The language used as a means of communication between the confessing accused and the recording officer being Hindi or Hindustani, such recording of confession in Hindi language is completely in conformity with the requirement of the Rule. The conclusion drawn by the trial court that Ghulam Nabi being Pakistani national his language must be Urdu and therefore the recording of the confession in a language other than Urdu, must be held to be not in conformity, is wrong. Nothing has been placed on record that the confessing accused did not understand the line of questioning or that he was not made to understand the contents of the confession after the recording was complete. In our view the assessment made by the trial court in this behalf is completely incorrect and against the record.We find no infirmity in the recording of confession by PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar. The confession of accused Ghulam Nabi was recorded in keeping with the guidelines issued by this Court and was in accordance with the statutory requirement. Holding the confession to be admissible, we have gone through the contents of the confession which clearly admitted the guilt of the confessing accused and his involvement right from the hatching of conspiracy to the execution thereof. The confessing accused had spoken about various stages since the conspiracy was hatched and how the confessing accused had helped in transporting the explosive material from across the border and then placed it in the pits, dug inside the stadium and on the main road outside the stadium. The consequential explosion of the bombs which was timed with the celebrations on account of Republic Day was definitely designed to disrupt the celebrations and terrorize the people in general and those who had gathered at the time of celebration in particular. We, therefore, hold that from the confession, the involvement of accused Ghulam Nabi in entering into the conspiracy, execution and facilitation thereof is completely made out. As held by this Court, the confession of an accused is a substantive piece of evidence and his conviction can be founded on such confession itself. We, therefore, hold Ghulam Nabi Guide to be guilty of the offences with which he was charged. However, as regards the other accused, namely, Wasim Ahmed Malik, apart from the confession of Ghulam Nabi Guide that is to say the confession of co-accused, nothing has been placed on record which could lend corroboration as regards his role in the conspiracy and execution thereof. We have minutely considered the material but could not locate anything which could afford such corroboration. Going by the rule of prudence as highlighted by this Court in the case of State vs. Nalini (supra), we do not find any justification to reverse the finding of acquittal as recorded in respect of said Wasim Ahmed Malik. We, therefore, affirm the acquittal of Wasim Ahmed Malik as recorded by the trial court in respect of the offences with which he was charged.Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The acquittal of Wasim Ahmed Malik is confirmed. However, the order of acquittal in respect of Ghulam Nabi is set aside and said accused Ghulam Nabi Guide is convicted of the offences with which he was charged. This being an appeal against the decision of acquittal rendered by the trial court, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to said Ghulam Nabi Guide on the issue of sentence. The authorities are directed to produce said Ghulam Nabi Guide before this Court so that appropriate opportunity to address this Court on the sentence to be awarded to him, can be afforded to him.

Reportable


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1743/2009




      State of J&K                                           …. Appellant


                                   Versus


      Wasim Ahmed Malik @ Hamid and another.  …. Respondents.




                               J U D G M E N T




      Uday Umesh Lalit, J.


   1.  This  Appeal  under  section  19  of  the  Terrorist  and  Disruptive
      Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the  Act)
      challenges the judgment and order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the third
      Additional Sessions Judge i.e. the Designated Court under the  Act  in
      File No. 26/Challan, acquitting the respondents of the offences  under
      sections 3 and 4 of the Act, section 120-B read with sections 302, 307
      and 34 of Ranbir Penal Code and sections 4 and  5  of  the  Explosives
      Substances Act, 1908 arising out of FIR No. 12 of 1995.


      2.    On the occasion of celebration of Republic Day on 26.01.1995  at
      about 10:20 a.m. in Maulana Azad Memorial Stadium, Jammu,  General  KV
      Krishna Rao, Governor of Jammu  and  Kashmir  was  addressing  a  huge
      gathering of about 40,000 people  including  high  dignitaries,  VIPs,
      Senior Officers of  the  Govt.,  leaders  of   political  parties  and
      respectable citizens when three powerful bomb explosions took place at
      the site of public address system, near the dais and on the main road,
      outside the stadium resulting in killing  of  eight  persons,  and  in
      causing grievous injuries to eighteen persons and  disruption  of  the
      celebrations.  Soon after the  incident  FIR  No.  12  of  1995  dated
      26.01.1995 of PS Nowbad, Jammu (J&K) relating to said bomb blasts  was
      registered. At the request of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the
      investigation was  transferred  to  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation
      (C.B.I.) vide notification  dated  31.01.1995  and  Regular  Case  No.
      RC1(5)/95-SIUV was registered in CBI on 31.01.1995.


