LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws. This blog is only for information but not for legal opinions

Just for legal information but not form as legal opinion

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, October 11, 2013

ELECTIONS = Introduction of EVMs with VVPAT system in Elections for transparency - DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40874

Introduction of EVMs with VVPAT  system  ensure
the accuracy  of  the  voting  system.  Necessary directions for implementation and  for necessary amendments in R.P. Act =

whereby the High Court  disposed  of  the
petition by  disallowing  the  prayer  made  by  the  appellant  herein  for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Election  Commission  of  India
(ECI)-Respondent herein  to  incorporate  a  system  of  “paper  trail/paper
receipt” in the Electronic Voting Machines  (EVMs)  as  a  convincing  proof
that the EVM has rightly registered the vote cast by a voter in favour of  a
particular candidate. =

From the materials placed by both the sides,  we  are  satisfied  that
the  “paper  trail”  is  an  indispensable  requirement  of  free  and  fair
elections.  The confidence of the voters in the EVMs can  be  achieved  only
with the introduction of the “paper trail”.  EVMs with VVPAT  system  ensure
the accuracy  of  the  voting  system.   With  an  intent  to  have  fullest
transparency in the system and to restore the confidence of the  voters,  it
is necessary to set up EVMs with VVPAT system because vote  is  nothing  but
an act of expression which has immense importance in democratic system.
30)   In the light  of  the  above  discussion  and  taking  notice  of  the
pragmatic and reasonable approach of the ECI and considering the  fact  that
in general elections all over India, the ECI has to handle one million  (ten
lakhs) polling booths, we permit the ECI to introduce the  same  in  gradual
stages or geographical-wise in the ensuing  general  elections.   The  area,
State or actual booth(s) are to be decided by the ECI and the  ECI  is  free
to implement the same in a phased manner.  We  appreciate  the  efforts  and
good gesture made by the ECI in introducing the same.
31)   For implementation of such a system (VVPAT) in a  phased  manner,  the
Government of India is directed to  provide  required  financial  assistance
for procurement of units of VVPAT.
32)   Before parting with the case,  we  record  our  appreciation  for  the
efforts made by Dr. Subramanian Swamy as well as the ECI, in particular  Mr.
Ashok Desai and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the ECI.
33)   With the above directions,  the  appeal  and  the  writ  petition  are
disposed of.   No  separate  order  is  required  in  the  applications  for
intervention.  Both sides are permitted to approach this Court  for  further
direction(s), if need arises.

                                                                  REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      1


                                      2


                       3 CIVIL APPEAL NO.9093 OF 2013


              4 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13735 of 2012)




Dr. Subramanian Swamy                   .... Appellant(s)

            Versus

Election Commission of India                 .... Respondent(s)

                                    WITH

                      WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 406 OF 2012



                               J U D G M E N T


P. Sathasivam, CJI.
1)    Leave granted.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 13735 of 2012
2)     This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated
17.01.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of  Delhi  at  New
Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 11879 of 2009 whereby the High Court  disposed  of  the
petition by  disallowing  the  prayer  made  by  the  appellant  herein  for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Election  Commission  of  India
(ECI)-Respondent herein  to  incorporate  a  system  of  “paper  trail/paper
receipt” in the Electronic Voting Machines  (EVMs)  as  a  convincing  proof
that the EVM has rightly registered the vote cast by a voter in favour of  a
particular candidate.
3)    Being aggrieved of the above, the present appeal  has  been  filed  by
way of special leave.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2012
4)    One Rajendra Satyanarayan Gilda has filed this  Writ  Petition,  under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a  writ  of
mandamus/direction(s) directing the  Union  of  India,  the  Chief  Election
Commissioner and the Technical Experts Committee-Respondent Nos. 1-3  herein
respectively to effect the necessary modifications in  the  EVMs  so  as  to
allow the voters  to  verify  their  respective  votes  and  to  attach  the
printers to the EVMs with a facility to print  the  running  record  of  the
votes for the purpose of verification  by  the  voters  in  the  process  of
voting.  He also prayed for a direction to frame guidelines  and  to  effect
necessary amendments in the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
5)    In view of the pendency of the appeal filed by Dr. Subramanian  Swamy,
this Court issued notice in the writ  petition  and  tagged  with  the  said
appeal.
6)    Heard Dr. Subramanian Swamy, appellant-in-person in  the  appeal,  Dr.
R.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the writ  petitioner,  Mr.  Ashok  Desai
and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the ECI.
Contentions:
7)    Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the  appellant  herein  contended  before  this
Court that the present system of EVMs, as utilized in the last  few  general
elections in India, does not meet all the requirements of the  international
standards and though the ECI maintains that  the  EVMs  cannot  be  tampered
with, but the fact is that EVMs, like all electronic  equipments,  are  open
to hacking.
8)    The appellant has further highlighted that the instant  matter  arises
out of the refusal of the ECI to incorporate a certain obvious safeguard  in
the EVMs called “paper backup”, “paper receipt” or “paper trail”,  presently
in use and mandated in some countries  like  USA,  which  would  easily  and
cheaply meet the requirement of proof that the EVM  has  rightly  registered
the vote cast by a voter.
The appellant has further  highlighted  that  the
“paper trail” system is to supplement the procedure of  voting  as  in  this
procedure, after recording a vote in the EVM, a  print  out  will  come  out
which will appraise the voter that his vote has been rightly registered  and
the same will be deposited in a box which can only be used  by  the  ECI  in
case of election dispute.
9)    It is the categorical stand of  the  appellant  that  the  above  said
system will bring more accuracy in the present system and  if  a  particular
election is  challenged  on  the  ground  that  some  particular  identified
voter’s voter or the votes of a group of voters  have  been  suppressed/have
not been correctly assigned by the EVMs, the accepted current  procedure  is
for a re-run of the same  EVMs  for  a  re-count,  however,  under  the  new
procedure, a re-count will be of the receipts in the ballot  box  containing
the printouts the EVMs  had  issued  to  the  voter  thereby  ensuring  more
transparency in the process.
10)   The writ petitioner has also raised similar contentions  as  those  of
Dr. Swamy.  According to the petitioner, in the  present  system  of  voting
through EVMs, there is no such facility by which  a  voter  can  verify  and
confirm his own voting.  At present, a  voter  presses  a  button  only  but
cannot ascertain the actual voting.  He is not  sure
 whether  his  vote  is
recorded or not, if recorded, whether  it  is  recorded  in  favour  of  the
person to whom it was intended or not.  Whether it is valid or  invalid  and
whether it is counted or not.   It  is  submitted  by  the  petitioner  that
unless and until answers to these  questions  are  personally  seen  by  the
voter, it cannot be said that voting is made  by  him  because  “pressing  a
button of choice and getting flashed the red-light” is not actual voting  in
real  sense  unless  the  voter  knows  well  that  what  has  happened   in
consequence of pressing a button of his choice from the EVMs.
Stand of the Election Commission of India:
11)   Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel for  the  ECI  submitted  that
the apprehension that EVMs could be tampered with is baseless.  It was  also
informed to this Court that the ECI has been exploring  the  possibility  of
incorporating a viable Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system  as
a part of  the  presently  used  EVMs  to  make  the  election  system  more
transparent.  Further, it was brought to our notice that the  ECI  conducted
field trials for VVPAT system  earlier  also  but  the  same  had  not  been
successful and were discontinued.  The ECI also filed  a  counter  affidavit
stating that the EVMs provided by the Commission are  of  such  a  high  end
technology that it cannot be hacked.
12) Referring to Section 61A of the Representation of the People Act,  1951,
it is submitted that the Statute itself provides for recording of  votes  by
EVMs and the ECI has been given the discretion  to  prescribe  recording  of
votes by such EVMs as it may deem fit.  This discretion has to be  exercised
in a manner to preserve the sanctity of  the  election  process  and  ensure
that the election is conducted in a free  and  fair  manner.   The  ECI  has
exercised due diligence to ensure that EVMs so used are “tamper  proof”  and
it is also in the process of exploring to incorporate VVPAT system which  is
compatible with the present EVMs used by it.  It is asserted that  there  is
no instance of tampering with EVMs so far by anyone.
13)   It is further submitted that the EVMs used in  India  are  unique  and
unlike the ones used in the elections in USA and other countries, which  are
personal computer based.
 EVMs deployed by the  ECI  have  been  lauded  not
only in India but also abroad.  
EVM’s Control Unit  retains  in  the  memory
each vote recorded elector-wise.  
The information stored in  the  memory  of
the Control Unit can be retrieved by using a  device  called  the  “decoder”
which, when attached  to  the  Control  Unit  of  EVM,  can  print  out  the
statement of voting data showing the order in which  each  voter  has  voted
and to whom he has voted.
14)   Insofar as the transparency of the election process  as  well  as  the
right of a voter to know
whether his vote has  actually  been  recorded  for
the candidate for whom it was cast is concerned, it  is  submitted  that  as
soon as a vote is recorded by a voter by pressing the  “candidate’s”  button
on the Ballot Unit, a light  glows  against  the  name  and  symbol  of  the
candidate, which the voter can see for himself/ herself. 
 This is  a  visual
(electronic) assurance to the voter that the candidate for whom he has  cast
his vote has actually got that vote.  Thereafter,  the  light  goes  off  to
protect the secrecy of voting.
15)   It is further submitted that  the  feasibility  of  VVPAT  system  was
sought to be  explored  to  by  various  political  parties  and  they  were
explained  the  technical  and  administrative  safeguards.  
The  ECI  also
constituted a Technical Experts Committee to examine the  viability  of  the
VVPAT  system.  
On  27.05.2011,  the  Technical  Experts  Committee,  after
discussion with political parties and civil society members and  also  after
seeing the demonstration of the prototype VVPAT  system  developed  by  M/s.
Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) and  M/s.  Electronics  Corporation  of  India
Ltd. (ECIL), recommended that a field test of  the  prototype  VVPAT  system
should be carried out in a simulated election under different  environmental
conditions in Jaisalmer,  Thiruvananthapuram,  Delhi,  Leh  and  Cherapunji.

