Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
PARAM HANS YADAV & SADANAND TRIPATHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT25/02/1987
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
DUTT, M.M. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 955 1987 SCR (2) 405
1987 SCC (2) 197 JT 1987 (1) 595
1987 SCALE (1)426
ACT:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872:ss.24 & 30--Confession of a
co-accused--Not Substantive evidence against other co-
accused in the trial--Can be used only for lending assurance
to other substantive evidence--Extra-judicial confession
made following assault--Neither voluntary nor natural.
Indian Penal Code, 1860:s.302 read with s. 120-B--Death
sentence-Direct evidence--Accused caught red-handed--Con-
fessed to his crime--Conviction and sentence upheld--Crime
whether committed at the behest of co-accused--Where prose-
cution relies upon circumstantial evidence a clear link to
be established and the chain completed to prove conspiracy.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants were alleged to have conspired to kill
the Collector-cure-District Magistrate. The latter died in a
bomb attack by the first accused appellant. He was caught
red-handed and when given a beating by eye-witnesses he
readily confessed to his guilt, but gave out that he had
committed the ghastly murder at the behest of the second
appellant, who was at that material time detained in jail.
He made a similar confession before the Magistrate. They
were both convicted under s.302 read with s. 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. Their sentence was
confirmed by the High Court.
Disposing of the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. There was direct evidence of first appellant’s
involvement in the crime and he had also confessed to his
guilt. There was, therefore, no justification to take a view
different from what has been said about him by the High
Court. His conviction as also sentence shall stand. [408F-G]
2.1 The prosecution has failed to establish by circum-
stantial evidence the complicity of the second appellant in
the conspiracy to kill the Collector through the first
accused. He was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt
and his conviction was not sustainable. [413D]
406
2.2 Where the prosecution relies upon circumstantial
evidence to support the charge of conspiracy, a clear link
has to be established and the chain has to be complete,
otherwise it would indeed be hazardous to accept a part of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
the link as the complete one. On the basis of such incom-
plete circumstantial evidence, the allegation of conspiracy
cannot be accepted. [413C]
3.1 The confession of a co-accused is not substantive
evidence against other co-accused persons in the same trial
but could only be used for lending reassurance if there be
any other substantive evidence to be utilised or acted upon.
[411C]
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] SCR
526 and Hari Chand Kurmi & Anr. v. State of Bihar, [1964] 6
SCR 623, referred to.
3.2 The judicial confession of the main accused in the
instant case was exculpatory in nature and, therefore, would
not be admissible against the co-accused. It has, to be kept
out of consideration. [410A-B]
3.3 The extra-judicial confession of the main accused
relates to the point of time contemporaneous to the inci-
dent. There was evidence that he was beaten up badly after
being apprehended by the mob soon after the bomb burst.
Several prosecution witnesses have spoken about his confes-
sion before them. There was clear material that he was
manhandled. [410B-C]
3.4 In his statement recorded under s.164 of the Code on
13.4.1983, the main accused denied to have made any state-
ment following his apprehension. Even accepting the prosecu-
tion story that he made this statement, he appears to have
made the statement following assault on him. Even if it is
accepted that he has made the statements as alleged, the
same cannot be utilised against the co-accused. Obviously
when the accused was beaten up, he must have been anxious to
ensure that the assault stopped. His plea in such a situa-
tion would neither be voluntary nor natural. It would not be
proper to rely upon the same for any purpose. [410H; 411A-B]
4. The 2nd appellant might have had grudge against the
Collector for his detention as also for the demolition of
his Ashram. That must have been the common reaction of all
the ashramites, including the co-accused. This could not,
therefore, be a feature to supply motive for establishing
conspiracy. [412C-D]
407
5.1 Several witnesses were examined to show that the
main accused was very close to the co-accused. But the
source of their knowledge appeared to be statement of the
main accused and independently they had no personal knowl-
edge of the fact. [412B-C]
5.2 P.W.4, who testified that during his interview with
his wife in the same jail, he had overheard the alleged
conversation between the accused and the 2nd appellant, was
himself a convict in three cases of murder. His wife, who
was a material witness has not been examined in the case.
