Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1090

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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)


Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri
Lal Yadav, (iii) Ram Janam Dwivedi @ Ranjan Dwivedi (iv)
Arteshanand @ Ratan Kumar @ Arjun Yadav, (v) Gopalji @ Krishan
Mohan Singh to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at about 05.30 PM at
Platform No. 3, Railway Station, Samastipur, they along with Ram
Kumar and Vinayanand proclaimed offenders and approver Vikram in
pursuance of the criminal conspiracy voluntarily did commit murder
of Sh. L.N. Mishra, Suraj Narain Jha, Ram Kishore Prasad Singh
Kishore by intentionally causing their death when a live hand grenade
was thrown at the Dais by Sudevanand and thereby committed offence
punishable under Section 302 read with section 120-B IPC; and that
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

Substantive Charge No. 6

is framed against accused

Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @


Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit to the effect that between June and July,
1974 in Delhi, he was in possession of three live hand grenades and he
intended by means thereof to endanger human live or to cause injury
to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

Substantive Charge No. 7

is framed against accused

Sudevanand Avadhoot @ Ramchandra @ Bharat @ Doctor @ Misri


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

Substantive Charge No. 8

is framed against accused

Santoshanand Avadhoot @ Ghanshyam @ Vinod @ Prabhu @


Jitendra Kumar @ Vishwajit to the effect that on 02.01.1975 at
Samastipur, he was in possession of three live hand grenades and he
intended by means thereof to endanger human live or to cause injury
to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger
live or cause serious injury to property and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908.
19.

All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

He has been examined to prove

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.

He has been examined to prove

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

He has been examined to prove

maintaining of two Registers i.e. Train Detention


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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
Seizure Memo Ex.PW-63/A.

He also seized

document Ex.PW-2/K vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW-

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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-

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


Seizure Memo Ex.PW-54/A.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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-

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
Neither the Prosecution nor the defence referred
his testimony being not relevant to the facts in
issue.
PW-157 Sh. Prashant Kumar, Assistant
with Finance Department, Government of Bihar.
Neither the Prosecution nor the defence referred

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

91

his testimony being not relevant to the facts in


issue.
PW-158 Sh. Lalit Khullar, Sub Inspector,
CBI.

Neither the Prosecution nor the defence

referred his testimony being not relevant to the


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

Search

Memo

Ex.PW-91/A

bearing

signature/handwriting of PW-134 Sh. M.M.P.


Sinha

tally

with

his

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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).

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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..

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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."

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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..

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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."
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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."

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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".

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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).

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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 &
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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-

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

201

2/E and PW-2/F. He admitted the suggestion that the account could
have been operated by him and Vikram Kumar under joint signatures.
104. Thus, the testimony of DW-8 Sh. Tara Chand Jain further
corroborates the testimony of the approver Sh. Vikram (PW-2) in
material particulars. Though DW-8 has spoken about terminating the
service of Vikram Kumar, yet he could not find any document in
support of his deposition. He has testified that Vikram has worked
with him for two and a half years up to the end of year 1974. He also
testified that he removed him from the service after October 1974. The
Prosecution has examined PW-63, PW-76, PW-61, PW-83, PW-84
and PW-79 only to corroborate the testimony of Approver Vikram
(PW-2) that he remained posted from 1972 to June 1974 in the
printing press of Anand Marg Organization at Jaipur. During his
tenure in Jaipur, he opened three bank accounts with three different
banks and one of the accounts he opened jointly with Sh. Tara Chand
Jain (DW-8). The argument of the learned Defence Counsel that no
resolution of Anand Marg Society was annexed with Account
Opening Form or that these were the personal bank accounts of
Vikram falls to the ground in the light of the deposition of PW-2
Vikram Kumar corroborated by their own witness Sh. Tara Chand Jain
(DW-8). Thus, the depositions of PW-63, PW-76, PW-61, PW-83,
PW-84, PW-79 and DW-8 corroborate the testimony of Approver
Vikram (PW-2) that he remained posted from 1972 to 1974 in the
printing press of Anand Marg Organisation, Jaipur. In a way, the
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

202

deposition of DW-8 not only suggests that testimony of PW-2 to be


truthful but also confirm that PW-68 is also a reliable witness. At the
cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to reiterate that PW-68 has
identified the handwriting and signatures of Approver Vikram (PW-2)
on various before-mentioned documents and also of accused
Santoshanand on his writings.
105. The depositions of approvers PW-1 and PW-2 also find
independent corroboration from the statement of PW-33 Sh. Ujjawal
Prakash. PW-33 testified that he joined Anand Marg at Bhagalpur in
the year 1957 when he was a student. He joined service with M/s. Tata
Iron and Steel Company in January 1960 at Jamshedpur, and in the
year 1966 on asking of Anand Murti, he resigned. He deposed that
there was Angika Samaj wing of Prout. In January 1970, he was sent
by Anand Murti as Office Secretary of PBI, Delhi. He remained there
up to October 1971. There was an Office of PFI (Proutist Forum of
India) a wing of Anand Marg at D-41, South Extension, Part-1 and
Prout Daily and magazine Education and Culture used to be
published from this place and accused No.1 Santoshanand was the
Editor of this newspaper Prout. The original name of accused
Santoshanand was Ghanshyam Prasad and name of his father was
Narinder Narain Verma. Sh. Narinder Narain Verma used to work in
LIC and was also a Journalist with Vishwabandhu, a daily paper
published from Patna. Sh. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar/Anand Murti was the
founder of Anand Marg, who propounded the theory of Progressive
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

211

that Visheshwaranand had given him Diksha in the year 1967. During
his deposition, he clearly identified PW-1 as Visheshwaranand @
Madan Mohan Srivastava. In his cross-examination, the defence failed
to discredit that PW-34 is not an Anand Margi or PW-34 did not take
Diksha in the year 1967 from Visheshwaranand. PW-34 has also been
examined by the prosecution to prove its case that pursuant to the
criminal conspiracy hatched at Trimohan in October 1973 on the
terrace of the house of Ram Kumar (Proclaimed Offender), PW-1 had
visited Indore and contacted PW-34 Jagat Ram Dogra for arms and
paid him Rs.400/-, PW-34 could not arrange the revolver and on
demand he promised PW-1 to send the amount by money order.
Seven or eight years have already elapsed, when the statement of PW34 was recorded in the court and simply because PW-34 could not file
the postal receipt of sending the amount of Rs. 400/- by money order
to PW-1 or could not tell the date and month, does not ipso facto make
his statement not worthy of acceptance. The defence has failed to
point out any enmity or malafide intention as to why PW-34 shall
make a statement, which is not found convenient to them. Even if he
could not make in his previous statement that he could identify PW-1,
it cannot be called an improvement, as it is inherent to identify him in
the circumstances when PW-34 had taken Diksha from PW-1 in the
year 1967 and they continued to meet even subsequently.
117. The argument advanced by the Defence Counsel that the
testimony of PW-34 is not creditworthy springs from two points
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

212

namely that the PW-34 has not made the statement before the Police
under Section 161 of Cr. PC as regards his ability to identify PW-1.
Further, they pointed out that this witness had improved his version
while in the witness box without any reference to his statement
already given to the investigation. The improvement pointed out by
the Defence Counsel is not fundamental insofar as he was able to say
in his statement that he was initiated by PW-1 into Anand Marg and
who in turn subsequently approached him for securing armed
weapons. The defence has not even suggested in the crossexamination that PW-1 was not initiated into Anand Marg. In the
absence of such a suggestion, it should be inferred that without
knowing the person and further without identifying, nobody would
initiate an unknown, especially into a spiritual order as that of Anand
Marg. Having thus initiated the person and having dealt with him,
which is not demolished in the cross-examination, mere identification
of PW-1 in the court cannot be called an improvement and it only
supplants the fact of initiation into the spiritual order. I have already
discussed that no personal enmity is imputed against this witness by
the defence. Thus, the improvement does not go to smash the entire
version of the investigation, which is otherwise corroborated through
other circumstantial evidence.
118. The other improvement pointed out also does not sound to
reason insofar as it confines to this witness repaying a sum of Rs.400/,
which he allegedly had taken from PW-1 since the repayment is not at
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

213

all a fact in issue to be considered for the purposes of unraveling the


truth concerning the charges. This improvement pointed out is only
peripheral in nature and only surrounding a shadow which is
unconcerned with the charges, this court is unable to sail with the
argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that these improvements would
strike at the very root of prosecution story.
119. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused Santoshanand
admitted that he is an Anand Margi. He stated that there was no office
of Anand Marg at D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi, but was
of Prout and he was sometimes the Editor thereof. He also admitted
that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti used to be called as
Baba being the founder of Anand Marg Organisation. He further
admitted that Anand Murti propounded the theory of PROUT. He
stated that the founder was considered by his followers as 'Tarak
Brahma' that is God incarnate like Krishna and Shiva. He also stated
that there were different cadres of Anand Margies, namely, whole
timers, Aacharya, Avadhoots and Anand Margies. He admitted that he
was editor of the monthly magazine 'Education and Culture' and at that
time 'PROUT' was a weekly and not a daily magazine. He only denies
that D-41, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi was used as office of
Anand Marg and ground floor was used for printing press, first floor
was used for editorial purpose and Anand Margies used to stay at
Anand Marg Ashram situated at Hari Nagar and Anand Margies used
to stay there. He also admitted that he was working in Delhi as Editor
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

215

Sarkar @ Anand Murti was also called as 'Baba' being the founder of
the Anand Marg Organisation. He stated that this was his personal
faith and reverence for Anand Murti as 'Tarak Brahma' i.e. God
incarnate like Krishna and Shiva. He stated that he does not know his
co-accused Santoshanand, Arteshanand, Gopalji and Ranjan Dwivedi
and did not see Santoshanand before facing trial and saw Gopalji
when he was arrested and never saw Vikram before his arrest. He
stated that he never visited Samastipur. These explanations are highly
unbelievable in view of the coherent testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW11, PW-13, PW-33 and PW-68, who had been long associated with the
organisation.
122. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused Ranjan Dwivedi stated
that he did not belong to Anand Marg Organisation and he is only a
disciple of Anand Murti. He also stated that he has been a lawyer of
Anand Marg Parcharak Sangh before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India. When asked about different wings of Anand Marg Organisation
like PFI, VSS, PBI, ERAWS, he stated that he does not have personal
knowledge about details of various wings of Anand Marg Parcharak
Sangh. He stated that only the office of 'PROUT' was located at D-41,
South Extension, Part-1, Delhi from where daily magazine 'PROUT'
was published and Santoshanand was Editor of the magazine. He
admitted that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand Murti, who was called
the 'Baba', was the founder of Anand Marg Organisation. He admitted
that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar propounded the theory of progressive
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

216

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

217

to the cadres to the Anand Marg, while admitting the founder and at
one time, he denies having attended the congregation as a follower and
at the next breath admits having attended Dharam Chakra
(congregation). He admits the hierarchy among the monks of Anand
Marg but blissfully shows his ignorance at the next moment. Thus, his
explanations for the evidence appearing against the accused on record
are highly improbable to assimilate.
123. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC accused Gopalji stated that he is
an Anand Margi. He never knew Santoshanand, Arteshanand and
Sudevanand before his arrest and he never met Vikram. He also stated
that Anand Marg is a very big organization and does not know about
other wings. He also admitted that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar @ Anand
Murti used to be called as 'Baba' being founder of Anand Marg
Organisation and he was considered by his followers as 'Tarak
Brahma' like God incarnate like Krishna and Shiva.