The ECI also held  further  meetings  with  the  manufacturers  of  EVMs  on
various dates to fine tune the system and  expedite  the  follow  up  action
required.  Several meetings were also held  with  the  Expert  Committee  on
VVPAT system.
16)   In wider fulfillment of the objectives of the  field  trial,  the  ECI
has  requested  the  National  and  State  parties   to   extend   necessary
cooperation by getting involved in  the  trial  process  actively  and  also
witness the trial in order to have a first hand experience  of  the  system.

The ECI has also requested the individuals including  the  appellant  –  Dr.
Subramanian Swamy and the groups, who have been engaged with the ECI on  the
issue of EVM-VVPAT, to witness the trial.
17) We have carefully perused the  relevant  materials  and  considered  the
rival contentions.
Discussion
18)    When  the  matter  was  listed  before  this  Court  for  hearing  on
27.09.2012, Mr. Ashok Desai had brought  to  our  notice  that  the  ECI  is
contemplating foolproof method in EVMs for which  they  are  taking  various
steps in consultation with the Technical Experts Committee and the views  of
all recognized political parties.  Mr. Desai also promised to appraise  this
Court about the deliberations and the ultimate decision to be taken by  them
in this regard.  Accordingly, this Court granted sufficient time to the  ECI
to file Status Report regarding introduction of VVPAT system in EVMs  to  be
used in the elections.
19)   Pursuant to the directions of this  Court,  the  ECI  filed  a  Status
Report on the developments of VVPAT system.  In the said  report,  the  ECI,
citing various technicalities, prayed for further time to  make  the  system
more robust for the field conditions.
20)   On 15.12.2012, M/s BEL, Bangalore filed a report  showing  the  status
of development of  VVPAT  system  which  contains  changes  that  have  been
carried out in VVPAT from September to December,  2012  and  also  furnished
chronological changes made in VVPAT system after  the  field  trial  of  the
VVPAT system held in July and August, 2012.
21)   Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the  Secretary,  ECI,  filed
an affidavit highlighting the following steps/ information:
           “(i)  That vide its Affidavit dated 14.01.2013,  the  Commission
           had filed the status report regarding introduction of the  VVPAT
           system in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
           (ii)  That  subsequently,  in  the  Technical  Expert  Committee
           meeting held on 04.02.2013, the Committee approved the design of
           the VVPAT and decided that software fine tuning will be done and
           completed by the end of  February,  2013,  and  modified  design
           specifications  will  be  submitted  to  the  Technical   Expert
           Committee for approval.
           The Committee also recommended that the Commission may for using
           the VVPAT and that the VVPAT should be tried in a bye-election.
           (iii) That in the Technical Expert  Committee  meeting  held  on
           19.02.2013, the Committee finalized the VVPAT design.
           The manufacturers, namely, M/s. Bharat Electronics  Limited  and
           M/s. Electronics Corporation of India Limited  have  quoted  Rs.
           16,200/- (excluding duties, taxes  and  transport  charges)  per
           VVPAT system.
           The Commission has decided to purchase sufficient units of VVPAT
           for  trials  in  a  Bye-election,  at  an  approximate  cost  of
           Rs.72,90,000/-  (Rupees  seventy  two  lakh   ninety   thousand)
           approximately.
           (iv)   It  is  submitted  that  the  Commission   will   require
           approximately 13 lakh VVPAT units to be manufactures for 13 lakh
           EVMs presently available and roughly about Rs. 1690 crores  (One
           Thousand  Six  Hundred  Ninety  Crores)(i.e.  13  lakh  units  x
           Rs.13,000  per  unit)  are   required   for   the   purpose   of
           implementation of the  VVPAT  system  taking  into  account  the
           possible reduction in the cost per unit when produced in bulk.
           (v)   It is further submitted that in order to implement the new
           system the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 will require  certain
           amendments.
           In this connection, vide letter No. 3/1/2013/Vol.II/SDR/86 dated
           28.03.2013,  the  Commission  has   informed   the   Legislative
           Department of the Ministry of Law and  Justice  inter  alia  the
           various amendments required to the relevant parts of  Rules  49A
           to 49X, 66A, 55C, 56C, 57C  and  Form  17C  of  the  Conduct  of
           Elections Rules, 1961, as well as introduction of Rules 49MA and
           56D in the said Rules…
           (vi)  That the Commission has called for a meeting  of  all  the
           recognized National and State Parties on 10th May, 2013 for  the
           purpose  of  demonstration  of  VVPAT  unit  to  them  and   for
           discussion with them for eliciting their views regarding use  of
           VVPAT system in the elections.  The petitioner herein and others
           interested in the matter would also be invited at the meeting.”