Adverse inference, has to be drawn against the prosecution
for not doing so. [413A-B]
5.3 This type of evidence, even if accepted, does not
establish conspiracy because the accused being a follower of
the 2nd appellant, a religious preacher, he was likely in
the usual course to meet the latter and the fact that they
were meeting at regular intervals by itself would not estab-
lish conspiracy. [412F]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
423-425 of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.1986 of the Patna
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
High Court in Death Reference No. 3 of 1984 and in Crl.
Appeal No. 676, 647 and 627 of 1984.
R.L. Kohli and S.P. Singh for the Appellants.
Jaya Narayan and D. Goburdhan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. These appeals by special leave are
directed against a common judgment of the Patna High Court
rendered in Death Reference 3 of 1984 and Criminal Appeal
No. 627,647 and 676 of 1984. Each of the appellants in the
two appeals has been sentenced to death under section 302
read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Appellant Yadav has independently been convicted under
section 302 of the Code and has been sentenced to death. He
has also been convicted under section 3 of the Explosive
Substance Act and has been sentenced to ten years’ rigorous
imprisonment. Two other accused persons who had been put on
trial along with the appellants were
408
acquitted by the trial court and their acquittal has become
final.
Mahesh Narain Prasad Sharma, the victim, was a Member of
the Indian Administrative Service and was posted as Collec-
tor and District Magistrate of Gopalganj District in the
State of Bihar on the 11th of April, 1983 Mahesh Narain went
to his court to work in the morning and after he finished
his work, both he and his brother, P.W.62, who was waiting
in the chamber of the victim started going down from the
first floor of the Collectorate to reach the portico where
the Collector’s car was parked. Mahesh Prasad was followed
by his Orderly-Peon, P.W. 19, and his brother one after the
other. When the deceased came on the landing, Yadav who was
following them suddenly took out a bomb from the bag which
he held and threw it at the Collector. The bomb exploded
with a loud noise and as a result of the burst Mahesh Prasad
fell rolling on the ground and part of his body was blown
off. Yadav jumped off from the stairs through the side
railing but was chased by P.W.62 and others and was appre-
hended near a fruit stall. He readily confessed to his guilt
but gave out that he had committed the ghastly murder at the
behest of appellant Tripathi. According to Yadav, Tripathi
had prevailed upon him to kill the Collector by way of
retaliation for demolishing the Ashram after getting Tripa-
thi detained in jail. Yadav further maintained that Sadiq,
one of the accused persons, had supplied the bomb to him.
P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, who was attracted to the
scene by the sound of the bomb burst recorded the first
information given by P.W.62, arrested Yadav and sent him to
Gopalganj Police Station.
At the trial, 75 witnesses were examined for the prose-
cution. Out of them, the evidence of 14 had been tendered.
So far as Yadav is concerned, there was direct evidence of
his involvement and he had also confessed to his guilt.
Special leave, so far as he is concerned, is limited to the
question of sentence. We have, therefore, heard learned
counsel for Yadav on the question of sentence and see no
justification to take a view different from what has been
said about him by the High Court. His appeal, therefore, is
dismissed and his conviction as also sentence as awarded by
the trial court and confirmed by the High Court shall stand.
We shall now deal with the appeal filed by Sadanand
Tripathi. Sadanand came from a poor family and started his
career as a Bus Conductor. While in employment, he obtained
the Degree in Law and started practice as a lawyer in Uttar
Pradesh for some time. Thereafter, he started giving reli-
gious discourses and styled himself as Sant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
409
Gyaneshwar Maharaj. He tried to make his followers believe
that he had seen God and if they followed him and his
preachings, they too could see God. Soon he picked up con-
siderable following. He used to tell his followers that they
should surrender their body, wealth and mind so that the
prospect of seeing God would be bright. He encroached upon a
plot of Government land and built his Ashram thereon. As he
had easy access to resources, the Ashram got fitted with all
modern amenities. Soon his followers, however, started
realizing that they had been duped and tricked and began to
withdraw from him. Sadanand had employed a band of muscle
men to carry out his nefarious designs. His followers often
became apprehensive of their own security and approached the
local authorities for protection. The Ashram, as the prose-
cution has tried to show, turned into a den of criminals.
Ultimately the authorities raided the Ashram, recovered
bombs and several other objectionable articles therefrom.