He further

admitted that there are different cadres of Anand Marg like whole
timers, Aacharyas, Avadhoots and Anand Margies.
124. PW-11 Raj Singh has proved the fact that motto of Anand Marg
was to establish a Sadvipra Samaj i.e. rule of moralists who were
primarily Anand Margies and strictly following a moral code. This
fact finds admission and corroboration from admitted writing in the
diary Ex.PW-43/Z-6 of accused Ranjan Dwivedi Q-15-A and on the
date of bomb blast at Samastipur on 02.1.1975, the accused Ranjan
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

218

Dwivedi has written the portion Q-15-A in his said diary Ex.PW-43/Z6 which reads as under:The day was fully utilized as an instrument
graciously touched by the cosmic wave length
meeting of sequences.
O, Baba, you are the Lord of Lords prevalent
everywhere and will establish your cherished goal
of universal sadvipra kingdom.
This writing clearly reflects the views of accused Ranjan Dwivedi
while thanking the Baba (for his divine Powers) which helped him in
successfully arranging access to his co-conspirators Santoshanand,
Sudevanand and approver Vikram to reach the spot of crime at
Samastipur on 2.1.1975, which finds particular reference to the other
subject to be discussed in the later part of this judgment. Suffices to
say for the purposes of this subject under caption, the accused has
referred to cult head attributing divinity to him.
14) Boat Club Rally - Self-immolation
125. In the above backdrop, PW-1 deposed that in the year 1973,
while posted as Principal, Anand Marg Public School at Jabalpur, he
was called to Delhi where a Rally was scheduled at Boat Club in
February 1973 to press the release of Anand Murti from Jail. He
deposed that Anand Murti was arrested in a case of murder of one of
his followers who deserted the cult, in the year 1971 and continued to

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

219

be in prison, having lost prayer for bail up to the Apex Court. Many
persons offered themselves for arrest in the Rally. PW-1 testified that
he participated in that rally. He also courted arrest at the time of rally.
Accused no.4 Ranjan Dwivedi also courted arrest at that time.
126. In the cross-examination of PW-1, it is elicited that he did not
inform the Magistrate in his statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC that he
joined agitation for release of Anand Murti and about his arrest in
Delhi. He clarified that Magistrate asked him with regard to the
incident at Collectorate, Patna. He answered that in the year 1973, he
remained in Tihar Jail, Delhi for about 10 days and gave his name as
Visheshwaranand Avadhoot. He has not been shown Jail Record by
the police that his name was recorded as Visheshwaranand Avadhoot.
At that time Ranjan Dwivedi was also with him in the Jail. It is further
elicited that he did not mention before the Magistrate that Anand
Murti was arrested at Bombay in a Ranchi Bomb case and a rally was
organized in Delhi to pressurize the Government to get Baba released.
PW-1 replied that Anand Murti was firstly arrested in 1971 in Ranchi
Bomb case. Then, he was arrested on 29.12.1971 in murder of a
defector from the cult. Baba remained confined to Jail for about seven
years.
127. PW-2 testified that in April 1973, he came to Delhi from Jaipur
where a rally had been organized for demanding release of Anand
Murti, who was confined in Patna Jail. Many persons belonging to
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

220

Anand Marg participated in the rally. Firstly, they had assembled in


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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

223

know that police was searching for Santoshanand after selfimmolation by Dineshwaranand. He deposed that when Santoshanand
met him in the market, he told PW-2 that he was aware that the police
was

after

him

in

the

case

of

above

self-immolation

of

Dineshwaranand.
135. PW-50 Sh. R.L. Bhagat, Advocate testified that in the year
1974, he was working as Additional Public Prosecutor in Parliament
Street Court. He used to appear before the court of Sh. M.K. Chawla,
Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. He has seen the file of Sessions
Case No. 116/1974 State Vs. Aacharya Puniyanand & Others under
Section 306/120-B IPC vide FIR No. 209 dated 24.04.1973, PS Tilak
Marg, Delhi, decided by the said court on 07.04.1975. He testified
that Santoshanand and another were Proclaimed Offenders in this
case. Santoshanand did not appear throughout the trial of the case.
Sh. Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate used to appear in the said case. He
identified the accused Ranjan Dwivedi, present in the court. Despite
opportunity, PW-50 was not cross-examined by the defence. Accused
Ranjan Dwivedi in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC further admitted that
Divyanand Avadhoot and Dineshwaranand Avadhoot self-immolated
in Patna and Delhi respectively in the year 1973 not only for release of
Anand Murti but also against the gross injustice and atrocities
perpetrated by the Government and the jail authorities. He also
admitted that in the case of self-immolation by Dineshwaranand
Avadhoot, a case vide FIR No.209 dated 24.4.1973 was registered
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

224

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

232

not satisfied with the efforts under the process of law and thereby to
look for alternate ways. The evidence of PW-1 suggesting that he
along with Vinayanand met Rudranand, who in turn informed them
about necessity of formation of a Revolutionary Group for which a
plan was being prepared, is not discredited in the cross-examination.
What is highlighted by the defence with regard to the improvements
found in the evidence of PW-1 are only the minor details. Those minor
details revealed in the testimony of PW-1 are like the discussions to
adopt violent means, the details of Gopalji being the VSS Camp
worker and further that Budheshawaranand suggesting the proper
place to meet thereafter at Chautham. Such details are bound to appe ar
in the deposition while any witness makes statement in the temple of
justice by not suppressing anything connected with the facts in issue.
Few details being not found in the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC
but appearing in the testimony, do not severe the roots of formation of
Revolutionary Group. The defence could not dismantle the evidence
of PW-1 as regards the formation of the Revolutionary Group and the
improvements highlighted are mere explanations, which do not touch
the material particulars. Therefore, these improvements cannot be
termed as dismantling the case of prosecution.
146. PW-2 deposed that in the hostel room of PW-13 in last week of
June 1974, Santoshanand told him that Sudevanand, Arteshanand and
Budheshawaranand had already joined the Revolutionary Group and
discarded their saffron robes of Avadhoot and they were dressing
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

233

themselves like common man. PW-2 on asking of Santoshanand went


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

In order to get him released, a

Revolutionary Group was formed and Santoshanand told them that by


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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

240

one year. On the same lines as that of PW-11, the defence miserably
failed to discredit the testimony of PW-13 on the sworn facts with
regard to the change of attire by A-1 and PW-2. The testimony of
PW-13 is not suffering from any ill-will towards the accused for he
has no axe to grind against the accused, since he was a sympathizer
and had even sheltered them at Delhi.
155. Thus, with the cumulative ocular testimony of PW-2, which is
in consonance with the testimonies of PW-11 and PW-13 and further
the deposition of PW-1 finding corroboration with the testimony of
PW-34, it can be safely said that the accused persons along with PW-1
and PW-2, who were the avowed monks wearing the prescribed dress
in saffron colour with special appearance, in their zeal to have their
cult head enlarged, joined the Revolutionary Stream by discarding the
prescribed vesture in saffron colour and in order to remain incognito,
they changed their clothes, appearance and roamed freely without
being detected by anyone of their past identities.
156. The motto of the organisation, its founder, various wings, the
hierarchy of the monks, the publishing wing, the arrest of its founder,
the zeal of the hardcore followers to have him released by resorting to
several acts, the formation of revolutionary group and some of the
followers turning incognito to achieve their object, is already
discussed above and now I hasten to find out the evidence on the
aspect of collection of arms to achieve their object.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

241

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

248

that from Indore he went to Trimohan and narrated the entire facts to
Shankaranand.
168. It is found in the cross-examination of PW-1 that before the
Magistrate he stated that he took Rs.2,000/- when he went to Mr.
Dogra and paid him Rs.400/-. He did not remember whether he stated
the details regarding sending of Rs.400/- to Ram Kumar or not. PW-1
further replied that he has not given any description of Bengali
Gentleman, who was sitting by the side of Ram Aasrey (P.O.) in July
1973 except that he was clean-shaven. He did not remember whether
he told the Magistrate that Ram Aasrey (P.O.) did not introduce him to
Bengali Gentleman or not. He did not notice any mark on the countrymade bombs as the same were wrapped in strings. One of the bombs
was of half a kilo in weight. He also did not state in the statement
under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that at that time, Ram Aasrey
introduced him and Vinayanand to Prem Kumar as Vijay & Jagdish.
He stated that Anand Marg School at Arrah was up to primary class.
He did not state before the Magistrate that he stayed in Anand Marg
Public School in Arrah for 15 days. There were two or three rooms in
the house, which were arranged by Ram Aasrey on the ground floor.
He did not know the names of neighbours but it was situated in the
market by the side of a biscuit factory. He did not know number of
that house or name of biscuit factory. He had stated to the Magistrate
that Ram Aasrey lived in a separate house in the bazaar but had not
stated that he had rented a separate house. He told the Magistrate that
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