22)   It is seen from the records that after various deliberations with  the
experts and persons concerned with the  technology,  the  Technical  Experts
Committee approved the final design of VVPAT units in its  meeting  held  on
19.01.2013.
 In order to meet the directions of this Court  and  for  proper
execution of VVPAT system, as noticed above, the ECI  in  its  letter  dated
28.03.2013, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India,  Ministry
of Law and Justice stated that necessary ground work for  amendment  to  the
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (in relevant parts  in  Rules  49A  to  49X,
66A, 55C, 56C, 57C and Form 17C) may be made so that the  amendment  to  the
Rules can be notified immediately which will  enable  the  ECI  to  use  the
VVPAT system in bye-elections in consultation with  the  political  parties.
By placing all those materials, the ECI requested the Ministry  of  Law  and
Justice for drafting and notifying amendment Rules expeditiously.
23)   From the materials placed by the ECI, it is noted  that  the  purchase
order has been placed with M/s BEL and M/s ECIL for supplying  150  and  300
VVPAT units respectively at Rs. 16,200/- per  unit  excluding  excise  duty,
sales tax and transportation etc. costing Rs.  72,90,000/-  (approx.).   The
ECI has also highlighted that if the VVPAT  systems  are  ultimately  to  be
used with all the 13 lakh EVMs available, the total cost in the purchase  of
VVPAT units may come to about Rs. 1,690  crores,  taking  into  account  the
possible reduction in the cost per unit due to bulk production the cost  may
come to Rs. 13,000/- per unit approximately.
24)   The affidavit dated 21.08.2013, filed on  behalf  of  the  ECI,  shows
that the Ministry of Law and Justice,  on  24.07.2013,  referred  the  draft
notification to amend the Conduct of Election Rules,  1961  to  provide  for
use of VVPAT system of elections to the ECI  for  its  views  and  comments.
The ECI suggested certain minor modifications in the draft notification  and
sent the same back to the Ministry of Law and Justice on 02.08.2013  with  a
request to notify the amendment Rules at  the  earliest.   Accordingly,  the
Ministry of Law and Justice  notified  the  amendments  to  the  Conduct  of
Election Rules, 1961 in the Gazette of  India  vide  notification  No.  S.O.
2470(E) dated 14.08.2013 to enable use of VVPAT with EVMs.
25)      The aforesaid affidavit of the ECI also  shows  that  the  ECI  had
also convened a meeting of all the recognized National and  State  political
parties on 10.05.2013 and  demonstrated  before  their  representatives  the
working of VVPAT system.  Separately, on the same day, the ECI also  held  a
meeting with  individuals  including  the  appellant  herein  who  had  been
engaged with the ECI over the past several years regarding  the  functioning
of  EVMs.   VVPAT   system   was   demonstrated   before   them   as   well.
Representatives of political parties and other individuals  expressed  their
satisfaction over the VVPAT system.
Thereafter, the ECI had decided to  use
the  VVPAT  system  in  the  bye-election  from  51-Noksen   (ST)   Assembly
Constituency in the State of Nagaland.  Instructions  were  issued  to  hold
special meetings with the contesting  candidates  in  that  constituency  to
brief them about the use of VVPAT system.  The ECI  also  organized  special
training sessions for poll officers for the use  of  VVPAT  and  steps  were
taken to educate the electors for the same.
26)   After various hearings, when the matter was  heard  on  4.10.2013,  an
affidavit dated 01.10.2013 filed on behalf of  the  ECI  was  placed  before
this  Court.   The  said  affidavit  was  filed  to  place  on  record   the
performance/result of the introduction of  the  VVPAT  system  in  the  bye-
election from 51-Noksen (ST) Assembly Constituency  of  Nagaland  for  which
the poll was conducted on 04.09.2013 indicating the future course of  action
to be decided by the  ECI  on  the  basis  of  said  performance.   By  this
affidavit, it was brought to our notice that since VVPAT  system  was  being
used for the first time, the ECI has decided that intensive  training  shall
be given  to  the  polling  officers.   Members  of  the  Technical  Experts
Committee of the ECI also went to supervise training and the actual  use  of
VVPAT in the bye-election.  It is further stated that  the  ECI  also  wrote
letters  to  all  the  recognized  political  parties  and  other   persons,
including the appellant  herein,  engaged  with  the  ECI  on  this  subject
inviting them to witness the use of  VVPAT.   It  is  also  brought  to  our
notice that VVPAT was successfully used in all the 21  polling  stations  of
51-Noksen (ST) Assembly Constituency of Nagaland.  It was also  stated  that
as per the Rules, the paper slips of VVPAT shall  not  be  counted  normally
except  in  case  the  Returning  Officer  decides  to  count  them  on   an
application submitted by  any  of  the  candidates.   However,  since  VVPAT
system was being used for the first time in any election,  the  ECI  decided
on its own to  count  paper  slips  of  VVPAT  in  respect  of  all  polling
stations.  According to the  ECI,  no  discrepancy  was  found  between  the
electronic and paper count.
27)   In the said affidavit, it is finally stated that the ECI  has  decided
to increase the use of VVPAT units in a phased manner and for  this  purpose
the ECI has already written to the Government of India, Ministry of Law  and
Justice to issue administrative and financial sanction  for  procurement  of
20,000 units of VVPAT (10,000 each from M/s BEL and M/s ECIL) costing  about
Rs. 38.01 crore.
28)   Though initially the ECI was little reluctant  in  introducing  “paper
trail” by use of VVPAT, taking note  of  the  advantage  in  the  system  as
demonstrated by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, we issued several directions  to  the
ECI .  Pursuant to the  same,  the  ECI  contacted  several  expert  bodies,
technical advisers, etc.  They also had various meetings with  National  and
State level political parties,  demonstrations  were  conducted  at  various
places and finally after a thorough examination and full  discussion,  VVPAT
was used successfully in all the  21  polling  stations  of  51-Noksen  (ST)
Assembly Constituency of Nagaland.  The information furnished  by  the  ECI,
through the affidavit dated 01.10.2013, clearly shows that VVPAT  system  is
a successful one.  We have already highlighted that VVPAT  is  a  system  of
printing paper trail when the voter casts  his  vote,  in  addition  to  the
electronic record of the ballot, for the  purpose  of  verification  of  his
choice of candidate and also  for  manual  counting  of  votes  in  case  of
dispute.
29)   From the materials placed by both the sides,  we  are  satisfied  that
the  “paper  trail”  is  an  indispensable  requirement  of  free  and  fair
elections.  The confidence of the voters in the EVMs can  be  achieved  only
with the introduction of the “paper trail”.  EVMs with VVPAT  system  ensure
the accuracy  of  the  voting  system.   With  an  intent  to  have  fullest
transparency in the system and to restore the confidence of the  voters,  it
is necessary to set up EVMs with VVPAT system because vote  is  nothing  but
an act of expression which has immense importance in democratic system.
30)   In the light  of  the  above  discussion  and  taking  notice  of  the
pragmatic and reasonable approach of the ECI and considering the  fact  that
in general elections all over India, the ECI has to handle one million  (ten
lakhs) polling booths, we permit the ECI to introduce the  same  in  gradual
stages or geographical-wise in the ensuing  general  elections.   The  area,
State or actual booth(s) are to be decided by the ECI and the  ECI  is  free
to implement the same in a phased manner.  We  appreciate  the  efforts  and
good gesture made by the ECI in introducing the same.
31)   For implementation of such a system (VVPAT) in a  phased  manner,  the
Government of India is directed to  provide  required  financial  assistance
for procurement of units of VVPAT.
32)   Before parting with the case,  we  record  our  appreciation  for  the
efforts made by Dr. Subramanian Swamy as well as the ECI, in particular  Mr.
Ashok Desai and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the ECI.
33)   With the above directions,  the  appeal  and  the  writ  petition  are
disposed of.   No  separate  order  is  required  in  the  applications  for
intervention.  Both sides are permitted to approach this Court  for  further
direction(s), if need arises.