      3.    After investigation was taken over by CBI, one Mohd.  Irfan  was
      arrested on 07.04.1995. On 09.04.1995 he  made  disclosure  statements
      leading to certain recoveries. On 24.04.1995 said Mohd. Irfan  made  a
      confessional statement which was recorded by PW2  Sharad  Kumar,  S.P.
      CBI, under section 15 of the Act, inter alia, to the following effect:
           a)     Accused  Mohd.  Irfan   along  with  Maj  Tariq  of  ISI,
           Pakistan, Ahmed Hassan, Commander of HM, Muzaffarabad,  Mebhoob-
           ul-Haq, Commander of HM, Sialkot, Amir-ul-Haq,  Naib  Commander,
           HM and Zia Kashmiri and others  unknown  had  assembled  in  the
           office of Jamait-e-Islami,  Model  Town,  Sialkot,  Pakistan  on
           26.12.1994 and hatched  a  conspiracy  to  kill  Governor,  J&K,
           Senior officers of the Government and other persons with a  view
           to strike terror in Jammu city on the occasion of  Republic  Day
           Celebrations. In furtherance of  the  said  conspiracy,  accused
           Mohd. Irfan, Menboob-ul-Haq and Ahmed Hassan visited the  office
           of ISI situated near village Langaryali, Sialkot Cantt. Pakistan
           on 26.12.1994  and  held  a  meeting  with  Major  Tariq,  Major
           Ibrahim, Captain Farhan, Subedar  Anwar  of  ISI,  Pakistan  and
           Wasim Ahmed @ Hamid S/o Jallaluddin Malik  R/o  Asthan  Mohalla,
           Kishtawar, J&K and hatched the plan. In  order  to  achieve  the
           object of the aforesaid criminal  conspiracy,  they  decided  to
           carry two pre-set time bombs across  the  border  to  Jammu  for
           planting the same, one near the dais  and  the  other  near  the
           pavilion of MAM Stadium Jammu and deputed Mohd. Irfan and Ghulam
           Nabi for this task.


           b)    On 23.12.1994 in the ISI Office,  Sialkot  at  11:00  a.m.
           Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed were imparted  knowledge  about  the
           bombs and their functioning and operations,  which  were  to  be
           planted in the MAM Stadium. They were also  issued  instructions
           to protect the bombs from water and to plant them in the Stadium
           after the night would set in, to take two  detonators  for  each
           bomb, to carry the Khurpa for digging the pits, and not to leave
           any clue of the planting of the bombs at  the  site.  They  were
           also told that the bombs were pre set so to explode at the  time
           of the Republic Day function on 26.01.1995.  Capt.  Farhan  gave
           Rs. 3,000/- each to Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed and Rs.  2,000/-
           to Ghulam Nabi in Indian Currency and also a sack to Mohd. Irfan
           wherein he put his boots,  trouser,  khurpa  and  pistol.  Major
           Ibrahim provided one time bomb of 5 Kg each to Mohd.  Irfan  and
           Wasim Ahmed duly wrapped in black polythene and  green  coloured
           sacks. All of them left ISI Office, Sialkot  and  reached  Check
           Post Jhumian at about 10:00 p.m. on  28.12.1994.  Subedar  Anwar
           and Mahboob-ul-Haq returned to Sialkot, while Mohd. Irfan, Wasim
           Ahmed and Ghulam Nabi crossed the border and entered into Indian
           Territory concealed  the  bombs  and  khurpa  near  River  Tawi,
           outside Jammu city.