249

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

250

in the court correctly. The defence has given him suggestions only,
which was denied by him. It is a settled principle of law that denied
suggestion is no evidence. The details of the testimony of PW-34
about his role in Anand Marg, visit of PW-1 for arms and his failure
thereof, his returning the money received from PW-1 to Ram Kumar is
already discussed elsewhere and the repetition is avoided. The say of
PW-1 and PW-34 is further fortified by the deposition of PW-19 Sh.
Purshottam Kumar, owner of the Aadarsh Lodge, Indore, which I
intend to deal hereinafter.
171. PW-1 testified that he stayed in Aadarsh Lodge which was also
known as Gujarati Lodge, twice at Indore. He identified the Register
of Visitors Ex.P-5, entry Ex.PW-1/K and signatures Ex.PW-1/L as
Vijay Kumar as in his handwriting regarding his stay on 26.8.1973.
While giving his particulars, he mentioned his name as "Vijay Kumar
Prabhat", respecting the sentiments of his Guru Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar
and took his name as surname out of the awe, reverence and respect
towards his Guru. He deposed that at another place he described his
name at Ex.PW-1/M as Vijay Kumar S/o Prabhatji and he stayed
there on 10.9.1973 and his signatures are at Ex.PW-1/N as Vijay
Kumar. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion
that the Hotel Register and Inn-Register are forged documents. He has
also denied the suggestion that the entries did not exist or had been
incorporated or interpolated subsequently. He further replied that he
always stayed in the Aadarsh Lodge. He did not enquire the name of
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

251

the manager or proprietor of that Lodge. He did not know the name of
the bearer of that Lodge. He also did not remember whether adjoining
rooms were under occupation or not. He also could not remember the
number of the room, which he occupied.

He replied that he made

entire entry in the register in his own handwriting on his first stay
there. He did not remember whether in his second stay/visit, he wrote
the entire entry or only put his signatures against the entry in the
register. He stated that he could say only after seeing the entry. The
style of cross-examination instead of demolishing the deposition of
PW-1 rather fortified it and non furnishing of the details of the owner,
bearer, manager, the number of rooms, location thereof, etc. are all
unwanted details since no Lodger would go to the extent of
investigation of such details and naturally would not remember.

172. The testimony of approver PW-1 finds further corroboration


from the statement of PW-19 Sh. Purshottam Kumar, owner of the
Aadarsh Lodge, Indore. He testified that his father owns Aadarsh
Lodge, Indore. He along with four brothers has been working in the
said Aadarsh lodge with his father and they have engaged servants at
the lodge. He deposed that they have been maintaining a Register of
the Visitors of their Lodge. Sometimes, he makes entries in the
Register, sometimes his father does, sometimes by the visitor himself
and sometimes by the servants. The customer (i.e. visitor) signs the
last column of the entry in the Register. After seeing the Register
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

259

on the bottom of every page in the Register is left blank. This register
can be said to have been maintained in due course of business by the
Lodge. This Register was seized after about two years on 24.9.1975
by the I.O. and entries dated 27.8.1973 and 10.9.1973 appear to have
been made in due course of business by the Lodge and do not suggest
at all that these entries were added or substituted at the time of seizure
of register or thereafter. There is no force in the argument on Ld.
Defence Counsel that no witness has been examined to prove that this
lodge was also known as Gujarati Lodge as stated by PW-83 Sh.
M.P. Sharma and PW-19 Sh. Purshottam Kumar. There is also no
force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that bills of staying in
the Lodge are not filed when entries itself support stay of PW-1 under
assumed name of Vijay Kumar Prabhat or Vijay Kumar wald
Prabhat. The charges for lodging are reflected against the entries
itself and therefore the question of issuing separate bills for stay in the
Lodge does not arise.
178. The Ld. Counsel for defence points out that there have been
improvements in the deposition of PW-19 in as much as the witness
having not stated before the police that he is not able to identify the
signatures and writing of the Lodge officials/Managers in the Register
Ex.P-5. There is one more improvement argued with regard to the
entry in the Register particularly referring to date 26.08.1973 as the
witness having not stated before the police under Section 161 of the
Cr. PC. According to the defence, these improvements would render
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

260

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

263

with PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava at the same place. The defence
has also not challenged that Madan Mohan Srivastava was not
working under the supervision of PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Prasad in
the office of PWD, Lahariya Sarai. When a person like PW-1 Sh.
Madan Mohan Srivastava was working under the supervision of PW126A or in his office, it is quite natural that such superior gets
acquainted with the writing and signatures of such subordinate like
PW-1 Madan Mohan Srivastava. Thus, the statement of PW-1 Madan
Mohan Srivastava has been further corroborated on material
particulars by PW-126A Sh. Maheshwar Parsad that on two occasions
in the month of August, 1973 (26.08.1973) and September, 1973
(10.09.1973), he visited Indore to meet PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra
for collection of arms and ammunitions and stayed at Aadarsh Hindu
Lodge under the assumed name of Vijay Kumar. Therefore, the
statement of PW-1 inspires confidence that he came to Indore at the
instance of Shankaranand to collect the arms and ammunitions from
PW-34 Sh. Jagat Ram Dogra on payment twice in August, 1973 and
September 1973 and that he paid Rs.400/- to Sh. Dogra on his 1 st visit.
20) Training in arms by Ram Kumar at
Trimohan.
183. PW-1 also deposed that he along with Vinayanand was asked to
go to Village Trimohan by Shankaranand for being trained in handling
the arms and ammunition at the hands of Ram Kumar, an Anand
Margi. Thus, they went to Trimohan along with Shankaranand. PW-1
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

264

took the jhola containing bombs with him. They travelled by Upper
India Express (train), which stopped at Kaholgaon, a station ahead of
Ekchari. They got down there and then on foot they reached at the
house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan. There Shankaranand introduced
PW-1 as 'Vijay' and Vinayanand as 'Jagdish' to Ram Kumar. At the
suggestion of Shankaranand, the jhola along with bombs was handed
over to Ram Kumar (Proclaimed Offender). He further deposed that
Arteshanand Avadhoot and A-2 were present in plain clothes at the
house of Ram Kumar. PW-1 had seen them earlier in saffron robes.
He identified A-2 in the court also. Thereafter, Shankaranand went
away. He further testified that Ram Kumar trained him and
Vinayanand in Judo and use of 12-bore gun. He testified that
Arteshanand and A-2 did not receive this training in their presence as
they had already received this training. He came to know of it during
the course of his training and that of Vinayanand. Ram Kumar
imparted them training regarding extent of energy of country made
bomb and how to throw and handle it. This training was given to all
four of them. They also received practical training. One bomb out of
five bombs, which he had brought, was taken out. They were taken at
some distance away from the house and Ram Kumar gave
demonstration as to how to throw the bomb. Then, Ram Kumar gave
him that bomb and he (PW-1) threw it but it did not explode. He
directed Vinayanand to pick it up and threw it. When Vinayanand
threw it, it exploded. At that time, he, Ram Kumar, Vinayanand, A-2

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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)
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

266

would give the revolver but Din Pal Rai did not give him that revolver
and he came back to Trimohan and reported to accused Santoshanand.
185. In the cross-examination of PW-1, it is elicited that before the
Magistrate, he stated that Arteshanand and Sudevanand did not receive
the training as they had already received such training but it was not
found mentioned in his previous statement. PW-1 further stated in his
cross-examination that 3-4 bombs used to be exploded for the purpose
of imparting training. PW-1 further testified in his cross-examination
that he has not stated before the Magistrate that he was introduced to
Ram Kumar at Trimohan by his name as Vijay and that Vinayanand
was introduced as Jagdish. PW-1 further deposed in his crossexamination that from Arrah, he Vinayanand went to Trimohan by
train. They left Arrah in the evening and at 3.00 or 4.00 A.M., they
reached at Kaholgaon as the train did not stop at Trimohan. Along
with the Jhola containing the arms, he used to carry another Jhola of
his personal belongings. There was no pin system in the bomb as it
was a country made bomb. PW-1 further replied that house of Ram
Kumar was situated on the bank of Ganga on the roadside. There
were houses occupied by the persons in the vicinity of the house of
Ram Kumar. They were staying in the house on the ground floor.
There was a deserted school on the way leading to Ekchari Railway
Station and the bomb was exploded there at a lonely place. This
building was at a distance of one furlong from Ram Kumar's house.
He might have fired 3 or 4 shots of .12-bore gun. Vinayanand might
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

267

have also fired 3 or 4 shots. The target used to be sometime a sparrow


sitting on a tree. He might have fired 25/30 shots from an air gun in
which pellets are used. For targets, sometimes points to be fixed in
the wall and sometimes birds would be the made targets. He could not
see how far the fragments of bomb fell after explosion.

He

volunteered to state that they had taken shelter behind a wall in order
to save themselves. After that, they saw that the fragment had spread
within the radius of 10 yards. He stated in his statement under Section
164 of the Cr. PC that when bomb was exploded, there were present
Ram Aasrey, Sudevanand & Arteshanand. (When confronted with his
previous statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC, it was found
mentioned that these persons were told about the method of exploding
a country made bomb and that when Vinayanand threw the bomb, it
was exploded). He had not stated in his previous statement under
Section 164 of Cr. PC that they were taken to the banks of Ganga and
Ram Kumar explained how to take a aim with the revolver or that the
tree being made a target or a shot was fired by him for demonstration.
He also did not remember having stated that Ram Kumar then gave
the revolver to Sudevanand and then Sudevanand fired a shot. He was
confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-1/X wherein it was not
found recorded. He explained that he had not stated in detailed under
Section 164 of Cr. PC that he was given revolver to fire, he was able
to hit the target but Ram Kumar, and Sudevanand had missed the aim.
He had not stated in the statement under Section 164 of Cr. PC that

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

268

then they came back to Ram Kumar's house and found Santoshanand
and Shankaranand present there. He explained that he had not stated
in this sequence that thereafter at that very time, Tyageshwaranand @
Budheshawaranand also reached there at Ram Kumar's house. He
further testified that he stayed at Ram Kumar's house for 15/20 days
during training but they were visiting other places also during this
time. It is elicited that PW-1 had not stated in previous statement that
he has fired a shot in the farm of Mr. Biswas from country made
revolver, which Mr. Biswas has supplied.

