PW-33 identified A-1 in the court
and deposed that he used to meet A-1 at Maha Chakra held in Patna.
There is no iota to discredit in cross-examination of PW-33 on these
points and his testimony is unshaken. Witness replied that father of A1 used to work in LIC as well as a journalist with Vishwabandhu.
Judicial notice of the fact can be taken note of that LIC of India has its
lacs of agents throughout the country and they are not on the rolls of
LIC and for that reason Ghanshyam Prasad worked as a freelancer to
Vishwabandhu and PRADEEP. PW-33 has also identified the A1 in the court correctly and his capability to identify A-1 is not
questioned. Therefore, testimony of PW-33 cannot be doubted.
227. In order to prove that accused Santoshanand brought a
photograph of Abdul Gaffoor from the newspaper PRADEEP or
Vishwabandhu as stated by PW-1, the prosecution examined PW143 Ram Naresh Prasad, the then Advertisement Manager of
Newspaper Vishwabandhu published from Bihar during the period
from 1972 to 1976. He testified that their newspaper Vishwabandhu
is published from Bihar. Its publication is very old. He worked there
as Advertisement Manager from 1972 to 1976.
He deposed that
photograph of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor used to be printed in their

newspaper. The source of getting the photograph was Public Relations
Department of Government of Bihar. Sh. N.N. Verma was part-time
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
306
worker with this Hindi daily newspaper Vishwabandhu. He had seen

Sh. N.N. Verma working in the newspaper during the period. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that Sh. A.K. Sinha was owner of this
Hindu Newspaper. He was also Editor and Manager. He admitted that
he was not receiving the photographs and their blocks. These used to
be received by Sh. A.K. Sinha. Whenever required, Sh. A.K. Sinha
himself used to get prepared the blocks of photos and these blocks
used to be in custody of A.K. Sinha. These could not be taken out of
the premises. In his presence, blocks of Photo of Abdul Gaffoor were
not received in the office. The defence could not shatter the testimony
that photo of Abdul Gaffoor used to be published in the newspaper
Vishwabandhu and Sh. N.N. Verma was a part time worker there.
Thus testimony of PW-1 is corroborated to the effect that accused
Santoshanand brought the photograph of Abdul Gaffoor from the
newspaper office either PRADEEP or Vishwabandhu where his
father was working. Admittedly, Sh. N.N. Verma is father of accused
Santoshanand.
228. However, to demolish the testimony of PW-33, A-1 examined
his brother Sh. Sushil Kumar s/o Narender Narain Verma as DW-9 on
the points of avocation of his father. This witness conveniently stated
that his father was working with National Insurance Company Limited
without filing any document. He claimed that his father had retired in
1978. His elder brother was 20-21 years older to him and his parents
informed him that his elder brother had left the house when he was
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
308
is no material to believe that the father of A-1 was not a freelancer

with "Vishwabandhu" or "PRADEEP".
230. There is no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that
the prosecution has not seized the visitor register at the reception of
the residence of the then Chief Minister Abdul Gaffoor if any person
by the name of Madan Mohan Srivastava or Visheshwaranand has
visited there in the month of December 1973. PW-1 has clarified that
he has gone to visit the Chief Minister at the time when it was meant
for public meeting. There is also no force in the arguments of Ld.
Defence Counsel that Abdul Gaffoor was not examined by the
prosecution to prove whether he had any threat perception from any
member of Anand Marg Organisation. There was no necessity of
examining Sh. Abdul Gaffoor as a prosecution witness since the
motives of conspirators were admittedly not known to Abdul Gaffoor.
It is a settled principle of law that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy.
The conspirators have decided to kill certain persons including
Madhavanand, Abdul Gaffoor, Sh. L.N. Mishra and others only with
the purpose to pressurize the government to release their cult head,
who had been in prison since December, 1971 and they had no
personal enmity with Abdul Gaffoor.
She also argued that the
photograph of the Chief Minister of a State is easily available and is

displayed in public places and PW-1 could be believed to say that he
told Santoshanand that he had not seen Abdul Gaffoor and he should
be shown to him. It has already come in the testimony of PW-143 that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
309
photographs of Abdul Gaffoor used to be published in their

publication Vishwabandhu and Sh. N.N. Verma was a freelancer
there. Sh. N.N. Verma is none but the father of accused Santoshanand.
PW-33 has also deposed so, therefore the testimony of PW-1 inspires
confidence that Santoshanand brought a photograph of Sh. Abdul
Gaffoor from the newspaper PRADEEP or Vishwabandhu, where
his father was working on the editorial staff. The accused persons
including Santoshanand have not at all shattered the testimony of PW1 that the father of Santoshanand was working in the editorial staff of
PRADEEP or Vishwabandhu from where Santoshanand brought a
Photograph of Abdul Gaffoor and handed over the same to him. Thus,
the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel falls to the ground.
Moreover, the deposition of PW-1 of having seen the photo of CM
and later tracking his movements, corroborated by the testimony of
PW-143, who deposed that their publication used to get photographs
from PRD of Bihar, being the main fact in issue, the mere defence that
PW-1 deposed falsehood of the source of the photograph melts into
the background.
231. PW-1 further testified that Santoshanand then enquired whether
Abdul Gaffoor used to come to Republic Hotel. PW-1 went there to
ascertain whether Abdul Gaffoor would be visiting the hotel or not.
PW-1 also stayed there on the night of 29.12.1973 under the assumed
name of Shankar Kumar Gupta. He signed the entry in the register of

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
remember if he had noted time of arrival and departure. In his further

cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the Hotel
Register and Inn-Register are forged documents. He has also denied
the suggestion that the entries did not exist or had been sandwiched/
interpolated subsequently.
In his further cross-examination, PW-1
replied that he enquired about the arrival of Abdul Gaffoor at Republic

Hotel from the Bearer. It is worthwhile to mention here that visit of
PW-1 to Hotel Republic, Patna on 29.12.1973 under pseudonyms of
Shankar Kumar Gupta or S.K. Gupta is not shaken in his crossexamination by the defence.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
311
233. Sheet of the Register of Republic Hotel contains an entry dated

29.12.1973 Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q (Q-8) in respect of stay of
SHANKER KUMAR GUPTA R/o S-8/19 S.W.A. Karol Bagh, Delhi.
Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9) is the Cash Voucher dated 30.12.1973, which is
signed as S.K. Gupta on 30.12.1973. Ex.PW-17/A is a bill dated
30.12.1973 of Hotel Republic issued in the name of Shankar Kumar
Gupta. This bill Ex.PW-17/A is available in the bound Bill Book of
Republic Hotel (D-54). (One sheet of Register Ex.PW-1/P (left side
of the sheet) and Ex.PW-1/Q (right side of the sheet) (Q-8) is available
in Folder R-7 and Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9) is available in
Folder R-4. Bill Ex.PW-17/A is available in Folder R-47)
234. PW-16 Sh. Lakshman Prasad, Barman in Republic Hotel, Patna
testified that he has been working as Barman in the Republic Hotel,
Patna since 1955. He deposed that Abdul Gaffoor was previously
Chief Minister of Bihar and he knew him by face. Earlier he was
MLC. He knew him even after becoming Chief Minister of Bihar. He
visited Republic Hotel once or twice after becoming Chief Minister of
Bihar. He used to visit to meet some persons staying in the Hotel.
Abdul Gaffoor used to visit Sh. R.K. Gupta of Ludhiana during his
stay in the Hotel.
235. In his cross-examination, PW-16 replied that he had seen him
last time after 2/3 years in the year 1974-75. This corroborates the
information, which accused Santoshanand conveyed to PW1 to the
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
236. A scrutiny of the deposition of PW-16 reflects that in his

examination-in-chief he has testified that he has been working as a
barman in Hotel Republic since 1955. He knew by face Sh. Abdul
Gaffoor, former Chief Minister of Bihar. Sh. Abdul Gaffoor was
earlier an MLC and used to visit Hotel Republic. He used to visit the
hotel to meet some persons like Sh. R.K. Gupta of Ludhiana, staying
in the Hotel. After he became Chief Minister, he visited there once or
twice. In his examination in chief, he has used the word used to
visit for the visit of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister, which
indicate that Sh. Abdul Gaffoor has been a frequent visitor. In his
cross-examination, it is elicited that he lastly saw him in the year
1974-75 after two or three years. The line of answers of the witness in
the cross-examination indicate that he knew Sh. Abdul Gaffoor very
well and he informed his height, body built, complexion and colour of
the hair and dressing style. The defence themselves got elicited the
visits of Abdul Gaffoor to Hotel Republic in cross-examination of the
witness, which solidifies the version of the prosecution. The witness
had also seen him in October/November, 1975 visiting Hotel
Republic. The testimony of the witness could not be discarded if he
could not remember the date and month of visit of Sh. Gaffoor in the
Hotel. As per the case of the prosecution, PW-1 has stayed in Hotel
Republic on the night of 29.12.1973 to ascertain whether Sh. Abdul
Gaffoor would be staying and taking his meal in Hotel Republic. In
his examination in chief, PW-16 supported the case of the prosecution,

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
316
Reception.
He deposed that whenever a stranger comes to Hotel
Republic for the first time, they used to take advance from him. The
visitor to Hotel Republic used to make entry in the 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
318
those days and he identified her signatures at Point A on the Voucher

Ex.PW-1/R. He replied that Bill Ex.PW-17/A bears his own
handwriting made at 10.00 PM on 29.12.1973, which indicate that he
was on duty at that time. It bears his initial on this bill. He has also
identified the entry in the visitors register Ex.PW-1/P, which is a part
of right side of the visitors register and has been separately exhibited
as Ex.PW-1/Q. (Ex.PW-17/A is a bill no. 8025 of Hotel Republic
which was issued in the name of Sh. Shankar Kumar Gupta on
30.12.1973. This is available in the bound Bill Book of Republic
Hotel in Folder R-47). (Sheet of Visitors Register Ex.PW-1/P and
Ex.PW-1/Q (having questioned writing Q-8) is available in Folder R7).
239. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has not
examined Sh. H.K. Singha and Mr. Sher Khil, Receptionist to prove
the Bill and Voucher. There is no need to bring any more evidence
which becomes superfluous to formulate that the CM visited the Hotel
Republic and PW-1 having tracked him. There is no merit in their
arguments since PW-17 has not only identified the handwriting of Sh.
H.K. Singha on Bill Ex.PW-17/A but also his own handwriting
encircled with blue pencil and his initials. He has also identified the
handwriting of Ms. Ghosh, Accountant and Sh. Sher Khil,
Receptionist. It is not suggested in the cross-examination of PW-17
that he had not seen Mr. Singha or Mr. Sher Khil or Ms. Ghosh
writing and signing. The testimony of PW-17 could not be demolished
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
319
in cross-examination by the defence on any of the point deposed by

him. While dissecting his testimony this court finds the same to be
trustworthy.
240. PW-147 Mr. Clifford Boile, the then Manager of Hotel
Republic, Patna deposed that from January 1975 to June 1976, he had
worked as Manager, Hotel Republic, Patna.
Earlier also he had
worked there as Assistant Manager from 1959 to 1961 and as Manager

from 1961 to 1962. He deposed that they were maintaining a Visitors
Register in Hotel Republic, Patna. Whenever a visitor came to their
Hotel for stay, the person present at the reception, used to make
inquiry from him as to for how long he intended to stay and what type
of accommodation was needed by him. On being satisfied, the visitor
used to make entries in the Visitors Register in his own handwriting.
The Visitor Register used to be a bound register. He testified that
most of the visitors in Hotel Republic were regular visitors. Whenever
a visitor was not a regular one, he was required to deposit advance at
the time of getting accommodation and this advance used to vary
depending on the type of accommodation required by him. PW-147
further testified that the document (D-49) having entry Ex.PW-1/P and
besides other entries bear his signature at Point B (two places) on
two pages with date 03.05.1975. He had also seen the Cash Voucher
dated 30.12.1973 of Hotel Republic, Patna Ex.PW-1/R and it bears his
signatures at two places C and D with date appended under both the
signature in his handwriting. Vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-134/A, he
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
also testified that whenever amount was obtained from a visitor as

advance, a receipt was issued to him. If at the time of checking out of
that customer, he was to pay charges, more than the amount of
advance, they used to obtain balance amount from him and in case the
amount was less, they used to return the balance amount against the
Cash Voucher No. 4. At the time of deposition in the court, the
witness has seen the Cash Voucher No. 4 Ex.PW-1/R and asserted that
it was in the handwriting of Devashish Sher Khil. He deposed that he
was familiar with his handwriting and signatures, as he had seen Sher
Khil writing and signing, while he was working under him.
The
witness has also seen the portion Mark A-2, A-3 and A-4, encircled
with red pencil, on Bill No. 8025 Ex.PW-17/A and stated that this was
in the handwriting of Sh. Devashish Sher Khil. He deposed that he
had seen Sh. H.K. Singha writing and signing, since he was working
under him. He also identified that that the portion X1 and X2 on the
said Bill Ex.PW-17/A are in the handwriting of Sh. H.K. Singha.
(Seizure Memo Ex.PW-129/B by which Cash Voucher No. 4 of
30.12.1973 of Hotel Republic was seized by PW-129 Sh. N.N. Singh
from Mr. Clifford Boile (PW-147) is available in Folder R-2)
241. In his cross-examination, PW-147 replied that there used to be
one person on duty at the Reception at one time. The accounts office
was located on the ground floor and that of the Manager on the first
floor. The bills of the guests used to be prepared at the Reception.
One copy of the bill used to be given to the customer and another used
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.
He has denied the suggestion that between
30.12.1973 and 02.01.1974 only five persons checked out in Hotel

Republic, Patna. He admitted that the Bills are prepared date-wise in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
323
respect of the customer, who checks in the Hotel Republic, Patna. He

has denied the suggestion that this Bill Book was not regularly
maintained or that he has made tutored statement. He deposed that the
month April to March is used to be their accounting year and closing
year in respect of this entry would be 31st March 1974. The audit of
accounting period April 1973 to March 1974 was done by the end of
the year 1974. He asserted that Visitor Register was not maintained
year-wise. A new register is used to start when the previous register
was completely written or if the earlier register got torn off. Normally
a Visitor Register used to be completed in 1 or 2 years. As far as he
remembered, the sheet of the Visitor Register, given to the police, was
taken out from the Visitor Register, which was started in the year 1972
and it continued to contain entries until 1974. He further asserted that
he informed the Bihar Police Officer that it was a running Visitor
Register and it was still required for audit purposes. He replied that he
handed over the original Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R to the Police as it
was no more required for audit purposes. He has denied the suggestion
that Cash Book and Vouchers are audited separately. He answered
that both are audited simultaneously. He has denied the suggestion
that CBI officer did not ask for the Visitor Register from which the
sheet was given to Bihar Police Officer. They have preserved the
Visitors Book. It must be lying in the Hotel Republic, Patna even
now. He remembered that Police Officer asked him to preserve the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
324
Visitors Book as the same might be required. Voucher Ex.PW-1/R is

available in Folder R-4.
242. Perusal of the testimony of PW-147 reflects that the same could
not be shaken in his cross-examination. This witness has also proved
the handwriting and signatures of Sh. Sher Khil and Mr. H.K. Singha
on the Bill Ex.PW-17/A and of Mr. Sher Khil on the Voucher Ex.PW1/R. His deposition that they required the Visitors Register for audit
purpose as it was a running register, has not been shaken by the
defence in his cross- examination. The deposition of PW-47 that he
himself took out the page having entry Ex.PW-1/P from the Visitors
Register and signed this sheet of Visitors Book having entry Ex.PW1/P at the time it was given to the Police Officer, is also not
discredited in his cross-examination by any of the accused persons.
His testimony that the Visitor Register was not maintained year-wise,
and a new register is used to start when the previous register was
completely written or if the earlier register got torn off, is not at all
shattered by the defence.
243. PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha deposed that in February 1974 he
was posted as Inspector with Intelligence Branch, also known as
Special Branch, of Bihar Police with Headquarter at Patna.
He
testified that on 29.4.1975, on receiving information from Deputy SP

C.D. Prasad upon which he went his house and found Madan Mohan
Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay (PW-1) there and arrested
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.
He interrogated him from 30.04.1975 to 03.05.1975 and
recorded his statement on 03.05.1975. On interrogation, he (PW-1)

disclosed that he made an entry in the register of Hotel Republic,
Patna as Shankar Kumar Gupta on 29.12.1973 and signed that entry
as Shankar Kumar Gupta. He also testified that PW-1 disclosed to
him that he signed Cash Voucher of the Hotel Republic as Shankar
Kumar Gupta. He further testified that on the same day i.e. 03.5.1975
at about 4.00 PM, he went to Hotel Republic, Patna and asked for the
production of Visitors' Register, Cash Voucher and Bills in respect of
Shankar Kumar Gupta for 29.12.1973. Two sheets of Register were
produced before him containing the entries Ex.PW-1/Q and Ex.PW1/P and he put the signatures on both these sheets at that time. The
Hotel Manager Mr. Clifford Boile (PW-147) at point B also signed
these sheets in his presence. He also deposed that Refund Voucher
Ex.PW-1/R was also produced before him by the Manager, which he
signed at Point A and Manager Clifford Boile (PW-147) signed at
point B in his presence. He deposed that entry Mark Q-8, signatures
Q-9 of S.K. Gupta also existed on two sheets Mark D-49 at the time
the same were seized by him and it was one continuing sheet, which
he took into possession from the Visitors Register. He did not take
into possession complete Visitors Register due to request of the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
326
Manager that it was a running register. He deposed that the Manager

did not give him the voucher though it was signed by him and he (PW134) instructed the Manager that the voucher should be preserved. He
also deposed that Bill Book containing serial No. 8001 to 8100 was
shown to him by the Manager, in which he found a Bill Ex.PW-17/A
in the name of Shankar Kumar Gupta at serial no. 8025 dated
30.12.1973. He (PW-134) signed the first page at point A and on the
last page at point B and on the bill no. 8025 Ex.PW-17/A at point C
contained in the bill book. He obtained signatures of Mr. Clifford
Boile (PW-147) at point D, E and F on the first page, last page and bill
no. 8025 of the said bill book. He prepared a Seizure Memo Ex.PW134/A on 3.5.1975 in respect of the sheets and bill book (containing
Bill Ex.PW-17/A) and the Seizure Memo bear his signatures at point
A and of Clifford Boile (PW-147) at point B. He has showed this
document as a receipt.
244. In his cross-examination, PW-134 replied that he did not take
any step to get Madan Mohan Srivastava identified from the
employees of Hotel Republic, Patna to find out whether he was the
same person, who stayed in Hotel Republic, Patna under the name of
Shankar Kumar Gupta. He did not take Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava
along with him, as he knew the location of Hotel Republic, Patna. It is
a well-known Hotel of Patna. He answered that since the Manager
expressed his difficulty in parting with the register, which was a
running one, so he seized only the page having the relevant entry
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
327
against a valid receipt and gave a direction to the Manager to preserve

the whole of the register. He admitted that relevant entry is the last
entry for 29.12.1973 on the sheet. He testified that the Manager, Hotel
Republic, Patna gave the relevant sheet to him, after he removed it
from the Visitors Register. The witness was shown the relevant entry
Ex.PW-1/P on which he did not find page number. He explained that
the sheet is now in torn condition.
The receipt of taking into
possession the documents from Hotel Republic, Patna was got typed
in the Hotel. He did not take into possession the Refund Voucher Ex.
PW-1/R and he left it in the hotel after he initialed the same. He made
a request to the Manager to handover the Refund Voucher, who
expressed his inability as it pertained to account department and on
that account, he directed him in writing that it should be preserved.
He admitted that Bill No. 8025 is dated 30.12.1973 and while Bill No.
8026 is dated 05.01.1974. He also admitted that Bill No. 8027 is
dated 31.12.1973 and 8030 is dated 01.01.1973. He further admitted
that Bill No. 8031 is dated 02.01.1973 and while Bill No. 8032 is
dated 31.12.1973. He further admitted that Bill No. 8034 is dated
03.01.1974 and while Bill No. 8035 is dated 01.01.1974.
In his
further cross-examination, PW-134 denied the suggestion of the

defence that he took Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand
(PW-1) to his house and kept him there for two or three days. He had
denied the suggestion that he came to know of the particulars of
Visheshwaranand on 10.02.1974. He volunteered to state that he was

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
328
not the investigation officer on 10.02.1974 and the investigation of

this case was entrusted to him on 28.02.1974. In his further crossexamination, PW-134 testified that Madan Mohan Srivastava was
allowed bail on 08.05.1975 and his statement was recorded under
Section 164 of Cr. PC on 12.05.1975.
He remained under
interrogation until 07.05.1975. He has denied the suggestion that a

deal was struck with Madan Mohan Srivastava to make a statement on
the condition that he would be allowed to rejoin his post, which he left
in 1964. He deposed that Deputy S.P. Sh. Jata Shankar Khan of
Intelligence Branch, Darbhanga, apprehended Visheshwaranand.
(Seizure Memo dated 03.05.1975 Ex.PW-134/A, by which Sh. M.M.P.
Sinha (PW-134) has seized Full Page No. 187 of the Visitors Book
containing entries from 28.12.1973 to 03.01.1974 including the entry
dated 29.12.1973 in the name of Sh. Shankar Kumar Gupta and Hotel
Republic Bill Book, containing Bill No. 8001 dated 29.12.1973 to
8100 dated 10.01.1974 including carbon copy of Bill No. 8025 dated
30.12.1973 in respect of Mr. Shankar Kumar Gupta, were seized from
Mr. C. Boile, Manager of Hotel Republic, Patna, is available in Folder
R-5)
245. I have already referred in previous part of this judgment about
PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad with whom PW-1 Madan Mohan
Srivastava had worked from the year 1961 to 1975. This witness has
also identified the signatures of PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava as
S.K. Gupta Ex.PW-1/Q in the sheet of Hotel Republic. He deposed
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
329
that these are the signatures in the handwriting of Madan Mohan

Srivastava. In his deposition, the sheet of the Hotel Republic was
mentioned as Ex.PW-1/T instead of Ex.PW-1/P, which appears to be a
clerical/typographical error. He has also identified signatures Ex.PW1/R (Q-9) on the Cash Voucher and deposed that these are in the
handwriting of Madan Mohan Srivastava. He replied that writing at
Point X encircled with blue ink on Ex.PW-1/R is not in the
handwriting of Madan Mohan Srivastava. No other writing and
signature of PW-1 was questioned by the defence. Competency of this
witness to identify the writing or signatures was never discredited by
the defence. Hence, this unchallenged testimony of PW-126A Sh.
Maheshwar Prasad corroborates the deposition of PW-1 that he stayed
in Hotel Republic under assumed name of Shankar Kumar Gupta,
which is corroborated further with the testimony of PW-134.
246. PW-129 Sh. Narinder Nath Singh, the then Inspector, CBI at
Patna stated that he remained associated with the investigation of this
case from March 1975 to November 1975 under the direction and
supervision of the Chief Investigating Officer, Sh. H.L. Ahuja. He
deposed that he visited Hotel Republic during the investigation of this
case on 19.9.1975 and seized one Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (D-15) from
Mr. Clifford Boile (PW-147), Manager of the Hotel vide Seizure
Memo Ex.PW-129/B, which was signed by the Manager Mr. Boile at
point 'A'. In his cross-examination, PW-129 answered that he did not

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.
He admitted that in the
seizure memo Ex.PW-129/B the bill number was mentioned as 4025

instead of 8025 due to clerical mistake.
247. PW-129 went on to depose that he met Sh. Madan Mohan
Srivastava in the office of Superintendent Engineer, PWD at
Darbhanga on 22.9.1975.
At that time, he obtained his specimen
writing and signatures on 15 sheets Ex.PW-1/W-1 to PW-1/W-15 and

he gave his specimen writing and signatures voluntarily in the
presence of Sh. R.B.P. Yadav, P.A. to Superintendent Engineer. Sh.
Yadav has also signed on these documents at point 'X' in his presence.
PW-1 has also confirmed at page no.36 of his statement that he has
given his specimen writings and signatures Ex.PW-1/W-1 to
Ex.PW1/W-15 (S-45 to S-59) voluntarily. He testified that documents
Ex.PW-1/T, Ex.PW-1/U and Ex.PW-1/V bear his handwritings, which
he had written during his posting in the office of Superintendant
Engineer, Darbhanga. He admitted writings on these three documents,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
331
which are Mark A-73 to A-77. PW-43 Sh. B. Lal, Government

Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Shimla
examined these specimen handwriting and signatures of PW-1 Madan
Mohan Srivastava S-45 to S-59 (Ex.PW-1/W-1 to PW-1/W-15) and
admitted writing Mark A-73 to A-77 on Ex.PW-1/T to Ex.PW-1/V
and compared with questioned writing Ex.PW-1/P (Q-8) in the sheet
of the register of Hotel Republic Ex.PW-1/5 and on the Voucher
Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9). (Documents Ex.PW-1/T to Ex.PW-1/V, having
admitted writing Mark A-73 to Mark A-77 of PW-1 are available in
the Folder R-4).
He (PW-43) deposed (at page no. 931 and 932 of
his statement) that the person (Madan Mohan Srivastava), who wrote
both these writings S-45 to S-59 and A-73 to A-77 also wrote the
writing Mark Q-8 (an entry in the register of Visitors of Hotel
Republic Ex.PW-1/Q reading as S.K. Gupta and PW-1/P, marked Q-8
in different column, signatures reading as S.K. Gupta on the Cash
Voucher of Hotel Republic, Patna (Q-9) and marked as Ex.PW-1/R).
He further deposed that both these writings agreed in general and
individual writing habits, such as, movements, which is wrist
predominant, pen presentation, which is about 70 degrees, pen
pressure, which is medium, shading, which is smooth and usually on
downwards strokes, skill, which is medium, speed, relative size,
spacing, proportion of letters. He also found similarities in individual
writing habits for the detailed reasons given in his deposition and in
his opinion Ex.PW-43/P-1 to P-20. He also deposed that questioned

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
332
writings are free in execution, there is no question of imitation in their

production, and the above similarity when collectively considered
proved the common authorship.
This further corroborates the
statement of PW-1 that he stayed in Hotel Republic under assumed

name of S.K. Gupta to watch the movement of Abdul Gaffoor on the
direction of accused Santoshanand.
248. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-1 should have
been taken to Hotel Republic for his test identification parade from the
hotel employees to confirm and prove whether he (PW-1) stayed there
as Shankar Kumar Gupta on 29.12.1973. Nevertheless, there is no
force in the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel when the writing on
the record of Hotel Republic has not only been admitted by PW-1 in
his own handwriting and admitted his signatures. Further, PW-126A
has identified the signatures of PW-1 as S.K. Gupta on the Register
Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q and on the Voucher Ex.PW-1/R. Further,
PW-43 Sh. B. Lal, GEQD has also proved by his expert opinion that
that the person (Madan Mohan Srivastava), who wrote both these
specimen writings S-45 to S-59 and admitted writing A-73 to A-77,
also wrote the questioned writing Mark Q-8 on the Visitors Register
Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q and Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9).
Therefore, there was no occasion for the prosecution to get conducted
TIP of PW-1 from the employees of Hotel Republic, Patna namely
PW-16, PW-17, PW-147, Sh. H.K. Singha and Mr. Sher Khil and
others. For the same reason, there was no necessity for prosecution to
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
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.
The date of departure is
mentioned at the top of the bill whereas date of arrival and departure
are mentioned in the body of each bill. So, all the bills of Hotel

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
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
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
17. 'Book' ordinarily means a collection of sheets

of paper or other material, blank, written, or
printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a
material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper
cannot be termed as 'book' for they can be easily
detached and replaced. In dealing with the word
'book' appearing in Section 34 in Mukundram v.
Dayaram, AIR 1914 Nagpur 44, a decision on
which both sides have placed reliance, the Court
observed :"In its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of
sheets of paper bound together in a manner which
cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing
apart. The binding is of a kind, which is not
intended to be moveable in the sense of being
undone and put together again. A collection of
papers in a portfolio, or clip, or strung together on
a piece of twine which is intended to be untied at
will, would not, in ordinary English, be called a
book ...................................I think the term "book"
in Section 34 aforesaid may properly be taken to
signify, ordinarily, a collection of sheets of paper
bound together with the intention that such binding
shall

be
permanent
and
the
papers
used
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
339
collectively in one volume. It is easier however to

say which is not a book for the purposes of Section
34, and I have no hesitation in holding that
unbound sheets of paper in whatever quantity,
though filled up with one continuous account, are
not a book of account within the purview of
Section 34."
We must observe that the aforesaid approach is in
accord with good reasoning and we are in full
agreement with it. Applying the above tests it must
be held that the two spiral note books (MR 68/91
and MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91
and MR 70/91) are "books" within the meaning of
Section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers
contained in the two files (MR 72/91 and 73/91).
20. The word 'account' has been defined in Words
and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Volume IA at
pages 336 to 338 to mean (i) a claim or demand by
one person against another creating a debtorcreditor relation; (ii) a formal statement in detail of
transactions between two parties arising out of
contracts or some fiduciary relation. At page 343
of the same book the word has also been defined to
mean the preparation of record or statement of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
340
transactions
or
the
like;
statement
and
explanation of one's administration or conduct in

money affairs; a statement or record of financial
transactions, a reckoning or computation; a
registry of pecuniary transactions or a reckoning of
money transactions; a written or printed statement
of business dealing or debts and credits; or a
certain class of them. It is thus seen that while the
former definitions give the word 'account' a
restrictive
meaning
the
latter
give
it
comprehensive meaning. Similarly is the above

word defined, both restrictively and expansively,
in Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) to mean
'a detailed statement of the mutual demands in the
nature of debit and credit between the parties
arising out of contracts or some fiduciary relation.
A statement in writing, of debits and credits, or of
receipts and payments; a list of items of debits and
credits, with their respective dates. A statement of
pecuniary transactions; a record or course of
business dealings between parties; a list of
statement of monetary transactions, such as
payments, losses, sales, debits, credits, accounts
payable, accounts receivable, etc., in most cases

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
341
showing a balance or result of comparison between

items of an opposite nature.
253. Elaborating on section 34 of Evidence Act, she has also relied
upon Para 24 & 25 of another judgment of Honble Supreme Court
in Ishwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal, 2000 (1) SCC 434 which reads
as under:24. In the recent judgment of this Court in
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla,
1998(3) SCC 410, it has been laid down that for
purposes of Section 34, 'Book' ordinarily means a
collection of sheets of paper or other material,
blank, written or printed, fastened or bound
together so as to form a material whole. Loose
sheets of papers or scraps of paper cannot be
termed as 'book' for they can be easily detached
and replaced. It has also been held that the
rationale behind admissibility of parties' books of
account as evidence is that the regularity of habit,
the difficulty of falsification and the fair certainty
of ultimate detection give them in a sufficient
degree, a probability of trustworthiness." When
that is the legal position, extracts of alleged
account books, in our view, were wrongly treated
as admissible by the courts below though the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
342
original books were not produced for comparison

nor their non-production was explained nor the
person who had prepared the extracts was
examined.
25. Therefore, the private extracts of alleged
account books like Exs.D2 to D5 are not
admissible. The principal evidence relating to the
alleged payment of rent disappears and the
foundation for the alternative plea of tenancy
crumbles. This is one reason why the finding
relating to tenancy is vitiated being based on
inadmissible evidence.
254. There is no dispute about the proposition of law settled by
Honble Supreme Court in V.C. Shuklas case (supra) and Ishwar
Dass Jains case (supra).
However, these judgments of Honble
Supreme Court are not applicable as the Visitors Register of a Hotel

is not a Book of Accounts within the meaning of Section 34 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This has been so held by the Honble
Supreme Court in Manish Dixit vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 (1)
SCC 596 and the relevant Para reads as under:
15. True Section 34 contains the rider that "such
statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to
charge any person with liability." In the first place
the provision deals only with "books of accounts".
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
343
It primarily pertains to pecuniary transactions. The

expression "books of accounts" means book in
which merchants, traders or businessmen generally
keep their accounts i.e. statements of debits and
credits or receipts and payments. A register kept at
the counter of hotel need not contain any statement
of account. So, until it is shown that such register
also pertained to the pecuniary transactions
involving the customers of the hotel the same
cannot be treated as a book of accounts. In the
second place, even if it is assumed that a register
kept in a hotel can be treated as a book of
accounts, the entry therein cannot become the sole
premise to charge a person with liability. The entry
found in the register kept at Sanjay Hotel can only
show a circumstance that A.2 Manish Dixit has
written in it the name 'Rakesh (Ramesh ?) Chander
Sharma' as the person who occupied particular
room in the hotel on 24.2.1994. Why did A.2 write
such a name in the register on the said date, which
was the immediately following date of the murder
of Gulshan Makhija. He only knows why he wrote
a different name. In the absence of any explanation
from him it is open to the Court to draw an

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
344
inference that A.2 (Manish Dixit) had some

reasons to conceal his identity to the hotel people
and hence he wrote a pseudonymous name in the
register.
255. Moreover, it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in
Ramesh Singh alias Photti's case (supra), R.L. Vaid's case (supra),
Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao's case (supra) and by our Honble
High Court in Sukhvinder Singh Sandhu's case (supra) that unless
and until the facts and circumstances in a cited case are in pari
materia in all respect with the facts and circumstances of the case in
hand, it will not be proper to cite an earlier case as a precedent to
arrive at a definite conclusion.
256. Apart from it, the particulars of this sheet of Visitors Register
of Hotel Republic Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q bearing particulars of
PW-1 and his signatures and handwriting at point Q8 dated
29.12.1973 tally with the particulars mentioned on the Bill Ex.PW17/A. This sheet of Visitors Register Ex.PW-1/P and PW-1/Q dated
29th December 1973 is in respect of visit of Sh. Shankar Kumar Gupta,
Indian, Occupation-Business, R/o S-8/19, SWA, Karol Bagh, Delhi-5.
It is mentioned that he arrived from Allahabad and was to go back to
Allahabad. He was allotted room No. 41 in the Hotel. The Bill
number is also mentioned as 8025 in the last column. He has signed
as S.K. Gupta. All these particulars are Q-8, which have been owned
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
345
by PW-1 in his own handwriting. PW-126A has also identified this

handwriting Q-8 in the hand of PW-1. PW-43 has also opined that
this handwriting and signatures Q-8 do tally with the specimen and
admitted handwriting and signatures of PW-1. The relevant particulars
of the Visitors Register in respect of visit of Sh. S.K. Gupta also
match with the corresponding entries in the relevant Bill No. 8025
Ex.PW-17/A. The entry in this Bill Ex.PW-17/A was made in respect
of visitor Shankar Kumar Gupta on 29.12.1973 as time of arrival is
also reflected as 8.35 PM. The date of departure is mentioned as
30.12.1973 with checkout time as 10.30 AM. On the left top corner, it
is mentioned that he has paid advance Rs.50/- vide Receipt No. 8521.
The total expenses of two days stay in the Hotel are mentioned as
Rs.40.28. It is also reflected from the Bill Ex.PW-17/A that visitor
Mr. Shankar Kumar Gupta was allotted Room No. 41. Mentioning of
room No. 41 and Bill No. 8025 in the folio of Visitors Register
Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q draws authentication from the Bill
Ex.PW-17/A contained in the Bill Book. Apart from this
authentication, further corroboration is found with Ex.PW-1/R, which
is a Cash Voucher dated 30.12.1973 by which balance amount of
Rs.9.72 was refunded to the visitor mentioned in the Bill No. 8025.
The visitor has signed as S.K. Gupta with date 30/12/73 and his
signatures and date are Q-9. I have already discussed these signatures
and dates Q-9 are in the handwriting of PW-1. The writing and
signatures of this entry by Mr. Shankar Kumar Gupta have been

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
346
proved to be in the handwriting of PW-1 by PW-126A Maheshwar

Parsad. This is further corroborated by the statement of GEQD PW43 Sh. B. Lal, who compared these disputed signatures of Sh. Shankar
Kumar Gupta with the admitted and specimen handwriting and
signatures and came to the opinion that these are in the handwriting of
the same writer i.e. PW-1.
(Cash Voucher dated 30.12.1973 Ex.PW-1/R is
available in Folder R-4)
257. Cleverly, in the cross-examination of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P.
Sinha, it was put to him that this is the last entry of 29.12.1973 to
mislead the court as if it was last entry on the sheet of the Visitors
Register Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q. A perusal of this folio Ex.PW1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q shows that this entry is in the middle of the folio
of the Visitors Register of Hotel Republic and even after this entry,
there are seven more entries of 30.12.1973, five entries of 01.1.1974,
three entries of 02.1.1974 and two entries of 03.1.1974. Therefore, the
suggestion made to the witness and argument ensued thereon by Ms.
Sima Gulati, Advocate is highly irrelevant and connotes nothing to
disbelieve this documentary evidence. The document does not go to
support the contention of the defence that this entry is interpolated or
added in the Register to fabricate the folio of the Visitors Register.
27) Further tracking the movements of CM.
258. PW-1 further deposed that he was told that Abdul Gaffoor did
not come to the Hotel Republic, and Santoshanand ascertained from
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
347
somewhere that Abdul Gaffoor used to come to the house of a Muslim

family near Palace Hotel, Opposite Gandhi Maidan Patna.
Then,
Santoshanand gave him a loaded revolver. He also gave one each

country made revolvers to Arteshanand and Sudevanand, and so from
30.12.1973 to 4.1.1974, he himself, Arteshanand and Sudevanand kept
a watch from 8.00 PM to 12 O' Clock at night on a rickshaw near
Palace Hotel.
Santoshanand used to supervise this action by
remaining present near about them all through. He testified that they
could not see Abdul Gaffoor coming to that family.
259. In his cross-examination, PW-1 replied on this point that he did
not know the name of the Head of Muslim family. The family was
known as Khan Family.
In his further cross-examination, PW-1
testified that the house of a Muslim woman, where Abdul Gaffoor was
expected to come, was situated in a thickly populated locality. There
was a Palace Hotel near that house. On the back of that Hotel, there
was a cinema. When he (PW-1) used to follow Abdul Gaffoor for this
purpose, it was winter season and he would wrap a chaddar and put on
pajama. He would keep the revolver in his hand hidden inside the
chaddar. They used to keep sitting on a rickshaw while Santoshanand
used to move about. The rickshaw had been hired from nearby, where
so many rickshaws remained parked. There was no bus Adda (bus
stand) nearby.
He could not say if there was any local bus stop
nearby. He did not see any police officer moving thereabout on that

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
348
place where they had positioned themselves. He had no arm licence

with him.
260. The testimony of PW-1 suggests that the then Chief Minister of
Bihar used to stay at Hotel Republic, Patna and also used to visit the
house of a Muslim family and the accused having gathered knowledge
about the movement of the then Chief Minister.
The cross-
examination did not demolish the movements and the described

occasional visits of the then Chief Minister Sh. Abdul Gaffoor.
Certain trivial questions were only put to PW-1 in his crossexamination asking him the minutes details as regards the mode of
transport chosen by them in chasing their target and the details
regarding location of the house, the name of the Head of that Muslim
family. These aspects of the cross-examination instead of discrediting
the witness, rather fortifies the chasing by PW-1 and co-conspirators.
Therefore, the cross-examination has no relevance to disbelieve the
movements of PW-1. Thus, the arguments advanced by Ms. Sima
Gulati, Advocate that no Rikshaw wala who ply rickshaw near Palace
Hotel, Patna, has been examined by the prosecution goes to oblivion.
261. PW-67 Sh. Ali Waris Khan deposed that he owned a house in
Patna City, where he has been residing with his family since 1948. He
deposed that he has seen Gandhi Maidan (ground), Patna and there is
Palace Hotel towards South of Gandhi Maidan and his house was just
adjacent and South of the Hotel Palace. It was a blind lane, which was
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.
He did not know whether information about visit of Abdul
Gaffoor, Chief Minister used to be given to the Police or not. Local

police never informed him to the effect that they had received message
about intending visit of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor to his house. Sh. Abdul
Gaffoor was Chief Minister of Bihar for two and half years and he
remembered that he was Chief Minister in the year 1973 and 1974.
He did not remember whether Abdul Gaffoor used to visit his house
twice in a week or some time thrice in a week. (When the witness was
confronted with his previous statement under Section 161 Cr. PC,
there is a mention of frequent visits and not about twice or thrice a
week).

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
350
263. The cross-examination of this witness PW-67, when perused

carefully, only confirms the fact that the then Chief Minister used to
visit the house of this witness frequently, as both were good friends.
This information gathered by Santoshanand prompted him to propel
PW-1, Sudevanand and Arteshanand to follow and exploit a chance to
eliminate the target. There is no force in the arguments of the Ld.
Defence Counsel that PW-67 Ali Waris Khan in not stating about any
of the threats to the life of Abdul Gaffoor at the hands of Anand
Margies would render the prosecution case unbelievable. There is also
no force in the arguments that Abdul Gaffoor has visited his house
rarely in the year 1973 and that is why she argues that the story of the
prosecution is woven to fix the accused. Rather the testimony of PW67 corroborates the statement of PW-1 to the effect that accused no.1
Santoshanand having told him that Abdul Gaffoor used to come to the
house of Muslim family near Palace Hotel, Opposite Gandhi Maidan,
Patna.
28) Procurement
Vinayanand.
of
hand
grenade
by
264. PW-1 averred on oath that in the Morning of 05.1.1974,

Vinayanand reached there with hand grenade brought from Bangaon.
It was shown to him (PW-1), Arteshanand and Sudevanand at Gulzar
Bagh house (Patna). After two or three hours, Santoshanand also
reached there and Santoshanand suggested that they should leave the
Abdul Gaffoor for the time being and follow Madhavanand as he was
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
351
to be produced before the District Magistrate, Patna on 07.1.1974. He

also deposed that one Ram Swarath Singh, an Anand Margi, was
called through him there, as he was familiar with the locality where
Madhavanand was to be brought. It was decided that they would go in
groups of two or three in order to survey the surroundings in which the
District Magistrate's court was situated. On 06.1.1974, he himself
along with Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand and
Ram Swarath Singh went to Collectorate in groups of two and three.
After survey of the surroundings, they came back to their house at
Gulzar Bagh. It was then decided that as soon as Madhavanand would
be brought in the Collectorate, Vinayanand would throw hand grenade
on Madhavanand, which he had brought from Bangaon. It was also
decided that he (PW-1) would remain there with a revolver with
instructions that after throwing the hand grenade, he (PW-1) would
escort him (Vinayanand) to a place near Police Line where on the road
a person on the motorcycle would be waiting for them and they would
be then driven off on that motorcycle. PW-1 further testified that
finally on his objection, it was agreed that Vinayanand would alone
carry the revolver and a hand grenade and would act there as
considered best by him in the situation. Vinayanand agreed to this
suggestion. Santoshanand asked him (PW-1) to go to Chautham. On
06.1.1974, during night he left for Chautham and was asked to stay
there with Gopalji (A-7) at his house and wait for others i.e.
Santoshanand (A-1) and others until 15.1.1974 by which date they

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
352
would reach there. He (PW-1) gave his ammunitions and revolver to

A-1 before leaving for Chautham. He (PW-1) reached there (at
Chautham) in the Morning of 7th January (1974) by bus. A-7 was not
present at his house at that time. He (PW-1) stayed at Gopalji's house.
There he heard the radio news at 7.30 PM that an attempt to kill
Madhavanand remained unsuccessful and at about 9-10 AM, on 8th
January (1974) A-7 came there with a newspaper, which contained the
details of Madhavanands life. A-7 suggested him that he should shift
to his farmhouse at Tilihar on the other side of the Kosi River. He told
A-7 that A-1 and others would be coming from Patna by 15th January
(1974) whereon A-7 advised him to wait for them at Tilihar.
Accordingly, he went to Tilihar where he remained until 15th January
(1974).
265. In his cross-examination, PW-1 answered that he did not
prepare any sketch/map after surveying the route along with which
Madhavanand had to come in the Collectorate. PW-1 has further
replied in his cross-examination that he did not state in his 164
statement that on 06.01.1974, he was asked to stay there with Gopalji
at his house until 15.01.1974 at Chautham. He did not state in his 164
statement that he gave his ammunition and revolver to Santoshanand
before leaving for Chautham. He stated that he had only said that all
his belongings were handed over to Santoshanand. (When he was
confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-1/X, where later part, it
was not found recorded therein). He did not state in his 164 statement
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
or that he went to Tilihar, where he remained until 15th
January (1974).
Merely

because
PW-1
did
not
state in his
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
354
statement under Section 164 Cr. PC about A-1 asking him to go to

Chautham or PW-1 handed over arms and ammunitions to A-1 are
only matter of minute details, which were even otherwise not required
to be stated. In these circumstances, the further deposition of PW-1 is
found worth credible and acceptance.
29) Attempt to kill Madhavanand
267. At the cost of repetition, it is worth mentioning that on reaching
of Vinayanand at Gulzar Bagh House on 05.01.1974, with a hand
grenade from Bangaon, ultimately it was decided that Vinayanand
would alone carry the revolver and hand grenade and attack
Madhavanand as soon as he would be brought in the Collectorate,
Patna. PW-1, then, left for Chautham on 06.01.1974. Pursuant to the
criminal conspiracy hatched at the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar
at Trimohan in October 1973, an attempt was made on the life of
Madhavanand on 07.01.1974. Let us examine the relevant evidence.
268. PW-8 Ct. Jai Kishan Singh, PS Kotwali, Patna deposed that on
7.1.1974, he was posted at Sadar Treasury, Patna as Guard on duty.
On that day, at about 10.30 AM, he was sitting on the Northern side of
the Guard Room of the Treasury and basking in the Sun. HC Ram
Aasrey Singh, HC Rajender Singh and Ct. Gorakhnath were also there
with him. They had finished their duty by that time. At that time, one
jeep BRV-1400 came from the Western side and was parked on the
Eastern side of the Guard Room. Severn or eight persons including
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
355
one Madhavanand Avadhoot, whose name he came to know later on,

came there.
He saw Madhavanand accompanied by escort party
proceeding towards the North for urination.
After Madhavanand
returned, he sat on the front seat of the jeep while the members of the
escort party stood on side of the park. After a short while, he noticed
four persons reaching there from Western side and stood near the park
at a distance of 20 paces away from that jeep on the road. One of
those four persons was in saffron clothes while others were in plain
clothes. Out of whom, one of them was wrapping himself with a
saffron chaddar. That person in saffron chaddar was having one
revolver in his hand. Immediately that person with a saffron chaddar
threw a hand grenade with his right hand towards the jeep and that
grenade fell at a distance about 2-2 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
(PW-10), however, stopped at some distance whereas they continued

to follow that man. After swimming a distance of about 100 yards,
they secured that man in the River and that man sustained some
injuries on being secured. He was brought to shore and by that time
police officials and district officials assembled there. That person was
feigning unconsciousness.
They took that person to the Police
Information Room after bodily lifting him. PW-8 deposed that he

would be in a position to identify that man, if his photograph was
shown to him. He identified the photograph Ex.P-4 of the person,
who was secured in the River Ganga on that day. The other three
associates of that person managed to escape from the place from
where the hand grenade was thrown. He deposed that while basking
in the Sun, he was wearing wooden sleepers and when he started
chasing that person, he left those wooden sleepers at some distance
from the grenade.
269. In his cross-examination, PW-8 answered that in those days, the
office of Collector used to start at 10.30 AM. That Jeep was parked
hardly at a distance of about 50 yards, may be less than that, from the
office of the Collector. The public starts reaching the Collector Office
at about 10.00 AM. He deposed that he saw those four persons, when
one of them threw the grenade. Earlier also, he had noticed them
when they stood there and were gazing at the jeep. Since one of those
persons threw the grenade immediately after they assembled there,
there was no occasion for them to ask them to move away from the
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.
In his further cross-
examination, it is found that he was promoted as Constable on that

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.
He answered that the man was feigning
unconsciousness and neither he nor police officers asked his name. In

fact, said person was not speaking anything and nothing was inquired
from him for that reason. (When confronted with his previous
statement, it was found recorded on asking he did not tell anything).
He replied that when they returned after having arrested that person,
Madhavanand had already been removed inside the office of District
Magistrate and in fact, he did not see Madhavanand thereafter on that
day. He further informed in his previous statement that the arrested
person was removed to the Police Information Room.
(When
confronted with his previous statement, the word lift is not

mentioned and it is mentioned that he was taken there by catching
hold of him). In his previous statement, he had mentioned having seen
four persons across the jeep before throwing of the grenade. He stated
that apart from saffron chaddar, that person was in plain clothes and
only that person out of four was wrapping a saffron chaddar. He was
not sporting any beard.
(When confronted with his previous
statement, it was found mentioned that the beard of that person was
not grown). He was a cleanly shaved except for moustaches. He did
not recollect whether in his previous statement, he mentioned the
name
of
Ram Aasrey (P.O.) and Rajender Singh as the

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.
In fact, the cross-examination rather fortified the
presence of PW-8, his colleague-police officials, the presence of the

jeep and Madhavanand being brought there by the escort party and
PW-8 having noticed four unknown person amongst whom one person
having saffron chaddar etc. Further, his cross-examination has not
demolished the said person taking out a hand grenade from the
chaddar, which was thrown at Madhavanand and the escort party. It
has further not demolished remaining three persons running away
from the scene, the PW-8 along with PW-10 chasing the culprit, who
flung the grenade and culminating into his arrest from the river
Ganga, into which he jumped and PW-8 identifying the photograph
Ex.P-4. Only certain improvements have been extracted in the crossexamination. One of these improvements is the chaddar having not
been described with its colour saffron. What is pointed by the defence
is that PW-8 being silent about his non-observing the other three
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
360
associates of the culprit after the incident. The further improvement is

that the non-observance by the PW-8 to speak with regard to the
empty cartridges arising out of the three shots fired by the said person,
who flung the grenade and with regard to the fate of the chaddar (a
piece of lengthy cloth to cover ones body). These improvements are
minor in nature and should be evaluated in the grim circumstances
where an unexpected and sudden event of serious nature like the
flinging of grenade happens; that too against a person brought by the
police. Under such situation, the police officials would naturally run
to catch hold of the culprit rather than to observe the minute
circumstances like the colour and fate of the covering cloth or the fate
of empty cartridges. When sighted from the order of human behavior
and especially by a person belonging to the police department, the
improvements pointed out by the defence are not to be winked at and
no serious attention can be given to such minor improvements
especially even the major events are not shaken in the crossexamination. This witness is highly trustworthy. It is also natural that
a person acting with such an alacrity and braveness in trying to nab a
dangerous person is rewarded with the promotion, which the defence
points out having been given the same day.
In fact, such a
commendation further proves the incident rather than to demolish it

and enhances the morale of police officials.
271. PW-9 Sh. Chandi Mishra Hawaldar testified that on 06.1.1974
while he was posted at Civil Line, Gaya as Naik, he received an order
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
361
at 8.30 PM to escort Madhavanand to Patna from Gayaji, as he was to

be produced before the Collector on 07.1.1974. Four constables and
one Sh. Ram Prasad Dubey, Zamaadar, were with him in escorting the
said person. They had a government vehicle with a driver Kailash
Singh (PW-10). On 07.1.1974, they took Madhavanand from Central
Jail, Gayaji and brought him in the jeep to the office of the Collector,
Patna at about 10.30 AM.
He deposed that they had taken
Madhavanand from Gayaji via Kedar Sarai, Islampur and Fatuha and
at all these three places, they noticed one red colour motorcycle and
two jeeps either following their jeep and running at a distance from
them. In those vehicles, some persons were wearing saffron clothes,
while the others were in plain clothes. He further deposed that on
reaching the Collectorate, Patna, they parked the jeep near Treasury,
where Madhavanand expressed his desire to urinate. They took him to
a drain nearby and wherefrom after urination, Madhavanand was
brought back and seated on the front seat of the jeep. At that time, he
noticed four persons standing on the Western side at a distance of 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.
Ct. Gorakhnath Singh, Jai Kishan Singh (PW-8) and
Kailash (PW-10) also jumped into the River and chased that man.
Subsequently Gorakhnath Singh and PW-8 Jai Kishan Singh
apprehended that man after swimming a distance of about 100-125
yards and before they apprehended him, that man threw his revolver in
the River. After securing him, Gorakhnath Singh and Jai Kishan
Singh (PW-8) brought him to Dhobighat. The said assailant received
some injuries in process and he was brought to the shore but did not
speak anything. The said person was feigning unconsciousness at that
time. From there, that person was taken to Police Information Room.
He identified the person in the photograph Ex.P-4 to be the assailant
of the grenade in the incident. Meanwhile, SHO, Kotwali, Patna also
reached the spot and gave dictation to the officer and the same was
read over to him and then he signed it. His report is Ex.PW-9/A and
bears his signatures at point A.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
363
272. In his cross-examination, PW-9 replied that on becoming

suspicious about the movement of that motorcycle and jeep, he noted
the numbers thereof on a paper. He stated that he had shown that
paper on which he noted the number of motorcycle to the police and
he retained that paper with him, which he later on lost it. He did not
remember the make of that motorcycle. He could not recollect the
number of that motorcycle. However, he testified that they were
travelling at that time in Jeep No. BRB-1400. He told the description
of two persons who were riding on that motorcycle to the police. He
told the police that the said jeeps and motorcycles were sometime
following them and at times were running ahead of them. He stated to
the police that some of the persons in those vehicles were in plain
clothes, and some in Anand Margi dress. He informed the police the
number of persons sitting on those vehicles. He informed the police
that at Collectorate Patna, Madhavanand wanted to urinate and for that
purpose they had taken him to nearby drain. He testified that in the
FIR, he had dictated the number of motorcycle, which was following
their jeep.
(When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, the
number was not found mentioned). He replied that in the said FIR, he
had also mentioned that one motorcycle and two jeeps were sometime
following their jeep and sometimes running ahead of them. (When
confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, it was not found
mentioned). He had himself seen that red colour motorcycle running
behind their jeep as also running ahead of them. He had seen the

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
confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, it was found not so

recorded. In the FIR, he further testified that the person fired three
shots at them, was wrapping a saffron colour chaddar.
(When
confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, the word Saffron was not
found mentioned). At the time of chasing that person, he was not
having any revolver, but a rifle with him. He did not aim at that
person, as in between there were three constables, who were also
running after that man. He has denied the suggestion that he had
mentioned the red colour of motorcycle to implicate Anand Margies
falsely. In the FIR, he mentioned that the said person was holding the
revolver in his left hand.
(When confronted with his statement
Ex.PW-9/A, the word left was not found mentioned). He mentioned

in his previous statement that the grenade was thrown towards the
jeep. (When confronted with his statement Ex.PW-9/A, the throwing

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
365
of grenade towards jeep was not found mentioned and it is mentioned

that the guards surrounded the jeep and grenade was thrown towards
those guards). At the time, when grenade was thrown, Madhavanand
was sitting inside the jeep and all the guards were surrounding the jeep
within a maximum distance of one pace, from that jeep. The grenade
fell two yards short of that jeep and it did not strike jeep at all. At that
time, the grenade was thrown, he was facing that person.
That
grenade fell near him. Jai Kishan (PW-8) was running ahead and he
was following him. While running, that person threw his chaddar on
the way.
Neither of them had picked up.
In the FIR, he had
mentioned about dropping of that chaddar by that person.

273. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW-9 makes it
abundantly clear that the accused persons have again failed to
demolish the testimony of this witness in describing the incident that
had taken place on 07.01.1974 at the Collectorate, Patna. Rather, the
cross-examination of PW-9 fortifies the presence of PW-9, members
of his escort party, guards at the Treasury including PW-8, the
presence of the jeep and Madhavanand being brought there by them
and PW-9 having noticed four unknown persons amongst whom one
person wearing saffron chaddar and revolver in his left hand. It is
also not demolished in his cross-examination that the said person
taking out a grenade from the chaddar, which was thrown towards
jeep, in which Madhavanand was seated in the front seat and
surrounded by members of the escort party including PW-9. It has
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
366
further not demolished that remaining three persons having running

away here and there from the scene of the crime, the PW-8,
Gorakhnath along with PW-9 and PW-10 chasing the culprit, who
flung the grenade and culminating into his arrest from the river
Ganga, into which he jumped and PW-9 identifying the photograph
Ex.P-4.
The Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out a few little
improvements in the statement of the witness, which are descriptive in

nature. Those trivial improvements are that in his previous statement,
he mentioned that those unknown persons were 3 or 4, whereas in the
court, he deposed that those were four persons, out of which one of
them had wrapped himself with a saffron chaddar. They have also
pointed out that the word Saffron was not found mentioned in his
previous statement. It is also pointed out that in the court the witness
has stated that one out of those four persons, was carrying a revolver
in his left hand and this word left was not found mentioned in his
previous statement. The defence has also pointed out that the PW-9 is
silent about his non-observing the other three associates of the culprit
after the incident. The defence has also pointed out that PW-9 has not
stated as to whether three empty cartridges of the shots fired by the
culprit and his saffron chaddar were recovered or not by the police.
These improvements are not serious in nature and should be evaluated
in the grim circumstances where an unexpected event of grave and
gruesome nature like the flinging of grenade happens; that too against
a person in police custody. Under such circumstances, the police

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.
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.
One of the four persons, aged about 25-26 years, was
holding a revolver in his left hand. He was wrapping a saffron colour

chaddar and by his right hand, that person threw a grenade towards
their jeep. The said grenade fell 2 yards from their jeep, but did not
explode. After throwing grenade, that person ran towards the West
and they all rushed after him. The other three associates of that person
ran away hither and thither. He himself, Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and 4

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
275. In his cross-examination, PW-10 elaborated that he talked to

Madhavanand outside the Collector Office, after about an hour of
throwing grenade. Then he returned from PIR leaving the person,
who had thrown the grenade there and at that time Madhavanand told
him that the name of Vinay Avadhoot and Ram Roop.
(When
confronted with his previous statement, it was found mentioned

Rajasthan Ka Vinay). He deposed that Madhavanand told him name
of that Vinay as Vinay Avadhoot.
(When confronted with his
previous statement, the word Vinay was found mentioned at one

place and Vinay Avadhoot at another place). At 04.30 PM on
07.01.1974, they had escorted Madhavanand to PIR and there, he
identified Vinay Avadhoot and told his name. In the PIR, on seeing
Vinay Avadhoot, Madhavanand himself pointed out that he was the
person, who threw the grenade and at that time, Vinay Avadhoot was
feigning unconsciousness and was not speaking. He was not telling
his name. He could not recollect whether in his previous statement, he
had given the colour of the chaddar, which that person was wearing as
saffron.
(When confronted with his previous statement, Saffron
colour was not found mentioned). He did not recollect whether he

stated to the police that three associates of the grenade thrower ran
away here and there.
276. A scrutiny of the cross-examination of PW-10 reflects that the
defence could not demolish his testimony while describing the
incident that had taken place on 07.01.1974 at the Collectorate, Patna.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
371
Rather, the cross-examination of PW-10 further confirms the presence

of PW-10, members of the escort party, guards at the Treasury
including PW-8, the presence of the jeep and Madhavanand being
brought there by them and PW-10 having noticed four unknown
person amongst whom one person wrapping himself with a saffron
chaddar and having revolver in his left hand. It is also not demolished
in his cross-examination that the said person taking out a grenade from
the chaddar, flung towards jeep, in which Madhavanand was
occupying the front seat and surrounded by members of the escort
party including PW-10. It has further not demolished that remaining
three persons having run away here and there from the scene of the
crime, the PW-8, Gorakhnath along with PW-9 and PW-10 chasing
the culprit, who flung the grenade and culminating into his arrest from
the river Ganga, into which he jumped. They also could not dispute
the testimony of PW-10 that on conversation by him with
Madhavanand after securing of the assailant, Madhavanand informed
him the name of the assailant to be Vinay Avadhoot. However, the
Ld. Defence Counsel have pointed out a few improvements, which are
of lesser importance and not altering the material particulars. Those
trivial improvements are that in his previous statement, it was found
mentioned that name of the assailant having been named as Vinay or
Vinay Avadhoot or Rajasthan Ka Vinay, whereas in the court he has
described his name as Vinay Avadhoot.
The other improvement
pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel is that in his previous

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.
The witness also could not tell
whether he had stated before the police that three companions of the
assailant went hither and thither. These improvements, which are
trivial in nature, are to be viewed in the grim circumstances where an
unexpected gory event like the flinging of grenade happens; that too
against a person brought by the police. Under such circumstances, the
priorities of the police officials would naturally be towards catching
hold of the culprit rather than to follow the companions of the culprit
or to notice minute circumstances like the colour of the covering cloth.
The testimony of PW-10, who is also a police official and a public
servant, inspires confidence and his testimony went unshaken in any
manner.
277. PW-7 Sh. A.R. Ghosh, Photo Expert of CID, Bihar at Patna
deposed that on 7.1.1974, he was posted as Photo Expert at
Secretariat, Bihar Government, Patna.
On that day, he went to
Collectorate, Patna, on the directions of the Incharge and reached there

at 3.30 PM, where he took the photographs of the scene of the
occurrence. There was lying one bomb type object and he took its
photograph. In all, he took 10 photographs. He brought in the court
the negatives of those photographs, which are Ex.PW-7/1 to Ex.PW1/10 and corresponding photographs are Ex.PW-7/11 to Ex.PW-7/20.
Besides that, he also took photographs of injured person, who was
arrested by the police. Two negatives of the same are Ex.PW-7/21
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
373
and Ex.PW-7/22. Ex.PW-7/21 is the negative of photograph Ex.P-4.

He claimed that he has been doing photography for the last 25 years.
Despite opportunity, the defence chose not to cross- examine him and
thus the testimony of PW-7 went unrebutted.
278. PW-1 further testified that Ex.P-4 is photograph of Vinayanand
and this was of the time when he discarded his dress as Avadhoot and
started putting on plain clothes.
This photograph has also been
identified by PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10.
Madhavanand during
conversation, after securing of the assailant, informed PW-10 that the

assailant was Vinay Avadhoot.
279. PW-18 Sh. Gokhla Nand Sahai, the then officer Incharge PS
Kotwali, Patna deposed that on 7.1.1974, at about 10.55 AM, he
received an information that some explosive bomb had been thrown in
front of Treasury, Patna. He along with some officials proceeded to
that place for verification. On reaching there, he noticed that one jeep
was parked and one grenade lying there at a distance of six feet from
that jeep. He deposed that he recorded the statement of one Chandi
Mishra (PW-9) at the spot. He gave dictation based on statement
made by Chandi Mishra, which was recorded by Sub-Inspector Girija
Nand (PW-92). Ex.PW-9/A is the statement of Chandi Mishra, which
was recorded on his dictation by SI Girija Nand, in his presence and it
bears his signatures. This statement Ex.PW-9/A was sent to PS
through ASI Durga Prasad for registration of the case. He correctly
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
374
recorded the endorsement Ex.PW-18/A in his handwriting on

statement Ex.PW-9/A. This endorsement Ex.PW-18/A, bears his
signatures also. He entrusted the investigation of this case to SI Girija
Nand (PW-92).
280. In his cross-examination, PW-18 replied that signatures of
Chandi Mishra (PW-9) are at point A on Ex.PW-9/A. The rukka
(information) sent to the police station for registration of the case was
not returned to the IO after registration of the case and in fact, it was
kept in the police station with the original FIR. He did not leave the
spot immediately after sending of rukka to the police station and he
remained at the spot and the PIR for about two hours. He had no
concern to know the number of the said FIR of that case. He testified
that he had put section 120-B read with section 302 IPC. He admitted
that no death took place in this incident regarding which statement of
Chandi Mishra (PW-9) was sent to Police station for registration of a
case. PW-18 answered that the only work, which he had done at the
spot, was of sending the rukka.
He denied the suggestion that
Madhavanand was not present at the spot at the time of the incident.
He did not prepare any rough site plan of the spot. Chandi Mishra
gave the description of one person in his statement Ex.PW-9/A,
though he referred four persons in his statement. The witness has seen
FIR Ex.PW-92/A in the court and found that at the right top corner,
the date 8.7.1974 is written, (In fact, this is 8.1.1974). It is elicited
that when he reached the spot, member of public, Chandi Mishra and
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
375
police officers were present. No person from the public volunteered to

give information as to how the occurrence had taken place.
281. PW-92 Sh. G.N. Singh (Girija Nand), the then Second Officer,
PS Kotwali, Patna deposed that from March 1973 to February 1976,
he was posted in PS Kotwali, Patna. He remained there posted as
Second Officer till May, 1974. He became Incharge PS Kotwali,
Patna after May, 1974. He deposed that on 07.1.1974 at about 10.55
AM, Officer Incharge PS Kotwali, Patna informed him about rumour
of a bomb blast in Patna Collectorate. He (PW-92), ASI Rameshwar
Prasad and ASI Durga Prasad accompanied Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW18) for going to Patna Collectorate and reached there at about 11.15
AM. They found a hand grenade lying between the Treasury Guard
Room and office of the Collector. They also found a jeep no. BRB1400 parked at a distance of about two yards of the hand grenade and
it was facing East. He also found one Iron Lever and one pair of
wooden sleepers near the hand grenade. They also found a crowd near
that place. They repelled the crowd from that place and deputed
constables on all the sides of the place. He did not find Naik Chandi
Mishra there. Ct. Chandi Mishra (Naik) came there at about 12.30
PM. There was a Police Information Room (PIR), which was at a
distance of about two furlongs from the place where the jeep was
parked and the police information room was not visible from near the
jeep. Sub-Inspector Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-18) took the statement
of Naik Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and at the instance of Gokhla Nand
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
376
Sahai (PW-18), he (PW-92) recorded the statement of Chandi Mishra

Naik (PW-9) Ex.PW-9/A correctly. He read it over to Naik Chandi
Mishra, who admitted the same to be correct and signed at point A.
He has worked with Gokhla Nand writing and signing and
accordingly, he identified signatures of Gokhla Nand Sahai at point C
on Ex.PW-9/A. Sh. Gokhla Nand Sahai recorded his endorsement
Ex.PW-18/A in his own handwriting. SI Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-18)
entrusted the investigation of this case to him. He, therefore, sent the
statement of (PW-9) Naik Chandi Mishra with endorsement of SI
Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-18) to PS Kotwali, Patna for registration of a
formal FIR through ASI Durga Prasad Singh. He had seen the FIR,
which is hand of ASI Durga Prasad Singh.
He identified the
handwriting and signatures Junior SI Saraswati Pandey. FIR is

Ex.PW-92/A, which bears the signature of Junior SI Saraswati Pandey
at point A. He deposed that he correctly recorded the statements of SI
Gokhla Nand Sahai (PW-18) and Naik Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and
thereafter inspected the spot.
There was a park in front of the
Collectorate, Patna towards South. There was a road in between the

Park and Patna Collectorate. The jeep was found parked at a distance
of about 20-22 yards towards East of that park. Patna Collectorate is
towards North of the jeep at a distance of about 15 feet from that jeep.
The Treasury Guard Room was at a distance of about 20/21 feet from
the jeep. There was a drain running North-South at a distance of 12
feet towards the East of the jeep. River Ganga was flowing towards

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
377
North of the building of Patna Collectorate and it was flowing towards

East-West. He deposed that River Ganga was at a distance of 25-30
yards from the turning.
He saw the boundary of Magad Mahila
College. There was washer man ghat towards North-East corner of

the boundary wall of the said college.
There was a pagdandi
(footpath), which leads up to Dhobighat and beyond that, some bricks

were kept there. Police Information Room was at a distance of about
two furlong towards the south of Dhobighat, there was a path for
going to Police information Room from the Dhobighat by the side of
boundary wall of Magad Mahila College, and that path was in South.
He deposed that a person desirous to go to the Police Information
Room from Dhobighat would use the said path and the place where
the jeep was parked, would not fall on the way.
282. In his further statement, PW-92 Sh. G.N. Singh deposed that
after inspection of the spot, he returned to Patna Collectorate. He
requested the City S.P., who arrived there, to arrange the services of
military personnel to examine and inspect the hand grenade. One
military Captain came there from Danapur Cantt. He talked to the
Captain and made arrangement of sand bags. On his request to SDM,
Lala Agam Prasad, Deputy Magistrate was deputed for destruction of
the hand grenade. Thereafter, he went to Police Information Room,
where he found one accused in custody, lying on bench who was
keeping mum and was not speaking. He found a wound on his head.
His clothes were found wet with water. He prepared injury statement
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
378
and made a request for his medical examination. He identified the

photograph of the assailant as Ex.P-4. He sent information to the
police photographer through police information room to get the spot
photographed. He returned to the spot at 3.30 PM and immediately
thereafter photographer also reached there who took photographs on
his direction. He stated that jeep had been moved ahead before taking
of the photographs.
He recorded statements of the constables of
treasury guard and their HC and of Ct. Jai Kishan Singh (PW-8). At
5.45 PM, the afore said military Captain Mr. Prabhat (PW-150) along
with two officials came to the spot and at that time Lala Agam Prasad,
Deputy Magistrate also arrived there. Sand bags were also brought at
the spot by that time. Those sand bags were kept around the hand
grenade and he and Lala Agam Prasad gave a warning to the public to
move away from that place. By that time, City S.P. and other officers
also arrived. Thereafter, hand grenade was blasted by Captain Prabhat
(PW-150) causing vibration of great velocity and sand bags kept
scattered. There was a pit of 1 X 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
283. PW-92 further testified that on 08.01.1974, the accused was

sent to Medical College, Patna in the Evening. He had taken into
possession one spring and a plug, which were the remnants of the
bomb along with the Lever from the spot on 07.01.1974 and he
deposited the same in the Malkhana (Store Room) of PS Kotwali. He
testified that Jeep was of yellow colour, station wagon was of green
colour and motorcycle was of red colour. All these three vehicles
were in running condition. The accused was discharged from the
hospital on 18.01.1974. His police remand was taken on the same day
until 29.01.1974 and he was sent to judicial custody on 30.01.1974.
Investigation of this case was remained with him up to 27.02.1974,
when it was handed over to Sh. M.M.P. Sinha of Bihar CID (PW134).
defence that the hand grenade of this incident was thrown on
Madhavanand. He deposed that culprit of the crime was sent to Police
Information Room, before recording of FIR. He had shown the culprit
to Madhavanand after five or six hours of registration of the case. He
could not say whether Madhavanand was sent back to jail at 05.00
PM. He did not obtain any specific order from the Magistrate to keep
Madhavanand after 05.00 PM. Since Madhavanand had given the
name of the person apprehended, he was not put for test identification
parade. He has denied the suggestion that the man in the photograph
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.
He had seized all those three
Their drivers could not be arrested as it could not be
ascertained as to who were the drivers of these three vehicles. During

his posting, no one has taken three vehicles on superdari. He admitted
that registration number of these vehicles is not reflected in the
statement of Chandi Mishra. He testified that the slippers shown in
the photographs were of Ct. Jai Kishan Singh (PW-8).
285. Ex.PW-9/A is an intimation/rukka on the statement of Sh.
Chandi Mishra (PW-9) dated 07.01.1974, which was forwarded by the
Station Incharge, PS Kotwali for registration of FIR. It (information)
speaks of a case under Section 120-B read with section 302/307 IPC
and under Section 4/5 Explosive Act and 25/27 of Arms Act. The
endorsement is Ex.PW-18/A on the rukka Ex.PW-9/A itself. At its
bottom, it is mentioned that a case No. 24 of 07.01.1974 U/s. 120-B
read with Section 302/307 IPC and 4/5 Explosive Act and 25/27 Arms
Act was registered with PS Kotwali, Patna and SI G.N. Singh (PW-92)
has taken over the investigation. On the right top corner of the rukka
on the first page, CJM has mentioned as Seen and put his signatures
on 08.01.1974. On the right top corner of the FIR Ex.PW-92/A, CJM
has signed with date 8.01.74.
(All these documents are available in Folder R-9).
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
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.

He testified that the sealed Parcel, which was
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
384
sent to Controller of Explosive, Calcutta on 5.4.1974, was taken from

Malkhana, PS Kotwali Patna.
290. The prosecution has also examined an explosive expert Sh. R.P.
Malhotra as PW-138 to prove his report about the bomb found at the
Collectorate Patna. Sh. R.P. Malhotra, the then Deputy Controller of
Explosives at Calcutta deposed that he was posted as Deputy
Controller of Explosives at Calcutta from 1972 to 1976. He is B.Sc. in
Chemical Engineering and AMIE, which he had passed in the year
1968. He remained posted in Ordinance Factory, Kirki in supervisory
capacity from 1961 to 1971. During apprenticeship in the ordinance
factories, he received practical training in handling the hand grenades.
After 1972, he examined a number of explosives including hand
grenades. He had appeared in various courts as Deputy Controller of
Explosive and as Controller of Explosives.
He was promoted as
Controller of Explosives in the year 1981. PW-138 further testified

that on 6 th April 1974, he received a sealed tin container through Sh.
Alok Nath Chatterjee (PW-140) Sub-Inspector CID, Patna (Bihar)
relating to Patna Kotwali vide Case No.24 dated 7.1.1974. He issued
a receipt in token of his having receipt this sealed parcel. He brought
with him the file having the receipt also. On 02.04.1974, he examined
the contents of the sealed tin container consisting of article Mark (A)
Broken Spring, Mark (B) Fly of Lever and Mark (C) Base Plug. On
examination, these were found to be remnants of an exploded hand
grenade. These were then sent in his laboratory attached to his office
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
385
for chemical examination. Sh. A. Ray was the chemical examiner.

(During deposition of PW-138 in the court, one parcel sealed with the
seal of Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Calcutta was opened,
from which Fly of Lever Ex.P-138, Base Plug Ex.P-139 and Broken
Spring Ex.P-140 were taken out). PW-138 deposed that these are the
same, which were marked by him as Mark A, B and C. He brought
with him the file of this case, in which the copy of his report with his
signature is available. The copy of report of Sh. A. Ray, Chemical
Examiner, was also available, which is Mark PW-138/B.
He
identified the signatures of Sh. A. Ray at point A. Therefore, this

report of Sh. A. Ray is proved by PW-138 and it is now exhibited as
Ex.PW-138/F. He testified that original report was forwarded to the
SDM, Sadar, Patna, vide registered post and he brought office copy
available in his file, which is Ex.PW-138/C. He identified his own
signature on this office copy at point A and of Sh. Kundu (PW-51),
Controller of Explosive at point B. The sealed parcel was then handed
over by him to Sh. Ram Bachan Ram, ASI, IB, Bihar, Patna, on
04.12.1974.
291. As per report dated 18.06.1974 Ex.PW-138/C of PW-138 of Sh.
R.P. Malhotra, the above said articles A and B were the remnants of
an exploded hand grenade, which prior to explosion contained high
explosive charge of Tri-Nitro-Toluene. The article Mark C was a fly
of lever of such type of grenade and that a grenade of above type is
capable of endangering life on explosion. As per the chemical
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
386
examination report Ex.PW-138/B of Sh. A. Ray, article Mark A was

consisting of a broken spring with a metal body, article B was
consisting of a metal piece and mark C was consisting of a metallic
plug. Tri-Nitro-Toluene (TNT) was detected in each of items Mark A
and C and nothing of significance was detected in the article Mark B.
(Report of Sh. A. Ray Ex.PW-138/B and Report
Ex.PW-138/C of Sh. R.P. Malhotra are
292. Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati argued that as per the
case of the prosecution Madhavanand was brought from Gayaji Jail to
Collectorate, Patna, but no document of Gaya Jail or production
warrant to show that he was being brought to Patna, has been filed by
the prosecution. She also argued that the story of the prosecution is
unbelievable as Madhavanand could have been attacked easily during
the journey from Gaya to Patna as it was a rural area and the distance
between Gayaji & Patna was about 130 KMs, and it was difficult to
attack at a crowded place like Office of Collector, Patna, where there
was no scope to escape after attack. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that
Ram Swarath Singh of Khusrupur Village referred by PW-1 in his
statement, who, had knowledge about the topography of the area, has
not been examined. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that
Madhavanand has not been examined for identification of his assailant
Vinayanand as stated by PW-9 and PW-10 in their respective crossexamination. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that no public person was
joined a witness to the incident of attack on Madhavanand and only
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
387
police officials, who are interested witnesses, have been examined to

prove the incident. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the Investigation
Officer made no effort to recover the saffron chaddar, which
Vinayanand has alleged to have thrown while fleeing from the spot
towards Ganga. Further, she points out a lapse in the investigation in
not recovering three empty cartridges as Vinayanand has fired thrice
while fleeing from the spot towards Ganga. She would further urge a
defect in the investigation in not recovering the revolver, when there
was only waist-deep water in the Ganga.
293. PW-9 Chandi Mishra Hawaldar and PW-10 Kailash Singh
Hawaldar have already testified that they have brought Madhavanand
from Gayaji Jail to Collectorate, Patna and in view of their trustworthy
ocular testimony, there remains no requirement to place on record
production warrant or any document of Gaya Jail. These witnesses as
well as PW-8 Jai Kishan Singh have given detailed narration as to how
a hand grenade was thrown towards the jeep in which Madhavanand
was sitting which fell at a distance of 2/3 yards from the jeep and the
grenade did not explode. It had already come in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses that after throwing the hand grenade, the
assailant ran towards the Ganga and jumped into it. PW-8 Ct. Jai
Kishan and Gorakh Nath Singh brought him to banks of the River and
they have identified the photograph of the assailant Ex.P-4 as the said
assailant. Consequently, they secured him from River Ganga and this
photograph has also been identified by PW-1 as that of Vinayanand.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
388
The entire argument concerning these events advanced by the Ld.

Counsel for the defence is merely peripheral since this court is not
adjudicating any substantive charges concerning the attack on the life
of Madhavanand, which happened prior to the murder of L.N. Mishra.
It should be borne in mind that these incidents are only put forth by
the prosecution in the backdrop of the charge u/s 120-B IPC in respect
of conspiracy hatched to kill Madhavanand, Abdul Gaffoor, L.N.
Mishra and others. This court, in fact, need not go into details to find
out the complicity of the assailants of Madhavanand, but only consider
it as a backdrop to prove the charge under Section 120-B of IPC,
which is sufficiently proved through the eye witness account of PW-8
to PW-10, which is appreciated already. It is only superfluous to urge
here that Madhavanand would have been attacked on the way from
Gaya to Patna and not in a city like Patna. As regards, the nonrecovery of certain material objects concerning the incident of attack
on Madhavanand, the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court in
Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and another, 2014
(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, cannot be lost sight of. It is held in Para No.
31 to 33 therein that if direct evidence is there, non-recovery of
weapon or pistol or spent cartridges does not derail from the case of
the prosecution. Reference can also be given to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi & Others Vs. State of
Bihar, 2002 (6) SCC 81, holding therein "It has been then submitted
on behalf of the appellants that nothing incriminating could be

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
390
defence which got elicited the name of assailant as Vinay Avadhoot in

cross-examination of PW-10. This incident has been duly registered
with PS Kotwali as per the evidence of PW-18, which is discussed
above.
295. As regards the oral and documentary evidence proved through
witnesses PW-18, PW-92, PW-134, PW-138, PW-140 and PW-150,
shows that the hand grenade was a live one, which was later detonated
and exploded with the help of PW-150. The evidence of PW-138 and
PW-150, which remained un-derided, establishes that the hand
grenade contained TNT, a dangerous explosive substance. This
incident is to be viewed only to substantiate the theory the prosecution
that there was a conspiracy hatched at Trimohan in October 1973
when they decided to eliminate the perceived enemies including
Madhavanand, on whom the hand grenade was flung.
296. It is argued by Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate that in his
Application by way of Memo of Evidence dated 08.02.1975 Ex.PW134/DD (also exhibited as Ex.PW-151/DF), filed by the Investigation
Officer Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134), before the Judicial Magistrate,
Patna, names of accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand
were not mentioned regarding the incident dated 07.1.1974. She also
points out that in other applications Ex.PW-134/DA (dated
01.08.1974), Ex.PW-134/DB (dated 12.07.1974) and Ex.PW-151/DB
(dated 26.07.1974) filed before the Magistrate; PW-134 Sh. M.M.P.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
391
Sinha has mentioned that conspiracy was hatched by Vinayanand,

Visheshwaranand, Rudranand and Shankaranand at Village Arrah.
She argued that in the charge sheet, Investigation Officer, without any
reason or justification, has shown the place of conspiracy to be at
Village Trimohan instead of Village Arrah and names of
Santoshanand,
Sudevanand
and
Arteshanand
are
mentioned.
However, I do not find any force in this argument since the said
applications were filed when the matter was still under initial
investigation. I have perused all these applications and found that all
these details are mentioned by the Investigation Officer based on the
disclosure made by Vinayanand Avadhoot in the course of his
interrogation soon after his unsuccessful attempt to escape after
throwing the grenade on the jeep of Madhavanand at Patna
Collectorate on 07.01.1974. Based on the disclosure by Vinayanand,
IO has mentioned that Vinayanand has informed about the plan to kill
Madhavanand Avadhoot hatched in Anand Marg Primary School,
Arrah by Visheshwaranand Avadhoot, Shankaranand Avadhoot and
Vinayanand Avadhoot. (These applications are available in Folder
R-18). Moreover, this court cannot ignore the fact that at that point of
time, the investigation was at its initial stage. The ultimate result of
investigation was filed subsequently by the Investigation Officer in the
form of charge sheet u/s 173 Cr. PC of which cognizance was taken by
the court and ultimately after considering the evidence collected

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
392
during investigation, my Ld. Predecessor ordered for framing of the

charge.
297. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel Ms. Sima Gulati that
with regard to the incident at Collectorate Patna, all the witnesses
examined by the prosecution are police officials, who are interested
one and no attempt was made to join any private witness from the
public when admittedly there was a huge crowd after the incident. In
this regard, it would be relevant to refer following observation of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Mathew and
another, AIR 1978 SC 1571: "the evidence of the investigating officer cannot be
branded as highly interested on ground that they
want that the accused are convicted. Such a
presumption runs counter to the well recognized
principle that prima facie public servants must be
presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and
their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic
worth and cannot be discarded merely on the
ground that being public servants they are
interested in the success of their case."
Therefore, the public servants, who have deposed, must be presumed
to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be
assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the
ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
393
their case. Moreover, it is a matter of common prudence that generally

private persons in such type of incident are scared of becoming
witnesses. Therefore, the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel falls to the
ground.
30) Aftermath the attempt on Madhavanand.
298. PW-1 deposed that at about 9-10 AM, on 8th January (1974)
Gopalji came there (Chautham) with a newspaper, which contained
the details of Madhavanand's life. Gopalji suggested to him that he
should shift to his farmhouse at Tilihar on the other side of the Kosi
River. He told Gopalji that Santoshanand and others would be coming
from Patna by 15th January (1974) whereon Gopalji advised him to
wait for them at Tilihar. Accordingly, he went to Tilihar where he
remained until 15th January (1974). PW-1 further testified that when
Santoshanand and others did not reach there, he (PW-1) came back to
Gopalji house at Chautham. After 2-3 days, Arteshanand and
Sudevanand also reached there but Santoshanand did not come there.
Sudevanand narrated him all the details of attack made on
Madhavanand. He further deposed that on 17th January (1974), they
received a telegram from Santoshanand in the name of 'Prabu'
addressed to Gopalji Ex.PW-1/S that they should wait for 'satsang'.
After one or two days of telegram, Santoshanand came to Chautham
and discussed attack on Madhavanand in detail.
Santoshanand
expressed his regret that they had not been successful in their mission.
At that time, he himself, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Gopalji and
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
394
Santoshanand were present. Santoshanand asked him to go and bring

Ram Kumar so that further programme could be chalked out. It was
decided that further course of action be deferred for the time being as
they were short of arms and ammunitions. In or about 4th week of
January, (1974), he (PW-1) went to Trimohan to bring Ram Kumar
but he refused to come. It was decided that they would all go to Ram
Kumar's house on 6th February and the situation would be reviewed
there and further programme would be settled. They were asked to
take shelter at their respective places and should reach at Ram
Kumar's house on 6 th February 1974. He (PW-1) came to Trimohan at
Ram Kumar's house and all others reached there on 6th February. He
himself, Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Ram Kumar and
Tyageshwaranand participated in a meeting on 6th February 1974 at
the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan. In the meeting, Santoshanand
suggested that they were short of arms and ammunitions and another
meeting would be held on 15.2.1974. In the meantime, they should go
to their respective convenient places for shelter. Tyageshwaranand
was VSS Organizer of Bihar State and he (PW-1) told them that he
had no shelter in Bihar and so Santoshanand told him that Abdul
Gaffoor was fighting elections from Madhubani constituency and he
should go there to keep a watch on his activities.
299. In the cross-examination, it is found that at 06.30 AM on
07.01.1974, PW-1 reached Chautham, but Gopalji was not there at that
time.
He has not stated before the Magistrate that on reaching

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
395
Chautham, Gopalji came there next day i.e. on 08.1.1974. He deposed

that he has stated before the Magistrate that on 08.1.1974 Gopalji
came there and brought newspaper containing the news that an attack
had been made on Madhavanand in the Collectorate at Patna. He was
confronted with the statement Ex.PW-1/X where the words they have
read news in the newspaper is not mentioned. He has not stated
before the Magistrate that Gopalji had asked him to stay at Tilihar. He
explained that Magistrate did not ask of his activities after incident of
Madhavanand. He did not state in his previous statement that on 17th
January (1974), they received a telegram from Santoshanand by the
name of "Prabhu" addressed to Gopalji that they should wait for
"Satsang". He also did not state that after one or two days of the
telegram, Santoshanand came to Chautham and question of
unsuccessful attempt of Madhavanand's life was discussed or that
Santoshanand has expressed his regret for the failure of the mission.
He also did not tell Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Gopalji and
Santoshanand were present at that time or that Santoshanand asked
him to come and bring Ram Kumar for planning further programme.
It is further found in his cross-examination that he did not state before
the Magistrate that it was decided that further course of action shall be
deferred as they were short of arms and ammunition. He did not state
before the Magistrate that in or about fourth week of January, he went
to Trimohan to bring Ram Kumar or he refused to come. He also did
not state that when he came back, it was decided that they would go to

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
396
Ram Kumar's house on 06.02.1974, where situation was to be

reviewed and further programme was to be settled. He also did not
state before the Magistrate that when all others left, he came to
Trimohan at Ram Kumar's house or that he reached Trimohan a
fortnight before 6th February, when all other persons reached there on
06.02.1974.
He also did not state that he himself, Arteshanand,
Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Ram Kumar and Tyageshwaranand

reviewed the entire working. He also did not tell the Magistrate that
Santoshanand at that time suggested that as they were in short supply
of arms and ammunition, another meeting would be held on
15.02.1974 and in the meantime, they should go to their respective
places. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 replied that there was
no residential house near the house or farmhouse of Gopalji in Tilihar,
which was across Kosi River. However, there were small farmers in
their huts but he had no connection with them. It is further elicited
from PW-1 that on 17.1.1974, Santoshanand told him at Chautham at
Gopaljis house that Bihar Police was looking for the culprits in
Madhavanands case. He was not reading newspaper regularly from
7.1.1974 to 17.1.1974 and he read the newspaper on 8.1.1974, wherein
there was news about it. He was at Tilihar, which is the farmhouse of
Gopalji for the period from 9.1.1974 to 17.1.1974. He stated that he
and Santoshanand went underground after 7.1.1974 and he had
interest in the Organisation until 9.2.1974 when he was at Lahariya
Sarai.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
397
300. Telegram Ex.PW-1/S (D-68) is available in Folder R-4.) This

telegram was sent from Calcutta to Gopalji, at Chautham with
message Inform Satsang may be delayed Parbu. As per postal sealcum-stamp, it was received in due course of business at Chautham on
17.1.1974.
(This was recovered from house search of Gopalji on
17.5.1975 and bears signatures of both recovery witnesses PW-91 Sh.