Sadanand and many others were taken into custody on
10.7.1982. The deceased, Mahesh Prasad, who was Collector of
Gopalganj made an order under the Crime Control Act detain-
ing Sadanand in jail. Eviction proceedings from the en-
croached land had already been undertaken. On 14.7.1982 the
Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the
Ashram and on 15th July, 1982, the entire structure of the
Ashram was demolished under the direct supervision of the
Collector.
It is not disputed that from th July, 1982 Sadanand had
continuously been detained in jail till the Collector’s
murder on 11.4.1983. In view of this fact, the prosecution
has relied upon the allegation of conspiracy, confession and
other features to establish the complicity of Sadanand in
the murder of the Collector.
There are two confessions--a judicial confession before
a Magistrate, being Exhibit 44 and the other is extra judi-
cial confession. Dealing with Exhibit 44, the High Court has
observed:-
"So far as the confession before the Magis-
trate, Exhibit 44, is concerned, the trial
court has itself, hesitatingly, accepted the
same. From the confession I find that it was
in the nature of the cross-examination which
is not permissible under the law and has been
depricated by the Supreme Court and different
courts of the country. Mr. Pandey, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has
fairly submitted that Exhibit 44 cannot be
used in this case. Therefore, it has to be
excluded from consideration."
410
Before us Mr. Jai Narain for the State initially placed
reliance on the confession but later conceded that apart
from what the High Court has observed with regard to the
confession, it appeared to be exculpatory in nature and,
therefore, would not be admissible against the co-accused.
In these circumstances, the judicial confession has to be
kept out of considerations.
Coming to the extra judicial confession it has to be
remembered that the same related to the point of time con-
temporaneous to the incident. There is evidence that Yadav
was beaten up badly after being apprehended by the mob soon
after the bomb burst. Several prosecution witnesses have
spoken about Yadav confession before them. There is clear
material that Yadav was man-handled. P.W.3 has stated:-
"He was held by me and other persons chasing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
him. We began to assault him and make en-
quiries from him. Then the said person himself
said, ’why you people are assaulting me. I
have killed the Collector by bomb at the
orders of Guru Sant Gyaneshwar and one bomb
has been left in the Jhola".
P.W. 10 stated:
"The people who caught of him began to assault
him and began to ask him why has he killed the
Collector. On being asked, he replied that he
had killed the Collector under the orders of
Baba ................"
P.W. 11 stated:-
"On being caught hold of, he was assaulted
with slaps, fists and asked as to why he did
so. On being asked, the said person replied
that he had hit the Collector by bomb at the
orders of Guru."
Several other witnesses have also spoken in the same trend
about Yadav being assaulted by the angry mob soon after his
apprehension. It is a fact that a set of witnesses who,
according to the prosecution, were present when Yadav was
taken into custody following the incident, have not spoken
about any confession. They are P.Ws. 5, 12, 15, 40 and 57.
In his own statement recorded under section 164 of the Code
on 13.4.1983, Yadav denied to have made any statement fol-
low-
411
ing his apprehension. Even accepting the prosecution story
that Yadav made this statement, he appears to have made the
statement following assault on him. Even if it is accepted
that Yadav has made the statements as alleged, can the same
be utilised against Sadanand is the next aspect for consid-
eration. Obviously, when Yadav was beaten up, he must have
been anxious to ensure that the assault stopped. His plea in
such a situation would neither be voluntary nor natural. It
would not be proper to rely upon the same for any purpose.
It is well-settled that the confession of a co-accused
is not substantive evidence against other co-accused persons
in the same trial. As this Court pointed out in Kashmira
Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] SCR 526 the confes-
sion of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against the
other accused persons at the trial but could only be used
for lending reassurance if there by any other substantive
evidence to be utilised or acted upon.
In Hari Charan Kurmi & Anr. v. State of Bihar, [1964] 6
SCR 623 this Court observed:-
"Thus, the confession may be regarded as
evidence in that generic sense because of the
provisions of section 30, the fact remains
that it is not evidence as defined by section
3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that
in dealing with a case against an accused
person, the Court cannot start with the con-
fession of a co-accused person; it must begin
with other evidence adduced by the prosecution
and after it has formed its opinion with
regard to the quality and effect of the said
evidence, then it is permissible to turn to
the confession in order to receive assurance
to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial
mind is about to reach on the said other
evidence."