186. The learned Defence Counsel pointed out certain trivial and
explanatory improvements in the statement of PW-1 on some points
mentioned in the Para above. He pointed out that PW-1 has not stated
in his previous statement that Arteshanand and Sudevanand did not
receive the training as they had already received such training; that he
was introduced to Ram Kumar at Trimohan by his name as Vijay and
that Vinayanand was introduced as Jagdish; that when bomb was
exploded Ram Aasrey, Sudevanand and Arteshanand were present;
Ram Kumar gave revolver to Sudevanand who fired the shot; and that
he was given revolver to fire and he was able to hit the target but Ram
Kumar and Sudevanand had missed the aim. The line of crossexamination does not suggest that the above persons namely PW-1
and Vinayanand did not go to the place of training namely Trimohan
where Ram Kumar imparted training to them in testing the firearms. It
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

269

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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

272

189. The defence had tried to put the words in the mouth of witness
only to mislead the witness.

He has not stated in his previous

statement under Section 164 of the Cr. PC that Santoshanand refuted it


and said that Madhavanand should be liquidated as enemy no.1. He
might have stated that they all including Ram Kumar agreed to it and
to kill all other enemies. He had not stated in the statement under
Section 164 of the Cr. PC that it was decided to defer the duty of
killing of L.N. Mishra to someone else in future. He had also not
stated specifically that Ram Kumar was not given any duty at that
time.
190. There is no cross-examination by the defence as regards the
meeting held at the terrace of house of Ram Kumar at Trimohan in the
month of October 1973. They have also not challenged the veracity
and testimony of PW-1 that after playing tape recorded speech of
Anand Murti, Santoshanand exhorted them (Ram Kumar, PW-1,
Vinayanand, Arteshanand and Sudevanand) that Madhavanand, Abdul
Gaffoor, L.N. Mishra, Jail Doctors, Civil Surgeon, Hingorani and Puri
of CBI are to be killed. Thus, the testimony of this witness on these
vital points remains unrebutted and makes it creditworthy. It is also
not challenged in cross-examination of PW-1 that after meditation,
Santoshanand having said that there were many enemies of Anand
Marg, who were to be eliminated since all peaceful methods yielded
no results and they had to resort to violent means against the persons
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

273

whose names mentioned above. The defence has also not specifically
given any suggestion to PW-1 regarding Santoshanand describing
Madhavanand Avadhoot to be enemy no.1, since the said
Madhavanand deserted the cult to become Approver in the case
against Anand Murti. The defence has also not given any suggestion to
PW-1 concerning Santoshanand describing L.N. Mishra as enemy
no.2 and Abdul Gaffoor, Chief Minister of Bihar as enemy no.3. It is
a well-settled principle of law that when the other party in his crossexamination does not dispute an assertion in the examination in chief
of a witness, the version of witnesses is to be believed. In this regard,
reliance can be placed on a very recent Division Bench Judgment of
our own Honble High Court in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State
(Delhi), 2009 (163) DLT 658, and Para No. 175 of the judgment reads
as under: 175. It is settled law that where a witness is not
cross-examined on any relevant aspect, the
correctness of the statement made by a witness
cannot be disputed. (See the decisions of Supreme
Court reported as State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh,
AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1328 and Rajinder
Prasad v. Darshana Devi, V (2001) SLT 780 =
AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3207).
191. Further, the Honble MP High Court has held in Moti Lal and
Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990, Crl. L.J (NOC ) 125
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

274

that it is a well settled principle of law that when the accused does not
challenge a prosecution witness in his cross-examination on certain
facts, it leads to inference of admission of that fact.

Similarly,

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

278

then they were all taken to nearby banks of Ganga. Ram Kumar
explained them how the aim was to be taken with the revolver, he
gave the demonstration by making a tree as target, and he himself
fired the shot.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

279

cartridges in the revolver, which was loaded one. After his return, Sh.
Deen Pal Rai took out the loaded revolver and four cartridges from
under the pillow and took them away with him. He lodged a report
with Police Station Kotwali Mark PW-98/A, Crime No. 160 dated
16.02.1973. He stated the number of his revolver as A-23485. In his
cross-examination PW-98 replied that he had seen Din Pal Rai going
out of the room swiftly. He inquired from him as to why he was
taking his revolver and cartridges, but gave no reply. He raised the
alarm, but no one came there. He did not chase Din Pal Rai, as he was
having a loaded revolver. However, some school teachers came there
and one or two other persons came there. He did not give the number
of his revolver to the police. He purchased the revolver from Kanpur,
but could not remember the name of the shop from where it was
purchased.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

285

Biswas. Mr. Biswas told him that he could not arrange hand grenade
but was trying for it. So, he (PW-1) brought that revolver with two
live cartridges and other 110 cartridges to Chautham and gave all
these to Gopalji. He deposed that after 2-3 days, Vinayanand (PO),
Arteshanand (Since died) and Sudevanand (A-2) also reached at the
house of Gopalji (A-7). There he saw that Vinayanand had brought a
revolver from Ram Kumar, which he (PW-1) had given him on being
brought from Din Pal Rai, Advocate of Azamgarh. Vinayanand gave
that revolver to A-7. At that time, he, Vinayanand, Arteshanand, A-2
and A-7 were present. He further testified that after 1-2 days,
Santoshanand (A-1) also reached there and he told A-1 about articles
he had brought from Bangaon. He also informed A-1 that Mr. Biswas
could not procure hand grenades but was trying for it. A-1 asked him
that he (PW-1) should go again to Bangaon to procure hand grenades
from Mr. Biswas. He (PW-1) informed A-1 that he could understand
Bengali language only a little but cannot speak it.

He (PW-1)

suggested to A-1 that as Vinayanand could understand and speak


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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

298

justification to reject his evidence and the Court should be slow to act
on the testimony of such witness and his evidence has to be read as a
whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached
to the same or not.
218. In view of the law of land declared by the Honble Supreme
Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (supra), this court is not to reject
the testimony of hostile witness and the function of the court is to find
the truth. No doubt, PW-105 has deposed in examination chief the
name of visitor as Mohan instead of Manohar but when crossexamined by Ld. Special P.P., PW-105 could not conceal the truth.
He could not deny if it was Manohar, who stayed there in the factory
for 2 or 3 days. He also could not deny that he informed CBI about
staying of Manohar Darve for 2/3 days, in his previous statement.
25) Shifting of arms to Gulzar Bagh, Patna
219. It is found in the statement of PW-1 that before return of
Vinayanand, Sudevanand and Arteshanand at Chautham, he along
with Santoshanand went to Patna in or about 2nd week of December
1973 in a house which had been taken on rent at Gulzar Bagh.
Arteshanand and Sudevanand were already present there. He further
deposed that arms and ammunitions, which had been kept at
Chautham at Gopalji's house, had been brought at Patna and kept at
the house at Gulzar Bagh. He stated that he used to stay in the same
house whenever he went to Patna.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

299

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

300

Patna, is not disputed, even if PW-1 has not stated in his previous
statement about shifting of arms from Chautham to Gulzar Bagh does
not affect the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, this
improvement claimed by the accused persons made by PW-1 is not
vital to impact the case.
222. There is no force in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that
PW-1 has not disclosed as to how the arms and ammunitions were
shifted from the house of Gopalji at Chautham in the house at Gulzar
Bagh and who was the person involved in shifting the arms and
ammunitions and in which vehicle the same were carried from
Chautham to Patna, since the cross-examination of PW-1 did not
shatter the shifting of arms as deposed by the witness. It is to be kept
in mind that this witness has never claimed having seen the shifting
but as he stayed in this very house at Gulzar Bagh and having seen the
storing of arms and ammunitions, he was competent enough to say so.
26) PW-1 tracking the movements of Bihar CM
223. In the criminal conspiracy that was hatched at Trimohan, PW-1
was assigned duty by Santoshanand to kill Abdul Gaffoor. To execute
the conspiracy to kill Abdul Gaffoor, accused Santoshanand (A-1)
directed PW-1 to watch movements of Abdul Gaffoor. PW-1 further
deposed that A-1 told him that it would take time for Vinayanand to
come back from Bangaon and in the meantime, he (PW-1) should
follow the movements of Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, the then Chief Minister
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

301

of Bihar. He told A-1 that he had not seen Abdul Gaffoor and he
should be shown to him. He asked A-1 to find out where Abdul
Gaffoor was living. Then A-1 brought a photograph of Abdul Gaffoor
from the office of newspaper either 'PRADEEP' or 'Vishwabandhu',
where father of A-1 was working. PW-1 saw the photograph and it
was kept in the house at Gulzar Bagh.

Then accompanied by

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

307

about 18-20 months old and he cannot recognize his elder brother who
became a Sanyasi. He stated his date of birth as 17.08.1962. In his
cross-examination, he stated that name of his brother was Ghanshyam
Prasad. He has denied the suggestion that his father was working in
the editorial staff of PRADEEP newspaper published from Patna.
He has not filed letter of appointment or salary slip etc. to indicate that
his father (Narinder Narain Verma) was working with National
Insurance Company Limited and retired there. Instead of examining
DW-9, accused Santoshanand could have examined the Officer of
National Insurance Company Limited, which is a subsidiary company
of General Insurance Corporation of India, a Government of India
undertaking to prove the alleged employment of his father there in
order to demolish the case of the prosecution. A careful scrutiny of
the deposition of this witness shows that his statement is superfluous
and peripheral in so far as not extirpating the role of Santoshanand
since DW-9 has no trace of knowledge concerning the activities of his
brother who severed the ties and left the home, while DW-9 was still a
child of less than of 2 years. Rather he corroborates the version of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-33 that original name of accused Santoshanand
was Ghanshyam Prasad and his fathers name was Narinder Narain
Verma.
229. From the examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination of
DW-9 one fact remains certain that A-1 is known as Ghanshyam
Prashad with his maiden name and the parentage is confirmed. There
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

308

is no material to believe that the father of A-1 was not a freelancer


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

She also argued that the

photograph of the Chief Minister of a State is easily available and is


displayed in public places and PW-1 could be believed to say that he
told Santoshanand that he had not seen Abdul Gaffoor and he should
be shown to him. It has already come in the testimony of PW-143 that
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