Parsu Ram Singh and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh and I.O. with dates
17.5.1975.)
301. It is argued by the defence counsel that there has been a seachange in the testimony of PW-1 when viewed from the earlier
statements he made before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.
PC. I have carefully considered the same. At the outset, it projects as
though this witness exaggerating the events aftermath the attempt on
the life of Madhavanand. After the careful shearing of the
improvements/ exaggerations, what is to be deduced to account for the
aftermath events following the attempt on the life of Madhavanand is
that the prosecution successfully establishes the visit of PW-1 at
Chautham & Tilihar, where the house & farmhouse of Gopalji are
situated. The defence could not de-stabilize the version of PW-1
concerning the farmhouse of Gopalji, which is situated near Kosi
River and there being no residential habitation in and around except
huts of farmers. Thus, it establishes PW-1 visited the house of Gopalji
at Chautham and farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar. Further, it can be
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
398
deduced that at the house of Gopalji on 17.01.1974, Santoshanand

warning PW-1 about the intensive search by the Bihar Police, who
were looking out for the assailants of Madhavanand. It is also filtered
down that PW-1 was at Tilihar from 09.01.1974 until 17.01.1974 and
that accused Santoshanand went underground during this period. It is
also proved on record and through the oc ular testimony of PW-1 that a
telegram Ex.PW-1/S sent by Santoshanand under his assumed name of
Prabu, was received at Chautham by accused Gopalji at his house in
due course of business. Thus, it can be reasonably believed that all the
accused were in touch with each other even after the attempt on the
life of Madhavanand, making the conspiratorial acts intact and inchain.
31) PW-1: Leaving the Organisation
302. PW-1 further deposed that on 7th February (1974), he came to
Chautham at Gopalji house to take money from him.
He took
Rs.100/- from Gopalji. On 09.2.1974, he came to Lahariya Sarai and

met Sham Lal Dass, who had imparted him Sadhna and stayed at his
house. He came to know from Sham Lal Dass that he had abandoned
Anand Marg and advised him (PW1) to say good-bye to this
organisation. PW-1 further deposed that on 10.2.1974, his parents and
other relatives came to the house of Sham Lal Dass at Lahariya Sarai
and he along with his parents were overwhelmed by emotions and
started weeping due to long separation.
Due to this reason, he
resolved that he would part company with the Organization and

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
399
Revolutionary Group as well. He met his parents after a gap of 10

years. He did not go to Trimohan to attend the meeting scheduled on
15.2.1974. He sent a telegram addressed to Ram Kumar stating that
he had changed his line and would not be reaching to attend the
meeting. From the house of Sham Lal Dass at Lahariya Sarai, he went
to his home at Laxmi Sagar, Darbhanga. In the last week of February
1974, Ram Kumar came to his house and told him that he was deputed
by Santoshanand to inform him that many hand grenades had been
procured and he should rejoin the Organisation.
Ram Kumar
impressed upon him (PW-1) to accompany but he declined and told

Ram Kumar that thenceforth he wanted to live with his parents. He
neither went to Trimohan nor participated in any activity of the
Organisation. His marriage was solemnized on 2.6.1974 and after one
month of his marriage, Avadhoot Tyageshwaranand, who was in plain
clothes came to his house and before that, he had seen him in the dress
of an Avadhoot. Tyageshwaranand brought a letter in his name from
Santoshanand
asking
him
to
rejoin
the
organization.
Tyageshwaranand told him that Baba had also remembered him and
after reading the letter, he returned it to Tyageshwaranand telling him
that he had married and would not go back to the organization. He
tore off the letter immediately. PW-1 further deposed that Ex.P-3 is
the photograph of Tyageshwaranand in plain dress. He hailed from
Village & District Unnao and his original name was Suraj Prakash and
he was also called as Budheshawaranand. He came to his Village with

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
400
a letter from Santoshanand to persuade him to rejoin the Organisation

and his appearance was as appearing in photograph Ex.P-3.
303. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he had not stated
before the Magistrate that on 07.02.1974, he came to Chautham at
Gopalji's house to take money from him or took Rs.100/- from him or
that on 09.02.1974, he came to Lahariya Sarai by bus and met Sham
Lal Dass. He had also not stated in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC that
from Sham Lal Dass he came to know that he had abandoned Anand
Marg and advised him to say good-bye to this organization. He did
not tell the Magistrate that on being asked, Sham Lal Dass telephoned
his parents and other relations informing them of his arrival at his
house or that on 10.02.1974 his parents and other relatives arrived
there. He also did not state in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC that his
parents and he himself were overwhelmed by emotions, started
weeping due to long separation and he decided to Part Company with
Anand Marg and the Revolutionary Group. He had stated before the
Magistrate that he gave a telegram to Ram Kumar to the effect that he
would not attend the meeting convened for 15.02.1974 and that he had
changed his line. He sent this telegram from Lal Bagh post office of
Darbhanga. He had not mentioned in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC
that the telegram was sent from Lal Bagh post office. He had only
stated that it was sent from Darbhanga.
He did not state in his
statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC tha t he came to the house of Sham Lal Dass

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
cross-examination that he was not disgusted with Anand Marg

Organisation when he met Ram Kumar at Lahariya Sarai. He became
disgusted only after his parents met him at Lahariya Sarai on the next
day as his parents had started weeping. He did not tell his parents at
that time what was he doing as a member of the Organisation. In his
further cross-examination, PW-1 admitted the suggestion of the
defence that his parents used to love and respect him. However, he
added that while in service, his parents wanted to get him married and
he had opposed in this respect. He was 22 years of age when he
joined the service in the first instance. He got married after he left
Anand Marg Organisation.
PW-1 testified in his further cross-
examination that he did not inform Sham Lal Dass and his parents,
when they met him that he had been a member of the Revolutionary
Group or that he had been making conspiracy to kill other Anand
Margies and other leaders or that he had been collecting arms and
ammunitions or that he had followed Abdul Gaffoor to assassinate him
or watched his movements or that he planned and surveyed the routes
by which Madhavanand was to come for the purpose of his
assassination.
304. It is to be understood the circumstances in which PW-1 changed
his mind on his free will and volition. The defence could not demolish
in their evidence that PW-1 had chosen the different path to become a

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
403
householder, entering into the matrimony by giving up his mendicant

life in Anand Marg.
305. The line of cross-examination of this witness also reveals the
progression of the mind of PW-1 to have opted for a settled life than
remaining a mendicant, that too after meeting the loved parents, who
insisted upon him to give up the religious order in Anand Marg. His
mental disposition cannot be found fault with. The change of mind by
PW-1 in deserting the organization cannot be coloured with any
prejudice or to term it as acting with an ulterior intention towards the
Anand Marg.
32) Identity of PW-1
306. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the accused persons that
PW-1 is an imposter and neither was an Anand Margi nor was ever
assigned any name of Visheshwaranand.
It is argued that the
prosecution has failed to establish the identity of PW-1 Madan Mohan

Srivastava whether he was an Anand Margi or that he had any alias
name of Visheshwaranand @ Aacharya Madan @ Kapalic @ Vijay.
Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has countered the arguments of the
defence stating that there is ample evidence to believe that PW-1,
whose maiden name is Madan Mohan Srivastava and was rechristened
as Visheshwaranand after his initiation/Diksha in the cult.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
404
307. I have already referred the statement of PW-1 Sh. Madan

Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay to the effect that that
he remained associated with Anand Marg from 1964 to February 1974
and initially his name was Madan Mohan Srivastava. The detailed
testimony is already discussed, however to say pithily, PW-1 initiated
by Sham Lal Dass, his immediate superior in Home Guards, while he
was a part time worker and later was rechristened as Visheshwaranand
He also met the founder of Anand Marg on 15.3.1964, became a fulltime worker by taking a one months leave. He received kapalic
diksha also in the year 1965 and became a Monk of the order
Avadhoot. He started wearing saffron. Ex.PW-1/C is the application
submitted by him in March 1964 in his office to leave the station.
Ex.PW-1/D is the telegram dated 16.03.1964 for extension of leave.
He submitted his resignation letter dated 15.4.1964 Ex.PW-1/E.
308. PW-1 also testified that he worked as Principal of Anand Marg
Primary School at Jabalpur, and Aacharya Keshavanand Avadhoot
(DW-3) was working as General Secretary in place of Aacharya
Sarveshwaranand Avadhoot, who was also in custody in jail along
with Anand Murti for defectors murder case.
Headquarter of Anand Marg was at Patna.
At that time,
Said acting General
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
405
in possession of that telegram as he left everything at Jabalpur. He

met acting General Secretary Aacharya Keshavanand Avadhoot at
Patna.
309. In his cross-examination, PW-1 answered that he had not
mentioned in detail in his statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC that he was
appointed Provincial Secretary of PFI (Madhya Pradesh). He also did
not tell that he was sent to Banaras for training in Sewa Dharam
Mission as it was a matter of detail. He also did not state u/s 164 of
the Cr. PC that he was asked to bring two human skulls for kapalic
sadhna and he only stated that in the year 1965, he was made an
Avadhoot.
He stated that he told the Magistrate that he was given
diksha as Avadhoot by Prakashanand on behalf of Anand Murti.

When he was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-1/X, the
name of Prakashanand was not found mentioned. He did not state
to the Magistrate that he was sent to Indore where he started monthly
and fortnightly papers for PFI, such as Malwa Pahari and Yodha
which was published from Jhansi. He admitted the suggestion of the
defence that when a person is made Avadhoot, his name is changed at
that very time. He confirmed that he was given the name
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot on becoming an Avadhoot.
He
replied that while posted as Editor at Indore, he used to purchase

papers from Purshottam Printing Press and he was not dealing with the
Government for purchase of the paper.
He was aware that
Government gives quota of papers for all journals but they have not
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
406
applied to the Government for the quota of paper as they used to

publish only 500 copies. He had oral understanding with Purshottam
Printing Press at Indore to the effect that they would supply papers to
them as required. At Page No. 90, he (PW-1) further admitted the
suggestion of the defence that he used to send copy of the journal to
the Government. He used to send it by post and not with a covering
letter. In his further cross-examination PW-1 answered that he has no
knowledge whether the Government had ordered any secret memo
giving particulars of the person involved in the case including
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Vijay @ Hans Lal S/o Sh. Daroga
Singh of Village Tenduni, District Bhojpur or that he was the
absconder. He is also not aware whether a reward of Rs.500/- was
announced for the person, who would get such person arrested. He
also denied the suggestion that he was an imposter and not the real
Visheshwaranand.
He
also
denied
the
suggestion
that
real
Visheshwaranand is still absconding. It is elicited that he did not state

before the Magistrate about his transfer to Anand Marg Primary
School at Bilaspur where he worked until August 1972.
He did not
remember the name of the owner of the house in which the school was
situated. But it was at a rent @ Rs.30/- per month. To a question
whether the social organization of Anand Marg spread throughout
India, PW-1 replied in the affirmative and added that there were
children homes, schools and hospitals and they were controlled from
the head quarter. There were relief centers also. When the head

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
407
quarter was at Patliputra, the activities of the Organisation throughout

the country used to be coordinated by the head quarter. He admitted
that this Organisation had branches in various countries also for social
service. He testified that in the beginning, letters of appointment as
member of Anand Marg School were not issued from the head quarter
but later on about the year 1969, such letters started being issued. He
had not received any letter of appointment as Principal of School at
Jabalpur. He received the transfer letter from Bilaspur to Jabalpur
through one Brahmchari, who had come from Headquarter to replace
him. He volunteered to say that he had been submitting progress
report to Headquarter as Principal at Jabalpur.
There was a law
department in the Anand Marg Organisation. The lawyer member of

the law department was Ram Tanuk, who had appeared in the court on
defence side. He did not meet Sh. Ram Tanuk, Advocate to enquire
about the difficulty in release of Anand Murti. In his further crossexamination, it is found that he became VSS member in the year 1965
as at that time a person below 45 years of age had to be member of
VSS compulsorily in their capacity as Anand Margi. Sh. Satyanand
Avadhoot was Incharge of VSS in the year 1965, who was later on
arrested in Defectors murder case. Thereafter, one Sambodhanand,
who was an absconder in defectors murder, was the Incharge. After
him, Madhavanand Avadhoot became the Incharge. In the year 1973,
Madhavanand was the Incharge of VSS. He admitted the suggestion
of the defence that majority of Anand Margies were in government

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
408
service. It is elicited further that VSS camp used to be held twice a

year. These camps used to be held in open fields. About 500 persons
used to visit these camps. These camps were organised in solitary
places.
The activities in the camps were visible to the passerby.
There used to be erected boundaries in order to prevent from outsiders

coming in.
He admitted that VSS workers used to be deputed to
render social service to the people in the relief so required during

calamities like earth quake, draught and cyclone and also on the
occasion of migration consequent to Bangladesh War.
310. In his further cross-examination, PW-1 answered that he did not
remember the date on which he received the telegram of illness of
Baba at Jabalpur, but was in the latter half of July 1973. The telegram
was delivered to him at about noontime. He left for Patna on the same
day by train without any prior reservation. He travelled alone. He
neither met Baba in jail nor did he go to court at Patna to attend court
proceedings. He stayed at Patna for three or four days at that time.
He did not go to the court to meet the Baba. He had talked with the
workers on the subject.
311. A scrutiny of deposition of PW-1 reflects that he joined Anand
Marg in the year 1964. Sh. Sham Lal Dass imparted him Sadhna. He
met Baba Anand Murti on 15.03.1964. He was imparted training in
Kapalic diksha by Baba Anand Murti in 1965. On behalf of Anand
Murti, Prakashanand imparted diksha to him as Avadhoot at that time.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
409
As elicited in his cross-examination, that while making statement

before the Magistrate about diksha as an Avadhoot, the word
Prakashanand was not found mentioned and this improvement
pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel is trivial in nature. In his
previous statement, he has not stated about his appointment as
Provincial Secretary of PFI in Madhya Pradesh.
However, this
omission is not of any importance in view of the fact that in his further
cross-examination, the defence themselves given the suggestion that
as Provincial Secretary, he used to deal with accounts. It is argued by
the Ld. Defence Counsel that he has not stated in his statement before
the Magistrate that he was sent to Indore and publication like Malwa
Pahari and Yodha used to be published from Jhansi. However, this
court is conscious of the fact that in his further cross-examination the
defence have themselves admitted by giving suggestion to PW-1 that
he used to send copies of these journals to the Government by post
and not with a covering letter. It has come in his cross-examination
that he used to purchase papers for publication from Purshottam
Printing Press and this fact has also not been controverted by the
defence. The suggestions made by the defence shows that the accused
are aware about the active role of PW-1 in the organisation in various
capacities. They got elicited that this organisation had branches in
various countries also for social service. The defence has also elicited
from PW-1 the details of VSS and he stated that he joined it in the
year 1965. He informed the names of various Incharges of VSS from

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
410
time to time like Satyanand Avadhoot in the year 1965, succeeded by

Sambodhanand and after that Madhavanand in the year 1973. He also
informed about arrest of Satyanand Avadhoot and Sambodhanand in
defectors murder case.
He also admitted the suggestion of the
defence that majority of Anand Margies were in government service.

It is also elicited that VSS camp used to be held twice a year in open
fields and about 500 persons used to visit these camps. The defence
has not at all suggested that the information, so given by PW-1 in his
cross-examination, was not correct.
PW-1 has narrated about the
Anand Marg Organisation, its various wings, its various activities, its
cult head, posting of various persons in different wings from time to
time and his own activities. PW-1 has narrated all these facts in so
minute details that no person other than an Anand Margi be possessed
of such knowledge.
312. I have already referred and appreciated the deposition of PW-34
Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra of Indore, who identified PW-1 in the court
correctly. It has come in his deposition that he took Diksha from
Aacharya Visheshwaranand (PW-1) in 1967 when he joined Anand
Marg. In August 1973, PW-1 came to him and gave him Rs.400/- for
purchase of pistol/revolver and after 15/20 days, he came again in
September 1973 when PW-34 told him that he could not arrange the
arms. The deposition of PW-34 ratifies the prosecution story that 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
lodged himself as "Vijay Kumar" and "Vijay Kumar Prabhat" at

Aadarsh/Gujrati Lodge, which is corroborated by PW-19. The
handwriting and signatures of PW-1 on the record of the said lodge
have been identified by PW-126A and the record of the Lodge was
seized by PW-83.
314. I have also referred, discussed and appreciated the statement of
other relevant witnesses namely Sh. Laxman Parsad (PW-16), Sh.
Sudarshan Banerjee (PW-17) and Mr. Clifford Boile (PW-147) of
Hotel Republic. IO Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) has seized the folio
of Visitors Register and Bill Book containing Bill No. 8025 Ex.PW17/A on 03.05.1975. Sh. Narinder Nath Singh, Inspector CBI (PW129) has seized the Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R on 19.09.1975. I have
also referred obtaining of specimen writing and signatures of PW-1 by
the IO and GEQD PW-43 Sh. B. Lal has compared the questioned
handwriting and signatures on folio of Visitors Register Ex.PW-1/P
(Q-8) and Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9) of Hotel Republic with his
admitted writing and signatures Mark A-73 to A-77 on Ex.PW-1/T to
Ex.PW-1/V and specimen handwriting and signatures S-45 to S-59
(Ex.PW1/W-1 to PW-1/W-15). PW-43 has given his expert opinion
and deposed that the writer of the questioned, admitted and specimen
writing is the same i.e. PW-1. Here it is relevant to mention that while
PW-1 stayed at Republic Hotel, Patna, he assumed the name of
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-
examination, he admitted certain documents, which were in his

handwriting and bearing his signatures as Visheshwaranand during his
tenure as Principal. He deposed that the document Ex.PW-1/Z is
Children Home's Progress Report and he has filled up its blanks in his
handwriting by point A and B. The Tour Programme Ex.PW-1/ZA is
entirely in his own handwriting and he has signed as Visheshwaranand
Avadhoot with date as 23/10/72. The writing on the reverse side
Ex.PW-1/ZB is also in his handwriting. He has seen the document
Ex.PW-1/ZC, which is the record of Personal Work done and this is in
his handwriting within red circle. It bears his signature at Point A. He
was shown Monthly Progress Report of Anand Margi Primary School,
Jabalpur Ex.PW-1/ZD and identified his signatures at Point A as Ac
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot and he mentioned the date at Point B,
which is of March 73. The figure of the date is torn off. He identified
his writing on this document encircled red colour. He has also seen
the telegram, on the backside of which there is writing in red circle
Ex.PW-1/ZE and he had received this telegram. This telegram bears
the postal stamp dated 16.01.1973 and this is addressed to
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot C/o Kishore Lal Jaiswal, Garha Road,
Jabalpur. (There is a presumption of correctness of the telegram under
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
413
Section 88 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 which is connected to PW-1

and the same is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/ZX). He has also seen the
Notebook Ex.P-11 and on the title cover, the words reading as "Notes
on Social Philosophy" are written in his handwriting, which are
Ex.PW-1/ZF. On the first page, the words reading as Ac
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot with date 7/4/71 is in his handwriting,
which is Ex.PW-1/ZF-1. At page No. 186, the writing within red
circle Ex.PW-1/ZF-3 is also in his handwriting. Page No. 187-196 are
also in his handwriting.
He received a Telegram Ex.PW-1/ZG
(23.02.1973) and it was addressed to him as Visheshwaranand.

316. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that there is no page
number on the weekly Progress Report Ex.PW-1/Z. This report used
to be sent to Ranchi either by ordinary post or through some Anand
Margi, who was going to that place. This is an office copy. He
deposed that he remained posted in Jabalpur Primary School from
August 1972 to July 1973.
He admitted the suggestion that on
Ex.PW-1/ZA the date is mentioned as 23.10.1972. He explained that

he was transferred to Jabalpur in August 1972 from Bilaspur. He was
Incharge of Bilaspur and Jabalpur, Diocese for want of a good worker
at Bilaspur. He started the Note Book Ex.P-11 from April 1971 till
about 15.05.1971 and during this period he was sick and remained
hospitalized at Lucknow. He deposed that there is no date on Ex.PW1/ZE on the reverse of the telegram. He received this telegram, while
posted at Jabalpur, but did not remember the month. There is no
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
414
writing in his hand on the Telegram Ex.PW-1/ZG. At the time of his

deposition in the court on 20.05.1981, the PW-1 could not recollect
the name of the students and their father's name from amongst the
children studying in the school when report Ex.PW-1/Z was seen. He
also could not remember the number of the house in which the school
was situated and name of the owner of the building. However, he
deposed that the rent of building was Rs.30/- per month. He used to
get the receipts in lieu of payment of rent from the landlord. It has
further come in his testimony that in a separate file, the receipts used
to be tagged and he had left the place. In his cross-examination, PW-1
explained about the court fees of Rs.15/- on Ex.PW-1/ZD to the effect
that this school was being run previously on Garha Road and due to
the shortage of the funds, the rent could not be paid by the Principal.
A civil suit was filed against Anand Marg's Principal, he received the
summons, and a compromise was arrived at between the parties, for
which the court fees of Rs.15/- was paid.
examination, PW-1 replied that sometimes he writes his name as

Avadhoot
Visheshwaranand,
sometimes
as
Aacharya
Visheshwaranand and sometimes as V. Avadhoot.
The words
"Monthly Report of School" on the reverse side on Ex.PW-1/ZE and

marked X are in his handwriting.
In his cross-examination, he
asserted that there was no other person known by the name of

Visheshwaranand in Anand Marg Organization.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
415
317. Ex.PW-1/Z is a document
of
Anand
Marga Primary
School/Childrens Home, Jabalpur, Ranchi Region.
This is in the
handwriting of Aacharya Visheshwaranand (PW-1) dated 29.03.1973.

Ex.PW-1/ZA is a Tour Programme of DS, Bilaspur (MP) and bears
signature
of
23.10.1972.
Visheshwaranand
Avadhoot
(PW-1)
with
date
Ex.PW-1/ZC is the Personal Work Done Report for
December 1972 for Jabalpur office and V. Avadhoot (PW-1) signed

this at point A.
Ex.PW-1/ZD is monthly report of Anand Marga
Primary School, Vijay Nagar and Jabalpur (MP) for the month of
February and March 1973 and this is also signed by Aacharya
Visheshwaranand (PW-1). The date is torn off beneath the signature
though the month and year are legible as March 1973. Ex.P-11 is a
Notebook and the title is written as Notes on Social Philosophy" at
point Ex.PW-1/ZF.
On opening of this notebook, the first page
Ex.PW-1/ZF-1 bears the name of AC Visheshwaranand Avadhoot

(PW-1) with date 07.04.1971, beneath his name. At page No. 186 of
this notebook, the writing Ex.PW-1/ZF-3 is in the handwriting of PW1. (All these documents are available in Folder R-3).
318. The document Ex.PW-1/ZE is the reverse side of a telegram,
which bears some handwriting and PW-1 testified that this writing on
the backside of the telegram is in his handwriting. The telegram has
been marked as Mark PW-151/E. Keshavanand (DW-3) sent this
telegram from Bombay and it was addressed to Visheshwaranand c/o
Sh. Kishori Lal Ji Jaiswal, Cloth Store, Garha Road, Jabalpur. This
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.
PW-1 testified about receiving this
telegram, which is now Ex.PW-1/ZX. He also another telegram

Ex.PW-1/ZG from Asimanand from New Delhi addressed to
Visheshwaranand C/o Kishore Lal Jaiswal, Garha Gate, JB (Jabalpur).
It bears the round stamp of post office Jabalpur and bears its date as
23.02.1973.
The contents of the telegram are Baba poisoned
condition serious Mass Rally reach 26 maximum P (sic).

(This Telegram Ex.PW-1/ZG is available in
Folder R-1.)
319. The testimony of PW-1 to the effect that the before said
documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/Z, PW-1/ZA, PW-1/ZC, PW-1/ZD and PW1/ZF-1 to PW-1/ZF-3 are in his handwriting and bear his signatures, is
corroborated by said PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad. I have already
given the introduction and particulars of PW-126A as to how he knew
and saw PW-1 writing and signing and is in a position to identify
handwriting and signatures of PW-1.
Regarding handwriting and
signatures of PW-1 on Ex.PW-1/Z, PW-1/ZA, PW-1/ZC, PW-1/ZD

and PW-1/ZF-1 to PW-1/ZF-3, PW-126A deposed that all these
documents are in the handwriting of PW-1 and bear his signatures.
The defence did not shatter the competency of PW-126A to identify
the handwriting and signatures of PW-1 on these documents. The
defence has also not derided the deposition of PW-126A that these
documents are in the handwriting of PW-1 and bear signatures of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
417
PW-1. Therefore, the testimony of PW-126A could not be demolished

by the defence. It is found that the defence has also not derided in the
cross-examination of PW-1 his handwriting and signatures on these
documents. The defence has only given the suggestion that signatures
have been affixed on these documents as Visheshwaranand to create
evidence of his identity as Visheshwaranand. The defence could not
demolish the deposition of PW-1 about his posting in Anand Marg
Primary School at Jabalpur. They also did not shatter that these
documents Ex.PW-1/Z, PW-1/ZA, PW-1/ZB, PW-1/ZC, PW-1/ZD,
PW-1/ZE and PW-1/ZF-1 to PW-1/ZF-3 are not in his handwriting or
do not bear his signatures.
320. These documents were seized by the I. O. Sh. H.L. Ahuja (PW151) from Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Inspector, Officer Incharge of PS
Gorakhpur on 26.09.1975 vide Seizure Mem o Ex.PW-151/E. PW-151
Sh. H.L. Ahuja I.O. deposed that these documents Ex.PW1/Z,
Ex.PW1/ZA, Ex.PW1/ZC, Ex.PW1/ZD, Ex.PW1/ZF and Ex.PW1/ZG
bear his signatures at point A and that of Sh. R.S. Chauhan at point
B. He also seized Prout newspaper dated 9.9.1972 Ex.P-9 and
New Generation newspaper dated 3.8.1973 and 10.8.1973 Ex.P-10.
The writing encircled Mark PW-1/ZF-1 existed in the note book
Ex.PW-1/ZF at the time he seized it and entries Ex.PW-1/ZF from
page 1 to 186, Ex.PW-1/ZF-3 also existed. PW-151 answered in his
cross-examination that these documents were taken into possession by
him from hundreds of documents from Gorakhpur (Jabalpur) vide
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
418
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-151/E and he has signed all these documents at

point A while Inspector R.S. Chauhan has signed the same at point B
in his presence.
In his cross-examination, he stated that during
emergency, police has seized these documents from Anand Marg

Primary School, Jabalpur.
(Seizure memo Ex.PW-151/E is available in
Folder R-1).
321. PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha remained Investigation Officer of
case No. 24/1974 from 01.3.1974 to 10.6.1975.
He deposed that
during investigation of the case no. 24/1974, he came to know that

Vijay @ Hanslal S/o Daroga Singh of Village Tenduni PS Jagdishpur
was wanted as an accused and he did not know that aforesaid Vijay @
Hanslal has also alias name of Visheshwaranand. He deposed that
subsequently he found that he did not have any alias name as
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot. In his cross-examination, he replied that
that during the period when investigation of the case remained with
him, Vijay @ Hanslal S/o Daroga Singh of Tenduni was not arrested.
He denied the suggestion that an imposter was created. In his further
cross-examination, PW-134 replied that he came to know of the
parentage and address of the Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan
Srivastava on 22.6.1974 and visited his house on 22.6.1974 itself but
he was not found available. There he came to know his father's name
as Ramji Prasad @ Ramji Babu of Mohalla Laxmi Sagar, near
Darbhanga Railway Station. He replied that for the first time he came

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
419
to know that Visheshwaranand was Madan Mohan Srivastava on

22.6.1974. He replied that he came to know that Vijay @ Hanslal S/o
Sh. Daroga Singh, resident of Village Tenduni, PS Jagdishpur was
wanted as an accused and he did not know that aforesaid Hanslal @
Vijay has also alias name as Visheshwaranand.
322. In his further cross-examination, PW-134 at page no. 3384 to
3386, after perusing his case diary dated 10.7.1974, he replied that
Deputy SP C.D. Parsad gave instructions that proceedings u/s 82/83
Cr. PC be initiated against accused Rudranand, Shankaranand and
Vijay @ Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Hanslal S/o Daroga Singh of
Village Tenduni, District Bhojpur. He admitted that after obtaining
the warrant of arrest against these three persons, he handed over the
same to SHO and compliance report was received. On 12.7.1974, he
applied to CJM, Patna for obtaining their warrant of arrest,
proclamation and attachment. He answered at page no. 3390 that he
visited Village Tenduni on 29.7.1974 and accused Vijay @
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Hanslal was found absconding. PW134 stated at page No. 3392 that subsequently, it was found that Vijay
@ Hanslal S/o Daroga Singh, resident of Village Tenduni did not have
alias name of Visheshwaranand. PW-134 further clarified at page no.
3395 that they were in fact trying to ascertain from their own sources
as to which of these two persons was wanted in this case vide FIR
no.24/1974.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
420
323. During cross-examination, PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (page

3379) was given suggestion by accused about alias name of Madan
Mohan Srivastava as Visheshwaranand. By giving him, suggestion
that he took Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand to his
house and kept him for 2-3 days and thus admitted the case of the
prosecution that alias name of Madan Mohan Srivastava was
Visheshwaranand.
324. The Ld. Defence Counsel then argued that as per the case of the
prosecution PW-1 had admittedly participated in the rally at Boat Club
in April 1973. He was arrested and when it was so, why the record of
Tihar Jail was not seized and filed in this case to show that PW-1
Madan Mohan Srivastava had alias name of Visheshwaranand. She
also argued that they have also not filed the record of the Police
Station Parliament Street, New Delhi i.e. Parcha Shanakht
(identification
slip)
relating
to
Madan
Mohan
Srivastava.
Nevertheless, there is no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence

Counsel as this had already been answered by the I.O. PW-151 Sh.
H.L. Ahuja at page no.3775 of his deposition that enquiries were made
by DSP M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) but no such record could be found in
Central Jail, Tihar as it was a minor offence. This has not been
discredited in the cross-examination of PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja by the
defence.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
421
325. Ld. Defence Counsel repeatedly argued that when Investigation

Officer Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) has come to know on 22.6.1974
that Madan Mohan Srivastava had alias name of Visheshwaranand, it
is strange as to how on 10.07.1974/12.07.1974, he continued to
proceed against Vijay @ Hanslal @ Visheshwaranand of Village
Tenduni for issuance of warrant of arrest and proceedings U/s. 82/83
Cr. PC. However, there is no merit in the submissions. PW-134 has
categorically stated that he came to know on 22.06.1974 that Madan
Mohan Srivastava had alias name of Visheshwaranand and visited his
Village on that day and he was found absconding. He also admitted
that on perusal of a note in the case diary dated 10.07.1974 written by
Deputy SP Sh. C.D. Prasad, he had moved application on 12.07.1974
for action under Section 82/83 Cr. PC against Vijay @ Hanslal @
Visheshwaranand of Village Tenduni and he visited Village Tenduni
on 29.07.1974 and he was found absconding. The matter was still
under investigation and PW-134 clarified at Page No. 3395 in absolute
terms that in fact, they were ascertaining from their sources as to who
was the real Visheshwaranand, out of these two persons. Matter was
still at the initial stage of investigation. Ultimately, the Investigation
Officer found that it is Madan Mohan Srivastava, who was assigned
the name of Visheshwaranand, after he was imparted Kapalic diksha
in the year 1965 by and on behalf of Anand Murti. Even otherwise,
prosecution has been able to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt
through other evidence also that it is Madan Mohan Srivastava, who

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
422
was also known as Visheshwaranand. Moreover, there are several

admissions on behalf of the defence that it is Madan Mohan
Srivastava, whose alias name is also Visheshwaranand, which I
proposed to deal with in the succeeding Para.
326. I have minutely gone through the cross-examination of PW-1
and the line of his cross-examination sufficiently suggests admissions
of the defence that PW-1 has been a part and parcel of their cult before
10.02.1974, when he left Anand Marg Organisation.
Following
admissions emerge by the defence in cross-examination of PW-1 to

the effect that PW-1 had been an active member of Anand Marg
Organisation and his identity is established: (i)
At Page No. 77 of his cross-examination,
PW-1 has denied the suggestion of the defence that

he had never left the Organisation as stated by him.
(ii)
PW-1 admitted the suggestion of the defence that

when he joined the Anand Marg, it was not banned
by the Government.
(iii)
At page No. 87 of his cross-examination,
PW-1 testified that when he was appointed

Provincial Secretary of PFI for Madhya Pradesh in
August 1964, he was not given orders in writing.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
423
(iv)
PW-1 has admitted the suggestion of the defence

that as Provincial Secretary, he used to deal with
accounts.
(v)
At Page No. 105, PW-1 admitted the
suggestion of the defence, in his cross-examination

that in December 1970, he had wavered and
thought of resigning from the Anand Marg
Organisation. He has denied the suggestion of the
defence that he was asked to leave the organization
forthwith in July 1973 by the General Secretary,
when he was called to Patna. He also denied the
suggestion that his resignation was accepted
immediately and he was asked to leave with bag
and baggage.
(vi)
At Page No. 112-113, PW-1 in his further
cross-examination, has denied the suggestion of

the defence that thinking that in Anand Marg
Organization,
there
were
highly
placed
government servants and he would be able to get

better job by coming in contacts with them, he
joined it.
He has denied the suggestion that for
this reason, he left the government job and joined

Anand Marg Organization for better emoluments.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
424
(vii) At Page No. 112-113, PW-1 has denied the

suggestion of the defence that he was employed to
enroll members to the Organization or that this was
his
only
job
throughout
his
stay
in
the
Organization and for that purpose he was getting

salary.
(viii) At Page No. 112-113, PW-1 has also denied
the suggestion of the defence that there were
persistent reports of embezzlement of money
against him and he was turned out.
(ix)
PW-1 further admitted the suggestion of the

defence that he used to send copy of the journal to
the Government. He used to send it by post and
not with a covering letter. (He has stated so in
continuation of his cross-examination at Page No.
88 and 89, when questions are asked by the
defence about the journals Malwa Pahari and
Yodha).
(x)
The accused persons have themselves given
suggestion to the investigating officer Sh. M.M.P.

Sinha
(PW-134)
in
his
cross-examination
admitting the alias name of Madan Mohan

Srivastava as Visheshwaranand. PW-134 has

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
425
denied the suggestion of the defence at Page no.

3379 that he took Madan Mohan Srivastava @
Visheshwaranand to his house and kept him there
for two or three days.
327. Accused persons have examined DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand, who
claimed himself to be Dharam Parchar Secretary to counter the
Prosecution case that there was another Visheshwaranand, who was
having his alias name as Hanslal and wanted in this case and that PW1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava is an imposter and not a real
Visheshwaranand.
328. DW-2 stated that Baba Anand Murti was arrested in the year
1970 on murder charge and was released by the order of the Hon'ble
Patna High Court in August 1978. He himself was arrested four years
after the arrest of Baba (i.e. in the year 1974) and was released after
lifting of the Emergency.
329. In his examination-in-chief, DW-2 deposed that he knew
Visheshwaranand of Anand Marg Organization, who belongs to the
area close to his village and his earlier name was Hanslal and he was
of his height, which is 5"-7' or 5"-6' and he had a cut on his right
nostril. In his cross-examination, he could not explain if the cut mark
on his nostril was due to some injury or it was by birth and since when

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
426
it was appearing.
He also did not tell the role and status of
Visheshwaranand in the Anand Marg Organization.

330. DW-2 knew accused persons facing the trial and recognized
them. He also knew Ram Aasrey (Proclaimed offender) but he has
suppressed the fact by showing his unawareness, whether bail
application of Anand Murti was dismissed by the Apex Court. He
also suppressed whether a rally was organized at Boat Club, New
Delhi in 1973 as a mark of protest for non-release of Baba or that
accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi were
arrested in the Rally. He could not dare to deny all these important
events though he claimed to have been holding position of a Secretary
and joined organisation in 1959.
331. This witness is not reliable since this witness claims on the one
hand to be the Pracharak (Propagator) of Anand Marg, knowing
Visheshwaranand with a cut mark on his nostril and on the other hand,
he is intelligently unaware of the status and role of that
Visheshwaranand in the Organization. He is intentionally unaware of
their Guru having been denied bail and the subsequent protests by way
of Rally at Boat Club, New Delhi or arrest of the accused persons.
DW-2 also could not tell about the post of Dharam Pracharak
Secretary as it does not find anywhere in the hierarchy of Anand Marg
stated by him.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
427
332. He himself claimed to have been arrested by CBI as a suspect

for attack on Madhavanand and he knew and recognized all the
accused persons. He was kept in column No. 2 of the charge sheet.
He is one of the oldest associate and follower of Anand Marg and its
cult since 1959, it is only and exclusively for this reason, he has
deposed in the Court to help the accused persons.
333. In view of the above said discussion, this Court comes to the
conclusion that DW-2 has been a close friend/associate of the accused
persons and all of them were known to him. Hence, he is a partisan,
interested and biased witness and his testimony does not inspire any
confidence.
334. The defence has also examined DW-34 Sh. D.P. Ojha, the then
Superintendent of Police, Samastipur to prove his affidavit Ex.PW6/D, which he has filed in the Honble Supreme Court of India in the
said Transfer Petition of the case on behalf of the State of Bihar. He
testified that from December 1974 to January 1975, he remained
associated with the investigation in relation to the bomb blast since its
inception as the matter was of high magnitude; investigation was taken
over by CID the next day as per the instructions of the State
Government. He deposed that he filed an affidavit in the transfer
petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is Ex.PW-6/D. In
his cross-examination by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor, he admitted
that he is aware that the person namely Madan Mohan Srivastava @
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
428
Visheshwaranand, who is named in Para 9 of his affidavit Ex.PW-6/D,

became an approver during investigation in the case by CBI. He also
admitted that in his affidavit Ex.PW-6/D, the alias name of Madan
Mohan Srivastava is mentioned as Visheshwaranand. Despite this
admission by their witness, that it is Madan Mohan Srivastava, who
has his name as Visheshwaranand, the accused persons did not choose
to re-examine him on this specific point.
335. Therefore, this discussion leads this court to conclude that the
prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that
PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava was assigned name as
Visheshwaranand, which is corroborated by the testimony of PW126A, PW-34 and ample documentary evidence discussed above and
several admissions of the defence. The defence has miserably failed
to prove that he is an imposter.
33) Search at Chautham - Arrest of Gopalji
336. Regarding the search carried out at the house of Gopalji by the
Investigation Officer Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) on 17.05.1975 at
Chautham, the prosecution has examined one of the search witnesses
Sh. Parsu Ram Singh, the then resident of Village Chautham.
PW-91 Sh. Parsu Ram Singh deposed that he knew about the
place Chautham as he was employed by Murariji of the same Village
during 1972 to 1978. He knew Gopalji of Village Chautham, present
in the court (the witness correctly identified accused Gopalji @
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
429
Krishan Mohan Singh by pointing towards him). The house of

Murariji was at a distance of 50/60 yards from the house of Gopalji.
He had seen Gopalji residing in the previously mentioned house at
Chautham from 1972 to 1975. He further testified that on 17.05.1975
at about 05.00 AM, he was present in the house of Murariji at
Chautham, when he heard about police surrounding the house of
Gopalji. He went there out of curiosity. At that time, Gopalji was
also present. He found police and C.I.D. men at that place. A C.I.D.
man told him that he wanted to take the search of the house of Gopalji.
Many persons from the public were present there and C.I.D. men
requested for services of two persons from the public in order to start
the search proceedings. PW-91 further testified that he and Sh. Neel
Mohan Singh offered themselves as witnesses. Sh. Neel Mohan Singh
was also residing at Village Chautham in those days. Thereafter, two
Inspectors, one Incharge of Police Station of PS Chautham, Gopalji,
Neel Mohan Singh and he himself went inside the house of Gopalji.
Police took the search of the house of Gopalji in their presence. Some
cloth badges and some brass badges were taken into possession.
There were eight brass badges, which are Ex.P-150 to Ex.P-157
bearing the letters VSS, which were taken into possession. There
were about 15 or 16 cloth badges, which are Ex.P-158 to Ex.P-173,
which were also recovered from the house of Gopalji. Ex.P-174 to
Ex.P-176 are the badges of brass and Ex.P-177 to Ex.P-178 are of
white metal recovered from the house of Gopalji. Some pages of blank

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
430
letter pad having some illegible impression of writing Ex.P-179 to

Ex.P-184 were also found there. He and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh
signed on those pages at point A and B respectively. The licence book
Ex.P-185 was also found on the table and bears his signature at point
A and that of Sh. Neel Mohan Singh at point B. One book in English
Ex.P-186 was also found on that table, which also bears his signature
at point A and of Sh. Neel Mohan Singh at Point B. Numerous papers
were found in the house and some of them were found in a tin box,
which he identified to be Marked A-1. The documents found in the tin
box were consisting of some diaries, copies, letters and loose papers.
He and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh have signed all those papers found in
the tin box. All these papers found in the tin box were bearing some
writings. He identified some of those documents Ex.PW-1/S, Ex.PW1/O,
Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M,
Ex.PW-33/B, Ex.PW-43/F and
Ex.PW-68/A, which bears his signature at point A and that of Sh. Neel
Mohan Singh at point B.
The Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A was
prepared at the spot and it bears his signature at point A and that of Sh.
Neel Mohan Singh at point B.
PW-91 further deposed that after
completion of the search, Gopalji was arrested and taken away by the
police with them.
337. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-91 that these
documents, which were found in the tin box, are not specifically
mentioned in the Seizure Memo. He testified that Murariji has also
reached the house of Gopalji and that Sh. Neel Mohan Singh was an
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.
On asking of police, Gopalji had also signed the Seizure
Memo, but he did not remember whether he signed in English or

Hindi. Seizure Memo was prepared in the Verandah (corridor) of the
house of Gopalji. Gopalji had signed Seizure Memo at the same time
after their signatures. PW-91 further testified that he did not remember
the names of the servants of Gopalji as Gopalji had numerous workers
in the field.
He admitted the suggestion of accused Gopalji that
Gopalji used to give different amount to different persons on demand.

He admitted the suggestion of accused Gopalji that Murariji
transferred some land in his name when Land Ceiling Act was
enforced. PW-91 explained that the land was actually not given to
him, but it was only a paper transaction. He was not aware whether
Murariji and Gopalji were on inimical terms.
He has denied the
suggestion that those documents, which he signed, were not actually

recovered from the house of Gopalji.
He has also denied the
suggestion that after arrest of accused Gopalji, C.B.I. men came to the
house of Murariji at Chautham and stayed over there.
338. The style of cross-examination reflects that the fact of carrying
out the search at the house of Gopalji at Chautham was never
shattered. On the other hand, the search conducted by the IO is further
strengthened since searching questions were made with regard to each
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
432
and every items seized. A perusal of these documents Ex.PW-1/S,

Ex.PW-1/O, Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M, Ex.PW-33/B, Ex.PW-43/F
and Ex.PW-68/A, which were recovered in a tin-box from the house of
accused Gopalji, reflect that the same were signed at the spot by the
IO Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) as also by both the independent public
witnesses Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh,
bearing the date of seizure. The accused persons including accused
Gopalji has not at all disputed that Gopalji had house at Village
Chautham. They have not suggested to PW-91 that he had enmity
with Gopalji or that he had deposed in the court at the instance of
Murariji. They have also not disputed that Gopalji was not arrested
from his house at Chautham after carrying out the search on
17.05.1975. They have also not suggested that Gopalji was a resident
of Village Burail only and not a resident of Chautham. They have also
not suggested to PW-91 that the house, where the search was carried
out, was under the ownership of Smt. Nageshwari Devi, who is the
maternal grandmother of Gopalji. They have also not suggested that
Gopalji was arrested from a flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, the then
MLC and an uncle of Gopalji at Patna and not from Chautham.
Rather in the last sentence, it was suggested that after the arrest of
Gopalji, C.B.I. officers came to the house of Murariji at Chautham and
stayed over there.
339. In the cross-examination of PW-1 also, it is not at all suggested
by the defence that Gopalji had no house at Chautham or farmhouse at
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,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
434
Advocate, before the predecessor of this court, Gopalji had mentioned

his name and address as under: Gopalji son of late Shri Baidyanath Prasad Singh,
resident of Village and post office Chautham,
Distt. Monghyer, Bihar.
This is a clear admission of the accused Gopalji that he had been a
resident of Village Chautham throughout.
341. Accused had not put their defence in the cross-examination of
PW-1 running into 144 pages that Gopalji was a resident of Burail or
that farmhouse at Tilihar was already washed away in the River Kosi
in the year 1971-1972. They had also not put their defence to PW-1 in
his cross-examination that the house at Chautham and farmhouse at
Tilihar belong to maternal grandmother of Gopalji
namely Smt.
Nageshwari Devi or that Gopalji only used to visit his maternal

grandmother, stepmother and stepbrothers and sisters there at
Chautham. The next opportunity, which was available to accused
persons in this regard, was deposition of PW-2 and they have also not
put their defence to PW-2 that Gopalji had no house at Chautham or
farmhouse at Tilihar. Rather, the line of cross-examination of PW-2
suggests that the Gopalji is a resident of Village Chautham. The third
earliest available opportunity, which accused persons including
accused Gopalji had when they cross-examined PW-91 and they have
not disputed the case of the prosecution that Gopalji was a resident of
Chautham or that he had a house at Chautham. They have also not put
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
Gopalji was found sleeping in the Verandah (corridor) of his house

before they started the search of the house. He told Gopalji about the
purpose of coming to his house to search it. He along with others
offered their own search to Gopalji prior to their going inside his
house. He prepared correct Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A in respect of
the seizure made from the house of Gopalji. He prepared it correctly
in his own handwriting. It bears his signatures at point C. It was also
signed by Sh. Neel Mohan Singh and Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91)
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
436
in his presence at point B and A respectively. The documents seized

from his house included a Slip Ex.PW-2/M, Manuscript Ex.PW-33/D
and Manuscript Ex.PW-43/F, Telegrams Ex.PW-1/O and Ex.PW-1/S.
All these documents were signed by him and said two witnesses
namely Sh. Neel Mohan Singh and Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) at
the time when he seized these. All these documents were found in the
tin box.
343. In his cross-examination, PW-134 admitted that numbers of the
houses of both the witnesses were not mentioned in the Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-91/A. He clarified that there was no house number in Village
Chautham. After perusing the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A, he replied
that there is no mention of signing the seized documents by the
witnesses. He could not give the reason as to why he has not
mentioned the details of the documents in the Seizure Memo Ex.PW91/A. He has denied the suggestion that these documents were not
recovered from the tin box. In his further cross-examination, PW-134
testified that name of Gopalji was recorded by him in his case diary
for the first time on 03.05.1975. He could not assign any reason as to
why he did not obtain warrant of arrest of Gopalji up to 17.05.1975.
He did not collect any proof of the ownership of that house in the
name of Gopalji. He explained that he was accompanied by the local
police at the time of the going to the house of Gopalji and he verified
the fact. He has denied the suggestion that Gopalji was a resident of
Burail, District Saharsa. To a question that he had carried the search
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
437
in the house at Chautham belonged to Smt. Nageshwari Devi, PW-134

answered that this fact did not come to his notice during the search.
He has denied the suggestion that the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A is
not in his handwriting. He replied that they surrounded house of
Gopalji at 04.15 AM and at that time, Gopalji was found sleeping in
the Verandah (courtyard), of his house. He did not prepare any rough
site plan of the house of Gopalji. There were about 50 persons with
him while going to Chautham.
He voluntarily stated that Village
Chautham was a notorious one and for that reason, he took sufficient
number of persons with him and some persons accompanying him
were armed. He answered that he had made general reference about
the arrest after recovery of valuable evidence from the house of
Gopalji during the search in the application for remand Ex.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.
While giving his introduction, accused
Gopalji furnished his address as resident of Village Chautham. At

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
The relevant questions put up to accused Gopalji and answers given

by him are as under: Q.49
It is in evidence against you that
Santoshanand in the presence of all of you

mentioned above, talked to you and all arms and
ammunitions collected henceforth would be kept at
your house at Chautham to which you agreed.
What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
I did not know accused-
Santoshanand and had never met him till I was

arrested in this case.
Q52. It is in evidence against you that in the said
meeting mentioned in the afore said question,
besides you, Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Madan
Mohan Srivastava, Vinayanand, Arteshanand,
Budeshwaranand and Ram Kumar were present
and you stated that they all would be meeting
either at Chautam or at farm house situated across
river Kausi. What have you to say?
Ans. It is totally false and incorrect.
Q62. It is in evidence against you that in
pursuance of the conspiracy, Santoshanand and
Vinayanand did not return from Bangaon by 2nd
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
440
or 3rd December, 1973 and sent a telegram

addressed to you in the name of Prabhu and the
said telegram is dated 17.01.1974, Ex.PW1/S.
Q.64. It is in evidence against you that your coaccused, Sudevanand, Arteshanand left Chautham
on the mission of procuring a weapon and that
Santoshanand
arrived
at
your
house
at
Chautham after a day or two of the receipt of

the said telegram and Santoshanand informed
the others that Vinayanand had stayed back at
Bangaon for the mission they had gone. What
have you to say?
Ans. It is totally false.
house.
Nobody came to my
I did not know Arteshanand and
Sudevanand and Santoshanand or Vinayanand.

Q68. It is in evidence against you that in
pursuance of the conspiracy, the arms and
ammunitions which had been kept at Chautham
at your House had been brought to Patna and
were kept in the aforesaid house at Gulzar Bagh,
Patna. What have you to say?

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
441
Ans. It is incorrect. No arms and ammunitions

were ever kept at my house. I was not part of
any conspiracy. False story has been concocted.
Q.85
It is in evidence against you that
Santoshanand asked Madan Mohan Srivastava to

proceed to Chautham and accordingly Madan
Mohan Srivastava left for Chautham on the night
of 6.1.1974 and Santoshanand further instructed
him to stay with you at your house and wait for
the arrival of Santoshanand till 15.1.1974. What
have you to say?
Q.86 It is further in evidence against you that
before leaving for Chautham, Madan Mohan
Srivastava handed over arms and ammunition
including the revolver to Santoshanand and that he
(Madan Mohan Srivastava) arrived at Chautham
by bus on 7.1.1974. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. In fact in the year 1974 there
was no bus route connection with Chautham.
False story has been concocted.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
442
Q.87 It is further in evidence against you that it

was at your house that the news was heard at the
radio on 7.1.1974 at 7.30 p.m. that attempt on the
life of Madhavanand remained unsuccessful.
On 7.1.1974 I was not
present at Chautham and there was no question

of hearing any such news at my residence. It is
a false story.
Q.88 It is in evidence against you that on 8.1.1974
you arrived at Chautham with the Newspaper
which carried the details of unsuccessful attempt
on the life of Madhvanand and you suggested that
place of storing arms and ammunition be
shifted from Chautham to Gopalji's farm house
at Tilihar, which was on the other side of Kosi
river. What have you to say?
I was not present at
Chautham on 8.1.1974 also and there was no

question of my having talked anybody and had
nothing to do with any attempt on the life of
Madhavanand or storing of
the arms and
ammunitions. All allegations are false.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
443
Q.89 It is in evidence against you that Madan

Mohan Srivastava informed you that Santoshanand
would be returning from Patna by 15.1.1974 and
that you advised Madan Mohan Srivastava to wait
for your arrival at Tilihar. What have you to say?
Ans. It is false and incorrect. I never knew and
had no talk with Madan Mohan Srivastava who is
an imposter and I was not present at Chautham as
stated above. I was at BARAIL Saharsa District in
January 1974.
Q.90 It is in evidence that since Santoshanand did
not reach your farm house Madan Mohan
Srivastava returned to your house at Chautham
where you met Sudevanand and Arteshanand.
Q.100 It is in evidence that M.M. Srivastava
came to your house on 7.2.1974 at Chautham,
took Rs.100/- from you and ultimately came to
Lahariya Sarai to meet Sham Lal Dass, who had
given Sadhna to him. What have you to say?

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
444
Ans. It is incorrect. On 7.2.1974 I was not present

at Chautham and never knew the so called M.M.
Srivastava. He is an imposter.
Q152. It is in evidence against you that on
14.10.1974, PW-Vikram met Santoshanand at
Chautham in your presence and narrated as to
how Budheshawaranand was apprehended by the
police and the Thela and contents thereof were
seized by the police. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. Budheshawaranand, Vikram
and Santoshanand never met me nor any talk took
place between them in my presence.
Q154. It is in evidence against you that the
meetings of the members of the Revolutionary
Group used to take place at your house at
Chautham and also at your Farm House at
Tilihar and you along with your co-accused,
Santoshanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand besides
Vikram used to participate in these secret
meetings. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. I have never known about any
revolutionary group. I never knew Santoshanand,
Arteshanand, Sudevanand before my arrest.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
445
never met Vikram. No secret meeting ever took

place at my residence of my farm house.
346. The accused Gopalji has given his explanation under Section
313 Cr. PC in reply to a relevant as under: Q. 388. Do you want to say anything else?
Ans.
I am innocent.
I had never any
enmity with late Shri L.N. Mishra or any other

person. I had no connection, whatsoever, with the
other accused persons.
All the witnesses are
interested and under influence of CBI.
CBI
Officers hatched a conspiracy of implicating me

and others in this case. Soon after the incident,
Arun Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Thakur were
arrested and their detailed statement under Section
164 Cr. PC were recorded by the court of
Competent jurisdiction.
Both were kept under
custody till November 1975.
The then Home
Minister Shri Brahma Nand Reddy made his

categorical statement in the Parliament after
verification from CBI and other concerned sources
that Arun Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Thakur
were the persons who had caused the death of Shri
L.N. Mishra in conspiracy with others.
The
challan of case was being filed in the court against

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
446
them. Shri L.N.
Mishra
also
declaration against political rivals.
made
dying
The further
investigation by CBI is biased and without any

lawful basis and in fact, no fair investigation was
conducted. I was not present at the place of
incident nor I knew any of the persons, involved in
the incident. I was looking after my agriculture
work. Corrupt bureaucrats were annoyed with me.
I was tortured brutally by CBI Officials and was
threatened with death. I was forced to write many
writings at their dictation to implicate me in this
case.
The evidence has been fabricated just to
shield the real culprits."

In his lengthy explanation, he has not claimed that he has been a
resident of Village Burail and not of Chautham or that he had no
house at Chautham or farmhouse at Tilihar. He has also not claimed
that the house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar were owned by
his maternal grandmother or that the farmhouse at Tilihar was washed
away in the flood of Kosi River during the year 1971-72. He has also
not claimed that he was not arrested from the house at Chautham but
from the flat of his uncle Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLA at Patna. He
has also not alleged that the search officer Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW134) or search witness Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) had any enmity
with him or that search witness Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) has
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
447
deposed at the instance of Sh. Murariji of Village Chautham or that he

(Gopalji) had any enmity with Sh. Murariji.
347. During the stage of defence evidence, on 11.01.2008, on
pointing out by the Ld. Special PP, after hearing both the parties, my
Ld. Predecessor has recorded further statement of accused Gopalji on
some aspects, which were left out to be asked to him in his previous
statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. The case was still at the stage of
defence evidence, when prosecution was allowed to adduce some
more witnesses on 14.02.2011. Thereafter as required by law, further
statement of accused persons U/s. 313 Cr. PC was recorded and the
further statement of accused Gopalji was recorded on 13.01.2012,
when he had taken a flip-flop and twisted the story that he was not a
resident of Village Chautham, but of Village Burail and he was not
arrested from the house at Chautham but was arrested from the flat of
his uncle at Patna. In his introduction he informed his address as of
Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi. The relevant questions put to him under
Section 313 Cr. PC and answers given by him are as under: Q.4 : It is also in evidence against you that on
17.05.1975 a search was carried out of your house
at Village Chautham in your presence as also in
presence of two public witnesses namely Sh.
Parsuram Singh and Sh. Neel Mohan Singh by Sh.
M.M.P. Sinha, the then Inspector, CID, Bihar.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
448
Ans.
At Village Chautham, there is no house
belonging to me. However, there is house of my

NANI (maternal grand-mother) and on that day I
was not available in Village Chautham. On that
day I was at Patna. I was available in the Flat of
my uncle, who was MLA of Congress Party and
from that Flat CBI arrested me.
Q.5. It is also in evidence against you that on
17.5.1975 on completion of your house search, a
memo Ex.PW-91/A reflecting the recoveries of
items mentioned therein from your house was
prepared by Inspector M.M.P. Sinha in your
presence and in the presence of two public
witnesses namely Sh. Parshuram Singh and Sh.
Neel Mohan Singh and you also signed the search
memo as Gopalji @ Krishan Mohan Singh in
token of having received copy of the search list.
Ans.: Three persons came in the Flat of my uncle
MLA and arrested me and again said that those
were 3 or 4 persons. Again said on that day at
about 6 a.m. one person came in the Flat of my
MLA uncle and knocked it and it was opened by
body guard of my uncle and he was asking the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
449
body guard Sh. Ghutaran Jha by naming me and

after hearing my name, I came out and that person
told me that his boss wanted to see me in the
vehicle/jeep parked on the road and the flat was on
the first floor and accordingly I came down stair.
They were two or three persons and they pushed
me inside the vehicle and took me in a
building/Govt. Quarters at Patna and kept me
holding in a room whole day. Their behaviour was
changed in the night and they started abusing me.
They thrashed me also and two or three persons
came. Again said there were several people in the
room in the night and under coercion they obtained
my signatures on several blank and written papers.
No search of my house was carried. It was house
of my NANI where search might have carried out.
I am not aware of it.
Q 6 : It is also in evidence against you that those
items mentioned in Search memo Ex.PW-91/A
were recovered/seized by Sh. M.M.P. Sinha from
your house in your presence and in the presence of
above said two public witnesses. What have you
to say?

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
450
Ans.: I have no knowledge. When I was lodged in

jail, a copy of Search Memo was sent to me and
during those days it was Emergency in the country.
At that time I observed that this was one of the
paper on which my signatures were obtained on
the night of 17.5.1975.
Q 7: It has also come in evidence against you in
the statement of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, Dy.
S.P. (the then Inspector, CID Bihar) that the
documents seized from your house included Slip
Ex.PW-2/M (D-64), Manuscript Ex.PW-33/D (D65), Manuscript Ex.PW-43/F (D-66), copy of
Telegram mark PW-91/A5 (D-69), Inland letter
Ex.PW-68/DA (D-70), Inland letter mark PW91/A6 (D-71), Inland letter mark PW-91/A7 (D72), Inland letter mark PW-91/A-8 (D-73),
Telegram Ex.PW-1/S (D-68), another Telegram
Ex.PW-1/O (D-67), Manuscript mark PW-91/A1
(D-52), Inland letter mark PW-91/A2 (D-59) and 6
sheets of letter-pad with indentation P-179 to P184
(D-60)
and
all
these
recovered/seized
documents/articles were signed by him and two

witnesses in your presence at the time of seizure.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
451
Ans.:
do
not
know.
The
recovered
documents/articles are fabricated/planted in a fake

search.
Q 10 : It is also in evidence against you in the
statement of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, Dy. S.P.
(the then Inspector CID, Bihar) that the Search
memo Ex.PW-91/A was prepared by him in his
own handwriting and bears his signatures. What
have you to say?
Ans.: It was a fake search. I am not aware of it.
However, this document was not written by Sh.
M.M.P. Sinha.
Q. 25: Have you anything else to say?
Ans.: I was born at Barail, District Saharsa,
present in District Saupal of Bihar and resided with
my father and my initial studies were also done at
Barail. I'm the elder son from the first wife of my
father. I also have one sister who was elder to me.
After my birth my mother expired and thereafter,
my father again married and from the second wife
he had two sons and three daughters.
My step-mother was not having good
behaviour with me and when I gain senses, I
realized that my step-mother had step-motherly

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
452
treatment with me and therefore, I did not had

good relations with her.
During the year 1971, my father expired and
my step-mother along with her children started
living at Chautham i.e. My Nanee's house along
with her.
After my father's death I took the
responsibility of agricultural and I used to manage

the agriculture at Barail and at times to assist my
younger brothers I used to visit Chautham but
hardly once or twice a year and this continued till
the year 1975.
The property at Chautham was
looked after by my nanee and her staff. During

those times, Anand Marg Organization was very
popular and even my brother was an Anand Margi.
I am a licence holder of gun from Barail and
I had also voted from Barail. I was doing various
social works from Barail and was also managing a
temple from there.
After the death of my father, his younger
brother my uncle Shri Uma Shanker Singh, MLA
Congress was the guardian of my family and I
always used to consult him and take opinion from
him regarding the family and agriculture business.
I used to visit Patna for this purpose.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
453
There was one Murariji at Chautham who

had dispute with our family and as I had
approached him he personally did not like me. He
had threatened me that he will implicate me in
false cases. Murariji was Zamindar. He had several
trusted and personal workers.
Congressman.
Murariji was a
There was one Gopalji in the
village Chautham, who was very close to Murariji.

My nanee had a farmhouse/kamath at
Telihar
(PS
Beldaur)
but
the
aforesaid
farmhouse/kamath was washed away by river Kosi

in its meandering process and during the year
1971-72, the river Kosi was flowing at the place
where the farmhouse/kamath was located. I say
that after 1972, river Kosi was flowing over the
farmhouse and my nanee had no other farmhouse
in the village Telihar. On May 15, 1975, I along
with my cousin brother Samrender Narain Singh
s/o Uma Shankar Singh reached Patna from Barail
at the MLA flat no. 191, R Block, Patna of my
uncle to discuss the sale of mangoes crop and how
to recover the proceeds thereof.
That in the
morning of 17.5.75, I was arrested at around 6:00

AM.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
454
When I was in police custody, the CBI

pressurized me to leave Anand Marg and denounce
Anand Marg and to give witness against Anand
Marg. My uncle was also called by the CBI to
convince me to denounce Anand Marg and
become a witness but my uncle personally told me
that he had come to meet me on the pressure of the
CBI.
I am innocent and have been falsely
implicated in this case.
The documents shown
against me have been planted and are false. For

example, D-74 alleged to be found in a tin box is
of 24.5.75 i.e. beyond the date as shown to be the
date of alleged house search and also beyond the
date of my arrest from Patna. (The copy of this
document was provided to me along with the list
of documents in the charge sheet).
I did not organize any meeting of Anand
Marg and I did not had any arms or ammunition at
any point of time, apart from my licensed gun. I
came to know about co-accused in the jail and
specifically Visheswar Anand and Vikram who
had come to the court as a witness.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
455
I am innocent and have been falsely

implicated by CBI in this case.
348. The following was put to PW-2 in his cross-examination at
Page No. 238: Q.
Did you or not meet Gopalji out of
Chautham or Tilihar ?
Ans. I think, I did not.
Q.
Is it that whenever you went to Chautham,
he was found present at house ?

Ans. Yes. Because date for the meeting used to
be prefixed.
This line of cross-examination of PW-2 by accused Gopalji and
Arteshanand clearly establish that Gopalji had a house at Chautham
and farmhouse at Tilihar.
349. PW-2 further deposed that next day (i.e. 14.07.1974), he went to
Chautham and met Santoshanand there. Gopalji was also present there
and
he
told
A-1
about
the
delivery
of
the
packet
to
Budheshawaranand, who kept the packet in a bag, and subsequent

arrest of Budheshawaranand by the police with the bag containing the
packet. He informed Santoshanand in the presence of Gopalji that
Budheshawaranand had thrown the bag towards, which he could not
pick up scared of being arrested. On asking of Santoshanand, PW-2
informed A-1 that the packet sent by him was in the bag and on this
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
deposed that he stayed at the house at Chautham for 4/5 days. He

testified that meetings of the members of Revolutionary Group used to
be held at the house of Gopalji and at his farm at Tilihar. Apart from
him, Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Arteshanand and Gopalji used to
attend those meetings. The meetings used to be addressed by
Santoshanand, who used to tell that they had to procure arms for
revolution in order to get the Baba released. In his cross-examination
at Page No. 91, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that on
14.07.1974, he was at Chautham.
350. The testimony of PW-2 has not been discredited and disputed
by the defence including Gopalji that Gopalji had a house at
Chautham and a farmhouse at Tilihar or that PW-2 went to Chautham
on 14.07.1974 and stayed in his house or that meetings of members of
the Revolutionary Group used to be held at his house and farmhouse,
which used to be attended by Gopalji, PW-2, Santoshanand,
Sudevanand, Arteshanand and meeting used to be addressed by
Santoshanand.
These assertions of PW-2 have also not been
discredited and disputed by the other accused persons. They have also
not disputed the narration of the incident at Khanjarpur Maqbara by
PW-2 to all of them.
Rather, by giving the suggestion that on
14.07.1974, PW-2 was at Chautham, the defence has admitted the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
457
version of the approver PW-2. Therefore, the testimony of approver

PW-2 stand further corroborated and is to be believed.
351. The accused Gopalji examined several defence witnesses
namely DW-23 Sh. Chander Mohan Singh, DW-28 Sh. Dhanik Lal
Singh, DW-29 Sh. Maleshwar Prasad Singh, DW-31 Sh. Ghutran Jha
@ Laxmi Kant Jha, DW-32 Sh. Krishna Kumar Singh, DW-41 Sh.
Bhupender Narain Singh and DW-42 Sh. Samrender Singh, S/o Sh.
Uma Shankar Singh (MLA) in his defence. He has examined these
defence witnesses in his efforts to demolish the case of the prosecution
that he is a resident of Village Chautham or that he had a farmhouse at
Tilihar or that search was carried out at his house at Chautham.
Through the deposition of these witnesses, he has tried to claim that he
is a resident of Village Burail and the house at Chautham and
farmhouse at Tilihar were owned by maternal grandmother. He has
also tried to claim that the search was carried out at the house of his
maternal grandmother Smt. Nageshwari Devi and he was arrested
from flat of his uncle Sh. Uma Shankar Singh at Patna.
The probative value of these defence witnesses is also discussed
in the succeeding paragraphs.
352. The line of this cross-examination of PW-1 clearly indicates
admission of the accused persons that Gopalji had his house at
Chautham also at Bhagalpur. The defence has also not challenged
assertion of PW-1 in his examination-in-chief that he went to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
458
Chautham and stayed at the house of Gopalji or that on asking of

Gopalji, he went to farm house of Gopalji at Tilihar. It was not
suggested that at that time, no farm house was existing or that it
washed away in the flood or that Gopalji was not resident of
Chautham or that no farmhouse of Gopalji was situated at Tilihar or
that Gopalji has been exclusively resident of Burail or that Gopalji had
no house at Bhagalpur. Accused Gopalji has never put his defence to
prosecution witnesses particularly PW-1, PW-2, PW-91 and PW-134
that he is not a resident of Chautham or that he had no house at
Chautham or that he had no farmhouse at Tilihar or that he was
arrested from Chautham or that he was arrested from Patna. Accused
Gopalji himself admitted by describing his address in the bail
application as a resident of Chautham, apart from giving so in his
statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. Subsequently, accused Gopalji
has taken a flip-flop and started pleading that he has been a resident of
Village Burail and not of Chautham and he had no house at Chautham
or farmhouse at Tilihar and in his defence he has examined several
witnesses on these points. The testimony of such witnesses is liable to
be discarded at the threshold in view of the judgment of the Honble
Supreme Court in Majid etc. vs. State of Haryana, 2002(1), JCC
154, wherein it was held that when the statement made by the defence
witness was not asked from the relevant prosecution witness in his
cross-examination, no credence can be given to the evidence of the
defence witness. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
459
Court, the deposition of defence witnesses does not require any

countenance by this court. Still, this court in order to unravel the
truth, hastens to appreciate the testimony of those witnesses herein
follows.
353. DW-14 Sh. Mahender Narain Singh of Village Burail has
deposed that he knew accused Gopalji present in the court since his
childhood, being his neighbour. He testified that the father of Gopalji
remarried the sister of mother of Gopalji. Gopalji lost his father in the
year 1971. Gopalji was not having good relations with his stepmother,
who used to stay at Chautham. Gopalji continued to reside at Burail
after death of his father.
He used to visit Chautham sometimes.
Gopalji had a dispute with one Murariji of Chautham and Murariji

falsely involved Gopalji in a case.
It further comes in his
examination-in-chief that on request, he (DW-14) tried to settle their

dispute but in vain. He placed on record a certificate issued by the
Headman of village Burail Ex.DW-14/A, a copy of the Voter List
Ex.DW-14/B and original gun licence of Gopalji Ex.DW-14/C
showing his address as that of Burail. He also testified that he was
practicing as an Advocate at Supaul since 12.11.1969 till he joined
services on 05.04.1975 as a Judicial Magistrate.
In his cross-examination, he answered that Supaul is at a
distance of 11 km from Burail. He remained posted as a Judicial
Officer at Sasaram, Darbhanga, Samastipur, Jamshedpur, Patna,
Dumka, Motihari, Bhagalpur and Chhapra and stayed at those places.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
460
While posted at those places, he used to come to his village on

Saturdays. It is further elicited that mother of Gopalji expired long
ago before he got his senses and similarly second marriage of father of
Gopalji was solemnized before he got his senses. He could not tell the
name of second wife of Gopaljis father. He was also not aware of
another house Gopalji at Bhagalpur. He never visited Chautham. He
took a second-thought and testified that he was not aware what the
activities of Gopalji at Chautham were. He has denied the suggestion
that Gopalji was actively involved in Anand Marg activities. He was
not aware of day-to-day activities of Gopalji except for Saturdays and
Sundays. He also admitted that document Ex.DW-14/A was neither
written nor signed in his presence. This certificate Ex.PW-14/A was
issued on 30.09.1986 by the Mukhiya (Headman) of Burail, Gram
Panchayat and the witness has not stated as to how he identified the
signatures of the Headman. No other person has been examined to
identify the signatures of Village Headman, whether he had died four
or five years ago as claimed by the witness.
354. It is admitted by other defence witness DW-1, DW-2, DW-3,
DW-7 and others that Gopalji has been an active member of Anand
Marg since long.
However, DW-14 has surprisingly denied the
suggestion of the prosecution that Gopalji was actively involved in

Anand Marg activities. He also admitted that Gopalji used to visit
Village Chautham but was not aware of his activities there. DW-14
has never visited Chautham. Moreover, at the time of conducting the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
461
search of the house of Gopalji at Chautham, Gopalji was himself

found available there with the family members in the presence of the
witnesses including PW-91 Sh. Parsu Ram Singh. DW-14 has stated
that Gopalji informed his father that he has been involved in a false
case by one Murariji of Chautham belonging to Congress Party and if
that is so, no particulars of that case or copy thereof has been placed
on record. Merely because the accused Gopalji was having a Gun
Licence, showing his particulars of village Burail, does not ipso facto
means that he was not residing at Village Chautham. When the search
was carried at the house of Gopalji at Chautham, not only Gopalji, but
also all his family members were found available. In view of this
discussion, the testimony of DW-14 does not come to the rescue of
accused Gopalji or his co-accused persons, in any manner.
355. The accused Gopalji has also examined DW-30 Sh. Prabhat
Kumar Singh, an Assistant working with Arms License Department in
the office of Collector, Saharsa, Bihar. He brought the record of Gun
License issued to Gopalji, which is already Ex.DW-14/C. In his crossexamination, DW-30 has filed Photostat copy of Police Verification
Report for the year 1971. No doubt, Gopalji has been shown to be a
resident of Village Burail. However, it has come in the deposition of
Prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-91 that Gopalji has been
a resident of Village Chautham and he has his farmhouse at Village
Tilihar.
This has been admitted by his own witness DW-29 Sh.
Maleshwar Prasad Singh of Village Chautham, who deposed that

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
462
accused Gopalji who is resident of Village Burail, used to visit at his

grandmother's Village at Chautham. This is also admitted by DW-28
Sh. Dhanik Lal Singh, DW-14 Sh. Mahender Narain Singh and DW23 Sh. Chander Mohan Singh. Apart from this, there is unrebutted and
unchallenged testimony of PW-1 that Gopalji had a house at
Bhagalpur, near Janta Library. Simply because accused Gopalji is also
having his house at Burail and got issued his Gun License and
recorded himself as a voter there, does not ipso facto mean that he
never possessed or resided at other place i.e. at Village Chautham. At
the same time, this court can also take note of the fact that his family
i.e. his stepmother, stepbrothers and maternal grandmother, all have
been residing in the house at Village Chautham, with whom he used to
reside there. At the cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to mention that
at the time of search at his house on 17.05.1975 in the presence of
independent witnesses of Village Chautham, accused Gopalji was
found available with his family members. Therefore, the deposition of
DW-30 does not help the accused Gopalji.
356. DW-23 Sh. Chander Mohan Singh @ Rattanji, of village
Chautham, deposed that he is an Anand Margi and took Diksha in the
year 1956. His father was also an Anand Margi. He testified that
accused Gopalji had no residential house in his Village but his
maternal grand-parent's house is there. (However, in his statement, he
has spoken "maternalparents" instead of "maternal grandparents"). In
the year 1973-74, Gopalji used to live in Village Burail. However,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
463
Gopalji sometimes used to visit his maternal grandparents house at

Chautham but he had not seen any Anand Margi accompanying or
visiting him. The maternal grandparents of Gopalji had a farmland
(Kamath) in Village Tilihar. This farmland was already submerged in
Kosi River in the year 1971-72. There is a common wall between his
house and that of maternal grandparents of accused Gopalji. There
was another Gopalji S/o Salig Ram @ Mukund Babu in Village
Chautham, who was also an Anand Margi.
He also knew one
Murariji, another Anand Margi of their Village, who left Anand Marg
after arrest of Guru/Anand Murti in the year 1971.
Thereafter,
Murariji used to ask Gopalji to denounce Anand Marg or leave the

village but accused Gopalji declined it. For this reason, Murariji
continued to have enmity with Gopalji and filed some criminal cases
against accused Gopalji. It is further gathered from the testimony of
DW-23 that PW-91 and Neel Mohan Singh, who are residents of
Village Chautham, were employees of Murariji. Murariji had land in
their names, he asked both of them to depose against Gopalji in this
case, and in return, Murariji promised them transfer of those lands in
their names and not to claim back. He testified that Parsu Ram Singh
(PW-91) deposed in this case on the dictates of Murariji. However,
Murariji did not fulfill his promise and Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) had
left him. Since Neel Mohan Singh insisted to have possession of the
land before deposing against Gopalji in this case and Murariji, did not
honour it and for this reason, Neel Mohan Singh did not come to

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
464
depose. Police never came to the maternal grandmothers house of

Gopalji at Chautham in connection with the investigation of the
present case.
357. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that in the house, apart
from maternal grandparents of Gopalji, his stepmother and her
children were residing. There were about 10/12 rooms in the house.
Kamath (farmland) was at a distance of 6/7 miles from their house and
there was one bamboo built Hall type construction, which might be of
the size of about 20 x 20. This Hall was used for storage of the crop
in addition to stay and cooking (boarding and lodging). There might
be about 40 Anand Margies in Village Chautham before arrest of
Anand Murti in the year 1971.
In his cross-examination, DW-23
could not tell the details of the cases filed by Murariji against Gopalji.
He also could not tell the particulars including the area of the alleged
Benami land of Murariji in the name of Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and
Neel Mohan Singh. In his presence, Murariji did not ask Parsu Ram
Singh (PW-91) and Neel Mohan Singh to depose against Gopalji in
the present case. He admitted that Neel Mohan Singh had already
died. He (DW-23) along with his brothers have been holding 7/8
Bighas of land at different places at Village Chautham and those lands
are situated at a distance of 3 Km. from their residence. He along with
his younger brothers used to go in the Morning to look after their
agricultural land and come back in the Evening or even sometimes
late. He admitted the suggestion of the Prosecution that during this
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
465
period of their being at agricultural land, he would not know the

names and identity of the persons visiting Village Chautham. He
could not deny whether some Revolutionary Group was formed to put
pressure on the authorities for release of Anand Murti. He also could
not deny whether any meeting of Revolutionary Group used to take
place at the house at Village Chautham and at the farmhouse at
Village Tilihar. He also could not dare to deny whether arms and
ammunitions were used to be stored at afore said residence at
Chautham and Farmhouse (Kamath) at Village Tilihar.
358. This witness has been examined by the accused Gopalji in order
to deride the case of Prosecution that meeting of Revolutionary Group
used to take place at the residence Gopalji at Chautham and farm
house at Tilihar situated nearby and no search was carried out at the
house of Gopalji at Chautham. A scrutiny of the testimony of the
deposition of DW-23 reveals that Gopalji also used to visit Chautham
as his stepmother, stepbrother and stepsisters and maternal
grandmother have been residing. Though, DW-23 claimed to have his
house adjoining to the house of the grandparents of accused Gopalji,
yet he admitted that he, along with his younger brothers, used to leave
the house to look after their agricultural land, in the Morning for their
agricultural land, situated at a distance of about 3 KM. They used to
return in the Evening and sometimes even late. During this period,
admittedly he would be not aware of the persons, who visited their
Village at Chautham. Obviously, for this reason, DW-23 could not
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
466
deny formation of Revolutionary Group to put pressure on the

authorities to release Anand Murti or about holding of meetings of
Revolutionary Group in the house of accused Gopalji at Village
Chautham and farmhouse at Village Tilihar. He also could not deny
that the arms and ammunition used to be stored at the aforesaid
residence at Chautham and farmhouse (Kamath) at Tilihar. In his
examination-in-chief, he had claimed that farmhouse (Kamath) at
Tilihar was submerged in Kosi River in the year 1971-72. However,
DW-23 admitted in his cross-examination that there was Bamboo built
hall type construction in the size of about 20 x 20, which was used to
store crop apart from using the same for stay and cooking (boarding
and lodging) on the farmhouse (Kamath) at Village Tilihar. He could
not tell the number of the specific lands of Murariji under Benami
ownership of Parsu Ram Singh and Neel Mohan Singh. He admitted
that in his presence Murariji did not ask to depose against the Gopalji
in this case for transfer of the land.
He also could not tell the
particulars of those criminal cases alleged to have been filed against

Gopalji by Murariji. DW-23 is admittedly an Anand Margi since
1956. His testimony rather supports the case of the Prosecution that
sometimes meeting of conspirators also used to be held at the
farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar. Further, DW-23 has admitted that
there was one bamboo built hall type construction in measurement of
20 x 20, which was used for storage of crop and boarding and

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
467
lodging. Therefore, the testimony of DW-23 remains shaky since he

is an interested witness being an Anand Margi in the past.
359. Sh. Maleshwar Prasad Singh examined as DW-29 of Village
Chautham deposed that Gopalji is a resident of Village Burail. He
knew Gopalji, who used to visit his Nani (maternal grandmother) at
village Chautham. His eldest brother is Leel Mohan Singh.
His
brother and Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and many others used to work
with Murari Babu. He is not aware whether the police had ever
conducted raid in the house of Nani of accused Gopalji. He testified
that the relation of Murari Babu and Gopalji got strained after 1970
when Murari Babu joined Congress and had asked Gopalji to join
Congress. Prior to joining Congress, Murari Babu was a member of
Anand Marg. In his presence, Murari Babu threatened Gopalji that if
they come in power, they would fix him in a false case. His brother
Leel Mohan Singh is not alive. He stated that he had seen his brother
Leel Mohan Singh writing and signing but cannot identify his
signatures. After perusal the document Ex.PW-91/A, he stated that
writing at point 'B' is not in the hands of his brother Leel Mohan
Singh. In his cross-examination, DW-29 stated that he did not bring
any document written by his deceased brother Leel Mohan Singh for
the purpose of comparison.
360. This witness also cannot be believed as he has suppressed and
concealed the name of attesting witness of the Search Memo Ex.PWCBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
468
91/A. The Prosecution has examined one of the independent public

witness PW-91, resident of Village Chautham employed by Murariji,
who deposed that the search was carried out in his presence and Neel
Mohan Singh was also present with him. PW-91 testified that Neel
Mohan Singh was working with Murariji. PW-91 has also identified
the signatures of Neel Mohan Singh at point 'B' and his own signatures
at point 'A'. Gopalji did not claim in the cross-examination of PW-91
that the real of another search witness is Leel Mohan Singh. Accused
Gopalji himself examined DW-23 deposed that Parsu Ram Singh
(PW-91) and Neel Mohan Singh (correct name) are residents of
Village Chautham, had been employees of Murariji. DW-29 did not
state that the correct name of his brother was Leel Mohan Singh and
not Neel Mohan Singh. He himself stated in his examination-in-chief
that he cannot identify the signatures of his brother. It appears that
DW-29 is not connected with attesting witness Sh. Neel Mohan Singh.
Moreover, the statement of DW-29 and that of DW-14 and DW-23 are
contradictory to each other.
DW-29 has claimed that Murariji
threatened Gopalji to implicate him in false case, as and when

Congress comes into power, whereas, DW-14 deposed that Murariji
has filed a criminal case against Gopalji and DW-23 claimed that
Murariji had filed some criminal cases against Gopalji. DW-14 and
DW-23 have also not given the details of those alleged cases. In view
of this discussion, the deposition of DW-29 does not inspire any
confidence and requires no indulgence of this court.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
469
361.
Sh. Dhanik Lal Singh of Village Tilihar, examined as DW-28
deposed that he knew the accused Gopalji, as land of his maternal

grandparents was there in their Village. The constructed premise
along with the land in their village is called as Kamath. He used to
visit Kamath of maternal grandmother of accused Gopalji Smt.
Nageshwari Devi widow of Sh. Babu Sheevadheen Singh. The said
Kamath of Smt. Nageshwari Devi is no more in existence as it got
washed away during the year 1970-1972 in the flood of River Kosi.
Their village is situated on the bank of River Kosi. DW-28 had filed
an application before the Ex-Mukhiya of village Tilihar regarding the
geographical details of the property of Smt. Nageshwari Devi, which
is Ex.DW-28/1. The Circle Officer at the bottom of the application
itself mentioned his Report Ex.DW-28/2. The Revenue Officer has
signed this report at point 'A' and Circle Officer at point 'B'. He
testified that there was no Anand Margi in their village at any point of
time.
Accused Gopalji never had any meeting in his village and
visited the village rarely.
His (PW-28) house and land is still in
village Tilihar. Smt. Nageshwari Devi is no more. Ex.DW-28/1 and

Ex.DW-28/2 are available in folder R-XXIV.
362. Though this witness was cross-examined by the State, the
evidence of this witness is only superflous since he is talking about a
Kamath and its location belonged to the step mother of Gopalji Smt.
Nageshwari Devi at Tilihar. There is no positive assertion to believe
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
470
that Gopalji was not a resident of Chautham. However, he admits in

the cross-examination that he saw accused Gopalji in the village
Tilihar during the year 1970-71 and he voluntarily stated that Gopalji
only visited the village and went away. To a question of Ld. Special
Public Prosecutor that it was not necessary that as and when accused
Gopalji visited the Village Tilihar, he used to be present all the time to
which the witness has cleverly answered that he saw him once or
twice only. His family was not related to Smt. Nageshwari Devi. He
moved an application Ex.DW-28/1 on asking of the brother of the
accused Gopalji based on telephonic call, which he had with the
lawyer of the accused Gopalji. He admitted that in the application
Ex.DW-28/1 and Ex.DW-28/2, there was no mention of Smt.
Nageshwari Devi. He could not tell the area of Kamath of Smt.
Nageshwari Devi. He has denied the suggestion of the Prosecution
that at the Kamath of Smt. Nageshwari Devi, the accused Gopalji used
to hold the meetings of Anand Margies or that arms and ammunitions
used to be collected there or that he has deposed falsely at the instance
of accused Gopalji being his old acquaintance.
363. A scrutiny of the deposition of DW-28 projects the suppression
of facts and does not inspire any confidence. In his examination-inchief, he stated that accused Gopalji visited his village rarely. In his
cross-examination, DW-28 deposed that Smt. Nageshwari Devi, who
was having her Kamath in their village, never visited it. However, he
saw accused Gopalji in Village Tilihar once or twice. He further
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
document filed by him Ex.DW-28/2 wherein on the basis of statement

of some village persons, it is reported that Khasra No.8341 and 4919
belong jointly to Sheevadheen (who was the husband of Smt.
Nageshwari Devi) and Keshwa Narang. In his statement, he has filed
one application dated 10.11.2008 Ex.DW-28/1, which he addressed to
Anchal Adhikari, Beldaur (Khagaria) asking him about status of
Khasra No. 4191 and 8341 of Village Tilihar, Anchal Beldaur, District
Khagaria.
On the application itself, there was a report of some
Officer with a seal of Anchal Karyalaya, Beldaur Khagaria dated

18.11.2008 Ex.DW-28/2 to the effect that as per the version of
villagers of Mauja Tilihar, Khasra No.8341 and 4191 was estate of
Babu Sheevadheen Singh and Keshwa Narain Singh and most of the
land has been sold away and in Tilihar, it was washed away in the
flood during the year 1970-72. His testimony clearly indicates that
accused Gopalji had some interest in the estate of Sheevadheen Singh
and used to visit Tilihar.
364. DW-31 Sh. Ghutran Jha @ Laxmi Kant Jha resident of Village
Burail deposed that he used to stay with uncle of Gopalji namely Sh.
Uma Shankar Singh, an MLA in the year 1975. He was servant of Sh.
Uma Shankar Singh. Gopalji was taken away by the police in his
presence from R-Block, which is the residence of MLA in Patna. In
his cross-examination, DW-31 testified that when Gopalji was taken
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
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 view of this discussion, I do not find his
testimony worth inspiring confidence.

366. DW-32 Sh. Krishna Kumar Singh of Village Chautham deposed
that in his presence no search was carried out by the police in the
house of maternal grandfather of accused Gopalji.
In his cross-
examination, it is elicited that it takes about 10 minutes on foot to

reach house of maternal grandfather of accused Gopalji from his own
house. He also admitted that while coming from outside the Village,
his house does not fall on the way, if one is to reach the house of
maternal grandfather of Gopalji. He stated that he came to depose in
the court on asking of one Chunnu Babu, who is the stepbrother of
accused Gopalji.
The testimony of this witness, does not in any
manner, help the accused persons including Gopalji since it is not

mandated upon the authorities or the investigating agency to intimate
this witness or to carry out their duties.
367. DW-41 Sh. Bhupendra Narain Singh, a resident of District
Bhatinda, Punjab deposed that he had been Personal Assistant of Sh.
Uma Shankar Singh, MLA, Supaul from 1973 to 1977. He used to
live in the flat of said Sh. Uma Shankar Singh at Patna. It has come in
his testimony that on 17.05.1975, police officials visited the said flat
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
477
Chaudhary.
He was informed by Gauri Shankar Chaudhary that
Gopalji had been taken away by officers of CBI in a jeep. On asking

of his father, Bhupender Narain Singh (DW-41) made a telephonic
call to S.P., Patna. In his cross-examination, DW-42 replied that he
has joint agriculture with accused Gopalji. At that time, Dhruv Jyoti
Prasad was passing by the side lane of the teashop and then they
proceeded together towards MLAs flat. The number of the jeep was
not noted. His father lodged a written complaint with the Revenue
Minister on that day about illegal arrest of Gopalji. In his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that Gopalji was not arrested
from the flat of his father at Patna or that he was arrested on
17.05.1975 from his house at Chautham. He admitted that 35 years
have elapsed and he did not make any such statement before any
authority. DW-41 has stated that on 17.05.1975, he along with Uma
Shankar Singh and Dhruv Jyoti Singh were returning after a morning
walk, when they saw police officials in civil dress and driver of the
vehicle in police uniform and they took away accused Gopalji.
However, DW-42 deposed that he and Bhupender Narain Singh (DW41) had gone for morning walk and while they were returning, Dhruv
Jyoti Singh, per chance met them near the flats and the statement of
DW-41 and DW-42 are contradictory to each other on the vital point.
Admittedly, accused Gopalji is the first cousin of DW-42 and both of
them are doing their agriculture jointly.
His testimony becomes
unreliable since no copy of the said complaint is produced on record to

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
discussed the evidentiary value of Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A.

370. However, since the accused Gopalji had seriously disputed the
seizure memo as not being in the handwriting of its author PW-134 (a
police officer of Bihar), it becomes relevant to appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence adduced on either side.
371. In his cross-examination, PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (I.O.) has
denied the suggestion of the Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Gopalji
that Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A is not in his handwriting. Now the
repetition is inevitable. In his examination-in-chief, PW-134 deposed
that he prepared correct Seizure Memo Ex.PW-91/A at the house of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
479
Gopalji in his own handwriting and it bears his signatures at point C

and that of search witnesses Sh. Neel Mohan Singh and Sh. Parsu Ram
Singh at point B and A respectively. It is relevant to note that accused
Gopalji has not taken this defence during the marking of the exhibit
and not even suggested so in the cross-examination of PW-91.
Accused does not have any grouse of the signatures of Sh. M.M.P.
Sinha (PW-134) on the Search Memo Ex.PW-91/A.
372. However, Gopalji has examined DW-38 Sh. B.N. Srivastava,
Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert to adumbrate that the search
memo is not in the handwriting of PW-134.
To compare the
questioned writing of Sh. M.M.P. Sinha on the Seizure Memo Ex.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
examined all the admitted, questioned and specimen writings of

M.M.P. Sinha and had also gone through the report of DW-38. A
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
480
detailed analysis of his own in the capacity of an expert, had deposed

at length supporting the case of the prosecution.
He took the
assistance of another expert Sh. B.A. Vaid also in arriving at his

findings regarding the handwriting of PW-134. These experts are
from the specialized field namely GEQD (Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents). They have given their Report Ex.PW-160/H
and the reasons are mentioned in their report Ex.PW-160/G.
374. Unsatisfied with the GEQD opinion accused Gopalji further
examined another handwriting and fingerprint expert Sh. Deepak Jain
as DW-43. He furnished a Report Ex.DW-43/A submitting that the
writings are different, supporting the defence of accused Gopalji.
375. At this juncture, this court is riddled with enigmatic opinions of
the experts. It is to be kept in mind that if the conflicting opinions
arise, it is always better for the court to apply its own wisdom
especially, if provided under the law. Thus, this court has no other
alternative than to exercise the powers conferred by Section 73 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
376. This court has examined and compared the questioned writing
appearing on Search Memo Ex.PW-91/A and the specimen writing
furnished by PW-134 before the predecessor of this court on
31.08.1984 Ex.PW-160/D to Ex.PW-160/F, after perusing the reports
and depositions of DW-38, PW-160 and DW-43. My careful

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
481
comparison reveals that the questioned writings and specimen writings

do tally and are in the handwriting of one and the same person i.e.
PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha.
377. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, Gopalji has pleaded
that one document D-74, is shown to have been recovered from his
house bears the date as 24.05.1975, whereas the search was carried out
17.05.1975. I have perused the document D-74, which is available in
Folder R-5 and it does not bear the signatures of the search witnesses
Sh. Parsu Ram Singh (PW-91) and Neel Mohan Singh and IO/Search
Officer PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha. This is a slip of Rs.200/- for
GOLI (cartridges) and bears the signatures of Parmanand Singh and
Bhujangi Prasad (sic.). It has come in the testimony of PW-91 and
PW-134 that all the documents at the time of search were signed by
both the search witnesses and by the search officer PW-134. This
document was never confronted to PW-91 or to PW-134 that it was
recovered during the search at the house of Gopalji at Chautham on
17.05.1975. The record reveal that as per the list of documents dated
10.11.1975 (Annexure "A"), which was filed along with the charge
sheet, D-74 is described as a slip recovered from the house of Krishan
Kumar Verma of Parsha (Monghyer) bearing script in Hindi for
having paid Rs.200/- for cartridges. Thus, the accused Gopalji has not
only confused himself but is also trying to mislead and confound this
court.