                            ...…………….…………………………CJI


                               (P. SATHASIVAM)







                              .…....…………………………………J.


                              (RANJAN GOGOI)



NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 8, 2013.
-----------------------
19


Under Sec. 304 Part II of IPC - sentence reduced to 7 years from life - KUNWAR PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40870

Sec. 304 Part II of IPC = Using guns in marriage ceremonies even though prohibited - when caused death of a person who gathered in the marriage ceremony, the accused is liable to be punished under sec. 304 Part II of the IPC. but not under rash and negligent act under sec. 304 A of IPC  due to absence of intention to kill that particular person =

 In the present case, we are of the view that the appellant  is  guilty
of committing the act which caused the death of the deceased since  the  act
was done with the knowledge that is it likely  to  cause  death  within  the
 meaning of Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
 In  the  circumstances,  the
appeal is allowed in part, however, we reduce the sentence imposed upon  the
 appellant  to  a  period  of  7  (seven)  years  without  making  any
alteration in the fine amount imposed by the trial court  and  confirmed  by
the High Court.


                                                   REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 1643   OF 2013
               [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2792 of 2013]




Kunwar Pal                                                  …. Appellant


                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                      …. Respondent






                                 1 JUDGMENT




S. A. BOBDE, J.


        1.  The  appellant  has  approached  this  Court  challenging   the
           concurrent finding  of  the  Trial  Court  and  the  High  Court
           convicting and sentencing  him  to  rigorous  life  imprisonment
           under Section 304 of the Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  [for  short
           ‘IPC’] and imposing a  fine  of  Rs.  1,000/-,  in  default,  to
           undergo further imprisonment for one year.
        2. According to the prosecution the appellant is guilty of the said
           offence for   having caused the death of one Ramayan Prasad, who
           was present in the marriage ceremony of one Kaushalya,  daughter
           of Shyam Sunder.  
The incident took place  on  22.05.1998
           in the courtyard (aangan) inside  the  house  of  Shyam  Sunder,
           father of the bride, where around  30  people  were  present  to
           attend the ceremony while about 60 people were outside the house
           having snacks.
The appellant was sitting at one side of the
           courtyard in the verandah on a trunk box.
Four persons, namely,
           Hanuman Prasad,  Ram  Sewak,  Mangal  Singh  and  the  appellant
           –Kunwar Pal, had brought double   barrel  guns,  ostensibly  for
           celebration. 
Ramayan Prasad   prohibited them  from  firing  but
           they did not listen.  
Due to negligent  firing  a  cartridge
           hit the neck of the deceased, who fell down.  
The  deceased  was
           taken to Gadarpur  Government Hospital  in  a  Tractor
           Trolley where a doctor declared him dead.
Ram Sewak  ran
           away from the spot  leaving behind his double  barrel  gun.
         