           c)    On 30.12.1994 Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed   and  Ghulam  Nabi
           went to a park where Ghulam Nabi stayed behind while Mohd. Irfan
           and Wasim Ahmed went to MAM Stadium where Wasim  Ahmed   pointed
           out to Mohd. Irfan a place near the dais and also  place  inside
           the fenced area  of  north  Pavilion  where  bombs  were  to  be
           planted. On 30.12.1994 at about 7:45 p.m., Mohd. Irfan and Wasim
           Ahmed took out two explosive devices and khurpa and left for MAM
           Stadium leaving Ghulam Nabi there. Both  carried  one  explosive
           device each and entered into the stadium  along  with  ‘khurpa’.
           Inside the stadium, they connected detonators and  batteries  to
           the device and planted two explosive devices; one near the  dais
           and other near the fenced area of the  Northern  Pavilion  after
           digging the pits for each bomb. After planting the  bombs,  they
           filled both the pits with earth and made shoe marks  thereon  to
           avoid suspicion. Thereafter, both left for  Tawi  Bridge.  Mohd.
           Irfan concealed the ‘khurpa’ in the  bushes  near  Tawi  Bridge.
           Thereafter, both Mohd. Irfan and Wasim  Ahmed  contacted  Ghulam
           Nabi and all three reached Pakistani Check  Post  Jhumian  after
           crossing the international border from where they were taken  to
           the ISI Office Sialkot. Maj. Tariq, Maj.  Ibrahim,  Maj.  Aamir,
           Capt.  Farhan  praised  Wasim  Ahmed   and   Mohd.   Irfan   for
           accomplishing the task. As desired by  Captain  Farhan,  Subedar
           Anwar paid Rs. 5,000/- to Mohd. Irfan for the work done by him.


           d)    On 03.01.1995 said Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed were  again
           deputed by Mahboob-Ul-Haq to plant one time bomb of 10  Kg.  and
           two bombs of 5 Kg. each outside MAM Stadium, Jammu and  pursuant
           thereto they dug a pit on the main road leading to that  stadium
           and put the bomb weighing 10 Kg. on 09.01.1995.  The  other  two
           bombs of 5 Kg. each could not be put  because  of  rains,  which
           bombs were then concealed near Tawi River.


           e)    On 26.01.1995 Mohd. Irfan,  Mahboob-ul-Haq,  Aamir-ul-Haq,
           Amzad and 2/3 other Kashmiri boys were present in the office  of
           Jamait-e-Islami, Sialkot. They had waited for the news  of  bomb
           explosions, killing of VIPs and  general  public  in  Jammu.  At
           about 12 noon they received news about  the  explosions  in  MAM
           Stadium, in which lot of persons had  been  killed  and  several
           other injured. After the incident,  Maj.  Tariq,  Capt.  Farhan,
           Subedar Anwar called Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed and Mahboob-ul-Haq
           to ISI Office, Sialkot and praised them for planting  the  bombs
           and declared that their mission had been successful even  though
           the Governor of J&K had providentially  escaped.  On  30.01.1995
           Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed and Mahboob-ul-Haq  visited  office  of
           Jamai-e-Islami, Muzaffarabad and met  Salauddin,  Chief  of  the
           Hizbul Mujahideen who declared that their mission was to  spread
           terrorism in J&K which got fulfilled with the bomb explosions in
           MAM Stadium. Salauddin awarded one shield and Rs. 10,000/-  each
           to Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed.




      4.    After completion of investigation, charge  sheet  was  filed  on
      28.09.1995 in the Court of the Special Judge, Designated  TADA  Court,
      Jammu (J&K) u/s 120-B RPC r/w section 302, 34, 307 RPC, 4 and 5 of the
      Explosives Substances Act and section 3(2), 4 and 6 of  the  Act.  The
      charge sheet was filed against Mohammad Irfan  @  Anwar,  a  Pakistani
      National and other absconding accused. While the  matter  was  pending
      before the Trial Court, Ghulam Nabi Guide was arrested by  J&K  police
      on 25.10.1995. Upon CBI making an appropriate application, custody  of
      Ghulam Nabi Guide was granted to CBI on 04.12.1995. While in  custody,
      said Ghulam  Nabi  Guide  made  a  confessional  statement  which  was
      recorded by PW1  S.K.  Bhatnagar  Superintendent  of  Police,  CBI  on
      18.12.1995  u/s.  15  of  the  Act  wherein  he  confessed  about  his
      involvement as also that of Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed  Malik  @  Hamid,
      Major Tariq, Major Ibrahim, Major Amir, Captain Farhan, Subedar  Anwar
      (all of ISI, Pakistan), Ahmed Hassan, Commander of HM, Sialkot,  Amir-
      ul-Haq, Naib Commander, HM Sialkot and Zia Kashmiri R/o  Kupwara,  J&K
      in the criminal conspiracy culminating in the explosions  at  the  MAM
      Stadium, Jammu 26.01.1955. Supplementary charge  sheet  was  therefore
      filed against him. During the pendency of the trial,  in  a  jailbreak
      said Mohd. Irfan escaped from high security jail. While the trial  was
      pending and had reached the concluding stage,  another  accused  named
      Wasim Ahmed Malik, who was marked as absconding accused, was  arrested
      on 15.01.2009. Since according to the prosecution there was sufficient
      evidence in the form of confessional statements  of  Mohd.  Irfan  and
      Ghulam Nabi Guide, said Wasim Ahmed Malik was supplied with copies  of
      all the relevant material and produced before the  Trial  Court.  Thus
      only two accused i.e. Ghulam Nabi Guide and Wasim Ahmed Malik, present
      respondents, were  tried while the others remained absconding.