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.
Accused persons have also not
claimed so in the cross-examination of PW-134 except that accused

Gopalji is a resident of Village Burail and it was not suggested to him
that he had not been residing at Village Chautham or that he was not
arrested from Chautham after carrying out search there. The statement
of Gopalji was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC on various dates
from 16.11.1998 to 02.11.2001 and in this statement, he claimed to be
a resident of Village Chautham. He did not claim that search was not
carried out at his house at Chautham or that he was not arrested from
there. Moreover, this court has individually appreciated the deposition
of all the witnesses examined by Gopalji on the issue, who have not
been found to be trustworthy at all. In view of these, the answers
given by Gopalji to the questions put to him in his further statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC by this court and explanation put
forth by him on 13.01.2012 is nothing but an unsuccessful attempt to
explain falsity and not the truth. It is a well settled law that in a case if
an accused adduces false evidences in respect of his defence, this can

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
483
be taken as an additional link in the chain in circumstances against

him. This has been so held recently by the Division Bench of our own
Hon'ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State (Delhi (6) RCR
(CR) 2364).
379. In view of the above evidence forthcoming against the accused
from the cogent testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-91, one can
safely say that Gopalji has been a resident of Village Chautham and he
also had his farmhouse at Tilihar across River Kosi. A search was
carried at his Chautham House by PW-134 in the presence of
witnesses including PW-91 and search memo Ex.PW-91/A was
prepared by PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha and several documents and
articles were recovered from his house and he was arrested from his
house at Chautham. Evidence also reveals that meetings of members
of Revolutionary Group used to be held at the house at Chautham and
farmhouse at Tilihar and arms and ammunitions used to be collected at
his house at Chautham. These meetings used to take place at the
house of Gopalji at Chautham, attended by PW-2, Santoshanand,
Sudevanand, Gopalji and Arteshanand.
34) Effect of leaving Conspiracy by PW-1 &
statement of PW-1 & 2 after their arrest.
380. The Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the accomplice/approver
PW-1 had left the conspiracy in the month of February 1974 and that
the other approver PW-2 was arrested subsequent to killing of Sh.
L.N. Mishra and under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
484
their respective statements are not at all binding on the accused

persons facing the trial. In support of their contentions, they have
relied upon judgment of the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar v. King
Emperor AIR 1940 PC 176 and of the Honble Supreme Court in
State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. AIR 1999
SC 2640, Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (6) (2002) 7 SCC
334, State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru AIR
2005 SC 3820 and Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
AIR 1988 SC 1883. They have also referred the judgment of the
Honble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohammed Atik &
Ors. Crl. A. Nos. 400-403 of 1998 decided on 3.4.1998. With due
respect, there is no dispute about principles of law laid down by the
Privy Council and Honble Supreme in these judgments.
381. Since the Charge has been framed under Section 120-B of
Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, I would like to advert
to the law of conspiracy, its definition, essential features, ingredients
to the offence and case law.
382. Section 120-A IPC defines criminal conspiracy which reads
as under: 120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy- When
two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done,(1)
an illegal act, or
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
485
(2)
an act which is not illegal by illegal
means, such an agreement is designated a criminal

conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement
is done by one or more parties to such agreement
in pursuance thereof.
Explanation:- It is immaterial whether the illegal
act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is
merely incidental to that object.
383. It is clear from the above noted definition of "criminal
conspiracy" that the three essential elements of offence of conspiracy
are: (a) a criminal object, which may be either the
ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute
the means, or one of the means by which that aim
is to be accomplished;
(b) a plan or scheme embodying means to
accomplish that object;
(c) an agreement or understanding between two or
more of the accused persons whereby they become
definitely
committed
to
co-operate
for
the
accomplishment of the object by the means

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
486
embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual

means.
Thus, the gist of offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to
break the law.
384. Under Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code when two or
more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an illegal act; or (b)
an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy. The essence of offence of
conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement
may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The
conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the
agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long
as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is
terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or
frustration. The gist of offence of conspiracy is an agreement to break
the law. Conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and as such direct evidence
is seldom available. So, in case of criminal conspiracy, the court has
to infer certain facts and circumstances. In considering the question of
criminal conspiracy, it is not always possible to give affirmative
evidence about the date of formation of conspiracy, about the persons
who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the object which
the conspirators set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and
about the manner in which the object of conspiracy was to be carried
out.
All this is necessarily a matter of inference. Agreement of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
487
conspiracy can be proved either by direct evidence or by

circumstantial evidence or by both.
It is not necessary that there
should be express proof of the agreement, far from the acts and
conduct of the parties, the agreement can be inferred.
385. Proof of a criminal conspiracy by direct evidence is not easy to
get and probably for this reason Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act
was enacted. It reads as under:"10. Things said or done by conspirator in
reference to common design :- Where there is
reasonable ground to believe that two or more
persons have conspired together to commit an
offence or an actionable wrong, anything said,
done or written by any one of such persons in
reference to their common intention, after the time
when such intention was first entertained by any
one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of
the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for
the purpose of proving the existence of the
conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any
such person was a party to it."
386. It has been held by the 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
488
prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrator expressly

agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be
proved by necessary implications. Further, it has been held by the
Honble Supreme court in Ram Narayan Poply Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation, AIR 2003, SC 2748 that,
the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal
conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence.
In
case
where
the
agreement
is
for
accomplishment of an act which by itself

constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt
act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution
because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is
established by proving such an agreement. Where
the
conspiracy
alleged
is
with
regard
to
commission of a serious crime of the nature as

contemplated in Section 120-B read with the
proviso to sub section (2) of Section 120-A, then in
that event mere proof of an agreement between the
accused for commission of such a crime alone is
enough to bring about a conviction under Section
120-B and the proof of any overt act by the
accused or by any one of them would not be
necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do
not require that each and every person who is a

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
489
party to the conspiracy must do some overt act

towards the fulfillment of the object of conspiracy,
the essential ingredient being an agreement
between the conspirators to commit the crime and
if
these
requirements
and
ingredients
are
established, the act would fall within the trapping

of the provisions contained in Section 120-B.
Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a
conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an
elevated place open to public view.
Direct
evidence in proof of conspiracy is seldom

available; offence of conspiracy can be proved by
either direct or substantial evidence.
It is not
always possible to give affirmative evidence about

date of formation of criminal conspiracy, about the
persons who took part in formation of conspiracy,
about the object, which the objectors set before
themselves as the object of conspiracy and about
the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to
be carried out; all this is necessarily a matter of
inference.
387. It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in Firozuddin
Basheeruddin versus State of Kerala, 2001 (4) Recent Criminal
Report 20, that the criminal conspiracy can be proved by
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
490
circumstantial evidence and even if some steps are resorted to by one

or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will
not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with
the object of the conspiracy. It is also held that conspiracy is hatched
in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish conspiracy by
direct evidence and usually both the existence of the conspiracy and
its object has to be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the
accused.
When two or more persons agree to commit crime of
conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its

commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by such persons
to carry out their common purposes, a crime is committed by each and
every one who joins in the agreement. A criminal conspiracy is a
partnership in crime and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or
mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or
more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them
pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each
of them and they are jointly responsible thereof. It was held by the
Honble Supreme Court in State of H.P. Vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan,
AIR 1987 SC 773 that every one of the conspirators need not take
active part in the commission of each and every one of the
conspiratorial acts.
388. This section came for interpretation before Honble Supreme
Court in Shiva Narayana v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980
Supreme Court 449 wherein it was held that under the principle
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
491
contained in Section 10 of the Evidence Act, once a conspiracy to

commit an illegal act is proved, act of one of the conspirator becomes
the act of the other.
389. The consolidated case law as on date has been succinctly
summarized by the Division Bench of our Honble High Court of
Delhi recently in a celebrated judgment by his lordship Honble Mr.
Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, while writing for the Bench in Rakesh
Kumar & Ors. Versus State, 2009 (163) DLT 658, as under: 134. After survey of the case law on the point,
following legal principles pertaining to the law of
conspiracy can be conveniently culled out:A. When two or more persons agree to commit a
crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or
considering any plans for its commission, and
despite the fact that no step is taken by any such
person to carry out their common purpose, a crime
is committed by each and every one who joins in
the agreement. There has thus to be two
conspirators and there may be more than that. To
prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary
that intended crime was committed or not. If
committed it may further help prosecution to prove
the charge of conspiracy. (See the decision of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
492
Supreme Court reported as State v. Nalini, (1999)

5 SCC 253).
B. The very agreement, concert or league is the
ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all
the conspirators must know each and every detail
of the conspiracy as long as they are coparticipators in the main object of the conspiracy.
It is not necessary that all conspirators should
agree to the common purpose at the same time.
They may join with other conspirators at any time
before
the
consummation
of
the
intended
objective, and all are equally responsible. What

part each conspirator is to play may not be known
to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator
joined the conspiracy and when he left. There may
be so many devices and techniques adopted to
achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and
there may be division of performances in the chain
of actions with one object to achieve the real end
of which every collaborator must be aware and in
which each one of them must be interested. There
must be unity of object or purpose but there may
be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to
one
another,

amongst
the
conspirators.
In
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
493
achieving the goal several offences may be

committed by some of the conspirators even
unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is
that all means adopted and illegal acts done must
be and purported to be in furtherance of the object
of the conspiracy even though there may be
sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the
conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by
one or two of the conspirators without the
knowledge of the others it will not affect the
culpability of
those others when they are
associated with the object of the conspiracy. But

then there has to be present mutual interest.
Persons may be members of single conspiracy
even though each is ignorant of the identity of
many others who may have diverse role to play. It
is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the
conspirators need to agree to play the same or an
active role. (See the decisions of Supreme Court
reported as Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab,
AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2433 and State v.
Nalini, (Supra)]
C. It is the unlawful agreement and not its
accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
494
crime
of
conspiracy.
Offence
of
criminal
conspiracy is complete even though there is no

agreement as to the means by which the purpose is
to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement,
which is the graham of the crime of conspiracy.
D. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a
conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may
be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances,
especially declarations, acts, and conduct of the
conspirators. The agreement need not be entered
into by all the parties to it at the same time, but
may be reached by successive actions evidencing
their joining of the conspiracy. Since a conspiracy
is generally hatched in secrecy, it would quite
often happen that there is no evidence of any
express agreement between the conspirators to do
or cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence
under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not
necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly
agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the
agreement
may
be
proved
by
necessary
implication. The offence can be only proved

largely from the inference drawn from acts or
illegal omission committed by the conspirators in

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
495
pursuance of a common design. The prosecution

will also more often rely upon circumstantial
evidence. It is not necessary to prove actual
meeting of conspirators. Nor it is necessary to
prove the actual words of communication. The
evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the
unlawful
design
is
sufficient.
Surrounding
circumstances and antecedent and subsequent

conduct of accused persons constitute relevant
material to prove charge of conspiracy. (See the
decisions
of
Supreme
Court
reported
as
Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 439;
Mohammad
Usman
Mohammad
Hussain
Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981

Supreme Court 1062; and Kehar Singh v. State
AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1883)
E. A conspiracy is a continuing offence and
continues to subsist and committed wherever one
of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So
long as its performance continues, it is a
continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded
or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is
complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
496
is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with

the making of the agreement. It will continue so
long as there are two or more parties to it intending
to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a
threat to the society against which it was aimed at
and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction
can properly claim the power to do so. The
conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the
same effect as in India, when part of the acts,
pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be
finalized or done, attempted or even frustrated and
vice versa.
F. Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the
doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down
therein are satisfied, the acts done by one are
admissible against the coconspirators. In short, the
section can be analysed as follows:(1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording
a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two
or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2)
if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said,
done or written by any one of them in reference to
their common intention will be evidence against
the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
497
should have been said, done or written by him after

the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it
would also be relevant for the said purpose against
another who entered the conspiracy whether it was
said, done or written before he Crl.A.19, 51, 121,
139, 144 & 65/2007 Page 81 of 183 entered the
conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be
used against a co-conspirator and not in his
favour. (See the decision of Supreme Court
reported as Sardar Sardul Singh v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 747.)
390. Here it is pertinent to refer to a classic judgment of three
Hon'ble Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhagwan
Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682 (known as 2 nd
Caveeshar case) in which his lordship Honble Mr. Justice Subba Rao,
had already spoken for the bench analysed the ingredients of Section
10 as culled out above in the judgment of our Honble High Court in
Rakesh Kumar (supra), which amounts to repetition, if quoted again.
391. It would be profitable to draw reliance from yet another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the same strength (Three
Hon'ble Judges) in Nalini case (supra) relied upon by the defence,
which reads It is not that immediately the object of conspiracy is
achieved, Section 10 becomes inapplicable. For example principle
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
498
like that of res gestae as contained in Section 6 of the Evidence Act

will continue to apply. (Para 582). Therefore, the res gestae i.e. the
acts, circumstances and the statements that are incidental to the
principal fact of a litigated matter and are admissible in evidence in
view of their relevant association with that fact, cannot be ignored
since the same become relevant in view of Section 6 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, this court is constrained to appreciate the
attendant circumstances and the facts thereon, which are connected
with the facts in issue i.e. the conspiracy to find out whether the acts
amounted to conspiracy or not. It was argued by Ms. Sima Gulati,
Advocate for the defence that PW-1 has snapped out of the conspiracy
in February, 1974 and he was arrested on 29.07.1975 and other
approver PW-2 Vikram was arrested on 12.08.1975, after killing of
L.N. Mishra, the other accused persons facing the trial are not bound
by the statement made by both of them in view of the law cited by her.
392. In fact, the case law is misconceived in applying to the facts in
issue by the learned Defence Counsel. It is relevant to quote that even
if the PW-1 has left the conspiracy in February 1974, his actions
pursuant to the conspiracy till he stepped out of it becomes res gestae,
which cannot be ignored. The intentions and motive of the criminal
conspiracy hatched in October, 1973 is kept alive since the object of
conspiracy is to have the cult head Anand Murti released from jail
either by hook or crook (whether lawful and unlawful means by
terrorizing the State). Merely by achieving the slaying of some of the
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.
These witnesses have withstood
extensive cross-examination at the hands of the accused. This is not a

mere case based on the statement of a conspirator against the coconspirator. Here two conspirators have turned approvers. Thus, their
testimony is on par with an eye witness and also as an accomplice. In
such circumstance, their testimonies are to be carefully scrutinized and
the same is to be tested on the touchstone of corroboration in material
particulars as laid down in several rulings, which I have already
discussed in the earlier part of the judgment.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
500
394. The very judgment relied by the accused in Navjot Sandhus

case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has made a distinction at
Para (xv), which squarely applies to the present case and the same is
as follows: (xv) The learned senior counsel then referred to
the decision of this Court in Tribhuwan v. State of
Maharashtra [1972(3) SCC 511], in which the
accused examined himself as a witness and his
evidence was admitted under Section 10 of the
Evidence Act, mainly on the ground that his
deposition
could
be
subjected
to
cross-
examination. So also in the case of K. Hashim v.

State of Tamil Nadu, the evidence of co-accused
who subsequently became approver, was admitted
under Section 10. These two cases rest on a
different principle and cannot be said to have
differed with the view taken in Mirza Akbar's
case.
395. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. Defence Counsel are
distinguishable for the reason mentioned in the preceding Para. PW-1
and PW-2, parties to the crime have turned approvers. The competent
court had granted them the pardon. Their statements in proving the
acts of their fellowmen cannot be held sacrosanct unless and until the
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
at Bhagalpur has already
been duly
corroborated and proved in material particulars. It is to be mentioned

that PW-2 was exhorted and influenced by A-1 to work underground
by joining a Group of devotees/monks to achieve the object discussed
above by means of violent methods. He knew Budheshawaranand,
whose other name was Tyageshwaranand and Amar Singh, whose
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
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
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.
In his previous statement, it was found
recorded that he lived with Budheshawaranand. He had not stated

before the Magistrate that he was introduced to Gopalji by
Budheshawaranand
as a confident and devoted member of
Revolutionary Group. When confronted with statement Ex.PW-2/L, it

was found mentioned that he was introduced with Gopalji. In his
further cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he did not remember
the room number of Shiv Raj Singh (PW-13).
399. The testimony of PW-2 that he went to meet A-1 in IARI, Pusa,
New Delhi, where A-1 handed over him a letter and packet to be
delivered to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur and that he got his beard
shaved and hair short cut is corroborated by PW-13. I have already
discussed the introductory deposition of PW-13 about his shifting to
Delhi in September 1972, his stay in the hostel room of IARI, Pusa up
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
505
to 29.5.1975, working of Santoshanand as Editor of 'Prout' at D-41,

South Extension-I, New Delhi, his visit while A-1 used to be in the
saffron attire and appearance of Anand Margi and his participation in
the Boat Club Rally at the instance of A-1. I have also referred his
statement that after self-immolation by Dineshwaranand, A-1 stopped
coming to him. It is found in the testimony of PW-13 that A-1 came
to him in April 1974, but was not wearing uniform of Avadhoot and he
was not sporting beard and mustaches and having his haircut. He was
in plain clothes wearing pant & shirt. A-1 told him that Government
was harassing Baba who could not be released by adopting
constitutional means. A-1 informed him that some violent means
should be adopted to get the Baba released and he was asked by A-1
to co-operate with him to achieve that object.
However, PW-13
declined as he was a family man and a Government servant. A-1 asked

him that he should collect arms & ammunitions but he did not agree.
Sometimes A-1 used to stay with him in his room. A-1 came to him in
the first week of July 1974 and stayed with him for the whole night
and the next day he along with A-1 went to PUSA gate where one
person met them and A-1 introduced him as Vikram. He would be in
a position to identify Vikram. (The witness has correctly identified
approver Vikram in the Court). PW-13 further deposed that at that
time Vikram was also having long hair sporting beard and mustaches.
They all three went to the Hostel. Thereafter, he (PW-13) went to the
laboratory leaving A-1 and Vikram talking to each other there on one

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
506
side of the room. He returned to the Hostel at 3.00 or 4.00 PM and

found both A-1 and PW-2 inside his room but he found PW-2 having
his haircut short and not having beard. He found PW-2 having short
mustaches. A-1 gave one packet with one letter to PW-2 with a
direction to give the same to Aacharya Budheshawaranand at
Bhagalpur. PW-2 left his room at about 5.00 PM.
400. In his cross-examination, PW-13 answered that when A-1
visited him in 1974, he did not inquire from A-1 as to why he had
changed his attire. He did not remember the exact date of July 1974
when A-1 came to him but he came to him in the first week of July
1974. He did not ask A-1 where he was posted and what was his
source of livelihood was during the last one year. He did not inquire
from him whether he was trying to collect arms and ammunitions.
401. I have minutely perused the deposition of PW-13 and found that
his testimony on the aforesaid points testified by him in his
examination-in-chief have not been shattered by the accused persons
including A-1.
The defence was unsuccessful in shattering the
deposition of PW-13 about the visit of A-1 or that of PW-2 in the first
week of July 1974 in the Hostel room of PW-13. The defence has also
not derided that he left for his laboratory leaving A-1 having
conversation with PW-2 or his return there at 03.00 or 04.00 PM,
when A-1 in his presence handed over one packet with a letter in the
envelope for delivery to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. Therefore,
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.
Budheshawaranand had already got published
pamphlets in the name of Shashastra Krantikari Chhatra Sangh and

they read some pamphlets, which looked alike Ex.PW-2/D (available
in the Folder R-4). They went to that press to get such like pamphlets
printed and Press owner demanded advance for printing but
Budheshawaranand was not having sufficient amount, so they came
back to the house of Sh. Sukhdev Sahu (PW-15). He identified the
photograph of the Budheshawaranand Ex.P-3 (available in the Folder
R-4) and deposed that Budheshawaranand has died. In his crossexamination, he answered that he had not stated in his statement under
Section 164 Cr. PC, that Budheshawaranand had taken him to
Baidyanath Printing Press at Bhagalpur or that they were not
possessed of sufficient amount or that they came to the house of
Sukhdev Sahu.
403. This fact is corroborated by the statement of PW-36 Sh.
Baidyanath Parsad Sinha, who deposed that he owned Baijnath Press
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
508
at Mundi Chakk, Bhagalpur, which he and his father used to supervise.

In the middle of June 1974, 2 or 3 persons came to his press and one
of them gave his name as Amar Singh and they wanted to get a
pamphlet printed from his press. They brought the manuscript of the
pamphlet and wanted that press line should not appear on the
pamphlet. They also desired that no entry in their record of printing
the pamphlet should be made and pamphlet should be printed
immediately. They were given threat that they would be make it
difficult for them to run the press and would set it on fire unless they
agreed. Accordingly, he agreed and in those days, Chhatra Aandolan
(student agitation) was going on and he agreed for printing of
pamphlets because of Chhatra Aandolan and due to threat given to
him. A proof Ex.PW-2/D was prepared and next day, same persons
came to him and he gave two sheets of proof Ex.PW-2/D (2 sheets) to
Amar Singh, who made some corrections in his presence at point A, B
& C. The writing at point D & D1 on Ex.PW-2/D was also made by
Amar Singh in his presence and Rs.100/- were paid to him for printing
of 2,000 copies of pamphlets and Amar Singh also made writing at
point 'E' on Ex.PW-2/D in his presence regarding payment of the
amount and then they printed 2,000 copies of pamphlets. In 2nd week
of July 1974, Amar Singh again came to him with one boy and he
would be in a position to identify Amar Singh, and his photograph.
Ex.P-3 has been identified by the witness as photograph of Amar
Singh. In August 1975, CBI men seized the proof of the pamphlet

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
509
Ex.PW-2/D and final copy of the pamphlet (2 sheets) Ex.PW-36/A

vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW36/B.
(Ex.PW-36/A consisting of two
sheets is available in Folder R-13. Seizure Memo Ex.PW-36/B is

available in Folder R-2).
404. In his cross-examination, PW-36 replied that writing at point
E on Ex.PW-2/D was made by Amar Singh on the date written
therein and on that very date, Amar Singh saw the proof. He deposed
that Amar Singh did not put the date, when he put his signature in
Hindi, however, he had given the date under his signature at the time
of making the payment. It is further elicited that Amar Singh was
aged about 25 years. He was accompanied by one or two persons on
his first visit to his press. One of them was of fair colour and other
was of blackish complexion. CBI officer had shown him five or six
photographs and he identified the photograph of Amar Singh. There
was slight difference between the photograph Ex.P-3 and the
photograph shown to him and explained that there was difference of
size. He has denied the suggestion that he is an agent of CBI or that
no person by name Amar Singh came to him in the press or that he did
not own any press or that Amar Singh did not make any corrections in
Ex.PW-2/D in his presence or that he has deposed falsely.
405. After going through the deposition of PW-36, I find that the
defence could not discredit his testimony. Rather the defence has
fortified the deposition of the PW-2 and PW-36 about the visit to the
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.
PW-36 is an independent person.
The accused
persons have not shown any enmity with him. The accused persons
also could not discredit the witness that the pamphlet Ex.PW-36/A
was published from his press after the proof Ex.PW-2/D with
corrections thereon was delivered to him by Amar Singh.
It has
already come in evidence that Amar Singh was also known as

Budheshawaranand and Tyageshwaranand and his photograph has
been identified by PW-2. The owner of the printing press PW-36 has
also identified this photograph Ex.P-3 to be of Amar Singh, who had
visited his press. This photograph has also been admitted by the
defence while giving suggestion to the main IO Sh. H.L. Ahuja (PW151). The prosecution has examined PW-36 only to corroborate the
testimony of approver PW-2 Vikram, who accompanied Amar Singh
to the said press of PW-36, while at Bhagalpur to get printed the
pamphlets.
406. PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh, Deputy SP, CBI testified that he has
been associated with the investigation of this case from 8.1.1975 to
29.8.1976 while assisting Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Dy.
SP. He deposed that on the direction of Chief I.O. (Sh. Ahuja), on
23.8.1975, he went to Bhagalpur and met Sh. Baidyanath Sinha (PW36) of Baidyanath Printing Press and seized one copy of proof Ex.PW2/D (2 sheets) and pamphlet (2 sheets) Ex.PW-36/A vide Seizure
Memo Ex.PW-36/B. Ex.PW-2/D is the proof of pamphlet with the
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.
He also did not consider it
necessary to contact Sh. Avadh Kumar Sinha as Amar Singh has

contacted PW-36 to get the pamphlets printed. He had not shown
photograph Ex.P-3 to PW-36 and he had a smaller photograph of the
same person along with five or six more photographs, which were
shown to PW-36. The parentage of both the witnesses of Seizure
Memo Ex.PW-36/B was not mentioned. Baidyanath Printing Press is
situated at Mundi Chakk and both the witnesses Subodh Kumar and
Anjani Kumar were from Mundi Chakk.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
512
408. The testimony of PW-131 could not be demolished by the Ld.

Defence Counsel in his extensive cross-examination. They could not
demolish that the pamphlets and proof copy bearing the signature of
Amar Singh, were not recovered from the press owner PW-36.
37) Stay of PW-2, Budheshawaranand @ Amar
Singh at the house of PW-15.
409. It has come in the testimony of PW-2 that he delivered the
packet and letter of A-1 to Budheshawaranand at Anand Marg Primary
School, Bhagalpur and that Budheshawaranand was a tenant under Sh.
Sukhdev Sahu (PW-15). PW-2 came with Budheshawaranand to his
house and stayed there. To corroborate the testimony of PW-2, the
prosecution has examined Sh. Sukhdev Sahu as PW-15, who deposed
that he was working as a clerk in PWD and took Diksha in the year
1968 from Aacharya Saryug Prasad and joined Anand Marg. He came
to Bhagalpur in the year 1974 on his transfer. He testified that in
Bhagalpur, he came in contact with Aacharya Chitbhashanand
Avadhoot of Anand Marg, who was Principal of Anand Marg Primary
School, Bhagalpur. On asking of Aacharya Chitbhashanand, PW-15
replied that he had no objection for the stay of some persons with him.
Aacharya Chitbhashanand informed him that a person namely Amar
Singh, an Anand Margi, would be visiting him for stay. In the month
of June 1974, one person Amar Singh with reference of Aacharya
Chitbhashanand came to him. He deposed that on 04.7.1974 Amar
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
513
Singh accompanied with another, who was introduced to him as Subir

Kumar. The witness has correctly identified by pointing towards PW-2
in the Court as Subir (pseudonym of PW-2). Amar Singh and PW-2
stayed with him and Amar Singh told him that he was to go to
Muzaffarpur and enquired from him whether he knew someone there
and requested for a letter of reference so that he may stay with that
person at Muzaffarpur. He (PW-15) gave him two introductory letters
addressed to Sh. Satya Narain Parsad, his relative and another to Sh.
Ram Sagar Parsad, his nephew. They remained with him up to
12.7.1974 and they left his house in the Morning of 13.7.1974. He
identified both letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B, which were
given by him. He also identified the photograph Ex.P-3 as that of
Amar Singh. (Ex.P-3 is the photograph of Tyageshwaranand @
Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh in plain dress and has also been
identified by PW-2). He was also shown the blackish bag Ex.P-7,
which was with Amar Singh on 04.7.1974 and the witness stated that
the bag had a handle in the center, which was not there). Ex.PW-15/A
is a letter dated 04.07.1974 written in Hindi by Sukhdev (PW-15)
addressed to Sh. Satya Narain. On the backside of the letter, the name
and address of Sh. Satya Narain Prasad of Muzaffarpur is mentioned
at point A. Ex.PW-15/B is another letter dated 04.07.1974 addressed
to Sh. Ram Sagar Prasad written in Hindi by Sukhdev (PW-15). On
its backside, the name of Sh. Ram Sagar Pd. is mentioned. Both these

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
514
letters dated 04.07.1974 Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B are available

in Folder R-1.
410. In the cross-examination of PW-15, he admitted the suggestion
that afore said Amar Singh is now dead. He also admitted that police
came to him after the death of Amar Singh. He deposed that until the
CBI came to him, he did not know that the other name of Amar Singh
was Budheshawaranand. He referred the name of Subir Kumar in
his statement before the police and when his attention was drawn to
his previous statement, his name was found mentioned as Subir. He
has denied the suggestion that Amar Singh had not stayed with him in
the month of July 1974.
He has also denied the suggestion that
Vikram did not stay with him at any time.

411. Perusal of the deposition of PW-15 put forth he issued above
said two letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B, which are not
questioned by the defence. Even otherwise, the defence except for
suggesting that neither Amar Singh nor Subir Kumar (PW-2) stayed
with him, could not discredit the witness in other detailed facts spoken
to by him.
The prosecution has mainly examined PW-15 to
corroborate the testimony of the approver PW-2 that pursuant to

direction of accused Santoshanand, he came to Bhagalpur and handed
over one letter in envelope and one packet to Budheshawaranand, who
is also known as Amar Singh and both of them stayed at the house of
PW-15. The prosecution has also examined him for the reason that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
515
these two letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B were issued by PW-15

on the request of Amar Singh to enable him to stay at Muzaffarpur.
They have also examined him for the reason that these letters Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW-15/B along with hand grenades etc. were recovered
subsequently from the search of the bag Ex.P-7, which was seized by
the police from Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh at Maqbara
(Tomb), Khanjarpur on 13.07.1974. Regarding this incident an FIR
No. 71 of 13.7.1974 of PS Kotwali, Bhagalpur was registered. PW-2
was accompanying Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh at the
Maqbara at that time, which incident now I propose to deal in the
succeeding caption.
38) Incident at Maqbara, Khanjarpur.
412. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the criminal
conspiracy, arms and ammunitions was collected by the accused
persons and in the first week of July 1974, A-1 handed over one letter
and a packet to PW-2 to be delivered at Bhagalpur to
Budheshawaranand. After delivering the packet and the letter, PW-2
accompanied Budheshawaranand to his rented accommodation/room
in the house of PW-15. There on 04.07.1974, on the request of Amar
Singh @ Budheshawaranand, PW-15 issued him two letters Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW-15/B. In their further attempt in pursuance to the
criminal conspiracy, PW-2 accompanied Budheshawaranand at
Maqbara,
Khanjarpur
on
13.07.1974
and
at
that
time,
Budheshawaranand was carrying a bag Ex.P-7. In this regard, PW-2

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.
The bag was found empty).
The bag, which
Budheshawaranand was carrying and dropped, was of same type as

Ex.P-7.
413. In his cross-examination, PW-2 replied that he did not state in
his previous statement Ex.PW-2/L that when they went to Maqbara
the packet was in the thaila, which Budheshawaranand was carrying
since such details were not asked from him. He answered that it was
13.07.1974, when they went to Maqbara at 10.00 or 11.00 AM. At
that time, 5 or 7 tourists were there for sightseeing. He could not say
how many police officers chased him, as he did not turn his face
backwards. That Maqbara is at the banks of Ganga near the school.
The police officer, who had chased him, was exhorting to catch PW-2,
who in a hurry jumped into the river and escaped by swimming. The
police did not follow him thereafter.
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).
Darogaji raised the alarm upon which two
persons namely Sh. Kishan Dass (PW-42) and Mahender came there.
He deposed that Sh. Kishan Dass (PW42) is the Mahant (Priest) of
Thakur Dwara (Temple of Lord Krishna) near the Maqbara. The bag,
on opening, was found to contain three hand grenades, two detonators
and one loaded pistol with two live cartridges. A Seizure Memo was
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.
This is visible from the road of Brari.
Sometimes, he had seen some children on the roof of Maqbara from

the Western side road of Brari Chowk, Khanjarpur. He and SI Ram
Aadhar Ram (PW-25) had gone upstairs on Maqbara. The roof of that
Maqbara might be 75 X 75 and there are four domes on that
Maqbara. They were in uniform. The width of the stairs might be
about two feet. He (PW-24) started chasing the person, who was
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
520
there. On the roof of Maqbara, they found two strangers, he (PW-25)

made enquiries from them, and one of them was having a bag. He
(PW-25) was not satisfied of their reply and wanted to check the bag.
The person carrying the bag refused and threw it towards his
companion. He (PW-25) moved towards other man in order to seize
the bag but he again threw it towards the first man. He (PW-25)
secured the first man, who was having that bag initially and that bag
fell down on the ground from where he (PW-25) lifted. The other
person started running away towards the East. PW-24 chased him, but
could not succeed. He would be in a position to identify that man,
who escaped from there and identified that person as Vikram approver
(PW-2) by pointing towards him, who was present in the court. He
(PW-25) raised the alarm at the spot, when the bag was being thrown.
Mahant Kishan Mohan Dass (PW-42) and Mahender came there. The
witness (PW-25) has identified the Bag Ex.P-7, which was taken from
the hands of the person apprehended at the spot. After they were
brought down, he opened the bag Ex.P-7 in the presence of afore said
two public witnesses and PW-24. It was found to contain three handgrenades Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13 in a plastic container, Revolver Ex.P-14
and two live cartridges Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16, two Letters Ex.PW-15/A
and Ex.PW-15/B and papers Ex.PW-25/A to Ex.PW-25/E. He put his
signatures on the letters and papers at point 'X', while taking the same
into his possession. He prepared a Seizure Memo Ex.PW-25/F, which
was attested by Mahant Kishan Mohan Dass (PW-42) and Mahender.

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.
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
522
being overpowered. He also admitted the suggestion of the defence

that he had written in the case diary that these hand grenades, pistol
etc. were collected for murdering Madhavanand.
420. Ex.PW-25/A to Ex.PW-25/E are available in Folder R-16.
Seizure List Ex.PW-25/F is available in Folder R-1. Rukka Ex.PW25/G with endorsement Ex.PW-25/G-1 thereon and FIR and Request
to Examine the Explosives Ex.PW-25/H by Ram Aadhar Ram
addressed to Deputy Controller of Explosive, Calcutta, dated
10.01.1975 referring to FIR No. 71 dated 13.07.2014 regarding the
above incident, are available in Folder R-2.
421. I have scrutinized the deposition of PW-25 and its perusal
shows that his testimony regarding recovery of afore said Bag Ex.P-7
containing three hand grenades, one pistol with two cartridges and
letters etc. from Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh has not been
discredited by the defence in his cross-examination. His testimony of
identifying PW-2 Vikram in the court is also not challenged. PW-25
has also identified the photograph Ex.P-3 of the person apprehended
and that version of PW-25 could not be discredited by the defence.
422. PW-42 Mahant Krishan Mohan Dass deposed that on 13.7.1974
at about 10.30/11 AM, he was present in his Mandir (Temple), which
was at a distance of about 100 yards from the Maqbara of Chhotti
Khanjarpur. He heard the alarm from the said Maqbara and came

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
523
there where he found arrival of another witness Mohinder Dass. They

had gone on the roof of the Maqbara and found Inspector Ram Aadhar
Ram (PW-25) having already secured a man, who gave his name as
Suresh and was having a bag with chain. He identified the bag Ex.P-7
and that person was brought downstairs and bag was searched by PW25 and PW-24 who returned there after chasing the other person. He
deposed that three hand grenades, one country-made pistol, two
bullets, one plastic container containing two detonators of hand
grenades, two letters, 4/5 pieces of papers written in Hindi and
English, were taken out from that bag. A Seizure Memo Ex.PW-25/F
was prepared bearing his signatures at point A. Inspector Ram Aadhar
Ram signed the letter and pieces of papers. The witness identified the
articles recovered from the Bag Ex.P-7. He identified hand grenades
Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13, Revolver Ex.P-14, Bullets Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16.
He also identified the photograph of the man Ex.P-3 from whom said
bag Ex.P-7 containing the said articles was recovered.
423. In his cross-examination, PW-42 deposed that no rough site
plan was prepared at the spot. The personal search of the person
secured was taken but nothing was recovered. He was aged about 25
or 30 years. He was speaking Hindi. He was wearing white pant and
shirt. He stated to the police that two detonators were found in plastic
container. When he was confronted with his previous statement, there
was no mention of plastic dibba. Police remained at the place for
about three hours. There were some abrasions on the person of the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
524
man apprehended by Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram. Initially, he gave

his name as Suresh and then as Suraj Prakash. He has denied the
suggestion that photograph Ex.P-3 is not of the man, who was
apprehended by Ram Aadhar Ram. He also denied the suggestion that
the above said articles were not recovered from the bag Ex.P-7 in his
presence.
424. PW-138 Sh. R.P. Malhotra was the Deputy Controller of
Explosive at Calcutta from 1972 to 1976. I have already referred his
introductory statement while dealing with the incident dated
07.01.1974. He deposed that on 26.7.1974, he visited P.S. Barari,
District Bhagalpur on the request of S.P. Bhagalpur Sh. Vijay Partap
Singh. He met Sh. Ram Aadhar Ram (PW-25), Officer Incharge P.S.
Barari. On the same day i.e. 26.07.1974, three hand grenades and two
numbers of Ignitor Sets were shown to him.
After preliminary
examination, he tested and destroyed the Ignitor Sets and handed over
the remaining three hand grenades to the Officer Incharge with advice
to send the same to Calcutta Office for further examination.
Regarding his examination of the hand grenades, he had given his
handwritten Preliminary Report dated 26.07.1974 Ex.PW-138/A,
which is correct and bears his signatures at point 'A'.
425. As per this Report Ex.PW-138/A dated 26/7/1974, PW-138
visited Barari Police Station and took charge of two numbers of
Ignitor Sets and three numbers of hand grenades from the Officer
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
426. PW-138 further deposed that a sealed packet containing the

three hand grenades was received in the Office of Deputy Chief
Controller, Calcutta on 17.1.1975 through Constable Ram Narain
Singh, number 561 and Constable Sudarshan Singh, number 568, P.S.
Barari. These were received by Sh. Tapan Kumar Bandhopadhaya,
Deputy Controller of Explosive.
He can identify his writing and
signatures as he had seen him writing and signing and Sh. Tapan
Kumar Bandhopadhaya has left the department and he does not know
about his present whereabouts.
He examined the contents of the
sealed parcel on 28.2.1975 and these hand grenades found to contain

T.N.T, a high explosive and these hand grenades were referred to the
laboratory for chemical examination to the Assistant Chemical
Examiner Mr. Ray. He deposed that hand grenades Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12
and Ex.P-13 are the same, which were examined by him and they have
the same marking and he had noted the marking numbers of these

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
526
hand grenades. He further deposed that he tested Ignitor Sets at P.S.

Barari on 26.7.1974 and destroyed. These hand grenades Ex.P-11,
Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13 bear the marking, which appear to be the same,
as were examined by him at P.S. Barari on 26.7.1974. He proved his
Report Ex.PW-138/B. As per this Report dated 28.02.1975 Ex.PW138/B, all these three hand grenades were found to contain a high
explosive charge of T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro-Toluene) and such hand
grenades are capable of endangering life on explosion after being
suitably ignited with an Ignitor Set or otherwise.
(Report dated 28.02.1975
Ex.PW-138/B
is
427. In his cross-examination, PW-138 replied that TNT, which

stands for Tri-nitro-toluene, which is an explosive, is visible to naked
eyes. It is in the jacket shell of hand grenade. It was not possible to
open the hand grenade in the Police Station Barari to ascertain about
the presence of TNT in the hand grenades. After receiving the hand
grenades in their office, he examined them and found TNT present.
At present TNT is not present in the hand grenades Ex.P-11, P-12 and
P-13 as the same has been destroyed by the chemical examiner. He
denied the suggestion that he has intentionally destroyed the Ignitors
and TNT, so that his report might not be challenged by re-examining
of the exhibits. The year of manufacture of the hand grenades was
mentioned as 1967 and the life of such hand grenades is about 15
years. He deposed that as per his report these hand grenades were

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
527
received by him in a sealed wooden box. He admitted the suggestion

of the defence that these hand grenades were manufactured and
assembled in different factories. He has denied the suggestion of the
defence that his Report Ex.PW-138/A is false one.
428. A perusal of the deposition of explosive expert PW-138 reflects
that his deposition that the hand grenades were found to contain TNT,
which was capable enough endangering life on explosion, has not
been discredited. I find the other part of the cross-examination of PW138 as irrelevant to the facts in issue.
429. From the testimony of PW-2 and PW-13, it comes out that in
the first week of July 1974, A-1 in the presence of PW-13 handed over
a packet duly packed and a letter in a closed envelop to PW-2 at Delhi
for its delivery to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. Accordingly, PW2 delivered that packet and letter to Budheshawaranand. Thereafter,
PW-2 and Budheshawaranand stayed at the rented house of PW-15.
Budheshawaranand was none else but Amar Singh. PW-15 gave him
two reference letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B (both dated
04.07.1974) to enable him to visit and stay at Muzaffarpur. As
discussed under the caption "PW-2 Joining of Criminal Conspiracy",
during the stay of PW-2 at Bhagalpur, Budheshawaranand brought
him to Chautham at the house of Gopalji who had his farmhouse at
Tilihar and both of them were introduced as members of
Revolutionary Group and Budheshawaranand informed Gopalji that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
528
PW-2
had
been
sent
by
Santoshanand.
On
13.07.1974,
Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh @ Tyageshwaranand, who was

carrying a bag containing the said packet and articles including
detonators, loaded revolver etc., accompanied PW-2 to a tomb at
Khanjarpur,
Bhagalpur.
There
PW-25
apprehended
Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh with the above said articles.

Those articles were recovered in the presence of two public witnesses
including PW-42, who has proved the Search List. The packet was
found kept in the thaila (bag), which was found to contain three hand
grenades, which were handed over by A-1 at IARI, Pusa, New Delhi
to
PW-2
in the presence
of
PW-13
to
be
delivered
to
Budheshawaranand. The arrest of Amar Singh @ Budheshawaranand

and recovery of the before said articles, preparation of search list and
escape of PW-2 from the site has also been proved by PW-24 and PW25. PW-2 has been identified not only by PW-15 but also by PW-24
and PW-25. The recovery of two letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW15/B from the said thaila further lends credence to the testimony of
PW-2 that those reference letters were given by PW-15 to
Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh on his request in his presence,
when they stayed at the residence of PW-15. On examining the said
recovered hand grenades from the bag carried by Amar Singh @
Budheshawaranand in the company of PW-2, by explosive expert PW138, it was found that the same were containing TNT, which on
explosion could endanger life. Thus, the testimony of the approver

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
529
PW-2 stands corroborated in all the material particulars so far by the

corroborative evidence of PW-13, PW-15, PW-24, PW-25, PW-42,
and PW-138. These facts are enough to believe the case of the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt regarding the complicity of A-1,
Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh @ Tyageshwaranand (deceased),
PW-2 and A-7 in the criminal conspiracy.
39) Aftermath - incident of Khanjarpur
430. PW-2 further deposed that next day (i.e. 14.07.1974), he went to
Chautham and met A-1 there. A-7 was also present there and he told
him about the delivery of the packet to Budheshawaranand, keeping of
the packet in a bag by Budheshawaranand
and arrest of
Budheshawaranand by the police along with the bag containing the

packet. He informed A-1 in the presence of A-7 that he could not pick
up the bag for the fear of being arrested. On asking of A-1, PW-2
further informed him that the packet sent by him was in the bag and on
knowing this A-1 was shocked and he held his forehead in his both
hands and told him that the packet contained three hand grenades. He
deposed that he stayed at the house at Chautham for 4/5 days. He
testified that meetings of the members of Revolutionary Group used to
be held at the house of A-7 at Chautham and at farmhouse of A-7 at
Tilihar. Apart from him, A-1, A-2, Arteshanand (since deceased) and
A-7 used to attend those meetings. The meetings were addressed by
A-1, who used to tell that they had to procure arms for revolution in
order to get the Baba released.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
530
deposed that he did not state in Ex.PW-2/L that meetings used to be

held at the house of A-7 and in the statement Ex.PW-2/L, it was found
mentioned that meetings were held at Chautham. He explained that by
saying that meetings were held at Chautham, he meant to say at the
house of A-7 at Chautham. In his further cross-examination at Page
No. 91, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that on 14.07.1974,
he was at Chautham.
431. The testimony of PW-2 is not discredited by the defence
including A-7 that A-7 had a house at Chautham and a farmhouse at
Tilihar. The defence could not deride that PW-2 went to Chautham on
14.07.1974 and stayed in his house or that meetings of members of the
Revolutionary Group used to be held at his house and farmhouse,
attended by A-7, PW-2, A-1, A-2, Arteshanand and meeting used to
be addressed by A-1. These assertions of PW-2 have also not been
discredited by the other accused persons. The accused could not shake
narration of the incident at Khanjarpur Maqbara by PW-2. Rather, by
giving the suggestion that on 14.07.1974, PW-2 was at Chautham, the
defence has admitted the version of the approver PW-2. Therefore, the
testimony of approver PW-2 stand further corroborated and renders it
to be believed.
40) Attempt to procure arms and ammunitions.
432. PW-2 deposed that they had to procure arms for a revolution in
order to get the Baba released. While he was at Chautham after the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
531
incident at Maqbara, Khanjarpur dated 13.07.1974, A-1 asked him to

go to Indo-Nepal Border and meet Anand Margies there and procure
arms from them. A-1 further told PW-2 to meet Sh. Paras Nath (PW27), a Railway Guard of Narkatiaganj and one Khub Lal of Bitia; both
of them were Anand Margies. He went there and did not know Sh.
Paras Nath (PW-27). However, he knew Khub Lal, who introduced
him to Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27). Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) introduced
him to Sh. Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) of Village Chamua. Despite
best efforts, he was not able to procure any arms. The defence gave
suggestion to PW-2 at Page No. 91 that he was at Narkatiaganj,
Chamua, Rajgir and Chakia in November 1974.
433. PW-2 further deposed that he was introduced to Khub Lal by
Sh. Ram Aasrey at his shop at Bitia in the month of
September/October 1974, as Subir. Ram Aasrey requested Khub
Lal to introduce him (PW-2) to Sh. Paras Nath, Guard (PW-27). Next
day Khub Lal took him to Narkatiaganj at the quarter of Paras Nath,
Guard (PW-27) and introduced him to Sh. Paras Nath, Guard, as
Subir, a worker of Anand Marg. He deposed that Khub Lal told Sh.
Paras Nath (PW-27) that he (PW-2) would be staying with him for
some days. Those were Durga Pooja days and he stayed at his house
for 3/4 days. He came back to Chakia and about one month thereafter
he went again to Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27). He told Sh. Paras Nath
(PW-27) that Baba could not be got released by legal means and
armed revolution (Sashatra Kranti) had to be resorted to.
He
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
532
requested him to help him in procurement of arms as far as it was

possible for him and Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) just replied to him that
he would see to it. During these visits, he was introduced by Paras
Nath (PW-27) to some other Anand Margies, who were living in the
vicinity. Those were including Sh. Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) and
Sh. Radha Kishan. He talked to Sh. Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) and
told him about their failure to get Baba released by legal means and
Sashatra Kranti was the need, and he thus came back to Chakia from
the place of Paras Nath (PW-27). He stayed for 3-4 days with him
during this visit.
434. It is seen in the cross-examination that meeting with Paras Nath
(PW-27) took place at the house of Paras Nath at Narkatiaganj. The
house of Khub Lal is on the main road near bus stand but he could not
tell the name of the Mohalla. He could not give the names of the
persons residing in the vicinity of the house of Khub Lal, as he never
met anybody in his vicinity. He deposed that he stayed at Bitia with
Khub Lal for one night, when Ram Aasrey introduced him. He visited
Bitia three or four times. On his second visit, he stayed for 10 or 15
days and on the other occasion, he stayed for a day or so. He did not
remember the dates of his visit, but the same were in the month of
September and October 1974.
It was November/December 1974,
when Paras Nath introduced him to Roop Nath Mishra of Village

Chamua at the house of Paras Nath. He deposed that he informed
Paras Nath and Roop Nath Mishra the purpose of his visit. He has
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.
He did not remember
whether he stated in the Committing Court that Santoshanand asked

him to meet Paras Nath, Railway Guard of Narkatiaganj and Khub Lal
of Bitia.
When he was confronted with the statement of the
Committing Court Ex.PW-2/DF, where it was found recorded that A-1

deputed him to procure arms and ammunitions from Anand Margies,
residing along Indo-Nepal Boarder and under this instructions he went
to Paras Nath, Railway Guard, Narkatiaganj, who was a Anand Margi.
He did not state in this statement Ex.PW-2/DF that Ram Aasrey
introduced him to Khub Lal or that he told his name to Khub Lal as
Subir. He did not state in the Committing Court that when he again
went to Paras Nath, he told him that Baba could not be got released by
legal means and Sashatra Kranti had to be resorted to as no such
question was put to him.
435. PW-27 Paras Nath Singh deposed that during the period
between 1968 and 1975, he was working as Railway Guard, at
Narkatiaganj (Bihar). He took Diksha in the year 1968 from Aacharya
Parmanand Srivastava of Anand Marg. He knew Roop Nath Mishra
(PW-80) of Village Chamua, Narkatiaganj. He came in contact with
Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) about five or seven months after he joined
Railways Service. He was a commission agent at Railway Station
Chamua Halt. He was Aacharya of Anand Marg. He also knew Khub
Lal since the year 1969 and he was Anand Margi and had a shop at
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
534
Bitia. He further deposed that after taking Diksha from Aacharya

Parmanand Srivastava, he often used to visit him but sometimes
Aacharya himself used to visit him. During Durga Pooja days of the
year 1974, he was at Narkatiaganj, when Khub Lal visited him. At
that time, he was accompanied by one person, who was introduced to
this witness by Khub Lal as Subir of Anand Marg and he would be
in a position to identify the afore said Subir. (The witness has
correctly identified PW-2 in the Court). He further deposed that Khub
Lal informed him that PW-2 was a worker of Anand Marg and he
would meet the people for propaganda of Anand Marg. He made a
request to allow Subir to stay with him for one or two days to which
he agreed. Khub Lal then went away. PW-2 stayed with him 4-5 days
and was not in the dress of Avadhoot but in plain clothes and had
small mustaches and cut hair on the head. He was not sporting any
beard. PW-2 told him that he was full-time worker of Anand Marg,
and one month later PW-2 came to him alone. He had a general talk
with PW-2.
PW-27 told him about Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80),
Amresh Chand, Radha Kishan, and Anand Kishore. PW-2 informed

him that Baba was in custody and was to be released by revolution
alone. To achieve the object, arms, ammunitions and money was to be
collected and requested him to help him in this regard, as it was border
area with Nepal, for which PW-27 expressed his inability. Then PW-2
requested him to find other sources. PW-2 stayed with him for about
2 or 3 days during that visit. This time, PW-2 used to go out from his

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
438. PW-80 Roop Nath Mishra of Village Chamua (Bihar) deposed

that he took Diksha as Anand Margi in 1958 from Aacharya
Vishwanath Singh and he became Aacharya in the year 1963. In the
year 1964, marriage of his daughter was solemnized according to
Sanatan Dharam rites. He had given cash, ornaments and clothes in
the marriage of his daughter. In connection with giving of dowry, he
was called to Jamalpur in the year 1964. In those days, Anand Murti
was at Jamalpur. He was also known as Baba. He was produced
before Anand Murti by Sh. P.K. Chatterjee, General Secretary of
Anand Marg. Anand Murti became very angry and reprimanded him
on giving of dowry in the marriage. Anand Murti constituted a
committee for taking action against him. Committee took a decision
that he should get back his dowry from son-in-law and give the same
to Bitia Children Home of Anand Marg. He could not get back the
dowry from his son-in-law for depositing the same at Bitia Children
Home of Anand Marg.
For this reason, he was deprived of
Aacharyaship in 1964. He attended Dharam Maha Chakra of Anand

Marg of Patna, Bitia, Motihari and Muzaffarpur. He lastly attended
Dharam Maha Chakra in the year 1971. He knew Ram Aasrey since
1958. He was an old worker of Anand Marg. He was a full time
worker and holding the designation of Aacharya. He knew Sh. Paras
Nath Singh (PW-27), who was also an Anand Margi. He was Railway
Guard posted at Narkatiaganj. He was known to him since the year
1958 as Narkatiaganj is at a distance of 6 KMs from his Village

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
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.
examination, PW-80 admitted the suggestion of the defence that he

joined Anand Marg, since it believed in pious living, social service,
impart education in yoga, sadhna for salvation, pure living, rending
social service, eradication of evils from society, removal of dowry
system, simple living and high thinking. They also believed in Ahinsa
(non-violence).
440. Perusal of testimony of PW-80 Sh. Roop Nath Mishra makes it
clear that PW-2 by name Subir visited him around Dusshera festival
of 1974, which generally fall in the month of October.
He
corroborated the version of PW-2 to the effect that he (PW-2) told that
Baba could not be released by legal means and he would be got
released only by armed revolution. The defence in their lengthy 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
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.
Therefore, this court has no
hesitation to hold that the prosecution proved its case that pursuant to
the criminal conspiracy, attempts were made by the conspirators to
collect arms and ammunitions for their ill conceived designs.
41) Meet at Rajgir in Nov' 74 convened by A-1.
443. PW-2's
testimony

further
reveals
that
meeting
of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
540
Revolutionary Group at Rajgir was held in November 1974 after

unsuccessful efforts to procure arms, convened by A-1. Apart from
himself, A-1, A-2, Arteshanand and Anand Margies of Bhagalpur,
attended. A-1 addressed the meeting. A-1 told them that Sadvipra Raj
could not be established without armed revolution, for which he
exhorted to collect arms. A-1 emphasized that each one of them
would have to work to achieve the end and asked to enroll at least 25
reliable persons each so for the purpose. PW-2 further testified that A1 informed him earlier and directed him to attend, which he did.
On this aspect, there is no cross-examination to undo the
assertions of PW-2.
42) Shifting of PW-2 to Chakia (Bihar)
444. I find from the testimony of PW-2 that he shifted his
headquarter at Chakia in Bihar for revolutionary activities, on his own.
He used to visit neighbouring places for the purpose of collecting
arms. A-1 and A-2 used to give him money for this work and for his
daily expenses. A-2 used to come to Chakia on the directions of A-1
to give him instructions.
In the cross-examination of PW-2, at Page No. 91, he admitted
the suggestion of the defence that he was at Narkatiaganj, Chamua,
Rajgir and Chakia in November 1974.
445. Thus, the deposition of PW-2 could not be discredited by the
defence and his visit at Chakia, drawing instructions from A-1 and ACBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
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).
A-1 told PW-2 that A-1 would be at the
Railway Station by 04.00 or 5 O'clock in the Evening on 01.1.1975

where he asked PW-2 to meet him.
447. In his cross-examination, PW-2 gave an answer that Ashok
Lodge was also known as Ashok Niketan. In the committal court, on
asking, he has stated that it was also known as Ashok Niketan. It is
elicited that he did not state so in his statement U/s. 164 Cr. PC that it
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
542
was also known as Ashok Niketan, since it was not questioned. He

did not remember the number of the room of the Ashok Lodge or
Niketan, which was rented. He also did not know what the room rent
was. He did not notice whether any sign board of this building was
hanging outside the building. The colour of the building was white.
He did not remember the name of the Manager of that Lodge.
448. This fact deposed by PW-2 that in Ashok Lodge at Patna a
room had been taken on rent by A-1, is corroborated by PW-23 Sh.
Ashok Kumar, who is the son of the owner of the Lodge known as
Ashok Niketan/Ashok Lodge.
PW-23 deposed that in the year
1974, he was a student of B.Sc. (final year). He and his father have
been managing the affairs. PW-23 saw the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A
belonging to them and deposed that on 28.12.1974, one person came
to him and told his name as Vinod Kumar. The visitor informed
PW-23 that he was an agent of Law Books of which headquarter is at
Allahabad. The visitor was wearing a hearing aid. He testified that he
would be in a position to identify him and he identified the accused
Santoshanand correctly in the court. Further he went on to narrate that
A-1 was given a room on the second floor of his house on rent at the
rate of Rs.55/- per month, which was agreed by A-1. PW-23 also
inquired from him about his permanent address. An advance sum of
Rs.55/- was paid by A-1 for the month of January 1975. On asking of
PW-23, the said person wrote down his address in their Note Book
Ex.PW-23/A. (This Note Book is also exhibited as Ex.P-6). He
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
544
18.6.1975. He found the room rented to Vinod Kumar, lying vacant

and on enquiry, he came to know that the room was vacated 2-3 days
earlier. He had seen Vinod Kumar in that room one or two days
before his going to Village Jug Dumari.
450. PW-23 further deposed that Bihar Police came to his house and
brought with them the person present in the court by pointing out
towards Arteshanand (who died later on during trial). He also testified
that on 09.07.1975, Note Book Ex.PW-23/A was taken into possession
by CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-23/B, which bears his signatures at
point A and that of his father at point B. He has also signed the Note
Book Ex.PW-23/A at point X-1 and X-2 and his father signed at
points Y-1 and Y-2 on the front page and the last but one page, at the
time when the same was taken into possession by CBI. He further
testified that this Note Book Ex.PW-23/A used to be kept in their
room, in which entries were being made by him and by his father. He
had seen his father writing and signing and as such, he was in a
position to identify handwritings and signature of his father.
He
deposed that his father was aged about 60 years and not keeping good
health.
451. In his cross-examination, PW-23 replied that their family was
not staying in their house known as Ashok Niketan and Ashok Lodge.
He replied that his father did not come, as he has been a heart patient.
The land on which the building Ashok Niketan exists is in the name of
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.
Sometimes, they used to come together and
sometimes, two persons used to come there. He might have seen

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
546
accused by pointing towards Arteshanand Avadhoot (since deceased)

7 or 8 times. He admitted that there is no entry in his hand in the Note
Book Ex.PW-23/A and all the entries are in the handwriting of his
father. He has denied the suggestion that all are forged entries in the
Note Book or that he made a false statement or that Arteshanand and
Vikram did not visit the Lodge at any time.
452. I have carefully scrutinized the testimony of PW-23 Sh. Ashok
Kumar. In his cross-examination, the defence despite lengthy crossexamination could not dislodge the fact that PW-23 owned a Lodge
and a room in their Lodge was not taken on rent by the said Vinod
Kumar, (who was identified as A-1 in the court) on 28.12.1974 at the
rate of Rs.55/- per month and A-2, PW-2 and Arteshanand visiting
him. His testimony that A-1 under the assumed name of Vinod Kumar
has written his address on the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A at point
Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) is also not demolished in cross-examination by the
accused persons. They have only given the suggestion about
Arteshanand and Vikram not visiting the Lodge for which PW-23
asserted that he had seen Arteshanand (since deceased) about 8 times
in the Lodge. The defence had not drawn to show any enmity of PW23 with the accused. PW-23 is an independent witness. His testimony
is found to be trustworthy and believable. The A-1 in his crossexamination has also not objected to the identification of his writing
on Ex.PW-2/C in the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A = Ex.P-6. Thus, PW-23
has further corroborated the statement of approver PW-2 Sh. Vikram
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
547
that this writing Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) in the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A

(Ex.P-6) is in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand, who stayed in
the Lodge under the assumed name of Vinod Kumar.
453. PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh, Dy. SP, CBI deposed on this aspect
that he was assisting Chief Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja and
on 09.7.1975, he examined Ashok Kumar (PW-23) and his father
Mahender Singh of Ashok Niketan, Patna. He further testified that he
seized Note Book Ex.PW-23/A and entries Ex.PW-23/A-1, Q-2 and
Q-2/1 did exist in the note book. He prepared Seizure Memo Ex.PW23/B in his handwriting in respect of said notebook.
It bears his
signatures at point A, of Ashok Kumar (PW-23) at point B and

Mahender Singh at Point C. He also obtained the initials of Ashok
and Mahender Prasad Singh on the first and last page of the notebook
and he had also put his own initials there. The initials of Ashok are at
point X-2 and of Mahender Prasad Singh at point Y-2. His own
initials are at point Z.
454. In his cross-examination, PW-131 replied that he did not inquire
from Ashok and Mahender Singh of Ashok Niketan as to whether
Vinod Kumar executed any rent deed. He did not inquire from them
whether they had any counterfoil receipt of the rent with signatures of
Vinod Kumar other than the Note Book Ex.PW-23/A. The Note Book
Ex.PW-23/A was not paginated, but they have paginated at the time of
taking it into possession. He admitted that seven pages of the Note
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
investigation, he came to know that the name of Santoshanand is

Vinod Kumar.
455. The testimony of PW-131 Sh. M.P. Singh is not discredited
during the cross-examination by the defence. He is a public servant
and a Senior Police Officer. He had taken into possession the Note
Book Ex.PW-23/A in discharge of his duties in due course. I found
the testimony of PW-131 does not suffer from any malice.
456. I have referred in the subsequent paragraphs of the judgment
that the approver PW-2 has identified the handwriting Ex.PW-2/C (Q2) on the Note Book Ex.P-6 = Ex.PW-23/A to be in the handwriting of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
549
A-1. This is corroborated by PW-23 Sh. Ashok Kumar, who has

identified A-1 as having stayed in their Lodge by name Vinod Kumar
and has written Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) in the Notebook Ex.PW-23/A =
Ex.P-6, in his presence 28.12.1974. This handwriting of A-1 Ex.PW2/C (Q-2) has also been identified as that of A-1 by PW-33 and PW68, which I would deal in the succeeding paragraphs. Further, the
handwriting expert Sh. B. Lal (PW-42) compared the writing Ex.PW2/C (Q-2) with the specimen handwriting of A-1 and found the same
to be in the handwriting of same person. In view of this evidence and
discussion, it has to be concluded that the prosecution was successful
to prove its case very reasonably, that pursuant to the criminal
conspiracy hatched at Trimohan in October 1973, A-1 had taken a
room on rent in Ashok Lodge/Ashok Niketan, Patna on 28.12.1974.
He had taken the room under assumed name of Vinod Kumar by
concealing his identity on a rent of Rs.55/- per month. He continued
to occupy the room till about 15th or 16th of June 1975. During his
stay there, his co-accused persons namely A-2, Arteshanand and PW-2
used to visit him. These persons used to call accused A-1 as Boss,
which further corroborate the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 that A-1
used to dictate terms to the co-conspirators and was a ringleader
throughout.
44) Macabre incident at Samastipur dated
02.01.1975.
457. This leads me to refer to the gruesome incident as pleaded in the
charge sheet pursuant to the criminal conspiracy at Trimohan. At the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
550
time of hatching the criminal conspiracy in October 1973, A-1, A-2,

Arteshanand (since deceased), Ram Kumar (PO), Vinayanand (PO)
and PW-1 were present, as per the evidence discussed above.
458. A-7 joined the conspiracy later on when A-1, Vinayanand (PO),
Arteshanand
(since
deceased),
A-2,
Tyageshwaranand
(since
deceased), Ram Kumar (PO) and PW-1 met A-7 at the house of A-7 at
Bhagalpur. A-1 conveyed to A-7 about formation of a Revolutionary
Group and they would meet henceforth at the house of A-7 at
Chautham. A-1, during this meeting exhorted that certain persons
were to be eliminated for which arms and ammunitions would be
stored at the house of A-7 at Chautham. A-7 conceded to the meetings
to be held either at Chautham or his farmhouse at Tilihar. Evidence is
already discussed, which pointed to the above facts indelibly. It is
also established that PW-1 brought a revolver with live cartridges
thereof and 110 other cartridges, which were handed over to A-7. As
already held above, A-7 received two telegrams Ex.PW-1/O and
Ex.PW-1/S dated 03.12.1973 and 17.01.1974 respectively from A-1
and these two telegrams were recovered at the time of house of A-1 on
17.05.1975.
459. It is also established that in the first week of July 1974, PW-2
delivered a packet and a letter to Budheshawaranand (since deceased)
at Bhagalpur, which were given to PW-2 by A-1 at IARI Hostel, New
Delhi in the presence of PW-13. Thereafter, Budheshawaranand (since
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
statement on oath deposed that on 29.12.1974, when A-2 brought him

to Ashok Lodge, Patna, A-1 met him there and directed PW-2 to reach
Samastipur on 01.1.1975 to make arrangements for stay of 2 or 3
persons with the help of Anand Margies or at any Dharamshala. A-1
also told him to meet him at Railway Station, where A-1 assured of
reaching there by 4 or 5 Oclock in the evening on 01.01.1975. PW-2
accordingly reached there on 01.1.1975 via Chakia. He made
arrangement for stay of 2/3 persons at the house of Girijanandan, an
Anand Margi, whom PW-2 knew. PW-2 reached Railway Station at 4
O' clock on 01.1.1975, met A-2 at 5 PM. A-2 enquired PW-2 whether
the arrangements for stay were made or not, for which PW-2 replied in
the affirmative. On enquiry, A-2 told him that A-1 was present in the
first class waiting room at Railway Station. A-2 told him that Ranjan
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
552
Dwivedi (A-3) had come by bus from Muzaffarpur to Samastipur

along with A-1 and A-2. A-2 further told PW-2 that A-3 had kept his
luggage in the first class waiting room at the Railway Station and that
A-3 had gone to meet one of his friends and A-1 was keeping watch
on his luggage. A-2 then went back inside the Railway Station and A-1
came out. A-1 also enquired from PW-2 about the arrangements and
PW-2 replied in the affirmative.
A-1 told PW-2 that after A-3's
coming back, they would go with PW-2 to the place arranged for stay.
He kept waiting until 8.30 PM and during this time, sometimes A-1
would come to him and sometimes A-2 and then they would go back.
After 8.30 PM, PW-2 along with A-1 and A-2 reached the room of
Girijanandan. On enquiry by Girijanandan, PW-2 told him that the
person in jacket and pant was A-1, the man wearing kurta and dhoti
was A-2, and they were Anand Margies.
He also deposed that
Girijanandan did not know both of them.

461. It is also found in the statement of PW-2 that they all the three
slept in the room of Girijanandan, who also slept there. They got up at
about 5 O'clock in the Morning of 02.01.1975, when Girijanandan was
away to answer the call of nature. A-1 told PW-2 that L.N. Mishra,
Railway Minister would be visiting the very day at Samastipur to
inaugurate the Broad Gauge Railway Line between the Samastipur
and Muzaffarpur. A-1 further told them that L.N. Mishra was the most
corrupt minister of Indira Sarkar, a big sinner (Mahapapi), responsible
for bringing their enemies i.e. communists closer to the Congress. The
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.
A-1 also told PW-2 that the pin could be
removed with teeth also. At that time, A-2 was also present. A-1 told
them that the hand grenade was to be thrown on his signal. The hand
grenade was of the shape of an egg (oval shape) and one could not
clinch his fist fully by taking the hand grenade in the hand.
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.
On the way, they walked one behind the other at some
distance from each other. They reached there within 20-25 minutes
and at the platform sometimes, they would meet and then would
separate and move out there.
PW-2 found Dais, constructed on
Platform No. 3 for inauguration event. There were rows of chairs on

Platform No. 3 opposite the Dais. At about 12 O'clock, PW-2 had
seen A-1 and A-2 sitting on the chairs at Platform No. 3 side-by-side.
PW-2 further saw A-3 sitting on a chair in the row ahead towards the
Dais. He had seen A-3 talking to A-1 and A-2 by turning his face
towards them.
463. The evidence of PW-2 further reveals that Sh. L. N. Mishra was
to reach there at about 01.00 PM but at about 12.30 PM, an
announcement was made that he would reach two hours late. PW-2
was moving about on the Platform No. 1. After the announcement, A-1
and A-2 got up and came to PW-2 at Platform No. 1. They told him
that as the Minister would be late by two hours, they should go and
take their meals, and hence they went to the room of Girijanandan and
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
556
him. L.N. Mishra came to the munch (Dais) accompanied by large

number of persons. One person spoke for a minute first and then
another person spoke for some time and thereafter L.N. Mishra stood
up to deliver his speech. They heard L.N. Mishra speaking at the
place where they were sitting. In the meanwhile, track was cleared
and Special Train moved ahead, which paved the way for many
persons to cross the track, thereby came closer to see L.N. Mishra.
PW-2, A-1 and A-2 mingled with this crowd, came nearer to the Dais,
and positioned themselves in that side from which the Special Train
had come. PW-2 further deposed that all three of them (PW-2, A-1
and A-2) were at a distance of about one yard from the Munch i.e.
Rostrum. A-2 was standing ahead and on his left, stood A-1. PW-2
also deposed that on the right side of A-2, he himself was standing in
the crowd. They stood on one side of Rostrum i.e. towards the right
hand side of L. N. Mishra. A-3 was not there at that time with them.
They listened the Minister; the Minister finished his speech and turned
to descend from the Rostrum for inaugurating Broad Gauge Line.
Then A-2 took out hand grenade from his pocket and with a Chaddar
wrapped round his shoulders brought the hand grenade up to the level
of his mouth and threw it on the munch. A-2 had taken out the pin
under the cover of chaddar and dropped it in front of L.N. Mishra and
this hand grenade rolled a little distance on the Rostrum and then
exploded. PW-2 further deposed that hand grenade rolled one or two
feet on the Rostrum before it exploded and there was loud explosion.

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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
558
467. In his further cross-examination, PW-2 replied that on

30.12.1974, from Patna, he reached Chakia on the same Evening and
stayed there even on 31.12.1974. He left Chakia on 01.01.1975 at
about 08.00 or 09.00 AM and reached Samastipur at about 01.00 PM.
He met Girijanandan at about 01.30 or 02.00 PM on the same day.
468. It is also found in his cross-examination that there were about
25 to 35 persons on the Rostrum. The train had halted at Platform No.
3, where the Rostrum was erected. The bogy carrying the Minister Sh.
L.N. Mishra halted in front of the Rostrum itself and about 15 or 20
persons came out from that compartment along with Sh. L.N. Mishra.
He replied that he sat on a chair in front of the Rostrum on the
Platform. He could not say how many rows of chairs were there but
there were about 150 chairs on his backside and 400 or 500 in front of
him. He was standing at a distance of about 1 or 1.25 yards from the
Rostrum towards the right hand side of A-2.
The lines of cross-examination fortify the presence of PW-2 on
the day of incident along with A-2.
469. It is also elicited that there was a big crowd and he could not
remember as to how many persons standing wearing Badges of
Congress Sewa Dal. There was distance of about 8 or 10 feet between
the Rostrum and the place, where the train carrying Sh. L.N. Mishra
halted. The height of the Munch from the ground of the Platform was

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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
560
He was bareheaded. He replied that there was a mike on the Munch

and could not say whether his speech was being tape-recorded or not.
When Sh. L.N. Mishra was delivering his speech, on the steps leading
to the Dais , a police officer was standing, who was sometimes going
up and sometimes coming down. It is also elicited that on the front
row, some ladies were sitting on the chairs and one camera man was
moving on the backside of the ladies.
He answered that the steps
leading to the Munch were in the direction in which the sun rises.
There were 2/3 pillows in the middle of the Dais. At the time Sh. L.N.
Mishra alighted along with others, he was ahead of them and followed
by others. Out of 40 or 50 peoples with him, only 25 or 35 persons sat
on the Munch. To a question whether he had seen anybody near the
Munch with a loose jacket and a pant, to which he replied that he did
not notice although A-1 was clad in a jacket. When Sh. L.N. Mishra
delivered the speech, he was facing west. He deposed that as soon as
the hand grenade exploded, they stepped backward and thereafter they
ran from that place. He further answered that the track, where he
dropped the hand grenade was at a distance of about 100 yards from
the Munch. PW-2 took it out from the thaila and dropped it on the
track. Someone presided the meeting, but he did not know his name.
No person had proposed Vote of thanks after conclusion of the
speech of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He replied that Sh. Mishra was garlanded,
when he reached the munch.
To a question whether any person
presented a charter of demands to Sh. Mishra before the speech, to

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.
He did not remember the name of the persons, who have
garlanded Sh. Mishra. He was also garlanded, when he came out of

the train. He replied that towards Northern side of Platform No. 1
slogans were raised against by a crowd of people against Mishra.
When the train was shunted away, all the persons from Platform No. 1
did not come to Platform No. 3 and only some persons came on the
tracks after the train was shunted out.
There were iron fencing
between two tracks in between Platform No.1 and 3.
There might be
50 or 100 police officers deployed on Platform No.1 to control the

demonstration. He replied that slogans were raised once or twice,
before the arrival of Sh. L.N. Mishra. Slogans were also raised against
him on his arrival. He answered that Platform No. 5 is opposite to
Platform No. 3 and there was munch between Platform No. 3 and 5.
The Platform No. 7 was away on the opposite side. Platform No. 5
was separated by many Railway tracks.
471. Regarding Passes, the cross-examination of PW-2 reveals that
only such persons holding Passes, were allowed to come to Platform
No. 3 and those who did not have the Passes were stopped at Platform
No. 1 and Platform No. 7. The persons, who were holding Passes,
could go near the Munch. The front row of chairs was at a distance of
6 or 8 yards from the Dais. He answered that he was carrying the
cloth bag slung to his shoulder and moving about from 08.30 AM to
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.
No person had questioned him
regarding keeping hand in the jhola. There was some nervousness in

his mind though he was trying to behave like a normal man. He has
denied the suggestion that he fell in the hands of CBI of his agreeing
to toe their line in order to save himself. He could not say whether the
munch was hollow underneath up to the ground as it was covered with
a cloth. He replied that people had started at about 10.00 AM, but
they started occupying the chairs at about 11.30 AM.
When the
announcement was made at about 12.30 PM about the late arrival of

the Minster, some persons dispersed and some continued sitting on the
chairs. He voluntarily stated that he left at about 12.30 PM to take his
meals. He came back there at about 02.00 or 02.30 PM. People
started sitting on the chairs when he came there at about 02.30 PM.
He could not say whether the persons raising the slogans were
Railway employees or outside the public or to which party they were
belonging. He was at a distance of about 100 yards from the place
where slogans were being made. The persons, who were raising the
slogans, were not moving and they were standing at one place. The

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 had taken away only his own articles.
He further
deposed that he came to know only on 02.01.1975 in the Morning,

when A-1 told him that hand grenade was to be thrown on L.N.
Mishra. To a question regarding momentary training given to him by
A-1 at the house of Girijanandan, PW-2 replied that it was not a very
complicated affair and he understood upon explanation.
472. PW-2 answered in his further cross-examination on behalf of ACBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
564
3 that when A-1 asked him on 29.12.1974 to make arrangement for

stay of 2 or 3 persons in Samastipur for 01.01.1975, he got a hint that
as L.N. Mishra was coming to Samastipur on 02.01.1975 they might
have to do something in this regard. He got this hint at Ashok Lodge
at Patna. Regarding throwing of hand grenade on L.N. Mishra, it
came to his knowledge only in the morning of 02.01.1975. He has
denied the suggestion that he became an approver under fear and he
voluntarily stated that only tape-recorded statement was given by him
under fear.
473. PW-2 further replied that on 02.01.1975 in the Morning, A-1
told them that L.N. Mishra was coming and he was Mahapapi, and an
obstacle for the release of their cult head. It is further elicited that A-1
told them that Mishra was to be liquidated to shake the government
and get the Baba released. In the cross-examination of this witness at
the hands of A-3 also, the detailed description of the events sworn to
by this witness in his chief and further got confirmed in the crossexamination at the hands of other accused is repeatedly got elicited
and the entire cross-examination of this witness by A-3 is nothing but
the replica of the same. PW-2 has admitted the suggestion of the A3 at Page No. 301 that A-1 and A-2 were present on Platform No. 3
as they got admission, since they were having passes with them.
The same reads as under: Ans. Sometime I would also be going ahead of
the people and look towards Santoshanand and
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
565
Sudevanand, who were sitting on Platform No. 3

on chairs. It is correct that they had occupied
chairs soon after they got admitted into
Platform No. 3 as they had Passes with them.
There was no crowd on Platform No. 3 except the
assemblage of the persons, who had occupied
seats after entering on the basis of the passes.
My Ld. Predecessor had also taken judicial note of during the
recording of evidence of this fact.
Therefore, it would be only
repetitive rhetoric hence the same is not again reproduced. At Page

No. 289 of his cross-examination, the Ld. Defence Counsel for A-3, an
important suggestion is given as under: Q.
Is it that Sudevanand and Santoshanand also
ran along with you?

Ans. They were with me only when I was
stepping backward but when I left from the place, I
do not know in which direction Santoshanand and
Sudevanand went.
(This interrogation with this suggestion implies in itself admission of
the presence of accused A-1, A-2 and PW-2 at the spot).
474. It is also got elicited that no splinter of the hand grenade fell on
PW-2. He has denied the suggestion that since no splinter struck him,
he was not present at the spot.
In his further cross-examination, PW-2 replied that all of them
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
566
were present in the clothes of a common man. He volunteered that he

had already described as to how they had discarded their saffron robes
and long hairs.
Even the purchase of clothe-pin is got confirmed in the crossexamination. PW-2 replied that the shop from which he purchased the
pin, was across the road and he paid five or ten paisa, for which he had
given him four or five pins.
475. Other details got elicited only reaffirms that PW-2 was present
and the incident happened as happened, particularly, the overt acts of
A-2 hurling the hand grenade at the Dais, the commotion thereafter in
presence of PW-2, A-1 also ready with their ammunition, which were
not used and the hand grenade hurled by A-2 got exploded and that
PW-2, A-1 and A-2 ran away mingling in the crowd, which went
helter-skelter.
It is vital to note in cross-examination of PW-2, it is elicited by
A-3 that they (PW-2, A-1 and A-2) killed L.N. Mishra and that he was
not aware whether Yashpal Kapoor visited Muzaffarpur or not.
476. I have very carefully scrutinized the deposition of PW-2 and
despite his lengthy cross-examination by the defence, they could not
discredit his assertion in his examination-in-chief. Defence could not
demolish that on 29.12.1974 in the Ashok Lodge/Ashok Niketan,
Patna, PW-2 was brought by A-2, where A-1 directed him to arrange
stay of 2/3 persons in Samastipur on 01.01.1975.
It is also

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
567
unchallenged that PW-2 was asked to meet them at the Railway

Station, Samastipur on 01.01.1975 at about 04.00 or 05.00 PM.
Defence could not belie that about 12.00 Noon, A-1 and A-2 were
found sitting on the chairs at Platform No. 3 behind A-3 or that A-3
was talking to them by turning his face. Defence has also not derided
that A-1 at about 02.00 or 02.30 PM informed PW-2 that A-3 had
arranged Passes for them. Defence could not demolish the facts
spoken that in this second session, A-1 and A-2 occupied chairs a little
behind the middle row at the venue and their presence throughout till
the explosion of hand grenade.
The cross-examination does not go to destabilize the version of
PW-2 that after the conclusion of the speech, A-2 took out the hand
grenade, flung on the Dais in front of Railway Minister Sh. L.N.
Mishra and it got exploded or that thereafter they all fled from the site.
477. The Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out that PW-2 has made
improvements in his statement as he did not state in his previous
statement under Section 164 Cr. PC in A.N. Rays case that he met A-1
at Patna on 29.12.1974 or that A-1 told him to make arrangement for
their stay at the house of Girijanandan or their coming to Samastipur
and meeting of A-3 at Samastipur.
Here it is to be noted that
pertaining to the attack on the former Chief Justice of India Honble

Mr. Justice A.N. Ray, a case under Section 307 IPC was registered and
the facts of the present case were not to be narrated.

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
Hon'ble High Court in
the very matter reported
as
MANU/DE/1873/2014 in the matter of Santoshanand Avdoot Vs.

State had the following to observe: "134. I have minutely scrutinized the evidence of
PW-Vikram
and
the
corroborative
evidence
discussed in detail above and find no substance in

the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the testimony of PW-Vikram has
not been corroborated in material particulars.
.....................................The statement of PW-1 is
vivid in explanation and inspires full confidence of
the court. ...................................... The statement of
approver
inspires
confidence
including
the
conspiracy part which gets full support from the

narration of the occurrence given by several other
impartial witnesses. ........................................."
479. This court is also of the firm view that the testimony of PW-2,
which withstood bone testing, chilling lengthy and repetitive crossexamination, does not suffer from any incoherence, fallibility, doubts
and inconsistencies and the same proves all the material particulars
expected of in this case. PW-2 has also narrated all the facts in minute
details, which cannot be termed as tutored or suffering from any
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
570
Thakur and PW-6 Sh. Virender Kumar Ojha.
Therefore, it is
necessary to refer the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6.