315

when he stated that he knew Sh. Abdul Gaffoor, former MLC and later
became CM of Bihar and used to visit Hotel Republic to meet some
persons like Sh. R.K. Gupta. PW-16 had seen him visiting the Hotel
even in subsequent years 1974-75 and in October/November, 1975.
PW-1 had gone there only to ascertain whether Abdul Gaffoor would
be staying and taking his meal in the Hotel and the answers to the
questions in the cross-examination, corroborates the case of the
prosecution that Abdul Gaffoor has visited even subsequently. It is a
matter of common prudence that when a very important person like
Abdul Gaffoor, a former MLC and Chief Minister visit any particular
place, it makes an impression in the mind of the public at large that
such very important person might be a frequent visitor at that place.
Obviously, accused Santoshanand under that impression deputed PW1 to ascertain staying and taking of meal by Sh. Abdul Gaffoor in
Hotel Republic. In the cross-examination of PW-16, the defence has
not discredited the visits of Abdul Gaffoor in Hotel Republic in the
year 1973 or before that. The testimony of PW-16 as a whole has not
been discredited. As per the deposition of PW-16, Abdul Gaffoor has
been a frequent visitor to Hotel Republic and this corroborates the
information which accused Santoshanand conveyed to PW1 to the
effect that Abdul Gaffoor used to visit Republic Hotel at Patna.
237. PW-17 Sh. Sudershan Banerjee testified that in December 1973,
he was working at reception of Hotel Republic and during the night
intervening 29th and 30th December 1973, he was on duty at
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

316

Reception.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

317

aware of the whereabouts of Sh. Sher Khil. The said bill was prepared
in accordance with the entries made in the Register. He testified that
entry Ex.PW-1/P was found existing in the Visitors Register when he
joined duties as a Receptionist on 29.12.1973 at 10.00 PM. After
perusing the Voucher Ex.PW-1/R, PW-17 stated that this is in the
handwriting of said Sher Khil. About Sh. H.K. Singha he stated that
he might be about 72 or 75 years old and was a heart patient.
238. In the cross-examination of PW-17, he replied that the page
having the entry Ex.PW-1/P must have been in the Register and from
there it must have been taken out. A Visitor coming to the Hotel sign s
in the Visitors Register and entry is made therein by the Visitor and
they would insist in obtaining the signature of the Visitors on the entry
made by the Visitor in the Visitors Register. He identified the entry
Ex.PW-1/P at Serial No. 8025 in the handwriting of Sh. H.K. Singha.
He clarified that the entry in the Visitor Register in respect of a person
coming earlier would be made first and in respect of a person, coming
subsequently would be made later. A receipt was used to be given to a
customer at the time of taking advance from him and a carbon copy
thereof was used to be prepared. In the Cash Voucher, the number of
the receipt regarding the advance is mentioned. After perusing the
Cash Voucher Ex.PW-1/R, he deposed that number of advance receipt
is not mentioned, but reference of bill number is there. The Manager
passes the vouchers and then those are sent in the account section.
Ms. Ghosh was working as an Accountant in the Republic Hotel in
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

318

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

322

to be sent to accounts section. The bill book and third copy used to be
kept at the Reception Counter under the control of the Manager.
Visitors Register used to be maintained at the Reception. At the time
when he handed over the documents to the Bihar Police Officer, he
signed the first and last page of the Visitors Register. The Bihar
Police Officer came to him in his room and he did not contact any of
the before said person. He deposed that Receptionist is not required to
fill all the columns of the Visitors Register. He admitted that on the
sheet of Visitors Register serial numbers are not mentioned despite
having relevant column. He has denied the suggestion that the entry
Ex.PW-1/P is a bogus one or was incorporated subsequently or that it
was not a part of the Visitors Register. He stated voluntarily that there
is a printing of page number on this document (Ex.PW-1/P).

In his

further cross-examination, PW-147 answered that the Bill Book (D154) was regularly maintained. He admitted that in this Bill Book, bill
no. 8031 relates to check out dated 2.1.1973 and bill no. 8032 relates
to check out dated 31.12.1973. He also admitted that the Bill No.
8034 relates to check out dated 03.01.1974, whereas the Bill No. 8035
and 8036 relates to check out dated 01.01.1975. He also admitted that
the Bill No. 8019 in the Bill Book (D-154) relates to the check out
date 02.01.1973 and the Bill No. 8025 Ex.PW-17/A relates to check
out date 30.12.1973.

He has denied the suggestion that between

30.12.1973 and 02.01.1974 only five persons checked out in Hotel


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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

333

verify the Karol Bagh address, given by PW-1 to the Hotel Staff of
Hotel Republic.
249. Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate argued that
Bill Book (containing Bill Ex.PW-17/A) is not maintained in
chronologically and appeared to be fabricated one. The argument of
the Ld. Defence Counsel on the face of it look to be attractive but it
has no force, when bill book is perused very minutely. This bill book
containing Bill Ex.PW-17/A is a bound volume having copies of bills
from serial no.8001 to 8100. These copies of the bills in the said bill
book reflect that the entries in the bill book are made by the date of
arrival of the visitor in the Hotel and bill is issued on the date of
departure. The relevant bill no.8025 Ex.PW-17/A shows that Shankar
Kumar Gupta arrived at the Hotel on 29.12.1973 at 8.35 PM. He
stayed there in Room No.41. His name is mentioned at point Ex.PW17/A-1 and in body of the bill both dates of arrival as 29.12.1973 and
departure as 30.12.1973 are mentioned. On the left top of the bill, it is
mentioned that the visitor paid Rs.50/- in advance and his bill was for
Rs.40.28. This bill was issued on 30.12.1973. The next bill no. 8026
was issued on 3.1.1974 and in the body of the bill the dates of arrival
and departure of the visitor are mentioned as 30.12.1973 and
03.1.1974 respectively. The next three bills referred by Ld. Defence
Counsel in her arguments are 8027, 8028 and 8029, which were issued
on 31.12.1973. But a perusal of the bills shows that date of arrival of
visitors in all these three bills are 30.12.1973 and dates of departure
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

334

are 31.12.1973 and that is why bills were issued on date of departure
i.e. 31.12.1973. Thereafter, the bill no. 8030 is dated 01.1.1973
showing the date of arrival of the visitor on 30.12.1973 and departure
on 1.1.1974. There is a clerical error in issuing this bill dated 1.1.1973
instead of 1.1.1974 as it a matter of common parlance that whenever
1st January or 2 nd January comes the people are habitual in writing the
previous year or continue to write the previous year in the first week
of January of the next year. For this reason, this error has crept in bill
no. 8030 otherwise in the body of the bill, it is clearly reflected that
the visitor has arrived in the Hotel on 30.12.1973 and he made his
departure on 1.1.1974. Then next bill is No.8031 issued on 2.1.1974
and body of the bill shows the date of arrival of the visitor as
30.12.1973 and of departure on 2.1.1974. Similarly, the bills 8032
and 8033 were issued on 31.12.1973 as the date of arrival and
departure of the visitors is same i.e. 31.12.1973. Next bill is 8034, it
was issued on 3.1.1974, and in the body of the bill, the date of arrival
of the visitor is 31.12.1973 and of departure is 3.1.1974. Then next
bill no. 8035 was issued on 1.1.1974 and the body of the bill, date of
arrival and departure of the visitor is the same i.e. 1.1.1974. The
entire bill book shows that the entries in the Bills are entered into by
the hotel staff partly as soon as on the arrival of the visitor. The bill is
issued to the visitor on his departure.

The date of departure is

mentioned at the top of the bill whereas date of arrival and departure
are mentioned in the body of each bill. So, all the bills of Hotel

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

335

Republic contained in Bill Book having Bill No. 8001 to 8100 have
been issued in due course of its business on the date of departure of
the visitors.
250. Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Gulati then argued that the Cash
Voucher Ex.PW-1/R (Q-9) and Visitors Register Ex.PW-1/P and
Ex.PW-1/Q (Q-8) do not bear the signatures of PW-1 as S. K. Gupta.
PW-1 has already admitted the signatures in his own handwriting.
Further, as discussed hereinbefore, this has been corroborated by PW126A, who has also identified these signatures on Cash Vouchers
Ex.PW-1/R and Visitors Register Ex.PW-1/P and Ex.PW-1/Q in the
handwriting of PW-1. Apart from this, specimen writing and
signatures of PW-1 and his admitted writing was compared by GEQD
PW-43, who had given his expert opinion that after comparing the
writing Q-8 and Q-9 with specimen and admitted handwritings of PW1, he came to the conclusion that writer of these writings is same i.e.
PW-1. Thus, there is no force in the submission of Ld. Defence
Counsel. It is further argued that on behalf of accused persons that
PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha did not seize the cash voucher immediately
on his visit on 03.05.1975 when he seized the Bill Book and sheet of
Visitors Register and that after about four months, on 19.09.1975,
PW-129 Sh. Narender Nath Singh seized the Voucher Ex.PW-1/R.
This voucher is in respect of refund of excess amount of Rs. 9.72 to
the visitor Sh. S.K. Gupta vide bill no.8025. It is already mentioned
hereinbefore that on Bill Ex.PW-17/A, it is mentioned that visitor
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

336

Shankar Kumar Gupta had paid Rs.50/- in advance. The bill was for
Rs.40.28 and vide this cash voucher dated 30.12.1973 Ex.PW-1/R, a
sum of Rs.9.72 was refunded to the visitor namely Sh. S.K. Gupta,
who is none as but PW-1.
251. Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that the entire
Visitors Register of Hotel Republic has not been filed and the
prosecution has only filed a loose sheet of the Visitors Register. The
left side part of the loose sheet is Ex.PW-1/P and the right side part of
the sheet Ex.PW-1/Q. She submits that this loose sheet of the Visitors
Register cannot be read into evidence and in support of her
submissions, she has referred Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, which reads as under: 34 (Entries in books of account, including
those maintained in an electronic form) when
relevant: (Entries in books of account, including
those maintained in an electronic form), regularly
kept in the course of business, are relevant
whenever they refer to a matter into which the
Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not
alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person
with liability.
252. The Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon Para No. 16, 17 & 20
of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Central Bureau
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

337

of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla, 1998 (3) SCC 410, wherein Section
34 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 came up for interpretation and the
cited Para of the judgment are as under: 16. From a plain reading of the Section it is
manifest that to make an entry relevant there under
it must be shown that it has been made in a book,
that book is a book of account and that book of
account has been regularly kept in the course of
business. From the above Section, it is also
manifest that even if the above requirements are
fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as
relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein
shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any
person with liability. It is thus seen that while the
first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of
the entry as evidence, the second part speaks, in a
negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging
a person with a liability. It will, therefore, be
necessary for us to first ascertain whether the
entries in the documents, with which we are
concerned, fulfill the requirements of the above
section so as to be admissible in evidence and if
this question is answered in the affirmative then
only its probative value need be assessed.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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".
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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).