      5.    The evidence led by prosecution during the trial  was  to  prove
      following aspects, namely:-
            a)    That there were three bomb  explosions  on  26.01.1995  at
           10:20 a.m. at the places in question, i.e. near the dais and  at
           the site of public address system in MAM Stadium and on the main
           road outside the Stadium.
            b)    That at the time of such bomb explosions, large  gathering
           had assembled while the Governor was addressing on the  occasion
           of Republic Day Celebrations.
            c)    That it resulted in death  of  eight  persons  and  caused
           grievous injuries to eighteen  persons  and  disruption  of  the
           Celebrations.
            d)    That the act in question was a terrorist act,  within  the
           meaning of the Act.
            e)    That it was an act of conspiracy hatched  by  the  accused
           being tried before the court and by the absconding accused and
            f)    That the involvement of the accused before the  court  was
           completely made out.




      6.    Various witnesses were examined and material was produced by the
      prosecution to establish its  case.  Since  the  aspects  (a)  to  (d)
      mentioned in the preceding paragraph were never challenged, we refrain
      from dealing with evidence pertaining to  said  aspects  (a)  to  (d).
      Proceeding on the basis that  it  was  a  terrorist  act,  where  bomb
      explosions were caused with the idea of terrorizing people in  general
      and those who had assembled there  at  the  gathering  in  particular,
      which resulted in loss of life of eight persons and  injured  eighteen
      persons, we confine the discussion as regards aspects (e) to (f)  i.e.
      the role of the accused in the act in question. The  trial  Court  had
      also confined itself  to  the  question  whether  involvement  of  the
      respondents had been made out or not.


      7.    In order to bring home the involvement of  the  respondents  the
      prosecution relied upon the confessions of Mohd. Irfan and Ghulam Nabi
      recorded under section 15 of the Act. Apart from such confessions  and
      the statements of these accused leading to recovery of certain  facts,
      no direct evidence could be placed on record. The evidence principally
      relied upon by the prosecution can be summarized as under:
           A)     While  in  custody,  accused  Mohd.  Irfan   upon   being
           interrogated, made three disclosure statements, “EXPW-BD/2, EXPW-
           S/3 and EXPW-S/2”.   The  testimony  of  PW86  Harbhajan  Singh,
           Investigating Officer shows that pursuant  to  these  disclosure
           statements two khurpas were recovered and identification of  the
           shop from where a khurpa was purchased was also got done.  Those
           khurpas were identified in court.  The factum of such disclosure
           and consequential recovery was also supported by panch witnesses
           PW23 S.K. Sudan and  PW24  Gautam  Goyal.   PW67  Rajesh  Kumar,
           Inspector, CBI also testified to similar effect.
           B)    On 22.04.1995 another disclosure statement “EXPW-BR”   was
           made by accused Mohd. Irfan leading to the recovery  of  a  bomb
           vide Seizure Memo Ext.PW/BR/1.   The evidence of PW86  Harbhajan
           Singh, PW67 Rajesh Kumar and panch witness PW26 B.R. Saraf  were
           relied upon in that behalf.
           C)    On 22.04.1995 Mohd. Irfan expressed his desire to  confess
           and was produced before  PW2  Sharad  Kumar,  Superintendent  of
           Police.  PW2 Sharad Kumar gave warning to the accused  that  the
           confession could be used against him and also gave him  time  to
           reflect.  The accused was again presented before the witness  on
           23.04.1995 on which date the confessional statement  Ext.PW-SK-3
           of accused Mohd. Irfan was recorded by PW2  Sharad  Kumar.   The
           gist of the confession and the facts as  disclosed  therein  are
           dealt with earlier. The confession of Mohd. Irfan clearly stated
           about the roles of the confessing accused as  well  as  the  co-
           accused.
           D)    After the arrest of Ghulam Nabi  Guide,  his  custody  was
           granted to CBI on 04.12.1995.  He having expressed his desire to
           make a  confessional  statement,  said  Ghulam  Nabi  Guide  was
           produced before PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar,  Superintendent  of  Police,
           CBI on 16.12.1995.  The witness administered  statutory  warning
           to the accused and also gave him time to rethink.  The questions
           were put to the accused which  were  replied  by  him  and  true
           record thereof was made by the witness in Hindi.   According  to
           the witness he had explained everything to the accused and after
           recording of the statement, thumb impression of the accused  was
           taken on the statement.  The accused was again  produced  before
           the witness on 18.12.1995 and having  expressed  the  desire  to
           make a confessional statement, his statement was recorded by the
           witness.  After recording of the statement, it was read over and
           the accused was made  to  understand  the  statement  whereafter
           admitting the statement to be true the  accused  put  his  thumb
           impression.
           E)    The confessing accused Ghulam Nabi Guide was  produced  in
           the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 19.12.1995.
            The confessional statement in original in a  sealed  cover  was
           also produced, for  its  onward  submission  to  the  Designated
           Court, Jammu.  The text of the letter was as under:
              “Sir,
                 Kindly find enclosed herewith original statement  (sealed)
           of accused Ghulam Nabi Guide recorded under Section 15 TADA  Act
           in case RC. 1(S)/95/SIU.V for onward submission to  the  Hon’ble
           Judge of Designated Court, Jammu.  The  accused  has  also  been
           brought.
                                  Applicant
                                       Sd/-
                                  19.12.95
                                  (S.K. Bhatnagar)
                                  Supdt. Of Police, CBI,
                                  SIC.II, New Delhi.”