481. PW-5 deposed that he was working as Sub-Inspector, RPF since
1963 and was transferred as Crime Reader to ASO Samastipur. He
knew PW-6. They had joined the Training Center at Lucknow and
thereafter they were posted together at Gorakhpur. He deposed that on
01.1.1975, PW-6 was posted as Sub-Inspector (Prosecution) at
Samastipur. On that day, he along with PW-6 at about 5:00 PM left
their office. Since it was the New Years Day, PW-6 offered a cup of
tea at his residence and he went there. At that time one person, who
disclosed his name as Ranjan Dwivedi, came there. (The witness has
correctly identified the A-3 in the court). PW-6 found it difficult to
identify him, upon which A-3 introduced himself as practicing as
Advocate in Supreme Court. Since A-3 was not having any luggage
with him, on asking of PW-6, A-3 told PW-6 that he came from
Sitamarhi after halting at Muzaffarpur, his Bhabhi (brothers wife) and
mother were coming from Sitamarhi and he wanted train Reservation
for them for Delhi. On asking of PW-6, A-3 told him that his luggage
was in the first class waiting room at Samastipur Railway Station and
his other friends in the waiting room were looking after his luggage.
They had tea together in the quarters of PW-6 at that time and during
conversation, A-3 asked PW-6 whether he knew Sahai family since
Mr. Sahai had expired and further said Mr. Sahai was the father-in-law
of one of his friends. PW-6 told A-3 that the family of Mr. Sahai was
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
571
residing in his neighborhood, upon which said accused expressed his

desire to visit their house for condolence. Subsequently, all the three
went together to the house of Mr. Sahai for offering condolence and
thereafter all the three left for Samastipur Railway Station to meet
Bhabhi and mother of the A-3.
482. PW-5 deposed that on the way, A-3 told PW-6 that his luggage
is being looked after by his trusted friends who were known to him
from Delhi and accompanied him by bus from Muzaffarpur. They then
reached first-class waiting room at Samastipur Railway Station and
there they met one friend of A-3, who was introduced by A-3 to them
as Santoshanand, present in the court. (The witness has correctly
identified the accused Santoshanand in the court). He deposed that on
that day, A-1 was wearing a jacket and a pant though in the court he
was in saffron robes. At that time, A-1 was neither sporting a beard
nor wearing a turban, as is found in the court. Santoshanand was
having short hair and wearing a hearing aid. Thereafter, A-3 asked A1 WOH KAHAN GAYE (where A-2 had gone), to which A-1 replied
that he had just gone outside and would come back in no time. Then
A-1 asked A-3 as to where he got delayed and then PW-6 asked A-1 as
to where they were to go to which A-1 replied that they were to go
towards Barauni side on the next Morning. Meanwhile, it was reported
that the train carrying Bhabhi and mother of A-3 was running late.
Since it was already past 8:00 PM, PW-5 was getting late and left for
his residence.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
572
483. In his cross-examination, PW-5 replied that he left Railway

Station Samastipur at about 08.05 or 08.10 PM leaving A-3 and PW-6
there. He answered that in first class waiting room, one register is
maintained, in which the person staying there has to enter his name
and other particulars including the number of the Railway Ticket.
However, on that day, he did not notice that register in the waiting
room. He noticed the attendant in the waiting room. He could not
recollect the appearance or age of the attendant or what dress he was
wearing or whether he was wearing any hearing aid or wearing any
cap or jacket or any turban. He testified that the said waiting room
was for men. The ladies first class waiting room was at a distance of
five or six yards from the gents' waiting room. He denied the
suggestion of the defence that he did not accompany PW-6 to his
house on 01.01.1975 while returning from his office. He stayed at
PW-6s quarters on that Evening for about 25 or 30 minutes. When,
A-3 reached the quarters, he and PW-6 were sitting in the lawns of the
quarters and there was twilight. He could identify any person seen in
that twilight. By the time, A-3 reached, the tea was not being served.
The tea was served to all of them about four or five minutes of arrival
of A-3 there. A-3 stayed there with them at the house of PW-6 for
about ten or twelve minutes and thereafter they all three went to house
of Mr. Sahai. He was hearing the conversation between PW-6 and A3. PW-5 deposed that he told in his previous statement that A-1 was
wearing jacket and pant and was introduced to PW-6 by A-3. He did
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
573
not tell the colour or features or height of A-1 in his previous

statement. He did not state in his previous statement that A-1 was
having short hair and beard shaved.
484. From the scrutiny of deposition of PW-5, it is found that the
same could not be discredited at all by the defence including A-1 and
A-3. They have not demolished the assertion of PW-5 that A-3 told
PW-6 in his presence that his friends who were looking after his
luggage in the waiting room, were reliable and known to him from
Delhi, and came with him from Muzaffarpur by bus. They failed to
deride the deposition of the witness on the fact that A-3 introduced A1 to PW-6 in his presence. Accused further failed to belie the say of
PW-5 that A-1 was donning a pant and jacket and wearing a hearing
aid.
In his cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion of the
defence that after 01.1.1975, he has seen A-1 for the first time in the
court on the date of his deposition. Therefore, in a way accused
persons have admitted that A-1 was with A-3 on 01.1.1975 at
Samastipur Railway Station and was introduced to PW-5 by A-3. The
line of cross-examination does not suggest that PW-5 has any enmity
with any of the accused persons. PW-5 is a Government servant and
an independent witness. There is no reason to discard the testimony
of PW-5, which is found trustworthy and inspiring confidence. The
testimony of PW-2 gets corroborated in material particulars by the
deposition of PW-5 and of PW-6, which is being discussed herein
after.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
574
485. PW-6 deposed that he was Sub-Inspector (Prosecution) at

Samastipur at the relevant time. He knew A-3, who is brother of the
wife of his distant relative Sh. R. Chaubey and could identify him.
However, A-3 was not present in the court on the day of deposition
being exempted. He deposed that on 01.01.1975, A-3 came to his
quarters at about 5.30 PM at Samastipur. At that time, PW-5 was
sitting with him and PW-6 was trying to recollect his past
acquaintance with A-3 and in the meanwhile A-3 introduced himself
by saying that he was Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate, Supreme Court. On
his asking, A-3 told him that he was coming from Sitamarhi by bus
after halting at Muzaffarpur and he had arrived by bus from
Muzaffarpur and his Bhabhi and mother would reach Samastipur by
train from Sitamarhi and he wanted Railway Reservation for himself,
his Bhabhi and mother for Delhi. Then they had tea together. PW-6
deposed that he asked A-3 as to where his luggage was and he told
him that the same was in first class waiting room at Samastipur
Railway Station and was being looked after by his friends. A-3 asked
PW-6 whether he was acquainted with Sahai family. A-3 also told
PW-6 that Mr. Sahai, father-in-law of his friend Vinay, had died and he
wanted to offer condolence to the bereaved family. PW-6 told A-3 that
Sahai family was residing in their neighborhood and he agreed to
accompany A-3 to Sahai's house. Then all the three went to the house
of Mr. Sahai and conveyed their condolences and spent about 45
minutes. From there they all three went to Railway Station,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
575
Samastipur for arranging requested reservation of A-3. On the way to

Railway Station, he enquired from accused Ranjan Dwivedi about his
friends by telling him that sometimes some friends might play
mischief with the luggage, and on this accused Ranjan Dwivedi
informed him that his friends were from Delhi and reliable and they
had travelled together in the bus from Muzaffarpur. They reached first
class waiting room, Samastipur Railway Station and found one friend
of A-3 guarding the luggage. There, A-3 introduced them to that
friend as his relative and A-3 introduced his friend as Mr.
Santoshanand.
He can identify that friend of A-3. (The witness
identified the accused Santoshanand present in the court, who was

introduced to them by Ranjan Dwivedi as his friend). He further
testified that at that time, A-1 was wearing a jacket and a pant and he
was clean-shaven and putting a hearing aid and there was a little
baldness in the center of his head. When A-3 enquired from A-1 as to
where his other friend had gone, A-1 informed A-3 that he (other
friend i.e. Sudevanand) had gone outside and A-1 asked A-3 as to
where he got delayed. PW-6 asked A-1 as to where he wanted to go
and A-1 informed him that he wanted to go to Barauni next Morning.
PW-6 deposed that at about 08.15 PM, PW-5 left the Railway Station.
Thereafter, PW-6 and A-3 went to Railway Reservation Counter. PW-6
asked the clerk to arrange for three berths for his friend for Delhi. The
clerk informed him that he was closing Counter for the night and
promised to do next morning. PW-6 deposed that mother and Bhabhi

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
576
of A-3 arrived at about 12.00 midnight or 01.00 AM and they received

them at Platform No. 4. The mother and Bhabhi of A-3 were taken to
first class ladies waiting room and then the luggage of A-3 was shifted
from the gents' waiting room to ladies waiting room. While leaving
the Railway Station, PW-6 told A-3 that in case of any problem in
accommodation for the night in the waiting room, he might come to
his place. PW-6 deposed that mother and Bhabhi of A-3 stayed in the
ladies waiting room and at about 12.30 AM or 12.45 AM, A-3 came to
his quarters and told him that he would like to stay with them as there
was no proper accommodation for him in the waiting room.
486. PW-6 further deposed that on 02.01.1975, he and A-3 reached
the Railway Station, Samastipur at about 10.00 AM. He first went to
the ladies waiting room and exchanged greetings there with the mother
and Bhabhi of A-3. From there both of them went to Reservation
Counter. The clerk, who met him last night, was not at the Counter
and PW-6 asked A-3 to wait for him, as PW-6 was to go to the court
on his duty. PW-6 returned there by 11.30 AM or 12.00 Noon, met A3 with his friend A-1 and another at Platform No. 1, who was
introduced to him as Sudevanand (The witness has correctly identified
the accused Sudevanand also present in the court). He deposed that he
asked A-1 as to how he was still there as on the previous night A-1
disclosed that he would leave for Barauni early in the Morning and A1 told PW-6 that they had stayed back to see the function. PW-6 got
Reservation for A-3, his mother and Bhabhi for the train to go to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
577
Delhi. He deposed that the application for reservation was filled up by

A-3 in his presence.
487. I have perused the Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A, which is
available in Folder R-13. As per this Requisition Form for reserved
accommodation Ex.PW-6/A, three berths for 3rd class in 85-UP Assam
Mail for 02.1.1975 from Samastipur to New Delhi were booked by R.
Dwivedi c/o V.K. Ojha, PP RPF SPS, at 11.30 AM in the name of R.
Dwivedi, m/o R. Dwivedi and Tara Devi.
The portion Q-6 is
questioned writing of accused Ranjan Dwivedi, which was later on

admitted by him. Mentioning of address of PW-6 by the accused
Ranjan Dwivedi in the Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A further
corroborates the testimony of PW-6 that it is PW-6, who got the
reservation of accused Ranjan Dwivedi, his mother and Bhabhi for the
train going to Delhi and the Reservation Slip was filled up by accused
Ranjan Dwivedi in his presence.
488. PW-6 further deposed that there was one Dais (Munch) fixed on
the Platform No. 3 and he along with A-3 proceeded towards it. When
they reached there, PW-6 noticed that A-1 and A-2 were already
present there and on the rear seat, PW-6 and A-3 sat in the one row
and behind them A-1 and A-2 were already seated.
One Youth
Congress worker was distributing some cards (badges) and PW-6

and A-3 proceeded towards that worker to collect badges from him. It
is also found in his testimony that the said worker told PW-6 for a
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
578
railway employee, no badge is necessary. He further deposed that A-3

demanded three badges from that worker, who gave three badges and
A-3 handed over each Badge to A-1 and A-2 and kept 3rd one for
himself. At about 12.30 PM, there was an announcement that the
Minister's train would be reaching late and crowd started melting.
PW-6 started roaming about on Platform No. 3. After sometime, the
two friends of A-3 went away for meals. At about 3.30 PM, PW-6 and
A-3 sat there and said two friends of A-3 were already sitting behind
them. At about 04.00 PM, PW-6 and A-3 left the Platform No. 3 and
from there, he went to waiting room and collected the mother and
Bhabhi of A-3 as time for their train was drawing near. On Platform
No.7, mother, Bhabhi of A-3 and Ranjan Dwivedi himself boarded the
train for Delhi and he did not go to Platform No. 3. After seeing the
Badge Ex.P-8, he testified that the badges obtained by A-3 from
Congress worker, were of similar type.
489. This Badge of Congress Sewa Dal is available in Folder R-4.
The front side of the badge Ex.P-8 reads as under:-

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
579
pertinent to refer that during the cross-examination of PW-57 Sh. Brij

Mohan Sharma, who is an Ex-Serviceman, a social-worker and
independent person, accused persons got produced from one similar
Badge/Pass/Card from him in the court, which was produced and
exhibited as Ex.PW-57/DA. The Card/Badge/Pass Ex.P-8 is similar in
all respect with Ex.PW-57/DA. This Badge/Pass/Card Ex.PW-57/DA
is available in Folder R-7). Ex.PW-57/DA also reads as under:
490. In the cross-examination on behalf of A-3, PW-6 answered that

Sh. R. Chaubey (DW-4) is a cousin of a son of his maternal uncle. He
replied that prior to 01.01.1975, he had seen A-3 only once for a few
minutes and that is why he could not immediately place him on
01.01.1975, when he came to him. Prior to 01.01.1975, he met A-3
only once in Delhi in the month of June/July 1974, during the pleasure
trip with his family to Delhi. He admitted that his stay with Sh. R.
Chaubey for 2 or 3 days, which was at Old Willington Camp, Race
Course Road, Air Force Quarters, New Delhi. He denied the
suggestion that at that time A-3 was also staying in the quarter of Sh.
Chaubey. During such stay, once at about 08.00 AM, A-3 reached
there and at that time Sh. Chaubey introduced A-3 to him as his
brother-in-law (Sister's husband). He has denied the suggestion that
PW-6 brought his wife for medical check-up at All India Institute of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
580
Medical Sciences, New Delhi. It is also elicited that according to

rules, first class waiting room can be used only by the passengers
having first class tickets. The witness explained that Samastipur being
small station, first class waiting room might be used for two-three
hours even by second-class passengers during day time.
He also
admitted the suggestion that in Samastipur, person not having any

Railway Ticket was also permitted into the first class waiting room,
with the consent of the attendant. He admitted that one register is
maintained there. The passengers in the waiting room make entries,
ticket number and destination. On 01.01.1975, he noticed that
attendant outside the first class gents' waiting room. He does not
know the name of that attendant. In the waiting room, he found one
hold-all and one attach. It is elicited that this witness along with A-3
and PW-5 were there for some time. A-3 engaged a porter for shifting
the luggage. He has denied the suggestion of A-3 that he had some
litigation with his brother-in-law Sh. Chaubey.
491. The A-1 and A-2 cross-examined PW-6 and got elicited that
while in Delhi, PW-6 visited all the sightseeing places and neither
Chaubey nor A-3 accompanied him and his family. PW-6 visited Agra
and Mathura with his family, but they did not stay either at Agra or at
Mathura during night; then proceeded to Lucknow.
He has also
denied the suggestion that primary purpose of visit to Delhi at that

time was to get medical check-up of his wife at All India Institute of
Medical Sciences. He also denied the suggestion that Mr. Chaubey
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
581
told him that he could talk to A-3 as he might be knowing somebody

in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, since he was a practicing
Advocate. He has also denied the suggestion that A-3 gave a cold
shoulder to him, which was not liked by him. He also denied the
suggestion that out of disgust for not helping him, PW-6 left the house
of Mr. Chaubey with a grudge that A-3 did not help him deliberately.
PW-6 replied that at that time, he was the only Railway Prosecutor at
Samastipur. He has denied the suggestion that he readily agreed to
become a witness in this case because of strained relations with A-3
and his brother-in-law Sh. Chaubey. He has denied the suggestion
that A-3 never met him on 02.01.1975. He also denied the suggestion
that he never arranged Railway Reservation for A-3 as stated. At Page
No. 571 of his cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted the suggestion
of accused persons, which reads as under: It is correct that after 2.1.75, he saw accd.
Santoshanand only in this court when I came to
give my statement.
He has denied the suggestion that Santoshanand and Sudevanand were
not there on 02.01.1975 or that he has made a false statement under
the pressure of police and promise of promotion and cash rewards.
492. Accused No. 7 got elicited from PW-6 that in his police
statement he mentioned that on 01.01.1975, having arranged Railway
Reservation for Ranjan Dwivedi, his mother and wife for 02.01.1975.
He explained that he meant that the seats were assured on 01.01.1975.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
582
He replied that it is not necessary to mention the time of reservation in

the requisition slip. At Page No. 577, he admitted the suggestion of
accused persons about introduction of Santoshanand and Sudevanand
to him by Ranjan Dwivedi and the suggestion reads as under: It is correct that when accused Ranjan Dwivedi
accused introduced Santoshanand and Sudevanand
to me, I could never anticipate that I might be
required to give evidence in that connection in
court or to give out the names.
I, however
remember those names

Strangely, A-7 had also got elicited the name of Reservation clerk and
PW-6 named him as Mitra Dada. He went to the court with the hope
that Mitra Dada would be coming back to the reservation counter by
that time he returns from the court. However, one Mr. Ghai was
present at the Reservation Counter on 02.01.1975, when he initially
went there.
On 01.01.1975, Mitra Dada had assured him that he
would be reaching Reservation Counter even on 02.01.1975 due to the

proposed function. When he returned from the court, PW-6 asked A-3
whether he got the Reservation, to which A-3 replied that he was
waiting for PW-6. He told Mr. Ghai that Mitra Dada had assured him
of Reservation and on telling him, he immediately made the
reservation. He denied the suggestion that reservation was not made
in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that Sudevanand and
Santoshanand never met him on the Railway Station on 01.01.1975

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
583
and 02.01.1975. He could not say whether the Passes/Badges were

given to A-3 due to his influence or that of A-3. He also deposed that
when they took their seats at about 03.30 PM, he noticed that
Sudevanand and Santoshanand having put these passes on their chest
with the help of pins. He also noticed that A-3 had not fixed up that
pass on his person.
He had seen about 20/25 persons, who had
similarly tagged the passes on their person but all the persons have not
fixed up. He replied that the train in which mother and Bhabhi of A-3
went to Delhi left Samastipur Railway Station on 2.1.1975 at about
4.50 PM. At about 04.00 PM, A-3 pointed out to him that the train in
which he, his mother and Bhabhi were to go to Delhi, was being
placed at the Platform and so at his instance, they proceeded to the
waiting room and from there to the platform for boarding the train.
493. Further, this fact is corroborated by the statement of A-3
himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, who admitted that
he visited the house of PW-6 on 01.01.1975 and requested him to
arrange reservations for Delhi. He admits having told PW-6 that he
had come from Muzaffarpur and wanted the reservation for himself,
his mother and Bhabhi and that was the only train connecting Delhi
from his native place. He also admitted visiting Sahai Family with
PW-5 and PW-6 for condolence. He also admitted that the train, by
which his Bhabhi and mother were to come, was running late and at
about 8.00 PM, PW-5 left for his residence. He also admitted that his

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
584
Bhabhi and mother reached at about 12 midnight or 01.00 AM and

taken to first class ladies waiting room.
494. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate
that the story of the prosecution is not believable as to why A-3 would
introduce A-1 and A-2 to PW-6 with their names, when they were to
execute the conspiracy by throwing hand grenade on Sh. L.N. Mishra.
She further argued that in his statement before the police, PW-6 has
stated that he had arranged Reservation for A-3 and his mother and
Bhabhi on 01.01.1975, whereas the Requisition Slip speaks of
Reservation on 02.01.1975.
The A-3 as well as Ms. Sima Gulati
argued that prosecution had not seized the Register kept at the first
class waiting room at the Railway Station, Samastipur to show that 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-
examination, the visit of A-3 to the quarters of PW-6 with a request

for Reservation for him, his mother and Bhabhi on 01.01.1975, the
presence of PW-5 is never demolished. The parleys among A-3, PW5 and PW-6 are reiterated in the cross-examination including as to
who was guarding the luggage of A-3 and arrival of A-3 in the
company of A-1 and A-2 from Muzaffarpur by bus. They have also
not discredited his testimony about the competency of PW-6 in
identifying A-1, A-2 and A-3. The presence of A-1 to A-3 at the venue
of the Railway Station, Samastipur is also not demolished along with
their procurement of Passes by A-3. The identification of A-1 and A2 by this witness is also not derided and their description on a day
prior to the incident and on the date of incident is never shattered in
the cross-examination.
The Railway Reservation Requisition Slip Ex.PW-6/A speaks
for itself. The address given by A-3 is that of PW-6 in it and it is
found written thereon by A-3 as R. Dwivedi c/o V.K. Ojha, PP RPF
SPS. This documentary evidence coupled with the oral testimony of
PW-6 lends credence to the version of prosecution.
496. I have dealt with the Requisition Slip in subsequent paragraphs,
which has been proved to be in the handwriting and signatures of A-3,
who had later on admitted the same. The defence who contended that
there was no mode of entry into the venue by the Passes, have
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
586
themselves got produced a similar Badge/Pass Ex.PW-57/DA from an

independent witness Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma in his cross examination
and got it exhibited. PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma has categorically
stated that such Badges were issued to him and his eight companions
by the Congress worker on the date of function. I have elaborated the
testimony of PW-57 in the subsequent part of the judgment. This
corroborates the testimony of approver PW-2 and PW-6 that A-3 had
arranged Passes/Badges for him and his co-conspirators.
497. The malice attributed by the accused to the evidence of PW-6 is
that PW-6 was dissatisfied with A-3 in not arranging the medical aid
for the wife of PW-6 when he visited Delhi. PW-6 has denied a
suggestion that he visited Delhi in June or July 1974 for treatment of
his wife at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He further denied
that A-3 did not accompany him, and for that reason he had a grudge
with him.
He also denied the suggestion that PW-6 had some
litigation with the brother-in-law of A-3 namely Mr. Chaubey (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.
Had his wife been ill or suffering from serious
problem, PW-6 would have never ventured to go to several places

apart from Delhi sightseeing.
The defence failed to indicate
particulars of the litigation, which PW-6 allegedly had with DW-4 Sh.
Chaubey. Moreover, even DW-4 Sh. Chaubey, whose testimony has
been dealt by me in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment, has
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
588
register of first class waiting room is concerned, PW-6 has admitted

the suggestion of the defence that in Samastipur, person not having
any Railway Ticket could also use first class waiting room and such
users could be there with the consent of the attendant of that waiting
room. Further, the defence themselves got an answer in their crossexamination from PW-6 to a suggestion that It is correct that after
2.1.75, he saw accused Santoshanand only in this court when I came
to give my statement and It is correct that when accused Ranjan
Dwivedi accused introduced Santoshanand and Sudevanand to me, I
could never anticipate that I might be required to give evidence in that
connection in court or to give out the names. I, however remember
those names. In view of this discussion, I find that the testimony of
PW-6 is consistently trustworthy and could not be discredited by the
defence. PW-6 has also corroborated the testimony of the approver
PW-2 that he was informed by Sudevanand about the arrival of Ranjan
Dwivedi along with him and Santoshanand by bus from Muzaffarpur
and that he had seen accused Ranjan Dwivedi sitting on the chair
ahead of Santoshanand and Sudevanand and talking to them by
turning his face towards them and that Sudevanand informed him that
accused Ranjan Dwivedi had arranged entry passes for them.
Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt that on 01.01.1975, A-3 came to Samastipur along
with A-1 and A-2 by bus from Muzaffarpur and next day A-3 arranged
entry Passes/Badges/Cards for their safe entry to the venue to be held

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
589
on 02.01.1975.
The Passes are also got exhibited by the accused
themselves in the cross-examination of PW-57. These facts are enough

to prove that A-3 had also joined the criminal conspiracy, initially
hatched at the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan in October 1973. I
had discussed the scribblings of Ranjan Dwivedi's diaries in the
subsequent paragraphs, which further establishes that he was part of
the conspiracy for killing Sh. L.N. Mishra.
499. The defence has argued that apart from PW-2 none having seen
the hurling of hand grenade by A-2 on the Dais becomes highly
improbable. The consistent testimony of approver PW-2, which was
also upheld by our Hon'ble High Court in MANU/DE/1873/2014
(supra) cannot be thrown overboard on the point that there are no other
eye witnesses. This court is aware that the present case is based on
criminal conspiracy for which seldom an eye witness crops up but to
be gathered from other circumstantial evidence and especially if it is
based on the statement of an approver only the material particulars are
to be corroborated. It is profitable to quote the Honble Supreme
Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singhs case (supra) which laid
down:
It would not be right that expect that such
independent corroboration should cover the whole
of the prosecution story or even all the material
particulars. If such a view is adopted it would
render the evidence of the accomplice wholly
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
590
superfluous. Moreover, as requirement of the law

is that the corroboration must connect the accused
with the crime, may be by direct or circumstantial
evidence and it is not necessary that the
corroboration should confirm all the circumstances
of the crime and it is sufficient if the corroboration
is in material particulars, as held by the Honble
Supreme Court in Mohd. Husain Umar Kochras
case (supra).
The argument that the accused Ranjan Dwivedi could have not
introduced other two accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand to PW-6
as queer some and be not believed is only a hypothesis - which gets
belied by cogent evidence of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 as discussed
above. The other aspect regarding the non-specifying the correct date
before police and non-seizure of register of waiting room - pale into
insignificance in the backdrop of A-3 not repudiating the reservation
slip and keeping of his luggage in the first class gents' waiting room
and its subsequent shifting to ladies waiting room through a porter.
500. Therefore, this court comes to the irresistible conclusion that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on
02.01.1975, accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi
visited the scene of occurrence in the first session and remained there
up to 12.30 PM, whereas the approver Vikram continued to wait for
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
591
signal from accused Santoshanand at Platform No. 1. There A-3

obtained three badges/passes from a Youth Congress Worker and gave
one each to A-1and A-2 and kept third with him. At about 12.30 PM,
there was an announcement that the Minister's train would be reaching
late. At about 3.30 PM, PW-6 and A-3 sat there again and A-1and A-2
were already sitting behind them. The accused A-3 along with PW-6
had left the Dais at about 04.00 PM, since A-3 was to catch the train
along with his mother and Bhabhi bound for Delhi and in the
meanwhile accused Sudevanand with a Badge/Pass pinned on his
chest, went to Platform No. 1 and gave the other badge/pass to PW-2,
who got it pinned by buying a pin from outside and came to Platform
No. 3. All these three persons i.e. Santoshanand, Sudevanand and
approver PW-2 occupied the seats and
in the meanwhile, track was
cleared as Special Train moved ahead. Resultantly, many persons

crossed the railway track in order to come closer to see L.N. Mishra.
Availing of this opportunity, Santoshanand, Sudevanand and PW-2
also mingled with them, came nearer to the Dais at a distance of about
one yard, and positioned themselves in that side from which the
Special Train had come. As soon as, Sh. L.N. Mishra finished his
speech and turned in order to descend from the Rostrum for the
purposes of inaugurating Broad Gauge Line, Sudevanand took out
hand grenade from his pocket and under the cover of Chaddar brought
it to the level of his mouth and taken out the pin and dropped/threw it
on the munch, in front of L.N. Mishra and this hand grenade rolled a

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
to suggest that he has

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
593
not received the information Ex.PW-65/B. Endorsement thereon in

his handwriting Ex.PW-86/A is also not discredited.
502. PW-65 Sh. Vishwanath, Dy. S.P. Samastipur, Special Division
deposed that on 02.1.1975, there was a function of inauguration of
Broad Gauge Lines from Samastipur to Muzaffarpur at Platform no. 3
of the Railway Station, Samastipur. The then Railway Minister Sh.
L.N. Mishra was the Chief Guest to inaugurate the Broad Gauge
Lines. On that day i.e. 02.1.1975, he had gone to Platform no. 3
Railway Station, Samastipur on duty. The original schedule time of
this function was 01.00 PM. Minister was to come from Darbhanga
by a Special Meter Gauge Train. This function was delayed and the
Railway Minister came there at about 5.20 PM.
Sh. L.N. Mishra
delivered a speech from a special constructed Dais on Platform No. 3.

He concluded his speech at 05.45 PM. PW-65 along with SDM was at
a distance of about ten yards from the Pooja place where BG Lines
was to be inaugurated and it was towards South of that place of Pooja.
After concluding his speech, Sh. L.N. Mishra turned around to step
down from the Dais and suddenly there was a blast with a loud sound
when the Railway Minister was still on the Dais.
The Railway
Minister and several other persons present on the Dais received

injuries. He assisted in sending the injured persons to the nearby
Hospital. Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra were taken to
Special B.G. Train.
He submitted a report in writing to Officer
Incharge GRP, Samastipur for registration of a case regarding the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
594
blast. He suggested that case be registered u/s 120-B/307 IPC and

Section 3 & 4 on Explosive Substance Act. He proved the carbon copy
of his Report Ex.PW-65/A for registration of the case prepared by him
with his own handwriting and bearing his signatures. He gave this
Report to the Officer Incharge GRP on the same day at about 8.00
PM.
In his re-examination PW-65 proved his original writing and
signatures Ex.PW-65/B, carbon copy of which is also Ex.PW-65/A.

(Both these documents are available in Folder R-7).
503. The cross-examination of PW-65 reveals that there was a black
flag demonstration at Railway Station Samastipur on occasion of the
visit of the Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra on 02.1.1975. Slogans
were raised against the Minister during demonstration. He again said
there was only black flag demonstration and there were no slogans.
He stated that demonstrators were the members of Chhatra Sangarsh
Samiti. The black flag demonstration was at Platform no.7. There
was shouting by slogans Lalit Babu Zindabad at the arrival of the
Minister for the function. He did not hear any slogans or shouting
against the Minister. 70% of the people were present in front of the
Minister at the time of function and about 200 persons were present at
the back. About 30-40 persons were present at the Dais. He admitted
the suggestion that a large number of local police officials, RPF and
GRPF were on law and order duty and for security purpose. Even the
Magistrates were on duty.
He admitted the suggestion that the
purpose of all the police officials was to prevent the mischief and keep
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
595
a watch on the movement of undesirable persons and others. No

person of the public was allowed on the track of the BG Lines, which
was to be inaugurated. It was expected from the officials on duty that
they would not permit anyone coming on the Platform no.3 where the
function was to be held without Invitation Card or Pass. The
Platform No.3 & 4 was on one side of the same Island and on the other
side of the same Island, was Platform No. 5 & 6. This function,
therefore, was on the space of Platform no.3, 4, 5 & 6. The area of the
function was demarcated. The Eastern and Western side of Island
platform were being protected and utilized for function. On two sides,
there was a demarcation of Railway lines. On one side, there was
Munch and public was sitting in front of Munch. (The location is
reflected in Map Ex.PW-139/A). The spot indicated the remnants of
one hand grenade. His statement was recorded on 03.01.1975 and he
did not give the name of all the injured persons. The CBI officer
recorded his statement. They had no secret information that some
Railway employees might make an attempt on the life of the then
Minister. He is aware that on 3.1.1975 pamphlets were distributed to
the effect that Chhatra Sangarsh Samiti was responsible for this blast.
(On the reverse side of Ex.PW-65/B, there is acknowledgement/
endorsement Ex.PW-86/A by Sh. R. Singh (PW-86 Sh. Rameshwar
Sain, Incharge) GRPS Samastipur to the effect that it was received at
20 hours on 02.1.1975 and case No.1 dated 02.1.1975 registered u/s
3/4
Explosive Substance Act and 120-B/307 IPC)

(PW-86 has
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
596
proved the endorsement/acknowledgement Ex.PW-86/A and FIR

Ex.PW-86/B).
504. It comes out from his deposition on 02.1.1975, Sh. L.N. Mishra,
Minister was to visit the event by 01.00 PM, but reached late at 05.20
PM. There was a crowd, some shouted slogans at a distant place. Sh.
L.N. Mishra delivered the speech from the Dais on Platform No.3 and
concluded at 5.45 PM. As he completed his speech, there was a blast
with a loud sound, injuring several persons there. Sh. L.N. Mishra and
Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra were taken to Special BG Train. He submitted
his Report to Officer Incharge for registration of the case u/s 120B/307 IPC and U/s 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act on the same day
at 8.00 PM.
He proved his report Ex.PW-65/A and original writing
Ex.PW-65/B bearing his signatures. It can be easily said that there was
heavy security arrangements for the function and people were allowed
only with Passes/Badges and Invitation Cards. Police did not have
secret information that some Railway employees might make attempt
on life of the then Railway Minister.
505. PW-146 Inspector Nageshwar Parsad Singh brought the original
case diary of GPR Case No. 1 of 1975 relating to murder of Sh. L.N.
Mishra. He deposed that he knew Deputy SP S.K.N. Singh as in the
year 1975 both of them were deputed and posted in GRP Samastipur.
He had seen Sh. S.K.N. Singh writing and signing and for that reason
he could identify his handwriting and signature. He had died in a road
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
597
accident in June 1983. In the case diary brought by him relating to

GRP Case No. 1 of 1975, there is a statement dated 03.01.1975 of
Deputy SP Vishwanath Singh of Samastipur, which is in the
handwriting of Sh. S.K.N. Singh. It also bears the signatures of Sh.
S.K.N. Singh. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Ex.PW65/DA is the correct statement of Deputy SP Vishwanath Singh.
46) Testimony of Eyewitnesses other than PW-2
and PW-65.
506. The prosecution has examined several eyewitnesses to the
Samastipur incident dated 02.01.1975.
Those witnesses are PW-2
Vikram, PW-65 Vishwanath, PW-3 Mahinder Parshad Sahu, PW-4

Rajender, PW-26 Narinder Parsad Issar, PW-28 Brij Nandan Prasad @
B.N. Prasad, PW-53 P.N. Tiwari, PW-56 Umesh Parshad Singh, PW58 Ajay Kumar, PW-60 R.N. Rai and PW-129 Jayant Banerjee. Court
witnesses CW-2, Sh. Jiya Lal Arya, CW-3 Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra,
CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta, CW-5 Sh. Baleshwar Ram CW-6 Sh.
Pratap Singh and CW-7 Sh. Jwala Prasad Singh have also been
examined. I have already dealt with the testimony of PW-2 and PW65. Now I propose to deal with the testimony of other eyewitnesses.
507. PW-3 Sh. Mahinder Parshad Sahu, a nephew of Shri Mahadev
Parshad Sahu a Railway employee residing in the Railway Quarters at
the relevant time, testified that on 02.01.1975 at about 03.30 PM, he,
Shyam and Rajender (PW-4) went to Railway Station, Samastipur.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
598
Neither of them was having any "Pass" or "Invitation Card". There

was a regular Dais, in front of which there were rows of chairs, which
were occupied by the time they reached there and consequently they
had to sit on the chairs at rear. At about 04.45 or 05.00 PM, Sh. L.N.
Mishra reached there in a Special Train from Lahariya Sarai side on
Platform No. 3 itself. At that time, several people on Platform No. 1
were shouting as they were not able to see or hear anything because of
the obstructions caused by the train. Sh. L.N. Mishra came on the
Dais, where 30 or 35 persons were present. Sh. Mishra then delivered
the speech but they could not see him as the persons in front of them
had stood up. After crossing the Meter Gauge Line, they also like
others proceeded towards the Dais to have a better glimpse of Sh.
Mishra. There were some persons on the North of the Dais also. After
Sh. Mishra finished his speech, he acknowledged the greetings of the
crowd with folded hands and turned around and immediately at that
time, a loud explosion was heard at the Dais. Peoples started running
away here and there. They were at a distance of about 45 feet from
the Dais. After few seconds, they also started running on the Railway
Track towards the West and after running about two or four paces
only, his cousin Rajender (PW-4) told him that he had lost one of his
chappals (slippers). He (PW-3) however run away without waiting
for Rajender and reached his residence. After sometime, Rajender
also reached there.
His uncle Sh. Mahadev Sahu reached the
residence at about 06.45-07.00 PM. Rajender informed him that he

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.
He (PW-3) was removed to the hospital, where he
remained confined for about 65 days.

508. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that on 02.01.1975, when
he went to Parcel Office in the morning, he came to know that entry to
the place of meeting of Sh. L.N. Mishra was through "Invitations" or
"Passes". He noticed about 50 constables around the Dais at a distance
of about 7 or 8 feet. He also noticed some police constables in the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
600
remaining portion of Platform No. 3. Nobody enquired from them

about any "Pass" to make entry in the venue. He explained that they
were just children at that time and there had been relaxation in "Pass"
checking. He has denied the suggestion that there was strict checking
of passes at the Railway Station. He did not see anyone throwing any
object towards the Dais and he only heard the sound of explosion. He
denied the suggestion that police was not permitting any person to
reach within a distance of 30 feet from that Dais. He reached the
Platform No. 3 prior to arrival of Sh. Mishra. He also denied the
suggestion that no person without the passes was permitted to sit on
the chairs even in the rear portion. He deposed that some of the chairs
in the rear were unoccupied, they sat on them. He admitted that there
were police officers around rows of the chairs. He replied that in
those days, Rajender was a student of 8th Class. At the time of
incident, his aunt was in the Kitchen at a distance of about 6 or 7 paces
from him. The store was situated at about 6 or 7 paces from the place,
where he was standing. Rajender was also standing about 1 or 2 paces
away from him. On his return from the hospital, he noticed a pit of
about 5-6 inches in depth near the door of that store. The police
approached him 3 or 4 days of the occurrence, while he was still in the
hospital. He gave his statement to the police. He admitted that he and
his uncle Mahadev Parshad were granted bail from the court of
Sessions at Samastipur. He deposed that police got him discharged
from the case after about a year.

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.
People started running helter-skelter and they also started
running towards the backside and hardly had run 2 or 4 paces, when
he found one of his chappals (slippers) got out of his foot.
He
informed Mahender Sahu (PW-3) about it. He returned to retrieve his

chappal, but he could not recover it. Mahender Sahu (PW-3) and
Shyam Babu did not wait for him. While he was returning on the
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
603
prior to 02.01.1975. On 03.01.1975, he came to know that said object,

which he had found on the Railway Track was a hand grenade. After
the explosion, he noticed smoke on the Dais, which had engulfed the
entire Dais after which hazy view was visible. CBI officers had taken
him to the said platform and recorded his statement.
511. It comes out from the statements of PW-3 & PW-4 that the
defence did not demolish their deposition of their attending the
function, the explosion that took place after conclusion of the speech
by the Railway Minister. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that
there was no "Pass" system to enter Platform No. 3 and PW-3 and
PW-4 have made their entry to the venue without possessing any Pass.
Firstly this has been duly answered by the PW-3 in his crossexamination that they were just children and for that reason nobody
asked them for the Pass. Secondly, the defence has admitted the
system of entry by Passes by giving suggestions to PW-3 that no
person without the Pass was permitted to sit on the chairs and that
there was strict checking of "Passes" to enter the venue. The theory of
defence suffers from duality, on this aspect is approbative and
reprobative and without any definite stand of their own. It is also
noticeable that PW-3 was aged about 16 years and PW-4 was aged
about 11 years at the time of incident. PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja,
Investigation Officer has deposed that on 10.01.1975, Bihar Police had
arrested seven persons including Mahadev Sahu, his two nephews and
four of his colleagues in respect of bomb blast at his house and
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
604
arrested persons were interrogated and independent verification in due

course of time was got done, but nothing incriminatory could be
established against them. As such, he moved application for their
release and subsequent to their release on bail he filed application for
their discharge for lack of any evidence. Accordingly, all of them were
discharged by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur. The
defence has also not suggested to either of them that they were
involved in the crime in any manner. From the deposition of PW-3
and PW-4, it is thus established that on 02.01.1975 that there was an
inaugural function of Railway Line at Samastipur Railway Station at
the hands of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister, who arrived there at
about 05.00 PM and after conclusion of his speech, when the Minister
took a turned around, there was a blast on the Dais.
It is also
established that there was system of entry to venue by way of

"Pass/Badge".
512. PW-26 Sh. Narinder Parshad Issar deposed that during the year
1974-75, he was worker of Congress (I) at Samastipur. On
02.01.1975, there was a function of inauguration of Broad Gauge Line
by the Railway Minister from Samastipur to Muzaffarpur. On that
day, at about 4.30 PM, he along with Umesh Singh (PW-56), the then
MLC, Sh. Shiv Shankar Singh, the then Editor, Dasha Disha, Sh. Shiv
Sagar Mishra, Sh. Jamuna Singh and others went to Railway Station.
Train came there at about 05.00 or 05.15 PM by which Sh. L.N.
Mishra arrived and reached the Dais. PW-26 followed Minister on the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
605
Dais, where 20 or 30 persons were present. Sh. Baleshwar Ram (CW5) welcomed the Minister.
It was followed by the speech of the
Railway Minister, which lasted in 15 or 20 minutes.
When the
Minister was about to conclude his speech, PW-26 stood at the corner
of the Dais by the side of stairs leading to the Dais. After concluding
his speech, Minister was about to take a turn, when some black object
passed in between him and Sh. L.N. Mishra. This black object came
from North Side. That black object fell on the Dais, which exploded
and there was smoke. Many persons including Minister Sh. L.N.
Mishra sustained injuries. He assisted Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3)
in taking him to the Saloon. In his cross-examination, PW-26
answered that at that time he was an Advocate and an active member
of District Congress Committee. He replied that the black object came
while ascending and thereafter it descended. It came at his chest level.
The Railway Minister took a turn for coming down stairs from the
Dais. In his further cross-examination, the rough Site Plan Ex.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
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
607
University, Minister came to Lahariya Sarai Railway Station, and

witness accompanied him. From there, he travelled by Special Train.
Besides Railway Minister, Commissioner Darbhanga Division, Dr.
Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3), Radha Nandan Jha, Ram Bilas Jha, Suraj
Narain Jha and Railway officials travelled in that Saloon and PW-28
was also in that Saloon with the Minister.
515. It has also come in his deposition that Special Train reached
Platform No. 3, Samastipur at about 05.15 PM. Then the Minister
proceeded towards the Dais. About 30 persons were already present
on the Dais.
CW-5 Sh. Baleshwar Ram welcomed the Minister
followed by the speech of the Minister. About 40-50 persons were

present on the Dais. When Minister was delivering his speech,
information was received about black flag demonstration, which was
perhaps held towards Platform no. 7 and he asked Superintendent of
Police, Samastipur to tackle the situation. After some time SP,
Samastipur came back and informed him that some arrests have been
made and people dispersed. He thought of approaching the Minister
with a request to conclude the speech. He approached the Railway
Minister and by that time, speech was concluded, Minister took a turn
& there was a blast on the Dais. PW-28 fell down and became
unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself in
Samastipur Hospital. He deposed that in those days there was strike in
the Medical College, Darbhanga and he was taken to Nawab clinic,
Darbhanga and remained admitted there as Indoor Patient for about
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
conclude his speech due to black flag demonstration. By the time he

approached the Minister, the speech was concluded, there was a blast
on the Dais and he suffered grievous injuries and was taken to
Samastipur Hospital. Tight security arrangements were made, as
suggested by the defence also. There was checking of the Passes to
allow the visitors to the venue. He admitted the suggestion of defence
that before 02.1.1975, they had information that group of Karpuri
Thakur and disgruntled Railway employees might disrupt the function.
He also admitted the suggestion that Sh. Rajeshwar Mishra, Advocate,
was denied entry, as he was not having any pass.
In the cross-
examination of the PW-28, nothing could be elicited which

demolishes his affirmation of him being proximately located at the
spot, the security arrangements and the strict vigil with regard to the
entrants to the venue, the blast that took place and the injuries
occurred to the witness as well as others.
518. PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari, a PR Official of the Northern Division
Railways deposed that he was duty bound to disseminate information
regarding Railways, its activities to the Press and Media. An event was
proposed for inauguration of Broad Gauge Line between Samastipur
and Muzaffarpur on 02.1.1975 by the Railway Minister Sh. L.N.
Mishra at Samastipur. The scheduled time was 1300 hours (1.00 PM).
He was instructed by his senior Sh. P.R. Chopra, GM, North-Eastern
Railway to make arrangements for publicity of the inaugural function.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
610
He deposed that 11,000 Invitation Cards were printed from the

Railway Press, Gorakhpur for the event. The sample invitation card at
Ex.PW-53/A is exhibited.
(This Invitation Card
available in folder R-2)
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.
Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra received
injuries and was taken to his MR Carriage on the Broad Gauge Line
by the Senior Chief Security Officer followed by Shiv Sagar Mishra.
He did not go to that Carriage. After the Railway Minister was taken
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
612
Minister, who spoke extempore. The Minister was sitting on the

Rostrum, which was well laid. The height of the Rostrum was elicited
to be about 3 or 4 feet approximately and about 30 to 40 people were
sitting on the Rostrum. The publicity was aimed at attracting grand
crowd.
522. Evaluating the testimony of PW-53, it can be concluded that on
02.01.1975 an event was organized to inaugurate the Broad Gauge
Line at Samastipur Railway Station in which the Minister participated.
Wide publicity was carried out by the Railway, which got printed
"Invitation Cards", distributed the same throughout the country. This
witness had heard that there was an explosion after the conclusion of
the speech by L.N. Mishra, the Minister and that there was a 30 to 40
persons on the Dais and also a big crowd gathered, which went helterskelter after the explosion. This witness had seen PW-28 approaching
the Minister prior to the blast. It also emerges that the Minister, who
was injured in the blast, wishes to be taken to Patna for his treatment
as told to him by Ram Bilas Jha and the line was cleared for the
Special Train, to depart to Patna, which left Samastipur by 08.00 PM.
523. PW-56 Sh. Umesh Parshad Singh, MLC, Bihar, deposed that he
participated in the event on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur, seated behind
the Railway Minister on the Rostrum. The Minister spoke for about 20
minutes. After conclusion, the Minister took a turn to get down, PW56 observed something coming from his left hand side and moving
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
613
towards right in front of him. Before he could realize as to what it

was, there was a blast and that article was of dark black colour, the
size of which was less than a ball and its diameter could be of about
three inches. He again said it was of deep grey colour. People started
running and PW-56 suffered injuries and was taken to Samastipur
Hospital in a jeep. He was given first aid and went to Patna and got
himself treated at Popular Nursing Home for about 10 days.
524. It is elicited in his cross-examination that PW-56 reached the
venue by 11.30 AM or 12 Noon and waited till arrival of the Minister.
The Rostrum was about 18/19 X 15/16 feet and there was 7/8 feet
vacant space in front of the Rostrum. The open space was about 18/19
X 7/8 feet in front of the Rostrum. About 40 - 45 people were sitting
on the Rostrum. As the Minister spoke, there was hooting from a
distant place. He did not see black flag demonstration. He knew only
10-15 persons, who sat on the Rostrum. He was in Congress party at
that time. The Bihar police met him 3-4 days after the incident at
Popular Nursing Home and recorded his statement. He answered that
some article came from his left hand side and moved towards his right
hand side. (He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW-56/DA witness stated therein that passed by his side). He informed the
police that the article was of dark black and deep grey colour.
(Confrontation of the statement Ex.PW-56/DA reveals that it was
"black"). He has denied the suggestion that the black substance was
thrown from the Rostrum itself and stuck to his earlier statement.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
614
525. A close look of the deposition of PW-56 reveals that he was

sitting on the Dais behind the Minister on that date. The testimony of
the witness that some substance passing from his left to right side,
which exploded soon after the Minister concluded his speech and the
injuries sustained by him are not demolished in the cross-examination.
His first aid treatment at Samastipur and further treatment at Popular
Nursing Home is also fortified.
526. PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, an ex-serviceman-teacher and
social worker, deposed that he along with 8 or 10 persons of his area
reached Samastipur on 01.1.1975 to attend the function of 02.01.1975
in order to present a "Charter of Demand" to the Minister to include
their village on the BG Line. He reached the venue only after securing
a Pass/Badge given by a Congress Sewa Dal worker. (The witness
identified the Badge Ex.P-8 and stated that Badge looked alike the one
secured by him)
527. He deposed that he sat on the Dais with the help of Sh. Ram
Bhagat Paswan, MP of their area. Minister was giving speech when
he went to Munch. After the Minister concluded his speech, the
witness garlanded the Minister who moved one or two steps towards
the stairs and then there was an explosion on the Munch in which
witness also received serious injuries due to splinters. He was taken to
the Railway Hospital, Samastipur where he remained admitted for 12

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.
He along with 8 or 10 companions came to
Samastipur to present a "Charter of Demand" to the Minister. The

defence could not shatter his testimony that the entry to the venue was
by Passes/Badges and he and his all companions entered the venue
with Congress Sewa Dal Passes. Defence themselves got exhibited a
Pass through this witness. The defence also could not deride his
presence on the Dais, garlanding of Minister, the explosion and
suffering of injuries. The Congress Sewa Samiti Dal Badge, which he
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
531. It is elicited in his cross-examination that in those days he was a

student of seventh class. On date of deposition i.e. on 10.11.1982, he
was 16 years of age. He was aware about the necessity of Pass to
reach the venue. He did not have any Invitation Card or Pass with
him but he gained entry being the son of the Incharge of GRP. He did
not know the person, who was standing near the Dais with garlands,
earlier and he gave him one garland on request. He was at a distance
of about 7/8 paces from the Railway Minister at the time of the
explosion. After about 15 days, one person came to him in the clinic
and made enquiries about the incident.
532. After scrutinizing the evidence of PW-58, who was aged about
10 years at the time of incident and a son of Incharge, GRPS,
Samastipur Railway Station, demonstrates that the Railway Minister
arrived there at 05.00 PM. He was aware about the necessity of the
Passes.
He took a garland and went to Rostrum to garland the
Railway Minister.
After conclusion of Minister's speech, as the
Railway Minister took a turn and moved 1/2 steps ahead, PW-58 also
moved forward to garland the Railway Minister, he heard explosion
and suffered injuries on his chest. He jumped from Dais and became
unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself in Janta
Clinic, Darbhanga under treatment of Dr. S.M. Nawab.
533. PW-60 R.N. Rai, Officer Incharge, Railway Station, Siwaan
GRP received orders from his superior to be on ring round duty with
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.
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,
Darbhanga, Commissioner, Darbhanga and others escorted the

Minister to the Dais. PW-85 also went to the Munch and sat on the
first row. There Ram Sukumari Devi, Kapil Deo Singh, Ram Vinod
Sharma were also sitting in the front row on the Munch. There were 50
to 60 persons sitting on the Munch but he is not definite about exact
number of persons seated on the Dais. There was an explosion on the
Munch after the Railway Minister concluded his speech. Witness also
received injuries on both of his legs because of the explosion and
became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself
at Dr. Nawab's clinic, Darbhanga and remained in the clinic for about
three weeks and he suffered fracture in his right leg. He could not
work for about six months due to fracture and injuries. After his
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
621
discharge from Dr. Nawabs Clinic, Darbhanga, he remained at

Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, for about a month. Seven splinters
were present in his legs as on the date of his deposition.
(Ex.PW-93/H is the Bed Head Ticket of Ram
Bhagat Paswan and his other medical papers
are Ex.PW-104/B).
538. In his cross-examination PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan
admitted the suggestion that he is an old Congress (I) member and
commands respect in his area. He received invitation for the function
held at Samastipur Railway Station. He had taken that Invitation Card
with him for going to the Railway Station, Samastipur. Some persons
with him were not allowed to go on the Munch. Two persons
accompanied him up to some distance from the Munch but the police
officers asked for the Pass on their reaching near the Munch. To his
knowledge, Invitation Cards and Passes were not being
distributed near the Munch. His Invitation Card was seen before he
went up on the Munch. The height of the Munch was 4 ft and there
were stairs for going to the Munch. The Railway Minister had taken a
turn after finishing his speech when there was an explosion.
Samastipur was in his area and he was representing that area as
Member of Parliament. He stated that he knew Congress Sewa Dal
and was associated with it during his student days but no Congress
Sewa Dal volunteer met him there. He came to Willingdon Hospital
in New Delhi in the first week of February 1975 and CBI officers met
him there for taking his statement. Sh. Ram Bilas Jha was an MLC in
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.
On regaining consciousness, he found himself in Dr.
Nawabs Clinic, Darbhanga and remained admitted there for 3 weeks.

He suffered fracture in right leg and could not work for about 6
months. After his discharge from Dr. Nawabs Clinic, he remained
admitted in Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi in February 1975. He
admitted the suggestion of the defence that he commands respect in
the area and thus even the defence admits that his deposition is
trustworthy. He took his Invitation Card with him to the venue.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
623
However, his two companions were not allowed entry to go on the

Dais by the police for want of Passes. The argument of the Ld.
Counsel for the defence that there was no pass system to make entry in
the function at Platform No. 3 does not stand in view of the
information elicited in cross-examination by the defence. The
deposition of the witness that there was explosion soon after the
Minister had taken a turn after finishing his speech could not be
shattered in his cross-examination. PW-85, who stood the test of
cross-examination, was questioned by the defence as regards the
possibility of flinging the bomb from the Munch (Dais/Rostrum) itself
by which it is negated.
540. PW-109 Mohan Kumar Jha, a distant relative of Sh. L.N.
Mishra, deposed that on 02.1.1975, he accompanied Sh. L.N. Mishra
up to the Dais. He speaks of the presence of several persons in the
entourage of the Minister by names S/S Gauri Badla, V.P. Gupta,
Additional Private Secretary of Railway Minister, Pt. Vishwanath Jha,
Parmanand Jha and others.
All of them reached the Dais.
This
witness handed over a thermos bottle to Rattan Singh, security man of

the Minister, which was passed on to the Minister on the Dais and left
the venue to go to Sa loon. Thereafter he was going towards the Saloon
when he heard a loud explosion. He also noticed that Sh. L.N. Mishra,
being brought injured by S/S Shiv Sagar Mishra, Kanhaiya, Mahender
Narain Jha, MLA, Rattan Singh, Security Guard and others towards
the Saloon of the Special Train. That Train left Samastipur for
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
542. Appreciating the evidence of PW-109, one can say that he

accompanied Sh. L.N. Mishra to the Dais. Sh. V.P. Gupta (CW-4)
and Sh. Vishwanath Jha (PW-65) also travelled in that Saloon. The
line of cross-examination fortifies his presence at the spot, there being
a crowd on the Dais, having heard the explosion and further having
seen L.N. Mishra in injured state and shifted to the Saloon in the
Special Train, which left for Danapur.
543. PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai deposed that he has been Mukhiya of
Gram Panchayat of Malikaur since 1968 and an active member of
Congress since 1966. He knew Lalit Babu Mishra since 1956. He
received an Invitation Card from the Railway Authorities, Samastipur
and another from Railway Authorities, Muzaffarpur regarding
inaugural function of Broad Gauge Line to be held on 02.1.1975. On
02.1.1975 at about 11.00 AM he along with Baleshwar Ram, Rama
Kant Jha and Satender Singh besides others went to the Railway
Station, Samastipur at Platform no.3. The Passes available with
them were checked at the entrance of the Railway Station. He sat on
the chair lying on the Platform while Rama Kant Jha and Baleshwar
Ram went to the Dais and there was an announcement at 12.30 PM
/01.00 PM that Railway Minister would be late. He returned to the
Railway Station, Samastipur at about 3.30 PM and sat in the third row
in front of the Dais. He went near the Dais at about 04.45 PM/5.00
PM with a garland in his hand to receive Lalit Narain Mishra after
hearing the announcement that Railway Minister is coming. Sh. L.N.
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.
The witness lifted Ram Vinod
Sharma in injured condition and handed him over to others to remove

him to the hospital. Thereafter with the help of others, he lifted
Jamuna Mandal who was removed to the Hospital. He noticed that
Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken towards the Special Train, which was to go
to Muzaffarpur and Sh. L.N. Mishra was made to sit in that train.
544. In his cross-examination PW-113 answered that there was no
black flag demonstration on Platform No.3. There were no slogans of
L.N. Mishra Murdabad in that function. However, there was some
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
apprehension that the Railway employees turning violent during the

inaugural function. He had a discussion with Sh. Rama Kant Jha and
Sh. Baleshwar Ram in the Inspection Bungalow on 1.1.1975 about
bringing of Sh. L.N. Mishra from Darbhanga and also that Congress
Sewa Dal Badges were printed and some workers would be using
them. During the talks, Sh. Rama Kant Jha told him that the Railway
authorities have allowed Sewa Dal workers to be present with Sewa
Dal Badges.
545. I have given my close look to the deposition of PW-113, which
is reliable, cogent and trustworthy in so far as his presence, the
connections he had with the Minister and his active role in helping the
injured to be shifted for medical aid are all vivid and a firsthand eye
witness account, which cannot be discarded.
This witness further
fortifies the factum of the presence of Congress workers, who were

distributing the Passes and the police restricting the entry only to such
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
628
Pass holders. He has further given the firsthand account of names of

several persons, who were present on the Dais at the time of the
incident. The cross-examination remained unsuccessful
546. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha, the then Assistant Medical Officer,
NE Railway, Divisional Hospital, Samastipur, deposed that on
02.1.1975 at about 4.30/5.00 PM, he along with Dr. M.N. Sharma,
Medical Superintendent and some Engineers, Railway officers, went
to Railway Station Samastipur at platform no.3. He listened to the
speech of Sh. L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minister. After finishing
his speech, Sh. L.N. Mishra spoke Jai Hind and then he took a turn
towards his back. In the meantime there was a flash on the Dais
followed by smoke and some thunder sound and heard cries of some
occupants of Dais. He saw some persons jumped from the Dais. Dr.
M.N. Sharma came by his side and they both went on the Dais. He
found that General Manager, Mr. Chopra, standing on the Dais, was
lifted for giving him medical aid. In the meantime, others also came
on the Dais. He was directed by Dr. M.N. Sharma to rush to the
Hospital and to arrange for first aid for the injured who, were to be
sent to the Hospital. He immediately rushed to the Hospital. He
contacted the doctors on telephone and rang up emergency bell for
summoning of doctors and staff due to emergency. There is no crossexamination by the accused persons on these aspects and thus his
testimony is not discredited.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
629
547. PW-127 Sh. Jayant Banerjee deposed that in September 1974,

he was transferred to Samastipur as Signal Inspector. On 02.1.1975 at
about 03.30 PM, he was asked by his superior to be on the Dais of
Platform no.3 for adjustment of the mike and he accordingly went on
the Dais at about 05.00/05.15 PM and sat on the right hand corner.
The Railway Minister has already arrived on the Dais along with the
party. After finishing his speech, the Railway Minister took a turn and
within 10/15 seconds, there was a blast. There were about 25/30
persons on the Dais at that time and some of them were sitting and
some were standing. He was standing on the Dais at that time. He
noticed one person in police uniform coming on the Dais, who fell
down. He jumped down from the Dais wherefrom his staff removed
him to Hospital.
He received injuries on his left arm and right
buttock. He noticed one or two persons falling on the Dais. Bihar

Police in the Hospital recorded his statement.
548. In his cross-examination at the behest of accused Santoshanand
and Sudevanand, it is elicited that he was inquired by the police only
in the hospital on 04.01.1975 and that on 02.01.1975, he was operated
upon. An unwanted suggestion was made to this witness that L.N.
Mishra was the symbolic determination of the government to break the
strike, for which this witness expressed his inability and later agreed.
The cross-examination does not go to shatter the testimony of this
witness concerning the blast occurred soon after conclusion of the
speech by the Railway Minister and many people getting injured
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
630
including this witness. There is no cross-examination on behalf of

accused Gopalji, Arteshanand and Ranjan Dwivedi and they did not
choose to cross-examine this witness despite opportunity.
549. CW-3 Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra deposed that Sh. L.N. Mishra was
his eldest brother who got injured in the incident on 02.1.1975 at
Samastipur Railway Platform and died on 03.1.1975 at Danapur
Railway Hospital. He (CW-3) also suffered injuries in the bomb blast.
The bomb exploded soon after his brother finished the speech. It is
found in his statement before the court that an unusual opinion
delivered by him when he was asked to speak about the incident and
his statement made to the police. This opinion is that there was lack of
security in the Railway Platform and that his elder brother L.N.
Mishra did not get proper medical attention in time. However, he
admits that there was a bomb explosion occurred, while he was on the
Dais and it was the Evening time. He further wondered the incident as
a mystery and stated that he is unable to understand, who was behind
it. He further stated that he has nothing to say in respect of the
involvement of the accused persons. He further expressed his inability
to speak anything with regard to his statement made to the police
found at Mark-A.
550. This witness was allowed to be cross-examined by the Special
PP and it is elicited that he had received his brother at the Airport and
accompanied him to Darbhanga and from Darbhanga to Samastipur by
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
551. The cross-examination of this witness was also permitted on

behalf of the accused, who have extensively cross-examined him. It is
elicited that he is unaware about his statement given to the police on
20.01.1975 and having stated therein that Samastipur was not the
proper place for the function. He also does not remember whether
there was any Railway strike and that the employees were aggressive
and that his brother was aware about it. He had no intelligence reports
concerning his brother. It is elicited by the very accused that after the
conclusion of the speech of his brother, CW-3 got up from his seat to
accompany his brother to get down, then the explosion took place. He
did not see any bomb falling on the Dais or around the Dais. He
admits that he himself and his brother got injured and fell
unconscious.
CW-3 also does not remember whether he told the
police about his brother informing him that the locals might have been
misled by others and that the conspiracy might be of the big people.
He also does not remember whether he told the police suspecting the
involvement of one of the persons, who lost the elections. He also
does not remember whether it was Dr. Bhalla, CMO Samastipur, who
treated him and his brother. He also does not remember of telling to
the police that Dr. Bhalla deliberately did not treat his brother
properly. He also does not remember who took the decision to take
them by Saloon to Danapur. He denied the suggestion that Bihar
Government had its own helicopter at that time.
However, he
admitted that there was no air field at Samastipur to airlift anyone. He

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
634
and rejection of bail application of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, who is the

cult head of Anand Marg, in pell-mell so that the truth does not
surface. It is strange that a person of his stature, who was a Legislator,
a Minister in the State of Bihar and Later its Chief Minister and who
held many responsible positions in the State Government and Union
Government is unwilling and evasive to speak about the important
developments in the society and organizations that spread its tentacles
of terror. If the responsible persons of the stature of CW-3 were to
give such irresponsible, evasive and tumultuous answers in the court
of law, what best can be expected of a common man to speak truth.
However, this witness had given the half truth except admitting his
injuries to him and to his brother, which ultimately led to the death of
his brother L.N. Mishra. The net effect of his evidence only proves
that there was an explosion immediately after the speech of Sh. L.N.
Mishra at the scene of occurrence, which resulted in injuries to several
persons including this witness and the death of three persons, which
included Sh. L.N. Mishra.
553. Suffice it to say, his deposition is helpful to hold that there was
no airfield at Samastipur and that the Bihar Government was not
having its own helicopter.
This observation is warranted to
understand the situation in which a Union Minister seriously injured in

the incident was to be shifted by the train for a Hospital at a distant
place, which took its own time in the peculiar situation, where the
doctors in the State of Bihar were on cease work (strike). The
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
636
of a signal by the Station Master himself. A short whistle was blown

by the engine before it started. After the train was moved ahead to
clear the view for other platform, the engine was detached from the
train. The engine left for the shed and he left for the control room.
The engine had hardly left and he had hardly moved and crossed the
BG Line from Platform No.3, he heard loud explosion. He stopped
and came back and heard about the injuries to many VIPs.
The
Special BG Train left Samastipur between 7.30 PM and 8.00 PM. His
testimony on these facts could not be discredited by the defence.
555. PW-102 Sh. Adeshwari Parshad Sinha was the Assistant Station
Master MG Line Samastipur in the year 1975. He deposed that he was
working as Assistant Station Master (Indoor) on Meter Gauge Line,
Samastipur. Assistant Station Master (Cabin) used to give clearance of
the line to the train arriving at the Railway Station, Samastipur and
trains leaving that Railway Station. He also used to record the timings
of such arrival and departure of the train. It used to be communicated
to him, while he was working as ASM (Indoor) and he used to make
entries in this regard in the Detention Register. After seeing the entry
in the Detention Register Ex.P-187, he testified that the entries dated
02.1.1975 Ex.PW-102/A & Ex.PW-102/B were correctly recorded.
On 2.1.1975, his duty hours were from 1600 hours to 2400 hours,
down Passengers Special Train reached Samastipur Railway Station at
5.12 PM and Rattan Lal was its driver. Down Passenger Special Train
was given clearance at 1700 hours and came from the side of Lahariya
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
637
Sarai. As per these entries Ex.PW-102/A and Ex.PW-102/B dated

02.1.1975, the time of arrival of down passenger Special Train is
recorded as 1712 hours.
In his cross-examination, the witness
admitted the suggestion of the defence that the Railway Minister came
to Samastipur by this Special Train.
556. CW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta, the then Additional Private
Secretary to Sh. L.N. Mishra deposed that on 1.1.1975 he, Sh. L.N.
Mishra and his brother Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3) had gone from
Delhi to Patna by Air and from Patna they went to Darbhanga by State
Aircraft. They went to Samastipur by Train. Sh. L.N. Mishra had
gone there for a meeting/public address for inauguration of train from
Samastipur to Muzaffarpur.
Sh. L.N. Mishra got down from the
Saloon and went to Platform at meeting spot. He remained in the

Saloon since the programme was short of 10/15 minutes and then Mr.
Mishra was to come back to Saloon and they were to proceed for
Muzaffarpur. When he was in the Saloon, he heard a loud noise, came
out and found that Sh. L.N. Mishra and Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra were
being brought to Saloon in injured condition. Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra
was bleeding from his legs and Sh. L.N. Mishra was injured but he
could not see any mark. Dr. Bhalla, Railway Doctor, who was present
on the Railway Station, immediately came to the Saloon. He started
treating Sh. L.N. Mishra, who was in the small cabin. The doctor did
not tell any seriousness of the injury, they decided to go to Danapur by
the same train and on the way train stopped at Patna where lot of
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
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
of the Rostrum were
approximately 20 feet x 16 feet and he used to be present during

construction of the Rostrum but not throughout and most of the time
Sh. Rajender Singh, Inspector of Works used to be present at the spot
during construction. Sleepers were spread on the top and there was
masonry work on all the four sides. The tarpaulin was spread on those
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.
It is worthy to reproduce the contents of
document Ex.PW-48/A (Ex.P-17) which reads as under:"NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY

The bearer is a Railway representative of
Engineering Department and is allowed to attend
the premises of the ceremony at Samastipur on
2.1.1975.
Assistant Engineer (Con.),
N. E. Railway,
Samastipur."
It is also very pertinent to mention here that this document was
recovered from the coat pocket of the deceased Sh. Ram Kishore
Singh Kishore at the time of Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-35/B for
which a separate Production List Ex.PW-35/C was prepared. The
same is also endorsed on the document at Ex.PW-48/A by separately
recognising such endorsement by Sh. Uma Kant Chaudhary (PW-35)
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
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
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.
However, DW-10 has
testified that he had no knowledge of receiving any wireless message

dated 30.12.1974 in their office regarding any attempt on the life of
Late Sh. L.N. Mishra. He is also not aware of any other similar
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
645
examination of PW-57 had suggested and got produced a Pass, which

looked like the one recovered by the prosecution, which A-3 had
secured from the Congress worker for the safe ingress of the
conspirators.
564. PW-28 Sh. Brij Nandan Parshad, DIG deposed that purpose of
their meeting on 24.12.1974 in the chamber of Commissioner,
Darbhanga was to finalize security arrangements about visit of
Railway Minister as they were to make security arrangements. The
purpose of his visit on 30.12.1974 to Samastipur was to make security
arrangements at Railway Station, Samastipur. He admitted the
suggestion of the defence that DAP, GRPF, RPF Jawans were
deployed for security with local police there. On his reaching the
Samastipur Railway Station on 02.1.1975, he came to know from SP
that they were checking Passes of the persons coming on the Dais
and in the area of function.
PW-65 Sh. Vishwanath Deputy SP,
Samastipur has also admitted the suggestion of the defence that the
local police officials, RPF and GRPF were on law and order duty and
for security purposes. He further admitted the suggestion of the
defence that the purpose of all police officials was to prevent the
mischief and to keep a watch on the movements of undesirable
persons and others.
No person was allowed on the track of Broad
Gauge Lines, which was to be inaugurated. It was expected from the

officials on duty that they would not permit anyone going on Platform
No.3 where the function was to be held without having Invitation
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
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
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.
PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan, M.P. admitted the
suggestion of the defence that he commands respect in the area. Some

persons with him were not allowed to go to the Munch. Two persons
accompanied him up to some distance from the Munch but police
officer asked for a Pass. PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai, a Mukhiya of the
Gram Panchayat of Village Malikaur since 1966/68 stated that the
Passes available with them were checked at the entrance of the
Railway Station. He sat on the chair lying on the platform while
Rama Kant Jha and Baleshwar Ram went to the Dais. In his crossexamination, he answered that police used to check Passes before
allowing persons to go inside the place of function. On 1.1.1975 he
had discussion with Sh. Rama Kant Jha and Sh. Baleshwar Ram in
Inspection Bungalow about bringing of Sh. L.N. Mishra from
Darbhanga and also that Congress Sewa Dal Badges were printed and
some workers would be using them. During the talks, Sh. Rama Kant
Jha told him that the Railway authorities have allowed Sewa Dal
workers to be present with Sewa Dal Badges.
568. To further prove its case, the prosecution has examined the
owner of the Printing Press Sh. Virender Narain Poddar as PW-37,
where the Badges/Passes/Cards of Congress Sewa Dal like Ex.P-8
(similar card is Ex.PW-57/DA) were printed. PW-37 Sh. Virender
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
649
Narain Poddar deposed that his father owned Ajay Printing Press at
Samastipur since 1970.
He (PW-37) was a final year student of
DHMS at Lahariya Sarai in the year 1974-75 and used to look after
the work of Printing Press in 1974-75 in the absence of his father as
his father did not attend to the work at Printing Press from the last
week of December 1974 to 03.1.1975 on account of illness. He stated
that Ex.P-9 is the badge of Congress Sewa Dal Samastipur, which was
printed in their press on 01.1.1975 on the request of Satender Prasad
Singh @ Timmoo, who was known to him for a petty long time on
account of his association with his father. He was Mukhya Karyakarta
of ruling Congress at Samastipur and came to him in the printing press
at about 12 noon on 01.1.1975 and requested for getting the printing
on the same day. He told him that these badges were needed in the
inauguration function on 02.1.1975 and wanted printing of 100
badges. He did not charge anything for the printing of 100 Badges.
He (PW-37) prepared a sample badge while sitting in the press and got
printed the badges on the same day and one badge was retained by
him as a sample, which is Ex.P-9. He deposed that in the month of
August 1976, CBI officers came in the press and he was present there
with his father. They have given that sample badge Ex.P-9 to the CBI
officers on that day, which was taken into possession by them vide
He testified that the Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-34/A bears his signatures at point A and that of his father at

point B. His father has appended his signatures at Point "B" in his

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
other accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi did not

choose to cross-examine the witness.
570. In fact, this badge is wrongly mentioned as Ex.P-9 in the
statement of PW-37. Record reveals that this badge is, in fact, Ex.P-8,
available in Folder R-4. This Badge Ex.P-8 was initially exhibited
without any objection of the defence in the statement of approver PW2. Subsequently, it was also proved in the statement of PW-131 Sh.
M.P. Singh, Assisting Investigation Officer and PW-81 Sh. Dev
Narain Prasad. The record further reveals that Ex.P-9 is, in fact, a
Prout newspaper in the record and it appears that due to
typographical error, the exhibit mark of this Badge Ex.P-8 was
mentioned in the deposition of PW-37 as Ex.P-9 instead of Ex.P-8.
571. A careful scrutiny of the deposition of PW-37 reflects that he is
an independent witness. It is not shown whether he had any enmity
with any of the accused persons. His testimony that Sh. Satender
Prasad Singh @ Timmoo was Mukhya Karyakarta of ruling Congress
party at Samastipur, was not shattered. It is also not suggested that the
Badge was printed at some other printing press. The printing and
existence of the Badge has also not been disputed by the defence. The
accused Gopalji had only given him the suggestion that the Badge was
not printed in their press and it is well settled principle of law that a
denied suggestion is not evidence. It is also not suggested by the
defence that such type of Badges were got printed subsequent to the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
652
function dated 02.01.1975 in order to create evidence. Moreover, the

similar Badge Ex.PW-57/DA was got produced from PW-57 by the
defence themselves in the court, meaning thereby that the existence of
the Congress Sewa Dal Badge was not disputed by the defence. If his
evidence is read in conjunction with the evidence of PW-2, PW-3,
PW-57 and PW-113, it has to be concluded that these Congress Sewa
Dal Badges like Ex.P-8 and Ex.PW-57/DA, were got printed from
Ajay Printing Press at Samastipur belonging to PW-37 and his father.
I find that PW-37 is a truthful witness.
572. PW-81 Sh. Devender Narain Prasad deposed that he has been
running a General Merchant Store at Gudri Bazaar, Samastipur since
1969. He testified that in August 1976, he had gone to the market for
purchase of Ghee (Oil). On the way, one officer from Delhi came and
inquired from him whether there was any press and he (PW-81)
replied in the affirmative. The officer of Delhi accompanied him (PW81) to Ajay Printing Press, where the press owner and his son were
found present. The officer inquired at the printing press, whether any
Badge was printed there and the owner told him that he will check-up
the record. Then the press owner took out the papers tagged in a wire
and from under about 100/150 papers, he took out one Badge on
which Congress Sewa Dal Samastipur was printed. He deposed that
he would be in a position to identify that Badge since he had signed it.
He deposed that Ex.P-8 is the same badge, which was produced by the
owner of the press and bears his signatures at point 'A' and that of Sh.
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
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
655
Ahuja, Deputy SP as per his directions. He deposed that on 28.8.1976,

he went to Samastipur for tracing the press from where the badges of
Congress Sewa Dal were printed. He visited Ajay Printing Press after
making enquiry and met the owner of the press Shiv Narain Poddar
and his son Virender Narain Poddar and after making a search they
produced before him one badge of Congress Sewa Dal of Samastipur
Ex.P-8 after taking out the same from a wire, which he seized in the
presence of one Dev Narain (PW-81) vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-27/A
(In fact, the Seizure Memo is Ex.PW-37/A). He deposed that it was
signed by Virender Narain Poddar at point 'A', Shiv Narain Poddar at
point 'B' and Dev Narain at point 'C' and his own signatures are
appearing at point 'D'. He deposed that he also obtained the signatures
of these persons on the Badge Ex.P-8 at point 'A', 'B' and 'C'.
576. In fact the Seizure Memo is Ex.PW-37/A and not Ex.PW-27/A
which appears to be a typographical error as the Seizure Memo was
already exhibited as Ex.PW-37/A in the statement of PW-37 Sh.
Virender Narain Poddar and this Seizure Memo Ex.PW-37/A is
577. In his cross-examination, PW-131 answered that he did not visit
Congress Office, before his visiting Ajay Printing Press.
The
registration of Ajay Printing Press was in the name of Shiv Narain

Poddar. He did not find any order for getting the Badges of Congress
Sewa Dal printed in the order book of Ajay Printing Press. The order
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
is a Senior Police Officer and his testimony is worth inspiring

confidence.
579. From the totality of the above evidence on the subject and after
appreciating the evidence both ocular and documentary by various
witnesses discussed herein above, I am of the firm opinion that the
prosecution was successful to establish beyond any reasonable doubt
that there was tight security at the spot and venue owing to the visit of
Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra for inauguration of Broad Gauge
Line at Platform No. 3 between Samastipur and Muzaffarpur. Police
officers along with forces of GRPF and RPF were deployed there.
Railway authorities got printed 11000 Invitation Cards, out of which
about 6600 cards were sent/delivered throughout the country to mark
the historical event in the State. However, there were reports that a
group of Karpuri Thakur and some disgruntled Railway employees
might disrupt the function. Nevertheless, there was no threat
perception to the life of Sh. L.N. Mishra. There were black flag
demonstrations and raising of slogans against the Minister at Platform
No.1 and 7 (not near the venue) at the time of his speech, which is an
usual protest in a peaceful and democratic manner. Congress Sewa
Dal badges, which are referred to as Passes or Badges or "Cards"
were issued/given by Congress workers. These Passes/Badges were
pinned by the audience on their attire near the chest for their entry to
the venue.
Badge/Pass/Card Ex.P-8 available in Folder R-4 and

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
658
Receipt Memo of Badge Ex.PW-37/A is available in Folder R-12.

Badge/Pass/Card Ex.PW-57/DA is available in Folder R-7.
50) Registration of FIR - on explosion at
railway quarters.
580. PW-142 Sh. Sarju Prashad Verma, the then Officer Incharge P.S.
Samastipur in January 1975, deposed that on 02.1.1975, he was on
duty on Platform No. 7, Railway Station, Samastipur. Sh. D.P. Ojha
(DW-34) was his Officer. On that day, after the function, on the
direction of his S.P., he went to Railway Hospital, Samastipur to make
arrangement for the injured and came to know about bomb blast in the
house of Mahadev Sahu and accordingly he went to the house of
Mahadev Sahu in Railway Colony with a constable and a Jamadar.
Mahadev Sahu met him there. He inspected the house of Mahadev
Sahu. He had gone inside the store of that house, where the explosion
took place and he did not find any injured there. He found the ceiling
and all the walls of that room were damaged and glass panes of
windows on south wall were found broken and he also found a hole in
the wire-mesh of that window. There was a hall towards each of that
store in which he found pin of a hand grenade and a lever besides
bloodstains and three pieces of the Chappals stained with the blood.
He preserved the spot and prepared a writing which was sent to P.S.
Samastipur through constable Ram Dayal Singh No. 292 of CRP
Force and an FIR No. 1 of 1975 was registered in the P.S. Samastipur
on his Rukka Ex.PW-142/A. The matter was investigated by him and
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
testified that ASI K.P. Singh was working at PS Samastipur at that

time and he had seen him writing and signing and endorsement at
point A on the said rukka is in hand of ASI K.P. Singh.
He also
deposed that Ex.PW-142/B is the original FIR, which is in the hand of

said Sh. K.P. Singh with his signatures at point A.
(This rukka Ex.PW-142/A and FIR Ex.PW-142/B
are available in Folder R-7.)
581. In his cross-examination, it is found that he recorded the
statement of Mahadev Sahu, one of the accused in the case He further
replied that same night at about 10.00 PM or 11.00 PM, he decided
that Mahadev Sahu was not an accused. He suspected seven persons to
be responsible for keeping hand grenade in the house, which exploded
and he named them as accused in his rukka. The case file titled as
"State Vs. Mahadev Sahu & Others" of case No. 1 (1)/75, PS
Samastipur was brought by PW-148 on 16.01.1985 during the
deposition of PW-142 Sh. Sarju Prashad Verma and after retaining the
rukka Ex.PW-142/A and FIR Ex.PW-142/B, the file was returned to
PW-148. This is mentioned by my Ld. Predecessor at Page No. 3544
and 3547 of deposition of PW-142.
582. PW-145 Sh. Khusheshwar Singh, the then Mukhiya of Village
Bahadurpur, Harnoli, deposed that he used to visit Samastipur also.
He deposed that he was going on the road wherefrom he was called at
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
660
the house of Mahadev Sahu at about 05.00 PM or 06.00 PM. He

further deposed that the house of Mahadev Sahu was situated in the
Railway Colony, Sam astipur and he was taken by the policemen to the
house of Mahadev Sahu to witness the seizure under the Seizure
Memo Ex.PW-145/A, which was prepared. He signed at point 'A'.
The other witness Mahinder Singh at point B and these proceedings
took place two days after the incident of L.N. Mishra.
(Seizure list Ex.PW-145/A is available in Folder
R-2.)
583. In his cross examination it is elicited that there were other
houses in the locality of Mahadev Sahu, but none was called there. He
did not remember how many articles were recovered due to lapse of
time. The police did not get the spot photographed in his presence.
The proceedings were completed there in about one or half an hour.
The defence has not suggested that the articles mentioned in the
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-145/A were not recovered from the spot or that
the seizure memo was not prepared there. The defence has also not
shown whether the witness has any enmity with the accused. PW-145
is an independent public witness and there is no reason to discard his
testimony.
51) Scene of occurrence - Site plans.
584. PW-139 Sh. Bipin Bihari Singh deposed that in January, 1975
he was working as Section Officer in District Board, Samastipur. Sh.
K.L. Pandey was his Assistant Engineer at that time. On 05.1.1975,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
661
under the instructions of District Engineer, Sh. Ranbrik Singh, this

witness accompanied by K.L. Pandey and a police constable visited
Samastipur Railway Station. They took measurements of Platform no.
1 & 2. These Platforms were on one side of the Railway Line and in
continuation of each other. Beyond the Railway Line, there were
Platforms no.3 and 4 in continuation and adjacent to these, there were
Platforms no.5 and 6. They started taking measurement from one
corner at Platform no. 3, there was a Stage on Platform no. 3, and he
noted the measurement of that stage. After taking measurements, he
prepared correct draft plan Ex.PW-139/A at the scale of 1=16. It
bears his signatures at point A. He also identified the signatures of
Sh. K.L. Pandey on the draft plan at point B.
On 07.1.1975, he
accompanied a police constable to the house of Sh. M.D. Sahu,

Accounts Officer, Railways. It was lying open and found guarded by
the police. Inmates were not present in the house. After taking
measurements, he correctly prepared the draft plan Ex.PW-139/B at
the scale of 1=4. It bears his signatures at point A.
(These site plans Ex.PW-139/A & Ex.PW-139/B
are available in Folder R-39)
585. In his cross-examination it is noticed that he had prepared the
rough notes at the time of taking measurements at the spot which were
destroyed by him after the draft plans were prepared (about Ex.PW139/A). He was not told about the place of incident and that is why he
has not shown the same in the draft plan Ex.PW-139/A. The height of

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.
52) Recovery of articles from the scene of crime

at Samastipur Railway Station.
587. PW-72 Sh. Ram Chand Mishar deposed that on 04.01.1975, at
about 03.00 PM, he had gone to Railway Station Samastipur, where he
met CID Officers at Platform No. 3. There was a Munch. CID officer
had taken into possession one tarpaulin, two durries, two gaddas, two
jajams, two musands, 50 pieces of hand grenade, one glass mug, one
broken glass, broken pieces, some printed leaflets, two letter pads of
Sansad Sadasya, some letters & applications, one muffler, 50 pieces
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
664
present at Platform No. 8, Railway Station Samastipur. He deposed

that on that day at about 04.00 PM, Inspector of CID Mr. Sinha had
taken into possession four wooden sleepers from the Munch, scrap of
the wooden sleepers, one iron piece under the Dari, two other small
iron pieces and prepared Ex.PW-73/A evidencing seizure. One Sattan
Rai was also present. The contents of the document Ex.PW-73/A were
read over to him and he signed on it at Point "A" and signed by Sattan
Rai at Point "B" and Inspector Sinha at Point "C". He deposed that he
would be in a position to identify those four sleepers. During his
deposition in the court, all these articles consisting of wooden sleepers
at Ex.P-38, Ex.P-39, Ex.P-40 and Ex.P-41 were identified. The crossexamination of PW-73 reveals nothing to disbelieve him and the
seizures.
590. A scrutiny of the depositions of PW-72 and PW-73 fortify the
seizures. The cross-examination does not go to show that they were
implanted and further does not show that the seizure was effected
from some other place. The credibility of these witnesses has not been
shaken in the cross-examination.
(Ex.PW-72/A and Ex.PW-73/A are available in
Folder R-2)
591. PW-52 Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sinha, the then ASI, GRP at
Samastipur testified that on 04.01.1975, DSP K.D. Singh gave some
articles for safe custody in the Malkhana of Police Station. On
08.02.1975, some articles from amongst those given by DSP K.D.
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
collected the articles in unsealed condition, which were then converted

into two sealed parcels in his presence. The first parcel comprised of
one white pillow with a big hole (burnt), and few small holes, one
white bed sheet smeared with bloodstains, one white bed sheet with a
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
dated 08.02.1975 addressed to the Director, CFSL. He testified that

he could identify the writing and signature of SP, CBI, since he had
seen him writing and signing. He replied that the contents of this
letter were dictated by SP, CBI in his presence and this letter was
signed by him in his presence. He answered that Ex.PW-137/A is the
same letter, which was dictated by SP, CBI in his presence. He
identified the signature of SP, CBI at Point "A". He replied that the
endorsement at Point "B" on this letter was correctly made by him
with his signature and date. He brought these parcels to Delhi and
handed them over to Director, CFSL, New Delhi in his office. He
testified that no one tampered with these articles during the period,
they remained in his custody.
593. PW-51 Sh. N.G. Kundu deposed that he has been associated
with Department of Explosives since 1961 and joined the Department
of Explosives as Assistant Inspector Explosive on 23.5.1961 at
Calcutta. On 04.01.1975, he reached Samastipur by Mithila Express
on requisition from ASP, Railway Police. He visited the Rostrum
constructed on the Platform No. 3 at Samastipur Railway Station for
inauguration of the ceremony of BG Lines in company with Sh. Sarju
Roy, SRP and Sh. K.D. Singh, DSP, CID. He again visited the place of
occurrence on 05.01.1975 with the same persons, who were with him
earlier day. He found some metallic splinters on the Rostrum such as
base plug, one striker with its spring, one piece of soft lead having
impression of spring, about 50 pieces of cast iron splinters and
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
examination. PW-51 further testified that these exhibits/articles were

received on 09.01.1975 through Sh. Ram Pujan Singh (PW-149) of
Samastipur GRP in sealed packets along with a letter of DSP, CID,
Bihar dated 06.01.1975 duly forwarded by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Samastipur vide Memo No. 5 dated 07.01.1975. He brought this letter
with him and forwarding note.
He further deposed that Sh. R.P.
Malhotra (PW-138) was Deputy Controller of Explosive and working

under him in January 1975. He had seen him writing and signing and
he is in a position to identify his handwriting and signatures. The
receipt of the exhibits and letters was given by Sh. R.P. Malhotra.
Seal of the exhibits were checked by him with reference to specimen
of the seal available on the forwarding letter, which tallied and was
intact.
For the purpose of examining the articles, he gave the
following marking:A
One Base Plug
One striker with its spring
One piece of soft metal having impression of spring
Fifty pieces of cast iron splinters.
Remnants of Ignitors Set.
F
G
Scrapings from wooden plank from the "Seat" of

explosion
One piece of lever, and
Two pieces of cast iron splinters
594. Ex.PW-51/A
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
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,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
672
which had exploded on the Rostrum of Platform No. 3, Samastipur.

He deposed that mostly the remnants were found in two rooms of the
house of Sh. Sahu and most of them in the store room. The remnants
were consisting of base-plug, striker with a spring, remnants of Ignitor
Set, pin and lever and 40 pieces of cast iron splinters. He also found
pin and lever and some pieces of such cast iron splinters in the
adjoining room of the store room. There was a door in between these
two rooms. He advised the Police Officers to seize the said exhibits
after observing legal formalities and send the same to the office of
Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, East Circle, Calcutta for
examination in the laboratory.
He gave his Preliminary Report
Ex.PW-51/D on 05.1.1975 which is in his handwriting and bears his

signatures. He gave this report to Sh. K.D. Singh, DSP, CID, Patna.
He also deposed that a sealed packet along with a letter dated 6.1.1975
Mark PW-51/B was received on 09.1.1975 by Sh. R.P. Malhotra. It
was duly forwarded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur vide
memo dated 07.01.1975.
He identified the signatures of Sh. R.P.
Malhotra on copy of the receipt Mark PW-51/C. He deposed that

seals of the packet were intact which tallied with the facsimile of the
seal available on Mark PW-51/B and sealed parcel was opened by
him, which was found containing articles base-plug, striker with a
spring, remnants of Igniter Sets, safety pin and lever and 40 pieces of
cast iron splinters, and these exhibits were handed over to Assistant
Chemical Examiner Sh. A. Roy along with memo. He (PW-51)

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
673
received Chemical Examiner Report Ex.PW-51/E on 29.1.1975 and as

per the opinion of Chemical Examiner, those exhibits were found to be
remnants of the hand grenade containing T.N.T. and such hand
grenade could endanger life on explosion. He deposed that Ex.PW51/F is the carbon copy of his correct Report dated 01.2.1975 and bear
his signatures at point A. As per this report Ex.PW-51/F, Sh. N.G.
Kundu has expressed his opinion that the above said articles have the
remnants of exploded hand grenade containing Tri-nitro-toluene
(T.N.T) and such a grenade could endanger life on explosion. (Mark
PW-51/B and Mark PW-51/C are available in Folder R-2).
598. Ex.PW-51/D
is
Preliminary
handwritten
Report
dated
05.01.1975 of Sh. N.G. Kundu, mentioning the fact of visit at the spot
on 04.01.1975 i.e. at the house of Sh. Mahadev Sahu and recovery of
the above said items.
Ex.PW-51/D is available in Folder R-14.
Ex.PW-51/E is the carbon copy of the report of Sh. A. Ray, Chemical

Examiner dated 29.01.1975 and after examining the exhibits found at
the house of Mahadev Sahu at Samastipur Mark "A" to "E", he was of
the opinion that T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro-Toluene) was found in the items "A"
and "E". Ex.PW-51/E is available in Folder R-2. Ex.PW-51/F is the
Report dated 01.02.1975 of Sh. N.G. Kundu (PW-51) to the effect that
he visited the residence of Sh. Mahadev Sahu on 04.01.1975 and on
his instructions the before said exhibits were seized by the Police,
which have been marked by him A to E and these exhibits were

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
674
received in their office on 09.01.1975. In his report, he has mentioned

that these items were the remnants of a exploded hand grenade
containing T.N.T. and was of the service original and such hand
grenade could endanger human life on explosion.
Ex.PW-51/F is

599. In his cross-examination, PW-51 has denied the suggestion that
he had made up his mind at the spot in connivance with the CBI. He
volunteered that at that time no CBI men was present at the spot. He
further answered that after examining the scene of explosion, remnants
and conducting local enquiry, he came to the conclusion that the
remnants were of hand grenades. He has given his both reports in his
handwriting at Samastipur itself. He further replied that the remnants
were received in their Calcutta office in sealed parcels.
He had
personally broken the seal and checked the exhibits in the parcel with
reference to the details, which were then handed over by him
personally to the Assistant Chemical Examiner for chemical
examination. Those remnants were again sealed with their seal along
with the copy of the report of Assistant Chemical Examiner. He
admitted the suggestion of the defence that his final report is based on
his physical examination of the remnants and also his inspection at the
spot and report of Assistant Chemical Examiner. He could not detect
any pin in the remnants of the hand grenade, which exploded on the
Platform. He has denied the suggestion that his purpose of visit the

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.
At the spot, PW-51 has given his Preliminary Report
Ex.PW-51/A. It is also evident from the statement of PW-51 that he

visited the house of Mahadev Sahu on 04.01.1975 and there also he
found similar remnants of the bomb and on his directions those
remnants were collected by the Police officials and the same were also
sent by a separate letter to the Controller of Explosive at Calcutta
through PW-149.
As per the reports of the Chemical Examiner
Ex.PW-51/B pertaining to remnants collected from the Platform No. 3

of Samastipur Railway Station and on chemical examination, he found
items No. "D", "F" and "H" containing T.N.T. (Tri-Nitro-Toluene).
Similarly vide report Ex.PW-51/E pertaining to remnants collected
from the house of Mahadev Sahu at Samastipur and on chemical
examination, he found items No. "A" and "E" containing T.N.T. (TriNitro-Toluene). Both these reports of Sh. A. Ray, Assistant Chemical
Examiner have been proved to be in his handwriting by PW-51, who

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
opinion expressed in the reports is not rebutted by any evidence nor

did cross-examination shatter the opinion of the expert that the
remnants were not collected from the spot.
53) Owning the cause of the crime.

602. The prosecution has presented certain material before this court
by way of documentary evidence by which, another link in the chain
of the events could be attributed to accused persons charge sheeted.
The documentary evidence are Manuscript in Hindi Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1)
and a printed pamphlet in Hindi Ex.PW-20/A. The pamphlet and the
manuscript were found in the office of UNI, Patna Bureau on the very
next day of the crime committed at the Platform No. 3, Samastipur
Railway Station.
The evidence available on record regarding the
collection of the evidence and the ratification of the same through the
prosecution witnesses and linking it with the accused is to be analyzed
in the totality of the circumstances presented by the prosecution. This
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
678
documentary evidence was found in the office of UNI. In order to

establish the same, the prosecution has examined PW-20 Sh. Farzand
Ahmad, Staff Reporter of UNI, PW-21 Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha, Bureau
Manager, PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra, Journalist attached to
the Patriot and the Link and the seizure of the same were conducted by
Sh. K.N. Tiwari (PW-124), Inspector of Police, CBI.
603. PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmad deposed that he was working as
staff reporter in January 1975 in UNI, Patna Bureau and during those
days Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21) was the Chief of their Bureau and
both of them were working in the same office. He knew Chander
Mohan Mishra (PW-22), who was special correspondent of Patriot
and Link papers at Patna.
He testified that Patriot is daily
newspaper while Link is a weekly and both were published from

Delhi. In the month of January 1975, Chander Mohan Mishra (PW22) was having his office at Patna, who was a regular visitor to their
office. On 03.1.1975 (afternoon) at about 2.00 or 3.00 PM while he
was present along with Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21) in his office, a
manuscript Ex.PW-2/B and a printed leaflet (Ex.PW-20/A) were seen
by them and both these papers were found tagged. He saw these
papers during sorting process and he had shown them to the Bureau
Chief Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21) who, after going through those
papers, asked him to keep the same with him and next day i.e.
04.1.1975, Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22) came in their office.
During discussion, there was a reference of these two documents and
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
came in picture only after 10.01.1975, whereas these documents were

dropped in the office of UNI on the next day of incident i.e.
03.01.1975. On the other hand, it is elicited that PW-20 has shown
these letters to Chander Mohan Mishra when D.N. Jha mentioned
about these documents on 03.01.1975 and that these documents were
in the almirah, when Chander Mohan Mishra came to their office.
The other accused have chosen not to cross-examine this witness.
605. The Manuscript in Hindi Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) seized from the
Office of UNI reads as under:
- ,


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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
683
This country belongs to Ram and Krishna, much

more than it belongs Gandhi Gautam. Rama and
Krishna not only blew the conch against injustice,
oppression and exploitation, but also drawn the
moralists on one platform and led them in getting
victory upon opponents.
Therefore, it is an
paradox to speak volumes of non-violence on one

hand while killing the peaceful, unarmed and
innocent students.
It is hereby made clear to despotic ruler Smt. Indira
Gandhi that the revolutionary movement is
irrepressible and invincible. All the attempts of its
suppression will strengthen the roots of this great
movement and its branches - offshoots would
spread in all directions. We also want to make it
clear to the officers of C.I.D., Police and Courts
etc. that they shouldnt take risk by participating in
the suppressive actions of the Government and
invite trouble for them. All those active in
opposing the revolutionaries would be targeted by
selective
methods
to
avenge
their
actions.
Pandavas did not spare even Bhishmpitamah,

Dronacharya and others.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
684
We appeal to Mrs. Indira Gandhi to be away from

the corrupt and dishonest and to associate with the
moralists and humanists forces to initiate war
without any delay against the poverty and
oppression.
Vindictive and oppressive attitudes would turn out
more dear.
If she doesnt change her present
attitude, her death would be that of a sinner rather

than a martyr. We appeal to the public to declare
by all means the names of all those who are
responsible for ruining and destroying their life.
But there be not any place for personal enmity,
communal ill-will, due narrow emotions.)
607. The above said manuscript Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) was found tagged
with a printed pamphlet in Hindi Ex.PW-20/A which reads as under:
, -
1.
2. - -
,
3. -, ,
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
Ever committed in creating a new Bharat based on morality and

humanity
Shashastra Krantikari Chhatra Sangh

Armed Revolutionary Students Association
609. PW-21 Dhariya Nand Jha deposed that in the year 1975, he was
working as Bureau Manager, UNI, Patna and Farzand Ahmad (PW20) was working as staff reporter in January 1975 in their office and
both of them used to sit in the same office. During those days Sh.
Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22) was special correspondent for Patriot
& Link papers at Patna and he did not have his office. He (PW-22)
often used to visit their office. On 03.1.1975, between 2.00 and 3.00
PM, while he was present in his office at Patna with Farzand Ahmad
(PW-20), the documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A were given to
him that day by Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) and after a cursory look on
these two documents, he asked Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) to keep these
two documents with him. Next day on 04.1.1975, Sh. Chander Mohan
Mishra (PW-22) came in his office and there was a general discussion
among them about the receipt of these two documents previous day in
their office and these two documents were shown to Sh. Chander
Mohan Mishra (PW-22) by Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20).
These
documents were returned by Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra (PW-22)

after going through the same and he asked Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW20) to keep them in his custody. He did not give any news item

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
687
through UNI in respect of these two documents as there was no

signature of any proper authority thereon and there was no print line
on Ex.PW-20/A. He deposed that these two documents were taken
into possession by CBI officials in their office vide Seizure Memo
Ex.PW-20/B and CBI officials came in their office for tracing the
news published in Link weekly and these two documents were given
to CBI officials by Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) in his presence and
that of UNI correspondent of Samastipur Sh. Dhaneshwar Singh. He
testified that Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B bears his signatures at point
B with date 19.7.75 and documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A were
signed by him, Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20), and Dhaneshwar Singh
at points B, A & C respectively.
610. The cross-examination revolved around minute details and it
only fortifies that the CBI visited the office of PW-21 and inquired
about any documents from the witness. The witness volunteered that
CBI firstly visited Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra and only through him,
after getting the information that a news item was published in "The
Link", which the CBI had shown to PW-21 also. This witness had
replied the cross-examination that he did not inform the CBI about the
publication in "The Link". It is also elicited that Chander Mohan
Mishra was not present when CBI visited. The cross-examination of
this witness further creates a bonding link with the evidence of PW-20
that Chander Mohan Mishra earlier met PW-20 before publishing the
news item in "The Link". Certain unwanted questions were put to this
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
688
witness whether the manuscript contained the name of L.N. Mishra,

the date, the mention of a pistol and the number of people, taking part
in the incident, the sender of the manuscript, etc. When the document
itself is self-explanatory, the line of cross-examination does not go to
discredit the version of this witness. In the cross-examination, the
accused further stressed the need of identification of these documents,
which the witness had identified. Thus the line of cross examination
does not go to show that these documents are fabricated or implanted.
The non-mentioning by him about the print line unavailable in his
previous statement Ex.PW-21/DA and this omission does not strike at
the root of the credibility of this witness since this witness had
sustained the extensive cross-examination. The accused Gopalji and
Ranjan Dwivedi did not choose to cross-examine this witness.
611. PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra deposed that in January
1975, he was attached to daily paper Patriot and weekly magazine
Link and he has been working for Link weekly since the year
1960. He knew Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21) who was his friend
and a co-professional and in January, 1975, Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) was
having his office at Fraser Road, Patna and he often used to visit Sh.
D.N. Jha (PW-21) in his office in connection with his professional
work, and on 4.1.1975, he visited his office and he found Sh. D.N.
Jha (PW-21) and Farzand Ahmad (PW-20) in their office and Sh.
D.N. Jha (PW-21) told him that a very interesting paper was received
in connection with L.N. Mishra murder case and on his request, Sh.
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
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.
This Journalist was unnecessarily put to shame by
suggesting that he claimed air fare from the court. It is also elicited
that due to the paucity of time, he travelled by the air otherwise he
would leave Patna one day earlier. He was very humble in submitting
that in case the court was not to grant him air fare, the balance amount
would be borne by him. This shows his politeness and sobriety.
Further, he is neither a stock witness nor an interested witness and he
has no axe to grind against the accused persons. The prolix 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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
691
Sashatra Krantikari Chhatra Sangh in Patna

which said,
The Samastipur incident was only the first
effective attack by the armed revolutionaries on
the status quoists and the corrupt administrative
machinery. It asked Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi to give up repressive measures which
would prove costly for her. If she does not
change her present attitude she will not die the
death of a martyr but of a sinner (papi). In an
attached printed leaflet, it said that corrupt
officials, minister, legislators and communists
would all have to face death.
614. These two documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A were taken
into possession by PW-124 Sh. K.N. Tiwari. He deposed that in
January 1975, he was working as Inspector of Police with CBI at
Shilong, and in January 1975, on the instructions from the Head
Office of CBI, New Delhi, he went to Samastipur on 10.1.1975 in
connection with the investigation of L.N. Mishra case and reported to
Harbans Singh, SP, CBI who directed him to assist Sh. H.L. Ahuja,
Chief Investigation officer of the case and he was acting under the
specific instructions of Sh. Ahuja. He stated that on 19.7.1975, he
seized Hindi handwritten pamphlets Ex.PW-2/B from Sh. Farzand
Ahmad (PW-20) of UNI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-20/B which bears
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
692
his signatures at point D, signatures of Sh. Farzand Ahmad (PW-20)

at point A, of Sh. D.N. Jha (PW-21) at point B and Sh. Dhaneshwar
Singh at point C. This seizure memo Ex.PW-20/B dated 19.7.1975 is
available in Folder R-13 and as per this memo, two documents i.e.
manuscript in Hindi bearing SASHATRA KRANTIKARI CHHATRA
SANGH- PRESS SAMAGRI (one sheet) and one printed leaflet of
Sashstra Krantikari Sangh were seized from Sh. Farzand Ahmad
(PW-20) and this is signed by Sh. Farzand Ahmed at point A, Sh. D.N.
Jha at point B and Sh. Dhaneshwar Singh at point C. CBI officer Sh.
K.N. Tiwari signed it at point D.
615. The cross-examination of this witness is lengthy with regard to
his association in the investigation on different dates, but for the
purposes of the subject in topic we are concerned with the proceedings
conducted by him during investigation, while seizing these two
documents Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-20/A under seizure memo Ex.PW20/B. The cross-examination simply fortifies that the Seizure Memo
was prepared in the presence of the witness namely Farzand Ahmad
and that when the Inspector visited the UNI office, Farzand Ahmad
and D.N. Jha were present. The cross-examination does not go to
discredit the Seizure and the proceedings of the day, while the material
concerning the manuscript and the pamphlets were seized. The
evidence of this witness corroborates the say of PW-20 Farzand
Ahmad, PW-21 D.N. Jha and PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
693
54) Tracing the handwriting/author of the

manuscript Ex.PW-2/B.
616. Having thus found that the seizure of these two documents
corroborated with the oral testimony of witnesses PW-20 to PW-22
and PW-124, now the pivotal question is to find out as to how to link
the same to the accused persons. The document-manuscript is very
significant and vital to connect the link to the accused Santoshanand.
This document is vital since the same was dropped in the office of
UNI, Patna, the very next day of the gruesome incident at Samastipur
Railway Station having a quotation in the manuscript Ex.PW-2/B
referring to Samastipur bomb blast.
617. PW-2 deposed that Santoshanand used to write in his presence
and he can identify his signatures and writing. He stayed with
Santoshanand up to the end of 1972. He further testified that the Press
Samagri encircled red Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), being the manuscript seized,
which is referred in the preceding paragraphs and the writing Ex.PW2/C (Q-2), being the scribbling found on the Note Book of Ashok
Lodge/Ashok Niketan, Patna, proved through PW-23, are in the
handwriting of accused Santoshanand. He deposed that during his 3
years stay at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi, he used to work on
press and distribute the publications and whatever was written in the
handwriting of Santoshanand, used to be composed by him for the
press. He also identified the writing in Hindi encircled with red mark
Q-3 on slip Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A) in the handwriting of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
694
accused Santoshanand. This slip Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A) was

found recovered in the search carried at the house of accused Gopalji
at Chautham on 17.05.1975 by PW-134 in the presence PW-91.
618. PW-2 deposed that by the end of 1969, he received a telegram
from Aacharya Advetanand to go to Ranchi. Aacharya Advetanand
was the Financial Secretary of Proutist Forum of India, a wing of
Anand Marg and its head office was at D-41, South Extension, Part-I,
New Delhi. PW-2 stayed at Ranchi for a day or two and was brought
to New Delhi by Advetanand. On the ground floor of D-41, South
Extension, Part-I, New Delhi, there was a printing press and on 1st
Floor, the office of Proutist Forum of India was there. The same was
also used for boarding and lodging. At New Delhi, he was introduced
to Santoshanand by Advetanand. At that time, accused Santoshanand
was working as Editor of newspaper Prout and magazine Education
& Culture. PW-2 testified that accused Santoshanand used to write in
his presence and thus able to identify his signatures and handwriting.
He also identified the writing Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) in blue circle and the
words are in the handwriting of Santoshanand which are available in
the copy book pertaining to Ashok Niketan Ex.P-6 (also Ex.PW23/A). At page no.25 of his deposition he further testified that the Slip
Ex.PW-2/M (Q-3) (also Ex.PW-33/A) is in the handwriting of
Santoshanand. He identified the signatures written as Vinod and the
date written beneath the signatures as 15.11.73, which could also be
read as 74 to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. Perusal
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
695
of the document Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M (Q-3) clearly reflects the

date to be 15.11.1974.
619. The minute scrutiny of the lengthy cross-examination of PW-2,
running into 350 pages, does not shatter the deposed ability of PW-2
in recognising, identifying the signatures, the handwriting of
Santoshanand. There has been no cross-examination on his
competence. There is no cross-examination to put forth that the
writings found in Ex.PW-2/B, Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/M are not in
the handwriting of accused Santoshanand. Furthermore, it is pertinent
to note that before the advent of computers into the printing
technology, it was always the compositors who used to do all the
composition by sorting out the individual letters of different fonts
from the stock of metal letters or by typing them lino-type, so that the
matter is composed and made ready for printing. It is the primary duty
of a compositor to choose and compose the letters according to the
manuscript.
The compositor used to compose all the letters into
several lines and would produce a galley. Such galleys are taken out
and by printing ink and replica is produced. Thus the initial copy is
produced before it is sent for proof reading. After such proof reading,
the compositor used to correct the same. In such circumstances, a
compositor was fully acquainted of the scribbling, be it any manner or
speed of any author. Alas ! The days of composition, galleys, printing
copy, proof reading and all such wonderful methods of precision in
writing and publication went into oblivion after the new era of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
696
computers and information technology. In the instant case, the

occupation of PW-2 in the printing press of the publications "Prout"
and "Education & Culture", was that of a compositor as deposed by
him. Accused Santoshanand had been the editor of both these
publications. Thus, PW-2 was very much acquainted, familiar and
knowledgeable with regard to every type of scribbling by his editor
Santoshanand. Thus, the testimony of PW-2 that he was capable of
identifying the writings of Santoshanand is highly trustworthy,
dependable and cogent. This observation is warranted in the
background of the accused having not cross-examined with regard to
his competency and there being no cross-examination elicited to
establish that the writings found in Ex.PW-2/B, Ex.PW-2/C and
Ex.PW-2/M are not in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand.
Thus, this court can simply do away with any other evidence as
superfluous, however the prosecution has examined some more
independent witnesses also for establishing the handwriting of
Santoshanand, which is discussed in the succeeding Paras.
620. The testimony of the approver Vikram (PW-2) that the above
said three documents i.e. Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and
Ex.PW-2/M = Ex.PW-33/A (Q-3) are in the handwriting of accused
Santoshanand has been corroborated by PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar
Basedar. PW-68 deposed that he was posted in Delhi as Finance
Secretary. He was also designated as Press and Paper Secretary of
PFI. Earlier there was office at premises No. C-18, South Extension-I,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
697
New Delhi and then in D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi.