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

367

officials would naturally run behind the culprit rather than to observe
the minute details like the colour and fate of the covering cloth or the
fate of empty cartridges. The Ld. Defence Counsel also pointed out
that this witness PW-9 could not give the registration number and
other details of the vehicles, which were following them from Gayaji
to Patna. In fact, at that time, it was never in the mind of the escort
party that Madhavanand could be the target of those persons. The
incident took place at the destination of the escort party i.e.
Collectorate Patna. In the circumstances, when there was no such prior
information about impending attack on Madhavanand on the way from
Gayaji to Patna, there was no occasion for the members of the escort
party including PW-9 to note down the registration numbers and make
of the vehicles, which were following them or sometimes, they were
driving ahead of their jeep. The testimony of PW-9, who is a police
official and a public servant, inspires confidence and the defence in
any manner could not demolish his testimony.
274. PW-10 Sh. Kailash Singh, Hawaldar deposed that in January
1974, he was posted as Driver at Police Line, Gayaji. On 06.1.1974,
at 8.30 PM, he received an order to escort Madhavanand from Central
Jail, Gayaji in Jeep No. BRB-1400 to Collectorate, Patna. Sh. Ram
Prasad Dubey, Jamadar, Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and 4 home guards
accompanied them in the said jeep at 6.00 AM on 7.1.1974. They
brought Madhavanand from Central Jail, Gayaji and proceeded in that
jeep towards Patna via Gaya town, Khijar Sarai, Islampur and Fatua.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

368

They reached office of the Collector, Patna at 10.30 AM. Near Gaya
Town Hospital, one red colour motorcycle, one brown colour jeep and
one station wagon of yellow colour, overtook their jeep. The driver of
that motorcycle was in plain clothes, while another person with
saffron cloth was pillion rider. There were four or five persons in that
jeep and two of them were wearing saffron clothes. Up to Patna, the
said three vehicles sometimes were running ahead of their jeep and
sometime following their jeep. They parked their jeep at the place in
the North of which was the Collector's office and in South of which
was the Treasury Guard Room. Near Treasury Guard Room, he
noticed one Santri (Constable/Guard) on duty besides three or four
other constables basking in the Sun. When they had stopped their
jeep, Madhavanand expressed his desire to urinate and consequently
Chandi Mishra (PW-9) and others escorted him to a drain nearby and
after urination, Madhavanand was brought back to the jeep. He was
made to sit on the front seat of that jeep. At that time, he saw four
persons standing between the office of the Collector and the park on
the road.

One of the four persons, aged about 25-26 years, was

holding a revolver in his left hand. He was wrapping a saffron colour


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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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).
284. In his cross-examination, PW-92 admitted the suggestion of the
defence that the hand grenade of this incident was thrown on
Madhavanand. He deposed that culprit of the crime was sent to Police
Information Room, before recording of FIR. He had shown the culprit
to Madhavanand after five or six hours of registration of the case. He
could not say whether Madhavanand was sent back to jail at 05.00
PM. He did not obtain any specific order from the Magistrate to keep
Madhavanand after 05.00 PM. Since Madhavanand had given the
name of the person apprehended, he was not put for test identification
parade. He has denied the suggestion that the man in the photograph
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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).
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

382

287. In his cross-examination, he replied that when the lever and the
pin are not found in a hand grenade, it is considered dangerous and it
can blast at any movement. He described what a live hand grenade is.
He admitted the suggestion of the defence that in the instant case,
something was not functioning and for that reason, the hand grenade
did not explode. In his presence, civilian police lifted splinters of
hand grenade, base plug, spring etc. at the spot. Lever was lying at the
spot, but it was picked up before the hand grenade was defused.
288. PW-140 Inspector Alok Nath Chatterjee the then Sub Inspector,
Special Branch, Patna deposed that in April 1974, he was SubInspector and posted in the Special Branch, Patna (Bihar). Inspector
Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) was the Investigating Officer of the Patna
Kotwali vide case No. 24 of 1974 (pertaining to attack on
Madhavanand). He deposed that on 5.4.1974, Inspector M.M.P. Sinha
(PW-134) gave him three articles, which were shown to him. He
sealed them in a tin container and that sealed tin container was given
to him. He took that sealed container to the office of Controller of
Explosives at Esplanade, Calcutta. He gave the receipt Ex.PW-140/A
to Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) about that tin container having three
articles. He gave the details of the articles as were given to him by
Inspector Sh. M.M.P. Sinha. (At the time of deposition of PW-140 in
the court, it is observed that one tin container sealed with the seal of
DSJ has been opened, from which fly of Lever Ex.P-138, Base Plug
Ex.P-139 and Broken Spring Ex.P-140 were taken out). He deposed
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

383

that these three articles were Mark as A, B and C, before they were
sealed and Sh. M.M.P. Sinha (PW-134) gave the nomenclature. A
forwarding letter was also given to him by Sh. M.M.P. Sinha along
with a facsimile of seal with that covering letter. He delivered the
sealed tin and covering letter in the office of Controller of Explosive,
Calcutta on 06.04.1974 against a receipt. He further deposed that no
one tampered with the sealed tin and the letter during the period they
remained in his possession. In his cross-examination, PW-140 deposed
that he did have any occasion either before or after that time to take
the articles to the office of Controller of Explosive, Calcutta.
(The Receipt Ex.PW-140/A is available in
Folder R-7)
289. PW-134 Sh. M.M.P. Sinha, Investigating Officer of this case
deposed that in February 1974, he was posted as Inspector
(Intelligence) Branch (also known as Special Branch of Bihar Police)
with Headquarter at Patna. On 28.2.1974, investigations of the case
vide FIR No.24 PS Kotwali was entrusted to him from SI Girija Nand
Singh (PW-92) of PS Kotwali, Patna. Investigation of this case
remained with him from 1.3.1974 to 10.6.1975. He deposed that on
05.04.1974, he arranged to send one sealed parcel containing lever of
a hand grenade, striker with spring etc. of exploded hand grenade to
the Controller of Explosives, Calcutta though SI Alok Nath Chatterjee
(PW-140) for opinion as to whether these were the parts of a service
hand grenade or not.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
available in Folder R-2)
292. Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Sima Gulati argued that as per the
case of the prosecution Madhavanand was brought from Gayaji Jail to
Collectorate, Patna, but no document of Gaya Jail or production
warrant to show that he was being brought to Patna, has been filed by
the prosecution. She also argued that the story of the prosecution is
unbelievable as Madhavanand could have been attacked easily during
the journey from Gaya to Patna as it was a rural area and the distance
between Gayaji & Patna was about 130 KMs, and it was difficult to
attack at a crowded place like Office of Collector, Patna, where there
was no scope to escape after attack. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that
Ram Swarath Singh of Khusrupur Village referred by PW-1 in his
statement, who, had knowledge about the topography of the area, has
not been examined. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that
Madhavanand has not been examined for identification of his assailant
Vinayanand as stated by PW-9 and PW-10 in their respective crossexamination. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that no public person was
joined a witness to the incident of attack on Madhavanand and only
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

389

recovered from them, which goes to show that they had no complicity
with the crime. In my view, recovery of no incriminating material
from the accused cannot alone be taken as a ground to exonerate them
from the charges, more so when their participation in the crime is
unfolded in ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses,
whose evidence has been found by me to be unimpeachable."
Similarly, if only police officials have been examined by the
prosecution, and private witness are not examined, it does not affect
the case of the prosecution, as held in C. Ronald and another Vs.
State, 2011 (12) SCC 428, (Para 21 and 22) by the Honble Supreme
Court.
294. The cumulative effect of the deposition of PW-7 to PW-10
conclusively establishes that an attempt on the life of Madhavanand
had taken place on 07.01.1974 and further the assailant was Vinay @
Vinay Avadhoot (Proclaimed Offender) and he along with his three
henchmen had followed the said Madhavanand, who was being
brought in custody to Patna. It comes to the fore from the testimony
of PW-1 that this Madhavanand is a defector and deserter of the cult,
turning hostile to the interest of the cult by becoming an approver in a
murder case against its founder. Further, this evidence proved from
the testimonies of all these four witnesses regarding an unsuccessful
attempt on the life of Madhavanand corroborates the deposition of
PW-1 as regards the conspiracy hatched in October 1973 at Trimohan
to eliminate Madhavanand by Vinayanand, is believable. It is the
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

390

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

In his further cross-

examination, PW-1 replied that sometimes he writes his name as


Avadhoot

Visheshwaranand,

sometimes

as

Aacharya

Visheshwaranand and sometimes as V. Avadhoot.

The words

"Monthly Report of School" on the reverse side on Ex.PW-1/ZE and


marked X are in his handwriting.

In his cross-examination, he

asserted that there was no other person known by the name of


Visheshwaranand in Anand Marg Organization.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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)

At Page No. 86 of his cross-examination,

PW-1 admitted the suggestion of the defence that


when he joined the Anand Marg, it was not banned
by the Government.
(iii)

At page No. 87 of his cross-examination,

PW-1 testified that when he was appointed


Provincial Secretary of PFI for Madhya Pradesh in
August 1964, he was not given orders in writing.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

423

(iv)

At Page No. 87 of his cross-examination,

PW-1 has admitted the suggestion of the defence


that as Provincial Secretary, he used to deal with
accounts.
(v)

At Page No. 105, PW-1 admitted the

suggestion of the defence, in his cross-examination


that in December 1970, he had wavered and
thought of resigning from the Anand Marg
Organisation. He has denied the suggestion of the
defence that he was asked to leave the organization
forthwith in July 1973 by the General Secretary,
when he was called to Patna. He also denied the
suggestion that his resignation was accepted
immediately and he was asked to leave with bag
and baggage.
(vi)

At Page No. 112-113, PW-1 in his further

cross-examination, has denied the suggestion of


the defence that thinking that in Anand Marg
Organization,

there

were

highly

placed

government servants and he would be able to get


better job by coming in contacts with them, he
joined it.