           F)    On the same day,  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Jammu
           passed the following order:
                 “Submitted  in  original  to  the  Presiding   Officer   of
                 Designated Court under TADA.  Sealed envelope  is  enclosed
                 herewith.”                              Sd/-
                                  Chief Judicial Magistrate
                                        JAMMU”




      8.    The trial court  acquitted  both  the  respondents  of  all  the
      charges leveled against them.  The case of the prosecution as  regards
      explosion of bombs which resulted in the death of  eight  persons  and
      caused serious injuries  to  18  persons  was  not  disputed  at  all.
      However, the trial court rejected the evidence regarding  confessional
      statement of Ghulam Nabi Guide on the  ground  that  the  confessional
      statement was recorded in Hindi  i.e.  not  in  the  language  of  the
      accused.  It observed that the safeguards provided in Rule 15  of  the
      Rules made under the Act  were  not  adhered  to  and  therefore,  the
      confessional statement of accused Ghulam Nabi Guide was required to be
      discarded. The relevant observations of the trial court in this behalf
      were as under:
           “In the  present  case,  the  confessional  statement  has  been
           recorded in Hindi  and  not  in  the  language  of  accused.  PW
           Habhajan Ram who is the Investigating  Officer  stated  that  he
           cannot say whether accused Ghulam Nabi knows Hindi  or  not.  In
           any case, accused Ghulam Nabi being  a  Pakistan  national,  his
           language cannot be Hindi. Even so, PW Sushil Kumar  who  is  the
           recording officer  of  the  confessional  statement  of  accused
           Ghulam Nabi has stated that accused had given the  statement  in
           Urdu and he had written the same in Hindi. No  reason  has  been
           given by the said witness as to why  it  was  not  practical  to
           record the confession of accused in Urdu. Even  so,  the  record
           does not show that Hindi is the language used by PW Sushil Kumar
           for official purposes. Rather, the record would  show  that  the
           said witness Sushil Kumar uses English  languages  for  official
           purposes. This is apparent from the letter  EXPW-SK/III  written
           by him to  the  CJM  while  forwarding  the  confession  to  the
           Designated Court. And finally, the language  of  the  Designated
           Court is Urdu or English.”