Santoshanand, Editor of Hindi Prout, was residing at D-41, South
Extension-I,
New
Delhi.
(He
correctly
identified
accused
Santoshanand in the court.) He deposed that many workers including

Vikram (PW-2) used to distribute the publications and he remained
with Santoshanand till he left the organization in January 1972.
Santoshanand was working under him and during this period, he had
seen Santoshanand writing and signing and he used to write both in
English and Hindi and he would be in a position to identify the
handwriting of
Santoshanand.
He
identified
the
writing of
Santoshanand Ex.PW-2/B (in Hindi), Ex.PW-2/C (in English),

Ex.PW-33/A (in Hindi), mark A-1 to A-72 in Kohinoor Exercise Book
mark P-22. (Ex.PW-2/B has writing Q-1, Ex.PW-2/C has writing Q-2
and Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M has writing Q-3.)
621. This witness was also subject to lengthy cross-examination by
the accused persons including Santoshanand running into 25 pages
spread over four dates. However, nothing could be elicited in his
cross-examination on the vital points for which he was examined by
the prosecution. The accused persons including Santoshanand have
not demolished the competency of this witness to identify the
handwriting and signatures of accused Santoshanand. They have also
not discredited the witness that he has wrongly identified the persons
and the writing of accused Santoshanand on Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1),
Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-2/M = Ex.PW-33/A (Q-3). The accused
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
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.
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.
This manuscript Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) along with a
printed leaflet Ex.PW-20/A was found in the office of UNI at Patna on

the succeeding day i.e. 03.01.1975 after the gruesome incident at
Samastipur Railway Station on 02.01.1975, and this manuscript starts
by referring Samastipur Bomb Blast and suggesting further threat to
the Government, the then Prime Minister Late Smt. Indira Gandhi,
Officers of C.I.D, Police and Courts etc. and all those who oppose
their cult. The recovery of this document in the office of UNI Patna
has also been established by PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmad, PW-21 Sh.
Dhariya Nand Jha, PW-22 Sh. Chander Mohan Mishra and PW-124
Sh. K.N. Tiwari, Inspector of Police, CBI. The possibility of
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
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
627. The handwriting on these three relevant and material documents

Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-2/M (Q-3) have been
proved to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand by the
testimony of PW-2, PW-23, PW-33 and PW-68. The prosecution has
also obtained the opinion of Government Examiner of Questioned
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
703
Documents (GEQD). For this purpose, the Investigation Officer had

taken the specimen handwritings and signatures of accused
Santoshanand during the investigations.
After examining the
questioned writing with the specimen handwriting of the questioned

documents Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW-2/M (Q3), GEQD PW-43 Sh. B. Lal has given his opinion that these writings
are in the handwriting of the same person. Now I refer the relevant
witnesses on the subject.
628. PW-32 Sh. Satnam Singh deposed that on 11.8.1975 he was
working as MM, Delhi. On that day, Santoshanand @ Ghanshyam
Prasad son of Narendra Narayan Verma was produced before him for
taking his specimen writing by some officers. Santoshanand did not
raise any objection and gave his specimen writing of his own in his
presence on three sheets and he appended his certificate and those
sheets are Ex.PW-32/A1 to Ex.PW-32/A3. His correct certificate with
his signature appears at Point "A" on all these three sheets. In his
cross-examination on behalf of accused Arteshanand and Gopalji, he
admitted their suggestion that a person is always produced in the court
with an application in which request is made for obtaining specimen
writing and order is passed on such application to the effect that the
person is willing to give specimen writing and thereafter his specimen
writing is taken.
However, despite opportunity, the accused
Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi did not choose to

cross-examine the witness. It is not at all suggested to the witness that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
704
specimen writing of accused Santoshanand was obtained forcibly or

by inducement or allurement. The testimony of PW-32 has not been
discredited by the accused persons including Santoshanand that
Ex.PW-32/A-1 to A-3 does not bear the specimen handwriting of
accused Santoshanand. Therefore, from the testimony of PW-32, it has
been proved that sheets Ex.PW-32/A-1 to A-3 were voluntarily written
by the accused Santoshanand bearing his specimen handwriting.
(Ex.PW-32/A-1 to Ex.PW-32/A3 are available in
Folder R-13)
629. PW-29 Sh. K.K. Dey, the then Extra Assistant Director with
M/s. Waterways Irrigation & Navigation Directorate, deposed that on
10.7.1975, on the direction of his Director, he accompanied CBI men
to their office in R.K. Puram. Accused Santoshanand was called there
and thereafter Dy. SP dictated to Santoshanand, who had written the
writing on nine or ten sheets in his presence and he (PW-29) has
signed all these sheets. These sheets were also signed by his colleague
Sh. Naresh Kumar. The witness has identified those nine sheets which
are Ex.P-79 (9 sheets) in the summoned file of Sessions Case No. 9 of
1976. The file was brought from Honble High Court brought by
LDC and copies thereof are Ex.PW-29/A (9 sheets). He identified
accused Santoshanand in the court and stated that at that time he was
not sporting the beard, long hair and mustaches. In his crossexamination, he answered that he was sitting on one side of the same
table on which Santoshanand was sitting while writing. He had seen

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
705
Santoshanand writing in his presence. He has denied the suggestion

that these papers were not written by Santoshanand in his presence.
(Ex.PW-29/A is available in Folder R-15)
630. PW-39 Sh. Rajinder Thukral deposed that in July 1975, he was
working as Officer Grade-I with State Bank of India, R.K. Puram
Branch, New Delhi. In July, 1975, Dy. SP Sardari Lal, CBI met their
Branch Manager, who deputed him and his colleague Sh. B.K. Tuteja.
Sh. Rajender Thukral, inter-alia, deposed that specimen handwriting
of Santoshanand were taken in his presence and that of Sh. B.K.
Tuteja by Sh. Sardari Lal, Dy. SP. He would be in a position to
identify Santoshanand and identified him correctly by pointing
towards him. He also deposed that at that time accused Santoshanand
was in plain clothes and not wearing BHAGWA dress and he did not
raise any objection in giving his specimen writing. He identified the
writing Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A-10, which accused wrote in his
presence and that of Sh. B.K. Tuteja. (Here it is pertinent to mention
that learned predecessor of this Court, who recorded deposition of
PW-39, has corrected statement of PW-39 at page No.889 under his
initials from Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A-10 as Ex.PW-39/L-1 to
Ex.PW-39/L-10. However, exhibits mark on the specimen writing
remained the same Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A-10 under the
signatures of my learned predecessor). He identified his signatures
and that of Sh. B.K. Tuteja on all three documents. In his crossexamination by accused Ranjan Dwivedi, PW-39 answered that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
706
Santoshanand was given blank full scape paper. Despite opportunity,

PW-39 was not cross-examined by other accused persons including
Santoshanand. It is not suggested that Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A10 do not bear the specimen handwriting of accused Santoshanand.
(Ex.PW-39/A-1 to Ex.PW-39/A-10 are available
in Folder R-13)
631. The opinion of GEQD dated 19.9.1975 Sh. B. Lal is Ex.PW43/J (available in Folder R-14). PW-43 Sh. B. Lal has compared the
questioned writing Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and Ex.PW33/A=Ex.PW-2/M (Q-3) with the specimen writing of the accused
Santoshanand Ex.PW-32/A-1 to Ex.PW-32/A-3 (3 sheets) and Ex.PW39/A-1 to PW-39/A-10 (S-19 to S-31) and vide his report Ex.PW-43/J,
he found that the person who wrote the writing stamped and marked as
S-19 to S-31, S-32 to S-44 also wrote the writing similarly marked and
stamped Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3. PW-43 proved his report Ex.PW-43/J and
he also deposed that the person (Santoshanand) who wrote the writing
S-19 to S-31 (Ex.PW-32/A-1 to Ex.PW-32/A-3 and Ex.PW-39/A-1 to
Ex.PW-39/A-10) also wrote the writing Q-1 (Ex.PW-2/B), Q-2
(Ex.PW-2/C) and Q-3 (Ex.PW-33/A=Ex.PW-2/M) and all the writings
agree in general and in individual habits such as movements which is
wrist and forearm combined, pen presentation, pen pressure which is
medium and smooth, skill which is superior, relative size and spacing
and proportion of letters and similarities in individual habit writing are
also found in both the writings.

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.
This judgment has been followed by Honble
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
708
respondent Boota Singh taken by the police during

investigation. Mr. Mulla submitted that the act of
the investigating officer in taking the specimen
signature of the respondent Boota Singh was hit by
Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and
also amounted to testimonial compulsion so as to
violate the guarantee contained in Article 20 (3) of
the Constitution.
integra
The matter is no longer res
and is concluded by a decision of this
Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu

Oghad (1962) 3 SCR 10 where the court observed
as follows (At P.1820 of AIR SC):That is why it must be held that by giving these
impressions or specimen handwriting, the accused
person does not furnish evidence against himself.
So when an accused person is compelled to give a
specimen handwriting or impressions of his finger,
palm or foot, it may be said that he has been
compelled to be a witness; it cannot however be
said that he had been compelled to be a witness
against himself.
It was also held that merely taking a specimen
handwriting does not amount to be giving a

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
709
statement so as to be hit by Section 162, Criminal

Procedure Code.
In view of this decision of the Court, Mr. Mulla
did not pursue the point further.
634. Honble Supreme Court has also followed these judgments
recently also. In its celebrated judgment titled as State (N.C.T. of
Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru 2005 (11) SCC 600, the
relevant observations found at Para No. 18 of the judgement calls for
attention as under: This conclusion was reached by the High
Court even after excluding the evidence of PW-23,
Principal Scientific Officer who confirmed that the
signatures on the delivery receipt-Ext. PW-1/6
tallied with his specimen signatures.
In this
context, a contention was raised before the High

Court that in view of Section 27 of POTA,
specimen signature should not have been obtained
without the permission of the Court. In reply to
this contention urged before the High Court, Mr.
Gopal Subramanium, the learned senior counsel
for the State clarified that on the relevant date,
when the specimen signatures of Afzal were
obtained, the investigation was not done under the
POTA provisions and de hors the provisions of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
710
POTA, there was no legal bar against obtaining the

handwriting samples. The learned counsel relied
upon by the 11 Judge Bench decision of this Court
of State of Bombay v. Kathikalu Oghad 1962 (3)
SCR 10 in support of his contention that Article 20
(3) of the Constitution was not infringed by taking
the specimen handwriting or signature or thumb
impressions of a person in custody. Reference has
also drawn to the decision of this Court in State of
U.P. v. Boota Singh (1979) 1 SCC 31. We find
considerable force in this contention advanced by
Mr. Gopal Subramanium.."
635. The latest judgment of Honble Supreme Court on the point is
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India 2011 (2)
SCC 490 and straight question before Honble Supreme Court was
as to whether in cases prior to amendment in Cr. PC in 2005, the I.O.
has power to obtain specimen writing and Honble Supreme Court
answered it in the affirmative and relevant Para reads as under:35. Another question which we have to consider
is whether the Police (CBI) had the power under
the Criminal Procedure Code to take specimen
signature and writing of A3 for examination by the
expert. It was pointed out that during investigation,
even the Magistrate cannot direct the accused to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
711
give his specimen signature on the asking of the

police and only in the amendment of the Criminal
Procedure Code in 2005, power has been given to
the Magistrate to direct any person including the
accused to give his specimen signature for the
purpose of investigation. Hence, it was pointed out
that taking of his signature/writings being per se
illegal, the report of the expert cannot be used as
evidence against him. To meet the above claim,
learned Addl. Solicitor General heavily relied on a
11-Judge Bench decision of this Court in The State
of Bombay v. Kathikalu Oghad and Ors., (1962) 3
SCR 10. This larger Bench was constituted in order
to re-examine some of the propositions of law laid
down by this Court in the case of M.P. Sharma and
Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi
and Ors., (1954) SCR 1077. After adverting to
various
factual
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
accused could be said to have been 'a witness

against himself' within the meaning of Article
20(3) of the Constitution; and (2) whether the mere
fact that when those specimen handwritings had
been given, the accused person was in police
custody could, by itself, amount to compulsion,
apart from any other circumstances which could be
urged as vitiating the consent of the accused in
giving those specimen handwritings. ... ...
4. ... ... The main question which arises for
determination in this appeal is whether a direction
given by a Court to an accused person present in
Court to give his specimen writing and signature
for the purpose of comparison under the provisions
of section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act infringes
the fundamental right enshrined in Article 20(3) of
the Constitution.
The following conclusion/answers are relevant:
10. ... ... Furnishing evidence" in the latter sense
could not have been within the contemplation of
the Constitution- makers for the simple reason that
- though they may have intended to protect an
accused person
from the hazards of
self-
incrimination, in the light of the English Law on

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
713
the subject - they could not have intended to put

obstacles in the way of efficient and effective
investigation into crime and of bringing criminals
to justice. The taking of impressions or parts of the
body of an accused person very often becomes
necessary to help the investigation of a crime. It is
as much necessary to protect an accused person
against being compelled to incriminate himself, as
to arm the agents of law and the law courts with
legitimate powers to bring offenders to justice. ...
11. ... ... When an accused person is called upon by
the Court or any other authority holding an
investigation to give his finger impression or
signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is
not giving any testimony of the nature of a
'personal testimony'. The giving of a 'personal
testimony' must depend upon his volition. He can
make any kind of statement or may refuse to make
any statement. But his finger impressions or his
handwriting, in spite of efforts at concealing the
true nature of it by dissimulation cannot change
their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger
impressions or of
specimen writing or of
signatures by an accused person, though it may

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
714
amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense,

is not included within the expression 'to be a
witness'.
12. ... ... A specimen handwriting or signature or
finger impressions by themselves are no testimony
at all, being wholly innocuous because they are
unchangeable except in rare cases where the ridges
of the fingers or the style of writing have been
tampered with. They are only materials for
comparison in order to lend assurance to the Court
that its inference based on other pieces of evidence
is reliable. They are neither oral nor documentary
evidence but belong to the third category of
material evidence which is outside the limit of
'testimony'.
16. In view of these considerations, we have come
to the following conclusions :(1) An accused person cannot be said to have been
compelled to be a witness against himself simply
because he made a statement while in police
custody, without anything more. In other words,
the mere fact of being in police custody at the time
when the statement in question was made would
not, by itself, as a proposition of law, lend itself to

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
715
the inference that the accused was compelled to

make
the
statement,
though
that
fact,
in
conjunction with other circumstances disclosed in

evidence in a particular case, would be a relevant
consideration in an enquiry whether or not the
accused person had been compelled to make the
impugned statement.
(2) The mere questioning of an accused person by
a police officer, resulting in a voluntary statement,
which may ultimately turn out to be incriminatory,
is not 'compulsion'.
(3) 'To be a witness' is not equivalent to 'furnishing
evidence' in its widest significance; that is to say,
as including not merely making of oral or written
statements but also production of documents or
giving materials which may be relevant at a trial to
determine the guilt innocence of the accused.
(4) Giving thumb impressions or impressions of
foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or
showing parts of the body by way of identification
are not included in the expression 'to be a witness'.
(5) 'To be a witness' means imparting knowledge
in respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
716
a statement in writing, made or given in Court or

otherwise.
(6) 'To be a witness' in its ordinary grammatical
sense means giving oral testimony in Court. Case
law
has
gone
beyond
this
strict
literal
interpretation of the expression which may now

bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony
in Court or out of Court by a person accused of an
offence, orally or in writing.
(7) To bring the statement in question within the
prohibition of Article 20(3), the person accused
must have stood in the character of an accused
person at the time he made the statement. It is not
enough that he should become an accused, any
time after the statement has been made." In view of
the above principles, the procedure adopted by the
investigating agency, analyzed and approved by
the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court,
cannot be faulted with. In view of oral report of
Rolia Soren, PW 4 which was reduced into
writing, the evidence of PW 23, two letters dated
01.02.2002
and
02.02.2002
addressed
by
Mahendra Hembram (A3) to the trial Judge facing

his guilt coupled with the other materials, we are

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
717
unable to accept the argument of Mr. Ratnakar

Dash, learned senior counsel for Mahendra
Hembram (A3) and we confirm the conclusion
arrived by the High Court.
636. In view of the consistent view of the Honble Supreme Court
in Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Gurus case (supra), Kathikalu Oghad
Case (Supra) and Dara Singhs case (supra), investigating officer has
not committed any illegality in obtaining the specimen writing and
signatures of the accused during investigation. Here it is relevant to
refer Article 141 of the Constitution of India which reads as under:Article 141 Law declared by Supreme Court to
be binding on all courts: the law declared by the
Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts
within the territory of India.
637. It is mandated upon every court of law, the tribunals throughout
the country to follow the rulings and the law declared by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Thus, in the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the arguments advanced by the defence that the
accused was compelled to give the specimen writings violating the
law, cannot be borrowed to declare the acts of investigation as
opposed to law. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that in the crossexamination of Magistrate before whom the specimen writings were
obtained, nothing is elicited to show that the person writing the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
718
specimen was pressurized, compelled to scribe and further that the

scribbling were not that of the accused Santoshanand.
638. Be it as it may, there has been ample evidence on record to
connect the handwriting on the incriminatory documents Ex.PW-2/B,
Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A) collected by the
prosecution are in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand, which is
proved by the evidence of approver PW-2 and corroborated by PW19, PW-33 and PW-68. Thus, any amount of debate on the legality of
obtaining the specimen handwriting of the accused and comparing it
with the questioned documents does not arise nor would wittle down
the case of prosecution.
639. The writing on Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1), Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) and
Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A i.e. Q-3) have been proved to be in the
handwriting of accused Santoshanand as discussed herein before by
the testimony of PW-2 Sh. Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass and corroborated
by PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar and PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal
Prakash. The writing on Ex.PW-2/C (Q-2) is further proved by PW-23
Sh. Ashok Kumar to be in the handwriting of accused Santoshanand.
Manuscript Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) which is proved in the handwriting of
accused Santoshanand further lends credence to the criminal
conspiracy and attack on the then Railway Minister Sh. L. N. Mishra
on 02.1.1975. This Hindi manuscript Ex.PW-2/B (Q-1) along with a
printed Hindi pamphlet Ex.PW-20/A was thrown in the office of UNI,
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).
PW-20 Sh. Farzand Ahmed has
shown both these documents to Sh. Dhariya Nand Jha (PW-21), who
after going through these documents asked Sh. Farzand Ahmed (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
Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand in the court and stated

that they used to address Vinod Kumar (i.e. Santoshanand) as
Boss.
This independent witness PW-23 Ashok Kumar thus
corroborates the deposition of approver PW-2 Sh. Jaldhar Dass @

Vikram @ Subir, which disclose that all the directions have been
issued by accused Santoshanand and how he used to influence the
Anand Margies. As per the entries in the note book Ex.P-6 (also
Ex.PW-23/A) Binod Kumar (i.e. Santoshanand) stayed there from
28.12.1974 till June 1975 and entries of payment of rent/lodging
charges are reflected from January 1975 to June 1975 @ Rs.55/- per
month which are Ex.PW-23/A-2 to Ex.PW-23/A-8. Another document
Ex.PW-2/M (also Ex.PW-33/A) (i.e. Q-3) has been proved to be in the
handwriting of accused Santoshanand by deposition of PW-2 Vikram
@ Jaldhar Dass @ Subir which is corroborated by deposition of PW33 Ujjawal Prakash and PW-68 Sudhir Kumar Basedar. This slip was
recovered from the house of accused Gopalji at the time of his house
search carried on 17th May 1975 at 5 A.M. by PW-134 Sh. M.M.P.
Sinha, Inspector, IB, Patna, in the presence of two witnesses including
PW-91 Sh. Parsu Ram Singh and in this slip also, accused
Santoshanand mentioned his name as Binod Kumar and requested to
send Rs.3,900/- through bearer of the slip Sh. Bharatji on 15.11.1974.
Bharatji is none else but accused Sudevanand as deposed by the
approver PW-2 and his deposition reveals that that Sudevanand has

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.
The writing on the Note Book Ex.P-6, which is also
exhibited as Ex.PW-23/A of the Ashok Lodge/Ashok Niketan, Patna

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
identify them was never discredited.

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
way of documentary and ocular testimony of the witnesses is to be

counted as providing a missing link for completing a chain of
circumstances as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtas
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2013(4) SCC 434 following its earlier
judgment State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, 2000 (1) SCC 471.
Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (11) SCC 768.
56) Incriminatory
against A-3.
documentary
evidence
642. Although the ocular testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 decisively

corroborates the testimony of PW-2 with regard to A-3 Ranjan
Dwivedi arriving at Samastipur, a day earlier i.e. on 01.01.1975
accompanied A-1 and A-2 by bus from Muzaffarpur and awaited the
arrival of his mother and sister-in-law, who were to come from
Sitamarhi by train and he having requested PW-6 to arrange for
reservation of three tickets to Delhi for the next day, still this court is
presented with documentary evidence to prove this facts alleged. The
prosecution alleges these facts to connect A-3 with the conspiracy by
arranging entry Passes for his co-conspirators to the venue. Hence,
the appreciation of documentary evidence is inevitable, which is being
ventured hereunder.
643. The Reservation Slip duly filled-in by A-3 for reservation of
tickets to him, his mother and sister-in-law in the presence of PW-6 is
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
not given on 01.01.1975. He also deposed that the exact time of

booking can be ascertained from the entry in the register of
reservation. Despite opportunities, the other accused persons did not
opt for his cross-examination.
644. PW-54 Sh. Ganesh Prashad Gupta deposed that in the year 1975
he was working as Reservation Supervisor at Samastipur Railway
Station, and Requisition Slip for reservation Ex.PW-6/A bears initials
of Sh. R.K. Ghai (PW-40), Reservation Clerk, at point 'A' and this
was handed over by him to CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-54/A
(Mark PW-40/A). He stated that Inspector R.P. Sinha of CBI had
signed this Seizure Memo in his presence at point 'B'. He deposed that
Reservation Counter used to be opened at 06.00 AM and closed at
8.00 PM. One Reservation Clerk used to be on duty from 06.00 AM
to 02.00 P.M. and other one from 2.00 P.M. to 10.00 P.M. and after
closure of the counter at 8.00 P.M., the Reservation Clerk used to
complete his miscellaneous work during two hours. There was one
counter for 1st class and 2nd class at Railway Station, Samastipur and
in those days seats could be got reserved for trains 10 days in advance.
Cross-examination of PW-54 revolved around the incidents post 1975
initially, however the accused Gopalji and Arteshanand in their crossexamination could elicit that R.K. Ghai (PW-40) was on duty at the
relevant time.
Certain explanation is also drawn from the cross-
examination that out of the three tickets reserved two tickets were for
Ex-Samastipur to Delhi and one from Muzaffarpur to Delhi and that is
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
727
why there is change in the series of numbers. It is elicited that there is

a ticket in the name of Tara bearing No. 03796. The reservation farms
are generally preserved for a period 3 to 5 years. It is found in the
cross-examination that Ex.PW-54/A is emanated from the reliable
quarters i.e. Divisional Office of Samastipur and that this witness had
given a receipt while obtaining this register. A suggestion was made
to this witness that this witness made a false statement to help the
prosecution, which was denied. It is noteworthy that accused Ranjan
Dwivedi, Santoshanand and Sudevanand did not cross-examine the
witness despite the opportunity. Thus, the cross-examination adopted
by accused Gopalji and Arteshanand even if read on behalf of other
accused, does not destabilize the version of PW-54 about the aspect of
the reservation of tickets by the reservations form.
645. PW-126 Sh. R. P. Sinha deposed that he remained posted as
Inspector, CBI, Patna from 08.8.1967 to February 1976.
On
instructions of Sh. K. Prakash, SP, CBI, Patna, he went to Samastipur

on 04.8.1975 for part investigation of L.N. Mishra murder case. He
went to Reservation Office, Railway Station Samastipur on 4.8.1975
from where he took into possession Requisition Slip for reservation
Ex.PW-6/A from Sh. G.P. Gupta (PW-54), Reservation Supervisor,
vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-54/A (available in Folder R-13) which is
in his hand and bears his signatures at point B and signatures of G.P.
Gupta at point A. (Reservation Slip Ex.PW-6/A is available in
folder R-13). This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
728
Gopalji and Arteshanand.
This fortifies that this witness was
instructed by the SP of CBI to seize the Reservation Slip from

Samastipur Railway Station and that in the instruction letter time is
not mentioned. Non-mentioning of time in the letter of the SP is
inconsequential. It is elicited that G.P. Gupta (PW-54) produced the
reservation slip and he examined the reservation clerk. There was no
instruction to procure the reservation register. Ex.PW-6/A was not
found tagged in a wire but was taken from a bundle. The line of crossexamination does not suggest that the reservation slip seized is
fabricated.
It is again noteworthy that accused Ranjan Dwivedi,
Santoshanand and Sudevanand did not cross-examine the witness

despite the opportunity.
Thus, the cross-examination adopted by
accused Gopalji and Arteshanand even if read on behalf of other

accused, does not shatter the version of PW-126 about the aspect of
seizure of reservation form and deposition of reservation clerk.
646. I have perused the documentary evidence Ex.PW-6/A, the
Reservation Slip, which is available in Folder R-13. As per this
reservation slip three berths in third class by 85 UP Assam Mail for
02.01.1975 from Samastipur to New Delhi were reserved in the names
of three passengers namely (1) R. Dwivedi, (2) M/o R. Dwivedi, and
(3) Tara Devi at Samastipur at 11.30 AM and in the column of
applicant, Ranjan Dwivedi has signed and beneath his signature he
furnished his address as "C/o V.K. Ojha, PP RPF, SPS".
This
document is marked as Q-6 by GEQD for the purpose of comparing

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
729
handwriting of accused Ranjan Dwivedi at Point A and B. The seizure

memo dated 04.08.1975 Ex.PW-54/A concerning the Reservation Slip
Ex.PW-6/A is signed by PW-126 and PW-54 at B and A respectively.
This is also available in Folder R-13. In his statement under Section
313 Cr. PC, the accused Ranjan Dwivedi admitted that he obtained
reservation for 3 berths i.e. for himself, his mother and Bhabhi and
Reservation Slip Ex.PW-6/A was filled up by him under his
signatures.
647. Collated with the documentary evidence, the ocular testimony
of witnesses PW-40, PW-54 and PW-126 and the approver's testimony
(PW-2) and that of PW-6 makes the fact indelible that accused Ranjan
Dwivedi, Santoshanand and Sudevanand were very much present
along with approver Vikram (PW-2) on the day i.e. 02.01.1975 at
Samastipur Railway Station and that accused Ranjan Dwivedi had
applied in writing the requisition for railway tickets for himself, his
mother and Tara Devi through the help of PW-6. This fact further
cements the version after going through the address furnished of the
applicant-Ranjan Dwivedi in Ex.PW-6/A as that of "C/o V.K. Ojha,
PP, RPS, SPS" (PW-6). Thus, the presence of above accused including
Ranjan Dwivedi is highly believable without any room to doubt.
648. PW-47 Sh. Krishan Kumar Shukla, Traveling Ticket Examiner,
Railway, Kanpur deposed that on 03.1.1975, he was on duty in the
second class sleeper of Assam Mail from Kanpur to New Delhi and as
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
732
Shobha Ram, Assistant Head Ticket Collector, New Delhi Railway

Station vide seizure memo Ex.PW-132/A (available in Folder R-1)
which he correctly prepared in his hand and it was signed by Sh.
Shobha Ram at point A in his presence and his signatures are at
point B.
He stated that Mark PW-47/A (now Ex.PW-47/A)
consisting of 10 sheets was seized by him from Sh. Shobha Ram

which were signed by him at the time of its seizure. The crossexamination did not swerve the seizure of the reservation chart, which
is otherwise proved by PW-47.
650. The ocular and documentary evidence of this witness
establishes another link in the circumstances that Ranjan Dwivedi,
who was found along with the accused above named at the spot of
Samastipur, had left and travelled in the train in accordance with the
reservation, he obtained at Samastipur to go to Delhi.
57) Search at the house of A-3.
651. PW-132 Sh. B.R. Puri, Dy. SP, CBI deposed that he had been
associated with CBI since 1958 and remained associated with the
investigation of these cases from May 1975 to September 1975 and
Dy. SP H.L. Ahuja was the Chief Investigating Officer. He remained
associated with the investigation of RC No. 11 of 1975 relating to
attack on Chief Justice Ray and Dy. SP Sardari Lal was the Chief
Investigating Officer of RC No.11 of 1975 and he took part in the
investigation of the aforesaid two cases under the direction of the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
733
Chief I.O. of respective cases. He testified that on 06.7.1975 while

associated with the investigation of the case RC No.11/75 (relating to
attack on Chief Justice A. N. Ray) Chief IO Dy. SP Sardari Lal
directed him to search the house of Ranjan Dwivedi and he along with
two witnesses Mr. Narula and Mr. Vishnu Dutt Kumar (PW-115) went
to 31, National Park, New Delhi where Ranjan Dwivedi was residing
on the second floor and conducted the search of the house in the
presence of these two witnesses. At that time, Ranjan Dwivedi was
present in the house. He recovered documents and clothes from the
house of Ranjan Dwivedi vide Seizure Memo dated 06.7.1975 Ex.P137 (available in the summoned file) which he prepared correctly and
the photocopy thereof is Ex.PW-115/B (the Photostat copy of the
Search Memo Ex.PW-115/B is available in the Folder R-7. On the
search list also reference of the case No. 11/75 is mentioned on its
top). It bears signatures of Laxmi Narain Vishnu Dutt Kumar (PW115) at point A and of Ranjan Dwivedi at point B. It also bears his
signatures and that of Sh. Narula. (As per this copy of Seizure Memo
dated 06.7.1975 Ex.PW-115/B, various documents including (i)
personal diary of R. Dwivedi, 31, National Park, New Delhi for the
year 1975, (ii) personal diary of R. Dwivedi, A-75A South Extension,
Part II, New Delhi-110049 for the year 1973 and (iii) Anand Marg
Table Diary of R. Dwivedi, Advocate, Supreme Court Bar
Association, New Delhi for the year 1975 were seized.)
He also
deposed that he has also seized the documents Ex.P-133, Ex.P-133-A,

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
734
Ex.P-133-B, Ex.P-134 to Ex.P-136 from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi

and are available in the said summoned file, Photostat copies of the
same are Ex.PW-115/A-1 to Ex.PW-115/A-6 (these are also available
in the Folder R-7). He obtained the signatures of Narula and Kumar
(PW-115) on all the aforesaid documents seized from the house of
Ranjan Dwivedi.
He also testified that he has seen the pocket-cum-
purse diary Ex.P-123, Anand Marg Diary Ex.P-124 and Table Diary
Ex.P-127 and these documents are in the summoned file which were
also seized by him from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi and he obtained
the signatures of both the above said public witnesses on all the
written pages of these diaries. He deposed that writings Mark Q-13,
Q-13-A, Q-14 and Q-14-A in diary Ex.P-123 were in existence at the
time it was seized by him and Ex.PW-43/AA-194 is the juxtapose
copy of the Mark Q-13 and Q-13-A and Ex.PW-43/AA-195 is the
juxtapose copy of Mark Q-14 and Q-14A. He further deposed that
writing Mark Q-15 and Q-15-A, Q-15-B, Q-15-C and Q-15-D in diary
Ex.P-124 was existing at the time when it was seized by him and
juxtapose of the Mark Q-15 and Q-15-A is Ex.PW-43/AA-197, of 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
bedroom of Ranjan Dwivedi. He put his initials on all the papers

taken into possession by Mr. Puri from the house of Ranjan Dwivedi.
He has seen the documents Ex.P-133 to Ex.P-136, Ex.P-133-A and
Ex.P-133-B in the court (which were available in the summoned file
of the case No. 9/76 from Honble High Court) and deposed that all
these documents bear his initials and Photostat copies thereof are
Ex.PW-115/A-1 to PW-115/A-6 (Available in Folder R-7).
He
testified that he has seen diary Ex.P-127 in the said summoned file,
which bears his initials on all written pages including the page having
writing Q-20. He has also seen Anand Marg diary Ex.P-124 in the
summoned file, which bears his initials on all written pages including
the page having writing Mark Q-15, Q-15-A and Q-15-B. He has also
seen pocket-cum-purse diary Ex.P-123 in the said summoned file and
his initials appear on all these pages including the page having writing
Q-13, Q-13-A, Q-14 and Q-14-A. The search proceedings continued
for about 2 or 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
house in March 1975. They were having family relationship and on

visiting terms with Ranjan Dwivedi. Regarding the existence of
writing Q-20 in the diary Ex.P-127 at the time of the seizure PW-115
deposed that he had put his initials on this page due to existence of
some writing on it. Documents were collected from different places of
the house of Ranjan Dwivedi.
He has denied the suggestion that
Ranjan Dwivedi himself lifted the documents and handed over to Sh.
Puri. He also denied the suggestion that after planting the documents
they have been wrongly shown as recovered from the house of Ranjan
Dwivedi. Defence has not derided the testimony of PW-132 & 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
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
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
740
Point Q-15, Q-15-A, Q-15-B, Q-15-C and Q-15-D in Diary Ex.P-124

and writing Q-13, Q-14 and Q-14-A in Diary Ex.P-123. He has only
disputed his writing Q-20 in the diary Ex.P-127, which he admitted in
his statement U/s. 313 Cr. PC. He has also not discredited PW-111
about his capability to identify his handwriting and signatures.
Therefore, from the deposition of PW-111, it is proved that the writing
at Point Q-15, Q-15-A, Q-15-B, Q-15-C and Q-15-D in Diary Ex.P124 and writing Q-13, Q-14 and Q-14-A in Diary Ex.P-123 are in the
handwriting of accused Ranjan Dwivedi. Later, the accused Ranjan
Dwivedi in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC has admitted that
PW-111 Sh. Surinder Vikram Singh was acquainted with his
handwriting and identified the Requisition Form Ex.PW-6/A, filled up
on his handwriting. It is worthwhile to mention here that PW-132 has
visited the residence of accused Ranjan Dwivedi on 06.07.1975
pursuant to the instructions of Chief Investigation Officer Deputy SP
Sardari Lal of RC No. 11/1975 relating to the case of attack the then
Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Ray and the search
memo Ex.P-137 in RC No. 11/1975 Photostat copy of which is
Ex.PW-115/B is available on the record, find mentioned the search
proceedings with regard to RC No. 11/1975. All those recovered
articles including three diaries of Ranjan Dwivedi are lying in the file
of case No. 11/1975 and as the writing on these diaries mentioned
herein before are relevant to the fact in issue in the present case, the
Photostat copy of the same were placed on record. It has come in the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
741
testimony of PW-115 that after the search accused Ranjan Dwivedi

was taken by PW-132 with him. PW-132 has also stated that he had
taken Ranjan Dwivedi from his house after the search was over and
produced him before Sh. Sardari Lal, Deputy SP, CBI, who was the
Investigation Officer in RC No. 11 of 1975. The accused Ranjan
Dwivedi was never arrested in the present case during the
investigation by the IO and only his custody warrants were issued by
the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna pursuant to which Ranjan
Dwivedi was produced before the designated court at Patna on
20.12.1976, when he was sent to judicial custody.
657. The contents of diary of A-3 are very relevant to the facts in
issue regarding his complicity in the crime with other accused and
approver Vikram. While replying Q. No. 319 at page 156, A-3 himself
filed certified copies of entire diaries Ex.Q-13, Q-14 and Q-15
obtained from the record of the Honble High Court (Available in Part
XIX page 3 to 241). He stated that CBI has only given excerpt of one
or two dates of the diary and if the contents and other passages of
diary and other articles seized are read together, this will substantiate
fact that they are only the emotional expression of a young man
struggling in life and profession and experiencing the grace of
Almighty at every step and juncture in life. A-3 also stated that the
excerpts of his writing in diary placed in evidence even if read
together with the rest of the passages of the diary, only proves his
innocence and falsify the story of the prosecution.
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-14, Q-14-A) and Ex.PW-43/AA-196
(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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
743
fortunately the D.C. at Muz. AMPS. school and

Vahni heard indicative of approaching new era, a
glorious chapter in the human history.
Met SS in the bus. Stayed Samastipur and visited
Vinays mother-in-laws house with Ojha Ji and his
friend.
Treated very nicely. Mother and Bhabhi
arrived from Sitamarhi.

663. The contents of portion of this diary Q-15 A reads as under :Thursday 2
The day was fully utilized as an instrument
graciously touched by the cosmic wave length
meeting the sequences.
O, Baba, you are the Lord of Lords prevalent
everywhere and will establish your cherished goal
of universal Sadvipra kingdom.
Started for Delhi with mother and Bhabhi.
664. The contents of portion of the diary Q-15B dated 3rd Jan 1975
reads as under:Reached Delhi and received by Rajeshwarji at
the station. News of the first phase of the drama
heard at the station.
Met Arun, Maya, Prabhaji and others and could
not resist myself.
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
746
in his diary Q-15-D that Attended D.C. Delhi and narrated my

meeting with Baba on 17th Dec 74. Apparently, before going to
Samastipur, Ranjan Dwivedi met his cult head in Central Jail, Patna
on 17.12.1974 and after Samastipur bomb blast, as per his scribblings
in the diary Q-15-D, he attended Dharam Chakra in Delhi, where he
narrated his meeting with Baba on 17.12.1974.
In this regard, I
proceed to refer the necessary evidence adduced by the prosecution.

671. PW-71 Sh. Brinda Ban Pandey deposed that he was posted as
Assistant Jailor Central Jail Patna in December 1974 and Sh. P.K.
Ganguli was working as Superintendant (Jail).
He deposed that
register Ex.P-150 (D-127) (Available in Folder R-49) was

maintained in due regular course of work in the Central Jail, Patna, in
respect of the visitors to meet the under-trial prisoners in Jail. This
register is for the period 14.5.1974 to 09.1.1975. Accused Ranjan
Dwivedi along with Sh. Ram Tanuk Singh, Advocate submitted an
application dated 16.12.1974 addressed to the Superintendant, Central
Jail, Patna, seeking interview with Anand Murtiji, who was lodged
there.
The same is at Mark PW-71/A. Sh. P.K. Ganguli,
Superintendant (Jail), Central Jail, Patna allowed interview in the

presence of Assistant Jailor vide order dated 16.12.1974, which is
noted on the very application.
The order is Ex.PW-71/A.
He
identified the handwriting and signature of Sh. P.K. Ganguli on the

said order. Before the interview could take place, another order
Ex.PW-71/B was passed on 17.12.1974 by Sh. P.K. Ganguli on the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
747
back of said application Mark PW-71/A. That register Ex.P-150

contained an entry dated 17.12.1974 (Tuesday) regarding interview by
Ram Tanuk Singh and Ram Janam Dwivedi with Anand Murtiji which
is initialed by Chander Nath Mukherjee, Assistant Jailor, whose
writing and signatures and initials were identified by the witness as he
had seen him writing and signing. The relevant entry is Ex.PW-71/C
bearing the initials of Chander Nath Mukherjee at point A. He further
deposed that in November 1975, Sh. Bhageshwari Parshad Pandey
was working as Superintendant, Central Jail, Patna and he had seen
him writing and signing and had also received writing from him in
course of his duties and thus could identify his writing and signatures.
Seizure Memo dated 13.11.1975 Mark PW-71/B bears the signatures
(Ex.PW-71/D) of Sh. Bhageshwari Parshad Pandey. Under the Seizure
Memo at Mark PW-71/B (Ex.PW-71/D) (also Ex.PW-151/H),
Interview Register was seized by Sh. H. L. Ahuja on 13.11.1975 from
Pandey. (Seizure memo is available in Folder R-12). He deposed
that another Seizure Memo (memorandum) Mark PW-71/C dated
28.10.1975 bears signatures of Sh. Bhageshwari Parshad Pandey at
point Ex.PW-71/E.
The witness has also identified the accused
Ranjan Dwivedi, present in the court as the person who met Anand
Murtiji on 17.12.1974. During cross-examination of PW-71 on the
request of Ld. Defence Counsel, the application of the accused Ranjan
Dwivedi was exhibited as Ex.PW-71/DA. The seizure memos of the
register are Ex.PW-71/D and Ex.PW-71/E (Available in the folder R-

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
748
2). As per Register Ex.P-150 at page 169 for 17.12.1974 (Tuesday)

the accused Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate, Supreme Court along with
Sh. Ram Tanuk Singh, Advocate, High Court Patna met Sh. P.R.
Sarkar @ Anand Murti in Patna Jail.
672. PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Dy. SP, CBI, Investigating Officer
deposed (at page no.3567) that he has seen the Seizure Memo dated
28.10.1975 Mark PW-71/C (D125) which is in his handwriting and
bears his signatures at point 'A' and Seizure Memo is Ex.PW-151/F
(Available in the folder R-2) and vide this Seizure Memo he has
seized original application of Ranjan Dwivedi and Sh. Ram Tanuk
Singh for interview with Anand Murtiji and he has mentioned the
details of the document in the memo. (Original application dated
16.12.1974 of Ranjan Dwivedi is available in Folder R-2).
He
deposed (page 3568) that the Seizure Memo dated 13.11.1975 Ex.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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
749
Therefore, there remains no doubt to hold that the fact of A-3

visiting Jail, having met Anand Murti on 17.12.1974 is established
beyond doubt prior to the bomb blast at Samastipur Railway Station
on 02.01.1975.
60) What the diary entries of Ranjan Dwivedi
confides?
674. As dealt earlier, a finding is already returned as regards the
presence of Ranjan Dwivedi having arrived at Samastipur Railway
Station along with Santoshanand and Sudevanand on 01.01.1975 to
arrange the Passes/Badges for entry in to the venue for his coconspirators, which is proved by overwhelming corroboratory
evidence to support the deposition of approver, this court is now to
understand, decipher and analyze the documentary evidence just now
preceded in the above paragraphs.
675. The question No. 358 in the statement of accused Ranjan
Dwivedi under Section 313 Cr. PC was confronted to him.
The
circumstances appeared against him is that he had written the writing

Mark Q-15 in his diary to the effect that he, Santoshanand and
Sudevanand had travelled together from Muzaffarpur to Samastipur on
01.1.1975. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi explained that by merely stating
that he met S.S. in the bus and S.S. stands for Sectorial Secretary just
as G.S. stands for General Secretary. The accused Ranjan Dwivedi
did not truly explain as to who was that S.S. i.e. Sectorial Secretary if
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
750
he meant that the abbreviation S.S. stands for Sectorial Secretary.

Instead of telling the name of SS, he evasively stated that SS stands
for Sectorial Secretary as GS stands for General Secretary. He did
not deny that he met Santoshanand and Sudevanand in the bus. From
the depositions of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6, it is sufficiently proved by
the prosecution that the accused Ranjan Dwivedi travelled along with
accused persons Sudevanand and Santoshanand by bus from
Muzaffarpur to Samastipur. Thus, accused Ranjan Dwivedi evaded
the answer by saying that S.S. stands for Sectorial Secretary as G.S.
stands for General Secretary. The accused Ranjan Dwivedi has rightly
noted in his diary that he met "SS" in the bus, but evaded to explain
the true connotation of these two letters in his statement u/s 313 Cr.
PC. Admittedly, the word "Sectorial" is not found in any dictionary
even on the internet. Admittedly, it is also not a coined word. The
post of Sectorial Secretary is also never heard in the common parlance
In this context I may profitably utilize the legal principles embodied in
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under:When any fact is especially within the knowledge
of any person, the burden of proving that fact is
upon him.
676. The Section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its
burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But
the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded
in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
751
regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by

virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer
any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different
inference.
677. This provision has come up for interpretation before the
Honble Supreme Court in 1956 in Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. the
State of Ajmer AIR 1956 SC 404, the State of West Bengal vs. Mir
Mohammad Omar & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2988, Sunder @
Sundararajan vs. State by Inspector of Police AIR 2013 SC 777,
Bhimanna vs. State of Karnataka 2012 (4) JCC 2667 and also
recently in Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 2012
Volume I SCC 10 and the relevant Para No.29, in Prithipal's case
reads as under:
In State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad
Omar & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2988, this court held
that if fact is especially in the knowledge of any
person, then burden of proving that fact is upon
him.
It is impossible for prosecution to prove
certain facts particularly within the knowledge of

accused. Section 106 is not intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section
would apply to cases where the prosecution has
succeeded
in proving
facts from which a

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
752
reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the

existence of certain other facts, unless the accused
by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such
facts, failed to offer any explanation which might
drive the Court to draw a different inference.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to
meet certain exceptional cases, in which, it would
be impossible for the prosecution to establish
certain facts which are particularly within the
knowledge of the accused.
678. The above ruling concluded by holding the law that it is
obligated upon the accused who had pleaded such knowledge to prove
the same. Here accused Ranjan Dwivedi submitted that S.S. stood for
Sectorial Secretary. He has not named that person. Neither he has
placed any documentary evidence by way of Constitution of Anand
Marg or its bye-laws nor proved the same by naming any Sectorial
Secretary or by producing him in the witness box in his defence. At
least, he could have named the person, who held the post of Sectorial
Secretary to discharge his initial onus as is fixed on him.
679. The position of law concerning the onus on the part of an
accused to give probable explanation to a circumstance to which he
had special acquaintance or knowledge, which appeared against him
from the evidence is again recognized and the Hon'ble Supreme
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
753
Court laid down that a false explanation may be counted as providing

missing link for completing the chain of circumstances (See State of
Maharashtra Vs. Suresh, 2000 (1) SCC) 471).
A false answer/
explanation is again held to be one more circumstance or a missing

link to complete the chain.
(Ref. Rohtas Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana, 2013 (14) SCC 434, and also Jagroop Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, 2012 (11) SCC 768).
680. The Question No. 360 put to the accused Ranjan Dwivedi to
confront him with his handwriting in the Diary, recorded by him on
02.01.1975, while he was at Samastipur and it reads as under:It is in evidence against you that you made a note
Ex.Q-14A in your diary on 2nd January, 1975
witnessed the Leela of the Lord by becoming
utilized for the noble purpose, what you have to
say?
And the accused Ranjan Dwivedi answered that
statement made therein as ambiguous and cannot
read into and furthermore he was not at the scene
of the incident and therefore could not have
witnessed it. He explained that this writing is in
the diary of 1974 and he has written it as to how he
was utilized for helping his friend Vinays motherin-law, whose husband had died only a few days
earlier, and all were in distress. Even Vinay had
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
754
not reached by the time, he coincidently went to

their house and they were all overwhelmed by his
sympathy to help their son find employment if he
comes to Delhi after mourning ceremony.
681. This explanation of the accused Ranjan Dwivedi is to be
understood from the writings he made. According to him the incident
was very solemn and sorrowful because father-in-law (Mr. Sahai) of
his close friend Vinay died a few days earlier and that his relatives
were in distress. The accused Ranjan Dwivedi, if at all intended to
quote the said incident in his diary, should have definitely noted the
sorrowful state of the relatives of Vinay pertaining to his visit on
01.01.1975 only.
This writing is concerning the date 02.1.1975,
whereas admittedly A-1 visited Sahai's family along with PW-5 and
PW-6 on 01.1.1975. There is not even mention of Vinay either by
name or by coded name as is his practice to refer to the persons by
simple alphabets only. On the other hand, considering the writing and
the incident that happened on 02.1.1975 at Samastipur, where this
accused was successful in procuring/arranging the Passes/Badges for
entry into the venue for his co-conspirators, he vented his 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
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
756
cult there is post of "Sectorial Secretary" or "SS". In this peculiar

situation nothing more can be deduced from the diary writing than to
say
that
this
accused
was
successful
in
getting
entry
Passes/Badges/Cards arranged for his friends and they all were

referring to their plan to eliminate the target, which they considered as
noble purpose and he considered it as "Leela" of his cult head.
684. One more writing: the day was fully utilized as an instrument
graciously touched by cosmic wave length meeting
the sequences. Oh baba, you are the lord of the
lords prevalent everywhere and will establish your
cherished goal of universal sudvipra kingdom.
Started for Delhi with mother and Bhabi
(Question No.361 - in respect of the entry in the
diary dated 2nd January 1975- Mark Q-15-A).
Ranjan Dwivedi replied that this entry is not
relevant to the incident that took place.
685. The explanation of the accused to the above circumstances
appearing against him in question No. 361, he could not offer any
explanation and merely stated that this entry is not relevant to the
incident that took place. This explanation given by him is highly
casuistic and warrants proper deciphering.
As already mentioned
above, the cult head i.e. Baba Anand Murti was revered as
incarnation of Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna by the cult followers.
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
Reached Delhi and received by Rajeshwarji at the

station. News of the first phase of the drama heard
at the station
(Question No.362 referring to the entry in the diary
dated 3rd January 1975)
The accused explained that it was in relation with
the intended visit of his future wife and of the
consent of his brother Mr. Ram Dwivedi, an
Engineer in America giving his reluctant assent for
the same.
687. Apropos the noting in his writing on the subsequent date, this
accused after reaching Delhi Railway Station specifically refers to the
news of the first phase of the drama heard at the station. As already
deciphered above, the events that had taken place on 02.1.1975, which
have been referred by this accused as a play of their Lord by using the
words Leela, Cosmic wave lengths, Sadvipra Kingdom, etc.,
here this accused again refers to the words drama. Drama literally
is synonym to the Sanskrit word Leela or play. This accused must
be referring to the news of blast that had taken place at the spot of
crime i.e. Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station. However,
strangely this accused gives an explanation that the writing suggested
to his brother Sh. Ram Dwivedi, an Engineer in America, giving his
reluctant acceptance for his proposed marriage with his fiance. It is
noteworthy that he did not meet his brother Sh. Ram Dwivedi at the
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
760
application submitted by accused Ranjan Dwivedi to meet Baba and

also passed orders on that application, as found in the Register at
Ex.P-150. Furthermore, there is a clear cut admission in the diary
itself that he met Baba on 17.12.1974. It has also come in evidence
that accused Ranjan Dwivedi came by bus to Samastipur and in this
bus, he met other co-devotees of Baba namely accused Santoshanand
and accused Sudevanand. The meeting with co-devotees of Baba by
this accused and his participation in Dharam Chakra (congregation of
devotees of Baba) at Muzaffarpur (AMPS School) and Vahni would
go to show that this accused was under the spell of the founder of the
cult namely Anand Murti (Baba) and it was the design of the entire
cult and plan of the co-conspirators to eliminate anybody who came in
their way. Thus, the meeting of this accused with Baba on 17.12.1974
which he confirmed in his diary and announcement of such meeting
with Baba in the congregation would go to show that this accused was
boastful of himself to have become the useful tool in the hands of his
spiritual/cult head as noted by him elsewhere also in the diary at Q-15,
Q-15D and Q-15A. These writings conclusively establish that this
accused along with the co-conspirators was active in the pursuit of the
cult, which planned to eliminate anybody so as to bring pressure on
the establishment for the release of Baba. However, the explanation
given by the accused Ranjan Dwivedi to these writings that Dharam
Chakra is a public spiritual function where the Margies and their nonMargies friends and relatives attend is not a venue to discuss

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
761
conspiracy and that he was an Advocate of the Sect is not tangible

explanation though the meeting/congregation of the cult followers and
non-followers is a possibility.
61) Theory propounded by Ranjan Dwivedi
under Section 313 of Cr. PC.
690. In his further explanation to the entire episode, Ranjan Dwivedi
stated that the excerpts of his writing in diary, when read together with
the rest of the passages, only proves his innocence and falsify the story
of prosecution. He stated that he was an advocate for the cult of Sh.
Anand Murtiji, and that the Anand Marg was banned during
Emergency. He was going to challenge the order of the ban imposed
against Anand Marg on 26.6.1975 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India and this was precisely the reason of his arrest by CBI.
He stated that the strained relations between L.N. Mishra and
the then Prime Minister were mentioned earlier wherein the wife of
the deceased expressed her fear in this regard. He also stated that
according to a report in the Illustrated Weekly dated 18.1.1987, it was
mentioned that L.N. Mishra was a controversial figure and the Bihar
Assembly Privileges Sub Committee indicted Mishra and his family
for alleged irregularities in the Kosi Project and he was accused of
showing favours to the Director of the Minerals and Metals Trading
Corporation by the CPM. He also stated that it was alleged by the
opposition that Mishra was the man behind the Tulmohan Ram
scandal involving import licences when he was Minister for Foreign
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
was saluted by Arun Thakur at one of the platforms before the

incident, the diary of A.K. Thakur was attached that contained highly
suggestive entries on 01.1.1975 and 05.5.1975 and incriminating
papers found in the house of A.K. Thakur contained the design of a
grenade, name of the co-accused and a rough sketch of railway lines
and platform and A.K. Thakur stated that he threw away his grenade
on the railway lines and a letter was written by Arun Mishra to Sheo
Narayan Sharma dated 10.11.1974 that he was ready to do the work.
He stated that there was a deliberate suppression of enquiry by Mr.
D. Sen of CBI and it was opined that an officer of the rank of D. Sen
could not have suppressed the investigation into the murder of L.N.
Mishra without the assurance of political support from higher quarters.
Further, he explained that Mrs. Indira Gandhi took unusual
interest in this matter and asked Abdul Gaffoor if he had favoured
Jailor Rehman of Samastipur Jail by promoting him and Mr. Gaffoor
denied it. He stated that Mr. Justice Tarkunde reported attributes that
real Visheshwaranand, who was known to the police as being involved
in the conspiracy to murder Madhavanand, was one Hans Lal s/o
Daroga Singh of village Tandura in Bhojpur District. He stated that as
soon as this Srivastava Visheshwaranand (PW-1) made his
confessional statement on 12.5.1975, CBI showered extraordinary
favours on him. He stated that Srivastava was a clerk in PWD Office
in Darbhanga and his services had been terminated in August 1964
due to prolonged absence from duty and on 13.3.1975, the next day of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
764
making confessional statement, he was reinstated with continuity in

service after 11 years. He stated that according to Justice Tarkunde,
after Mr. S.B. Sahai, DIG Bihar, started a fresh enquiry into the case at
the instance of the then Chief Minister, Vikram was examined on
30.9.1975 by the Doctor and Jailor of Danapur Sub Jail where he still
remained a prisoner and Vikram told them that the confessional
statement was false and this was result of physical torture. He stated
that according to Justice Tarkunde, Vikram was interviewed by Chief
Secretary, Bihar Government, who met him alone in the cell and later
on DIG S.B. Sahai also met him and they were satisfied that
confessional statement of Vikram was due to torture.
691. Whether the prolixity of this explanation would stand the test of
probabilities to wean away one's attention to the overwhelming
evidence adduced on record or not is the question that arises after
going through this lengthy exp lanation.
This court has already dealt the issue regarding the possibility
of PW-1 posing himself as an imposter-Visheshwaranand and further
had delved deeply into the validity and legality of the CID Reports of
Bihar Government and the futility of Tarkunde Report, which is
purely hear-say evidence. The main contention of the accused Ranjan
Dwivedi by way of explanation is that late L.N. Mishra's deeds while
in power reeked with corruption in Kosi Project, MMTC and import
licence scandal and was a source for extravagance during the
campaign for Mrs. Gandhi at Rai Bareilly. If the Minister was so
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
766
accompanied by Sudevanand and Vikram at about 08.00/09.00 PM.

He was not previously acquainted with the name of Sudevanand. (The
witness has correctly identified accused Sudevanand and approver
Vikram in the Court). He deposed that the names of Vikram and
Sudevanand were disclosed to him during night by accused
Santoshanand. He had earlier seen Vikram as he used to be present at
D-41, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi whenever he went there. On
the night of 19.3.1975, accused Sudevanand and approver Vikram
were in plain clothes and they were having one brief case and one bag
and some other luggage. Prior to 19.03.1975, he had seen accused
Sudevanand in dress of Avadhoots. He further deposed that on the
night of 19.3.1975 accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Vikram
stayed at his house and in his presence accused Santoshanand told that
Baba had become very weak in the jail and they must make efforts to
get him freed from the jail and it was difficult to get Baba freed by
lawful means and for that reason they should adopt such means which
might shake the Government and accused Santoshanand became
highly sentimental and stated that he was prepared to sacrifice his own
life to get Baba freed. He deposed that Sudevanand was also called
Doctorji as he used to give homeopathic medicines. After going
through morning rituals and taking their breakfast, Santoshanand,
Sudevanand and Vikram left his residence on 20.3.1975 at 8.00 AM.
They took with them one Jhola and left the other baggage at his
residence. After attending his office, he returned to his residence at

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
767
about 05.00 PM and within 10-15 minutes of his reaching house, on

20.3.1975 itself, accused Sudevanand also reached there. Sudevanand
was looking quite nervous. He enquired from him as to whether
Santoshanand and Vikram had also arrived in the house and he told
him that they have not arrived and after about half an hour accused
Santoshanand also reached his house and made enquires about
Sudevanand and Vikram. On seeing each other, accused Sudevanand
and Santoshanand embraced each other and kissed and said Baba has
saved them. Vikram did not come to his residence on that night and on
the same evening i.e. 20.3.1975, accused Santoshanand and
Sudevanand lifted all their luggage and started leaving his house. At
that time, they told him to destroy all the articles connected with
Anand Marg and not to tell the police if they come to his residence
that nobody had come there and they also asked him to keep Vikram
in his house for the night in case he reaches there. Thereafter they left
towards jungle in different directions.
693. PW-11 Raj Singh further testified that on 21.3.1975, he was
reading newspaper, and found the news about hand grenade attack on
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Sh. A.N. Ray. At that time,
Santoshanand also came there and on his asking he (PW-11) told him
that Vikram had not arrived there. He further deposed that after
reading the newspaper report, accused Santoshanand said, Sala bach
gaya, we had thrown two hand grenades on him.
He asked

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
768
Santoshanand as to why they attacked the Chief Justice and what

wrong he had done and Santoshanand replied that he was a
Mahapapi (big sinner) and rejected two/three bail applications of
the Baba and that he was the stooge of Indira Gandhis Government.
Santoshanand then told that, Behold the leela of the Baba as despite
throwing of two hand grenades, he i.e. Chief Justice did not die.
Santoshanand further told him that perhaps Baba wanted to give a new
lease of life to the Chief Justice so that he could mend his ways. He
further told that see the leela of Baba that we had thrown only one
hand grenade at Samastipur and L.N. Mishra died although he had
superficial injuries as compared to others, who had sustained grievous
injuries but surviving.
Santoshanand further told that only that
person dies whom the Baba wants to die and the person whom the
Baba does not want to die, survives even in attack of two hand
grenades. He deposed that he became scared on hearing all this from
accused Santoshanand, who informed him that at that time, they had
escaped at both the places i.e. Samastipur and Delhi by the grace of
Baba. He told Santoshanand that he was a family man and a
Government servant and was being involved unnecessarily in such
matters and sought forgiveness and the accused told him not to be a
coward and threatened him with dire consequences of meeting the
same fate as that of L.N. Mishra, in case he divulged information,
which he had come to know from them and accused Santoshanand left
his residence and directed him to send Vikram to the Garden as and

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
769
when he comes.
On asking of meaning of Garden, he (accused
Santoshanand) told him that Vikram understood it.
Santoshanand
again came to his residence on 22.3.1973 at about 8.00 AM and when

he was about to leave for his office at 10 AM, Santoshanand asked
him to take him on scooter as he was to post some letters at GPO,
Delhi and being scared of him, he asked Santoshanand to give him
those letters and he gave him 6 or 7 letters wrapped in one paper and
uppermost was addressed to Chief Justice A.N. Ray and he posted
those letters same day at GPO. He stated that accused Santoshanand
gave him Rs.60/- while leaving his house for giving to Vikram as
Vikram had no sufficient funds. On 23.3.1975, Santoshanand again
came to his house at 08.00 AM to enquire about Vikram and he told
him that he had not reached and Santoshanand took back those Rs.60/by saying that Vikram was a bold and clever man and must have
reached all by himself. He also threatened of dire consequences if he
divulges information about them to anyone. On 09.4.1975, Vikram
came to his house at about 07.00/08.00 AM and Vikram told him that
he had already met Santoshanand.
694. In his cross-examination, PW-11 replied that he knew Vikram
prior to his visiting the house of PW-11. He was introduced to him by
Santoshanand. He came to know about the name of Vikram in the
year 1971. He admitted the suggestion of the defence at Page No. 638
of his deposition, which reads as under:-

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
770
"It is correct that while coming to my house along

with Vikram and Sudevanand, Santoshanand was
having a bag of black colour."
He did not remember whether Santoshanand was having anything with
him when he visited his house along with Sudevanand and Vikram on
19.03.1975. He denied the suggestion that on his coming to his house
from the office, he was informed by his wife that the brief case was
left there by Santoshanand. He did not see black bag in the hand of
Santoshanand on 20.03.1975, when he returned to his house. He
further deposed that after taking away of that black bag in the Morning
of 20.03.1975 from his house, he did not see that black bag
subsequently. He did not recollect whether during his visit to the
house, Santoshanand used to have a brief case with him in the year
1974. He deposed that after 23.03.1975, he had seen Santoshanand
only in the court.
He further testified that the details about the
incident regarding L.N. Mishra were given to him by Santoshanand

without his specific asking about it and information given to him was
extra judicial confession by Santoshanand. He did not inquire from
him as to who had thrown the hand grenade at Samastipur but
Santoshanand informed that "we had done so". When this information
was given to him by Santoshanand, he told him that he was a family
member and immediately they threatened him.
From the word
"HUM", he understood that Santoshanand was referring to himself,

Sudevanand and Vikram. He was in plain clothes, when he came to his
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
771
house. He replied that during the night of 19.03.1975, Vikram and

Sudevanand were not present, when Santoshanand talked to him about
health of Baba in Jail or that they must take make efforts to get him
freed from the Jail. At that time, Santoshanand also told him that it
was difficult to get Baba released with lawful means and they should
adopt such means, which might shake the Government. He did not
agree with the Santoshanand to get Baba released by illegal means.
On 19.03.1975, he did not have any suspicion that Santoshanand and
his two companions were going to do some illegal act. On 20.03.1975
after coming to his house in the Evening, Santoshanand embraced
Sudevanand, which continued for 5-7 minutes. They did not give him
any threat on that day (20.03.1975). He further answered that on
21.03.1975, when Santoshanand admitted his involvement in throwing
of hand grenade on Chief Justice A.N. Ray, he got very much
perplexed but did not ask him to leave the house. He developed hatred
towards Santoshanand after coming to know his involvement in the
matter. Santoshanand narrated him the details at that time in about 15
or 20 minutes and during this period, he narrated about the attack on
Chief Justice of India and throwing of bomb on L.N. Mishra. He
inquired from him as to whether they had hand in that incident, he
nodded his head in the affirmative and narrated the facts. He further
explained that with regard to L.N. Mishra's case, Santoshanand had
narrated "See the Lilla of Baba that we had thrown only one hand
grenade at Samastipur and L.N. Mishra died although he had

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
772
superficial injuries as compared to others, who had sustained grievous

injuries, but survived". He did inform the police what Santoshanand
disclosed to him and he has no courage to do so.
695. In the lengthy cross-examination running into 50 pages of PW11 Sh. Raj Singh spread over several dates, the defence had only got
repeated the examination-in-chief and they could not cause any dent in
his testimony. The defence does not deride visit of accused
Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver Vikram to the house of PW11 from 19.03.1975 to 23.03.1975 by giving him suggestion that
"While coming to his house along with Vikram and Sudevanand,
Santoshanand was having a bag of black colour". The defence has
also got elicited on their own that their visit to the house of PW-11
during this period by again giving him the suggestion that the wife of
PW-11 told him that Santoshanand had left his black bag and that the
bag brought by Santoshanand on 20.03.1975 was not in his hand in the
Evening.
The defence has further got admitted their visit on
23.03.1975 as well by giving him suggestion that PW-11 had seen

Santoshanand in the court at the time of deposition after 23.03.1975.
696. The prosecution has examined PW-11 to prove extra judicial
confession made by accused Santoshanand before him that they were
responsible for killing of late Sh. L.N. Mishra in Samastipur bomb
blast. The exact words are already mentioned in the chief, which are

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
773
got confirmed by the accused in their cross-examination. This extra

judicial confession by accused Santoshanand was never shattered by
the accused persons in the cross-examination of PW-11. This court
finds that the testimony of PW-11 has been consistent and trustworthy
without any ornamentation and hence believable.
697. It would be not out of place to note the findings of the Hon'ble
High Court in Crl. A. 436 and 443 of 1976 DD 14.08.2014,
MANU/DE/1873/2014 filed by accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand
and Ranjan Dwivedi (pertaining to the incident of attack on the then
CJI A.N. Ray in RC No. 11/75). The Hon'ble High Court while
dealing with almost identical testimonies of PW-11 and PW-13 herein
{PW-57 Raj Singh and PW-55 Shiv Raj Singh, the witnesses
examined in the files of the above said appeals} has given its verdict
in the following: "63. In the instant case, the extra judicial
confessions made by A-1 are free from any
suspicion as to their voluntary character and have
also a ring of truth in it.
improbable
in
A-1s
There is nothing
making
extra
judicial
confessions to these independent witnesses. The

witnesses have reproduced the exact words used
by A-1 as nearly as possible to convey that A-1
and his companions were the perpetrators of the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
774
crime.
These extra judicial confessions can be
relied upon along with other evidence for

conviction and are incriminating circumstances
against A-1."
63) Details of the victims in the Bomb blast.
698. It is necessary to note the details of the victims in the bomb
blast. Apart from causing death of three persons in the incident, 8
persons as per the charge sheet, had suffered "grievous hurt" and 18
suffered "hurt". The prosecution could not examine all the injured
persons, but examined some of them, hence the details of such of the
injured are tabulated in two categories viz. those victims covered by
charge U/s. 326 IPC and table of the victims covered under the charge
U/s. 324 IPC.
699. The names of the dead in the incident for which the charge
under Section 302 IPC framed, are Sh. L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha
and Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore.
64) Details of injured persons covered U/s. 326

IPC.
Sr.
No.
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
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
Nawab Clinic
(iv)
Ram Bhagat
Paswan
MP
40 years
PW85
Ex.PW-93/H = Ex.PW-107/G
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
(v)
Ram Vinod
Sharma
42 years

Injury Report of Janta clinic

Fracture shaft of meta tarsal
bone of right foot.
Not
Ex.PW-93/D =PW-107/E
examined. (Available in Folder R-29)
Admitted in Railway Hospital,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
776
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at 18.15

hrs. and discharged on 3.1.1975.
* However, PW-113 Sh. Raj
Dev Rai deposed that Ram
Vinod Sharma was injured. PW85 Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan
stated that Ram Vinod Sharma
was present on the Dais.
(vi)
Kapil Dev
Narain Singh
MLA
56 years
Not
Ex.PW-93/F
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
Ex.PW-112/A
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

Dev Rai stated that he was
present on the Dais.
Ex.PW-116/A
Admitted in Railway Hospital
on 2.1.1975 and discharged on
23.1.1975.
Suffered Fracture Metacarpal
(left hand)
65) Details of injured covered under charge U/s

324 IPC.
Sr.
Name
No.
(i)
Sh. Jayant
Banerjee
33 years
Whether
examined
as a
witness
PW 127
MLC/
Report
Ex.PW-93/S =Ex.PW-107/K
hrs. Discharged on 5.1.1975.
No fracture.
(ii)
(iii)
Umesh Prasad
Singh
Jagan Nath
PW56
No document
CW3
Mishra
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
778
(iv)
Rama Kant
Jha
48 years
Not
Ex.PW-93/N =Ex.PW-107/D
Dr. T.D. Nandi PW-107
No fracture.
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
hrs. and discharged on request
on 3.1.1975.
Dr. T.D. Nandi
Not
Ex.PW-93/L
examined. Admission No.3601
on request.

Dev Rai stated that he was
present on the Dais.
Jamuna Prasad Not
Ex.PW-93/P
Mandal

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
779
65 years
(viii)
P.R. Chopra
53 years

X-ray Pelvis
No fracture.
Dev Rai stated that his cloths
were blood stained when he
gave assistance to Ram Vinod
Sharma and Jamuna Mandal
Not
Ex.PW-93/J
Admission No.3582
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 and
discharged on 3.1.1975.
(ix)
(x)
Bisheshwar
Rai
28 years
Satender
Parshad Singh
30 years
Not
examined
Not
examined
* However, PW-116 K.M. Sinha

stated that Mr. Chopra (GM)
who was standing on Dais was
lifted to give medical aid.
Ex.PW-93/V= Ex.PW-107/J
No fracture
Samastipur on 2.1.1975 at
18.15 hrs. and discharged on
4.1.1975
Ex.PW-93/T
No fracture

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
780

on request
(xi)
(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
on request.
Ex.PW-93/U
X-ray left leg
No fracture
on request.
Ex.PW-93/Q
Ex.PW-93/O
discharged on 3.1.1975
Ex.PW-93/M
(Available in Folder F-29)
Admission No.3602
Samastipur on 02.1.1975 at

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
781
(xvi)
I.D. Sharma
Not
18.15 hrs. and discharged on

3.1.1975
Ex.PW-93/Y
examined
(xvii)
Naval Kishore Not

38 years
examined
(xviii) C.S.
Chaudhary
Not
examined
Ex.PW-93/K =Ex.PW-107/C
Admission No.3582
discharged on 3.1.1975
PW-97 Dr. S.N. Nawab
Admitted at 1815 hrs. and
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
782
Singh deposed in the explosion, he sustained injuries and was taken to

Samastipur Hospital. He was given first aid. Then he went to Patna
and got himself treated in Popular Nursing Home for 10 days. PW-57
Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, deposed that there was an explosion on the
Munch in which he received serious injuries on his both legs. He was
taken to Railway Hospital where he remained admitted for 12 days.
He received injuries with splinters in the explosion and one splinter is
still in his foot. He had to remain in the house for about one year
during which he would not do heavy work and there was fracture in
his foot. PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar deposed he heard explosion and also
sustained injuries on his chest. He jumped from the Dais and became
unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found himself in Janta
Clinic, Darbhanga under the treatment of Dr. S.N. Nawab. PW-60 Sh.
R.N. Rai deposed that there was a blast on the Dais and there was
smoke. DIG B.N. Prasad was on the Munch who was crying.
Sh.
L.N. Mishra also received injuries. He assisted Hawaldar in bringing

DIG Sh. B.N. Prasad from the Dais and then he along with Security
Man Rattan Singh and 2-3 persons rendered assistance to Sh. L.N.
Mishra and took him to Saloon of the Special Train. PW-65 Sh.
Vishwanath Deputy SP deposed that there was a blast with loud sound
when Railway Minister was still on the Dais. The Railway Minister
and several other persons on the Dais sustained injuries. He shifted
injured persons to the nearby hospital.
PW-85 Sh. Ram Bhagat
Paswan, MP, deposed that he along with Ram Sukumari Devi, Sh.

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.
After discharge from Dr.
Nawabs Clinic, he remained admitted in Willingdon Hospital in New

Delhi in the month of February 1975. Still seven splinters were in his
leg. PW-109 Sh. Mohan Kumar Jha deposed as having heard a loud
explosion and noticed that some persons were bringing Railway
Minister to the Saloon.
701. PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat stated that
Sh. Baleshwar Ram, Sh. Rama Kant Jha accompanied Railway
Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra on the Dais. There were 30/35 persons on
the Dais including Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, Sh. Rama Kant Jha, Sh.
Baleshwar Ram Sh. Y.P. Mandal, Sh. Surya Narain Jha, Sh. Ram
Vinod Sharma, Sh. Ram Sukumari Devi, Sh. Ram Naresh Singh, Sh.
Suresh Prasad Singh, Advocate, Sh. Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, and
Sh. Kapil Dev Narain Singh. After concluding his speech moved 2-3
steps that he heard some sound and then smoke appeared and he
realized to be a bomb blast. He saw Sh. L.N. Mishra was about to fall
but Sukumari Devi assisted him by holding him in her hand. He lifted
Ram Vinod Sharma in injured condition and handed over to others to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
784
remove him to hospital. Thereafter with the help of others, he lifted

Jamuna Mandal who was removed to Hospital. He noticed that Sh.
L.N. Mishra was taken to Special Train and was made to sit in the
Train. CW-3 Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra an injured, deposed that he and
his eldest brother Sh. L.N. Mishra got injured in the incident on
2.1.1975 at Samastipur Railway Platform and L.N. Mishra succumbed
to his injuries on 3.1.1975 at Danapur Railway Hospital.
702. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha deposed that after finishing his speech,
Sh. L.N. Mishra spoke Jai Hind, took a turn towards his back and in
the meanwhile there was flash on the Dais followed by smoke and
thunder sound. He heard cries from the Dais. He found that General
Manager Sh. Chopra, standing on the Dais was lifted for giving him
medical aid.
66) Medical Evidence

703. Now this leads me to refer the statement of the doctors who
have examined the victims of bomb blast that took place on the Dais at
Platform No.3, Samastipur Railway Station, Samastipur.
704. According to the charges framed against the accused persons,
three persons namely Sh. L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minister, Sh.
Surya Narain Jha, (whose name is mentioned as Suraj Narain Jha in
the charge framed against accused persons) and Sh. Ram Kishore
Prasad Singh Kishore have died. Further eight persons namely Ram
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
785
Bhagat Paswan (PW-85), Kailash Pati Singh, whose name is

mentioned in the charge framed as Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan
Sharma (PW-57), Ram Vinod Sharma, B.N. Parsad (PW-28), Ajay
Kumar (PW-58), Kapil Dev Narain Singh and Smt. Lalita Devi have
suffered grievous hurt.
In addition, Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3), Rama Kant Jha,
Jayant Banerjee (PW-127), Baleshwar Ram, Suresh Parshad Singh,
Umesh Parshad Singh (PW-56), Bisheshwar Rai, Satender Parsad
Singh, Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudhary, Smt. Noor Jahan, Jamuna
Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narain Mandal, Pramod Parshad, I.D. Sharma,
Naval Kishore, P.R. Chopra and C.S. Chaudhary have suffered hurt.
705. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer,
North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur in January 1975 deposed
that in those days Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107), Dr. M.N. Sharma, Dr. A.
Sain, Dr. P.C. Gupta, Dr. M. Banerjee and Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116)
were also working in the same Hospital. He had seen them writing
and signing and he could identify their writing and signatures. On
2.1.1975, he was on emergency duty in North-Eastern Railway
Hospital, Samastipur from 12.30 PM to 4.30 PM and from 5.30 PM to
8.30 AM on 03.1.1975. His residence was hardly at a distance, which
could be covered within 5 minutes from the Hospital. On that day i.e.
on 02.1.1975 at about 6.00 P.M., he was on duty in the Hospital. He
received information on telephone at his residence and on that basis he
reached the Hospital at about 06.00 PM. He received a message about
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
786
a bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons have

suffered injuries in that bomb blast who, were to be brought to their
Hospital. He immediately rushed to the Hospital. Many injured
persons were brought there in the emergency. He has written
particulars of these persons on their Bed Head Tickets.
706. PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi, the then AMO, Railway Hospital,
Samastipur testified that on 02.1.1975 he joined his duty in the
Hospital at 4.45 PM and on that day at about 6 PM while he was
standing outside OPD, one patient came having injuries caused by
bomb blast. He rendered him first aid in the Emergency Room.
While he was providing him first aid, at that time about 25-30 injured
persons came in the Hospital. They were shifted to Indoor Hospital.
Several doctors came simultaneously and they all became busy in
rendering medical aid to those injured persons.
707. In his cross-examination, PW-107 Dr. T.D Nandi it is elicited
that all these patients were medico-legal cases. The public brought
them to hospital but he did not mention who brought them. He did not
give any information to the police about these persons. However,
many persons including VIPs and the police officers were moving
about in the Hospital. His opinion that the injury could be caused by
bomb explosion was based on his observation while examining the
patients.

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.
At that time, he (PW-95) was standing in front of the
Rostrum. After concluding his speech, Sh. L.N. Mishra took a turn
and then there was an explosion with a flash. There was commotion
on the Munch. There were cries from the Munch. Many persons
present on the Munch sustained injuries. He provided first aid to some
persons on the Munch with the assistance of Dr. K.M. Sinha and
arranged to send the injured persons to the Railway Hospital,
Samastipur. All the injured persons were brought to the Railway

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
788
Hospital, Samastipur. Bed Head Tickets of patients, who were treated

in Railway Hospital, were prepared. His work was to supervise the
treatment. He himself also treated some. Their injuries were noted on
the Bed Head Tickets and from Bed Head Tickets, Injury Reports
were prepared. He proved the Injury Report Ex.PW-95/A bearing his
signatures at point A and it was prepared from the Bed Head Tickets
(Ex.PW-95/A is available in Folder R-6).
In the Injury Report
Ex.PW-95/A, details of injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra and Sh. Jagan

Nath Mishra (CW-3) were noted from the writing brought by Dr. R.K.
Sinha (PW-94). Vide forwarding letter dated 9.1.1975 Ex.PW-95/B,
injury chart was sent to District Superintendent, Railway Police Camp,
Samastipur. (Ex.PW-95/B is available in Folder R-6). Later on i.e. on
17.1.1975, he issued a corrigendum Mark PW-95/A regarding some
injuries of three patients. It bears his writing and signatures at point
A. The Injury Chart Ex.PW-95/A is summary of injured persons,
their names, age, sex, address, details of injuries, nature of injuries and
date of discharge. In this Chart, injuries of Ram Bhagat Paswan,
Kailash Pati Singh, Smt. Lalita Devi, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod
Sharma and R.K.P.S. Kishore are mentioned "grievous". Injuries of
Parmanand Jha, Bisheshwar Prasad, Suraj Chaudhary, Satender Prasad
Singh, Jayant Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram, K.D. N. Singh, Noor Jahan
Begum, Mahender Sahu, Yamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narain
Mandal, Rama Kant Jha, MLC, Pramod Parsad, Suresh Prasad Singh,
Rajender Sahu, I.D. Sharma, Nawal Kishore Singh, P.R. Chopra and

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
789
Jagan Nath Mishra are mentioned to be simple. It is mentioned that

Jagan Nath Mishra and L.N. Mishra were taken to Railway Hospital,
Danapur for treatment. The injuries of Ram Bhagat Paswan (PW-85),
Smt. Lalita Devi, Ram Vinod Sharma, R.K.P.S. Kishore (deceased)
and Kailash Pati Sinha were found "grievous". The examination of all
those injured persons was done in his presence and supervision and
their injuries were also noted under his supervision. The grievous
injuries of persons referred by him could be caused by Bomb blast.
On 31.1.1975, twenty two Bed Head Tickets Ex.PW-93/A, Ex.PW93/B, Ex.PW-93/D to Ex.PW-93/H, Ex.PW-93/J to Ex.PW-93/U and
Ex.PW-93/W to Ex.PW-93/Y were handed over by him to SubInspector, CBI vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-95/C which bears his
signatures at point A. These Bed Head Tickets and Seizure Memo
are available in Folder R-29.
709. In his cross-examination PW-95 Dr. Mohinder Nath Sharma
answered that after taking the X-ray they found splinters in bodies of
many injured persons. In some cases, the splinters of those injured
were removed by operation. He admitted that Ex.PW-95/A is the
carbon copy and replied that it was typed by his steno. He answered
that X-ray number plate is not mentioned in Ex.PW-95/A but the
findings of the Radiologist is recorded. Those X-rays were seen by
him also during the course of treatment. He has denied the suggestion
that his opinion is based only on the writing of the Radiologist.
He
did not realize that it was necessary to mention that X-ray was advised
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
CBI officer. He is not in a position to say after going through this

register Mark PW-97/A as to who handed over it to CBI.
712. PW-114 Dr. Bhupender Parshad Singh, the then Demonstrator
in Anatomy in Darbhanga Medical College deposed that in January,
1975 there was general strike by the doctors of Bihar Health Service
and Indian Medical Association. They were not treating the patients
in the Hospitals during those days of strike, but emergent patients
were admitted at the Janta Clinic, the temporary arrangement. It also
maintained a Register Mark PW-97/A of this Janta Clinic. He was the
organizer and so the Superintendent of Janta Clinic. To the possible
extent, they prepared Bed Head Tickets in respect of those patients
coming to that Janta Clinic. On 26.2.1975, he handed over the
Register Mark PW-97/A and three Bed Head Ticket of Ajay Kumar
(PW-58), Kapil Dev Narain Singh and Kailash Pati Singh to CBI
Officer vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-114/A.
(Seizure Memo Ex.PW-114/A is available in
Folder R-31)
713. In his cross-examination, PW-114 Dr. Bhupender Parshad
Singh answered that they were running Janta Clinic without the
permission of the government. The decision of maintaining Janta
Clinic was of their Association in the interest of public. They were not
charging any fees from the patients who were treated. There was no
question of their working hours since they were on strike. They did
not have a clerk in the temporary set up. House Surgeon on duty used
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,
Samastipur deposed that he had seen Bed Head Tickets of Ram

Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore, who was a Clerk in D.E.N. Office at
Samastipur. He recorded the particulars in the Bed Head Ticket
Ex.PW-93/A at 6.15 PM. The writing at point A and C on the Bed
Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/A is in his handwriting. The injuries of Ram
Kishore Prasad Singh were noted by Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-94) at point
B on Ex.PW-93/A whose writing he identified. He had also seen
the injuries of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh. As per the entries on the
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
point K on the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/A. He had given the

time of death of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh on the first page at point
C. His Death Certificate Ex.PW-93/B was issued which bears his
signatures at point A. Memo about his death was sent to Officer,
Incharge, GRPS Samastipur, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW-93/C.
716. PW-107 Dr. T. D. Nandi, the then AMO, Railway Hospital,
Samastipur stated on 2.1.1975 at about 6 PM, approximately 25-30
injured persons came in the Hospital. He saw Bed Head Ticket no.
3598 Ex.PW-93/A bearing his endorsement Ex.PW-107/A in respect
of Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad Singh and he found following injuries on
his person:1.
Crush injury on both legs (grievous injuries with

profuse bleeding.)
2.
Multiple lacerated injuries on both the legs and

feet with part of feet missing accompanied with
profuse bleeding.
He further testified that treatment was given to the patient till 11.30
PM which is mentioned at point E in his handwriting. The patient
Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad Singh died at 07.45 AM on 03.1.1975 due to
before said injuries. These injuries were caused by bomb blast and all
these injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. These injuries of Sh. Ram Kishore Prasad
Singh were caused within half an hour of his examination. On the said
Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/A, age of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh is
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
795
mentioned as 35 years and designation as Clerk and admitted on

02.1.1975 at 06.15 PM and died at 7.45 AM on 3.1.1975.
717. PW-35 Sh. Uma Kant Chaudhary deposed that deceased Sh.
R.K. Kishore was his cousin brother and thus identified his
photograph Ex.PW-35/A. On 03.1.1975, the police took Inquest
Proceedings in respect of dead body of his cousin brother Sh. R. K.
Kishore, which he identified. Inquest Report Ex.PW-35/B was
prepared in his presence. It bears his signatures at point A. His
cousin brother Sh. R. K. Kishore died in Railway Hospital, Samastipur
on 03.1.1975. His body was searched when his father took out some
papers from his pocket. He took out these papers and handed over to
Police on 05.1.1975. Production List Ex.PW-35/C was prepared in
respect of those papers on 05.1.1975 on which he recorded his correct
endorsement with signatures at point A. Ex.P-17 is one of the
papers, which were recovered from the body of Sh. R.K. Kishore, and
it bears his endorsement Ex.PW-35/D. This slip/document Ex.P-17 is
again exhibited as Ex.PW-48/A.
This slip was issued by Assistant
Engineer (Construction) NE Railway, Samastipur to the effect that the

bearer of the slip is a Railway representative of Engineering
Department, permitted to attend the ceremony at Samastipur on
02.1.1975. On this slip Ex.P-17 (Ex.PW-48/A) also bears the
endorsement Ex.PW-35/D dated 05.1.1975 of PW-35 to the effect that
this was recovered from the pocket of deceased Ram Kishore and is
produced. Inquest Report Ex.PW-35/B, Production list Ex.PW-35/C
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
796
and Slip Ex.P-17 (Ex.PW-48/A = Ex.PW-35/D) are available in

Folder R-31. The photograph of R.K. Singh Kishore Ex.PW-35/A is
718. PW-46 Constable Ram Krishan Bankira testified that on
03.1.1975, he was posted as a constable at GRP Samastipur. On that
day at about 03.45 PM, the dead body of Ram Kishore Parshad Singh
Kishore was entrusted to him and Constable Doodh Nath along with
the Inquest Papers for taking it to Mortuary at Samastipur. They took
the body to Mortuary. Post Mortem examination was conducted on
04.1.1975 and thereafter, dead body was handed over to the relatives
of the deceased. Nobody tampered with the dead body during the
period it remained in their custody. He identified the photograph of
Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore Ex.PW-35/A. The doctor handed
over to them the bloodstained clothes of the deceased, which they
deposited in the Police Station without being tampered with by
anyone.
719. PW-52 Sh. Jagdish Parshad Sinha, the then ASI, GRP,
Samastipur testified that on 03.1.1975 at about 2.30 PM he received a
Requisition Ex.PW-52/A (Dated 3.1.1975) from DSP K.D. Singh for
taking Inquest Proceedings in respect of dead body lying in Railway
Hospital. A Memo was also received from the Hospital in this regard.
He along with two constables went to Railway Hospital for Inquest
Proceedings. He found dead body of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh in
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
797
the Hospital.
He prepared the Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-35/B in
respect of his dead body correctly. It bears his signatures at point A.