"........... that the confession of
a co-accused person cannot be treated as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
substantive evidence and can be pressed into
service only when the court is inclined to
accept other evidence and feels the necessity
of seeking for an assurance in support of its
conclusion deducible from the said evidence ."
It is now to be found out if apart from the confession
there is any substantive evidence from which the prosecution
can have support for its case. According to the prosecution,
Yadav was staying with
412
Sadanand in the Ashram. Learned counsel for Sadanand has
argued that the prosecution evidence on this score should be
rejected as when on 10th July, 1982 Sadanand was taken into
custody following the raid on the Ashram, Yadav was not
found there. Again on the 15th when the Ashram was demol-
ished and most of the inmates were taken into custody, Yadav
was not arrested.
Several other witnesses were examined to show that Yadav
was very close to Sadanand. But as has been rightly pointed
out the source of their knowledge appeared to be statement
of Yadav and independently they had no personal knowledge of
the fact.
Prosecution sought to place reliance upon motive. Un-
doubtedly, Sadanand must have had grudge against the Collec-
tor for his detention as also for the demolition of the
Ashram. As a matter of fact, that must have been the common
reaction of all the ashramites including Yadav and Sadiq.
Thus, this could not be a feature to supply the link for
establishing conspiracy.
Prosecution also relied upon a feature, which if accept-
ed, could provide some link between the two for the commis-
sion of the offence. According to the prosecution, Yadav was
regularly visiting Sadanand at the jail. The jail records do
not support such visits. According to the prosecution case,
Yadav was bribing the jail officials for meeting Sadanand.
The prosecution has further led evidence to show that after
the arrival of Sadanand at the jail, enforcement of rules
became slack and there was a regular flow of food from
outside. Jail officials were also entertained by Sadanand.
This type of evidence, even if accepted, does not establish
conspiracy because Yadav, being a follower, was likely in
the usual course to meet Sadanand and the fact that they
were meeting at regular intervals by itself would not estab-
lish conspiracy. Prosecution relied on an event of 11th
April, 1983 by examining P.W.4. This witness who was a
convict staying in the same jail stated that his wife had an
interview with him in the jail by paying bribe of Rs.2 or
Rs.3 on 11.4.1983. While he was talking to his wife, he saw
accused Yadav talking to Sadanand. He over-heard Yadav
telling Tripathi that his work would be done within an hour
or so. Sadanand appeared to be happy on being told so. P.W.4
has admitted that he has been convicted in three cases of
murder and several dacoities. It appears that by then he had
some pending cases against him where final reports were
later given by the police. His wife who was a material
witness has not been examined in the case.
413
Obviously, as the jail records did not show that P.W.4
had an interview with his wife that day, the story of brib-
ing the jail officials has been introduced. We are prepared
to accept the criticism of counsel for the appellant that if
the wife had been called she would not have supported the
version that she met her husband P.W.4 on that day. Adverse
inference for not examining the wife has to be drawn against
the prosecution. This would thus be the net position.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
It is true as argued by Mr. Jai Narain for the State
that it is difficult to support the charge of conspiracy
with direct evidence in every case but if the prosecution
relies upon circumstantial evidence, a clear link has to be
established and the chain has to be completed, otherwise it
would indeed be hazardous to accept a part of the link as a
complete one and on the basis of such incomplete evidence,
the allegation of conspiracy cannot be accepted. Keeping the
nature of the offence in view and the conclusions drawn by
the High Court, we have not been able to agree with the High
Court that the prosecution has established by circumstantial
evidence the complicity of Sadanand in the conspiracy to
kill the Collector through Yadav. In these circumstances,
Sadanand has become entitled to the benefit of our doubts
and his conviction is not sustainable. His appeal has to be
allowed. He is acquitted and is directed to be set at liber-
ty forthwith.
Before we part with the case, we must point out that in
a case involving the killing of the District Magistrate in
his office, better investigation was expected and the State
should have taken great care to ensure that every loophole
in the investigation was plugged at the fight time in ac-
cordance with law. It is unfortunate that lapses have oc-
curred.
P.S.S. Appeals dis-
posed of.
414