Mangal Singh ran away  with  his  double  barrel  gun.  
Hanuman
           Prasad and the appellant did not run away.
3.     A first information report (FIR) was lodged on the same day  i.e.  on
22.05.1998  by  one  Kamlesh   Kumar   nephew   of   Ramayan   Prasad,   the
deceased.
In the FIR the informant alleged that three persons  had brought
guns and though prohibited they fired their gun.  Due to negligent firing  a cartridge hit the neck of the Ramayan Prasad, who  fell  down.  
The  person
who fired and the other instigators were caught by the villagers,  who  beat
them.  He named the appellant – Kunwar Pal.  He  further  stated  that  from
one barrel of the gun one empty cartridge  was  found  and  from  the  other
 barrel a live cartridge was found.  He further stated that  Ram  Sewak  and
Mangal Singh, who were Barati, had fired from their guns and ran away.  Ram
Sewak left behind his gun at the spot.
4. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet  was  filed  naming
the appellant and one Hanuman Prasad under Section  304  read  with  Section
120-B IPC.
5.  The learned trial Judge recorded the evidence and heard the  matter  and
convicted the  appellant  as  aforesaid  on  the  basis  of  the  statements
recorded from PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6.   
The  High  Court  dismissed
the appeal carried by  the  appellant  and  confirmed  the  finding  of  the
learned Trial Judge.
 6.   Shri  Jayant  Bhushan,  learned  senior  counsel,  appearing  for  the
  appellant submitted that the impugned judgment as well as the judgment  of
the Trial Court is erroneous and illegal.
According to the learned  counsel
no   attempt was made by the prosecution  to  co-relate  the  fatal  shot,
which killed Ramayan Prasad with the gun of  the  appellant.   No  Ballistic
Expert was  consulted.
 According  to  the  learned  counsel  this  was
crucial since even     according  to  the  prosecution  3  people  had  been
firing from their gun and there was absolutely no motive for  the  appellant
to kill Ramayan Prasad.   
Assuming without admitting that the appellant  was
guilty no reasons   whatsoever have been recorded  by  the  High  Court
for coming to the  conclusion that  the  appellant  is  liable  to  be
convicted and sentenced under Part I of Section 304 of the  IPC  instead  of
Part II of that section.   
Without prejudice it is  submitted  assuming
that the appellant is responsible for causing the death of the  deceased  it
can only be attributed to a rash and negligent act  within  the  meaning  of
Section 304A of the IPC.  
 On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the
prosecution supported the conviction and  sentence.  According  to  the
learned counsel it is established that the  appellant  was  carrying
a gun and had fired it.
There was no reason for him to carry  a  gun  to  a
celebration of a marriage and it has been rightly found that he did so  only with the intention of killing.
7.  We have heard the learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  perused  the
record.
The prosecution has mainly relied on the FIR and the deposition  of
PW-2, who is the nephew of the deceased and PW-1, who was the priest  called
for performing the marriage rites.
A perusal of the evidence  of  PW-2,  who
also lodged the FIR, shows that at least 3 persons were firing from 3  guns.
Though they were prohibited by his uncle, they continued firing.  One  shot hit the neck of his uncle.  
Ram Sewak ran  away  leaving  his  gun.   Mangal
Singh  ran  away  with  his  gun.   He  identified  the  gun  used  by   the
appellant.  He also stated that one empty and one live cartridge were  found
in the barrels of gun  of  Ram  Kunwar.   
He  stated  that  his  uncle,  the
deceased, was sitting facing the east and  he  was  sitting  facing  the
west.  From this evidence, it is not at all clear that he saw the  appellant
or anyone else firing.  He does not say he saw. 
 It  is  difficult  to  read
the deposition of this witness to mean that he saw the appellant  firing  at
his uncle or anyone else  in  particular.   The  witness  does  not
state where the other persons, who were also firing,  were  located  and  in
which direction they were firing.
8.   PW-1, the priest, states that he was invited to  perform  the  marriage
rituals of the daughter of Shyam Sunder and the incident took place  in  the
courtyard where the wedding rituals were to be performed.  He  deposed  that
he heard firing and in two-three minutes a shot  from  Kunwar  Pal  hit  the
right side of neck of the deceased.  This  happened  though  Ramayan  Prasad
had asked the gun toting guests not to fire.   According  to  this  witness,
the appellant was instigated by Ram  Sewak  and  Hanuman  Prasad  to
fire.
Thereafter accused Ram Sewak and Hanuman Prasad were  caught  with  a
gun on the spot.  It is difficult from  the  evidence  of  this  witness  to
infer the veracity of his claim that it was  the  cartridge  of  Kunwar  Pal
that hit the deceased. 
 He does not say whether all those firing  from
their gun were in his field of vision  and  whether  he  was  watching  each
person.
At another place he said that he was waiting for the bride when  he
“heard” the sound of fire.  He did not say he saw  the  firing.   PW-6,  the
investigating officer, deposed that he identified  the  live  cartridge  and
empty cartridge shown to him and that  he  obtained  the  statement  of  FIR
writer, namely, Rishi Pal Singh and complainant Kamlesh Kumar.
 He  deposed
that on the day of the incident  he  recorded  the  statement  of
accused persons, appellant- Kunwar Pal and  Hanuman  Prasad.   He  inspected
the place of  incident  and  prepared  a  site  plan.   He  stated  that  he
investigated the matter against Ram Sewak and  Mangal  Singh,  who  had  run
away.  He said that he does  not  know  from  whom  he  enquired  nor  their
details were mentioned in the case diary.
 He said that he  had  not  taken
the guns of Ram Sewak and Mangal Singh in his possession.  He said that  gun
of the accused person was sent to the  Ballistic  Expert  but  he  does  not
remember the report.  
Then he said that he does  not  remember 
whether  the
guns were sent or not to the Ballistic Expert.  It  is apparent  from
the deposition that the  investigation  was  slipshod  and  careless.
Why, without investigation about the notice of the others,  the  I.O.   only
chose to proceed against the  appellant  is  not  known.  
Why  a  ballistic
report was not obtained is not known.
9. From the evidence on record, we find much substance  in  the  submissions
made on behalf of the appellant.  
It is difficult to accept  that  the  shot
which killed the deceased came from the gun of  the  appellant  only.   
This assumes importance because admittedly there were three other persons in  the ceremony, who were firing their gun.  
It is  not  possible  therefore
to attribute the act of killing to the appellant,  leave  alone attributing any intention to import causing the death of the deceased.   
The  High
Court in its judgment has found intention to kill only with the  observation
that “a person, who goes to holy ceremony along  with  DBBL  gun,  which  is
used for killing animals, must be said to be going there with the  intention
to create ruckus and to kill someone in the holy  ceremony.  
What  for  the DBBL gun was taken to the marriage ceremony  then?   
The  obvious  inference
was that the same was carried to the ceremony with a  view  to  create  wild
disorder  (pandemonium)  and  to  do  some  harm  to  some  people.”    
This
observation  is  not  sufficient  to  attribute  the  intention  to  kill  a
particular person.  
It is also made in disregard of  the  practice  in  this
part of the country to use guns while celebrating  marriages  in some communities.  
We must say at once that we do not mean  to  approve  of  this practice in any way.  
It is not possible to agree with the High  Court  that
in the instant case the gun was carried to the marriage  ceremony  only
to kill someone.
10.  In these circumstances, we find that the intention of the appellant  to kill the deceased, if any, has not been proved  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt and in any case the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt  which  is prominent in this case.  
 It  is  not  possible  therefore  to  sustain  the
sentence under Section 304 Part I of the I P C, which requires  that  the  act
by which death is caused, must be done with the intention of  causing  death
or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is  likely  to  cause
death.  
Though it is not possible to attribute intention it is  equally  not possible to hold that the act was done without  the  knowledge  that  it  is likely to cause death.
 Everybody, who carries a gun  with  live  cartridges
and even others know that firing a gun and  that  too  in  the  presence  of
several people is an act, is likely to cause death, as indeed it did.   Guns
must be carried with a sense of  responsibility  and  caution  and  are  not
meant to be used in such places like marriage ceremonies.
11.  It was argued by Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel  that  the
appellant might at the most, be guilty of doing a  rash  and  negligent  act
not amounting to culpable homicide under section 304A.  
Section  304A  reads
as follows:
     “304A. Causing death by negligence - Whoever causes the death  of  any
     person by doing any rash or negligent act not  amounting  to  culpable
     homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment  of  either  description
     for a term which may    extend to two years, or  with  fine,  or  with
     both.”