The signatures of witnesses appear at point B and C on the
Inquest Report. He entrusted the dead body along with inquest papers
to Constable Doodh Nath Mishra and Bankira (PW-46) for getting
post mortem examination. He also prepared an application addressed
to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur to depute some doctor to
conduct post mortem examination.
Doctors were on strike from
01.1.1975 and on that account; an application was moved to CJM,

Samastipur for deputing some doctor. Ex.PW-52/C is the carbon copy
of application (dated 03.1.1975) addressed to CJM, Samastipur, which
he prepared with the original in the same process and it bears his
signatures. After post mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased
were brought by Constable Bankira (PW-46).
(Requisition Ex.PW-52/A & Report made to
CJM Ex.PW-52/C are available in Folder R-16.)
720. PW-88 Dr. N. L. Jha, the then Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur testified that on 03.1.1975 at 4.30 PM the dead body of
Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore S/o Sh. Kailash Bihari Singh of
village Meghaul PS Charya Bariarpur was received. The address of
dead was given as Clerk, DEN Office, Samastipur, NE Railway.
Constable Doodh Nath Mishra and Roy Krishan Banril (PW-46)
brought this dead body.
He was directed by Civil Surgeon,
Samastipur to conduct post mortem examination on the dead body of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
798
Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore on 03.1.1975 after 5.00 PM.

There was a direction of Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Civil
Surgeon, Samastipur for conducting the post mortem on that dead
body. Post mortems were not conducted after 05.00 PM, thus it was
not done on 03.1.1975. On 04.1.1975, at 9.00 AM he conducted the
post mortem. The body of Ram Kishore Parshad Singh Kishore was
identified by Constable Doodh Nath Mishra and Constable Roy
Kishan Baril (PW-46). Inquest papers and other papers were also put
up before him along with the dead body. The deceased was about 32
years of age. He was of average built. Both sides of heart were
empty, lungs, liver, spleen and both kidneys were pale. He found
following injuries on his dead body:1.
Both the feet were completely smashed.
2.
There was a lacerated wound 6 x 5 into muscle

deep on the left calf with charring around it.
3.
There
were
numerous
lacerated
penetrating
wounds on both the lower limb, with great damage

to the soft tissues underneath.
4.
Stitched lacerated wound on the left elbow on the

front part (3/4 x 1/4 x muscle deep.
5.
There were charring around the wounds.
The pajama (trouser) of the left leg was partly burnt. The lower part
of the right socks was absent and upper part was still there. No
splinter could be found. On internal examination he found that both

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.)
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
800
of the doctor (PW-107), these injuries could be caused by bomb blast

and all these injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.
He also opined that duration of these
injuries could be half an hour of his examination. He succumbed to

his injuries at 7.45 AM on 3.1.1975.
PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, who
conducted post mortem on the body of Ram Kishore Prasad Singh

Kishore, aged 32 years, on 4.1.1975 vide report Ex.PW-88/A found
several injuries on his body including injuries on both feet. In his
opinion, such injuries could be caused by firearm and splinters of an
exploded hand grenade and all injuries were collectively sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course. With regard to the victim Ram Kishore
Prasad Singh Kishore, no prosecution witness has orally stated that he
was seen/present at or around the Dais on Platform No.3 of
Samastipur Railway Station on 2.1.1975 at about 6.00 PM when the
hand grenade thrown, got exploded. Nevertheless, the documentary
evidence Ex.PW-48/A (Ex. P-17) corroborated with regard to its
veracity through the witnesses PW-35 gives the fair account of his
presence at the scene of episode becoming a victim. Hence, it is
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Ram Kishore
Prasad Singh Kishore has suffered injuries in the said bomb blast at
Platform No.3 Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975, and he
succumbed to his injuries on 03.01.1975.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
801
(ii) Surya Narain Jha

722. I have already referred the statement of PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev
Rai. He deposed that Surya Narain Jha along with many others nam ed
by him attended the function at Samastipur. He deposed that there was
an explosion after conclusion of the speech by the Minister. People
started falling, and then he realised that it was a bomb blast.
723. PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha, the then Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur testified that from 1.1.1975 to 25.1.1975, all the doctors in
Government service in Bihar including himself were on cease work
(strike). On 02.1.1975, he received information that some persons
came to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur with injuries received in a bomb
blast. On humanitarian grounds, he went to Hospital to attend them.
He went to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur on that day at about 6.30/6.45
PM. As far as he recollected, he examined four patients in Operation
Theater. He examined DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28), MLC Surya Narain
Jha (deceased), another MLC whose name he did not recollect and one
boy Ajay Kumar (PW-58) aged 11/12 years. The injuries of B.N.
Parshad (PW-28), Surya Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW58) were found grievous in nature. Glucose saline drip was given to
DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28). After the first aid to B.N. Parshad (PW28), Surya Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-58), they
advised that they might be shifted to Darbhanga Medical College. The
injuries of MLC whose name he could not recollect were simple in
nature. That MLC was discharged after giving him first aid.
Father
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.
There were improvements in the
condition of Sh. Surya Narain Jha after the operation but he expired on
04.1.1975 at about 07.00 PM. They, the family members of Sh. Jha
did not want post mortem examination to be conducted on his body
and requested to do away with it. The dead body was handed over to
them without post mortem. The dead body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha
was taken to Congress Bhawan, Balbhatarpur and then to the
residence of Sh. Jha and thereafter cremated. As far as he
remembered, dead body was handed over to him in the Hospital.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
804
726. In his cross-examination PW-99 it is elicited that none from the

public came in the Ambulance at the residence of Sh. Jha, except a
doctor and one compounder. He could not say whether Dr. S.K.
Sarkar and Dr. Ansari gave treatment to Sh. Jha at his residence before
the injured was shifted to Dr. Nawabs Clinic. Sh. Surya Narain Jha
was X-rayed in Dr. Nawabs Clinic and the doctors in that clinic were
already busy in the operation of a child. He did not remember the
time at which the operation of Sh. Jha was concluded but it took about
2/3 hours. He had seen Sh. Jha at about 04.00 AM on 3.1.1975 when
he was brought to the ward. Sh. Jha was not in a position to speak
throughout until his death. It was elicited that a big crowd of 10,000
or 20,000 persons assembled and demanded that post-mortem be not
conducted on the body of Sh. Jha. He admitted the suggestion of the
defence that he was living with Sh. Jha who had treated him like his
child and he had love and affection for him. He answered that proper
treatment was given to Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
727. PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab, Private Practitioner of Janta Clinic,
Darbhanga, aged about 72 years, deposed that he retired as Principal,
Darbhanga Medical College in 1969 and thereafter he has been
engaged in private practice at Darbhanga. He has been running his
own clinic at Darbhanga.
He treated mainly surgical cases.
He
deposed that on 2nd and 3rd January 1975 he was at Darbhanga and in
those days government doctors were on strike. His junior doctors
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
805
requested him to allow his clinic to be run as temporary, free Janta

Clinic. He was supervising the doctors. On 02.1.1975 in the Evening,
he heard Bomb blast took place at Samastipur. He immediately invited
all the junior doctors of Darbhanga Medical College who were on
strike to cooperate with him and treat the casualties arising out of
Samastipur blast.
728. Sh. Suraj Narain Jha also came to his Clinic. Sh. Suraj Narain
Jha suffered blast injuries on his chest and was sent to Darbhanga
Medical College. In his cross-examination, he answered that he does
not have any record in respect of Sh. Suraj Narain Jha.
729. PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagander testified that he passed
MBBS from Bangalore Medical College in January 1973. He was
commissioned in September 1973. In 1975, he was Medical Officer
posted at Officers Training School, AMC, Centre, Lucknow. On first
January 1975 he was ordered to go to Darbhanga to aid the Civil
Authority for running their Hospital. He was posted to Darbhanga
Medical College & Hospital. As the doctors in the entire State of
Bihar were on strike w.e.f. 1.1.1975 and on that account services of
military doctors were requisitioned. He has seen the Bed Head Ticket
No.14 Ex.PW-101/A of Surya Narain Jha MLC in his handwriting at
the encircled portion with red pen and bears his signatures. (Ex.PW101/A is available in Folder R-6). On 02.1.1975 late in night, he was
informed that Mr. Surya Narain Jha was being brought to the Hospital
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
806
in serious condition.
Some persons claiming themselves to be
relatives of Sh. Surya Narain Jha met him. A request was made to him
to permit Dr. Sarkar (PW-100) to operate upon Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
He contacted his superior on telephone immediately and with their
approval, he allowed Dr. Sarkar to operate upon Sh. Surya Narain Jha
provided he undertook full responsibility of treatment and after care
and the consequences. Dr. Sarkar took the responsibility.
admitted the patient Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
He then
Ex.PW-101/A is his
correct endorsement regarding admission of Sh. Jha in the Hospital.

Dr. A.I. Lendhay (PW-66) was his colleague. He saw him writing and
signing and can identify his writing and signatures. Ex.PW-66/A
(Available in Folder R-6) is in hand of Dr. A.I. Lendhay (PW-66).
In his lengthy cross-examination, the defence suggested to the
witness that there was complete chaos at Darbhanga, Samastipur and
in whole of the State of Bihar with regard to the medical treatment
because of strike by the doctors. It was further suggested by the Ld.
Defence Counsel in his cross-examination that there was loss of blood
of Surya Narain Jha on account of lack of medical facility.
730. PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar deposed that in the year 1975 he was
working as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Surgery at
Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital.
He along with other
doctors was on strike at the time of bomb blast at Samastipur.

Military doctors were running the Hospital of Darbhanga Medical
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
signing. The writing Ex.PW-100/B-1 to Ex.PW-100/B-5 encircled

with blue pencil on the Bed Head Ticket is in the handwriting of Dr.
Ansari,
whereas
writing
Ex.PW-100/A-1
to
Ex.PW-100/A-3
(Available in Folder R-6) encircled with red pencil on this Bed Head
Ticket is in his own handwriting. Before operation, he found following
injuries on the person of Sh. Surya Narain Jha:1.
One small injury about 1/4 in diameter over the

pericardial region;
2.
Small opening over the left inter costal space;
3.
One penetrating wound/ninth intercostals space on

left side;
4.
An injury under bandage on right leg; It was a

compound fracture of tibia;
5.
Clinically, an injury was found on the chest

thoracic with collection of blood;
He noted all these injuries on Bed Head Ticket at Sh. Surya Narain
Jha. He operated upon Sh. Jha with the assistance of Dr. Ansari and
Dr. Ganguli. He operated upon a part of the chest and the whole of
the abdomen. During operation, he noticed perforation injuries in the
stomach, which was repaired.
He also noticed perforated injuries
transverse colon, which he repaired. There was also engorment of

blood at the root of mesentery. He suspected foreign body in the
mesentery but it could not be detected and the detection was
hazardous. Inside the abdomen, it was full of blood and faecal matter.

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.
All doctors in the service of Bihar Government were
on cease work during the period from 01.1.1975 to 24.1.1975. He

himself, Dr. Siriraj Hassan and Dr. S.K. Sarkar were also on cease
work during that period. Army doctors were running this hospital
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
810
during that period.
On 02.1.1975 at about 10.30/11.00 PM, he was
present at his residence outside the premises of Darbhanga Medical

College and Hospital.
At that time, he was called by his senior
colleagues at the residence of Sh. Jha MLC to examine him. He went

to the residence of Sh. Jha along with Dr. S.N. Chaudhary, the then
Head of the Department of Surgery. Dr. S. K. Sarkar examined Sh.
Jha and his condition was very low. They decided that he should be
operated upon at once. He was then shifted to Janta Clinic in Dr.
Nawabs Clinic and then to Darbhanga Medical College from Janta
Clinic. They decided to operate upon Sh. Jha despite their being on
cease work. Health Service Association took this decision on special
request made by wife of Sh. Jha. On the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW100/B-3, writing Ex.PW-100/B-1 and Ex.PW-100/B-2 (Available in
Folder R-6) are in his hand with his signatures. He made this correct
writing. He also identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Siriraj
Hassan at point C on this Bed Head Ticket as he had seen writing
and signing Dr. Siriraj Hassan. Sh. Surya Narain Jha was operated
upon by a team of three doctors i.e. Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Dr. Siriraj Hassan
and he himself. He carried out the operation of putting in inter-coastal
chest drainage on the left side under local anesthesia. Immediately
two pints of blood and large number of air were discharged under
water-sealed bottle. The chest tube was left inside. Instructions were
given for post operative management as under: -

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
811
"(i)
Gentle suction of the tube in the chest made in the

water seal
(ii)
Chest X-ray in the bed"
On completion of the operation, he examined Sh. Surya Narain Jha on

3.1.1975 on a request of attending army doctors. On examination he
found that the patient was in the process of putting in semi-erect
position, which apparently made him feel better but on further
examination his general condition was still poor with a cyanosis
persistent. Chest tube was adjusted that drained the stale blood and air
particularly on gentle suction. Some 30 to 40 cc of dark blood was
aspirated.
This made the splash disappear but heart sounds still
appeared feeble and distant. The patient died on 4.1.1975. He was

however not present by the side of the patient at the time of his death.
A small metallic foreign body was noticed in the abdomen. In his
opinion, that splinter caused the death of Sh. Jha. The internal damage
found in the person of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was sufficient to cause his
death in the ordinary course of nature.
He with his signatures
correctly noted writing Ex.PW-100/B-4 and PW-100/B-5 (Available

in Folder R-6).
733. In his cross-examination PW-123 Dr. A.H. Ansari admitted that
a person having bullet injuries or injuries in bomb explosion should be
immediately given treatment and that the operation if found necessary
should be performed immediately. He also admitted that sometimes
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
812
loss of time could prove fatal.
He also admitted that immediate
medical aid would prevent further damage to the body and the delay in
taking the treatment has to be considered with reference to loss of
blood. He stated that abdomen of Surya Narain Jha was also opened.
He admitted the suggestion that the metallic body could not be
extracted from the abdomen of Sh. Surya Narain Jha during the
operation. To reply to the question he stated that the primary and
foremost duty of the Surgeon performing the operation is to repair the
damage with a view to save the patient and during the process, he may
take out the foreign body if it can easily be done.
734. PW-66 Major Dr. A.I. Lendkhy testified that he did his MBBS
in the year 1971 from Bombay University and he was commissioned
in Army Medical Core in September 1974. From Training School,
Lucknow, he was sent to Medical College, Darbhanga from 1.1.1975
to 24.1.1975 due to strike by the doctors. He did not remember who
the Medical Superintendent of Darbhanga Medical College was. On
4.1.1975 the nurse on duty in the Hospital called him at 8.00 AM to
attend patient Sh. Surya Narain Jha. He examined and found him
dead. He correctly recorded his observation in the Bed Head Ticket of
the patient. On examination, he made the following observation:Pulse was not recordable, heart sound was absent,
pupils were fixed and dilated.
Based on this observation, he declared the patient dead. He recorded
endorsement Ex.PW-66/A (Available in Folder R-6) in his
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.
In the middle there is a
request in the encircled blue portion Ex.PW-100/A-1 by Dr. A.H.

Ansari (PW-123) which reads as under:I was requested by Sh. Surya Narain Jha and his
wife to undertake treatment on his various injuries.
The Hospital Authorities has acceded to their
desire and the President of the Health Services
Association permitted me to
undertake the
operation in view of extra ordinary circumstances.

I make it clear that I together with other doctors
whose signatures appear below are participating in
this operation at the DMCH in our individual
private capacity and not as Government Servant on
duty.

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.
This document find
mentions the details of the injuries of the patient, which are exhibited
as Ex.PW-100/A-1 to Ex.PW-100/A-3. The Other details of the
condition of the patient and treatment are at point Ex.PW-100/B-3,
Ex.PW-100/B-4 and Ex.PW-100/B-5. At the last page of the Bed
Head Ticket, there is endorsement Ex.PW-66/A of death of Sh. Surya
Narain Jha in handwriting of DW-66 Major Dr. A.I. Lendkhy.
(This report is available in Folder R-6)
736. PW-45 Sh. Ishwar Chander Mishra deposed that Surya Narain
Jha MLC was his foofa who received injuries in the bomb blast at
Railway Platform, Samastipur on 02.1.1975. He was brought to
Darbhanga Medical College for treatment on the night on 02.1.1975.
He died in Medical College Darbhanga in the morning of 04.1.1975
between 8.00 AM & 9.00 AM. The police prepared Inquest Report
Ex.PW-45/A in respect of Sh. Surya Narain Jha which was signed by
him. Inquest Report Ex.PW-45/A bears his signatures at point A.
He had identified the dead body. The details of injuries found on body
of Sh. Surya Narain Jha were mentioned in this Inquest Report. The
post mortem on the body of Surya Narain Jha was not conducted and
his dead body was taken to District Congress Office, Darbhanga.
There it was kept for public Darshan. In his cross-examination, it is
not disputed that Surya Narain Jha did not suffer injuries in the bomb
blast at Railway Station, Samastipur on 2.1.1975.
Inquest Report
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
815
Ex.PW-45/A in respect of Surya Narain Jha is available in Folder R31.

737. PW-106 Sh. S.A.A. Razvi, the then Sub-Inspector and Officer
Incharge P.S. Lahariya Sarai, Darbhanga stated that on 04.1.1975 at
9.00 AM he received information on telephone from Darbhanga
Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga about death of Surya Narain
Jha. On that particular day, Government doctors were on cease work.
Army Doctors were managing the Hospital. He deputed ASI
Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (PW-106A) to go to Darbhanga Medical
College and Hospital for Inquest Proceedings and other formalities.
He was to arrange for guard of honour for the body of Surya Narain
Jha. For this reason, he personally did not go to Hospital for Inquest
Proceedings. After arranging, for guard of honour, he went to
Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. There he came to know that
the dead body had been taken to Congress Bhawan. Thereafter he
went to Congress Bhawan and found dead body of Surya Narain Jha
wrapped in a Tri-colour Flag. The guard of honour was presented
there. ASI Kameshwar Prasad Sinha (PW-106A) was also present
there. He came to know from ASI Kameshwar Parsad Sinha (PW106A) that relations, friends and sympathizers of Late Surya Narain
Jha did not want that the post mortem be conducted. Superintendent
of Police Sh. K.M. Sinha was present in Congress Bhawan. He had a
talk with him on the subject, who discussed it with the then District
Magistrate. The Superintendent of Police asked him to dispense with
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
816
the post mortem examination and accordingly there was no post

mortem examination on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha.
738. In his cross-examination PW-106 Sh. S.A.A. Razvi replied that
bomb blast took place at Samastipur and not at Darbhanga. He knew
that a case had also been registered at Samastipur and not at
Darbhanga. He admitted that Inquest Proceedings in respect of dead
body of Surya Narain Jha were taken on account of unnatural death
and that in case of trial, those Inquest Proceedings might be utilized.
Regarding question of Defence Counsel whether feelings of relations
of deceased that post mortem should not be conducted, were conveyed
to Samastipur Police, he stated that ASI Kameshwar Prasad Sinha
(PW-106A) wrote a supplementary case diary mentioning detail
happening and were sent to Investigation Officer, GRP, Samastipur.
It was not sent before post mortem examination on the body of Surya
Narain Jha was dispensed with. He did not consider it improper or
wrong since superior authorities discussed the matter and apparent
cause of death was known. He had deputed Sh. Kameshwar Prasad
Sinha (PW-106A) to take Inquest Proceedings since he was working
under him.
739. PW-106A Sh. Kameshwar Parshad Sinha, the then Assistant
Sub-Inspector, P.S. Lahariya Sarai deposed that on 04.1.1975 SI
S.A.A Razvi (PW-106) directed him to go to Darbhanga Medical
College and Hospital to take Inquest Proceedings in respect of dead
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.
Thereafter he proceeded to the
Hospital. He took Inquest Proceedings in respect of dead body of Sh.

Surya Narain Jha in the presence of S/S Ravinder Nath Jha and Ishwar
Chander Mishra. Inquest Proceedings Ex.PW-45/A were correctly
written by him in his own hand. The dead body of Surya Narain Jha
was found on bed no. 132 of surgical ward. He found bandage in the
chest, abdomen, and right side of the chest, below the right knee and
above the left thigh on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha. He had
written in Inquest Report the cause of injuries could be bomb blast.
From the Hospital, the dead body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was taken
to Congress office at Balbadarpur. He accompanied the dead body to
Congress office and after reaching there, SI Razvi (PW-106) met him
there. Post mortem examination on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha
was not conducted as wife and other relatives of Sh. Surya Narain Jha
objected to the post-mortem examination.
District Magistrate and
Superintendent of Police gave permission and dispensed with the 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
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.
There was bleeding from all his injuries. His
clothes were smeared with blood. Besides dhoti he was having a

chaddar, which was also stained with blood. H e did not suggest to SI
Razvi (PW-106) or to any other Police Officer that since it was a case
of GRP Samastipur, they may be consulted before taking decision as
to whether the postmortem should
be conducted or not.
He
categorically answered that post mortem examination on the body of

Sh. Surya Narain Jha was not conducted as his wife, other relatives

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
819
objected it, and District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police gave

permission and dispensed with the post mortem examination.
741. The name of victim Sh. Surya Narain Jha is mentioned in the
charge as Suraj Narain Jha. He was present on the Dais at Platform
No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station on 2.1.1975 at the time of bomb
blast, which is evident from the statement of PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai.
Immediately he was initially taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur
where PW-88 Dr. N. L. Jha who has correctly stated his name as
Surya Narain Jha treated him. He referred the patient to Darbhanga
Medical College and Hospital, Darbhanga. However, he was taken in
an ambulance and was examined by his neighbor Dr. S.K. Sarkar
(PW-100). The House of Sh. Surya Narain Jha is situated just opposite
to the house of Dr. S. K. Sarkar, which has been stated so by PW-99
Sh. Ram Chander Mishra and nephew of Sh. Surya Narain Jha and
PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar himself. The doctors of Darbhanga Medical
College and Hospital were also on strike and as per the statement of
PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar, the patient was taken to Janta Clinic run by
PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab who has also mentioned the name of the
patient as Suraj Narain Jha. However, the doctors did not find Janta
Clinic congenial for the operation of the victim and on medical advice
of PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar and PW-123 Dr. A.H. Ansari, the patient
was admitted in Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital. He was
admitted there only when PW-101 Dr. (Major) A. Nagender, Medical
Officer obtained consent of Dr. Sarkar (PW-100) and Dr. Ansari (PWCBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
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.
From there, he was taken to Darbhanga Medical

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
821
College and Hospital and operated upon.
He succumbed to his
injuries on 04.1.1975.
743. Thus the cause of death was apparent and he suffered grievous
injuries in the bomb blast. Dr. Sarkar and Dr. Ansari have also
explained cause of death. Examination of the body by the Civil
Surgeon or other qualified man could be dispensed with, where there
is no doubt regarding cause of death as elaborated herein before. It
has also come in the statement of nephew of victim Surya Narain Jha,
namely PW-99 Sh. Ram Chander Mishra that the family members of
Sh. Jha did not want post mortem should be conducted on the body of
Sh. Jha. A request was made to obtain the dead body without post
mortem and accordingly the dead body was handed over to them
without post mortem. It has also come in his cross-examination that
about 10,000 or 20,000 persons got assembled who did not want postmortem examination to be conducted on the body of Sh. Jha.
PW-
106A Sh. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, the then Sub-Inspector PS

Lahariya Sarai testified that post mortem on the body of Sh. Surya
Narain Jha was not conducted as wife and other relatives of Sh. Surya
Narain Jha objected to the post mortem examination. It has also come
in his statement that the District Magistrate and Superintendent of
Police gave permission and dispensed with the post mortem
examination. In his cross-examination also, defence got it elicited that
post mortem on the body of Sh. Surya Narain Jha was not conducted
as it was objected by his wife and relatives and the District Magistrate
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
822
and Superintendent of Police gave permission and dispensed with the

post mortem.
744. Thus, there is no force in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel
that the post mortem examination was necessary to know the cause of
death. They have not disputed that Sh. Surya Narain Jha, MLC has
suffered injuries in the bomb blast. Immediately thereafter, he was
taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur where PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha
examined him. Since his condition was very serious and injuries were
of grievous nature, he advised that he should be shifted to Darbhanga
Medical College. The patient was brought in an Ambulance to the
residence of Dr. S.K. Sarkar (PW-100) and at that time, his condition
was very low.
Dr. S.K. Sarkar (PW-100), Surgeon and deceased
Surya Narain Jha, MLC were immediate neighbours. Dr. Sarkar (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.
He suspected foreign body in the mesentery, which could
not be detected as the detection, was hazardous. Inside the abdomen,

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.
(iii) L.N. Mishra succumbing to injuries ::

Jagan Nath Mishra suffering injuries
746. I have already referred the statement of various eye witnesses
namely PW-26 Sh. Narinder Prasad Issar, PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari,
PW-60 Sh. R.N. Rai, PW-65 Sh. Vishwanath, PW-109 Sh. Mohan
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.
There, Dr. P.C. Bhalla, Chief
Medical Officer and Dr. R.K. Sinha (PW-94), Assistant Medical

Officer, Railway Hospital, Samastipur examined them. CW-4 Sh.
Ved Prakash Gupta, the then Additional Private Secretary to Sh. L.N.
Mishra stated that at Samastipur, he remained in the Saloon. When he
was in the Saloon, he heard a loud noise, came out, and found that Sh.
L.N. Mishra and Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra were being brought to Saloon
in injured condition. Sh. Jagan Nath Mishra was bleeding from his
legs and Sh. L.N. Mishra was injured but he could not see any mark.
Dr. Bhalla, Railway Doctor, who was present on the Railway Station,
immediately came to the Saloon. He started treating Sh. L.N. Mishra,
who was in the small cabin. The doctor did not tell about seriousness
of the injury; they decided to go to Danapur by the same train. On the
way train stopped at Patna where lot of supporters of Sh. L.N. Mishra
got down. Some supporters who were at Patna got in and son-in-law
of Sh. L.N. Mishra met him at Patna. Dr. Sahi, who was an eminent
Surgeon, also came into the Saloon and examined Sh. L.N. Mishra.
There was 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

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
825
Military Hospital where military doctors and other doctors examined

and treated him and he was declared dead on 03.1.1975.
747. In his cross-examination at the hand of Ld. Special P.P., CW-4
Sh. Ved Prakash Gupta replied that Sh. L.N. Mishra's political work
was more concentrated in Bihar. He has been with Sh. L.N. Mishra
since 1965 until his death. In his cross-examination by the Ld.
Defence Counsel, he answered that he was not told by anyone about
any injury or seriousness of Sh. L.N. Mishra. He admitted that Dr.
Bhalla had accompanied Sh. L.N. Mishra from Samastipur to
Danapur. Sh. L.N. Mishra did not complain of any abdominal pain in
his presence and inside the cabin of Saloon only Dr. Bhalla and Sh.
L.N. Mishra were there up to Patna. From Patna, Dr. Sahi and Dr.C.S.
Jha (Son-in-law) were there up to Danapur. He came to know only in
Danapur for the first time that Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken to Defence
Colony & that he was serious and required to be operated upon. He
replied that he was not aware if any postmortem on the body of Sh.
L.N. Mishra was conducted or not as after reaching Danapur, son-inlaw of Sh. L. N. Mishra had taken control of the situation. He also
came to know from doctors of Sh. L.N. Mishra that two splinters from
the bomb had speared his body and had gone up to his heart. He came
to Delhi only after funeral of Sh. L.N. Mishra was over at his native
place Balwa Bazaar. The decision to shift Sh. L.N. Mishra was taken
by Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, MLC of Bihar. He stated that Sh. Ram

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.
They traveled by Special Train from Darbhanga to

Dr. P. C. Bhalla sat in the Saloon with the Railway
Minister while he was sitting in another compartment. The Special

Train reached Samastipur in the Evening at about 5.00 or 5.15 PM and
stopped at Platform no. 3.
The medical equipments, which were
carried with them from Darbhanga to Samastipur, were shifted to first

Class compartment of BG Special Train on Platform No.5. At about
6.00 PM he heard Chief Security Officer shouting calling for Chief
Medical Officer.
He informed Chief Security Officer that Chief
Medical Officer was sitting in the compartment in the rear. In the

meantime, a Railway employee came and informed him about the
Railway Minister being injured in a bomb blast. He along with the
staff went running to the Saloon of Railway Minister and CMO was
also found running and they both reached the Saloon of Railway
Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra almost simultaneously. Dr. P.C. Bhalla
examined Sh. L.N. Mishra in that Saloon. He also examined the
wounds, which were given dressing. He saw true copy of Injury Chart
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
827
Ex.PW-94/A (available in folder R-14) in respect of Sh. L.N. Mishra

and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra on which portion at point A is in his
handwriting with his signatures. The original Chart, correct copy of
which is Ex.PW-94/A was prepared by him at Danapur at about 1.00
AM on 03.1.1975.
749. On examining Sh. L.N. Mishra he found injuries on his person
which were noted by him in the Chart (Ex.PW-94A).
He noted
following injuries on Sh. L.N. Mishra:1.
Right Inguinal Region.

a) Two abrasions about 4 x
b) One punctured wound about 3/4 in diameter
below above wound.
2.
Lacerated Injury about 1 x 1/2 on right thigh.
3.
Lacerated Injury about 2 x1/2 on the left thigh.
4.
Multiple small punctured wounds on both legs.
5.
Complained of pain abdomen-suspected intra

abdominal injury.
750. He did not note these injuries at the time of examining Sh. L.N.
Mishra. He thought that after reaching the Hospital, the dressing
would be changed and at that time, injuries would be noted. He
generally examined Sh. L.N. Mishra. His pulse was 85 per minute and
blood pressure was 150/90 of mercury. He was nervous. Chest was
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.
Lacerated injury about 2 x on the left leg, 4

above the ankle.
2.
There was another injury which was already

dressed and on that account I had not examined
that injury. It was in the popliteal region.
3.
Multiple small punctured wound on the left leg.
751. He did the dressing of the injuries of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra.
He generally examined Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and made the following
observation:Pulse was 80 per minute regular and fair. General
condition was good, chest and CVS were N.A.D.
Abdomen-soft No rigidity.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
829
He thereafter came to the CMO and had a discussion with him

regarding the general condition of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra.
One
Novalgin injection was given to Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra after

discussion with Dr. P. C. Bhalla. Thereafter, he was attending both
Sh. L.N. Mishra and Jagan Nath Mishra by visiting their rooms in that
Saloon.
The train reached Barauni and then Patna and then at
Danapur. During this period, CMO was attending to Sh. L.N. Mishra.
This Special Train reached Danapur Railway Station at about 11.30
PM. After sustaining of an injury in the abdomen initially, it remained
soft but later, it became rigid. Sh. L.N. Mishra was complaining of
pain in the abdomen when he was dressing his wounds. He and Dr.
P.C. Bhalla after discussion had a suspicion about the injuries in the
abdomen of L.N. Mishra but they could not get any clue of the injury.
At about 10.00 PM when they crossed Barauni, Dr. Bhalla told him
after examination of Sh. L.N. Mishra that some rigidity had appeared
in the abdomen and pulse rate has increased.
Once rigidity in
abdomen appears, it would not be possible to hear the peristaltic

sound. At the instance of Dr. P.C. Bhalla, he also examined Sh. L.N.
Mishra and found rigidity while peristaltic sound was absent. Then
they concluded that some injuries occurred to intestine but were not
sure about the injuries to other organs. The pulse rate of Sh. L.N.
Mishra was 120 when they reached Danapur. On reaching Danapur
Railway Minister, Sh. L.N. Mishra expressed his desire of going to
Railway Hospital, Danapur. Sh. L.N. Mishra was removed to Railway

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
830
Hospital, Danapur in an Ambulance. Dr. R.V.P. Sinha, Professor of

Surgery and others doctors accompanied Sh. L.N. Mishra to Railway
Hospital, Danapur.
Dr.
P. C. Bhalla and he himself did not
accompany Sh. L.N. Mishra to Railway Hospital, Danapur in that

ambulance and Dr. Bhalla went there by car and he went there on foot.
752. From Railway Hospital, Danapur he and Dr. P.C. Bhalla came
to Railway Station. While sitting in the Saloon in which Sh. L.N.
Mishra travelled, he prepared the Chart correct copy of which is Mark
PW-94/A.
His memory was fresh at the time of preparing the
previously mentioned chart. Railway chart was submitted before the

Ajit Nath Medical Expert Committee. This copy Mark PW-94/A was
prepared before sending original chart to Ajit Nath Medical Expert
Committee. He prepared this correct copy of Mark PW-94/A from the
original chart. This document is already proved by the witness and
has been exhibited as Ex.PW-94/A. Ex.PW-94/A is available in
Folder R-14.
753. In his cross-examination PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha replied that he
went to the Saloon of Sh. L.N. Mishra after coming to know about his
receiving injuries and he found Dr. P.C. Bhalla, CMO, Ram Nandan,
Dresser, P.V. Kanhaiya and 1-2 more persons. On the direction of Dr.
P.C. Bhalla, he immediately started examining the wounds and their
dressing. He personally did the dressing of the wounds of Sh. L.N.
Mishra. Dr. P.C. Bhalla did not note the injuries. Dr. Bhalla did not
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.
He took about 5/6 minutes for dressing the
wounds of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and 5 minutes for his general
examination after dressing of the wounds. He might have taken 5

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.
The original noting about the injuries was
prepared by him in his own handwriting and copy thereof is Mark

PW-94/A which was exhibited as Ex.PW-94/A.
It was typed on
31.1.1975. In this document Ex.PW-94/A it is mentioned by PW-94

Dr. R.K. Sinha under his signatures that the original injury report and
record or blood pressure and pulse and general condition is lying in his
safe custody. He personally did not inform Sh. L.N. Mishra that in
order to give proper treatment to him it was necessary to have X-ray
or that his X-ray was to be taken and thereafter he could go to any
place for treatment. He did not advise Dr. P.C. Bhalla to have such a
talk with Sh. L.N. Mishra or others present in the Saloon. He replied
that injury in abdomen may or may not be dangerous. He personally
did not suggest to Sh. L.N. Mishra or to Dr. P.C. Bhalla that they were
to accompany the Railway Minister to Danapur which journey would

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.
He received a telephonic message from Dr. Saligram,

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
834
DMO to the effect that he should reach Hospital immediately.

Accordingly he reached Railway Hospital, Danapur.
He met Dr.
Saligram and Dr. S.P. Sinha. They asked him to ascertain whether the
Operation Theatre and Wards were ready to receive the patients from
Samastipur where persons received injuries at Railway Station,
Samastipur. He checked up the Ward and Operation Theatre. Dr.
Joshi, Medical Superintendent directed him to go to Patna with
medicines and other equipments, which were sent by ambulance to
Patna while he and Dr. Joshi went there on personal scooter. They
reached Railway Station, Patna and on reaching Railway Station,
Patna, they were directed to return to Danapur as per information
conveyed to him by Dr. S.P. Sinha. They all the doctors returned to
Danapur where ambulance was also brought.
They were directed to
return to Danapur since they came to know that the train in which
injured Railway Minister was travelling would not stop at Patna and
would proceed straight to Danapur. The Special Train carrying Sh.
L.N. Mishra, Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and others arrived at Railway
Station, Danapur at 12.00 midnight, of the night intervening 2nd and
3rd January, 1975. Both Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra
(CW-3) were sent to Railway Hospital, Danapur by ambulance. He
also reached there. He examined Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra.
In the
meanwhile, Dr. R.V.P. Sinha also arrived, examined Dr. Jagan Nath
Mishra (CW-3), and gave him (PW-125A) direction for treatment of
Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. He deposed that Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
835
118/E in respect of Jagan Nath Mishra (CW-3) bears his endorsement

at point A & B and he was discharged on 03.1.1975 at 10.35 AM. As
per indoor case record of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra Ex.PW-118/E
(Ex.PW-118/E is available in Folder R-7), he suffered injury on left
leg and X-Ray was advised. He left Hospital by making request on
03.01.1975 at 10.35 AM.
756. PW-125A Dr. M. Mohanti further deposed that he was present
in the Operation Theatre
throughout
the operation of Railway
Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra and he was present there as Anesthetist. Dr.
I. K. Banga, Major, Army Hospital and Dr. Nasir Ahmad, Professor
and Head of the Department were also present during the operation.
He (PW-125A) prepared the correct note of Anesthesia and he
correctly mentioned the details of other process of the operation.
Ex.PW-125/A are the correct operation notes in his handwriting
bearing his signatures at point A and that of Dr. I. K. Banga and Dr.
Nasir Ahmad at point B & C respectively and they signed in his
presence. Ex.PW-125/A are Anaesthetist Note of 3 pages mentioning
all details of Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra which is written by PW-125A
Dr. M. Mohanti and 2 more doctors.
(This document Ex.PW-125/A is available in
folder R-37)
757. In his cross-examination PW-125A Dr. M. Mohanti replied that
it was only a general examination of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra and his
injuries had already been dressed up. He did not mention whether the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
836
injuries of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra were incised wound or lacerated

wound because of injuries having already been dressed up.
He
admitted the suggestion of the defence that as per history of Sh. L.N.
Mishra he was an old case of I.H.D. (ischemic heart disease),
hypertension and that he was taking Adelphane for normalizing blood
pressure. He was taking Calmpose to reduce mental tension. He was
also taking Pacetrane for checking and controlling the trembling of
body. In heart disease and high blood pressure, there is chance of
sodium retention in the body, which causes swelling of the whole
body and may cause damage to the kidney.
To remove sodium salt
from the body, Lassix is used. As per history, Sh. L.N. Mishra was
taking Lassix. He was also taking Amphicillin, which is high power
anti-biotic. There was also history of urinary tract infection. Besides
his duties as Anesthetist, he was performing general duties as Medical
Officer. If a patient is brought to him complaining severe pain in the
abdomen with suspected foreign body in the abdomen due to injury in
the bomb blast, he would examine the patient immediately. If surgeon
were available, he would immediately seek the advice of the surgeon
and obey their directions. If the patient who is a victim of entry of any
foreign body in his abdomen, the general condition of that patient is to
be assessed by the doctor first. Necessary investigation and
necessitation measures should be confirmed and as soon as general
condition is found to a stage where anaesthesia and surgery can be
done, at that stage operation can be done.

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.
Thereafter he met Dr. D.C. Joshi who
instructed him to go to Patna along with emergency medicines and

equipments in Ambulance with some doctors and Para-medical staff.
Accordingly, he along with other staff left Danapur by ambulance and
reached Patna at 8.30/9.00 PM. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Mohanti followed
his ambulance on a scooter for Patna. The Divisional Superintendent,
Danapur conveyed him instructions that he should return to Hospital,
Danapur. Accordingly, he returned to Danapur and went to Railway
Station, Danapur. He was told that train would not stop at Patna and
reach Railway Station, Danapur. He knew Dr. R.V.P. Sinha, who was
Professor and Head of the Department of Surgery, Patna Medical
College. He met him at Railway Station, Danapur. Train carrying
Railway Minister
Sh. L.N. Mishra arrived at Railway Station,

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
838
Danapur in the mid Night. Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra also arrived by the
same train. Both of them were taken to Railway Hospital, Danapur
and he followed them. Sh. L.N. Mishra was kept in the Recovery
Room attached to the Operation Theatre. He examined Sh. L.N.
Mishra in the Recovery Room. He noted his complaints and also the
injuries found on his person. He perused record i.e. Medical Folder
having the proceedings of Medical Expert Committee appointed by
Bihar Government, brought by Dy. SP Sh. Shyam Singh on the order
of the Court; he saw Indoor Record relating to Sh. L.N. Mishra
prepared in Railway Hospital, Danapur.
As per record, Sh. L.N.
Mishra was admitted in Railway Hospital, Danapur at 12.05 AM on

3.1.1975. In the Indoor Ticket Ex.PW-118/A, (available in folder R37) he has written the correct particulars at point A. He correctly
recorded the injuries on the person of Sh. L.N. Mishra in this Indoor
Record. He received following injuries on his person:1.
Multiple lacerated injuries in right foot and right

thigh skin deep.
2.
Lacerated wound with skin scorched margin 1 X

X peritoneal deep X peritoneal cavity directing
upwards and medially 3 below right interior
superior iliac spine with bleeding.
3.
Irregular
contused
area
above
injury
no.2
measuring 2% 2X 3 skin intact.

4.
Abrasion 3 X 1 over right iliac region.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
839
5.
Lacerated would X about 3 above left

knee, knee fat anterior.
He testified that duration of these injuries was about six hours. These
injuries could be the result of splinters of an exploded bomb. The
patient was conscious. His pulse was 140 per minute, respiration was
40 minute (labored) and blood pressure was 170/98 MM of mercury.
His abdomen was distended and rigid all over and bowels sounds were
absent. There was nothing abnormal in the heart. Prof. (Dr.) R.V.P.
Sinha and Major Mahender Singh of Army were called to examine
and do the needful to the patient Sh. L.N. Mishra. Prof. R.V.P. Sinha
after examining gave necessary advice at 12.30 AM. He correctly
recorded the advice given by Prof. Sinha at point B on Ex.PW118/A. He recorded the correct injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra at point
C on Ex.PW-118/A.
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
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)
Complete blood examination.
(ii)
Blood Urea Estimation.
(iii)
Blood Sugar Estimation.
(iv)
Urine Routine Examination.
(v)
X-Ray abdomen in erect position
(vi)
X-Ray Chest.
(vii) X-Ray Pelvis.

(viii) X-Ray both thighs.
(ix)
X-Ray right foot.
760. He had seen the reports in respect of all the before said
investigations prior to the operation. In those days, Dr. L.P. Gupta
was the Radiologist in Railway Hospital, Danapur. He is conversant
with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. L.P. Gupta as he had seen
him writing and signing and also received writing from him in the
course of his duties. He had seen the Skiagram and reports of the
Radiologist relating to L.N. Mishra that night. Ex.PW-118/B is the
Report of Dr. L.P. Gupta, Radiologist, in his hand-writing with his
signature at point A.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
841
761. This is X-ray report of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister,

available in Folder R-37. As per X-ray report Ex.PW-118/B, there
were multiple radio opaque foreign body in right foot, two radio
opaque foreign body in abdomen of different sizes on right side and
radio opaque foreign body in both thighs and wet firms were shown to
the Surgeons in X-ray room.
762. It has also come in deposition of PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha that
there was two-radio opaque foreign body in the abdomen of different
sizes. There was multiple radio opaque foreign body on the right foot.
Radio opaque foreign body was also found in both the thighs.
Anesthesia was started by Dr. Banga and Dr. Mohanti at 3.00 AM on
3.1.1975. Prof. Nasir Ahmad of Patna Medical College and Hospital
also joined them at 4.00 AM on 03.1.1975. The patient got frequent
attacks of cyanosis on open ether, gas and oxygen. No intubation
could be done due to his short neck. At that stage Prof. U.N. Sahi, Dr.
P. B. Parshad, Dr. M.L. Singh, Dr. S.N. Mishra and Dr. R.P. Sinha,
Surgeons of Patna Medical College and Hospital too examined him.
Cardiologist Dr. A.K. Thakur of Patna Medical College and Hospital
also examined him. His ECG was normal. The general condition of
the patient was not good and it was deteriorating. So it was decided to
operate upon Sh. L.N. Mishra as quickly as possible. The operation
was started at 5.00 AM. On opening the peritoneal cavity, gas came
out. There was collection of faecal matter in the peritoneal cavity. On
exploration, following visceral injuries were noticed:CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
842
1.
Two perforations half inch long each through

jejunum about 1 x feet from jugdo-jejunum
flexure.
2.
Two perforations in the sigmoid colon through and

through.
3.
Two perforations through and through in the ilium

6 from ileo-caecal junction.
4.
Appendix was completely divided half inch from

its junction with caesium.
5.
Posterior medial leaf of mesentery torn avulsed

and bleeding.
6.
One metallic foreign body was found free in the

peritoneal cavity at the route of mesentery causing
a through and through hole in the mesentery.
763. PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha further deposed that the following
procedure was adopted:1.
All the perforations were closed in two layers

using atraumagi 2/o catgut and silk.
2.
The appendix was removed and the torn stum was

buried by the usual method.
3.
The foreign body was removed and preserved.
4.
Ileo-transverse colostomy was done because after

closure of the performation near the ileoc aecal

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
843
angle, the lauman of the ileum was very much

narrow.
5.
Peritoneal toilet was done about one litra of blood

and peritoneal exutate were moped out.
764. PW-118 Sh. S.P. Sinha further stated that abdominal closure
was started at 8.10 AM while the last stitches were given in the ractus
sheath. Cardiac arrest was announced by Anesthetist. Immediately
external cardiac massage was started. Because of constitution of the
chest wall and obesity and the external massage was not effective, and
therefore quickly a left thoraco-tomy was done through fifth inter
costal space and internal cardiac massage was started. Later on, it was
difficult to maintain oxygenation without indo-tracheal tube,
traciohtomy was done, oxygenation started.
Cardiac massage and
indo-tracheal oxygenation were continued but the ventricles of the

heart started dilating and the beats become poorer and feeble.
Gradually the heart stopped and could not be revived.
Cardiac
massage was continued until 9.30 AM on 03.1.1975 when the patient

was declared dead. He proved the Operation Notes Ex.PW-118/C
(available in Folder R-37) in the hands of Dr. M.L. Singh, whose
handwriting and signatures were identified by him since he had seen
him writing and signing. He also identified the signatures of Dr. Prof.
R.V.P. Sinha at point A on the Operation Notes. He issued Death
Certificate at point D on Indoor Record Ex.PW-118/A which is in
his handwriting and bears his signatures. The patient expired due to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
844
extensive intra-abdominal injuries and cardio respiratory failure at

9.30 AM on 03.1.1975.
These injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra were
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He stated

that he would be in a position to identify the foreign body recovered
from the person of Sh. L. N. Mishra during operation time. During his
deposition one sealed parcel with seal of MS Eastern Railway,
Danapur, was opened in the court from which one phial was taken out
and from which metallic piece Ex.P-192 was taken out. He also
identified the metallic piece Ex.P-192 to be the same foreign body
recovered from the person of L. N. Mishra during the operation. He
stated that it was sealed in the phial in his presence.
765. As per this document i.e. Indoor case record of Late Sh. L.N.
Mishra Ex.PW-118/C (available in Folder R-37) it is mentioned that
on 3.1.1975 Sh. L.N. Mishra aged about 53 years was examined at
0030 hrs. by Prof. (Dr.) R.V. P. Sinha (MS, FRCS) that the patient
was having history of injury due to bomb explosion at about 5.00 PM
at Samastipur. He sustained multiple injuries. He was fully conscious
and complaining of severe pain in the abdomen. Dr. Sheo Narain
Singh also examined him. His abdomen was found distended, bowel
sound absent. He was advised and given various medicines, IV Fluid
and blood transfusion as also oxygen inhalation.
His several
investigations like blood picture, blood urea, blood sugar, urine

routine, x-ray abdomen, x-ray pelvis, x-ray chest, x-ray of both thighs
were prescribed. It is mentioned that his x-ray abdomen showed a
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
845
foreign body. He passed clear urine before operation. Then there is

mention that Sh. L.N. Mishra was operated upon and the operation
started at 5 AM. Details of the operation and findings are also find
mentioned therein. At that time, four surgeons, Dr. R.V. P. Sinha,
Professor (Dr.) U.N. Sahi, Dr. (Maj.) Mohinder Singh and Dr. P.V.
Prasad were present. Dr. M.L. Sinha, Dr. D.C. Joshi and Dr. S. Sinha
assisted the Surgeons. Anesthetists Dr. N. Ahmed, Dr. M. Mohanti,
Dr. (Maj.) I.K. Banga were present.
During the operation, one
metallic foreign body was found free in the peritoneal cavity at the
root of mesentery causing a thorough hole in the mesentery. The
foreign body was removed and preserved. The abdominal closure was
started at 8.10 AM while the last stitch was given, the Anesthetist for
which immediately external cardiac massage announced cardiac arrest
and other necessary treatment was given. He was declared dead at
09.30 AM on 03.01.1975.
766. In his further statement PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha testified that he
had seen Dr. D.C. Joshi, his Divisional Medical Superintendent, and
he can identify his handwriting and signatures.
Dr. D.C. Joshi
conveyed Information regarding death of Sh. L.N. Mishra to Police

Station, Khagaul. Carbon copy of Information is Ex.PW-118/D. It
bears signatures of Dr. D.C. Joshi at point A. (Available in Folder
R-37). Vide this document Dr. D.C. Joshi, MS Danapur informed
police station Khagaul (Patna) about handing over dead body of Sh.
L.N. Mishra to police, which had taken it to Sadaquat Ashram at about
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
846
11.30 AM.) He testified that during Inquest Proceedings in respect of

the dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra, he identified the dead body.
767. With regard to Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra, PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha
further deposed that in the Railway Hospital, Danapur at 10.30 AM on
3.1.1975, Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra was admitted. He proved Indoor
Ticket Ex.PW-118/E in respect of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra in which he
correctly mentioned his particulars. In the Indoor case record writing
point "B" and "C" are in his handwriting. He was discharged from the
Hospital on 03.01.1975 at 10.35 AM at his own request vide
endorsement recorded by him at Point "D" on Ex.PW-118/E.
(Available in Folder R-7).
768. In his cross-examination PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha replied that as
far as he recollected, the patient (Sh. L.N. Mishra) was in great agony
and on that account he examined him hurriedly leaving further details
for his senior doctors. Complete history about the ailments of Sh.
L.N. Mishra was taken by his senior colleagues and by Anesthetist.
He admitted that in the history mentioned in the case record in respect
of Sh. L. N. Mishra by Anesthetist that it was an old case of IHD.
Anesthetist has also mentioned in the history that the ECG showed
sinus tachy cardiac (increased heart rate). History showed that he was
suffering from hypertension also. He also admitted that as per the old
history he was suffering from high blood pressure for which he was
taking Adelphane.
History also indicates that patient was taking

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
847
Calmpose. Calmpose is generally taken to ease tension. He admitted

that as per the history Sh. L.N. Mishra was taking Adelphane,
Calmpose, Pacitone, Codylen, Lassix and capsule Amphicillin. He
also admitted that there was past history of urinary tract infection and
chest infection. He was also taking Duvadilon to increase circulatory
flow of blood. He answered that in case of a patient suffering injuries
due to bomb blast, the aim of the operation is not to extract the foreign
body but to repair the damage done by the foreign body. The question
as to whether the patient could be operated upon immediately or not
would be decided keeping in view the condition of the patient. If the
general condition of the patient is very weak and the patient is not fit
for anesthesia or general condition is low, they would necessitate the
patient for few hours. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that
he has recorded the duration of the injuries of the patient only after
fully examining the patient.
He recorded time of admission and
duration of injuries of Sh. L.N. Mishra at the same time at which the
injuries were recorded in the Bed Head Ticket.
769. PW-87 Inspector Sidh Nath Ram deposed that during night
intervening 2nd & 3rd January, 1975, he was Incharge of P.S. Khagaul,
Distt. Patna. On 03.1.1975, at about 3.00 AM, information was
received from Railway Hospital, Danapur that Railway Minister, Sh.
L.N. Mishra was admitted in the Hospital with injuries on account of a
bomb blast. He, thereafter, went to Railway Hospital, Danapur. At
that time, Railway Minister Sh. L.N. Mishra was in the Operation
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.
Ex.PW-59/A is the correct
Inquest Report in respect of dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra which he

prepared. (Available in Folder R-7). It bears his signatures at point
C. It was signed by S/S H. N. Parshad (PW-59) and Nasiruddin at
point A & B respectively in his presence. Before start of Inquest
Proceedings, Dr. S.P. Sinha (PW-118) had shown him death certificate
of Sh. L.N. Mishra which is Mark PW-87/A.
exhibited as Ex.PW-118/A)
(It was later on
He wanted to get post mortem
examination on the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra. However, the relatives

of Railway Minister and public did not want post-mortem examination
and they wanted to take the dead body to Sadaquat Ashram. At that
time, District Magistrate through City Superintendent of Police and
Senior Superintendent of Police were also present. He wrote a petition
and submitted to District Magistrate, City S.P. and Sr. Superintendent
of Police with request to give necessary orders as to whether the dead
body of Sh. L.N. Mishra should be sent for post mortem examination

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.
The cause of death in the Inquest Proceedings
Ex.PW-59/A was written by him based on report of the doctor. He did

not obtain any MLC or any other document from the doctor relating to
Sh. L.N. Mishra but he had seen death certificate in respect of Sh.
L.N. Mishra shown by the doctor. On 3.1.1975, he reached Railway
Hospital, Danapur at about 3.30 AM. He stayed there for about half
an hour and then he returned to Police Station Khagaul. He again
went to Railway Hospital, Danapur and reached there at about 6.45
AM.
He personally did not go inside the Operation Theater. About
25/30 persons were present in the Railway Hospital, Danapur when he

went there for the first time at about 3.30 AM.
He found about
300/400 persons in the Hospital on reaching there at about 6.45 AM.

He has given a copy of the Inquest Proceedings to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and he took the original one to police station. Dr. S.P.
Sinha had identified the dead body of Sh. L.N. Mishra.
He did not

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
851
Railway Hospital as also in the Sadar Hospital, Samastipur but Sh.

L.N. Mishra was not taken to either of these hospitals for his treatment
on the direction of his political boss of Sh. Ram Bilas Jha in Delhi.
They have also referred to the statement of PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha
who stated that Sh. L.N. Mishra has desired to go to Darbhanga and
instead of taking him to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, he
was taken to Danapur and the Late Sh. L.N. Mishra reached there at
about 11.30 PM, which worsened his condition. From Danapur
Railway Station, he was shifted to Railway Hospital, Danapur, which
is very small hospital. He was operated upon only at about 4.00 AM
on 3.1.1975 and thus he did not succumb to the injuries of bomb blast
but due to not providing him medical aid at the appropriate time on
direction of Sh. Ram Vilas Jha. The prosecution has intentionally not
examined Dr. P.C. Bhalla and any of the surgeons, who operated upon
Sh. L.N. Mishra. They further argued that there is no investigation by
the investigating agency as to who was the person responsible for this
delay in medical aid, which was purposely withheld so that the
Minister could die.
774. This court cannot be oblivious of the fact that PW-88 Dr. N. L.
Jha, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, having deposed in
the very cross-examination by the accused that on 02.1.1975 there was
no other doctor available except the witness at the local Sadar
Hospital. The statement of PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta reveals that 23
persons who sustained injuries in the bomb blast on 02.01.1975 were
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
853
Nagender, MBBS, the then Medical Officer at Darbhanga Medical

College and Hospital, the Defence Counsel have themselves given
suggestion that there was complete chaos at Darbhanga, Samastipur
and whole of Bihar as the doctors were on strike. Further, the defence
has given him another suggestion that there was loss of blood of Surya
Narain Jha because of lack of medical facility also. It has already
come in the statement of PW-100 Dr. S.K. Sarkar, PW-123 Dr. A.H.
Ansari and PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender that there was complete
strike by the doctors in the State of Bihar and on personal request of
Dr. Sarkar, the operation of Surya Narain Jha (deceased) was
conducted thereon subject to request and at his own responsibility. It
has come in the statement of PW-66 Major A.I. Lendkhy, MBBS, that
the Army Doctors did not treat this patient. PW-101 Major (Dr.) A.
Nagender and PW-66 Major (Dr.) A.I. Lendkhy were newly appointed
MBBS doctors and they were deputed in the Darbhanga Medical
College and Hospital from 01.1.1975 due to strike by the doctors. By
giving the suggestion to PW-101 Major (Dr.) A. Nagender by the Ld.
Defence Counsel, they have admitted that there was complete chaos in
Darbhanga and Samastipur with regard to the medical treatment and
there was no medical facility available in Darbhanga Medical College
and Hospital. At the cost of repetition, one needs to note that at
Samastipur, there were two Hospitals, i.e. Sadar Hospital and Railway
Hospital. In Sadar Hospital, only one doctor PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha was
available. In Railway Hospital, Samastipur, out of 23 patients of bomb

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
854
blast, 17 have left by making request, mostly next day. Admittedly,

Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister belonged to the State of Bihar and
was the brother of Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra. Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra,
who also suffered injuries in the incident, was accompanying him.
Further, the Special Train carrying Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan
Nath Mishra left for Danapur at 08.00 PM i.e. after about two hours of
injuries suffered by Sh. L.N. Mishra and Dr. Jagan Nath Mishra.
There were several options available before them to have treatment at
Samastipur, Darbhanga, Patna and Danapur. By now from evidence, I
have dealt with options of Samastipur and Darbhanga where treatment
was not preferred as no proper medical facilities were available in
both Hospitals at Samastipur and Darbhanga. CW-4 Sh. V.P. Gupta
deposed that there was doctors strike in Patna on that day. The sonin-law of Railway Minister namely Dr. C.S. Jha and Dr. Sahi, an
eminent Surgeon boarded the Special Train to Danapur. It appears
that due to lack of medical facility in the Samastipur and Darbhanga,
both the brothers L.N. Mishra and Jagan Nath Mishra took a proper
decision to go to Danapur. Even if it is accepted from the statement of
PW-53 Sh. P.N. Tiwari that he was informed by Sh. Ram Bilas Jha
that the Minister has desired to go to Patna, the son-in-law of Railway
Minister namely Dr. C.S. Jha along with eminent Surgeon Dr. S. Sahi
has boarded the Special Train carrying Sh. L.N. Mishra from Patna. It
has come in the statement of CW-4 Sh. V.P. Gupta that son-in-law of
Sh. L.N. Mishra took control of the situation, who was a medical

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,
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
Apparently the death was due to injuries on vital parts of his

body by the splinters of bomb; there was no necessity of his
postmortem.
782. Even from the evidence it is gathered that there was no
suggestion in the cross-examination of PW-94 Dr. R.K. Sinha that
treatment was delayed by him and by Dr. P.C. Bhalla at the instance of
Sh. Ram Bilas Jha or by any person. The cross-examination of PW125A Dr. M. Mohanti and PW-118 Dr. S.P. Sinha also does not
shatter their assertion that metallic piece Ex.P-192 was found and
recovered from the body of Sh. L.N. Mishra.
783. Moreover, in explanation (2) to Section 299 of the Indian Penal
Code which reads as under:CHAPTER XVI
OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN
BODY
Of Offences Affecting Life
299. Culpable homicide Whoever causes death
by doing an act with the intention of causing death,
or with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
859
Explanation 2.- Where death is caused by bodily

injury, the person who causes such bodily injury
shall be deemed to have caused the death, although
by resorting to proper remedies and skilful
treatment the death might have been prevented.
In view of clear explanation (2) to Section 299 of Indian Penal Code,
even if there was some delay in providing medical treatment to Sh.
L.N. Mishra (in this case there being no such intentional delay caused
by the medical experts), the accused persons cannot escape the rigour
of law and claim benefit of doubt.
784. The defence has examined Sh. Vinay Kumar Mishra as DW-25,
who is son of late Sh. L.N. Mishra. It has come in his testimony that
at the time of incident of Bomb explosion at Samastipur, he was 28
years of age. His father had gone to inaugurate Broad Gauge Line at
Samastipur on 02.01.1975. At that time, his uncle Sh. Jagan Nath
Mishra (CW-3) was also present at the spot. Since Darbhanga is at a
distance of 32 KM from Samastipur, they thought it fit that he be
taken to Darbhanga Hospital. Thereafter, they came to know that he
was being taken to Patna. Subsequently, they came to know that his
father was being brought to Danapur. His brother-in-law and a doctor
by profession Sh. C.S. Jha and late Hemant Jha were also with the
witness. At Danapur Railway Hospital, he met his father, when he was
being taken for X-ray, he talked to his father at about 01.30 AM. His
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
862
Nath Medical Expert Committee. In view of the above arguments,

this court has closely examined the document Ex.DW-20/A. After
going through the said document, this court does not find any clue to
comment on the death of Sh. L.N. Mishra due to medical negligence.
Statement Ex.DW-20/A only reaffirms that DW-20 had conducted
only ECG examination on the person of Sh. L.N. Mishra. Statement
only shows that ECG revealed that Sh. L.N. Mishra had no heart
problem. It further shows that after operation of his abdomen, the
blood pressure of Sh. L.N. Mishra started dropping and he suffered
cardiac arrest. This witness stated that cardiac arrest was a surprise to
him. Further close scrutiny of the operation notes proved by Dr. S.P.
Sinha (PW-118) as referred in the earlier Paras of the judgement,
splinters were found in the abdomen of Sh. L.N. Mishra and one
metallic piece was extracted which is Ex.P-192.
The removal of
splinters, extraction of metallic piece from the abdomen naturally

leads to loss of blood due to internal injuries in the intestine, veins and
arteries. The injuries also damaged the capillary of the blood
circulatory system, which is common prudence for which no specific
medical knowledge is required. Under these circumstances, the blood
pressure naturally comes down i.e. affects the flow of blood to the
heart. Given these circumstances and the context, it is undesirable as
to how a medical doctor (DW-20) finds surprise to the cause of death.
This witness did not elaborate much in his examination which would

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.
Name of the Patient & Date of Admission Date

Exhibit of Bed Head & Time
Discharge
Ticket
& reason

of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
864
1.
Rama Kant Jha

2.1.1975 at 18.15
Ex.PW-93/N = Ex.PW- hrs.
107/D
4.1.1975 on
request
2.
Satender Prasad Singh

Ex.PW-93/T
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
4.1.1975 on
request
3.
Nawal Kishore Singh

Ex.PW-93/K = Ex.PW107/C
Brij Mohan Sharma
(PW-57)
Ex.PW-93/E
Baleshwar Ram (CW5)
Ex.PW-93/R = Ex.PW107/B
Suraj Narain Mandal
Ex.PW-93/O
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.
Ram Vinod Sharma

2.1.1975 at 18.15
Ex.PW-93/D = Ex.PW- hrs.
107/E
3.1.1975 on
request
9.
Ram Kishore Prasad 2.1.1975 at 18.15

Singh Ex.PW-93/A = hrs.
Ex.PW-107/A
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.
Suresh Prasad Singh,

Advocate
Ex.PW-93/L
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
shows that after

11.30 PM, he was
given medicines at
6 AM on
3.1.1975.
3.1.1975
on request
11.
Pramod Prasad
Ex.PW-93/M
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
3.1.1975
on request
12.
Kailash Pati Singh

Advocate
Ex.PW-93/G
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
13.
Smt. Noor Jahan

Begum
Ex.PW-93/Q
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
3.1.1975. Left
Hospital for better
treatment at his
will
4.1.1975
on request
14.
Kapil Deo Narain

Singh
Ex.PW-93/F
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
15.
Suraj Chaudhary
Ex.PW-93/U
2.1.1975 at 18.15
hrs.
16.
Ram Bhagat Paswan

Ex.PW-93/H = Ex.PW107/G
Parmanand Jha
Ex.PW-93/W =
Ex.PW-107/H
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
68) Victims of grievous hurt

(i) Ram Bhagat Paswan
790. Ram Bhagat Paswan (PW-85) has suffered injuries in the bomb
blast at Samastipur Railway Station on 2.1.1975. He has testified that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
866
he has suffered injuries on both of his legs because of the explosion

and became unconscious.
On regaining consciousness, he found
himself at Dr. Nawab's clinic, Darbhanga and remained in the clinic

for about three weeks. He suffered fracture in his right leg. He could
not work for about six months due to fracture and injuries. He used to
suffer pain due to injuries and fracture. After his discharge from Dr.
Nawabs Clinic, Darbhanga, he remained admitted in Willingdon
Hospital, New Delhi, for about a month. Still seven splinters are
present in his legs.
(Ex.PW-93/H is the Bed Head Ticket of Ram
Bhagat Paswan and his other medical papers
are Ex.PW-104/B).
North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur testified that on
02.1.1975 he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received
the message about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and
some persons who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be
brought to their hospital. At about the same time on 02.1.1975 Sh.
Ram Bhagat Paswan, MP (PW-85) was admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur in injured condition. He has correctly written the
particulars in respect of Ram Bhagat Paswan on Bed Head Ticket
Ex.PW-93/H at point A. At point B there is writing in the hand of
Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107), at point C and F and G there is
handwriting of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-16). Dr. K.M. Sinha discharged

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
867
this patient from the Hospital on 3.1.1975 regarding which there is

endorsement at point A.
792. PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi further deposed that the Bed Head
Ticket no. 3584 Ex.PW-93/H is in respect of Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan
(PW-85).
He was admitted in the Hospital on 2.1.1975 and he
observed the following injuries on his person:1.
Lacerated wound half inch into one third inch on

the mid part of right thigh.
2.
One circular wound in diameter penetrating

medial aspect of right leg upper part.
3.
Three penetrating wound inches in diameter on

the entromedial aspect of right leg.
4.
Lacerated wound 2 x half inch, on dorsem of right

foot with suspected fracture on the right foot.
5.
Lacerated wound x on the posterior right

forearm at its lower third.
He made note of these injuries at Ex.PW-107/G on Bed Head Ticket

Ex.PW-93/H correctly.
He advised X-ray of the right foot.
The
injuries in this case were also of the duration within half an hour and
could be caused by bomb explosion.
793. PW-97 Dr. Nawab further testified that on 3.1.1975 in the
morning Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Kapil Dev Narain Singh,

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.
Lacerated wound about 2 X X deep on

dorsum of right foot.
2.
Penetrating lacerated wound in the right leg on

medial size lower part X .
3.
A penetrating lacerated wound in the middle of

right leg on medial size.
4.
Lacerated wound X X on medial side

of right knee.
5.
Penetrating lacerated wound in left leg on anterior

aspect just below the knee joint.
6.
Fracture shaft of first metatarsal bone of right foot,

compound, communicating opposite first wound
above described.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
869
7.
One small circular abrasion 3 below umbilicus.
8.
Multiple small circular abrasions on front of right

side.
He stated that Ex.PW-104/B is the Injury Statement of Ram Bhagat

Paswan (PW-85) which was written by his junior doctor correctly on
his dictation and bears his signatures at point A and B. He further
stated that injury no. 6 was grievous in nature and weapon used for
causing these injuries could be possibly splinters from some explosive
substance and the portion X to X on Ex.PW-104/B is in his
handwriting. The name of B.N. Prasad appear at Serial No.156 and of
Ram Bhagat Paswan at Serial No.188 in Register Mark PW-97/A.
(Injury statement Ex.PW-104/A and Ex.PW104/B are available in Folder R-14 and MLC
Ex.PW-93/H is available in Folder R-29).
795. In his cross-examination, PW-104 Dr. Naveen Prasad Singh
stated that he noticed the injuries and fracture of Ram Bhagat Paswan
at the time he was examined. X-ray was not done for this fracture of
Ram Bhagat Paswan. However, his X-ray was taken on the other part
because of the presence of suspected splinters. Since it was an open
wound and fracture could not be noted. He has mentioned on the Bed
Head Ticket of Ram Bhagat Paswan about splinters. In the case of
Ram Bhagat Paswan splinters were present in his right leg and it was
not taken out.

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).
North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. He stated that on
2.1.1975, he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received
brought to their hospital. He stated that at about the same time on
2.1.1975 Sh. Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Samastipur was also
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
871
admitted in Railway Hospital at bed no.4. He has correctly recorded

his particulars at point A on the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/G.
Writings at point B and C on this Bed Head Ticket are in the hand
of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116). He found comminuted fracture of both
bones of lower third of the left leg regarding which he made noting at
point G on the Bed Head Ticket on the Ex.PW-93/G.
799. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further testified that Bed Head Ticket
no. 3588 in respect of Kailash Pati Singh Ex.PW-93/G is also in the
handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta whose handwriting he identified. This
patient was also examined by him (PW-116) and he found the
following injuries on his person:1.
Semilunal lacerated wound 1 on dorsum of right

foot over first metatarsal 1 1/2 x 1/4.
2.
Abrasion over the medial malleous of right leg.
3.
Penetrating wound 1/4 x x 3/4 medial side

right knee.
4.
Semi-lunal lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/4 (one inch

below injury no. 3).
5.
Abrasion over left petala 1 x 1/4.
6.
Compound fracture lacerated wound 1 x 3/4

(middle 1/3rd of left leg in front side).
On x-ray, it was found that there was comminuted fracture on both

knees in the lower third of the left leg corresponding to injury no. (6).
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
872
These injuries could be possible by bomb blast. Nature of injuries was

grievous. The injuries of Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57) and Kailash
Pati Singh could have resulted in death had they not been given proper
treatment.
morning Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Kapil Dev Narain Singh,
examine them and they were admitted in his clinic. He stated that
Kailash Pati Singh had suffered comminuted fracture of Tibia Fibula
(left side) due to bomb blast. His injuries were grievous as he suffered
fracture of bones of the left leg.
801. PW-112 Dr. Rohini Raman Ganguli, the then Prof. & Head of
the Department Orthopaedic Surgery, Darbhanga Medical College and
Hospital, Darbhanga, deposed that Bihar doctors had ceased work.
Dr. Nawab was running a clinic known as Nawab Clinic in
Darbhanga. The doctors of Bihar Government were giving treatment
to patients in Dr. Nawabs Clinic under Indian Medical Association.
He had seen the Bed Head Ticket dated 3.1.1975 of Kailash Pati Singh
and had operated upon Sh. Kailash Pati Singh. He found following
Comminuted/compound fracture on left tibia.
2.
Abrasion over the left hypochondrium

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).
The penetrating injury of the right knee was exised and
metallic foreign body was removed from the joint.

plastered.
The limbs were
The operation notes on the Bed Head Ticket No.186 of
Kailash Pati Singh were written on his dictation. The operation notes
on Bed Head Ticket Mark PW-112/A at point A were written in his
presence. Splinters of an explosive bomb could cause the wounds of
Kailash Pati Singh. He suffered grievous injuries. Had the patient
been not treated, these could have resulted in his death. In his 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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
874
(iii) Brij Mohan Sharma

803. Prosecution has examined independent public witness Sh. Brij
Mohan Sharma as PW-57.
He was present on the Dais at Platform
No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975. He (PW-57) was

advised by Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan to garland the Railway Minister
when he concludes his speech and may give him Maanpatra. After
the Railway Minister concluded his speech, he moved towards him
and garlanded the Railway Minister who moved one or two steps
towards the stairs. At that time there was an explosion on the Munch
in which he received serious injuries on his both feet. He was taken to
the Railway Hospital, Samastipur where he remained admitted for 12
days. He received injuries with splinters from that explosion and one
splinter is still in his foot. He has to remain at his house for about one
year during which he could not do heavy work and there was a
fracture of his foot.
North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur stated that on 2.1.1975
he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message
about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons
who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to
their hospital. He stated that at about the same time on 2.1.1975 Sh.
Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57) of village Bithan was also admitted in
Railway Hospital on bed no.9. At point A on Bed Head Ticket
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
875
Ex.PW-93/E, he has correctly recorded his particulars.
Dr. K.M.
Sinha (PW-116), who had also advised treatment, to the patient, noted
the injuries of this patient on this Bed Head Ticket at point B. Dr.
Sinha has also noted the follow up treatment for patient. This patient
was also treated by Dr. P.C. Gupta, Dr. N.N. Prasad, Dr. M. Banerjee,
Dr. K.M. Sinha, Dr. T.D. Nandi, Dr. N.N. Bhaumi. The patient was
discharged on his request on 14.1.1975.
805. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha, the then Assistant Medical Officer,
North-Eastern Railway, Divisional Hospital, Samastipur stated that on
02.1.1975 at about 4.30/5.00 PM he along with Dr. M.N. Sharma,
Medical Superintendent of Hospital, some Engineers and Railway
Officers went to Railway Station, Samastipur on Platform no. 3. On
direction of Dr. M.N. Sharma, he rushed to the Hospital, contacted the
doctors on telephone and rang up emergency bell for summoning of
the doctors and staff due to emergency. He supervised the medical aid
to the injured, which were brought to the Hospital and he himself
treated some of the patients. He arranged to accommodate the injured
persons in the ward. He has seen the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E of
Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57). The name and particulars are written in
the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta whose handwriting he was
acquainted of as he had seen him writing and signing as a colleague.
The writing portion encircled red at Point P is in his handwriting.
The patient/injured had the following injuries:-

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
876
1.
Lacerated wound half inch into quarter inch on the

right side lateral aspect, upper part.
2.
Lacerated wound half inch into 1/4 of the lower

part of the thigh.
3.
Lacerated wound one 1 x 1 on the posterior

aspect of right thigh (mid part).
4.
Lacerated wound one inch into one inch on the

posterior aspect of right thigh below injury no. 3.
5.
Lacerated wound half inch into 1/4 on the calf of

the right leg.
6.
Lacerated wound 2 x on the lateral aspect of

right leg (mid part).
7.
Lacerated wound 2 x 1 lower part right leg

lateral aspect.
8.
Lacerated wound 2 x 1 on the posterior aspect

of the right ankle.
9.
Lacerated wound 1 x on the right heel.
10.
Lacerated wound 3 x 1 on the right calf.
11.
Lacerated wound 3 x 1, one inch below injury

no. 10.
12.
Lacerated wound 1 x (half inch deep left

thigh lower part on the back).
13.
One small punctured wound medial aspect of left

leg 1/4 circular.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
877
The portion E on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E is also in his

handwriting. He stated that generally lacerated wounds are caused by
bomb blast. Splinters could cause these injuries. The injuries of Brij
Mohan Sharma (PW-57) were grievous in nature as X-Ray of Brij
Mohan Sharma revealed fracture of right fibula lower end with
multiple foreign bodies in the left knee.
806. In his cross-examination PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha replied that in
his presence no splinter was taken out from the person of the injured
examined by him. Lacerated wound could be caused either by bomb
blast or by any other force. The entry of foreign body found on the
person of Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57) was radio-opaque metallic.
The Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E of Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-57)
indicates that he was operated upon but he could not read from the
Bed Head Ticket as to who performed the operation. He did not
prepare separate medico-legal certificate in respect of these injured
persons. Quite a number of patients came in the hospital after the
incident and their primary duty was to render medical aid to the
injured persons and on that account duration of injury was not
mentioned in the Bed Head Tickets. He was dealing with the patients
for giving treatment and not from the view point of "medico-legal
cases" so he did not mention the duration of their injury even
subsequently. He was aware that the patients referred by him in his
examination-in-chief were of "medico-legal cases" but his primary
duty was to render medical aid to the patients first.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
878
807. In view of statement of injured PW-57 Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma,

PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta and PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha and his injuries
and treatment recorded on his Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/E, Sh. Brij
Mohan Sharma has suffered grievous injuries in the bomb blast on the
Dais at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur.
(iv) Ram Vinod Sharma
808. Though the prosecution has not examined the injured Ram
Vinod Sharma as a witness yet it is found in the testimony of PW-85
that Ram Sukumari Devi, Ram Vinod Sharma and Sh. Kapil Deo
Narain Singh were sitting on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Samastipur
Railway Station at the time of bomb blast. PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai
has also testified that Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma was on the Dais at that
time and after the bomb blast, his (PW-113) clothes got blood stained
when he (PW-113) rendered help to Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma and
Jamuna Mandal. Immediately after the bomb blast on the Railway
Station, Samastipur, the victims including Ram Vinod Sharma were
brought to Samastipur Railway Hospital.
North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur stated that on 2.1.1975
he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message
about bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons
who have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to

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.
One lacerated wound 1 x lateral aspect of left

thigh at its upper third.
2.
One incised wound 1 x half inch over the tubercle

of left knee.
3.
One lacerated wound 1 x 1 antrolateral aspect

of left leg and its middle third.
4.
Another wound one inch apart from the injury no.3

each x 1/3.
5.
Lacerated wound 1 ' X on the lateral part of

dorsum of left foot.
6.
Fracture both bones left leg.
7.
Lacerated injury 2x 1 medial aspect of right

heals with suspected fracture.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
880
He stated that writing Ex.PW-107/E and Ex.PW-107/F on Bed Head

Ticket Ex.PW-93/D of Ram Vinod Sharma was correctly recorded by
him. The patient left the Hospital at his own request. Out of the
injuries observed by him, two injuries were of suspected fracture but
the patient could not be X-rayed. The duration of injuries was half an
hour and could be caused by a bomb explosion.
811. It has been proved from the statement of PW-85 Ram Bhagat
Paswan, PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai, PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta and PW107 Dr. T.D. Nandi that the victim Sh. Ram Vinod Sharma has
suffered grievous injuries in the bomb blast on Dais at Railway
Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975.
(v) B.N. Prasad
812. I have already referred the statement of this injured PW-28 Sh.
B.N. Prasad, DIG Darbhanga, who was standing near the Dais on the
Platform No.3 Railway Station, Samastipur, and as there was
demonstration, he was going to make a request to the Railway
Minister to conclude his speech. By the time, Sh. B. N. Prasad (PW28) approached the Railway Minister and he had concluded his
speech. He (Railway Minister) was facing West side and took a turn.
He (PW-28) stood behind just by the side of the Railway Minister, he
must have moved one-step, and thereafter there was a blast on the
Dais.
After the Minister had concluded his speech, persons from
public started raising slogans Lalit Babu Jindabad and some persons
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
882
four patients in Operation Theater. He examined DIG B.N. Prasad

(PW-28), MLC Surya Narain Jha (deceased), another MLC whose
name he did not recollect and one boy Ajay Kumar (PW-58) aged
11/12 years. The injuries of B.N. Parshad (PW-28), Surya Narain Jha
(deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-58) were of very serious and of
grievous nature. Glucose saline drip was given to DIG B.N. Prasad
(PW-28). After giving first aid to B.N. Parshad (PW-28), Surya Narain
Jha (deceased) and Ajay Kumar (PW-58), they advised that they might
be shifted to Darbhanga Medical College. The injuries of MLC whose
name he could not recollect were simple in nature. That MLC was
discharged after giving him first aid. Father of Ajay Kumar was in
local police and he (Ajay Kumar) was shifted immediately from Sadar
Hospital, Samastipur. Many relatives of B.N. Prasad (PW-28) and
Surya Narain Jha (deceased) came to Hospital and took them to
Medical College Hospital, Darbhanga same night.
814. He testified that the injuries which he found on the person of
Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28), Sh. Suraj Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay
Kumar (PW-58) and another MLC on 2.1.1975 in Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur could also be caused by bomb blast.
815. In his cross-examination PW-88 Dr. N.L. Jha answered that
these four persons (Sh. B.N. Prasad, Sh. Suraj Narain Jha, Ajay
Kumar and another) were not admitted in the Hospital since there was
no doctor except him. The doctors were on cease work strike for
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
883
getting service benefits. He did not prepare any record in respect of

their name, parentage or injuries and he came to know about name of
these four injured persons from Superintendent of Police and District
Magistrate, Samastipur and others including relations of the injured.
He has given their names by memory. He did not remember whether
ski-grams of the injured were taken in the Hospital or not. He found
their injuries to be of grievous nature without having with him their
ski-grams. He verbally prescribed medicines and treatment for these
injured persons and they were given treatment as per his advice.
816. PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh further stated that on 3.1.1975
at 5 AM DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28) was admitted in Janta Clinic. He
and Dr. S.M. Nawab attended him. They operated upon him jointly.
His injury statement dated 14.1.1975 Ex.PW-104/A (Available in
Folder R-14) bears his signatures at point A and B. It was prepared
on his dictation. He observed the following injuries on the person of
DIG B.N. Prasad: 1.
Multiple, punctured, lacerated wound of varying

size from to 1/2 X varying depth over anterior
medial part of both thigh and legs.
2.
Lacerated wound one inch X 1/3 X skin deep,

over penis, anteriorly.
3.
Two penetrating lacerated wounds each X 1/3

into abdominal cavity over left iliac fossae

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
884
(Laprotomy revealed lacerated perforation half

inch diameter over the sigmoid colon).
4.
Punctured lacerated 1/3 X 1/3 abdominal wall

over the epigastrium directed upward.
5.
Punctured lacerated wound 1/3 X 1/3 into chest

wall directed upward.
6.
Lacerated wound 3/4 X 1/3 skin deep over the

right shoulder.
7.
Punctured lacerated wound 1/2 X 1/3 into

muscle deep over medial aspects of right arm.
8.
Bruise 4 diameter over right pectoral region.
9.
Multiple punctured wound of varying size 1/4 X

1/3 very left hip region.
He stated that duration of injuries were within 12 hours. He got the

patient x-rayed and saw the skiagram himself. He was his friend. He
accompanied him from Samastipur to Darbhanga, nature of injuries of
B.N. Prasad was grievous, and nature of weapon used was splinters
from some explosive substance. Portion X to X on Ex.-PW104/A
was correctly written by him with his own hands.
In his cross
examination, PW-104 Dr. Naveen Prasad Singh stated that in case of

DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28) splinters were present on his chest but no
attempt was made to take it out. In case of DIG B.N. Prasad (PW-28)
he had seen his X-ray just after 5 minutes it was X-rayed in the X-ray
room itself on 3.1.1975. This has not been mentioned in Ex.PWCBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
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.
817. PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab of Janta Clinic testified that on the
same night, he also attended to Sh. B.N. Prasad, DIG Police (PW-28)
who also had suffered severe injuries.
The main serious injuries on
the person of Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28) were the following:1.
Two penetrating lacerated wounds, each X 1/3

inch penetrating into the abdominal cavity (left
iliac fossa).
2.
Laparotomy revealed lacerated perforation inch

in diameter of the sigmoid colon.
In addition to the aforesaid injuries, he had many other shrapnel

wounds.
818. PW-97 Dr. Nawab further deposed that all the injuries found on
the person of Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28) could be caused by the
splinters of an exploded hand grenade. Sh. B.N. Prasad (PW-28) was
brought to his clinic in the early hours of 3.1.1975 and duration of the
injuries was within 12 hours. Injuries found on B.N. Prasad were
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He himself
operated upon Sh. B. N. Prasad (PW-28) with assistance of other
doctors. He accompanied Sh. B. N. Prasad (PW-28) to USA for

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
888
College. The injuries of MLC whose name he could not recollect

were simple in nature.
first aid.
That MLC was discharged after giving him
Father of Ajay Kumar was in local police and he (Ajay
Kumar) was shifted immediately from Sadar Hospital, Samastipur.

Many relatives of B.N. Prasad (PW-28) and Surya Narain Jha
(deceased) came to Hospital and took them to Medical College
Hospital, Darbhanga same night.
823. He stated that the injuries, which he found on the person of Sh.
B.N. Prasad (PW-28), Sh. Suraj Narain Jha (deceased) and Ajay
Kumar (PW-58) and another MLC on 02.1.1975 in Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur, could also be caused by bomb blast.
824. PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab, Private Practitioner of Janta Clinic,
Darbhanga, aged about 72 years, stated that he retired as Principal,
Darbhanga Medical College in 1969 and thereafter he has been
engaged in private practice at Darbhanga. He has been running his
own clinic at Darbhanga. He treats mainly surgical cases. He stated
that on 2 nd and 3rd January 1975 he was at Darbhanga and in those
days government doctors were on strike. His junior doctors requested
him to allow his clinic to be run as free Janta Clinic.
He was
supervising the doctors. On 2.1.1975 in the Evening, he heard a

rumour of Bomb blast at Samastipur involving Sh. L. N. Mishra and
others. He immediately invited all the junior doctors of Darbhanga
Medical College who were on strike to cooperate with him and treat
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.
The particulars of those
patients treated in the Janta Clinic were entered in the Register Mark
PW-97/A. (Available in Folder R-22). He has seen this Register
Mark PW-97/A in which there are entries from 1.1.1975 to 24.1.1975.
The first person to reach Samastipur was named Ajay Kumar (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.
The injury was
caused about six hours earlier. He prepared correct operation notes in

respect of Ajay Kumar (PW-58) and signed it. Ex.PW-97/A is the
operation notes of Ajay Kumar (PW-58) in his handwriting which are
correct and bears his signatures. Injuries of Ajay Kumar were very
dangerous and sufficient in ordinary course of events to cause death.
825. I have perused the Register Mark PW-97/A. This is bound
register containing the details of the patients i.e. the name, address,
age, disease, treatment and remarks with signatures. There are two

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
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
Clinic. In the notes in respect of Ajay Kumar, there is no mention

about his age but by his memory, he stated that his age was about 12
years. He stated that the operation notes Ex.PW-97/A do not bear his
signatures but these were in his handwriting.
827. PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh testified that in January 1975
he was posted at Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital,
Darbhanga. He is MBBS, MS. In January 1975, the government
doctors have ceased the work. Darbhanga Medical College and
Hospital was under the management and control of Army doctors.
On humanitarian grounds they were running Janta Clinic at Dr.
Nawab's Clinic. He stated that on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd
January, 1975, a number of patients were brought to Janta Clinic. One
Admission Register Mark PW-97/A (which is available in the folder
R-14) was maintained at Janta Clinic. One patient Ajay Kumar was
also brought to this Janta Clinic. He was examined by him. Dr. S. M.
Nawab operated upon him.
This patient Ajay Kumar was in a very
critical condition.
828. From the statement of PW-58 Sh. Ajay Kumar, PW-88 Dr. N.L.
Jha, PW-104 Dr. Navin Prasad Singh and PW-97 Dr. S.M. Nawab, it
is proved that Sh. Ajay Kumar sustained grievous injuries in the bomb
blast on the Dais at Platform No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur on
02.01.1975.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
892
69) Victims of Hurt.