      9.    The trial  court  further  observed  that  as  apart  from  such
      confessional statement there was nothing else against said Ghulam Nabi
      Guide, the accused was entitled to be acquitted.  The  other  accused,
      namely, Wasim Ahmed had not given any confessional statement  and  the
      case against him completely depended upon the  confessional  statement
      of co-accused Ghulam Nabi Guide.  Consequently accused Wasim Ahmed was
      also held entitled to be acquitted. The  trial  court  thus  acquitted
      both the accused vide its judgment and order dated  02.03.2009,  which
      is challenged in the present appeal.
      10.   The record of the present appeal indicates that respondent Wasim
      Ahmed Malik was duly served but chose not to engage  any  lawyer.   It
      was reported  that  respondent  Ghulam  Nabi  Guide  was  residing  in
      Pakistan and was served through the concerned office of the Government
      of India.  However, no appearance was entered on behalf of Ghulam Nabi
      Guide, though duly  served.   Consequently,  Mr.  Dushayant  Parashar,
      learned Advocate was requested to appear for  respondent  Ghulam  Nabi
      Guide  under  instructions  from  the  Supreme  Court  Legal  Services
      Committee.  Since there was no appearance for respondent  Wasim  Ahmed
      Malik by order dt. 12.03.2015, Mr. Dushayant Parashar was requested by
      this Court to represent said Wasim Ahmed Malik as amicus  curiae.   We
      must record our  appreciation  for  the  assistance  rendered  by  Mr.
      Dushyant Parashar.


      11.   Appearing in  support  of  the  appeal  Mr.  P.K.  Dey,  learned
      Advocate submitted:
      (a)   Confession  of  accused  under  Section  15  of  the  Act  is  a
      substantive  piece  of  evidence  and  can  form  the  foundation  for
      conviction of an accused for the offences punishable under the Act.
      (b)   Such confession, subject to the conditions stipulated in Section
      15 of the Act itself, can also be read against the co-accused and form
      basis for his conviction.
      (c)   The confession recorded by PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar  itself  disclosed
      that the entire statement was read over to the confessing accused  and
      only thereafter thumb impression of the confessing accused  was  taken
      under the statement.  Since the language used during such conversation
      was Hindi which the confessing accused could understand, the recording
      of the statement was done in Hindi and such recording  was  completely
      in conformity with Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act.
      (d)   Lastly, soon after recording of the confession,  the  confessing
      accused  was  produced  before  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate.  The
      Confessional statement in a sealed cover was also produced for  onward
      transmission to the Designated Court.  Thus, the guidelines also stood
      completely complied with.
            Mr. Dushayant  Parashar,  learned  amicus  curiae  attempted  to
      support the judgment under appeal.  The learned amicus  curiae  fairly
      accepted that the document recording the confession  itself  disclosed
      that  the  entire  statement  was  read  over  and  explained  to  the
      confessing accused.  He further fairly  accepted  that  there  was  no
      effective cross examination on this issue when PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar  was
      in the box.


      12.   Section 15(1) of  the  Act  expressly  makes  confession  of  an
      accused  recorded by a Police Officer admissible in a  trial  of  such
      person, co-accused,  abettor or conspirator for an offence  punishable
      under the   Act.   While  upholding  the  constitutional  validity  of
      Section 15(1) of the Act, this Court in  Kartar  Singh  vs.  State  of
      Punjab[1] specifically referred to the statutory obligation in Section
      15(2) of the Act and   conditions imposed in Rule 15 of the TADA Rules
      in paras 258 and 259 respectively  and  then  proceeded  to  lay  down
      certain guidelines in para 263.
           The extent of admissibility of  such  confession  under  Section
      15(1) of the Act as against a co-accused was considered by this  Court
      in State vs. Nalini & Others[2].  Wadhwa J. in para   424 observed  as
      under:

           “424. In view of the above discussions, we hold the  confessions
           of the accused in the present case to be voluntarily and validly
           made and under Section 15 of TADA confession of  an  accused  is
           admissible against  a  co-accused  as  a  substantive  evidence.
           Substantive  evidence,  however,  does  not   necessarily   mean
           substantial  evidence.  It  is  the  quality  of  evidence  that
           matters. As to what value is to be attached to a confession will
           fall within the domain of appreciation of evidence. As a  matter
           of prudence, the  court  may  look  for  some  corroboration  if
           confession is to be used against a co-accused though  that  will
           again be within the sphere of appraisal of evidence.”