12.  It is not possible to accept this submission since, for an  act  to  be construed as  an  act  not  amounting  to  culpable  homicide  it  is necessary that the act be done without the knowledge that the act is  likely to cause death.  
Section 299 of the IPC reads as under:
     “299. Culpable homicide.-- 
Whoever causes death by doing an  act  with
     the intention of causing death, or with  the             intention  of
     causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,  or  with  the
     knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause  death,  commits  the
     offence of culpable homicide.”


13.   In the present case, we are of the view that the appellant  is  guilty
of committing the act which caused the death of the deceased since  the  act
was done with the knowledge that is it likely  to  cause  death  within  the
   meaning of Section 304 Part II of the IPC.   
In  the  circumstances,  the
appeal is allowed in part, however, we reduce the sentence imposed upon  the
       appellant  to  a  period  of  7  (seven)  years  without  making  any
alteration in the fine amount imposed by the trial court  and  confirmed  by
the High Court.

                                         .........................………………..J.

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN]

                                                  ..…............………………………J.
                                                   [S.A. BOBDE]

New Delhi,
October 8, 2013


Under sec. 311. 233 of Cr. p.c. r/w evidence Act at fag end of trial = RAJESH TALWAR & ANR Vs. CBI & ANR published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40869

   Under sec. 311. 233 of Cr. p.c. r/w evidence Act - No application for summoning witnesses and for summoning documents etc., at the fag end of the trial,  filed for dilatory tactics is to be allowed =
       
Apex court held that the application is vexatious and intended to only delay the proceedings as
      was also found by the trial Court and High court.

After considering the rival submissions on this point,  
we  find
      no merit in the contention on behalf  of  the  petitioners  that  they
      could not have approached this Court earlier.  
There is no reason  why
      the petitioners ought to have waited from 19.7.2013  to  17.9.2013  to
      approach this Court and allowed the trial to proceed even further.  -

     a.    Accused filed application dated 22.07.2013 in  Trial  Court  for
      adjournment to produce their defence witness.  They moved  application
      dated 06.8.2013 in  Trial  Court  for  direction  to  CBI  to  produce
      document, Tabulated chart etc.
      b.     Trial  Court  passed  order  dated  12.08.2013  rejecting   the
      application for supplying of tabular charts.
      c.    Accused moved application dated 02.09.2013  in  Trial  Court  to
      call PW-6 Dr.B.K.Mahapatra, CFSL, Bio Division, to file an affidavit.
      d.    Trial Court passed order dated 03.09.2013 rejecting  the  prayer
      to call upon Dr.B.K.Mahapatra to file affidavit.
      e.    Trial Court passed order dated 03.09.2013 directing the  accused
      to produce the defence witnesses from foreign   country  on  the  next
      date or through video conferencing.
      f.    Accused moved application dated 07.09.2013  for  adjournment  to
      produce defence witness from foreign country.
      g.    Accused moved application dated 12.09.2013 in Trial   Court  for
      exhibiting documents.
      h.    Accused moved application to recall Dr. B.K. Mahapatra  for  his
      further cross examination.
      ?i.    Seventh DW examined.


      j.    Accused filed another application  for  re-examination  of  DW-7
      (Dr.Andrei Semikhodskii).
      k.     Trial  Court  dismissed  the  aforesaid  application  for   re-
      examination  of  Dr.B.K.Mahapatra  and  posted  the  case  for   final
      arguments i.e stage of 233 Cr.P.C. is crossed.
           It may be pertinent to note that petitioners took 04  months  to
      produce 7 DWs after  the  closing  of  statement  u/s  313  Cr.PC.  On
      25.09.2013 case was  fixed  for  final  arguments  but  accused  moved
      applications u/s 233 Cr.PC.
      l.    Accused moved application U/s 233 Cr.P.C.  dated  26.09.2013  in
      Trial Court to send physical exhibit Khukri abroad for re-examination.


      m.     Trial  Court  passed  order  dated  28.09.2013  dismissing  the
      aforesaid application.
      n.    Accused moved application U/s 233 Cr.P.C.  dated  30.09.2013  in
      Trial Court to file disclosure statements of Krishna, Vijay Mandal and
      Rajkumar. Case adjourned to 1.10.2013 for objections and arguments  on
      the application. Petitioners moved another application U/s 233 Cr.P.C.
      dated 30.09.2013 in Trial Court for summoning witnesses of lOs of CBI,
      UP Police and private persons as defence witnesses. Case adjourned  to
      1.10.2013 for objections and arguments on the application.
      o.    On 1.10.2013, petitioners did not argue the applications and one
      lawyer informed the court that  their  counsel  is  ill  and  obtained
      adjournment.

   Thus,  from  the  afore-stated  facts,  it  is   evident   that
      petitioners have been adopting dilatory tactics on every  moment.  The
      impugned order was passed on 19.7.2013. This petition was filed  after
      about two months.