He has denied the suggestion that for

this reason, he left the government job and joined


Anand Marg Organization for better emoluments.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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)

At Page No. 90 of his cross-examination,

PW-1 further admitted the suggestion of the


defence that he used to send copy of the journal to
the Government. He used to send it by post and
not with a covering letter. (He has stated so in
continuation of his cross-examination at Page No.
88 and 89, when questions are asked by the
defence about the journals Malwa Pahari and
Yodha).
(x)

The accused persons have themselves given

suggestion to the investigating officer Sh. M.M.P.


Sinha

(PW-134)

in

his

cross-examination

admitting the alias name of Madan Mohan


Srivastava as Visheshwaranand. PW-134 has

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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 @
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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 @
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

431

employee of Murariji. Sh. Neel Mohan Singh did not accompany him
and he came there separately. Gopalji has two brothers and a
stepmother and two unmarried sisters and they were all present in the
house.

On asking of police, Gopalji had also signed the Seizure

Memo, but he did not remember whether he signed in English or


Hindi. Seizure Memo was prepared in the Verandah (corridor) of the
house of Gopalji. Gopalji had signed Seizure Memo at the same time
after their signatures. PW-91 further testified that he did not remember
the names of the servants of Gopalji as Gopalji had numerous workers
in the field.

He admitted the suggestion of accused Gopalji that

Gopalji used to give different amount to different persons on demand.


He admitted the suggestion of accused Gopalji that Murariji
transferred some land in his name when Land Ceiling Act was
enforced. PW-91 explained that the land was actually not given to
him, but it was only a paper transaction. He was not aware whether
Murariji and Gopalji were on inimical terms.

He has denied the

suggestion that those documents, which he signed, were not actually


recovered from the house of Gopalji.

He has also denied the

suggestion that after arrest of accused Gopalji, C.B.I. men came to the
house of Murariji at Chautham and stayed over there.
338. The style of cross-examination reflects that the fact of carrying
out the search at the house of Gopalji at Chautham was never
shattered. On the other hand, the search conducted by the IO is further
strengthened since searching questions were made with regard to each
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

433

Tilihar, across the river Kosi. It was never suggested to him that no
meeting of Anand Margies at the residence of Gopalji at Chautham or
farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar, took place. It is also not suggested to
PW-1 that he never stayed at the house of Gopalji at Chautham or at
the farmhouse of Gopalji at Tilihar. It was also not suggested that
question of his visiting Tilihar at the farmhouse does not arise as the
farmhouse had already been washed away due to flood in the River
Kosi in the year 1971-1972. There is no suggestion that Gopalji had
no house near Janta Library, Bhagalpur, nor to the fact that Gopalji
was a resident of Village Burail only. It is also not suggested to PW-1
that arms and ammunitions were not stocked and kept at the house of
Gopalji at Chautham. Rather at page no. 118 and 119 of the crossexamination of PW-1, the defence asked the witness as to where the
decision to keep the arms and ammunitions at Gopaljis house was
taken and PW-1 answered that firstly the matter was considered at
Bhagalpur and finally it was decided after Gopalji met them at
Bhagalpur to be at Chautham. To a question of the defence as to
whether he met Gopalji at his house at Chautham or Bhagalpur, when
it was decided to keep arms at his Chautham house and PW-1 has
replied that this talk had taken place at Bhagalpur. This line of crossexamination also reflects a clear admission by the accused persons in
their question itself put to PW-1.
340. The record reveals that prior to framing of charge, in his second
bail application filed on 14.07.1980 through Sh. P.P. Grover,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

434

Advocate, before the predecessor of this court, Gopalji had mentioned


his name and address as under: Gopalji son of late Shri Baidyanath Prasad Singh,
resident of Village and post office Chautham,
Distt. Monghyer, Bihar.
This is a clear admission of the accused Gopalji that he had been a
resident of Village Chautham throughout.
341. Accused had not put their defence in the cross-examination of
PW-1 running into 144 pages that Gopalji was a resident of Burail or
that farmhouse at Tilihar was already washed away in the River Kosi
in the year 1971-1972. They had also not put their defence to PW-1 in
his cross-examination that the house at Chautham and farmhouse at
Tilihar belong to maternal grandmother of Gopalji

namely Smt.

Nageshwari Devi or that Gopalji only used to visit his maternal


grandmother, stepmother and stepbrothers and sisters there at
Chautham. The next opportunity, which was available to accused
persons in this regard, was deposition of PW-2 and they have also not
put their defence to PW-2 that Gopalji had no house at Chautham or
farmhouse at Tilihar. Rather, the line of cross-examination of PW-2
suggests that the Gopalji is a resident of Village Chautham. The third
earliest available opportunity, which accused persons including
accused Gopalji had when they cross-examined PW-91 and they have
not disputed the case of the prosecution that Gopalji was a resident of
Chautham or that he had a house at Chautham. They have also not put
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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)
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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: -

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
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?

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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?
Ans. It is incorrect.
Q.86 It is further in evidence against you that
before leaving for Chautham, Madan Mohan
Srivastava handed over arms and ammunition
including the revolver to Santoshanand and that he
(Madan Mohan Srivastava) arrived at Chautham
by bus on 7.1.1974. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. In fact in the year 1974 there
was no bus route connection with Chautham.
False story has been concocted.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.

On 7.1.1974 I was not

present at Chautham and there was no question


of hearing any such news at my residence. It is
a false story.
Q.88 It is in evidence against you that on 8.1.1974
you arrived at Chautham with the Newspaper
which carried the details of unsuccessful attempt
on the life of Madhvanand and you suggested that
place of storing arms and ammunition be
shifted from Chautham to Gopalji's farm house
at Tilihar, which was on the other side of Kosi
river. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.

I was not present at

Chautham on 8.1.1974 also and there was no


question of my having talked anybody and had
nothing to do with any attempt on the life of
Madhavanand or storing of

the arms and

ammunitions. All allegations are false.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
Q.100 It is in evidence that M.M. Srivastava
came to your house on 7.2.1974 at Chautham,
took Rs.100/- from you and ultimately came to
Lahariya Sarai to meet Sham Lal Dass, who had
given Sadhna to him. What have you to say?

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
What have you to say?
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
What have you to say?
Ans.: Three persons came in the Flat of my uncle
MLA and arrested me and again said that those
were 3 or 4 persons. Again said on that day at
about 6 a.m. one person came in the Flat of my
MLA uncle and knocked it and it was opened by
body guard of my uncle and he was asking the

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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?

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
What have you to say?

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

473

away by the police, Sh. Baras Lal Sahu, Gauri Shankar Chaudhary,
Bhaskar Mishra apart from him and Uma Shankar Singh were present.
Gopalji was taken by the police at about 06.00 or 06.15 AM. He
could not say whether he was taken away by the police or CBI, but
they were in plain clothes. He could not explain as to why Gopalji
was present at the flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh. He deposed that till
the date of deposition in the court on 19.12.2008, he never disclosed to
anyone that Gopalji was taken away by the police in his presence from
R-Block, Patna. He further testified that he has come to depose in the
court on asking of Samrender Narain Singh (DW-42), who is the
cousin of accused Gopalji and son of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, MLC.
He visited CBI office after 2-3 days of Gopalji's arrest. He met two or
four persons in CBI office and they did not tell him whereabouts of
Gopalji.
365. It is elicited from the deposition of DW-31 that he had been
servant of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh and had come to the court on
asking of Sh. Samrender Narain Singh (DW-42), who is none other
than the cousin of Gopalji. This witness is unreliable since he has not
disclosed the shifting of Gopalji from MLA's residence ever since the
date of incident to anyone nor did he protest or enquired. I find that he
is an interested and biased witness and has made deposition to favour
accused Gopalji, who is admittedly a cousin of Samrender Narain
Singh (DW-42), with whose father, DW-31 claimed to be the servant.
Moreover, in his deposition it comes out that at the time of the alleged
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

474

arrest of Gopalji from the flat of Sh. Uma Shankar Singh at Patna, Sh.
Baras Lal Sahu, Gauri Shankar Chaudhary, Bhaskar Mishra and Uma
Shankar Singh were present, who have not been examined by the
accused Gopalji.

In view of this discussion, I do not find his

testimony worth inspiring confidence.


366. DW-32 Sh. Krishna Kumar Singh of Village Chautham deposed
that in his presence no search was carried out by the police in the
house of maternal grandfather of accused Gopalji.

In his cross-

examination, it is elicited that it takes about 10 minutes on foot to


reach house of maternal grandfather of accused Gopalji from his own
house. He also admitted that while coming from outside the Village,
his house does not fall on the way, if one is to reach the house of
maternal grandfather of Gopalji. He stated that he came to depose in
the court on asking of one Chunnu Babu, who is the stepbrother of
accused Gopalji.

The testimony of this witness, does not in any

manner, help the accused persons including Gopalji since it is not


mandated upon the authorities or the investigating agency to intimate
this witness or to carry out their duties.
367. DW-41 Sh. Bhupendra Narain Singh, a resident of District
Bhatinda, Punjab deposed that he had been Personal Assistant of Sh.
Uma Shankar Singh, MLA, Supaul from 1973 to 1977. He used to
live in the flat of said Sh. Uma Shankar Singh at Patna. It has come in
his testimony that on 17.05.1975, police officials visited the said flat
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

476

accused Gopalji was being taken away. He is not sure whether the
letter was written to the Minister or Officer and copy of the letter was
also not filed. Admittedly, DW-41 claimed to be Personal Assistant of
Sh. Uma Shankar Singh, a Legislator, related to accused Gopalji.
Neither the dispatch register nor the copy of the alleged letter has been
placed on record. It appears that he has made the statement on the
request of accused Gopalji to favour him.