(i) Kapil Deo Narain Singh
829. The prosecution has not examined him as its witness. PW-85
Sh. Ram Bhagat Paswan and PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai have stated in
their respective statements that he was also one of the persons who
were sitting on the Dais at Platform no.3 of Railway Station,
Samastipur at the time of bomb blast. He was immediately brought in
the Railway Hospital, Samastipur where he was examined PW-93 Dr.
S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern
Railway Hospital, Samastipur. He stated that on 02.01.1975 at about
the same time Sh. Kapil Deo Narain, MLA was admitted in the
Railway Hospital, Samastipur on bed no.6. He has correctly recorded
his particulars at point A on his Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/F.
Noting at point B and C on this Bed Head Ticket are in hands of
Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116). He left the hospital on 03.01.1975 of his
own will for better treatment.
830. PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha further deposed that Bed Head Ticket
no. 3590 in respect of Kapil Deo Narain Singh, MLA, is Ex.PW-93/F.
The particulars on this Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/F at Point A are
in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta, which he identified.
He
examined the patient and found following injuries:1.
Lacerated wound 2 X 1 into muscle deep on the

lateral aspect of right thigh at the junction of upper
2/3rd and lower 1/3rd.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
893
2.
Two small punctured wounds X X 1 deep

on the right thigh medial aspect.
3.
Superficial burn injury over right leg lateral aspect.
4.
Lacerated wound 2 X 1 X muscle deep right

axilliary region.
He correctly recorded injuries at portion B of the said Bed Head

Ticket. All injuries could be caused by splinters of an exploded bomb.
831. PW-112 Dr. Rohini Raman Ganguli further testified that he has
seen Bed Head Ticket no. 187 dated 3.1.1975 Mark PW-112/B
(available in Folder R-14) in respect of Kapil Deo Narain Singh. He
saw this patient firstly on 3.1.1975 in Janta Clinic and he stitched the
infected wounds and removed the stitches. The wounds were in right
axilla, right thigh and leg. He opened the stitches. The wounds were
infected, wounds were drained and packed with antibiotics.
Somebody must have assisted him while treating the injuries of Kapil
Deo Narain Singh. The details of treatment given to Kapil Deo Narain
Singh were written on his Bed Head Ticket on his dictation. In Bed
Head Ticket Mark PW-112/B, operation notes were written at point
A in his presence on his dictation. From what is written at point A
on Mark PW-112/B, he cannot say that injuries of Kapil Deo Narain
Singh were serious. In her cross-examination, she proved Bed Head
Ticket Mark PW-112/B by saying that this is in the handwriting of Dr.
K.P. Pandey whose signatures and writing she identified. So, this
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
894
document is now exhibited as Ex.PW-112/B. These injuries could be

caused by hard blunt substance or by splinters of an explosive of hand
grenade.
(Ex.PW-112/B is available in Folder R-14)
morning Kailash Pati Singh, Advocate, Kapil Deo Narain Singh,
examine them and they were admitted in his clinic.
833. Perusal of the injuries as stated by Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116)
and mentioned in the Bed Head Ticket and statement of PW-112 Dr.
Rohini Raman Ganguli, does not show that he has suffered any
fracture and grievous injuries. The injuries appear to be simple one.
Hence, the prosecution has proved that in the said bomb blast, Kapil
Deo Narain Singh suffered hurt.
(ii) Rama Kant Jha
834. Though the prosecution has not examined this injured as its
witness yet it has come in the evidence of PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai
that Sh. Rama Kant Jha was sitting on the Dais on 02.01.1975 at
Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway Station. Soon after the blast, he
was immediately brought to the Railway Hospital, Samastipur and he
was examined by PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
895
Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. He stated that

on 2.1.1975, he was on emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received
brought to their hospital.
At about the same time on 2.1.1975 Sh.
Rama Kant Jha, MLC of village Sonpur was admitted in Railway

Hospital, Samastipur in injured condition on bed no.15. At point A,
he has correctly recorded the particulars of Ram Kant Jha on Bed
Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/N. The writing at point-B, C and D on this
Bed Head Ticket are in the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) and at
point E in the hand of Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107). This patient was
discharged on his request on 04.01.1975.
835. PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi further deposed that he had seen Bed
Head Ticket no. 3599 of Rama Kant Jha, who was admitted in the
Hospital on the same day due to bomb explosion injuries. He found
the following injuries on his person, which are as under:1.
Small multiple three penetrating injuries left leg

and left ankle circular each.
The patient was x-rayed and two foreign bodies i.e. splinters were
taken out. However, he suffered no fracture. Splinters were not taken
out by him or in his presence and only splinters were detected. He
correctly noted injuries in his handwriting at point Ex.PW-107/D on
Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/N. The duration of his injuries was half

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
896
an hour before he examined the patient. The injuries were simple in

nature.
836. In view of the deposition of PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai, Dr. S.N.
Gupta (PW-93) and PW-107 Dr. T.D. Nandi and Bed Head Ticket
Ex.PW-93/N, prosecution has conclusively proved its case that Rama
Kant Jha suffered hurt in the bomb blast on Dais at Platform No.3,
(iii) Jayant Banerjee
837. PW-127 Sh. Jayant Banerjee testified that at the time of blast on
the Dais of Platform No.3, he was standing on the Dais. He jumped
down from the Dais wherefrom his staff removed him to Hospital. He
received injuries on his left arm and right buttock. Immediately he
was brought to Samastipur Railway Station Hospital at the same time
and PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta, the then Assistant Medical Officer, NorthEastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur, examined him.
PW-93
deposed that on 02.1.1975, he was on emergency duty and at about 6

PM he received the message about bomb blast at Railway Station,
Samastipur and some injured in the bomb blast were to be brought to
their hospital. At about the same time on 02.1.1975, Sh. J. Banerjee,
Signal Inspector, Samastipur was also admitted in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur in injured condition on bed no.12. He has mentioned his
correct particulars at point A on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/S. Dr.
K.M. Sinha had written on this Bed Head Ticket at point B and E
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
897
and Dr. M. Banerjee had written at point C.
This patient was
discharged on 05.01.1975 under writing of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116)

at point F.
838. PW-107 Dr. T.D Nandi further deposed that he had seen Bed
Head Ticket No.3883 Ex.PW-93/S pertaining to Sh. J. Banerjee, who
was admitted in the Hospital on 2.1.1975 at 6.15 PM. He examined
the injured and found following injuries on his person:1.
Multiple penetrating injury left forearm below the

elbow.
2.
Multiple penetrating injury on the left buttock.
He testified stated that he correctly recorded the injuries at point

Ex.PW-107/K on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/S. Prior to him, this
patient was examined by Dr. M. Banerjee. He is familiar with the
handwriting and signatures of Dr. M. Banerjee who was working with
him and identified his writing at point X to Y on Ex.PW-93/S. There
was suspected fracture on left forearm. Duration of the injury was
within half an hour and could be caused by bomb explosion.
839. No X-Ray report has been filed. From the deposition of Dr. S.N.
Gupta (PW-93) and of Dr. T.D. Nandi (PW-107) and the Bed Head
Ticket Ex.PW-93/S, it is evident that Sh. J. Banerjee suffered hurt in
the said bomb blast which took place at Platform No.3 of the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
898
(iv) Baleshwar Ram

840. This injured has been examined as a court witness as CW-5. He
presided over the function on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur Railway
Station and got injured in the bomb blast and later on he came to know
that he got 44 splinters in his body. He became unconscious within 15
seconds of the blast.
When he regained consciousness, he found
himself in Samastipur Railway Hospital.

North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur testified that on that day
at about the same time Sh. Baleshwar Ram, MLA was also admitted in
the Railway Hospital, Samastipur in an injured condition. He has
recorded his correct particulars at point A on Bed Head Ticket
Ex.PW-93/R. The writing at point B and D are in the hands of Dr.
K.M. Sinha (PW-116) and at point C in the hand of Dr. T.D. Nandi
(PW-107). His correct handwriting is at point E on this Bed Head
Ticket.
This patient was discharged on his request on 3.1.1975
regarding which there is an endorsement at point F on the Bed Head

Ticket in the hand of Dr. T.D. Nandi. As per this Bed Head Ticket
Ex.PW-93/R (Available in the Folder R-29) CW-5 suffered injuries in
the upper part of left leg, tenderness on the first metatarsal of the left
foot, multiple injury with small abrasions on the middle part of the left
leg, small abrasions on the middle part of the left thigh. X-ray of his

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.
Two incised wound 1 apart in the upper part of

the left leg 2 below the tubercle of left knee.
( X each).
2.
Patient complained of tenderness pain on first

metatarsal left foot.
3.
Defused swelling 1 X 1 X 1 with a small

abrasion over it at the mid of left leg over left shift.
4.
One small abrasion half inch x on the mid part

of left thigh.
5.
Patient complained of tenderness on the left little

finger.
6.
Lacerated injury half inch into on palmer

aspect of left little finger.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
900
He stated that patient was discharged on his own request on 3.1.1975

and an endorsement in his handwriting is at point F on the Bed Head
Ticket Ex.PW-93/R. The nature of injuries of Bineshwar Ram MLA
was simple. His injuries were caused half an hour before he examined
him.
843. Thus, it has been proved from the testimonies of CW-5 Sh.
Baleshwar Ram, PW 93 Dr. S.N. Gupta and PW 107 Dr. T.D. Nandi
& his Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/R that Sh. Baleshwar Ram has
suffered hurt in the bomb blast that took place on the Dais at
Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975.
(v) Suresh Prasad Singh
844. Prosecution has not examined Sh. Suresh Prasad Singh as a
prosecution witness; however, PW-113 Sh. Raj Dev Rai has testified
that Sh. Suresh Prasad Singh, Advocate was present on the Dais of
Platform No.3, Samastipur Railway Station at the time of the bomb
blast. Immediately after the bomb blast, he was brought to Railway
Hospital, Samastipur where he was examined. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta,
the then Assistant Medical Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital,
Samastipur testified that on the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975, at about the
same time Sh. Suresh Prasad, Advocate was admitted in the Railway
Hospital, Samastipur in an injured condition on bed no.17. He has
correctly recorded his particulars at point A on Bed Head Ticket
Ex.PW-93/L in respect of Sh. Suresh Prasad Singh.
Noting at point
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.
Small punctured wound 1/4 circular skin deep on

left thigh 2 below groin medially.
2.
Small abrasion medial size of left thigh upper part.
3.
Small abrasion lower part, lateral side of

abdominal wall.
846. From the depositions of PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai, PW-93 Dr.
S.N. Gupta, PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha and documentary evidence, Bed
Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/L, it is proved that patient Sh. Suresh Prasad
has suffered hurt in the bomb blast that took place on the Dais at
Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur.
(vi) Umesh Prasad Singh
847. Sh. Umesh Prasad Singh (PW-56) deposed that on 02.01.1975
he was towards left hand of the Railway Minister where there was a
blast and he received injuries and was taken to Samastipur Hospital in
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
903
which Dr. K.M. Sinha recorded endorsement at point E on this Bed

Head Ticket.
849. PW-107 Dr. T.D Nandi further testified that he had seen Bed
Head Ticket No. 3586 Ex.PW-93/W in respect of Parmanand Jha. He
was admitted in the aforesaid Hospital on 2.1.1975 at 6.15 PM. On
examination he found following injuries on his person:1.
One abrasion in diameter on the medial part of

the right leg at its middle third.
2.
Lacerated injury half inch x on left hypothener

minnance.
He correctly recorded the portion Ex.PW-107/H on Bed Head Ticket

Ex.PW-93/W. The duration of the injury was half an hour and could
be caused by bomb explosion. Nature of injuries was simple.
850. From the deposition of PW-109 Sh. Mohan Kumar Jha, Dr. S.N.
Gupta, Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/W and testimony of Dr. T.D.
Nandi, it is proved that Sh. Parmanand Jha suffered hurt in his right
leg due to bomb blast that took place on the Dais at Platform No.3 of
Railway Station, Samastipur on 02.01.1975.
(viii) Jamuna Prasad Mandal
851. Prosecution has not examined Jamuna Prasad Mandal as its
witness. However, it has come in the deposition of PW-113 Sh. Raj
Dev Rai that his clothes were blood stained when he gave assistance to

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).
Ticket Ex.PW-93/P pertain to Jamuna Parshad Mandal.
His
particulars at point A are in the handwriting Dr. S.N. Gupta that he

identified. He examined the patient and found following injuries on
his person:1.
Lacerated wound 1 X on the anterior aspect of

rt. knee.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
905
2.
Lacerated X on the same portion lateral

aspect.
3.
Penetrating wound on the medial aspect of rt. thigh

lower part circular in shape with quarter inch
diameter.
On X-ray it was found that foreign body was present in the lower part
of right thigh. Injuries were simple in nature and patient was
853. From the depositions of PW-113 Sh. Raj Deo Rai, Dr. S.N.
Gupta (PW-93), Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116) and Bed Head Ticket
Ex.PW-93/P, it is proved that Sh. Jamuna Prasad Mandal suffered
hurt in his right knee and right thigh and foreign body was found
present in lower part of his right thigh in the bomb blast that took
place on the Dais at Platform No.3 of Railway Station, Samastipur.
(ix) P.R. Chopra
854. The prosecution has not examined Sh. P.R. Chopra, General
Manager, Railways as its witness.
However, it has come in the
statement PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha that Sh. Chopra, General Manager,
who was sitting on the Dais, was lifted for giving him medical aid.
He was immediately brought to Railway Hospital, Samastipur where
he was examined by Dr. S.N. Gupta the then Assistant Medical
Officer, North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur. PW-93 Dr. S.N.

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
directly taken to the Operation Theatre and thereafter he was kept in

the chamber of the Medical Superintendent, Railway Hospital,
Samastipur. He has correctly recorded the particulars of Sh. P.R.
Chopra on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/J at point A. The writing at
point B on Bed Head Ticket is in the handwriting of Dr. A. Sain.
The patient left the Hospital on 3.1.1975.
855. A perusal of the Bed Head Tickets Ex.PW-93/J pertain to Sh.
P.R. Chopra, General Manager (Railways), Gorakhpur shows that he
was aged 53 years. He was admitted on 2.1.1975 at 6.15 PM.
He
was found to have suffered several injuries on various parts of his

body. Seven injuries have been mentioned on the Bed Head Ticket,
which includes injury/wounds on his left chest.
The injuries are not
legible. He was given several injections and medicines.
He was
discharged from the Hospital on 3.1.1975. Thus, it is prove d from the

deposition of PW-116 Dr. K.M. Sinha, PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta and
Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/J that in the bomb blast on the Dais at
Platform No.3, Railway Station, Samastipur Sh. P.R. Chopra has
suffered hurt on his person.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
907
70) Injured unexamined.

856
As already discussed under the caption of "Testimony of
Eyewitnesses other than PW-2 and PW-65" reveal that at the time of
explosion there were 30 to 40 persons were on Dais and most of them
received injuries and received treatment in Railway Hospital,
Samastipur. Nine injured out of them could not be examined by the
prosecution. However, the documentary evidence consisting of Bed
Head Tickets of these nine persons have been proved on record. Their
Bed Head Tickets bear their name, age, time of admission, history of
the patient, the details of the injury, treatment given and date of
discharge. It is mentioned in their Bed Head Tickets that they had
suffered injuries in the bomb blast at Railway Station Samastipur on
02.01.1975 and time of their admission in the hospital is
contemporaneous to the incident. The incident had taken place at
about 06.00 PM and their time of admission is mentioned in all these
Bed Head Tickets is 1815 hrs. on 02.01.1975. The details of these
witnesses are as under.
(i) Lalita Devi
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
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.
PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta
testified that on the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975, at about same time Sh.
Bisheshwar Rai of village Bahadurpur was admitted in the said
Hospital in injured condition.
He has correctly recorded his
particulars on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/V at point A. The writing

B and D on this Bed Head Ticket are in the hands of Dr. T.D.
Nandi and Dr. N.N. Bhaumik. The writing at point E and F are in
the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha and his correct writing is at point C. The
patient was discharged on 3.1.1975.
859. PW-107 Dr. T.D Nandi further deposed that he had seen Bed
Head Ticket No. 1535 in respect of Bisheshwar Rai and he found the
following injuries on his person : 1.
One abrasion half inch x medial part of right

leg anteriorly.
He correctly recorded portion Ex.PW-107/J on Bed Head Ticket

Ex.PW-93/V and stated that the patient was admitted in the Hospital
on 2.1.1975 at 6.15 PM and discharged on 3.1.1975. Duration of the
injuries were within half an hour and could be caused by bomb
explosion and nature of injuries were simple.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
909
(iii) Satender Prasad Singh

860. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta the then Assistant Medical Officer,
North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur stated that on 2.1.1975,
at about same time Sh. Satender Prasad Singh of village Naya Nagar,
Samastipur was admitted in the said Hospital in injured condition. He
has correctly recorded his particulars on at point A on Bed Head
Ticket Ex.PW-93/T. This Bed Head Ticket bears the handwriting at
point B and D of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-107) and Dr. P.C. Gupta.
His own writing is at point C. The patient was discharged on
4.1.1975 on his request vide endorsement on the Bed Head Ticket at
point E in the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha.
Ex.PW-93/E pertains to Satender Parshad Singh. At point A,
particulars are in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta. He examined the
patient and found following injuries on his person:1.
Lacerated wound right thigh medial aspect X

1/2 X skin deep.
2.
Lacerated wound medial aspect of left thigh X

X skin deep.
3.
Lacerated wound medial aspect of left thigh X

quarter inch X skin deep (1 below injury no.2).
On X-ray foreign body was seen in the left thigh.
He correctly
recorded the injuries at portion mark D of the said Bed Head Ticket.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
910
The injury was simple in nature and patient was discharged on

4.1.1975. Splinters could cause these injuries.
(iv) Suraj Chaudhary
862. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta deposed that on 2.1.1975, he was on
emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about
bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons who
have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to their
hospital.
On the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975 at about same time Sh.
Suraj Chaudhary of village Chhatona was admitted in the said

Hospital in injured condition.
He has correctly recorded his
particulars on at point A on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/U. The

handwriting at point B and E on this Bed Head Ticket are of Dr.
K.M. Sinha. The patient was discharged on 7.1.1975 on his request
regarding which an endorsement at point B and E on the Bed Head
Ticket is in the hand of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116).
No. 3587 Ex.PW-93/U pertains to Suraj Chaudhary. Particulars at
point A on the Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/U are in the handwriting
of Dr. S.N. Gupta, which he identified. He himself examined the
patient who was found to have suffered simple injuries.
On
examination of the patient he found following injuries on his person:1.
Lacerated wound 4 X on the right chest

diagonally placed from right nipple to midsternum.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
911
2.
Abrasion 2 X 2 on the right shin with swelling

around it.
3.
Lacerated wound in front of left leg mid-part X

X skin deep.
4.
Lacerated wound half inch X quarter inch on the

dorsum of left hand on the base of 5th meta-carpal.
There were found small multiple foreign body in
the left leg.
He correctly recorded the injuries at portion B of this Bed Head

Ticket. These injuries could be possible by splinters of an exploded
bomb. The injuries are simple in nature and patient was discharged on
7.1.1975.
(v) Noor Jahan Begum
864. PW-93 Dr. S.N. Gupta deposed that on 2.1.1975, he was on
emergency duty and at about 6 PM he received the message about
bomb blast at Railway Station, Samastipur and some persons who
have received injuries in that bomb blast were to be brought to their
hospital. PW-93 testified that on the same day i.e. on 2.1.1975 at about
same time Smt. Noor Jahan Begum was also admitted in the Railway
Hospital, Samastipur in injured condition. He has recorded her correct
particulars on at point A on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/Q. The
handwriting at point B C and D on this Bed Head Ticket are in
the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116), at point F in the hand of Dr.
M. Banerjee and at point E in his handwriting. This patient was
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
912
discharged on 4.1.1975 under the handwriting of Dr. K.M. Sinha at

point J.
865. A perusal of Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/Q reflected that Smt.
Noor Jahan Begum, aged about 35 years was brought to the hospital
on 2.1.1975 at 18.15 hours. She was found to have suffered lacerated
wounds 4 X 1 skin deep in the interior aspect of the right thigh in
the middle and another injury on the back of right knee. She was
given medicines and injections and discharged from the hospital on
request on 4.1.1975.
(vi) Suraj Narain Mandal
North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur deposed that on 2.1.1975
at about same time Sh. Suraj Narain Mandal of village Samastipur was
also admitted in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur in injured
condition.
He has recorded his correct particulars on Bed Head
Ticket Ex.PW-93/O at point A. Noting at point B C and D on

this Bed Head Ticket are in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha (PW-116).
His own handwriting is at point F. The patient was discharged from
the Hospital on 3.1.1975 on his request vide his own endorsement at
point D.
No.3591 pertains to Suraj Narain Mandal Ex.PW-93/O. The writing
A on this Bed Head Ticket is in the handwriting of Dr. S.N. Gupta
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
913
which he identified.
He examined the patient and found following
Lacerated wound 1 X by the rt. side of spine

mid-part.
2.
Lacerated would 1 X skin deep on the rt.

buttock.
He correctly recorded the injuries at point B on the said Bed Head

Ticket Ex.PW-93/O. These injuries could be possible by splinters of a
hand grenade. The injuries were, however, simple and patient was
discharged on the next day.
(vii) Pramod Prasad
North-Eastern Railway Hospital, Samastipur deposed that on 2.1.1975
at about same time Sh. Pramod Prasad working as R.A.S.M.,
Samastipur was also admitted in the Railway Hospital, Samastipur in
injured condition. He has recorded his correct particulars on at point
A on Bed Head Ticket Ex.PW-93/M at point A. The writing at
point B on this Bed Head Ticket are in the hands of Dr. K.M. Sinha
(PW-116).
Ex.PW-93/M pertain to Pramod Parsad. His particulars were entered
by Dr. S.N. Gupta at point A. He recorded injuries of the patient at
point B. The injury was an abrasion 1 X 1/6 on front of right knee

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
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.
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
916
special circumstances, which compel them from moving from place to

place in search of their livelihood; such of the injured from the
floating population do not turn up before the courts nor would be
available during the investigation and also trial. The defence have also
not shattered during the cross-examination of PW-93, PW-97, PW-107
and PW-116 that the injuries of these victims were not suffered by
them in the bomb blast. Keeping in mind of this peculiarity of the case
and further considering the documentary evidence of their medical
record consisting of bed head tickets referring the injuries and the
cause with the history of the patient found therein, I have no hesitation
to hold that all of them though not examined before the court, have
suffered injuries/hurt in the incident.
71) Conspiracy continued......
875. The evidence on record on this subject is traced to the statement
of PW-2. He testified that on the evening of 03.01.1975, he came to
know that L.N. Mishra had died. He stayed in Anand Margi School at
Chakia. After about 15 days, accused Sudevanand came to him at
Chakia and enquired from him (PW-2) about the hand grenade, which
was given to him (PW-2) and he replied that while fleeing away from
the spot, the hand grenade was dropped from his hand on the railway
track, and the real fact was that he had deliberately thrown it there but
he gave him to understand as if the hand grenade had accidentally
dropped from his hand. Sudevanand told him that he should come to
Chautham after two/three days at the house of Gopalji and he went to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
917
Chautham accordingly and from there, he went to Tilihar where he

met Sudevanand, Santoshanand, Arteshanand and Gopalji.
He
testified that Santoshanand also enquired from him with regard to

hand grenade given to him and he informed him the same. Then
Santoshanand emphasized that they should collect arms to the
maximum extent and he (PW-2) should go to Indo-Nepal border and
meet Anand Margies residing at the nearby places.
876. Thereafter, PW-2 visited Paras Nath, Guard (PW-27) at
Narkatiaganj but could not get any arms from him. He also met Roop
Nath Mishra (PW-80) at Village Chamua who also did not give him
any arms. PW-2 further deposed that he met Paras Nath (PW-27) for
the third time in February, 1975 and stayed with him for 2/3 days at
Narkatiaganj at his house and told him that money was required to
purchase arms and suggested that there were two ways, one to loot
Government Treasury or secondly to loot affluent and wealthy
persons. As far as he recollected he met Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) at
his house or at the house of PW-80. After February 1975, he probably
met Sh. Paras Nath (PW-27) in the month of March 1975 and he had
talked to him regarding arms and revealed his real name as Vikram.
He again went to meet him at Narkatiaganj in the month of April 1975
and told him about the incident at Samastipur and killing of Sh. Lalit
Narain Mishra and they i.e. he himself (PW-2), Sudevanand and
Santoshanand were responsible for killing. He also told him that on
20.3.1975, hand grenades were thrown by them i.e. by PW-2,
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
918
Santoshanand and Sudevanand on Chief Justice of India in New Delhi.

He further deposed that in May, 1975 a meeting was held at Tilihar at
the place of Gopalji, which was attended by him, Gopalji,
Santoshanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand and Tapas Kumar Banerjee.
He deposed that Sudevanand informed in the meeting that the Baba Ji
had sent a message from the Jail that Anand Margies who were left in
the organization were brave persons (JO ANANDMARGI BACH
GAYE HAIN WO BAHADUR HAIN) and Baba further desired that
Anand Margies who are left in the organization would have to give
their parichay i.e. they would have to prove that they are Anand
Margies in the real sense. He further deposed that he was arrested on
24.07.1975 along with Sudevanand at Bhagalpur by the Bihar Police.
877. In his cross-examination, PW-2 replied that he met Paras Nath
(PW-27) after about 30 or 35 days of Samastipur incident. He did not
talk to him about Samastipur incident in the month of February, but he
talked to him about it in the month of April (1975).
He further
answered that he met Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) in the month of

February (1975), but could not remember whether he met Khub Lal.
When he met Paras Nath in April 1975, no other person was present
along with him. Probably, he met Paras Nath on 15th or 20th April
1975. He did not talk to Paras Nath about Samastipur incident. He
met Santoshanand after Samastipur incident at Tilihar. He again met
him at Tilihar in the month of March, thereafter meeting used to take

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
919
place sometime at Rajgir or in New Delhi. He came to Delhi with

Sudevanand on 19.03.1975.
878. PW-27 Paras Nath Singh deposed that Subir had come to him
alone in February, 1975 and he stayed with him for 2-3 days and Subir
enquired from him if he could find out any source for arranging arms
& ammunition and he (PW-27) asked him not to have any talk with
him on the subject. Subir again came to him in March, 1975 and
reminded him about the source for arranging arms and ammunition
and he again asked him not to have any talk with him on the subject
and this time also he stayed with him for 2-3 days. Subir again came
to him in April, 1975 lastly and he stayed with him for 2-3 days and
informed him that they are useless persons as they could not do
anything for procuring money, arms & ammunition to bring
revolution. Subir informed him that they were responsible for bomb
blast at Samastipur and throwing of hand grenades on Chief Justice in
Delhi and he (PW-27) told him that he should not visit him and
thereafter Subir did not visit him again. He also deposed that
information which Subir gave him in April, 1975 about Samastipur
bomb blast was conveyed by him to Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80). He
informed Roop Nath Mishra (PW-80) that Subir was a dangerous man
and he will not permit him to stay and also requested Roop Nath
Mishra (PW-80) not to permit Subir to stay with him. He further
testified that on 3rd visit of Subir, on his enquiry he told him that his
other name was Vikram.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
920
879. It is found in the cross-examination of PW-27 that this witness

appeared as a witness in the case concerning the attack on Chief
Justice of India also. It is further elicited that when Subir told him that
they had flung the hand grenades on CJI and a bomb at Samastipur,
this witness did not inquire as to who were the other companions. He
further answered that he refused to assist Subir in arranging arms and
ammunitions. The cross-examination does not go to discredit the visit
of Subir post Samastipur events for collection of arms and
ammunitions.
880. PW-80 Roop Nath Mishra deposed that Subir came to his house
in February/March 1975. He met him at the house of Paras Nath Singh
(PW-27) at Narkatiaganj. He also testified that since 1958, he knew
Ram Aasrey, who was an old worker of Anand Marg and in Feb.1975,
at Chamua Railway halt, Ram Aasrey called Subir as Vikram and they
came to his (PW-80) house and prior to that he was not knowing that
Subir had another name as Vikram.
In his cross-examination, PW-80 answered that he had seen
Vikram only three times. He talked to him on two occasions and third
time he met him in February/March.
881. After a careful scrutiny of the evidence regarding the visits of
PW-2 to various places post Samastipur event, the evidence of PW-27
and PW-80 establishes that there have been efforts made by PW-2 to
pool the resources for procuring arms and ammunitions in their
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
921
continued efforts to secure the release of their cult head on behalf of

all the accused at the directions of accused Santoshanand. It also
transpires that PW-2 has made extra judicial confession before PW-27
regarding his participation in the Samastipur incident.
882. It is also pertinent to note that thereafter there was an attempt on
the life of the Hon'ble CJI at New Delhi on 20.03.1975 and the
accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi were
convicted by the CBI Court in RC No. 11/1975 (SC-09/1986) and an
Appeal was preferred on behalf of accused persons in which the
convictions
of
Santoshanand
and
Sudevanand
were
upheld
(MANU/DE/1873/2014).
72) Tape-recorded version of PW-2 by Jailor
Danapur - CW-9's version by Samastipur Jailor
- legality : relevancy - retracted confession of
CW-8.
883. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that initially during
investigation Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8), Sh. Arun Kumar
Mishra (CW-9) and Shiv Shankar @ Vishwakarma were arrested by
the prosecution. The background alleged is that there was a conspiracy
hatched at the house of one Raghunath Pandey at the behest of Sh.
Ram Bilas Jha (MLC), a henchman of Sh. Yashpal Kapoor, in
December 1974. Pursuant to this, three hand grenades were brought
by Shiv Shankar Sharma @ Shiv Sharma @ Vishwakarma on
01.01.1975.
These three persons Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur, Arun

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
922
Kumar Mishra and Shiv Shankar Sharma @ Shiv Sharma @

Vishwakarma were present on the Dais at Platform No. 3 on
02.01.1975 and after the speech of Sh. L.N. Mishra was over, Shiv
Sharma rolled over the bomb towards the Rostrum, which got
exploded. They have also argued that even Arun Kumar Thakur (CW9) had made confessional statement under Section 164 Cr. PC before
the Judicial Magistrate of the incident dated 02.01.1975.
The
Investigation Officer had also filed an application before the Judicial

Magistrate to record the confession of Arun Kumar Mishra, but he did
not make the statement before the Magistrate.
884. The Ld. Defence Counsel has also submitted that subsequently
in Samastipur Jail, the Jailor has recorded the conversation with Arun
Kumar Mishra (CW-9) in a tape, in which he has admitted his
involvement in the crime. It is submitted on behalf of the defence that
the Investigation Officer has not mentioned anything as to why these
persons were let off subsequently without any reason or justification
and due to the imposition of emergency accused persons have been
falsely implicated. Based on these arguments, the Ld. Defence
Counsel submits that the accused had shown strong hypothesis and as
such accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt.
885. They further argued that the approver Vikram had conversation
with the Jailor Haider Ali in Danapur Jail. The said Jailor has recorded
his statement in a tape on 30.09.1978. They referred the transcriptions
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
examined as CW-8 and CW-9 respectively, in their capacity as court

witnesses.
887. To appreciate these rival contentions, it is necessary to refer the
statement of both these persons Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8) and
Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9).
888. CW-8 Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur deposed that he is not aware
anything about the case relating to murder of Sh. L.N. Mishra. In his
cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he answered that he
was arrested in this case probably in the first week of February 1975
from his residence in his village by the then S.P. Sh. D.P. Ojha (DW34) himself. Before his arrest, none of the police officials met him.
Initially, he was taken to the residence of S.P, where he was kept for
the whole night. Then he was taken to Inspection Bungalow at Dal
Singh Sarai in District Samastipur. He was kept in handcuffs. He was
given beatings. His family members were inquiring about him day
and night. He was 17 or 18 years of age at that time. He used to be
tortured by the police. He did not complain against the police before
the Magistrate for having kept him in custody as he was under
pressure. He was under threat of liquidation of his family by the
police. He informed the Magistrate of the facts, which were tutored to
him by the police. He deposed that Magistrate gave him in custody of
I.B for two days and thereafter he was sent to Bankipur Jail, Patna.
He admitted that proceedings recorded by CJM, Samastipur dated
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
925
21.02.1975 bears his signatures at Point A on all pages and also at

point B. His statement is Ex.CW-8/A. He further deposed that he
made the statement as he used to be beaten and was under threat. He
admitted the suggestion of the defence that his entire statement is
false.
He deposed that whatever statement has been recorded in
Ex.CW-8/A has been made by him on asking of the police. He was

kept alone in I.B Bungalow for about 15 days and also in the Jail. He
did not know any person by the name of Shankar Sahu. He met Arun
Kumar Mishra for the first time after he (CW-8) was released from
Jail. He deposed that his house was searched after 4 or 5 days of his
arrest. He was not in his house at that time. He has denied the
suggestion that he went to the house of Arun Kumar Mishra (CW-9)
on 01.01.1975. He had never seen Shankar Singh Vishwakarma @
Shiv Shankar. He also does not know any person by the name of
Joginder Raut. He has denied the suggestion that he was arrested by
Sh. K.P. Sinha. He has denied the suggestion that he was standing
near the Rostrum, where meeting of Lalit Narain Mishra took place on
the fateful day. He has also denied that Arun Kumar Mishra was his
companion or that he was with him with hand grenade near the Dais.
He also denied the suggestion that his colleague Shiv Shankar
Vishwakarma took out pin from hand grenade as soon as Lalit Narain
Mishra finished his speech and rolled it towards the Rostrum. He also
denied the suggestion that he, Arun Kumar Mishra and Shiv Shankar
Sharma had done it on asking of their Boss Jha. He deposed that he is

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
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.
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.
However, he has not
owned the statement and retracted the said statement. He has

explained that during his custody and interrogation, he was tortured
and given beatings. He further explained that he was under threat of
liquidation of his family by the police. He made a tutored statement to
the police. Though, he has admitted that the statement Ex.CW-8/A
made by him before the CJM, Samastipur bears his signatures, yet the
statement was recorded before the CJM, Samastipur during the course
of investigation under Chapter XII titled as Information to the Police
and their powers to investigate. This statement/evidence collected by
the prosecution during the investigation of the case is not "legal
evidence".
This court can rely upon to adjudicate only on that
statement, which is "legal evidence". This has been explained by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijender etc. Vs. State of Delhi, 1997
(1) Crimes 158 (SC) and relevant Para 25 of the Judgment reads as
under: The result of investigation under Chapter
XII of the Criminal Procedure Code is a
conclusion that an Investigating Officer draws on
the
basis
of
materials
collected
during
investigation and such conclusion can only form

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
929
the basis of a competent Court to take cognizance

thereupon under Section 190(1)(b) Cr. PC and to
proceed with the case for trial, where the materials
collected during investigation are to be translated
into legal evidence. The trial Court is then required
to base its conclusion solely on the evidence
adduced during the trial; and it cannot rely on the
investigation or the result thereof. Since this is an
elementary principle of criminal law, we need not
delete (sic.) (dilate/debate) on this point any
further.
In view of the above discussion, it is to be reiterated that CW-8 was
initially arrested as a suspect in this matter. During investigation, he
was released on bail under Section 167 (2) (a) of the Cr. PC. He has
alleged that his statement made before MM is the result of torture and
coercion. He has also filed an application before the Magistrate for
cancellation of his earlier confession.
Subsequently, finding no evidence against him in the crime, IO
filed an application for his discharge under Section 169 of Cr. PC and
on 20.11.1975, this application was allowed by the competent court
and CW-8 was accordingly discharged. The same remained
unchallenged and attained finality. Even otherwise, the confessional
statement made by CW-8 is not legal evidence worth considering for

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
930
adjudication of the case in view of the judgment of Vijendras case

(supra).
893. CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra deposed that he does not know
anything about Lalit Narain Mishra's case. In his cross-examination by
the accused persons, he replied that he was arrested in Lalit Narain
Mishra's case from his residence by S.P., Samastipur. At that time, he
was a student. Initially he was taken to the office of S.P., then to his
residence where he was kept for two days and thereafter he was kept
at Dal Singh Sarai i.e. Inspection Bungalow, where senior Police
Officers used to visit him for interrogation. He was kept alone in
fetters. He was never produced before the Magistrate. He admitted
that the application Ex.CW-9/A dated 01.04.1975 appears to be in his
handwriting. He explained that this might have been got written from
him while he was in jail. He also admitted that the application dated
14.04.1975 Ex.CW-9/B is in his handwriting. He was neither willing
nor made any statement before the Magistrate. He has denied the
suggestion that he along with Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8)
planned to kill Lalit Narain Mishra. He was unable to recognize Sh.
Ram Bilas Jha, MLC of the area. He has denied the suggestion that he
did the job on asking of Sh. Ram Bilas Jha. He further denied the
suggestion that Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur (CW-8) and two others were
his accomplices. He further denied the suggestion that he was taken to
the house of one Sh. Raghunath Pandey by Sh. Ram Bilas Jha in
December 1974. He further denied the suggestion that at the house of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
931
Sh. Raghunath Pandey, a conspiracy was hatched to do this job on

asking of Sh. Ram Bilas Jha. He has denied the suggestion that he
gave training to Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur and Shiv Sharma @
Vishwakarma as to how to handle grenade and how to take out pin
from it. He has also denied the suggestion that he along with Shiv
Sharma and Arun Kumar Thakur planned that Shiv Sharma would roll
the grenade on the Rostrum of the Platform and if the bomb does not
explode, Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur will throw the bomb. He has also
denied the suggestion that as per planning, an Ambassador Car of
Raghunath Pandey was kept parked at the Platform and in case both
attempts failed, L.N. Mishra was to be killed at Narayanpur and
Narain Swaroop was the driver of the said car. He has also denied the
suggestion that three hand grenades were brought by Shiv Narain
Sharma @ Shiv Sharma @ Vishwakarma.
He also denied the
suggestion that on 01.01.1975, he called Sh. Arun Kumar Thakur and

Shiv Sharma at his residence. He further denied the suggestion that he,
Arun Kumar Thakur and Shiv Sharma and one more person reached at
the Dais on Platform No. 3 on 02.01.1975 and after the speech of L.N.
Mishra, Shiv Sharma rolled over the bomb towards the Rostrum,
which got exploded.
894. In his further cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel,
CW-9 replied that he never intended to go to make a statement before
the Magistrate, as the statement given to him by Superintendent of
Police Sh. Ojha was containing incorrect facts. He used to be given a
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
895. During his deposition, the cassette Ex.D-1/C-60 was played in

the court. Before playing the cassette the Ld. Predecessor of this court
vide order dated 08.01.1986 sent the same to Metropolitan Magistrate,
New Delhi for preparing the transcription. The transcription was
accordingly prepared by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 24.01.1986 in
the presence of the Ld. Special PP, accused persons and their
respective Defence Counsel. The Metropolitan Magistrate has
prepared the transcription by playing it on a deck.
It is nowhere mentioned as to who identified the voices in the
cassette, however CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar Mishra was not present
before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 24.01.1986. (The Photostat
copy of the transcription Ex.ZX is available in part XXIV).
896. The cassette was got repaired from CFSL and was again played
in the court. In his further cross-examination, CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar
Mishra has denied his voices, which are mentioned in the transcription
Ex.ZX at point A to A, B to B, C to C, R to R, R1 to R1, S to S, V to
V, Y to Y, Z to Z, Z1 to Z1, Z2 to Z2, A2 to A2, A3 to A3, A4 to A4,
A6 to A6, A8 to A8, B2 to B2, B4 to B4, C2 to C2, C4 to C4, C6 to
C6, C7 to C7, C8 to C8. He deposed that he is not sure about his
voices, which are mentioned in the transcription at points D to D, J to
J, L to L, N to N, P to P and T to T. He admitted his voice at point-F
to F only, where it is mentioned that "Sir Samastipur ke SP vageraha
se hum baat nahi karenge kyonki un logo ne thokha de kar marvaya
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
Possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any

part of, the tape-recorded statement must be totally
excluded.
4. The tape-recorded statement must be relevant.
5. The recorded cassette must be sealed and must
be kept in safe or official custody.
6. The voice of the particular speaker must be
clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by
other sounds or disturbances.
900. The ruling of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973)
2 SCR 417, by the Honble Supreme Court laid down the essential
conditions which, if fulfilled or satisfied, would make a tape-recorded
statement admissible otherwise not; and observed thus: "Tape
recorded
conversation
is
admissible
provided first the conversation is relevant to the

matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of
the voice; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape
recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the
possibility of erasing the tape record."
901. Tested on the touchstone of the tests and safeguards,
enumerated above, I am of the opinion that the defence has miserably
failed to approve the authenticity of the cassette as well as the
accuracy of the voice purportedly made by the CW-9 Sh. Arun Kumar
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
937
Mishra. In view of the discussion, there is no force in the argument of

the Ld. Defence Counsel that the confessional statement of CW-8 and
purported tape-recorded statement of CW-9 are relevant for
consideration to adjudicate the matter and it is not such a hypothesis to
give any benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Merely because, he
was arrested during investigation as a suspect does not mean that there
was some evidence against him. Many persons including CW-9 were
arrested in this case by the Investigation Officer and ultimately,
Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused
persons facing the trial. In the meanwhile, CW-9 was granted bail by
the competent court U/s. 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC. He has not owned his
alleged voice in the conversation recorded by Jailor Rehman in
Samastipur Jail except only one dialogue, which is not incriminatory
at all. The defence has failed to prove that the voice in the cassette
was of CW-9 and there was no scope of tampering with the cassette,
soon after the conversation was recorded in view of the law laid down
by Honble Supreme Court in Ram Singh's case and R.M.
Malkhani's case (supra). Even otherwise, it has come in his
deposition that he was subject to torture in the Jail and he was made to
read from a prepared statement. There is no evidence at all on the
record to show involvement CW-9 in the crime. When there was no
evidence against him, on filing of application before the competent
court, he was discharged by the court on 20.11.1975, which order has
attained finality.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
938
902. Now, I propose to deal with the issue of recording of

conversation between the Jailor and PW-2 Vikram in Danapur Jail on
30.09.1978. In this regard, the defence has cross-examined PW-2 in
detail. In his cross-examination, PW-2 answered that on 30.09.1978,
he was in Danapur Sub-Jail. At that time, there was a Jailor namely
Haider Ali and a Doctor namely D. Ram.
He testified that on
30.09.1978, there was a conversation between him, Jailor and the

Doctor in his compartment and at that time, they told him that some
officers of Bihar Government wanted to meet him and he was taken to
the office from his compartment. He was introduced to two officers of
Bihar Government. He was told that one of them was Home Secretary
and the other was Law Secretary. He has denied the suggestion that
he was tutored by CBI. He has also denied that CBI officers gave him
severe beatings on his leg or he suffered wounds on his body.
903. At Page No. 38 of cross-examination of PW-2, it is mentioned
that Sh. D. Goburdhan, Advocate for Bihar Government has supplied
a transcript Mark-Z to the court on 25.05.1981. It is mentioned in
the order dated 04.06.1981 of the Predecessor of this court that tape
was summoned from the Government of Bihar pursuant to the
application moved by Sh. P.P. Grover, Advocate on behalf of the
accused. Sh. D. Goburdhan, Advocate of Bihar Government produced
the tape as received by him from the Bihar Government. As per the
order sheet dated 09.07.1981 of my Ld. Predecessor, the sealed
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
939
envelopes believed to contain the cassette was opened in the presence

of the accused persons and counsel for the parties and it was directed
that tape-recorder would be played to compare the transcript or
prepare another one. The tape was played but the court found certain
omissions here and there and the cassette was ordered to be re-sealed.
Sealed envelope was opened again in the court on 10.07.1981 and
tape-recorder was played. Another transcription Mark-Z-1 sent by the
Bihar Government was corrected. Here it is pertinent to note that on
that day, Vikram was not present in the court and it is not on the
record as to whether the cassette found in the envelope was a sealed
one or not.
It is also not in evidence that the cassette was not
tampered with after recording the voice/conversation with PW-2 by

the Jailor. The Jailor of Danapur Jail has also not been examined as a
witness. PW-2 was not present in the court, when the transcription
Mark-Z-1 was corrected. It is also not mentioned in the order sheet as
to who identified the voices contained in the tape. On 15.07.1981
onward, PW-2 was further cross-examined on several dates by the
defence and he was confronted with this second transcription Mark-Z1 without playing the tape on the tape-recorder. The record reveals on
19.08.1981, during his cross-examination, PW-2 requested the court
that tape should be played on the tape-recorder to know whether it
contained his voice. Then the tape was played on the tape-recorder
and a sealed parcel containing the cassette was taken out.
PW-2
admitted his voice, which is mentioned in the transcription Mark-Z-1

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
cross-examination that he had written in the letter for shifting him

outside for safety, since he feared death without telling the truth. It is
important to note that these letters were got exhibited by the defence
in cross-examination of PW-2. He deposed that in the inland letter
Ex.PW-2/DG, he did not mention the names of the police officers. He
admitted that on the inland letter Ex.PW-2/DG, he has mentioned the
address of Sh. M.P. Singh in his handwriting at point Ex.PW-2/DG-2.
He testified that the letter Ex.PW-2/DH is in his handwriting. He used
to send the letters to Sh. M.P. Singh, DSP, CBI at his official address
Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Establishment, CIU (P)
Branch, East Block, Sector-7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. He
was shown the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1, where this address of M.P.
Singh is not found mentioned. He admitted that the writing encircled
X on the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 is in his handwriting. (On this
envelope, at point X, the address of Mr. M.P. Singh, DSP, CBI is
mentioned). He replied that the correction at Point A & B on t he letter
Ex.PW-2/DH are in his handwriting. He deposed that he had gone
through this letter and corrected the mistakes. He admitted that
envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 does not bear any Indian Postal Stamp. He
asserted that the letter Ex.PW-2/DJ and address on the envelope
Ex.PW-2/DJ-1 are in his handwriting, but he has not mentioned
senders name and address on the envelope. He further deposed that
the address on the envelope Ex.PW-2/DJ-1 pertaining to letter Ex.PW2/DJ is also in his handwriting. In his further cross-examination, PW-

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
943
2 deposed that there is no interpolation or change of date in the letter

Ex.PW-2/DJ at Point X-1. He has denied the suggestion that CBI got
written a letter from a person well conversant with English language
and then a letter on loose paper was got written from him and
produced in the court along with Envelope Ex.PW-2/DJ for the first
time.
905. In his re-examination, PW-2 deposed at Page No. 335 that the
letter Ex.PW-2/DH consisting of ten pages in English is in his
handwriting and the date is 20.08.79. He deposed that the envelope
Ex.PW-2/DH-1 was sent to him by Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia from
England, who was earlier an approver in a Bank Van Robbery case.
In his further cross-examination after re-examination, PW-2 deposed
that the writing Ex.PW-2/DH-2 on the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 is in
the handwriting of Sh. Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia, who remained with
him for two years in Tihar Jail and after his release from Jail, he went
to England. Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia was kept in his room in the Jail.
He is not aware of his complete address, but the locality is Betfont
Road, Middleex. In his further cross-examination, PW-2 admitted
the suggestion that he had written the letter Ex.PW-2/DJ in December
1978, letter Ex.PW-2/DH in February 1979 and third letter Ex.PW2/DG approximately during that period. He denied the suggestion that
his three letters filed by the CBI in the court during cross-examination
are forged one and prepared during the pendency of the proceedings.

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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
945
907. I have also seen letter Ex.PW-2/DH, which is written on 10

pages of a lined notebook. This letter dated 20.08.1979 has been
written by Vikram in poor English language. He has detailed his
grievance in this letter to the effect that Jailor and Doctor had visited
him on several dates in September, October, November and December
1978 and January to March 1979 to pressurize him to make the
statement in the court. He has further mentioned that he was tortured
and beaten by them and they have also given him a typed copy of a
paper in question answer form and DIG asked him to give those
answers and his voice had been recorded. This letter was addressed to
Mr. M.P. Singh, DSP, CBI in the envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1. On the
front portion of the envelope, PW-2 struck out his name and address.
This envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1 bears the round postal stamp of
Hounston, Middlesex, dated 10.08.1979 and a sticker with the
inscription of By air mail Par Avion is pasted on the left top corner.
It also bears a postal ticket of UK. It does not bear any stamp of any
Indian Post Office. It does not bear the name of the sender. However,
on this envelope Ex.PW-2/DH-1, the name of Mr. Vikram, C/o Jailor
Sahib, Danapur Sub Jail, Danapur (Patna) 801503, Bihar, India is
struck out and above this address, this name and address Mr. M.P.
Singh, DSP, CBI is mentioned.
908. Ex.PW-2/DJ is third letter in Hindi written by Vikram, which
was received in the office of CBI, New Delhi on 22.12.1978. This
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
946
was found to contain in the envelope Ex.PW-2/DJ-1. This is addressed

to Dy. Superintendant of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Special Police Establishment, CIU (P) Branch, East Block-VII, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi-110022. This bears the round stamp of the Post
Office Danapur Cantt. dated 19.12.1978.
It also bears the round
shaped postal stamp dated 21.12.1978 of Delhi Post Office having Pin
No. 110001. The stamp dated 21.12.1978 must be of GPO. Then
there is another round stamp of Rama Krishna Puram Post Office on
which the impression of the date is not completely visible.
In this letter also, he has written his grievance against the Jailor
informing him that Home Secretary and Law Secretary, Bihar would
be visiting the Jail and he (PW-2) was directed to speak everything in
the court. Next day, those persons introduced to Home Secretary and
Law Secretary and Jailor had slapped him four or five times and then
on instructions of the Jailor, a constable, who was standing near the
gate, was called and he gave him beatings by fists several times. He
was tortured. They directed him to make only the statement, which
they have given him. On third day, they had given him a written paper
and compelled to read it.
909. Prosecution has examined Deputy SP Sh. M.P. Singh, CBI,
New Delhi as PW-131, who remained associated with the
investigation of this case from 08.01.1975 to 29.08.1976 and he has
assisted Chief Investigation Officer Sh. H.L. Ahuja, Deputy SP, CBI
(PW-151) in the Investigation as per his directions. All these letters
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
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
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.
examination he has explained that he had given it to Mushakati with

the instructions that he would find Sh. M.P. Singh at 2/8, Bailey Road,
where the letter was to be delivered by hand otherwise he should put it
another envelope and post it after pasting the slip containing the
address. It is found in the testimony of PW-2 that the letter Ex.PW2/DH is in his handwriting. The defence has not at all discredited the
PW-2 in his cross-examination that the letter Ex.PW-2/DH was not in
his handwriting or that he had not given this letter to Mushakati for
delivery to Sh. M.P. Singh. The defence has also not shattered the
assertion of PW-2 that the letter Ex.PW-2/DJ and the address on the
envelope Ex.PW-2/DJ-1 are not in his handwriting in his crossexamination. Rather, the defence has admitted that the letter Ex.PW2/DJ pertained to the envelope Ex.PW-DJ-1.
PW-2 has further
admitted the suggestion of the defence that he had written the letter
Ex.PW-2/DJ in the mother of December 1978, letter Ex.PW-2/DH in
February 1979 and letter Ex.PW-2/DJ around February 1979. By
giving the suggestion to PW-2 in his cross-examination that CBI got
written these letters from him in Delhi, also by itself suggest
admission on behalf of the defence that these letters are in the
handwriting of PW-2. Further, the defence has admitted the writing of

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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
952
Sen was about to retire in November 1975 and he was granted

extension in service as Director, CBI and he was also awarded
Padama Bhushan Award on the following Republic Day. They also
submitted that the wife of late Sh. L.N. Mishra has lodged a complaint
on the basis of which the then Chief Minister has ordered a secret
inquiry, which was conducted by the then DIG, CID, Bihar namely
Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai (DW-40). It was pointed out that even as
per report of DIG, the crime dated 02.01.1975 was not committed by
the Anand Margies facing the trial, but by Arun Kumar Thakur, Arun
Kumar Mishra and Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma on the direction of Sh.
Ram Bilas Jha (MLC), who was known as Boss Jha. The report of
Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai (DW-40) was considered by Sh. V.M.
Tarkunde, Senior Advocate on the direction of the then Chief Minister
and he has also filed his report in favour of accused persons. Based on
these submissions, the Ld. Defence Counsel submits that this is a
straight hypothesis, which goes in favour of the accused persons and
they should be given benefit of doubt.
915. Here, I would like to refer the relevant evidence pointed out by
the Ld. Defence Counsel. Ex.DW-12/C is copy of the letter No.946
dated 30.8.1978 written by the then Chief Minister of Bihar addressed
to the then Prime Minister of India mentioning therein that pursuant to
the confidential one to one discussion, he had directed for secret
enquiry in respect of murder of Late Sh. L.N. Mishra. After the
completion of the secret enquiry, he would send him a copy and if he
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
953
(Prime Minister) is satisfied, he (Prime Minister) might take up the

matter with the Central Bureau of Investigation. Photocopy of the
report submitted by Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40) dated 24.10.1978 is
Ex.DW-12/B. The carbon copy of report of Sh. S.B. Sahai is Ex.DW40/1. The letter Ex.DW-12/C and Photostat copy of the report of DW40 are Ex.DW-12/B are available in Part-XXIV. The carbon copy of
the report of DW-40 is Ex.DW-40/1, which is available in Folder R309.
916. Defence has examined Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai, the then DIG,
CID, Bihar as DW-40. He proved copy of his affidavit dated
11.12.1979, which he filed in the Honble Supreme Court Ex.DW-6/A
(Available in Folder R-57). In his affidavit filed before the Honble
Supreme Court DW-40 deposed that 18 CBI officers led by D.N.
Ahuja, DIG, CBI left New Delhi for Bihar on 03.1.1975 by a Special
Plane and arrived at Samastipur in the forenoon of 04.1.1975. They
have assisted the CBI team in the investigation of both these cases of
Samastipur from 04.1.1975 to 10.1.1975. The CBI had taken over the
investigation of the case from State CID on 10.1.1975. At that time,
they have passed information to CBI relating to two suspects. CBI
formally arrested both these suspects in Mishras murder case on
08.1.1975 after recovery of some incriminatory documents from their
house and statement of eyewitness Shankar before the CID and CBI.
Sh. Shankar made a statement to CID & CBI to the effect that he had
seen both these Arun Kumars running away from near the Rostrum at
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
954
the conclusion of Late Sh. L.N. Mishras speech and immediately

preceding the blast. Arun Kumar Thakur made a voluntary statement
regarding his complicity in the bomb blast. He made inculpatory
statement and regarding complicity of his friend Arun Kumar Mishra
and one accomplice Sheo Narain Sharma and an outsider named Boss
Jha, the man behind the crime. On initial interrogation of Arun
Kumar Mishra, he mentioned the names of Uma Kant Jha and
Joginder Raut as instigators of the crime and on close enquiry
allegations against them were found incorrect.
917. DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai deposed that he received an order from
the then Chief Minister, Bihar to conduct a confidential enquiry into
the case relating to the murder of Sh. L.N. Mishra vide his top secret
letter No.946 dated 30.8.1978 and pursuant to that direction he made a
confidential enquiry with the assistance of Sh. D.P. Ojha (DW-34)
and Sh. K.P. Sinha, DSP, CID. After completion of the confidential
enquiry, he submitted a detailed Top Secret Report to the then
Chief Minister, Bihar vide memo no.51/C dated 24.10.1978. The then
Chief Minister, Bihar requested Sh. V.M. Tarkunde to give his legal
opinion on the confidential enquiry report regarding L.N. Mishra
murder case. Sh. Tarkunde prepared his opinion and submitted to the
then Chief Minister, Bihar.
918. In his examination-in-chief DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai testified that
he was aware of the incident of bomb attack on 02.1.1975 was made
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
955
on L. N. Mishra. He visited the place of occurrence on 03.1.1975. FIR

was lodged and CID Bihar started investigation until 09.1.1975. CBI
has taken over the investigation of the case on 10.1.1975. However,
CID, Bihar kept assisting CBI until 3rd week of March 1975. After 3rd
Week of March, CID Bihar was disassociated with the investigation of
the case and thereafter CBI did everything. He made enquiry through
his officers about the role of Vikram (PW-2) and Madan Mohan
Srivastava (PW-1) in this case. He authorized Jailor and Supdt. of Jail,
Danapur to record the statement of Vikram on a tape recorder. The
tape-recorded statement of Vikram was not given to him but he heard
it. It was between Sh. D.P. Ahuja, SP (Vigilance) and Sh. K.P. Sinha,
Dy. SP, CID.
The then Chief Secretary, Sh. Ram Subramanium
personally talked to Vikram's cell in Danapur Jail and was satisfied.

The statement of Vikram recorded as taped by Danapur Jailor was
contradictory to his earlier statement. Under the order of Chief
Minister, Bihar, he met Sh. Tarkunde after submitting his Report
Ex.DW-40/1. He also met Sh. Arun Shourie (DW-16) in Delhi and
discussed the case. He informed Sh. Arun Shourie (DW-16) that as per
his findings, the present case investigated by CBI is false. The object
of his enquiry was to find out the truth as Smt. Kameshwari Mishra
wife of late Sh. L.N. Mishra lodged a complaint to the Chief Minister,
Bihar that wrong persons have been implicated. The then CM of Bihar
asked him to make an enquiry.
He submitted his report dated
24.10.1978 running into 21 pages Ex.DW-40/1 to the then CM, Bihar

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.
He did not know whether Smt.
Kameshwari Mishra made her complaint to the then Chief Minister,

Bihar in writing or orally.
He did not submit enclosure of any
statements or rough notes with his enquiry report Ex.DW-40/1. He is

not aware if the State Government or Central Government took any
action on submitting the report. To a question whether any attempt
was made to file any additional charge sheet in the concerned court, he
replied that he did not know since in the year 1979 he went on
deputation out of the State of Bihar. He did not know personally about
Madan Mohan Srivastava. He deposed that the officers assisting him
made a specific enquiry about antecedents and involvement in this
case. He interrogated Vikram in Danapur Jail and examined him after
his statement was tape recorded by the Jailor. He did not record his
statement formally. Before tape recording of the statement of Vikram,
he did not see him in the jail. He had not authorized the Jailor and
Superintendent of Danapur Jail in writing to record the statement of
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.
Subsequently, a natural eye
witness, Shankar, claimed identification of Arun

Kumar Thakur and Arun Kumar Mishra on the
spot of the bomb blast. Arun Kumar Thakur made
a judicial confession on 21.2.75 about the crime in
which he named Arun Kumar Mishra, Sheo Narain
Sharma and one unknown person, besides himself.
He also mentioned about the Boss Jha as a
planner of the crime.
2. While the search to identify Boss Jha was
going on, the other accused Arun Kumar Mishra
made certain disclosures in Samastipur Jail before
the Jailor Sri Rehman giving some details of the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
958
conspiracy and revealing the name of Ram Bilas

Jha as the planner of the crime.
3. The disclosure of the name of Ram Bilash Jha as
one of the main conspirators behind the murder
brought about a sea change in the attitude of the
C.B.I. towards this line of investigation. This line
of investigation was abruptly closed and valuable
evidence obtained during the first three months of
investigation was completely suppressed.
4. The main reason behind suppression of this line
of investigation was that Ram Bilash Jha was a
close associate of Sri Yashpal Kapoor and also had
direct contact with Smt. Gandhi. Sri D. Sen, the
then Director of the C.B.I., had clearly told Smt.
Kameshwari Mishra that to mention Ram Bilash
Jhas name in this case would lead to Sh. Yashpal
Kapoor and further up.
5. Smt. Gandhis keen interest in this affair is
evident from the query she made from Sri
Ghafoor, the then Chief Minister, Bihar, in the last
week of March, 1975 about some alleged favour
shown to the Samastipur jailor, Sri Rahman. Since
the
Samastipur
Jailor
had
succeeded
in
ascertaining the name of Sri Ram Bilash Jha as one

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
959
of the planners of the murder, Smt. Gandhi was

obviously unhappy with the Jailor and the then
Chief Minister, Sri Ghafoor. No wonder that Sri
D. Sen, the then Director of the C.B.I. could not
dare pursue the investigation against Ram Bilash
Jha.
6. Sri Yashpal Kapoors sojourn in Bihar before
and after the bomb blast and his movements during
this period appear to be highly suspicious. Close
association between Ram Bilash Jha and Sri
Yashpal Kapoor is a well known fact.
In the
circumstances, there is a clear suspicion about Sri

Yashpal Kapoor and Ram Bilash Jha having
jointly planned Sri L.N. Mishras murder.
7. The subsequent investigation of this case by the
C.B.I. implicating some Anand Margis was a part
of the deliberate attempt to divert attention from
the real culprits who were close to the seat of
power.
In this attempt false confessional
statements were extorted by means of physical

torture and inhuman third degree methods. Due
processes of law and rules of jail Manuals were
open flouted to keep the principal tutored witness
of the cooked-up case under constant terror and

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
960
undue influence. The whole case was built up by

the C.B.I. under the cover of the emergency when
legal processes were under great strains. Chargesheet was submitted against the Anand Margis by
the C.B.I. on 10th November, 1975.
It is not
without significant that Sh. D. Sen, who was due to

retire in November, 1975, was granted extension
of service as Director of the C.B.I. He was also
decorated with Padam Bhushan on the following
Republic day.
921. Admittedly, in this case the charge sheet was filed by
Investigation Officer on 12.11.1975 before the Special Judicial
Magistrate, Patna. Committal proceedings were still pending before
the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna, where after the tender of
pardon, both the approvers Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass @ Subir and
Madan Mohan Srivastava @ Visheshwaranand @ Vijay were to be
examined as a witness, taking the cognizance of the offence as
required under sub-clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 306 of Cr.
PC. I have appreciated the issue in my subsequent paragraphs of this
judgment as to how the accused persons in collusion with the
Authorities, Jailor and Jail Doctor did not allow the same to be
completed in order to build and put pressure on approver Vikram lying
in Danapur Jail to retract from his confessional statement. This was
also done to blame and defame CBI for his making confessional
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
961
statement before the ACMM, Delhi on 16.08.1975 and 18.08.1975 and

consequent grant of pardon to him on 27.10.1975. Much after filing
of the charge sheet, the then Chief Minister of the State of Bihar vide
Letter No. 946 dated 30.08.1978 Ex.PW-12/C directed Secret
Inquiry to be conducted by the officers of the State. Here it is worth
mentioning that vide notification No. 54 dated 03.01.1975 Ex.PW64/D, the Governor of Bihar gave the consent of the Government of
Bihar to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under
Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for
extension of their powers and jurisdiction in the whole of the State of
Bihar for investigation of the offences with regard to case No. 1 of
02.01.1975, PS Samastipur. Vide notification No. 55 dated 03.01.1975
Ex.PW-64/E, the Governor of Bihar gave the consent of the
Government of Bihar to the members of Delhi Special Police
Establishment under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act, 1946 for extension of their powers and jurisdiction in the whole
of the State of Bihar for investigation of the offences with regard to
case No. 1 of 02.01.1975, PS Samastipur GRPS. Vide notification
dated 13.09.1975 Ex.PW-64/A, the Governor of Bihar has also given
its consent to Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in respect of FIR No. 24
dated 07.01.1974 PS Kotwali Patna. The Governor of Bihar has also
accorded the consent of Government of Bihar vide notification Ex.
PW-64/B dated 13.09.1975, to the members of Delhi Special Police

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
962

Act, 1946 in respect of FIR No. 71 dated 13.07.1974 PS Kotwali
Bhagalpur.
(All four notifications Ex.PW-64/A, Ex.PW-64/B,
Ex.PW-64/D and Ex.PW-64/E are available in
Folder R-7)
The Governor of Bihar by order No. 6905 dated 27.12.1975 Ex.PW64/C has also accorded the consent of the Government of Bihar for the
prosecution and trial of the charge sheeted persons for the offences
under Section 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 in respect of
the above said FIRs dated 07.01.1974, 13.07.1974 and 02.01.1975.
(The notification Ex.PW-64/C is available in
Folder R-68)
922. Here, it would be profitable to advert to sub-section (8) of
Section 173 of Cr. PC, which reads as under: (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
preclude further investigation in respect of an
offence after a report under sub-section (2) has
been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon
such investigation, the officer Incharge of the
police station obtains further evidence, oral or
documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a
further report or reports regarding such evidence in
the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
963
sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in

relation to such report or reports as they apply in
relation to a report forwarded under sub-section
(2).
923. A plain reading of section 173 of Cr. PC reflects that even after
filing of the Final Investigation Report by the Investigation Officer,
under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Cr. PC, the Magistrate may
direct the investigation officer on his request to conduct further
investigations and report to the Magistrate under sub-section (8) of
Section 173 of Cr. PC. In this regard, a catena of judgments of the
Honble Supreme Court can be referred to. Suffice it to refer the one
of the Honble Supreme Court in Dinesh Dalmia Vs. C.B.I. 2008
(AIR) SC 78, that: 16. Indisputably, the power of the investigating
officer to make a prayer for making further
investigation in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section
173 is not taken away only because a charge sheet
under Sub-section (2) thereof has been filed. A
further investigation is permissible even if order of
cognizance of offence has been taken by the
Magistrate.
924. It has also been held by the Honble Supreme Court in Reeta
Naag Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2009 (9) SCC 129, that the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
964
power of the Investigating Officer to make a prayer for conducting

further investigation in terms of Section 173 (8) of Cr. PC is not taken
away only because a charge- sheet has been filed under Section 173(2)
and a further investigation is permissible even if cognizance has been
taken by the Magistrate. The relevant Para of the judgment reads as
under: 17. In addition to the above, the decision of this
Court in Randhir Singh Rana's case (supra) also
makes it clear that after taking cognizance of an
offence on the basis of a police report and after
appearance of the accused, a Judicial Magistrate
cannot of his own order further investigation in the
case, though such an order could be passed on the
application of the investigating authorities. The
view expressed in Randhir Singh Rana's case
(supra) finds support in the decision of this Court
in the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, 2007(4)
RCR(Criminal) 283 : 2007(5) RAJ 182 : [(2007)8
SCC 770], wherein while considering various
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code
including Section 173 thereof, this Court held that
so long as the charge-sheet is not filed within the
meaning of Section 173(2) Criminal Procedure
Code, investigation remains pending. But, even the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
965
filing of a charge-sheet did not preclude an

Investigating Officer from carrying on further
investigation in terms of Section 173(8) Criminal
Procedure Code It was also observed that the
power of the Investigating Officer to make a
prayer for conducting further investigation in terms
of Section 173(8) of the Code is not taken away
only because a charge- sheet has been filed under
Section 173(2) and a further investigation is
permissible even if cognizance has been taken by
the Magistrate.
18. Although, the decision in Dinesh Dalmia's case
(supra) was rendered in the context of the
applicability of Section 167(2) and the proviso
thereto, when a charge-sheet has not been filed, the
interpretation of the provisions of Section 173(8)
in the said decision is relevant in the facts of this
case also.
19. What emerges from the above-mentioned
decisions of this Court is that once a charge-sheet
is filed under Section 173(2) Criminal Procedure
Code and either charge is framed or the accused
are discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of
a protest petition, take cognizance of the offence

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
966
complained of or on the application made by the

investigating
authorities
permit
further
investigation under Section 173(8). The Magistrate

cannot suo moto direct a further investigation
under Section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code or
direct a re-investigation into a case on account of
the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code.
925. Further, the Honble Supreme Court has held in Vinay Tyagi
Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Others, 2013 (5) SCC 762, that the
Magistrate has power to direct further investigation after filing of a
police report in terms of section 173 (8) of Cr. PC and the relevant
Para are quoted below: 30. Having analysed the provisions of the Code
and the various judgments as afore-indicated, we
would state the following conclusions in regard to
the powers of a magistrate in terms of Section
173(2) read with Section 173(8) and Section
156(3) of the Code:
1. The Magistrate has no power to direct
'reinvestigation' or 'fresh investigation' (de novo) in
the case initiated on the basis of a police report.\
2. A Magistrate has the power to direct 'further
investigation' after filing of a police report in terms
of Section 173(6) of the Code.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
967
3. The view expressed in (2) above is in

conformity with the principle of law stated in
Bhagwant Singh's case (supra) by a three Judge
Bench and thus in conformity with the doctrine of
precedence.
4. Neither the scheme of the Code nor any specific
provision therein bars exercise of such jurisdiction
by the Magistrate. The language of Section 173(2)
cannot be construed so restrictively as to deprive
the Magistrate of such powers particularly in face
of the provisions of Section 156(3) and the
language of Section 173(8) itself. In fact, such
power would have to be read into the language of
Section 173(8).
5. The Code is a procedural document, thus, it
must receive a construction which would advance
the cause of justice and legislative object sought to
be achieved. It does not stand to reason that the
legislature provided power of further investigation
to the police even after filing a report, but intended
to curtail the power of the Court to the extent that
even where the facts of the case and the ends of
justice demand, the Court can still not direct the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
968
investigating
agency
to
conduct
further
investigation which it could do on its own.

6. It has been a procedure of proprietary that the
police has to seek permission of the Court to
continue
'further
investigation'
and
file
supplementary charge-sheet. This approach has

been approved by this Court in a number of
judgments. This as such would support the view
that we are taking in the present case.
926. The Honble Supreme Court has reiterated the position in law
under Section 173 of the Cr. PC regarding the powers of Magistrate
for directing further investigations in Hemant Dhasmana Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation 2001 (7) SCC 536, wherein the
Honble Supreme Court has relied upon its previous judgment and the
relevant Para reads as under: 18. In Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of
Police and another, 1985(2) SCC 537 a threeJudge Bench of this Court has said, though in a
slightly different context, that three options are
open to the court on receipt of a report under
Section 173(2) of the Code, when such report
states that no offence has been committed by the
persons accused in the complaint. They are:

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
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
972
concerned Magistrate to obtain permission to further investigate

matter. Further, when the charge sheet had already been filed on
12.11.1975, which was pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate,
Patna for consideration, no efforts have been made by the State of
Bihar to move the Jurisdictional Magistrate either directly or through
Delhi Special Police Establishment for permission to conduct further
investigations in the cases.
933. Moreover, DW-40 has admitted in his cross-examination that he
has not authorized the Jailor and Superintendant Jail of Danapur Jail in
writing to record the statement of Vikram. DW-40 is stated to have
met Vikram in Danapur Jail, but he has not personally recorded his
statement in writing. He has also not mentioned in his report as to
when he had visited Danapur Jail to have meeting with the approver
Vikram. He has claimed that Chief Secretary of the State had also
visited Vikram in the Jail and talked to him. DW-40 does not claim
that Chief Secretary had also taken the statement of Vikram in writing.
Chief Secretary has also not been examined. No record of the Jail has
been filed as to when Chief Secretary had visited the Jail at Danapur
to meet Vikram. DW-40 has admitted in his deposition that he was
aware of filing of the charge sheet by the CBI and surprisingly he had
continued with the secret inquiry. He also admitted that he
personally did not record the statement of any of the witnesses. He
claimed to have prepared rough notes on the basis of which he
prepared the report Ex.DW-40/1, which have also not been placed on
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
973
record. He also admitted that he did not record the statement of

widow of the deceased. He also admitted that he was not aware under
what circumstances and conditions, the statement of Vikram was taperecorded. He has not annexed the copies of the statement of the
witnesses, who have been examined by him or the officers assisting
him.
On the other hand, the testimony of PW-2, who deposed that he
was put under threat, torture and pressure by the Jailor and officers of
CID Bihar and Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Law Secretary
asking him to retract his confession made before the Magistrate, is
further corroborated by the version of DW-40, who said that he visited
the Jail and interacted the Vikram in his Cell and further admits the
visits of Chief Secretary also.
In view of the above discussion, the report of DW-40 can only
be described to be an opinion of an individual without any evidence
and sanctity of law. Therefore, such a report does not call for any
scrutiny or indulgence of this court to adjudicate or consider in
accordance with law.
934. The defence has examined DW-12 Sh. R.J.M. Pillai, Chief
Secretary, State of Bihar. He filed the unsigned copy of the opinion of
Sh. V.M. Tarkunde Mark DW-12/A. He also placed on record copy of
Report of Inquiry dated 24.10.1978 into Sh. Lalit Narain Mishras
murder case of Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40), which was exhibited as
Ex.DW-12/B. He also placed on record a copy of the letter dated
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
974
26.8.1978 sent by Sh. Karpuri Thakur, the then Chief Minister of

Bihar to the then Prime Minister Ex.DW-12/C. In his crossexamination, DW-12 answered that Sh. Tarkunde had given only his
opinion and not any inquiry report. He admitted the suggestion of the
prosecution that opinion of Sh. Tarkunde is based on the report of the
then DIG Sh. Sahai (DW-40).
935. It is argued by accused Ranjan Dwivedi in person, Ms. Sima
Gulati, Advocate and also by Sh. Feroz Ahmad, Advocate that Sh.
V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate, had also given his report that the
Anand Margies facing the trial are innocent and real culprits have
been let off by the CBI at the instance of the then Ruling Party at
Centre. They have referred the Photostat copy of Tarkundes opinion
Mark DW-12/A, which was exhibited as DW-16/A. (This is available
in Part-XXIV). (A similar Photostat copy of the report along with the
covering letter dated 15.02.1978 Mark PW-151/DQ of Sh. V.M.
Tarkunde is also available in Folder R-57). Unsigned Photostat copy
of Tarkundes Report Mark DW-12/A was exhibited as DW-16/A,
subject to objection by Ld. Special PP. In the covering letter Mark
PW-151/DQ, Sh. Tarkunde has written to the then Chief Minister that
pursuant to his talk on 15.02.1979 and subsequent letter dated
09.02.1979, he had gone through the relevant documents and had three
conferences with Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40) and some other officers of
the Government of Bihar and prepared his legal opinion. I have gone
through this unsigned Photostat copy of legal opinion of Sh. V.M.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
975
Tarkunde and found that this opinion is entirely based on confidential

report dated 24.10.1978 Ex.DW-40/1 of Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40),
which is discarded by this court as beyond the scope of Cr. PC.
936. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Special PP has pointed
out that DW-4 Sh. Rajeshwar Chaubey, who is the husband of sister of
accused Ranjan Dwivedi, has testified that Ranjan Dwivedi started
living with him since January 1973 till September 1974 and that
Ranjan Dwivedi had been junior with Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior
Advocate. The Ld. Special PP has also pointed out a copy of the
Order dated 31.03.1978 of the Honble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 164 of 1978 titled as Ram Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan
Dwivedi Versus State of Bihar and another, by which accused Ranjan
Dwivedi was directed to be released on bail on furnishing security of
Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. This order reflects that Sh. V.M.
Tarkunde, Senior Advocate had appeared for Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi.
The Ld. Special PP also pointed out that Ranjan Dwivedi has been
junior to Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate in the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and this fact has been admitted by Ranjan Dwivedi in his
statement under Section 313 of Cr. PC. While answering Q. No.374,
in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, Ranjan Dwivedi stated that
in the year 1973 he came to Delhi and joined Supreme Court Bar
Association. He stated that since he was a radical humanist, he came
in contact with Mr. Justice V.M. Tarkunde, who helped him to come
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,
Manu/DE/1873/2014", pertaining to the case of attack on the then

Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Ray, the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi, which is an offshoot of criminal conspiracy to get
Baba
released,
while
upholding
the
conviction
of
accused
Santoshanand and Sudevanand in Para No. 99 of the judgment, our

Hon'ble High Court has also recorded the arguments of the Ld.
counsel for the State that the report of Justice Tarkunde was only an
opinion and not a piece of evidence and there was conflict of interest
in submitting the report as accused Ranjan Dwivedi was one of his
juniors and was represented by him in the case. I have already held in
the preceding Para that this report of Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40) does not
require any indulgence and consideration of this court for adjudication
of the case and since the report of Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
977
Advocate is based on the report of Sh. S.B. Sahai Ex.DW-40/1, the

said opinion has no value and is not at all relevant.
937. The Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Feroz Ahmad has referred to the
deposition of Sh. Arun Shourie, former Executive Editor of Indian
Express, who had been examined by them as DW-16. He is the writer
of the Book Ex.DW-5/B, titled as Who killed L.N. Mishra. The
defence has also examined DW-5 Bhartendu Shah, Branch Manager
with M/s. Popular Prakashan with Darya Ganj, Delhi. He has been
examined to prove the publication of the book by the said firm titled
as "who killed L.N. Mishra". He testified that this is a compilation of
various articles written by various persons whose name appeared on
the second page of the book Ex.DW-5/B. On 15.02.2008, the court
recorded his testimony. He had been working with Popular Prakashan
only for the last three years and Ex.DW-5/B is a publication of the
year 1979.
938. Unless the authors of these various articles, which are compiled
in the said book and those persons, who were consulted by such
writer, are examined in the Court and the other party i.e. the
Prosecution is given an opportunity to test their veracity on touchstone
of the cross-examination, no evidentiary value can be attached to the
collection of such articles though presented under compilation in a
book form.

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.
The book also
contains reproduction of interviews of Sh. V.M. Tarkunde and Sh.

Karpuri Thakur, which are Mark H & G. It is elicited in his crossexamination that Sh. B.M. Sinha gave him an account of what he had
found after meeting the concerned officers and then he cleared his
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
extract of debate held in Rajya Sabha on 27.02.1975 are Ex.DW-16/B

& Ex.DW-16/C. These were exhibited subject to objections by Ld.
Special PP.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
980
941. In his cross-examination, DW-16 testified that the book

Ex.DW-5/B is compilation of articles, which appeared in Indian
Express at the relevant time. He admitted that the manuscript of the
articles published in book Ex.DW-5/B are not available with him and
might not be available with Indian Express. He testified that whatever
investigation had been done before publishing the articles in Indian
Express, was done by Indian Express of their own and without any
authority from the Central Government or State Government. He
voluntarily stated that newspapers do not seek any permission from
any authority before conducting investigations. He did not examine
those persons, whose names are mentioned in the beginning of said
book. He deposed that important investigation by the reporters used to
be submitted in writing but without their signatures. In case report was
to be published, he used to direct News Editors orally to do the
needful. Sh. D. P. Ahuja (DW-34) and Sh. S. B. Sahai (DW-40), the
police officers, who initially investigated the case, met him and had
shown him their report of investigation. His publication was based
Tarkunde report, his meeting with said two police officers, their
investigation reports and his personal interaction with Sh. Tarkunde.
His articles E & F in Ex.DW-5/B are based on Tarkunde's report, his
interaction with Tarkunde. He deposed that what was stated by two
police officers Sh. Ojha & Sh. Sahai and mentioned in Mathew
Commission Report Mark G, is reproduction of articles published in
Indian Express and its record would be with the Reporter.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
981
942. A perusal of statement of DW-16 Sh. Arun Shourie reflect that

the articles published in the book "who killed L.N. Mishra" are
consisting of the compilation given to him by Sh. B.M. Sinha,
Reporter of Indian Express, who has not been examined. Manuscript
of any of the article has not been placed on record. The articles E & F
written by him are based on his interaction with Sh. Tarkunde, and
report of Sh. V.M. Tarkunde and interaction with Sh. Sahai and Sh.
Ojha. Sh. Sahai and Sh. Ojha have been examined as DW-34 and
DW-40 respectively and I have already appreciated the testimony of
DW-40 and discarded his report in my judgment and opinion of Sh.
Tarkunde based on report of DW-40 is inconsequential.
943. At best, the evidence of DW-16 Sh. Arun Shourie can be treated
as "hear-say" evidence. His versions are mere collection of statements
made to him by various persons. In the absence of such authentic
sources from which these statements have flown, the witness becomes
a secondary source having no firsthand knowledge or competence to
swear to such of the facts he deposes. Therefore, the Courts of law
have been time and again, by a catena of rulings held that 'newspaper
Reports are mere "hear-say" and no evidentiary value can be attached
to such articles. In one such judgment title d as M.P. Lohia v. State of
West Bengal, 2005 AIR (SC) 790, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in the
case and appearance of such material in any article in the media would
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
982
certainly interfere with the administration of justice and media should

not indulge in such trial when the matter is sub judice. The relevant
Para of the judgment reads as under: "9. Having gone through the records, we find one
disturbing factor which we feel is necessary to
comment upon in the interest of justice. The death
of Chandni took place on 28th February, 2002 and
the complaint in this regard was registered and the
investigation was in progress. The application for
grant of anticipatory bail was disposed of by the
High Court of Calcutta on 13.2.2004 and special
leave petition was pending before this Court. Even
then an article has appeared in a magazine called
'Saga' titled "Doomed by Dowry" written by one
Kakoli Poddar based on her interview of the family
of the deceased giving version of the tragedy and
extensively quoting the father of the deceased as to
his version of the case. The facts narrated therein
are all materials that may be used in the
forthcoming trial in this case and we have no
hesitation that this type of articles appearing in the
media
would
certainly
interfere
with
the
administration of justice. We deprecate this

practice and caution the publisher, editor and the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
983
journalist who was responsible for the said article

against indulging in such trial by media when the
issue is subjudiced. However, to prevent any
further issue being raised in this regard, we treat
this matter as closed and hope that the others
concerned in journalism would take note of this
displeasure expressed by us for interfering with the
administration of justice."
944. Further, in another judgment titled as State of Maharashtra v.
Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, 1997 AIR (SC) 3986, the Hon'ble
Supreme has held in Para No. 36 that there is procedure established
by law governing the conduct of trial of a person accused of an
offence. A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very
antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice. A
judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and he is to be
guided strictly by rules of law.
73) Findings pursuant to orders of Hon'ble SCI
in W.P. 268 of 1987 (DD: 10.12.1991).
945. I have already held that tape-recorded statement of Vikram was
obtained by the authorities, Jailor and Doctor of Danapur Jail under
coercion, threat and pressure on 30.09.1978.
The Ld. Special PP
pointed out that the Attorney General of India on behalf of Central

Bureau of Investigation had to file a Transfer Petition No. 69 of 1979
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for transfer the case
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
The W.P. No. 268/1987 was decided by the Constitutional

Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme along with other petition titled as
Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others Versus R.S. Nayak and Another,
1992 (1) SCC 225 and in Para No. 96 of the judgment, the
Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that it
would not be proper to pronounce upon the correctness or otherwise of
the said respect in this Writ Petition and if indeed any such illegalities
have been committed, they shall be taken into consideration by the
court as and when the case comes up for final disposal.
947. In this backdrop, I have endeavoured to peruse the entire old
record of the case including Part-XXXIII, which contains all order
sheets of the case No. 1/1975 before Special Judicial Magistrate,
Patna. It is revealed that Ranjan Dwivedi was not arrested in this case
during the investigation. Even during the course of arguments, despite
asking of the court, Ranjan Dwivedi could not p in point any document
on the record to show his arrest in this case. In fact, an application
dated 22.07.1975 Ex.PW-151/O (available in Folder R-65) was filed
by the IO Sh. H.L. Ahuja before Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna to
the effect that accused Ranjan Dwivedi is an accused in RC-11/1975
relating to an attempt made on the life of Chief Justice of India and is
in judicial custody under the order of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Delhi and this accused Ranjan Dwivedi is wanted in Samastipur case,
his custody warrant may be sent to the court of CMM, Delhi. I have

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
986
already referred the deposition of PW-132 and search witness PW-115

and held that A-3 was arrested on 06.07.1975 in RC-11/75.
On this application itself, there is order dated 24.07.1975 passed
by the Ld. SJM, Patna "Allowed.
Issue custody W/A as prayed
requests the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to direct the production of

the accused before this court".
948. At Page No. 46 of Folder R-65, there is a letter dated
07.08.1975 by Sh. T.S. Oberoi, CMM, Delhi, addressed to
Superintendant Jail, Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi to the effect that a
custody warrant has been received from the court of Sh. S.N. Gupta,
Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Patna regarding involvement of
Ranjan Dwivedi S/o Ram Dev Dwivedi, R/o Village Dharharwa, PS
Bela, District Sitamarhi, Bihar, which may be kept on record and copy
of this letter was forwarded to the court of Sh. S.N. Gupta, Special
Judicial Magistrate, Patna with reference to his letter dated 24.07.1975
with intimation that accused Ranjan Dwivedi at present cannot be
transferred as he is wanted by the investigating agency of CBI in RC11/1975.
949. The record reveals that on filing of charge sheet on 12.11.1975,
the cognizance was taken by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna.
The court noticed that 12 accused persons are named in column 1,
who have been sent up for trial and four accused persons namely
Rudranand Avadhoot, Shankaranand Avadhoot, Mahender Prasad
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.
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.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
989
74) Delay caused in completion of committal

proceedings.
952. On 12.11.1975, charge sheet was filed before Special Judicial
Magistrate, Patna. Cognizance was taken. The court noticed that 12
accused persons are named in column 1, who were sent up for trial and
four accused persons namely Rudranand Avadhoot, Shankaranand
Avadhoot, Mahender Prasad Singh and Lakhan Pain have not been
sent up for trial and hence the competent court of Special Judicial
Magistrate, Patna discharged these four persons on that day itself.
However, at the same time, an application on behalf of prosecution
was also filed for issuance of production warrant against four accused
persons namely Santoshanand, Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and
Ram Nagina Prasad, since they were under jail custody at the Central
Jail, Delhi in Sessions case No. 09 of 1975 relating to attack on . This
prayer was allowed and it was ordered that a letter be sent to CMM,
Delhi for the production of the said four accused persons from the
Central Jail at Delhi in the court of Special JM, Patna on 24.11.1975.
As mentioned herein before, these four accused persons namely
Prasad were not produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate till
20.12.1976. In fact, as per record, on 20.12.1976, all eight accused
persons including Sudevanand Avadhoot, Santoshanand Avadhoot and
Ranjan Dwivedi appeared before Special Magistrate, Patna. Copies of
Police Papers were supplied to them. On 03.01.1977, an application
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.
Now, the proceedings in the court of Special Judicial
Magistrate, Patna in this case from 17.01.1977 till the case was
transferred by Special Judicial Magistrate on 21.02.1980 on directions
of the Apex Court, transferring the case from State of Bihar to Delhi,
reveal startling and shocking affairs.
As per the proceedings, the
accused persons in collusion with the Jailor, Jail Doctor and Jail
Superintendant of Phulwari Sharif Jail and authorities stopped coming
to the court in order to stall completion of committal proceedings so
that the statement of approver Vikram is not recorded and in the
meanwhile they were successful in putting pressure by torture and
threat on Vikram to make a statement, which was recorded by the
Jailor, without any authority and jurisdiction in a tape. I have already
discussed that the approver Vikram has testified in the court that he
was subject to torture, threat and coercion at the hands of Jailor, Jail
Doctor and Jail Superintendant and officers of CID Bihar and he was
compelled to read and speak from a prepared statement. At the cost of
repetition, Vikram had sent three letters to the CBI officers, which
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
proper check-up by the Civil Surgeon. On several dates the Special

Judicial Magistrate had directed that Jail Superintendant and Jailor
shall ensure the presence of accused persons in the court on the next
date of hearing.
Despite this, the order of the Special Judicial
Magistrate was not complied with and ultimately on 05.01.1978, the

Special Judicial Magistrate was constrained to write to I.G. Prison,
I.G. Police and Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar for ensuring the
presence of accused persons in the court on the next date of hearing,
so that his directions are adhered to. Record also divulges that on
31.01.1977,
28.02.1977,
28.03.1977,
02.05.1977,
06.07.1977,
11.07.1977,
21.07.1977,
28.07.1977,
11.08.1977,
25.08.1977,
06.09.1977,
20.09.1977,
04.10.1977,
17.10.1977,
18.10.1977,
01.12.1977,
14.12.1977,
05.01.1978,
18.01.1978,
15.02.1978,
01.03.1978,
03.04.1978,
01.05.1978,
29.05.1978,
15.06.1978,
29.06.1978,
11.07.1978,
22.07.1978,
25.07.1978,
17.08.1978,
11.09.1978,
16.09.1978,
25.09.1978,
17.11.1978,
01.12.1978,
15.12.1978,
15.02.1979,
01.03.1979,
16.03.1979,
24.03.1979,
07.04.1979, 21.04.1979, 19.05.1978 & 16.06.1979 that only some of

the accused were produced from Phulwari Sharif Jail as statement of
approver Vikram could not be recorded in the absence of the other
accused persons. On each & every date of hearing, accused have filed
one application or many applications in order to drag the proceedings
and the work of the then Ld. Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna is
really appreciable as he has by reasoned long hand written orders

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
who have painstakingly suffered with all the

dilatory tactics adopted by the accused in dragging
on with the proceedings for nearly thirty seven
years. They are not to be blamed at all. In fact,
they do deserve appreciation while conducting
such trials where one of the accused is not only
Bachelor of Laws but also Bachelor of Literature.
We certainly say that our system has not failed,
but, accused was successful in dragging on the
proceedings to a stage where, if it is drawn further,
it may snap the Justice Delivery System. We are
also conscious of the fact that more that thirty
Judges had tried this case at one stage or the other,
but, all of them have taken care to see that the trial
is completed at the earliest. They are not to be
blamed and certainly the system has not be
blamed, but, positively, somebody has succeeded
in his or in their attempt. The system has done its
best, but, has not achieved the expected result and
certainly, will not fit into the category of cases
where (late) N.A. Palkhiwala, one of the most
outstanding Senior Advocates in the Country had
said that "......the law may or may not be an ass,
but in India it is certainly a snail and our cases

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
995
proceed at a pace which would be regarded as

unduly
slow
in
community
of
snails".
Therefore, we say, we will not buy this argument

of the learned Senior Counsel that there is systemic
failure. Therefore, in our view at this stage the one
and the only direction that requires to be issued is
to directed the learned trial judge to take up the
case on day to day basis and conclude the
proceedings as early as possible, without granting
unnecessary and unwarranted adjournments."
954. Earlier also, accused Ranjan Dwivedi had filed a W.P. 268 of
1987 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for quashing of the
proceedings on the ground of delay in trial, which was heard by the
Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court headed by
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Singh, the then Chief Justice, along with the
petition titled as Abdul Rehman Antulay & Others Vs. R.S. Nayak
& Another, reported as 1992 (1) SCC 225, and while dismissing the
petition of accused Ranjan Dwivedi on 10.12.1991, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed in Para No. 95 of its ruling that It is
clear from the material placed before us that the prosecution cannot be
held guilty of any delaying tactics or for that matter, for causing any
delay in the conduct of trial from the date the criminal proceedings
were transferred to Delhi. The proceedings of the court for this period
placed before us by the respondents do clearly establish that during
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
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
998
approver Vikram moved application on 12.08.1977 to the effect that

they wanted to meet approver Vikram in the Jail as there was threat to
his life. Subsequently, they were allowed to meet Vikram in the Jail.
He refused to meet them but the Jailor directed him to meet them in
view of the order of the court. PW-2 Vikram has testified in the court
that he did not meet his mother and brother as he saw his mother and
brother accompanied by several Anand Margies. Obviously, those
Anand Margies had accompanied his mother and brother to put
pressure on Vikram to retract from his confessional statement. These
facts fortifies the version of Vikram that he was compelled to read
from a prepared statement under threat and coercion of Jailor, Jail
Doctor and officers of CID Bihar, who have used extra constitutional
methods, not known to the la w. The above observation becomes more
significant to understand the version of approver PW-2 that there had
been undue pressure, threat or coercion by the authorities as well as
the vested interests not to speak the truth before the courts and further
terrorizing him by extra constitutional methods to retract the
confessional statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC.
Being
consternated by such tactics on the part of the other accused and

through the Jail authorities, Jail Doctor and officers of CID, Bihar and
all high dignitaries in the State Government, in the garb of a discreet
inquiry ordered by the then Chief Minister to DW-40 Sh. S.B. Sahai,
PW-2 Vikram had written certain letters, which are part of the
documentary evidence in this case.