      12.   In view of the above, we are  of  the  considered  opinion  that
      facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant  any  interference.
      The  special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

                                                         REPORTABLE




                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7966 of 2013


      Dr. Rajesh Talwar & Anr.                       … Petitioners




                                   Versus


      C.B.I. & Anr.                                  …Respondents








                                  O R D E R




      S.A BOBDE, J.




      1.    This special leave  petition  has  been  preferred  against  the
      impugned judgment  dated  19.7.2013,  passed  by  the  High  Court  of
      Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482  No.20215  of
      2013 whereby the  petitioners’  prayer  for  documents  pertaining  to
      scientific tests made in their  application  405/Kha  dated  11.6.2013
      filed under Section 233  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973
      (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘Cr.PC’)  read  with  Section  91  was
      rejected.


      2.    The petitioners are being tried for charges  of  committing  the
      murder of their daughter Arushi and their domestic  helper  Hemraj  in
      their house. At the initial stage, the investigation was conducted  by
      the U.P. Police, however, it was  later  transferred  to  the  Central
      Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to  as  the  ‘CBI’).   A
      closure report was submitted before the Magistrate who disagreed  with
      it and has issued the process to the petitioners  for  the  charge  of
      committing the double murder.


      3.    The present stage of the trial  is  that  the  evidence  of  the
      prosecution is closed and the statements  of  the  accused  are  being
      recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC.
The application in  question  under
      Section 311 for examining 7 other left over  witnesses  was  moved  at
      this stage.  
Alongwith this  application,  another  application  under
      Section 233 Cr.PC read with Section 91 has been moved on 11.6.2013, in
      respect of the reports of certain tests conducted on 3 persons who  at
      one time were suspected  accused  and  had  been  in  police  custody,
      namely, Krishna, Raj Kumar and Vijay Mandal.
By this application, the
      petitioners’ sought the following reports:

      (i) Narco-analysis test reports and CD of  Krishna  conducted  at  FSL
      Bangalore;
      (ii) Narco-analysis test reports and CD of Rajkumar conducted  at  FSL
      Bangalore;
      (iii) Narco-analysis test reports and CD of Vijay Mandal conducted  at
      FSL Bangalore;
      (iv) Brain mapping test of Rajkumar conducted at FSL Gandhinagar;
      (v) Brain mapping test of Krishna conducted at Bangalore;
      (vi) Brain mapping test of Vijay Mandal conducted at Bangalore;
      (vii) Lie detector, polygraph test reports of Krishna, Raj  Kumar  and
      Vijay  Mandal  conducted  at  CFSL  New  Delhi,  FSL  Bangalore,   FSL
      Gandhinagar;
      (viii) Psychological analysis test reports of Krishna, Raj  Kumar  and
      Vijay Mandal conducted at AIIMS, FSL Bangalore, FSL Gandhinagar.
      (ix) The Narco-analysis test, brain mapping test, polygraph  test  and
      the psychological tests done at AIIMS,  CFSL  New  Delhi  and  at  FSL
      Gandhinagar of the accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Mrs. Nupur Talwar.
      x) The written opinion / report and its annexures  and  other  related
      documents dated 31.7.2008 of the postmortem  doctors  i.e.  Dr.  Sunil
      Dohre and Dr. Naresh Raj regarding inspection and examination  of  the
      then murder weapon (Khukhri) sent to them by the CBI.

            In addition, applicants also asked for  call  records,  material
      forming the basis of report prepared by PW.6 and sound simulation test
      reports.


      4.    These applications were disposed of by the trial Court by  order
      dated 18.6.2013 allowing them partly.


      5.    Before the High Court, it was contended by the petitioners  that
      the said reports are essential for the defence since they  pertain  to
      those persons who were at one time suspected as being responsible  for
      the  offence  and  contain  exculpatory   statements   favouring   the
      petitioners.
 According  to  the  petitioners,  it   is   only   upon
      examination of the reports by the Court that the petitioners  will  be
      able to put up their plea that the  crime,  in  fact,  may  have  been
      committed by Krishna, Raj Kumar and  Vijay  Mandal  who  were  earlier
      suspected of the offence and had been interrogated.
 The  High  Court
      inter-alia rejected the petitioners’ prayer on  the  ground  that  the
      application is vexatious and intended to only delay the proceedings as
      was also found by the trial Court.


      6.    Before us, Shri U.U.  Lalit,  learned  Senior  counsel  for  the
      petitioners submitted that the production of the reports pertaining to
      the abovenamed 3  persons  is  absolutely  essential  and  relying  on
      Section 91 Cr.PC, submitted that the production of these reports being
      relevant, the prayer ought to have been allowed  by  the  High  Court.
     
According to Shri Lalit, the reports, if produced,  would  not  breach
      either Article 21 read with Article 20(3) which protects  the  accused
      from self-incrimination and/or would not be hit by Section 21  of  the
      Evidence Act since the persons in respect of whom those  reports  have
      been prepared are not accused anymore.
In any case, according to  the
      learned counsel, the reason given by the High Court that such  reports
      having been prepared on the basis of statements and data collected  in
      contravention of Article 20 are premature and  this  could  only  have
      been found after the reports were produced in courts.

      7.    Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned ASG vehemently opposed the prayer
      and submitted that the production of these  reports  is  pointless  in
      view of the law laid down by this Court in Selvi & Ors.  v.  State  of
      Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263,  wherein  such  reports  are  held  to  be
      inadmissible in evidence.  
The learned ASG further submitted that  the
      timing of the application and the stage at which it was  made  clearly
      shows that the applications are vexatious and intended  to  delay  the
      proceedings which are at  a  concluding  stage.   
In  support  of  his
      contention, Shri Luthra relied on sequence of events  which  according
      to him show that the petitioners have at every stage  tried  to  delay
      the proceedings by  making  one  application  after  the  other.  
The
      learned counsel further submitted that even the present special  leave
      petition is delayed in view of the fact that it is  preferred  on  the
      file on 18.9.2013 against the judgment of  the  Allahabad  High  Court
      which was passed on 19.7.2013.  The order of the trial Court  was,  in
      fact, passed on 18.6.2013.

      8.    Shri Lalit, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted
      that the petitioners have been occupied in the  trial  and  could  not
      challenge the order of the High Court earlier.