I find that he is an

interested and biased witness. His testimony does not appear to this
court, to be trustworthy since no documentary evidence is adduced to
have protested the illegal arrest of Gopalji from Patna.
368. DW-42 Sh. Samrender Narain Singh is cousin of accused
Gopalji deposed that accused Gopalji is his cousin. They have studied
together up to 8th standard. His father Sh. Uma Shankar Singh had
been MLA for the period from 1967 to 1977. On 15.05.1975, he
along with Gopalji had arrived at Patna to meet his father about his
advice regarding mango crop. On 17.05.1975 at about 05.30 AM, he
and Bhupender Narain Singh (DW-41) had gone for a morning walk.
While they were returning at a distance of about 250 yards from the
tea kiosk, they met Dhruv Prasad, ADM, who was going towards
MLA flat. They saw one police vehicle parked near MLAs flat.
They saw four persons holding the hands of Gopalji. The vehicle had
already been started by its driver. It was 06.00 or 06.15 AM, when
police vehicle left the place. His father also came down from first
floor along with Barish Lal Saha, Bhaskar Mishra and Gauri Shankar
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

477

Chaudhary.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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)
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

502

original name was Surya Prakash, hailing from District Unnao, U.P.
Santoshanand told him that Sudevanand had changed his name as Ram
Chander and Bharat.
397. PW-2 clearly testified that A-1 gave him one packet duly
packed and one letter in a closed envelope for delivery to
Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. A-1 advised him that whereabouts
of Budheshawaranand should be enquired from the Principal of Anand
Marg Primary School, Bhagalpur. He testified that the packet and the
letter were given to him by A-1 at about 03.00 or 04.00 PM near
PUSA Institute in the presence of PW-13 for its delivery to
Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur. On the same day, he left for
Bhagalpur along with the packet and the letter, reached Bhagalpur by
train at 1 Oclock at night. He stayed at the platform during night.
The next morning, he went to Anand Marg Primary School, where he
met Chitbhashanand, Principal of the School and on his request,
Budheshawaranand was called there. Previously Budheshawaranand
used to clad himself like an Avadhoot but on that day, he was seen in
plain clothes with hair cut short and beard shaved. He (PW-2) gave
him that packet and letter. Budheshawaranand kept the packet in a
thaila (bag), which was opened and closed by a zip. Sh. Sukhdev
Sahu (PW-15) had rented a room where Budheshawaranand was
living with him. He stayed in that room for 8/10 days and after 1 or 2
days, Budheshawaranand brought him to Chautham at the house of
Gopalji and met him. He (PW-2) correctly identified Gopalji in the
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

503

court by pointing towards him. He did not know him (Gopalji) prior
to that. At a distance of 5 or 7 KMs, Gopalji had a farmhouse at
Tilihar and Budheshawaranand introduced Gopalji and PW-2 as a
confident members of Revolutionary Group and informed A-7 that
PW-2 had been sent there by A-1. He stayed at Chautham for one day
and then he came back to Bhagalpur with Budheshawaranand. He
deposed that Budheshawaranand told him that in case of any
emergency, he could come to Gopalji for help.

He stayed at

Bhagalpur for one or two days after his return from Chautham.
398. In his cross-examination, PW-2 answered that he had not stated
before ACMM in his statement under Section 164 Cr. PC that at that
time when he met him in the market of South Extension Part-1, A-1
was sporting short moustaches and hair and that he was wearing
hearing aid. He clarified that he had mentioned that he was in plain
clothes. He replied that A-1 told that there should be armed revolution
and when he was confronted with his previous statement before the
Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. PC, the word used are Kranti and
not Shashastra Kranti. He had stated before the Magistrate in his
statement under Section 164 Cr. PC that A-1 gave him a packet and a
letter, but he has not stated that the packet was duly packed and the
envelope was closed. The packet was wrapped in a cloth piece and it
appeared that there were papers underneath the cloth cover. He replied
that he had mentioned the name of the Principal of Anand Marg
Primary School, Bhagalpur in his statement Ex.PW-2/L, but when he
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

504

was confronted with his previous statement, the name of the Principal
was not found recorded. He had not stated in Ex.PW-2/L that
Budheshawaranand had his haircut short and beard shaved and that he
was in plain clothes. He deposed that it was 12.00 Noon or 01.00 PM,
when Budheshawaranand met him in the school premises at Bhagalpur
and at that time, he handed over the letter and packet to
Budheshawaranand. It was 3rd or 4th of July 1974, when
Budheshawaranand met him in the Primary School, Bhagalpur. He
has not stated before the Magistrate that Sukhdev Sahu had rented a
room, in which Budheshawaranand was living or that he had stayed in
his room for 8/10 days.

In his previous statement, it was found

recorded that he lived with Budheshawaranand. He had not stated


before the Magistrate that he was introduced to Gopalji by
Budheshawaranand

as a confident and devoted member of

Revolutionary Group. When confronted with statement Ex.PW-2/L, it


was found mentioned that he was introduced with Gopalji. In his
further cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he did not remember
the room number of Shiv Raj Singh (PW-13).
399. The testimony of PW-2 that he went to meet A-1 in IARI, Pusa,
New Delhi, where A-1 handed over him a letter and packet to be
delivered to Budheshawaranand at Bhagalpur and that he got his beard
shaved and hair short cut is corroborated by PW-13. I have already
discussed the introductory deposition of PW-13 about his shifting to
Delhi in September 1972, his stay in the hostel room of IARI, Pusa up
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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,
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

507

the testimony of PW-2 has been corroborated by the version of PW13. As this witness has no axe to grind against the accused and further
being an independent person employed by the government, but a
sympathizer of the cult, his testimony is found cogent and trustworthy.
36) Pamphlets of Revolutionary Message.
402. PW-2 further testified that on his visit to Bhagalpur, he
accompanied Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh to Baidyanath
Printing Press there.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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


CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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.
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

518

prepared, seven papers were found in that bag, and Darogaji signed on
all those papers. (During deposition of PW-24, two sealed parcels
with the seal of Explosive Inspector, Calcutta, were opened and the
same were found to contain three hand grenades, having pins and lever
Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13. On opening of another sealed parcel, it
was found to contain Revolver Ex.P-14, two cartridges Ex.P-15 and
Ex.P-16 and these were the same, which were taken out from that
bag.) He would be in a position to identify the photograph of the man,
who was apprehended and Ex.P-3 is the photograph of that person.
He also identified the Bag Ex.P-7, which was with that man whose
photograph is Ex.P-3. He stated that the person, whose photograph is
Ex.P-3, is dead and that person, whose photograph is Ex.P-3, gave his
name as Suresh Singh, again as Ramesh Singh and again as Suraj
Prakaksh and that person was taken to P.S. Brari.
415. In his cross-examination, PW-24 answered that he had seen the
person who escaped from Maqbara in Police Station Kotwali about
one year and few days after incident. He replied that Maqbara is
about 18 feet in height.

This is visible from the road of Brari.

Sometimes, he had seen some children on the roof of Maqbara from


the Western side road of Brari Chowk, Khanjarpur. He and SI Ram
Aadhar Ram (PW-25) had gone upstairs on Maqbara. The roof of that
Maqbara might be 75 X 75 and there are four domes on that
Maqbara. They were in uniform. The width of the stairs might be
about two feet. He (PW-24) started chasing the person, who was
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

519

running towards East and that person has run away using the stairs.
He could not apprehend him. There was no electricity in the stairs.
He had given the description of that person escaped to Darogaji. In
his further cross-examination, he deposed that they had not given any
beating to the person, who was apprehended by them at the Maqbara.
He has denied the suggestion that they had given him beatings and the
person became unable to speak. He deposed that the person secured
by them along with the bag containing the said articles, received minor
injuries on his shoulder in the process of apprehending him. There
was no bleeding. They remained at the spot till 02.00 PM. No cash
was recovered from the personal search of the person secured.
416. Perusal of the testimony of PW-24 reflect that his deposition
about recovery of aforesaid Bag Ex.P-7 containing three hand
grenades, one pistol with two cartridges etc. from the person of
Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh has not been belied. His testimony
identifying PW-2 Vikram and photograph Ex.P-3 in the court remains
unrebutted.
417. PW-25 Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram, Officer Incharge, P.S.
Brari, District Bhagalpur deposed that on 13.7.1974 at about 9.30 or
9.45 AM, he received information that some strangers have come to
Maqbara Khanjarpur. He took PW-24 with him at 10 AM, from
Chhotti Khanjarpur Chowk and reached Maqbara Khanjarpur. On the
way to Maqbara, he informed PW-24 about their purpose of going
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

520

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.

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

521

The person apprehended by him, initially gave his name as Suresh and
thereafter as Suraj Prakash and again as Budheshawaranand and that
man is dead and he identified the photograph of the person
apprehended from whom the recovery was effected to be Ex.P-3. He
prepared the rukka Ex.PW-25/G in his own handwriting and it bears
his signatures and endorsement Ex.PW-25/G-1 on the rukka is in his
handwriting and bears his signatures, which was sent by him to Police
Station Kotwali. The three hand grenades were sent by him to Expert
at Calcutta for examination with a forwarding letter Ex.PW-25/H and
it bears his signatures at Point A.
418. The letters Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B seized from persons
at Maqbara were given to him by PW-15 when PW-2 accompanied by
Amar Singh went to PW-15. Ex.P-3 is photograph, which has been
identified by PW-1 and PW-2 as that of Tyageshwaranand @
Budheshawaranand @ Amar Singh. This photograph Ex.P-3 is of the
person, who has been identified to be Amar Singh by PW-36
Baidyanath Parshad Sinha. When he was apprehended at Maqbara by
PW-25 Inspector Ram Aadhar Ram, he gave his name as Suresh
Singh, then Ramesh Singh, then Suraj Prakash and also as
Budheshawaranand.
419. In his cross-examination, PW-25 admitted the suggestion of the
defence that it is correctly written in the rukka Ex.PW-25/G at point A
to A that person apprehended received minor injuries while he was
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

522

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

CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.


Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

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
CBI Vs. Santoshanand etc.
Decided on 08th December 2014.

Vinod Goel
D&SJ (Shahdara)
Page No.

525

Incharge, Barari, PW-25. All three hand grenades were found by him
without any Ignitor Sets. Both the detonators of the Ignitor Sets were
used up during test at Barari P.S. and he handed over three hand
grenades to Officer Incharge, Barari with advise to send the same to
the