I have already discerned by
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
999
dilating the above letters in the earlier part of my judgment concerning

these documentary evidence, which will take care of the observations
at Para (b) in Para No. 30 in Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra). In fact,
there was no retraction of his statement later despite the illegal taped
conversation, which I discard as unknown to law. The special feature
of the version of PW-2 in his confessional statement, followed by the
statement recorded by the committal Magistrate, who allowed the
cross-examination and the extensive, searching, disarrayed and
repetitive cross-examination during trial running into about 350 pages
spread on several dates, had been consistent, non-wavering,
comprehensive, leaving no room to doubt the same as tutored.
Further, his statement is supported by the documentary evidence of his
letters also. This court also sees that PW-2 had endured many
inducements, threats, tactics, and manhandling but spoken truth. All
the efforts of other accused to win over him either by hook or crook
went in vain.
75) Report of Mathew's Commission of Inquiry.
958. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Defence Counsel Sh.
Feroz Ahmed, Advocate submitted that the Central Government has
constituted one man commission of Inquiry, headed by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice K.K. Mathew and it should be considered by this court. The
defence has examined DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand, Under Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs. DW-26 brought with him a copy of Report
of One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1000
K.K. Mathew. He testified that the copy of Report is Ex.DW-26/1. He

deposed that the evidence and other material that surfaced before the
said One Man Commission of Inquiry, is not traceable despite best
efforts. Even, the file that pertains to the appointment of One Man
Commission of Inquiry is not traceable despite best efforts. He also
brought authenticated copy of Interim Report-I and Interim Report-II
of Shah Commission of Inquiry Ex.DW-26/2 and Ex.DW-26/3
respectively and final Shah Commission of Inquiry Report is Ex.DW26/4. He also brought the original statement of Sh. D. Sain, a witness
recorded before Shah Commission of Inquiry which is Ex.DW-26/5.
959. In the cross examination of DW-26, it is elicited that original
report of Mathew Commission of Inquiry is not traceable and he
cannot say when the copy of Inquiry Report Ex.DW-26/1 was printed
and at whose instance.
Ex.DW-26/2 was not authenticated in his
presence. He also could not say as to when it was authenticated and

whose signatures appeared at point 'A' of Ex.DW-26/2. Ex.DW-26/3
was not authenticated in his presence at point 'A'. He also could not
say as to when it was authenticated and whose signatures appeared at
point 'A' of Ex.DW-26/3. He also could not identify the signatures at
point 'A' on the Report Ex.DW-26/4. He admitted that the statement
Ex.DW-26/5 is not signed by the deponent or Attesting Officer at
running page no.39.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1001
960. From the testimony of DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand, it is evident

that the evidence and other material that surfaced before the One Man
Commission of Inquiry was not traceable despite best efforts. Even
the file pertaining to the appointment of One Man Commission of
Inquiry was not traceable. When the evidence and other material
relied upon by the One Man Commission of Inquiry on the basis of
which the Report dated 09.05.1977 Ex.DW-26/1 has been given is not
available, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry is not per se
admissible in evidence. Furthermore, since those persons who had
appeared as witnesses before the Commission of Inquiry are not
examined in this Court and both sides i.e. Prosecution and the accused
persons having been given no opportunity to cross-examine those
witnesses, no value is attached to their statement which they have
allegedly made before the Commission of Inquiry.
961. I have also gone through the Report dated 09.05.1977 Ex.DW26/1 of One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice, K.K. Mathew to enquire into the incident of explosion that
took place on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur Ex.DW-26/1. My scrutiny of
the Report of Inquiry revealed that accused Santoshanand Avadhoot,
Sudevanand Avadhoot and Ranjan Dwivedi appeared before the
Commission and filed preliminary objections to the examination of
any of the Prosecution witnesses to ascertain the facts and
circumstances of the case on the ground that (i) they would have to
face virtually two trials, one before the Commission to defend their
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.
After hearing the
arguments, the relevant extract of the observations made by One Man

Commission Inquiry reads as under:"12. when the established criminal court is seized
of the case and has to go into the facts and
circumstances pertaining to the explosion in order
to find the guilt or innocence of the accused, the
Commission does not think it expedient or proper
that it should also examine the same evidence for
arriving at the finding on facts and circumstances

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1003
of the case as any finding by the Commission

would certainly embarrass the trial court. If any
inquiry has to be conducted by the Commission
and
finding
as
regards
the
facts
and
circumstances relating to other explosion has to be

arrived at on the basis of the evidence to be
adduced before the criminal court, then the
invisible a fact of such a finding as a brooding
omnipresence in the mind of the trial court cannot
be denied by anyone who makes a realistic
approach to the question. If in the inquiry, the
Commission were to come to a conclusion
different from that to be reached by the criminal
court, - notwithstanding the marginal difference in
the standard of proof between the two proceedings
which will be discussed more fully hereafter neither the finding of the Commission nor the
judgment of the criminal court would inspire
confidence in the public. This would defeat the
very purpose of appointing the Commission".
"14. It is said that the object of an inquiry under
the Commission of Inquiry Act is a probe to find
the truth whereas that of a criminal trial is to find
the guilt of the accused. The Commission thinks

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1004
that the object of every criminal trial is to find the

truth of the facts and circumstances relating to the
occurrence and then find the guilt or otherwise of
the accused by applying the relevant law. Truth is
not self-evident and can be reached by Court
mostly through fallible media of human agency
and a criminal court by applying the more rigorous
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt might
not be satisfied about the truth of facts as easily as
a Commission conducting investigation.
It is
because this exacting standard of proof that when a

criminal court feels a reasonable doubt that the
evidence before it does not reveal the truth or the
whole truth, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal........................................................"
"15. The situation, when the terms of reference
were
framed
by
the Government
and
the
Commission was appointed, was totally different

from one obtaining today.
At that time the
perpetrators of the crime were not known either to

the police or to the public. There was wild
speculation among the public as to the perpetrators
of the crime and it had political overtones. Now,
an independent investigating agency after a

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1005
thorough investigation that it was the accused who

were concerned in the commission of the crime
and it is on that basis that the charge-sheet has
been filed before the court. Whether the facts and
circumstances stated in the charge-sheet are true is
a matter to be decided by the trial court after taking
evidence.
While
interpreting
the
terms
of
reference, one has to take into account the

subsequent developments. One principle which is
helpful in construing the terms of reference is to
ask and answer the question viz., if the situation
obtaining today were present to the mind of the
government when it framed the terms of reference,
whether it would have asked the Commission to go
into the facts and circumstances pertaining to the
explosion............................................................."
"16. It is very pertinent, nay, very significant to
note that in spite of written invitation to the public
published in all important newspaper no person or
agency has come forward with any alternative
theory as to how the explosion took place and the
person or person concerned in it which is either
plausible or worthy of consideration. It must also
be remembered that there is no investigating

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1006
agency under the control of the Commission. If the

theory of the prosecution before the criminal court
as to how the explosion took place is rejected by
the Commission, the Commission will not be able
to find the facts and circumstances relating to the
explosion as there is no other alternative theory
before it. This in effect means that in order to find
the facts and circumstances pertaining to the
explosion as required by the terms and reference
the only option left to the Commission is to the
accept the version of the Prosecution before the
criminal court. In other words, if the Commission
were to find that the prosecution case is not
acceptable, then there is no way of answering the
terms
of
reference
relating
to
facts
and
circumstances."
"17. The Commission gave anxious thoughts to all
the aspects of the question but in view of the
circumstances stated above, the conclusion became
in escapable that it is neither just nor expedient to
enter any finding on the facts and circumstances
pertaining to the explosion."
962. In view of this, when the evidence that surfaced before the
Commission of Inquiry brought on the record of this Court being not
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.
Moreover, the original
report of One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr.

Justice K.K. Mathew has not been brought by the witnesses being not
traceable and DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand could not say as to when this
copy Ex.DW-26/1 was printed and at whose instance. The original
report Ex.DW-26/1 is not available and no one has authenticated or
certified Ex.DW-26/1 to be the true printed copy of the Commission
of Inquiry. Therefore, this report is not worthy of consideration for
adjudication of the present lis as observed by his Lordship K.K.
Mathew himself.
963. Similarly, the witness DW-26 Sh. Amar Chand has brought
interim reports Ex.DW-26/2 and Ex.DW-26/3 which are authenticated
at point 'A' and DW-26 testified that he could not say as to when these
were authenticated and whose signatures appeared at point 'A' where
these were authenticated. He also could not identify the signatures at
point 'A' of the report of Shah Commission Ex.DW-26/4. He has
admitted that the statement Ex.DW-26/5 is not signed either by the
deponent or the attesting officer except at running page no.39.
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
the Government without
producing
any
document of a judicial nature and that findings of a

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1009
Commission of Inquiry were not as definitive as a

judgment.
Similarly in Branjnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain
[1955] SCR 955, this Court held that the
Commission appointed under the Public Servants
(Inquiries) Act, 1850, was not a court within the
meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.
[See also Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R.
Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279, Puhupram v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (1968) MPLJ 629. Sham Kant
v. State of Maharashtra, 1992(2) RCR(Criminal)
616 : [1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 521].]
Accordingly, the Janakiraman committee report
was not admissible in evidence. The report in
terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872
is not a judgment. The report may facilitate
investigation but cannot form basis of conviction
and sentencing of the accused. For the said
purpose the report was wholly inadmissible in
evidence."
964. The defence has summoned DW-6 Sh. Narender Singh, Senior
Court Assistant of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Record Section)
who has brought certified copies of affidavits, which were filed in said
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 69/1979 titled as "Attorney General of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1010
India Vs. Santoshanand Avadhoot and others".
The copies of
affidavits are Ex.DW-6/A to Ex.DW-6/E (available in folder R-57).

The mode of proof of execution of these documents was objected to
by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor obviously for the reasons that
these affidavits could be proved only by examining the deponent of
respective affidavits. These affidavits are of six persons, out of which
the defence has examined DW-18 Sh. Hari Kishore Shaiy, Under
Secretary, Government of Bihar to prove his affidavit Ex.DW-6/E,
DW-34 Sh. D.P. Ojha, SP Vigilance, Government of Bihar to prove
his affidavit Ex.DW-6/D and DW-40 Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sahai, the
then DIG, CID Bihar to prove his affidavit Ex.DW-6/A.
As the
deponents of other three affidavits have not been examined, the same
are not being considered being inadmissible in evidence.
I have
already appreciated the testimony of DW-40 Sh. Shashi Bhushan

Sahai and his report. The defence has examined DW-18 Sh. Hari
Kishore Shaiy, the then Under Secretary (Home) in the Government of
Bihar, in the year 1979, who testified that he filed his affidavit
Ex.DW-6/E before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on behalf of
Government of Bihar in the said Transfer Petition.
There is no
specific relevant averment in his affidavit and the same is also not
referred by the Ld. Defence Counsel in their respective arguments.
965. DW-34 Sh. D.P. Ojha, the then Superintendent of Police,
Samastipur deposed that he remained associated with the investigation
in relation to the bomb blast that took place on the Dais at the Platform
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1011
No. 3 of the Railway Station, Samastipur since its inception. Since

this case was a matter of high magnitude, the investigation in this case
was taken over by CID on the next day of incident. CBI had taken
over the investigation of this case he continued extend to his logistic
support to CBI as and when asked for. He never interrogated Arun
Kumar Thakur (CW-8). He did not arrest Arun Kumar Thakur. He
was associated with CID when statement of Arun Kumar Thakur came
to be recorded under Section 164 of Cr. PC. He was not aware
whether Arun Kumar Mishra also wanted to make his statement under
Section 164 Cr. PC. He did not visit Arun Kumar Thakur and Arun
Kumar Mishra in the Jail. However, Inquiry was being conducted by
Sh. S.B. Sahai (DW-40) DIG, Vigilance under the orders of
Government of India. He was associated with the said Inquiry and
visited Danapur Jail along with Sh. K.P. Singh, DSP, CID to conduct
Inquiry from the inmate there. He did not remember whether the name
of inmate was Vikram. When he was S.P. Samastipur, many
Journalists used to come to him to know the facts and progress of the
case. He did not try to influence anyone. He never met Sh. V.M.
Tarkunde, Senior Advocate or B.M. Sinha, Chief Reporter of Indian
Express, to brief them on the facts of the case. He filed an affidavit in
the Transfer Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is
Ex.DW-6/D.
deposed
In Para No. 9 of his affidavit Ex.DW-6/D, he had
that he never made
any attempt to
contact Sh.
Visheshwaranand @ Madan Mohan Srivastava for the purpose of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1012
exercising or effecting a pressure on him to resile from his earlier

statement.
966. In his cross-examination, DW-34 Sh. D.P. Ojha testified that he
was aware that the person namely Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava @
Visheshwaranand detailed in his affidavit Ex.DW-6/D became an
approver during investigation of this case by CBI. He has denied the
suggestion that Arun Kumar Thakur was kept at Dal Singh Sarai in
handcuffs and given beatings or that Arun Kumar Thakur made his
statement under Section 164 Cr. PC at his instance or under his threat
and coercion. He also denied the suggestion that Arun Kumar Mishra
was arrested by him and kept at Inspection Bungalow, Dal Singh Sarai
on his instructions. He has also denied the suggestion that Jailor
Rehman made Arun Kumar Mishra read the statement written by him
(DW-34) and recorded the said statement in a tape.
967. A scrutiny of the deposition of DW-34 reflects that he has
admitted that the approver PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava has his
alias name Visheshwaranand. He has mentioned this alias name of
PW-1 not only in his affidavit Ex.DW-6/D filed before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, but also in his deposition in this court on 18.03.2009
at the time of cross-examination by the Ld. Special PP. Despite this,
the defence has chosen not to re-examine him and this conduct of
defence clearly reveal that they have admitted the position presented
by the prosecution that Madan Mohan Srivastava has his alias name as
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1013
Visheshwaranand.
Thus, the testimony of DW-6 Sh. D.P. Ojha
fortifies the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava that he

was also known as Visheshwaranand after taking diksha as Avadhoot.
His admission that he visited Danapur Jail along with Sh. K.P. Singh,
DSP, CID fortifies the version of PW-2 Sh. Vikram that officers of
CID, Bihar used to visit and torture him in Danapur Jail and he was
made to read a prepared statement at their instance and that of Jailor,
Jail Superintendant and Jail Doctor against CBI retracting his
confessional statement.
76) Registration of FIR by CBI.
968. I have already dealt with the issue of registration of FIR with
Police Station Kotwali, Patna with regard to the incident of attack on
Madhavanand bearing FIR No. 24/1974 Ex.PW-92/A, with regard to
the carrying of explosives vide FIR No. 71 of 13.07.1974 vide Rukka
Ex.PW-25/G and endorsement Ex.PW-25/G-1 with PS Kotwali
Bhagalpur, FIR No. 1/1975 with PS GRP Samastipur Ex.PW-86/B
with regard to the incident of bomb blast at Samastipur Railway
Station and FIR No. 1/1975 Ex.PW-142/B with PS Samastipur with
regard to incident of bomb blast at the house of Mahadev Sahu. The
investigation of both the incidents at Samastipur were transferred to
CBI on 07.01.1975 and Sh. H.L. Ahuja (PW-151), Deputy SP, CBI
took over the investigations of both these cases.

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
Samastipur on 08.01.1975 and both these cases were being

investigated by Deputy SP K.P. Sinha, who was being assisted by
team of officers Sh. S.B Sahai, D IG, CID, Sh. A.N. Trivedi, DIG, CID
and Sh. D.P. Ojha, SP, Samastipur. PW-151 further deposed that on
10.1.1975, the CBI team at Samastipur included he himself, Sh. P.V.
Hingorani, Joint Director-cum-IG, CBI, Sh. D.N. Ahuja DIG, Sh.
Harbans Singh, SP, Sh. S.P. Singh, Dy. SP and Inspectors Sh. M.P.
Singh, Sh. K.N. Tiwari, Sh. N.C. Jha and others. He deposed that from

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
grenades from Budheshawaranand
Avadhoot on 13.7.1974 and
investigation of this case was also transferred to CBI
and on
15.9.1975 RC No. 13 of 1975 was registered at Delhi and

investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He identified the
signatures of Sh. Ravinder Singh, SP, CBI on this FIR RC-13/1975 at
Point A.
He received the copy
of these two FIRs at Delhi on
15.9.1975 itself and investigation of these two FIRs were

amalgamated by him with the investigation of this case RC-1 of 1975
on 15.9.1975. These FIRs are left out to be exhibited, though PW-151
has identified the signatures thereon of the concerned officers. As
such, the FIR RC No. 14/1975 is now exhibited as Ex.PW-151/A-1
and the FIR RC No. 13/1975 is now exhibited as Ex.PW-151/A-2.
77) Arrest of Santoshanand.
970. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused Santoshanand that
the accused was not arrested in the present case but only in RC11/1975. I have seen the complete old record, which speaks otherwise.
In case No. 24/1974 of PS Kotwali Patna, on 09.05.1975, the Ld.
CJM, Patna on filing of an application by the IO that there was
valuable evidence against Santoshanand Avadhoot, Arteshanand
Avadhoot and Sudevanand Avadhoot, ordered for issuance of NonBailable Warrants against them. (Available in Folder R-9). As per
the record, accused Santoshanand was arrested on 17.06.1975 at Patna
Railway Station in this case. IO PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja filed an
application on 18.06.1975, which is Ex.PW-151/L (available in R-65)
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1017
before Special Magistrate, Patna for police remand of accused

Santoshanand and as per the order sheet of Special Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, the accused Santoshanand Avadhoot @
Ghanshyam @ Jitender Kumar Singh, S/o Narendra Narain Verma,
R/o; Village Pursauni Kisu, Post Office Pipra, District Champran, was
produced under custody BAPARDA and prayer of the IO for his
remand for 15 days was allowed. As per the record of case No.
24/1974 PS Kotwali Patna, (available in Folder R-9), Santoshanand
himself filed an application on 03.07.1975 before the Ld. CJM, Patna
that he is in custody of Police Remand in connection with RC No.
1/75. This is reflected in the order sheet dated 03.07.1975.
971. The record further reveal (in Folder R-65) that Sh. T.S. Oberoi,
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi sent a letter to Special Judicial
Magistrate, CBI, Patna dated 01.07.1975 to the effect that accused
Santoshanand was produced before him in RC-11/1975 and he was
informed that the court of Special Judicial Patna has remanded him for
14 days in RC-1/1975 and was required to be produced on 02.07.1975
and since this accused Santoshanand has been remanded in police
custody by CMM, Delhi, IO of the case would not be producing him
before the court at Patna.
Thereafter, Santoshanand remained in the
judicial custody in RC-11/1975. The record reveals that on filing of

charge sheet on 12.11.1975, the cognizance was taken by the Special
Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The court noticed that 12 accused persons
are named in column 1, who have been sent up for trial and four
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

24.11.1975. However, these accused persons were not produced and
accordingly on 24.11.1975, the court of Special JM, Patna noted the
non production of these four accused persons namely Santoshanand,
Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi and Ram Nagina Prasad and it was
ordered that their production may be awaited. However, on
08.12.1975, the court of Special JM, Patna noted having received a
letter dated 20.11.1975 from CMM, Delhi that these four persons
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

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1019
persons were not produced.
He was produced before the Special
Judicial Magistrate, Patna in RC-1/1975 only on 20.12.1976 pursuant

to the production warrants admittedly after his conviction in A.N.
Ray's case.
972. PW-103 Sh. I.P. Sharma, Inspector CBI deposed that on
17.6.1975, he was at Patna in connection with the investigation RC1/75-CIA-1. On that day, at about 9.30 or 9.45 PM, an information
was received that one accused of the case RC-1/75 was available at the
Railway Station, Patna. He along with Dy. SP Shukla and his source
reached Railway Station at about 10.15 PM. At that time, Punjab Mail
was to arrive at Railway Station, Patna, which was to leave for
Howrah. This train was late by about half an hour on that day and
before arrival of Punjab Mail, he came to know from his source that
the accused was sitting on one bench at Platform no. 1. They then saw
Platform No.1 and his source pointed towards a man sitting on the
bench and immediately thereafter he was challenged and apprehended.
He deposed that he was Santoshanand.
(The witness correctly
identified accused Santoshanand in the court by pointing towards

him). At that time, Santoshanand was wearing shirt and pant. He was
having small hairs on his head and was not sporting beard or
mustaches. Santoshanand was having a jhola while sitting on a bench
and he was carrying some books in his hands. On enquiry, he gave his
name as Jitender Kumar. PW-103 took him to GRP Police Station on
Platform No. 1 itself, where two witnesses namely Suresh Prashad
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
document in the summoned file was already Ex.P-148. He deposed

that it bears his signatures and that of Suresh Prashad (PW-38), Dev
Kumar and Dy. SP Sh. Shukla. The correct copy of Search Memo is
Ex.PW-38/A (available in Folder R-7). On the Railway ticket, he
obtained the signatures of both the public witnesses and after seeing
the original second class railway ticket Ex.P-147, in the summoned
file, PW-103 deposed that its correct Photostat copy is Ex.P-20
(available in Folder R-7). Ex.P-18 is the packet and Ex.P-19 is the
hearing aid, which he recovered from the personal search of accused
Santoshanand. The Photostat copy of the Kohinoor Exercise Book
Ex.P-22 recovered from Santoshanand from his jhola is Ex.PW-33/E1 to E-72 (available in Folder R-15). He also obtained signatures of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1021
the witnesses on each page of the Kohinoor Exercise Book before

taking into possession.
Ex.P-189 Kaam Sutra, Ex.P-190 Guerrilla
Warfare and Ex.P-191 Jai Prakash Ki Sampoorn Kranti Ka Asli

Chehra, which were also recovered from Santoshanand. He obtained
signatures of both the said witnesses on the first and last three books
before taking them into possession. He also made inquiry from
Santoshanand in the Police Station, where he gave his name as
Ghanshyam Parshad and thereafter as Santoshanand.
973. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Santoshanand
and Sudevanand, PW-103 has denied the suggestion that the books
Ex.P-189 to Ex.P-191 were not recovered from the accused
Santoshanand or the same have been planted on him. He has also
denied the suggestion that Santoshanand was in saffron attire or
sporting beard and moustaches and long hairs or that he got his beard
and moustaches cut. He deposed that Santoshanand was not using
hearing aid at the time, he was apprehended.
He has denied the
suggestion that hearing aid has been planted having recovered from
the pant of the accused Santoshanand.
He has also denied the
suggestion that at the time of his arrest, he has given his name as
Santoshanand and not the name as Jitender Kumar or Ghanshyam
Prasad.
He deposed that Santoshanand was arrested by him at
Platform No. 1 of the Railway Station, Patna. In his further crossexamination on behalf of accused Gopalji and Arteshanand, he
admitted the suggestion that they were in search of accused
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1022
Santoshanand 3 or 4 months before his arrest. He also admitted the

suggestion that accused Santoshanand was wanted in this very
Samastipur case.
974. The prosecution has examined the search witness PW-38 Sh.
Suresh Prashad. He deposed that on 17.6.1975, at about 9/9.30 PM,
he was called at Patna, Police Station GRP. At that time, he was
present at the cycle stand within the premises of Railway Station,
Patna. He deposed that personal search of Ghanshyam Prashad @
Jitender Kumar was to be taken and a man with such name was
present with them.
He identified him correctly in the court by
pointing out towards Accused No.1 Santoshanand. He deposed that at

that time Ghanshyam Prashad @ Jitender Kumar was wearing pant
and shirt and not sporting any beard or long hairs. It was the time of
the arrival of Punjab Mail at the Railway Station, Patna which was to
go to Calcutta. The train was late by half an hour on that day. He also
deposed that hearing aid in a packet was recovered from the pocket of
the pant of Ghanshyam Prashad. He identified the packet Ex.P-18 and
hearing aid Ex.P-19, which were recovered from the personal search
of Ghanshyam Prashad.
Rs.3,921/- and some change were also
recovered from his personal search apart from a ticket of Punjab Mail.
He identified the railway ticket Ex.P-147 recovered from the
possession of Ghanshyam Prashad, which was available in the file of
sessions case no. 9 of 1976 and the Photostat copy of the same is on
the record which is Ex.P-20 (available in Folder R-7). He identified
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.
He was having a jhola which
contained one diary book. A Seizure Memo Ex.P-148, available in the

said summoned file was prepared.
He signed this seizure memo
consisting of three sheets and identified his signatures. An Exercise

Book Ex.P-22 in the summoned file also bears his signatures. The
Photostat copy of the Seizure Memo is Ex.PW-38/A. Photostat copies
of the Exercise Book are Ex.PW-33/E-1 to Ex.PW-33/E-72 (available
in folder R-15). He further deposed that the accused had given his
name as Santoshanand also.
(The Photostat copy of the seizure memo
Ex.PW-38/A and ticket Ex.P-7 are available in
folder R-7.)
975. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Gopalji and
Arteshanand, PW-38 deposed that he was told that this man was
arrested in L.N. Mishra case. His cycle stand was situated within the
premises of Railway Station and it was situated at a distance of more
than 100 paces from the PS GRP. In his presence, one pant and one
Ganji (Baniyan) were recovered from the accused Ghanshyam
Prashad.
Interestingly, accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and
Ranjan Dwivedi did not cross examine the witness despite

opportunity.
976. PW-133 Sh. Purshottam Narayan Shukla, Dy. SP. CBI deposed
that on 17.6.1975, he along with Inspector I.P. Sharma (PW-103) went
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1024
to Railway Station, Patna and arrested Santoshanand Avadhoot from

the Railway Station, Patna. He searched his person after arrest. He
seized the personal belongings recovered from Santoshanand
regarding
which
seizure
memo
was
correctly
prepared.
Santoshanand was in a civilian dress and not wearing the clothes of

Avadhoot at the time of his arrest. He was not sporting beard and the
witness has correctly identified him in the court by pointing toward
Accused No.1 Santoshanand.
deposed that accused Santoshanand was arrested from the Platform of

the Railway Station, Patna. He was shifted to GRP Post within one or
two minutes of his arrest. Lot of people were present on the Platform
including passengers, vendors, stall holders and railway officials at the
time of his arrest. The personal search of accused Santoshanand was
not taken at the place of his arrest. Before his arrest, he was aware
that he was wanted in Samastipur bomb blast case.
The articles
recovered from the personal search of Santoshanand were not

converted into a sealed parcel.
977. PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja with regard to arrest of Santoshanand
deposed that on 17.6.1975, Santoshanand was brought to him in
custody by DSP P.N. Shukla (PW-133) and Inspector I.P. Sharma
(PW-103) at Patna and he correctly identified the accused
Santoshanand in the court. On 17.6.1975, he was in plain clothes and
wearing pant and a shirt and he was not in saffron attire and was not
sporting beard and mustaches. He deposed that Sh. DSP P.N. Shukla
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1025
(PW-133) and Inspector I.P. Sharma (PW-103) produced the articles

along with Seizure Memo before him. The exercise book Ex.P-22
available in the summoned file is the same, which was produced by
DSP P.N. Shukla and Inspector I.P. Sharma before him with accused
Santoshanand. Similarly, the Railway ticket Ex.P-147 in the said file
of RC-11/1975 was kept in an envelope. The hearing aid Ex.P-18 and
accessories Ex.P-19 were also produced by DSP P.N. Shukla and
Inspector I.P. Sharma. In his cross-examination, PW-151 deposed that
in this case police remand of Santoshanand was obtained from Patna
and thereafter he was brought to Delhi. At Page No. 3806 of his
deposition, he admitted the suggestion of the defence that after his
arrest at Railway Station, Patna, Santoshanand was produced before
him and next day his police remand for 14 days was obtained.
978. It is found that the accused Santoshanand has not shattered the
deposition of PW-103 that he was not arrested from Railway Station,
Patna. He has only given the suggestion that the said books were not
recovered from him and he was in saffron attire and sporting beard
and moustaches and long hair with a turban. He has not discredited
the testimony of PW-103 about recovery of pants and shirts from his
jhola. He has not suggested to the witness as to what enmity he had
with him or that why would he plant the recovery upon him.
Moreover, the copy of the railway ticket Ex.P-20 reflects that it was
purchased to go from Patna to Howrah and its recovery from the
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
on Platform No. 1 of the Railway Station and he claimed that he was

arrested from his office. He further claimed that he was paraded after
his arrest from his office at Railway Platform and before that he was
taken to CBI Office, where his form and appearance was changed and
he was not carrying anything at that time. While replying question
No. 231, he stated that excepting the cash amount, the other articles
are shown to be fake recovery and this cash was also taken from his
office. Again while replying question No. 232 to the effect that he
was carrying pant, shirt, books, exercise books and preparation of
seizure memo, he stated that all these items were planted and whatever
belongs to him, he got them back after obtaining permission from the
court. A perusal of the application dated 20.12.1976 (available in
Folder R-68, at Sr. No. 67) reflects that the accused Santoshanand had
claimed back 11 items including the cash of Rs.3923.38, fountain
pain, wrist watch, goggles, book about Jai Prakash Narayan etc. From
this discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that the accused
Santoshanand was arrested at Railway Station, Patna by the CBI
officers and his search was taken in the presence of witnesses
including PW-38 and the correct seizure memo Ex.PW-38/A was
prepared in which there is mention of recovery of cash amount of
Rs.3928.38, two pants, three shirts, exercise book, hearing aid with
battery. When accused Santoshanand was arrested on 17.06.1975 at
the Railway Station, Patna, he was not in saffron attire of Avadhoot
and was wearing pant and shirt. Not only that, he was also carrying

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1029
record of the file of Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna, pertaining to

the case No. 1 of 1975, GRPS Samastipur (File No. Part-33), it is
revealed that on filing an application Ex.PW-151/K by the IO on
02.06.1975 (available in Folder R-65), Special Magistrate allowed
police remand of accused Gopalji @ Krishna Mohan Singh, R/o
Chautham for ten days from that day in case No. 1/1975, PS
Samastipur GRP relating to deep rooted conspiracy to kill L.N.
Mishra. On 12.06.1975, he was produced before the court and his
remand on application by Sh. H.L. Ahuja of the even date, was
extended till 16.06.1975. On 16.06.1975, accused Gopalji was sent to
jail custody. On 18.09.1975, accused Gopalji was granted bail by the
Special JM under Section 167 (2) (a) of Cr. PC, subject to furnishing
bail bond of Rs.3000/- with two sureties of the like amount. On
12.11.1975, the court of Special JM, Patna has ordered for issuance of
the production warrant against Gopalji @ Krishna Mohan Singh to the
Superintendant Jail, Phulwari Sharif. On 08.12.1975 and 20.01.1975,
Gopalji was produced in the court. On 18.12.1976, the court again
ordered for production of Gopalji on 20.12.1976. On 23.02.1976, an
application was filed by Gopalji from Jail asking for copy of charge
sheet. On 02.06.1976, accused Gopalji filed an application to supply
him copy of the statement of PW-1. On 18.06.1976 and 30.07.1976,
the court of Special Magistrate noticed that Gopalji has not been
produced. On 13.08.1976, the court of Special Magistrate, Patna again
noticed that Gopalji has not been produced. On 08.04.1977, the bail

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.
In his further cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that
Sudevanand met him at Bhagalpur on the date of their arrest and at

that time, he was already present there. He reached Bhagalpur same
day or one day before his arrest. He deposed that Sudevanand came
on 24.07.1975 by train and he (PW-2) received him at the Railway
Station. He has denied the suggestion that he and Sudevanand came
together from Chakia to Bhagalpur. He voluntarily stated that they
came separately from each other. In his further cross-examination, the
Ld. Defence Counsel has given suggestion at Page No. 326 and 327
admitting that PW-2 and Sudevanand were knowing each other and
the relevant portion of the deposition reads as under: Q.
Is it or not that the train coming from Patna
to Bhagalpur on 24th July 1975 was late?

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1031
Ans. I do not remember.

It is however, correct that Sudevanand was to
come to Bhagalpur by that train. But I cannot say
if he was to come from Patna.
It is correct that I had prior intimation that
Sudevanand was coming. It is also correct that I
had information as to by which train he was
coming.
Q.
Did the train come there in time?
Ans. I do not remember.

I did meet Sudevanand at the railway station.
This deposition has not been shattered in the cross-examination by the
accused persons including Sudevanand. Rather, it has been admitted
in the cross-examination of PW-2 by the defence that accused
Sudevanand and Vikram were known to each other prior to their arrest
on 24.07.1975.
982. As per the order sheet dated 25.07.1975 of case No. 24/1974 PS
Kotwali Patna (available in Folder R-9), a requisition was received
from DSP, Patna for issuance of production warrant against
Sudevanand Avadhoot who was in custody at Bhagalpur Jail and
accordingly production warrants were issued for 01.08.1975.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1032
983. However, on 01.08.1975, a copy of order was received by CJM,

Patna from CMM, Delhi in RC No. 11/1975. Thereafter, accused was
forwarded by CMM, Delhi in case No. 24/1974 to the court of CJM,
Patna on 08.09.1975 and he was sent to Judicial Custody. On
15.11.1975, an application dated 12.11.1975 (available in Folder R18) was moved by Sh. H.L. Ahuja, DSP stating therein that they have
filed the charge sheet in this case No. 24/1974, RC No. 1/1975 and
Bhagalpur case before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna and
during investigation local police i.e. CID Bihar had arrested accused
persons mentioned in the enclosed list (27 persons), who were
subsequently released on bail and no evidence has been found against
them and they might be discharged in Patna Kotwali case No.
24/1974. Ld. CJM, Patna vide order dated 15.11.1975 discharged the
said 27 accused persons from this case. Ld. CJM also ordered for
sending of the record to the court of Special Judicial Magistrate,
Patna. (The order of Ld. SJM, Patna dated 15.11.1975 is available in
Folder R-9).
984. As per the order sheet dated 08.10.1975 of Special Judicial
Magistrate, Patna, a petition dated 03.09.1975 praying for issuance of
judicial custody warrant in respect of accused Sudevanand @ Misri
Lal Yadav and Vikram @ Subir @ Jaldhar Dass was filed. It was
prayed that custody warrant be issued to CMM, Delhi as they are
lodged in Central Jail, Delhi under the order of CMM, Delhi in RC11/1975 relating to the attempt to murder Hon'ble A.N. Ray, Chief
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1033
Justice of Supreme Court of India. However, the court of Special

Judicial Magistrate ordered that he cannot issue such production
warrant to a sister or superior court and as and when the trial against
them is over, Jail Authorities be intimated to produce the accused
persons in his court. He also ordered for issuance of direction to the
Jail Authorities in case RC-11/1975 and also a letter to CMM, Delhi.
985. On 12.11.1975, an application was also filed for issuance of
production
warrant
against
four
accused
persons
namely

24.11.1975.
The said four accused persons including Sudevanand
were finally produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna in

RC-1/1975 only on 20.12.1976 pursuant to the production warrants
admittedly after his conviction in A.N. Ray's case.
986. Investigation Officer PW-151 Sh. H.L. Ahuja deposed in his
cross-examination on behalf of accused Sudevanand at Page No. 3806
that Sudevanand was arrested at Bhagalpur along with Vikram and
from there he was brought to Delhi and taken on police remand in the
case relating to attack on life of Chief Justice Ray. Application in
other cases was moved towards the end of July 1975. In this regard,
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
Rudranand Avadhoot so as to demolish the Prosecution theory that

Anand Marg had no wings like Proutist Block of India, its
Revolutionary Group, the publication wing with its printing presses at
Delhi and Jaipur, PFI (Proutist Forum of India), SDM (Sewa Dharam
Mission etc.) vehemently spoken to and proved through the
Prosecution witnesses PW-1 Sh. Madan Mohan Srivastava @
Visheshwaranand @ Vijay, PW-2 Sh. Vikram @ Jaldhar Dass @
Subir, PW-68 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Basedar, PW-33 Ujjawal Prakash,
which is discussed earlier and further to support the explanation
offered by accused Ram Dwivedi with regard to word "SS" scribbled
by him in his diary appeared as evidence against him.
988. DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot on oath deposed that
"SS" stands for Sectorial Secretary. In his examination in chief he
elaborated that there were RS (Regional Secretary), DS (Diocese
Secretary), DTS (District Level Secretary), BS (Block Level
Secretary) PS (Panchayat Secretary) and VS (Village Secretary) in the
organization as propounded by the founder. It is noteworthy that DWCBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
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
organization is divided globally into nine sectors and Sectorial

Secretary is head of one such sector.
989. Except the oral testimony, this defence witness has not
produced the constitution and bye-laws of Anand Marg to substantiate
and supplant his ocular testimony; he produced three volumes of code
of conduct titled as "Ananda Marga Caryacarya" (Ex.DW-1/1 to
Ex.DW-1/3) but conveniently did not produce the constitution and
bye-laws of the cult Anand Marg; this suppression and concealment
and withholding of constitution or bye-laws by DW-1 does not come
to persuade this court to draw any other inference with regard to "SS"
found in the diary of the accused Ranjan Dwivedi Ex.PW-43/Z-6 (Q15 & Q-15-A) and Ex.PW-43/Z-5 (Q-14 & Q-14-A) than to conclude
that the accused Ranjan Dwivedi as having referred to accused
Santoshanand and Sudevanand by writing "SS" in his said diary.
990. DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot admitted that he took
Sanyas in the year 1962 after joining Anand Marg in 1961 and Sh.
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti @ Baba as its founder.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1036
991. DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot testified that there is no

revolutionary wing but he admitted that the founder of the cult
propounded an economic theory 'Prout'. He also admitted knowing
Advocate Deen Pal Rai DW-24. However, Deen Pal Rai while being
examined by the defence as DW-24 deposed that he did not know
Rudranand (DW-1). He also admits having known Madhavanand,
who later parted with the organization. He concedes with regard to
arrest of the cult founder in the year 1971 in a murder case and
remained in jail for seven years.
He also admitted filing of bail
applications of Baba in several courts. In his further examination in

chief, he advocates that organization does not believe in violence, it
did not have enmity with Madhavanand.
However, in his cross-
examination, it is elicited that Madhavanand became an Approver

against their cult Head Baba and for this reason, their organization
was not happy with him.
He has shown his unawareness if
Vinayanand attacked on Madhavanand on 07.01.1974. He admitted

that he himself was arrested in attempt to murder Madhavanand by
CBI.
992. It is seen from his cross-examination that he knew all the
accused persons including Arteshanand (since deceased) and also
Shankaranand (DW-2) and Paras Nath (PW-27). In his crossexamination he also admitted that there were self-immolations not
only in India but also in Germany, USA, Sweden, Philippines. He
knew Vinayanand but he could not identify the photo of Vinayanand
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1037
Ex.P-3. He admitted knowing Ram Kumar (Proclaimed Offender)

living in Trimohan but conveniently deposed that he had no intimacy
with him. He further admitted that Sh. Lalit Narain Mishra was
influential in the Central Government.
993. Initially, he denied there was any Rally organized to get Baba
released from jail. Then, he stated that Rallies were organized in
Delhi, Calcutta & Patna on different dates. Further, he twisted and
deposed that no gherao or demonstrations were held to pressurize the
Government to release Baba from jail. Again, he said that he was
unaware of a Rally organized in 1973 at Boat Club, New Delhi or that
Ranjan Dwivedi gave Court arrest.
994. In the above backdrop, one could conclusively say with
common prudence that (i) DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand Avadhoot, the
senior most monk being associated with founder and organization ever
since 1961, is the proponent and committed to the cause of Anand
Marg. He had long association with the accused persons. He himself
was arrested by CBI as a suspect on attack on Madhavanand. Thus, it
is quite but natural for him to speak such of the half-truths only lest
the guilt of the confident associates face peril in serious accusation
like this, which they adverted for the sake of their revered Guru. He
knew all the accused persons since 1960 and he has ill-will against
Prosecution for their arrest.
Thus, DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand
Avadhoot is a partisan, interested and biased witness. The deposition

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
and not a real
Visheshwaranand.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1039
996. In his statement DW-2 claimed himself to be Dharam Parchar

Secretary in Anand Marg and joined this organisation in 1959 and
informed about the structure of Anand Marg and that its in hierarchy,
there are Aacharya (Pirodha Pramakh) President as (General
Secretary), SS (Sectorial Secretary), RS (Regional Secretary), DS
(Diocese Secretary), DTS (Distt. Secretary), BS (Block Secretary), PS
(Panchayat Secretary) and VS (Village Secretary).
However, like
DW-1 Aacharya Rudranand, he has also failed to mention the name of

person who held the alleged post as SS (Sectorial Secretary). Except
this oral testimony, this witness has also not produced the Constitution
or bye-laws of the Anand Marg in support of his testimony. The
suppression of the Constitution or bye-laws by DW-2 Sh.
Shankaranand, this Court is unable to deduce anything other than
conclusion with regard to "SS" as mentioned in the diary of accused
Ranjan Dwivedi Ex.PW-43/Z-6 (Q-15 & Q-15-A) and Ex.PW-43/Z-5
(Q-14 & Q-14 A) that Ranjan Dwivedi as having referred to
Santoshanand and Sudevanand as "SS" in his said Diaries.
997. DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand has deposed that Baba Anand Murti
was arrested in the year 1970 on murder charge and released by the
order of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in August, 1978. He himself
was arrested four years after the arrest of Baba (i.e. in the year 1974)
and released after lifting of the Emergency.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1040
998. DW-2 Sh. Shankaranand has been claiming himself to be

Dharam Parchar Secretary and joined Anand Marg in 1959. He knew
accused persons facing the trial and recognized them. He also knew
Ram Aasrey (Proclaimed offender) but he has suppressed the fact by
showing his unawareness if bail application of Anand Murti was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or that a rally was organized
at Boat Club, New Delhi in February 1973 as a mark of protest for
non-release of Baba or that accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and
Ranjan Dwivedi gave their Court arrest in the Rally. He could not
dare to deny all these important events though he claimed to have been
holding position of a Secretary and joined organisation in 1959.
999. This witness is not dependable since this witness claims on the
one hand to be the Parcharak (Propagator) of Anand Marg, knowing
Visheshwaranand with a cut mark on his nostril and on the other hand,
is unaware of the status and role of that Visheshwaranand in the
Organization and further unaware of their Guru having been denied
bail and the subsequent protests. DW-2 also could not tell about the
post of Dharam Parcharak Secretary as it does not find anywhere in
the hierarchy of Anand Marg stated by him.
1000. He himself claimed to have been arrested by CBI as a suspect
for attack on Madhavanand and he knew and recognized all the
accused persons. He is one of the oldest associate and follower of

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
constitute a judicial inquiry. He admitted that accused persons facing

the trial are known to him.
1004. Despite the fact that Anand Marg is a registered body and has
its constitution, this witness has also suppressed the material fact of
bringing on record the constitution and bye-laws to show the structure
and hierarchy of Anand Marg organization as to whether there was
any post of Sectorial Secretary. He did not disclose the name who was
the Sectorial Secretary in the year 1974-75. If Baba was poisoned,
they are supposed to have lodged complaint with the Jail Authorities,
concerned Court and Police Authorities but he neither lodged any
complaint nor filed any such copy. He himself admitted that he was
arrested in January 1974 in a case relating to attack on Madhavanand
and released on bail in June 1974. Accused persons are known to him
being the active member of Anand Marg. He has been associated with
the Anand Murti, the founder of their cult since joining Anand Marg
in 1962 and for him also it is quite natural but to make the statement
suitable and favourable to the accused persons and thus he is also
interested, partisan and biased witness and no value can be attached to
the deposition of such witness.
1005. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi has examined DW-1, DW-2 and
DW-3 to prove the hierarchy in the Anand Marg Organisation so as to
dispel the case of the prosecution that scribblings in his diary the
alphabets used by him as "SS" stands for Santoshanand and
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1044
Sudevanand, but they failed to file the Constitution or the bye-laws of

the organisation.
DW-2 himself claimed to be Dharam Parchar
Secretary, which does not find anywhere in the hierarchy of the Anand
Marg. Accused Ranjan Dwivedi has claimed in his statement under
Section 313 Cr. PC that Ram Tanuk Singh was the Legal Secretary,
which also does not find in the hierarchy of Anand Marg Organisation.
PW-2 has claimed that he reported to the Chief Secretary Sh.
Dhaneshanand at D-41, South Extension-I, New Delhi. PW-1 has also
deposed that he himself was Provincial Secretary. PW-1 has also
named Sh. Vishokanand as Chief Secretary of the Organization and
Sh. Bharat Bhushan Aggarwal as Organizing Secretary at Bhopal.
DW-37 has claimed himself to be the Office Secretary of the Anand
Marg.
PW-68 claimed that he was previously Chief Training
Secretary and then Area Secretary, Bombay, Finance Secretary in

Delhi and also as Press and Paper Secretary. In his cross-examination,
there is a reference of one Puniyanand as Chief Secretary. However,
in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused
persons including Ranjan Dwivedi never put his case that there was a
post of Sectorial Secretary in the organisation or that there was no post
of Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary, Press and Paper Secretary,
Office Secretary. Admittedly, the word "Sectorial" is not found in any
dictionary even on the internet. Admittedly, it is also not a coined
word.
The post of Sectorial Secretary is also never heard in the
common parlance. Therefore, the defence raised by accused Ranjan

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1046
about inhuman treatment meted out to Baba. He voluntarily stated that

organization made a complaint and he asked the General Secretary to
do so. He did not meet the Jailor to inform about the condition of
Baba and he called the Jail Doctor who came on his asking. Doctor
informed him that a tablet was administered to Baba on 12.2.1973 at
about 11.00 PM. He remained with Baba on 13.2.1973 for about half
an hour. He admitted that Sudevanand, Santoshanand and Gopalji
have been active members of Anand Marg since long and Ranjan
Dwivedi has been a member since 1974. The persons, who committed
self-immolations, were near and dear to Baba. They were all the
Avadhoots. He has denied the suggestion that false information was
spread by senior members of Anand Marg to instigate fellow members
of Anand Marg against the government to put pressure for release of
Baba from Jail.
1008. Neither DW-7, who claimed to be the Personal Secretary of
Baba nor DW-3 Aacharya Keshavanand Avadhoot, who claimed to be
General Secretary of Anand Marg, filed any copy of complaint. DW7 admitted that no complaint was lodged by them with any authority
for meeting out alleged inhuman treatment to Babaji.
DW-7 is
attached to Anand Marg since 1962 and remained even Personal

Secretary to Baba, their cult head. He knew all the accused persons
and out of them accused Santoshanand, Sudevanand and Gopalji have
been active members of Anand Marg since long and accused Ranjan
Dwivedi only from 1974 and it is quite but natural for him to speak to
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1047
dispel the theory of prosecution that the rallies were organized in

Delhi and Patna in April 1973 to pressurize the government to release
Baba which has already been proved by the statement of PW-1, PW-2,
PW-11, PW-13, PW-50, PW-68 PW-122 and admitted by accused
Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC. After
careful appreciation, the accidence of his deposition is that, a) he
admits cult head of Anand Marg was arrested; b) there was resentment
in cult over arrest and treatment of Baba at jail; c) all four accused
were acquainted to him; d) he does not have any firsthand knowledge
regarding the overtures of a group of cult and their activities in
securing the release of Baba except the misadventure of some cult
members in self-immolations and demonstrations; e) being a confident
of cult head he deposed partially the facts; f) his testimony does not go
to uproot the acts of accused in laying conspiracy and the acts
followed, which are spoken by prosecution witnesses. As a result, the
testimony of DW-7 does not help the accused persons.
1009. In their defence, accused Ranjan Dwivedi has examined his
brother-in-law i.e. husband of his sister Sh. Rajeshwar Chaubey as
DW-4 in order to support his explanation with respect to his admitting
noting in his diary dated 03.01.1975 (Q-15-B), contents of the relevant
portion of the diary reads as under:Reached Delhi and received by Rajeshwarji at
the station. News of the first phase of the drama
heard at the station.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1048
Met Arun, Maya, Prabhaji and others and could

not resist myself.
1010. DW-4 has also been examined by accused Ranjan Dwivedi to
persuade this Court to discard the testimony of his distant relative PW6 Sh. Virender Kumar Ojha, who deposed that accused Ranjan
Dwivedi was in the company of Santoshanand and Sudevanand on
01.01.1975 and 02.01.1975. It has come in the testimony of DW-4
that Ranjan Dwivedi started living with him since January 1973 till
September 1974. He deposed that accused Ranjan Dwivedi had been
junior with Sh. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate and since the
receipts of Ranjan Dwivedi were not much, they were looking after his
bread and butter. On 03.01.1975, he received Ranjan Dwivedi, his
mother and sister-in-law at New Delhi Railway Station and they came
to his house. He informed Ranjan Dwivedi about his discussions he
had with his elder brother Sh. Sita Ram Dwivedi, a resident of
America that his brother had agreed to his proposed alliance with an
American girl Ms. Patersia. At that time, one more family consisting
of two ladies and one gentleman came to Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi and they
also expressed happiness. Later on, Ranjan Dwivedi married to Ms.
Patersia in 1975 at Patna. He further testified that Sh. Virender Kumar
Ojha (PW-6), who is a distant relative working in Railways at
Samastipur, came with his wife for treatment of his wife in AIIMS
Hospital in June 1974 and at that time, Ranjan Dwivedi used to stay

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
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.
The names of those
persons are mentioned by Ranjan Dwivedi in his diary as Arun, Maya,

Prabhaji and others. He also could not elaborate their relation with
Ranjan Dwivedi. Ranjan Dwivedi is brother of wife of DW-4 and they
are closely related to each other. The words "could not resist myself"
are mentioned by him with reference to those persons, who were more
than three and this writing has no connection with the alleged
information conveyed to him by DW-4 Sh. Rajeshwar Chaubey. Had
it been so, Ranjan Dwivedi must have overjoyed and could have
written it in the diary specifically.
So, accused Ranjan Dwivedi
cannot take any benefit from the deposition of DW-4.

1013. Accused Santoshanand had taken defence of alibi that on the
date of incident i.e. 02.01.1975 at Samastipur, he was at Patna. To
prove his defence the accused Santoshanand has examined only one
witness DW-37 Sh. Pranavanand Avadhoot, who claimed to be the son
of the cult head Sh. Anand Murti, deposed that he has been a fulltime
worker of Anand Marg Organisation. During the period from 1971 to
1975, he was working as Office Secretary of Anand Marg
Organisation. He knew accused Santoshanand, present in the court,
and he was posted at Patna in their cult sometimes in second half of
February 1973.
He further testified that during the period from
December 1974 to first week of January 1975, accused Santoshanand

Avadhoot was at Patna. In his cross-examination, DW-37 deposed that
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
voluntarily stated that they had volunteers. He could not remember

the day when anyone of the volunteers fell sick or stayed away in
attending the office. He stated that Santoshanand did not go away
from the office even for a day from middle of February 1973 to
January 1975. He admitted the suggestion of the prosecution that
Anand Murti was arrested on 29.12.1971 in a murder case and he
came out of the Jail in the year 1978.
1014. A scrutiny of the deposition of PW-37 reveals that he is
committed to Anand Marg Organisation in as much as he has stated
the name of his father as Anand Murti, who is the cult head. He also
admitted that he is an Avadhoot and a fulltime worker of Anand Marg.
He admitted that their cult head was arrested on 29.12.1971 in a
murder case. He also knew that Baba was released from Jail in 1978.
He claimed to be Office Secretary of the organisation at Patna and
about posting of Santoshanand as Manager (Public Relation) in the
office at Patna. In his statement even under Section 313 Cr. PC,
Santoshanand has not explained that he had worked as Manager
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1052
(Public Relation) with the Anand Marg Organisation. He has only

explained while replying Q. No. 183 to Q. No. 211 that he had never
visited Samastipur in his life; He did not visit Samastipur on the
relevant day; he was not present in Samastipur on the said date; he did
not stay in the waiting room of the first class; and he did not know
Vikram, Sudevanand and Ranjan Dwivedi. He did not explain that he
was posted as Manager (Public Relation) in the office at Patna. DW37 has not placed on record any document to show that he was
working as Office Secretary at Patna or Santoshanand was working as
Manager (Public Relation) there. Accused Santoshanand has not put
to any of the prosecution witness that he was working as Manager
(Public Relation) in Anand Marg Organisation. No other defence
witnesses have also stated so about Santoshanand. DW-37 is clever
enough to answer that no attendance register was maintained in their
office. If there were five or six persons, working in the same office,
neither of them has been examined. The plea of alibi postulates the
physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of
offence by reason of his presence at another place and plea can
therefore succeed only if it is shown that accused was so far away at
the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the
crime was committed.
This has been so held by the Honble
Supreme Court in Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981
Supreme Court 911.
In view of this discussion, I found that
deposition of DW-37 does not inspire any confidence and he has

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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1054
Dwivedi on 01.01.1975 and he met Santoshanand and Sudevanand

there. Further, it is established from the testimony of PW-5 that he
accompanied PW-6 with Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi to Samastipur Railway
Station on the evening of 01.01.1975, where they were introduced by
Ranjan Dwivedi to accused Santoshanand. This is further corroborated
by PW-6 that on 01.01.1975, he along with his friend (PW-5) and
accused Ranjan Dwivedi visited Samastipur Railway Station, where
Ranjan Dwivedi introduced them to Santoshanand as his distant
relative and friend.
Next day also i.e. on 02.01.1975, PW-6 met
Santoshanand and Sudevanand with Ranjan Dwivedi and he was

introduced to Sudevanand also. He also found Santoshanand and
Sudevanand at the venue of Samastipur Railway Station on
02.01.1975 about 12.00 Noon and again at about 03.30 PM.
Therefore, it has been conclusively established beyond reasonable
doubt that accused Santoshanand was very much present at
Samastipur Railway Station from the evening of 01.01.1975 till the
evening of 02.01.1975. Thus, accused Santoshanand has failed to
prove the plea of alibi and the same is hereby rejected. This adds
additional link in completing the chain of the circumstances.
81) Consent by the State of Bihar to CBI for
investigation.
1016. Immediately after the incident on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur
Railway Station, it was the Bihar Police, who was conducting the
investigations, which was taken over by CID, Bihar. Subsequently,
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.
These two Notifications were published on
13.09.1975. The Gazette Notifications of Government of Bihar are

Ex.PW-64/A and Ex.PW-64/B. Sh. D.N. Ahuja, DIG CBI wrote a
letter dated 17.12.1975 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar
requesting for consent of the competent authority for prosecution of
eight accused persons under Section 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance
Act. He also sent certain documents i.e. Report of Investigation and
copy of Notification of the Government of India dated 14.05.1957.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1056
The request was in respect of Patna Kotwali Case No. 24/1974,

Bhagalpur Case No. 71/1974 and Samastipur GRP Case No. 1/1975.
He deposed that vide order No. 6905 dated 27.12.1975 Ex.PW-64/C,
consent was granted by the Government of Bihar for the prosecution
of the persons (i) Ram Aasrey, (ii) Santoshanand Avadhoot @
Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit, (iii)
Lal
Yadav,
(iv)
Vikram
Subir
Jaldhar
Dass,
(v)
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot @ Vijay @ Madan Mohan Srivastava,

(vi) Vinayanand Avadhoot @ Jagdish @ Ram Mohan @ Anand
Kumar, (vii) Gopalji @ Krishan Mohan Singh and (viii) Ram Nagina
Prasad @ Bhaiya. He also deposed that with respect to case No. 1 PS
Samastipur, Notification Ex.PW-64/D was issued on 03.01.1975 and
similarly Notification Ex.PW-64/E was issued on 03.01.1975 by the
Government of Bihar under his signatures with respect to investigation
of the case No. 1 dated 02.01.1975, GRP Samastipur.
1018. In his cross-examination, PW-64 deposed that one Thakur
made a confessional statement before the Magistrate, but his name
does not appear in the Order Ex.PW-64/C. He deposed that the order
Ex.PW-64/C was prepared in his office and his office has put up
before him the whole file along with the draft consent order and then
he sent the file to the Law department for vetting. He has denied the
suggestion that he has not applied his mind before the consent was
given.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1057
1019. As per the Notification No. 54 dated 03.01.1975 Ex.PW-64/D,

the Governor of Bihar gave the consent of the Government of Bihar to
the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6 of
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for extension of their
powers and jurisdiction in the whole of the State of Bihar for
investigation of the offences with regard to case No. 1 of 02.01.1975,
PS Samastipur. Further, by Notification No. 55 dated 03.01.1975
Ex.PW-65/E, the Governor of Bihar gave the consent of the
Government of Bihar to the members of Delhi Special Police
Act, 1946 for extension of their powers and jurisdiction in the whole
of the State of Bihar for investigation of the offences with regard to
case No. 1 of 02.01.1975, PS Samastipur GRPS.
Later on, by
Notification dated 13.09.1975 Ex.PW-64/A, the Governor of Bihar has

also given its consent to Delhi Special Police Establishment under
Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in respect
of FIR No. 24 dated 07.01.1974 PS Kotwali Patna. Simultaneously,
on that day, the Governor of Bihar has also accorded the consent of
Government of Bihar vide notification Ex.PW-64/B dated 13.09.1975,
to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 6
of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in respect of FIR No.
71 dated 13.07.1974 PS Kotwali Bhagalpur.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1058
(All four notifications Ex.PW-64/A, Ex.PW-64/B,

Ex.PW-64/D and Ex.PW-64/E are available in
Folder R-7)
The Governor of Bihar by order No. 6905 dated 27.12.1975 Ex.PW64/C has also accorded the consent of the Government of Bihar for the
prosecution and trial of the charge sheeted persons for the offences
under Section 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 in respect of
the above said FIRs dated 07.01.1974, 13.07.1974 and 02.01.1975.
(The notification Ex.PW-64/C is available in
Folder R-68)
1020. Having discussed the entire gamut of the events leading to the
present prosecution, which are proved under different heads for the
sake of convenience and for the sake of understanding the case and
further having analyzed the evidence by appreciating the same in the
context of the law governing the subject, this court now hastens to
answer the charges framed against the accused as hereunder.
82) Conclusion:(i) Charge No. 1.
1021. The charge No. 1 framed by my Ld. Predecessor against
accused (1) Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @
Prabhu, (2) Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Bharat @ Misri Lal Yadav, (3)
Ram Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi s/o Late Ram Dev Dwivedi,

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1059
(4) Arteshanand Avadhoot (ABATED UPON HIS DEATH), (7)

Gopalji @ Krishna Mohan Singh.
1022. It is alleged against them that at Trimohan in the year 1973, all
the above persons (except Gopalji and Ranjan Dwivedi) along with
three Proclaimed Offenders namely Ram Kumar, Vinayanand and
Ram Aasrey and the approver Visheshwaranand have conceived an
idea to secure the release of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti by
the means unknown to law. They conspired with such an objective to
do certain violent acts to eliminate one Madhavanand, Sh. L.N.
Mishra, the then Railway Minister, Abdul Gaffoor, the then Chief
Minister of Bihar, Officers of CBI Sh. Puri and Sh. Hingorani, Jail
Doctor and Civil Surgeon, Patna and that the A-7 Gopalji joined the
conspiracy later by convening the meetings of the conspirators at his
house at Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar and collected and kept
arms, ammunitions and hand grenades to accomplish the common
design and that Ram Janam Dwivedi (A-3) joined the conspiracy at
Samastipur on 01.01.1975 and arranged the entry passes for the
accused persons Santoshanand, Sudevanand and approver Vikram to
reach the spot namely the Platform No. 3 of Samastipur Railway
Station on 02.01.1975 and murdered Sh. L.N. Mishra, and thus all of
them were charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy, punishable
under Section 120-B of IPC.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1060
1023. It is pertinent to mention that the above act of conspiracy

springs from several factors. To understand these factors, we need to
comprehend as to who this Anand Murti @ Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is?
The said person is a cult figure. The said Anand Murti (1921-1990)
was an Ex-employee of the Indian Railways. He is no more now. He
had developed certain interests in the occultism, religion, spirituality,
philosophy, yoga, metaphysics etc. He had developed his own ideas
to the material life and living, which he wanted to propagate. He was
successful in his mission, gathered a huge following in the NorthEastern India, North India, and abroad.
It seems that he had
developed certain socio-economic theories also and the ultimate goal

of his philosophy is to spread the Ananda (Bliss) and an orderly
society, which he called the SADVIPRA SAMAJ, a society based on
morality. The cult head had an object of setting up SDVIPRA RAJ, a
rule of moralist. It is revealed from the record that under peculiar
circumstances, he was arrested in a case of murder of one of his
followers. He was kept in Jail. All the efforts of his followers to have
him enlarged on bail, had failed.
The followers were given an
impression that the establishment and the Jail authorities had

conceived evil designs to finish him off. Thus, further impression was
spread that the cult head namely Anand Murti is being poisoned in the
Jail. The forlorn and resented followers wanted their Guru, also called
Baba, be released by hook or crook. They resorted to unconstitutional
methods for securing his release. It is a matter of record that some of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1061
the followers have taken out processions, conducted protests,

pressurized the State and Union Governments, and even went to the
extent of self-immolations to have him released in their unflinching
love and affection towards their Guru. When they failed by all their
means, the followers of the cult known as Anand Marg consisting of
several wings and cadres including Monks known as Avadhoots, who
don saffron clothes, showing separate and distinct identity of their
personality by growing beards, unkempt hair and adhering to special
code of dress and conduct, have resorted to the means not known to
the law. The accused hereinabove are the followers of the cult known
as Anand Marga.
1024. Thus, the persons facing trial, with a living image seated in
their heart, conceived the conspiracy. The entire case is based on the
Approvers statement and the circumstantial evidence. I have already
discussed the legal aspects canvassed on behalf of the accused with
regard to the legalities such as defect in the charge sheet, clubbing of
investigations of four cases, legality of grant of pardon to the
accomplices, the Approvers statement, non-examination of the
Magistrate recording the statements under Section 164 of Cr. PC, the
stigma attached to the statement of approver PW-1 as regards the
inducement of his re-employment, the snapping of conspiracy by PW1 etc. in the foregoing chapters of this judgment. In order to arrive at
the conclusions based on the ocular testimony of numerous witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution, defence and such of the
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1063
find anything to disbelieve that there was no such Organization

founded by Anand Murti and its wings. The accused facing the trial,
did not demolish the ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, which is
corroborated by the testimony of PW-11, PW-13, PW-33, PW-34,
PW-61, PW-63, PW-68, PW-79, PW-83, PW-84 and DW-8.
1026. Though the defence had feigned in their arguments with
regard to the formation of the Revolutionary Group, after going
through the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, it becomes clear that there
was a Revolutionary Group, corroborated by the acts of the accused
and the Approvers spoken through the evidence of PW-27, PW-34 and
PW-80 and that of the evidence of PW-19, who had proved the stay of
PW-1 twice at Indore to secure arms to achieve the object conceived
by the conspirators and the approvers. A comprehensive view of the
evidence available on record do suggest indelibly the acts of the
accused in procuring the arms and ammunitions and their sojourn
undertaken in procuring the same for the purposes of achieving the
object and the conduct of PW-1, PW-2, A-1 and A-2 in giving up their
prescribed attire of a Monk and to live incognito till the object is
achieved.
1027. In the backdrop of conspiracy hatched at Trimohan, I have
already held that from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-11, PW-13,
PW-33, PW-50 & PW-68, this court has concluded that that the Anand
Margies did hold a Rally at Boat Club, New Delhi in the month of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1064
April, 1973 to pressurize the Government to release their cult head

Anand Murti/Baba. This has been admitted by accused Ranjan
Dwivedi in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC and that
one Aacharya Dineshwaranand committed self-immolation next day
after the Rally at Purana Quila with the same purpose to pressurize
the government. An FIR No. 209 dated 24.04.1973 was also registered
with PS Tilak Marg, Delhi and accused Santoshanand was co-accused
there.
1028. To further pressurize the Government for release of Baba,
Anand Margies have taken out a demonstration and gherao of the then
Chief Minister Sh. Abdul Gaffoor on 28.07.1973 at Patna. At that
time, emotional slogans like JAIL KA PHATAK TUTEGA, ANAND
MURTI CHHUTEGA were raised by the Anand Margies and they
have gheraoed the Chief Minister Sh. Abdul Gaffoor at his residence
and an FIR No. 68 dated 28.07.1973 was registered with PS Kotwali,
Patna. This has been so arrived at in the earlier part of the judgment.
1029. When the Anand Margies failed to secure release of Baba, a
Revolutionary Group was formed by one Aacharya Rudranand
Avadhoot,
which
was
joined
by
Aacharya
Ram
Aasrey,
Visheshwaranand, Vinayanand, approver Vikram, Santoshanand,

Sudevanand, Arteshanand, Ram Kumar, Budheshawaranand and
Gopalji.
After formation of Revolutionary Group, PW-1, PW-2,
Santoshanand, Sudevanand and others have changed their attire of

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1065
Avadhoot and gave up saffron clothes, removed beard and moustaches

and cut long hair to conceal their identity. Thereafter, some of the
Avadhoots/Aacharya have propagated that Anand Murti was seriously
ill to give an impression in the minds of the workers, so that they may
work with renewed zeal for release of Baba, which is evident from the
statement of PW-1, PW-2, PW-11, PW-13, PW-27, PW-33, PW-34,
PW-68 and PW-80.
1030. Subsequently, in the month of August and September 1973,
conspirators after their meeting with Ram Aasrey in the house owned
by Prem Kumar at Patna, sent PW-1 to Indore to collect arms and
ammunitions on payment from PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra, who had
earlier received Diksha from PW-1 in the year 1967. During his both
visits on 26.08.1973 and 10.09.1973, PW-1 has stayed in the Gujrati
Lodge/Aadarsh Lodge, Indore under the pseudonym Vijay and this has
been proved by PW-19 and the documentary evidence collected. The
signatures and handwriting of PW-1 on the Visitors Register in the
handwriting of PW-1 have been proved by PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar
Prasad.
1031. Thereafter, PW-1, Vinayanand, Shankaranand, Sudevanand
and Arteshanand went to Trimohan, where Ram Kumar had given
them training in use of arms and ammunitions, which is proved
through the testimony of the approver PW-1, whose testimony as
discussed in the judgment is credible, consistent and trustworthy.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1066
1032. Ultimately, in the month of October 1973, a criminal

conspiracy was hatched on the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar at
Trimohan and the meeting was attended by PW-1, Vinayanand,
Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand and Ram Kumar and others.
In the said meeting, it was decided to kill Madhavanand, L.N. Mishra,
Abdul Gaffoor, Mr. Puri, Hingorani and others. The appreciation of
evidence and the findings are dealt in the chapter with the caption
"Criminal Conspiracy at Trimohan".
1033. I have already held that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy,
accused Budheshawaranand (since dead) suggested that in future the
house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan was not the appropriate place to
keep arms and ammunitions and suggested the house of Gopalji at
Chautham as alternative. It has also been held that PW-1, Vinayanand,
Arteshanand, Sudevanand, Santoshanand and Ram Kumar went to
Bhagalpur at the house of Gopalji near Janta Library and there
Santoshanand gave a letter in the name of one Saroj Kumar Biswas of
Bangaon to PW-1 to bring the arms and ammunitions from him. At
that time, the request of Santoshanand was accepted by accused
Gopalji for holding the meeting at his house at Chautham and
farmhouse at Tilihar and for collection of arms and ammunitions.
Meanwhile, PW-1 brought one country made revolver 303, two live
cartridges and 110 other cartridges and he handed over the same to
accused Gopalji. Thus, Gopalji has actively joined conspiracy by
accepting the consignment of the arms and ammunitions.
PW-1
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1067
informed Santoshanand that Mr. Biswas could not arrange hand

grenades, but he was trying for it.
Then after some parleys,
Santoshanand and Vinayanand left for Bangaon to bring hand

grenades from Mr. Biswas of Bangaon. As accused Santoshanand got
late there, he sent a telegram under his assumed name of Prabhu
addressed to Gopalji and this telegram Ex.PW-1/O was recovered
from the house search of Gopalji on 17.05.1975 by PW-134 Sh.
M.M.P. Sinha in the presence of PW-91. In order to make use of 110
cartridges, Arteshanand and Sudevanand left Chautham on the mission
to get manufactured a firearm from Sh. Manohar Darve of Jabalpur,
who was brought in the house at Gulzar Bagh, Patna, but Arteshanand
and Sudevanand were not successful in their attempt, which is evident
from the statement of PW-1, PW-44, PW-105.
1034. I have already held that subsequently in December 1973, arms
and ammunitions were shifted from the house of Gopalji at Chautham
to the house taken on rent at Gulzar Bagh, Patna.
1035. In order to execute the conspiracy to kill Abdul Gaffoor,
Santoshanand deputed PW-1 to track the movements of Abdul
Gaffoor at Patna, who used to visit Hotel Republic and also the house
of a Muslim Family and as PW-1 had not seen Abdul Gaffoor
personally, Santoshanand procured his photo from the office of
newspaper PRADEEP or VISHWABANDHU, where father of
Santoshanand namely Sh. Narinder Narain Verma was working in the
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1068
editorial section. On advice of accused Santoshanand, PW-1 has also

visited at the residence of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor in the guise of a
Businessman, saw him and the place well guarded. After his visit,
PW-1 informed Santoshanand in the presence of Arteshanand and
Sudevanand that it was such a guarded place that it would be
impossible to escape after killing him. This is corroborated from the
statements of PW-1, PW-33 and PW-143. The accused Santoshanand
examined his brother Sushil Kumar as DW-19 but could not cause any
dent in the case of the prosecution.
1036. On 29.12.1973, PW-1 under the assumed name of Shankar
Kumar Gupta of Karol Bagh, Delhi stayed in Hotel Republic, Patna.
This has been proved by the testimony of PW-1, PW-16, PW-17, PW126A, PW-129, PW-134 and PW-147 and record of the Hotel
Republic. When it was reported by PW-1 that Abdul Gaffoor did not
come to Hotel Republic, Patna, accused Santoshanand ascertained
from someone that he used to visit a Muslim family near Palace Hotel,
Opposite Gandhi Maidan Patna and gave a loaded revolver to PW-1.
From 30.12.1973 to 04.01.1974, PW-1, Arteshanand and Sudevanand
kept a watch during 08.00 PM to 12.00 Night on a rickshaw near
Palace Hotel. Santoshanand himself used to supervise the action.
This is evident from the statement of PW-1 and PW-67.
1037. Pursuant
to
the
criminal conspiracy,
on
05.01.1974,
Vinayanand brought a hand grenade from Bangaon, which was shown

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1069
to PW-1, Arteshanand and Sudevanand at Gulzar Bagh House at

Patna.
After 2 or 3 hours, Santoshanand also reached there and
suggested that they should leave Abdul Gaffoor for the time being and
follow Madhavanand, who is scheduled to be produced before the
District Magistrate, Patna on 07.01.1974 and accordingly an
unsuccessful attempt was made by Vinayanand on the direction of
accused Santoshanand to kill Madhavanand, who was an approver in a
case registered against the cult head of Anand Marg namely Sh.
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti, under Section 302 of IPC.
This can be gleaned from the statement of PW-1, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9,
PW-10, PW-18, PW-92, PW-134, PW-138, PW-140 and PW-150.
1038. One day prior to attack on Madhavanand, after discussion
among
PW-1,
Vinayanand,
Arteshanand,
Sudevanand
and
Santoshanand, on direction of Santoshanand, PW-1 left for Chautham

on 06.01.1974 and reached there on 07.01.1974. He stayed at the
house of Gopalji and after hearing the news of an unsuccessful attempt
on the life of Madhavanand, on the advice of Gopalji, PW-1 shifted
himself to farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar, where he stayed until
15.01.1974. As planned, when Santoshanand did not come there, PW1 came back from Tilihar to Chautham and after 2-3 days,
Arteshanand and Sudevanand also reached there and a telegram
Ex.PW-1/S
was
received
on
17.01.1974
by
Gopalji
from
Santoshanand under his assumed name of Prabhu. After 1 or 2

days, Santoshanand also reached there and expressed regret that they
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
telegram Ex.PW-1/S from the house search of Gopalji at Chautham on

17.05.1975 and the corresponding evidence available is already
discussed in the judgment at length. Attempt of PW-1 to bring Ram
Kumar in the fourth week of January 1974, failed and then they went
to Ram Kumars house on 06.02.1974. Then on 06.02.1974, PW-1,
Arteshanand,
Sudevanand,
Santoshanand,
Ram
Kumar
and
Tyageshwaranand participated in the meeting on 06.02.1974 at

Trimohan. Santoshanand told them that they were short of arms and
ammunitions and next meeting would be held on 15.02.1974 and
everyone shall leave for convenient places for shelter.
However,
Tyageshwaranand @ Budheshawaranand was asked by Santoshanand

that he should go Madhubani, where Abdul Gaffoor was fighting
elections and to keep watch on his activities. Meanwhile, parents of
PW-1 came to the house of Sham Lal Dass at Lahariya Sarai, and at
that time PW-1 resolved that he would part company with the
organization and Revolutionary Group as well. He did not attend the
meeting at Trimohan on 15.02.1974. In the last week of February
1974, Ram Kumar could not impress PW-1 to accompany him and
PW-1 informed that he would like to live with his parents.
His
marriage was solemnized on 02.06.1974 and after one month of his

marriage Tyageshwaranand brought a letter from Santoshanand asking
him to rejoin the organization, but he declined. After reading the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1071
letter, PW-1 handed over the same to Tyageshwaranand, who tore it

off.
1039. From the above said discussion, this court is of the firm
opinion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt that in the month of October 1973, a conspiracy was
hatched at the terrace of the house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan, which
was attended by PW-1, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, Sudevanand,
Santoshanand and Ram Kumar and others. In the said meeting, it was
agreed to secure release of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti by
resorting to violent acts, by procuring arms and ammunitions and to
commit murder of Madhavanand, L.N. Mishra, Abdul Gaffoor,
Officers of CBI Sh. Puri and Hingorani, Jail Doctor and Civil
Surgeon, Patna. It is also established on record beyond reasonable
doubt that accused Gopalji subsequently joined this conspiracy, when
he consented to hold meetings of the co-conspirators at his house at
Chautham and farmhouse at Tilihar and also started storing arms,
ammunitions and hand grenades to accomplish the common design. It
is also found from the evidence on record that approver Vikram had
also joined the conspiracy in the end of June 1974, when he met
accused Santoshanand in the market of South Extension, Part-I, New
Delhi, which I have discussed under the different heads about the role
of Vikram, the incident happened at Khanjarpur (Bhagalpur),
participation at Chautham meetings of the Group, his visits to IndoNepal Border, attempts to secure arms by visiting several places
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
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
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
would be evident by the wordings of Section 107

(Secondly) : "engages in any conspiracy..... for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy......"
The punishments for these two categories of
crimes are also quite different. Section 109 Indian
Penal Code is concerned only with the punishment
abetments of for which no express provision is
made under the Indian Penal Code. A charge under
Section 109 should, therefore, be along with some
other
substantive
offence
committed
in
consequence of abetment. The offence of criminal

conspiracy is, on the other hand, an independent
offence. It is made punishable under Section 120-B
for which a charge under Section 109 Indian Penal
Code is unnecessary and indeed, inappropriate."
1047. It appears that my learned predecessor has framed this charge
of abetment against accused Ranjan Dwivedi as an alternative charge.
In view of this discussion, this charge becomes inconsequential,
unnecessary and inappropriate in view of the charge under Section
120-B IPC having been already held as proved against all the accused
including Ranjan Dwivedi. Thus, the present charge for abetment
concerning the deaths and injuries is dropped being redundant.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1077
(iii) Charge No. 3.

1048. This charge is against accused Sudevanand under section 302
IPC for intentionally causing death of L. N. Mishra, Surya Narayan
Jha and Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore, AND under section 326
IPC for causing grievous hurt to eight persons mentioned herein
before AND under section 324 IPC for causing hurt to aforesaid
eighteen persons by throwing a live hand grenade on the Dais at
platform No. 3, Samastipur Railway Station on 02/01/1975 at about
05:30 PM.
1049. To answer this charge, the findings arrived by me under the
different chapters, need not be repeated again. However, the gist of
the prosecution case which is based on the sole testimony of PW-2
Vikram an approver in this case is highly corroborated in each and
every point on material particulars and further corroborated by the
circumstantial evidence which I have discussed throughout the
judgment. This establishes the presence of A-1, A-2 and PW-2 near
the rostrum at platform no. 3 Samastipur Railway Station on
02/01/1975, who entered the venue with the help of Passes arranged
by A-3, who visited Samastipur on 01.01.1975 and visited the venue
also twice on 02.01.1975. The then railway minister L.N. Mishra
arrived to inaugurate B.G. Line late. In that function their presence is
conclusively established not only by the sole testimony of PW-2 but
by the circumstantial evidence that is gathered through the evidence of
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1078
other witnesses particularly PW-6 whose testimony is highly reliable,

coherent and creditworthy. PW-6 had proved that he along with A-3
remained present along with the other accused Santoshanand and
Sudevanand prior to the event at the spot but the event got delayed due
to the late arrival of L.N. Mishra. By that time A-3 had left the venue
at 04.00 PM. It is established from the testimony of PW-2 that it was
Sudevanand who flung a hand grenade/bomb, which he carried with
him. It is also established from the testimony of PW-2 that PW-2
himself and A-1 were also carrying one hand grenade each. The one
flung by Sudevanand exploded on the Dais. There was commotion
which resulted into injuries initially to many persons assembled on the
Dais. The detailed testimony of several witnesses coupled with the
documentary evidence clearly amplifies and establishes that all the
dead and the injured were present on the Dias. In the said incident,
Shri L.N. Mishra, who was seriously injured, was shifted for treatment
to Danapur where he succumbed to his injuries on 03/01/1975 at 9:30
AM. One person Surya Narayan Jha succumbed to his injuries at
Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital on 04/01/1975. The third
injured Shri Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore succumbed to his
injuries on 03.01.1975 in the railway hospital, Samastipur. All these
deaths are as a result of severe injuries, internal bleeding, piercing of
splinters of explosion in their bodies, mutilation of body in respect of
Shri Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1079
1050. As discussed throughout the judgment under various chapters

the prosecution is successful to prove that injured persons namely
Ram Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram
Vinod Sharma, B.N. Parsad, Ajay Kumar, and Smt. Lalita Devi have
suffered grievous hurt as a result of the explosion of hand grenade on
the Dais on 02/01/1975 and the persons namely Dr. Jagan Nath
Mishra, Rama Kant Jha, Jayant Banerjee, Baleshwar Ram, Suresh
Parshad Singh, Umesh Parshad Singh, Bisheshwar Rai, Satender
Parsad Singh, Parmanand Jha, Suraj Chaudhary, Smt. Noor Jahan,
Jamuna Prasad Mandal, Suraj Narain Mandal, Pramod Parshad, Naval
Kishore, P.R. Chopra, C.S. Chaudhary and Kapil Dev Narain Singh,
suffered hurt due to the explosion of the bomb/grenade thrown/flung
by accused Sudevanand who had intentionally and knowingly had
caused it to explode on the Dais resulting into three deaths and injuries
to several persons as above. After wading through the entire evidence
both oral and documentary evidence running to several volumes, this
court is satisfied that all the ingredients for the offences U/s.
302/326/324 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against this
accused Sudevanand who had worked in tandem of criminal
conspiracy with A-1, A-3, A-7, Ram Kumar and Vinayanand (both
P.O.) and the approvers.
(iv) Charge No. 4.
1051. This charge is framed against accused Santoshanand and
Sudevanand concerning the same incident under section 302 IPC read
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1081
ruling of the Apex Court in Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin

v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 885 guides as under:"7. So far as Section 34 Indian Penal Code is
concerned, it embodies the principle of joint
liability in the doing of a criminal act, the essence
of that liability being the existence of a common
intention. Participation in the commission of the
offence in furtherance of the common intention
invites its application. Section 109 Indian Penal
Code on the other hand may be attracted even if
the abettor is not present when the offence abetted
is committed provided that he has instigated the
commission of the offence or has engaged with
one or more other persons in a conspiracy to
commit an offence and pursuant to that conspiracy
some act or illegal omission takes place or has
intentionally aided the commission of an offence
by an act or illegal omission. Turning to the charge
under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code criminal
conspiracy was made a substantive offence in 1913
by the introduction of Chapter V-A in the Indian
Penal Code. Criminal conspiracy postulates an
agreement between two or more persons to do, or
cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which is

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1082
not illegal. by illegal, means. It differs from other

offences in that mere agreement is made an
offence even if no step is taken to carry out that
agreement. Though there is close association of
conspiracy with incitement and abetment the
substantive offence of criminal conspiracy is
somewhat wider in amplitude than abetment by
conspiracy as contemplated by Section 107 Indian
Penal Code A conspiracy from its very nature is
generally hatched in secret. It is, therefore,
extremely rare that direct evidence in proof of
conspiracy can be forthcoming from wholly
disinterested quarters or from utter strangers. But,
like other offences, criminal conspiracy can be
proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed in most
cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential
though the inference must be founded on solid
facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent
and subsequent conduct, among other factors,
constitute relevant material. In fact because of the
difficulties in having direct evidence of criminal
conspiracy, once reasonable ground is shown for
believing that two or more persons have conspired
to commit an offence then anything done by

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1083
anyone of them in reference to their common

intention after the same is entertained becomes,
according to the law of evidence, relevant for
proving
both
conspiracy
and
the
offences
committed pursuant thereto........"

1054. Since, the offence under section 120-B IPC which carries a
wider amplitude is already held proved against all the accused, though
the common intention of Santoshanand and Sudevanand overlaps the
criminal conspiracy. Considering the larger implications of proved
criminal conspiracy, this court is of the view that holding the above
two accused guilty of the offences coupled with the common intention
as described under section 34 of IPC would amount to trumpeting
again, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that section
120-B of IPC carries wider amplitude even if no steps is taken since
section 120-B of IPC is by itself an offence made punishable in the
year 1913. Thus, it is inevitable for this court to drop the above
charge no. 4 as becoming nugatory.
(v) Charge No. 5.
1055. This charge is framed against accused Santoshanand,
Sudevanand, Arteshanand (since dead), Gopal Ji and Ram Janam
Dwivedi under section 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC, 326 IPC
read with section 120-B IPC and 324 IPC read with section 120-B IPC
in respect of death of above said three persons and grievous hurt to 7
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1084
persons and hurt to eighteen persons in the bomb attack at Samastipur

Railway Station on 02/01/1975 where the then Railway Minister L.N.
Mishra was to inaugurate the B. G. Line by holding a function in
which the bomb hurled by Sudevanand exploded resulting into the
death of the minister also among the three dead.
1056. This is a substantial and omnibus charge against all the
accused. This court has already held guilty of all the above accused
for the offence under section 120-B of IPC in charge no. 1 for the
reasons aforesaid in the judgment throughout. Likewise, this court has
also held guilty Sudevanand for the offences under sections
302/324/326 IPC concerning the same incident under charge no. 2.
Since the offence under section 120-B IPC is already held proved, the
act of Sudevanand in committing in offences under sections
302/324/326 IPC concerning the same incident under charge no. 2 is
binding on all the above accused equally, efficaciously under the
principle of criminal joint liability recognized by sections 120A of IPC
and 120-B of IPC.
1057. Thus, this court holds that A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-7 guilty for
the offences under section 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC, 326
IPC read with section 120-B IPC and 324 IPC read with section 120-B
IPC for causing the death of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Sh. Surya Narain Jha
and Ram Kishore Prasad Singh Kishore and grievous hurt to Ram
Bhagat Paswan, Kailash Pati Mishra, Brij Mohan Sharma, Ram Vinod
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
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1086
dead) at Bhagalpur between June 1974 to First Week of July 1974.

Accordingly, in the first week of July 1974, PW-2 carried and
delivered the same to deceased Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. The
photograph of Budheshawaranand Ex.P-3 is not demolished nor
questioned by the accused. Rather, the same was got confirmed by the
accused while cross-examining PW-151 at page No. 3825. According
to the testimony of PW-2, the same was delivered and as instructed by
the deceased Budheshawaranand, PW-2 and the deceased went to
Khanjarpur (Bhagalpur) to a Maqbara on 13.07.1974, when suddenly
the
police
party
appeared
and
PW-2
escaped.
Deceased
Budheshawaranand, who kept the letter and packet in his bag (P-7),
was arrested by the police and the police had seized the packet. The
police found three hand grenades in the packet.
When sent for
scientific examination of the seized material in the packet, the same

were revealed to contain hand grenades made of TNT (falling under
Special category explosive substance as defined in Section 2 (b) of the
said Act), which is an explosive substance and could endanger human
life on explosion or cause injury to the property. The evidence of PW138 and the material objects seized at Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13 establishes
all the ingredients for the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive
Substance Act, 1908. This court could not find anything to disbelieve
the version of the prosecution from the entire material evidence
presented before this court. Therefore, this charge is proved against

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1087
accused Santoshanand. Thus, accused Santoshanand is held guilty for

the aforesaid offence also.
(vii) Charge No. 7.
1060. The instant charge is against accused Sudevanand accusing
him of possessing a live hand grenade on 02.01.1975 at Samastipur
and he intended by means thereof to endanger human life or to cause
injury to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to
endanger life or cause serious injury to property and thus committed
an offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
1061. While appreciating the entire evidence qua the accusations
under the different chapters, this court has found reliable evidence
from the testimony of PW-2 that it was Sudevanand who hurled a
bomb/hand grenade on 02.01.1975 at the Rostrum injuring several
persons out of them three succumbed to their injuries including the
Railway Minister. The splinters have pierced into the bodies of the
injured.
1062. The scientific report proved through PW-51 and his report at
Ex.PW-51/A and the material objects like the splinters and the
remnants of the shell of the hand grenade, which were exhibited as
Mark "A to E" and referred in the report, inexorably proved that the
hand grenade contained TNT (Tri-Nitro-Toluene)-(falling under
Special category explosive substance as defined in Section 2 (b) of the

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1088
said Act)-which is an explosive substance and could endanger human

life on explosion or cause injury to the property. Thus the evidence
presented establishes that this charge is proved against accused
Sudevanand. Hence, he is held guilty for the aforesaid offence also.
(viii) Charge No. 8.
1063. The present charge has been framed against accused
Santoshanand that on 02.01.1975, while at Samastipur, he was in
possession of three live hand grenades and he intended by means
thereof to endanger human life or to cause injury to property or enable
any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious
injury to property and thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 4 of The Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
1064. I have already held while answering the charge under the same
provision as against accused Sudevanand, who having been given the
explosive substance by the above accused Santoshanand, containing
TNT (Tri-Nitro-Toluene)-(falling under Special category explosive
substance as defined in Section 2 (b) of the said Act)-which is an
explosive substance and could endanger human life on explosion or
cause injury to the property, this court has found overwhelming
evidence of the above accused possessing three hand grenades, which
had passed on to the hands of PW-2 and Sudevanand and one retained
by him (Santoshanand) and further one given to Sudevanand, which
exploded upon its hurling by him, there is enough material to hold that
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1089
this accused possessed the explosive substance of special category on

the date of incident i.e. 02.01.1975. Thus, this court hold
Santoshanand guilty for the offence under Section 4 of Explosive
Substance Act, 1908 since all the ingredients for the said offence gets
satisfied upon close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, who transcribed, typed by him,
corrected by me and pronounced in the open court.
Delhi.
Dated: 08.12.2014

(Vinod Goel)
District & Sessions Judge
Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.
1090

LN Mishra Assassination Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LN Mishra Assassination Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF SH.

VINOD GOEL, DISTRICT &

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.

5. Arteshanand Avadhoot @ Ratan Kumar @ Arjun Yadav S/o

Gopalji @ Krishna Mohan Singh S/o Late Baidyanath Prasad

Singh R/o Village & PS Chautham, Distt. Monghyer. (Accused No. 7)

: RC-01/75, RC-02/75, RC-13/75 and RC-14/75.

Based on circumstantial evidence and the statement of two

approvers namely Visheshwaranand @ Vijay @ Madan Mohan

Investigation (hereinafter referred to as C.B.I.) filed charge sheet

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.

Singh, Ram Aasrey Parsad, Vikram and Visheshwaranand before

By an order dated 17.12.1979 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India transferred this case to Delhi in Transfer Petition No. 69 of 1979

affect the course of trial. However, having regard

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.

made by the parties against each other, particularly

The accused persons were committed by the court of learned

CMM, Delhi to Sessions Court on 23.5.1980. My Ld. Predecessor

the pendency of the trial, accused no.5 Arteshanand Avadhoot @

no.1, 2, 3 and 7 are facing trial before this court.

On 02.01.1975, the then Railway Minister late Lalit Narain

Mishra arrived at Samastipur Railway Station, Bihar to inaugurate the

The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that one Prabhat

Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti @ Baba, the then employee of

Parcharak Sangh on 09.01.1955. The followers of Anand Marg

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.

Visheshwaranand (approver) and some others for securing his release

pseudonyms Vijay and Jagdish respectively.

In order to achieve the object, accused Ram Aasrey Prasad,

(P.O.) obtained five bombs and other accused Vinayanand,

Visheshwaranand and Santoshanand procured arms and ammunitions

On 07.01.1974, an attempt was made on the life of

Madhavanand at the Collectorate, Patna where he was brought for

In July 1974, accused

Vikram (approver) joined the conspiracy and he brought three hand

Bhagalpur. Investigation of this case was transferred to C.B.I. vide RC

In furtherance of conspiracy, the conspirators planned the

murder of Late Lalit Narain Mishra, who was to arrive on 02.01.1975

function was to be held at Platform No.3 of Samastipur Railway

Prosecution alleges that the accused Ranjan Dwivedi (A-3),

active member of Anand Marg, reached Samastipur on or about

three persons namely Sh. L.N. Mishra, Railway Minister, Surya

residence in railway colony where it exploded accidentally causing

On 03.01.1975, a manuscript in the name of Shashastra

Krantikari Chhatra Sangh was allegedly in the handwriting of A-1

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.

Gopalji (A-7) showing inter se association of accused persons and

My Ld. Predecessor on 21.01.1981 discharged the accused Ram

Nagina Prasad and Ram Roop. He ordered to frame the charges

The Ld. Predecessor

accordingly framed the charges on 21.01.1981 against the accused

Charge No. 1 is framed against accused Santoshanand,

Sudevanand, Ram Janam Dwivedi, Arteshanand and Gopalji to the

his house at Chautham and at his farmhouse at Tilihar, District

Substantive Charge No. 2 is framed against accused no. 3 Ram

Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at

Substantive Charge No. 3

is framed against accused

Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri

Charge No. 4 is framed against accused Santoshanand

Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar @

Charge No. 5 is framed against accused (i) Santoshanand @

Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @ Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit, (ii)