      9.    After considering the rival submissions on this point,  we  find
      no merit in the contention on behalf  of  the  petitioners  that  they
      could not have approached this Court earlier.  There is no reason  why
      the petitioners ought to have waited from 19.7.2013  to  17.9.2013  to
      approach this Court and allowed the trial to proceed even further.  
We
      make this observation in the background of the observation of the High
      Court that even the initial applications were made at  a  stage  where
      the prosecution evidence  had  been  concluded  and  the  defence  had
      entered and almost concluded its evidence.
In fact,  the  petitioners
      had, without raising any objection  that  the  reports  and  documents
      allegedly proved by the witnesses have not been supplied  to  them  or
      made part of the Court record, participated  in  the  examination  and
      cross-examination of two  witnesses.   We  might  note  that  criminal
      courts are not obliged to accede to the request made by any  party  to
      entertain and allow application for additional evidence and  in  fact,
      are bound in terms of Section 233(3) Cr.PC. to refuse such request  if
      it appears that they are made in order to vex the proceedings or delay
      the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that the learned  Trial
      Judge who has been conducting the trial is likely to retire very soon.
      Relevant part of the Trial Court proceedings as well as Trial  Court’s
      orders thereto are given as under:

      a.    Accused filed application dated 22.07.2013 in  Trial  Court  for
      adjournment to produce their defence witness.  They moved  application
      dated 06.8.2013 in  Trial  Court  for  direction  to  CBI  to  produce
      document, Tabulated chart etc.
      b.     Trial  Court  passed  order  dated  12.08.2013  rejecting   the
      application for supplying of tabular charts.
      c.    Accused moved application dated 02.09.2013  in  Trial  Court  to
      call PW-6 Dr.B.K.Mahapatra, CFSL, Bio Division, to file an affidavit.
      d.    Trial Court passed order dated 03.09.2013 rejecting  the  prayer
      to call upon Dr.B.K.Mahapatra to file affidavit.
      e.    Trial Court passed order dated 03.09.2013 directing the  accused
      to produce the defence witnesses from foreign   country  on  the  next
      date or through video conferencing.
      f.    Accused moved application dated 07.09.2013  for  adjournment  to
      produce defence witness from foreign country.
      g.    Accused moved application dated 12.09.2013 in Trial   Court  for
      exhibiting documents.
      h.    Accused moved application to recall Dr. B.K. Mahapatra  for  his
      further cross examination.
      ?i.    Seventh DW examined.


      j.    Accused filed another application  for  re-examination  of  DW-7
      (Dr.Andrei Semikhodskii).
      k.     Trial  Court  dismissed  the  aforesaid  application  for   re-
      examination  of  Dr.B.K.Mahapatra  and  posted  the  case  for   final
      arguments i.e stage of 233 Cr.P.C. is crossed.
           It may be pertinent to note that petitioners took 04  months  to
      produce 7 DWs after  the  closing  of  statement  u/s  313  Cr.PC.  On
      25.09.2013 case was  fixed  for  final  arguments  but  accused  moved
      applications u/s 233 Cr.PC.
      l.    Accused moved application U/s 233 Cr.P.C.  dated  26.09.2013  in
      Trial Court to send physical exhibit Khukri abroad for re-examination.


      m.     Trial  Court  passed  order  dated  28.09.2013  dismissing  the
      aforesaid application.
      n.    Accused moved application U/s 233 Cr.P.C.  dated  30.09.2013  in
      Trial Court to file disclosure statements of Krishna, Vijay Mandal and
      Rajkumar. Case adjourned to 1.10.2013 for objections and arguments  on
      the application. Petitioners moved another application U/s 233 Cr.P.C.
      dated 30.09.2013 in Trial Court for summoning witnesses of lOs of CBI,
      UP Police and private persons as defence witnesses. Case adjourned  to
      1.10.2013 for objections and arguments on the application.
      o.    On 1.10.2013, petitioners did not argue the applications and one
      lawyer informed the court that  their  counsel  is  ill  and  obtained
      adjournment.

      10.   This Court in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
      & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.154 of  2013)  decided  on  30.9.2013,
      after referring to its earlier judgments in Smt. Triveniben  v.  State
      of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of
      Gujarat, AIR 2006 SC 1367; Capt.  Amarinder  Singh  v.  Parkash  Singh
      Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260; Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v.  State
      (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750; and Natasha  Singh  v.  CBI,
      (2013) 5 SCC 741, dealt with the issue of fair trial observing:

                 
“Fair trial is the main object of criminal  procedure  and
              such fairness should not be hampered  or  threatened  in  any
              manner. 
Fair trial entails the interests of the accused,  the
              victim and of the society. 
Thus, fair trial must be  accorded
              to every accused in the spirit of  right to life and personal
              liberty and the accused must get a free and  fair,  just  and
              reasonable trial on the charge imputed in  a  criminal  case.
              Any breach or violation of public rights and duties adversely
              affects the community as a whole and it  becomes  harmful  to
              the society in general.  
In  all  circumstances,  the  courts
              have  a  duty  to   maintain   public   confidence   in   the
              administration of justice and such duty is to  vindicate  and
              uphold the ‘majesty of the law’ and the courts cannot turn  a
              blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that  occurs  in
              relation to criminal proceedings.


                     
 Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice  to  the
              accused as is to the victim and the society.  
It  necessarily
              requires a trial before
 an impartial judge, 
a fair prosecutor
              and an atmosphere of judicial calm. 
Since the object  of  the
              trial is to mete out justice and to convict  the  guilty  and
              protect the innocent, the trial should be a  search  for  the
              truth  and  not  a  bout  over  technicalities  and  must  be
              conducted under such rules as will protect the  innocent  and
              punish the guilty. 
Justice   should  not  only  be  done  but
              should be seem to have been done. 
Therefore,  free  and  fair
              trial is a sine qua non of Article 21  of  the  Constitution.
              Right to get a fair trial is not  only  a  basic  fundamental
              right but a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance  in  a
              fair  trial  could  be  violative  of  Article  14   of   the
              Constitution.


                       xx         xx         xx          xx


                    Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human  Rights
              provides for the right to a fair trial what is  enshrined  in
              Article 21 of our Constitution.  Therefore, fair trial is the
              heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way,  an  important
              facet of a democratic polity and is governed by rule of  law.
              Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights.”


      11.    Thus,  from  the  afore-stated  facts,  it  is   evident   that
      petitioners have been adopting dilatory tactics on every  moment.  The
      impugned order was passed on 19.7.2013. This petition was filed  after
      about two months.


      12.   In view of the above, we are  of  the  considered  opinion  that
      facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant  any  interference.
      The  special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.


                                         .........................………………..J.
                                                         (DR. B.S.  CHAUHAN)




                          .............………………………J.
                                                           (S.A.      BOBDE)


      New Delhi,
      October 8, 2013


      -----------------------
11