TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stopped at the intersection of Tilak Marg and Bhagwan Dass road, at a stone throw distance from the Supreme Court of India, two live hand grenades were lobbed inside the car. Fortunately, the grenades did not explode and the occupants of the car, including the Chief Justice of India, escaped unharmed. 3. A case was registered and investigation was started by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police. But, as the police investigation did not make much headway, on June 30, 1975 the case was handed over to the CBI. On the same day, one Santoshanand Avadhoot (Appellant in Criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) 6625 of 2006) was arrested followed by the arrest of an advocate, namely, Ranjan Dwivedi (Appellant in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6800/2006) on July 6, 1975. 4. Here, it may be noted that about two and a half months before the attempt on the life of the Chief Justice of India, Shri L.N. Mishra, the Minister of Railways in the Union Cabinet was killed in a bomb blast taking place during a function on the platform of Samastipur Railway Station. In connection with that case, Sudevanand Avadhoot (Appellant in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 64 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. After the Appellants' trial was over, and they were convicted and sentenced by the trial court, as noted above, and after they had filed their appeals before the High Court against the judgment and order passed by the trial court, certain developments took place in the L.N. Mishra murder case. That case was also investigated by the CBI and in that case too Sudevanand and Santoshanand (along with others) were accused and in that case also Vikram was granted pardon on becoming an Approver. According to his statements made before the Magistrates both the killing of L.N. Mishra and the attempt on the life of Chief Justice of India were parts of a larger conspiracy, at the instance of the same organisation and a common group of persons. 9. On August 30, 1978, the Chief Minister of Bihar wrote a highly confidential letter to the Prime Minister of India, a copy of which was endorsed to the DIG (CID) Bihar. In pursuance of the Chief Minister's letter, the DIG (CID) is said to have made an inquiry into the circumstances in which Vikram @ Jaladhar Das had made the confessional statement and was tendered pardon to become Approver. Following the enquiry, on September 30, 1978 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case Vikram was examined by the prosecution as PW.2 and in course of his deposition before the court he said that the statement made by him at Danapur jail was not voluntary but he was forced to make the statement under coercion and threats by the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary and Home Secretary, Government of Bihar and the SP and the DSP in the State Police. He said in his deposition before the court that his statement in jail was made on the basis of a statement prepared and given to him in writing by the State Government officers. 12. Coming back to the Appellant's appeal pending before the Delhi High Court, both Sudevanand and Santoshanand were released on bail in 1986 after remaining in jail for almost 11 years. In 1997-1998, that is to say 11 years after coming out of jail, the Appellants filed three criminal miscellaneous applications in the pending appeals. Criminal miscellaneous application No. 5786/97 was filed on September 24, 1997 praying to call for and taking on the appeal record the statement made by Vikram, the Approver, in Danapur jail on September 30, 1978, the affidavits of the officials of the Bihar Government filed in the transfer petition before this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 30, 1978 would cause grave prejudice to the Appellants and would lead to a miscarriage of justice. Mr. Lahoty stated that the accused in the L.N. Mishra murder case had earlier come to this Court for quashing the trial proceedings and their appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1987) was heard along with the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay and was disposed of by a common judgment reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. In paragraph 98 of the judgment, the Court noted the submission made on behalf of the Appellants that a very unusual feature of the case was the exchange of charges and counter charges between the CBI and the Bihar (CID) of false implication and frame up against each other. According to the Bihar (CID), the CBI was guilty of frame up against the members of Anand Marg, while according to CBI, the Bihar (CID) had been deliberately proceeding against innocent persons while letting of the real culprits. Mr. Lahoty submitted that as a result of the Central Investigating Agency and the State Investigating Agency acting at cross purpose, the case had become highly murky to the great detriment of the Appellants. He further submitted that in that situation if the Appellants are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on September 30, 1978. Learned Counsel submitted that Vikram had made his confessional statements completely voluntarily and on three different occasions. He was produced before the Magistrate on August 14, 1975 for recording his statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. He was then produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 22, 1975 for recording his statement for grant of pardon under Section 306 Code of Criminal Procedure. Finally, he was produced before the trial court as PW.1 where he was examined first by the prosecution and was then subjected to a lengthy cross-examination on behalf of the accused. On none of the three occasions he made the slightest complaint that his statements were obtained under coercion or threats. He was also produced before the Magistrate many times for the purpose of remand and for other purposes, such as taking cognizance, commitment of the case to the court of Sessions and also before the trial court where the trial proceeded and got concluded and at no point of time he gave any indication that his statements/evidence were given under any coercion, threats or inducement. 21. Mr. Dey also submitted that the statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Juvenile Court. In the Juvenile Court, he gave evidence to the effect that he was not aware of the persons who had attacked him and on hearing the voice of the assailants, he assumed that they were some Banjaras. Upon recalling, PW.2 Mokam Singh was confronted with the evidence he had given later before the Juvenile Court on the basis of which the accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for having made an attempt on the life of this witness. 6. In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge was not strictly in accordance with law. Once the witness was examined-in-chief and cross-examined fully, such witness should not have been recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the court, even though that witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other court or forum subsequently. A witness could be confronted only with a previous statement made by him. At the time of examination of PW.2 Mokam Singh on 6.2.1991, there was no such previous statement and the defence counsel did not confront him with any statement alleged to have been made previously. This witness must have given some oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o application and the procedure adopted by the trial court was not strictly in accordance with law. Now, the interpretation of a legal provision and its application to a set of facts are two different exercises requiring different approaches. 'Interpretation' means the action of explaining the meaning of something. For interpreting a statutory provision, the court is required to have an insight into the provision and unfold its meaning by means of the well-established canons of interpretation, having regard to the object, purpose, historicism of the law and several other well-known factors. But, what is important to bear in mind is that the interpretation of a legal provision is always independent of the facts of any given case. 'Application' means the practical use or relevance (of something to something); the application of a statutory provision, therefore, is by definition case related and as opposed to interpretation, the application or non-application of a statutory provision would always depend on the exact facts of a given case. Anyone associated with the process of adjudication fully knows that even the slightest difference in the facts of two cases can make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Vikram is false. But unlike Mishrilal or Hanuman Ram where the Court was able to sense without difficulty that the witnesses' depositions before the Juvenile Court and the Children's Court respectively were false, it is very difficult to say at this stage which of the statements is true and which of the statement was made under the influence, threat or coercion by the State officials or the CBI. The position may be clear in case he is subjected to further examination with reference to his statement made in Danapur jail on September 30, 1978. 29. The matter may be looked at from another angle. Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. provides as follows: 391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken.' (1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or, when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate. (2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal record. 33. In light of the discussions made above, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was in error in refusing to summon Vikram, the Approver (PW.1) for his further examination as prayed for on behalf of the Appellants. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the High Court order and direct the High Court to summon Vikram (PW.1) for his further examination by the Appellants and if so desired by the CBI. For the sake of convenience, the High Court may direct a member of the Registry of the rank of a Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge to record the additional evidence of Vikram (PW.1). The examination of the witness by the Appellants and the CBI must not go beyond two working days each so that the recording of his evidence should be complete in not more than four days. The Registrar recording the evidence would certify it and place before the Court and the Court shall then proceed to dispose of the appeals. 34. The appeals are thus allowed. 35. Before parting with the record of the case we are constrained to say that we are distressed beyond words to find that the case relating to the attempt on the life of the CJI remains stuck up at the stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