      Quadri J. struck a similar note of caution in para 706 as under:


           “706. It is also to be  borne  in  mind  that  the  evidence  of
           confession of a co-accused is not required to be given on  oath,
           nor is it given in the presence of the accused, and its veracity
           cannot be tested by cross-examination. Though the evidence of an
           accomplice is free from these shortcomings yet an accomplice  is
           a person who having taken part in the commission of offence,  to
           save himself, betrayed his former associates and placed  himself
           on a safer plank — “a position in which he can  hardly  fail  to
           have a strong bias in favour of the prosecution”,  the  position
           of the accused who has given confessional statement  implicating
           a co-accused is that he has placed himself on the same plank and
           thus he sinks or sails along with the co-accused on the basis of
           his confession. For these reasons, insofar as use of  confession
           of an  accused  against  a  co-accused  is  concerned,  rule  of
           prudence cautions the judicial  discretion  that  it  cannot  be
           relied upon unless corroborated generally by other  evidence  on
           record.”




      13.   It is settled position in law that a confession  recorded  under
      Section 15(1) of the Act in accordance with statutory requirements and
      in keeping with the guidelines is admissible against the maker, his co-
      accused, abettor or conspirator in a trial for an  offence  under  the
      Act, subject to the condition stipulated in  the  proviso  to  Section
      15(1).  Such confession is taken as substantive piece of evidence  and
      can form the foundation or basis for  conviction  of  the  maker,  co-
      accused, abettor or  conspirator.   However,   the  note  of   caution
      struck by  this Court is, insofar as use of confession of  an  accused
      against a co-accused is concerned,  rule of   prudence  would  require
      the Court not to rely thereon unless corroborated generally  by  other
      evidence on record.


      14.   With these principles in mind, we now turn to  the  requirements
      of Rule 15(1) of TADA Rules and the facts in the matter.   Rule  15(1)
      stipulates that the confession “shall invariably be  recorded  in  the
      language in  which  such  confession  is  made  and  if  that  is  not
      practicable, in the language used by such police officer for  official
      purposes or  in  the  language  of  the  Designated  Court  ……”.   The
      expression “invariably” itself suggests that the requirement under the
      Rule is discretionary and not mandatory.  The record  in  the  present
      matter is very clear that  the  confessing  accused  Ghulam  Nabi  was
      produced before PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar on 16.12.1995, was given  statutory
      warning and time to reflect.  Everything was explained to him and only
      thereafter his thumb impression was taken.  On the next occasion  when
      the confessing accused was again produced  before  the  witness,  soon
      after the recording of the confession it was again explained  to  him,
      read over and only thereafter the thumb impression was taken.   At  no
      stage during the recording on these two occasions, nor  at  the  stage
      when the witness was in the box, there is anything on record, or  even
      a suggestion that the confessing accused did not understand or was not
      made to understand the contents of the confession.   The  contents  of
      the confession also disclose that many of the assertions are  personal
      to the confessing accused which  could  only  be  gathered  after  due
      conversation with the Recording Officer.

      15.  The language  used  as  a  means  of  communication  between  the
      confessing  accused  and  the  recording  officer   being   Hindi   or
      Hindustani,  such  recording  of  confession  in  Hindi  language   is
      completely in conformity  with  the  requirement  of  the  Rule.   The
      conclusion drawn by the trial court that Ghulam Nabi  being  Pakistani
      national his language must be Urdu and therefore the recording of  the
      confession in a language other than Urdu, must be held to  be  not  in
      conformity, is wrong.  Nothing has been  placed  on  record  that  the
      confessing accused did not understand the line of questioning or  that
      he was not made to understand the contents of the confession after the
      recording was complete.  In our view the assessment made by the  trial
      court in this behalf is completely incorrect and against the record.


      16.   We find no infirmity in the recording of confession by PW1  S.K.
      Bhatnagar. The confession of  accused  Ghulam  Nabi  was  recorded  in
      keeping with the guidelines issued by this Court and was in accordance
      with  the  statutory  requirement.    Holding  the  confession  to  be
      admissible, we have gone through the contents of the confession  which
      clearly  admitted  the  guilt  of  the  confessing  accused  and   his
      involvement right from the hatching of  conspiracy  to  the  execution
      thereof.  The confessing accused had spoken about various stages since
      the conspiracy was hatched and how the confessing accused  had  helped
      in transporting the explosive material from across  the  border    and
      then placed it in the pits, dug inside the stadium  and  on  the  main
      road outside the stadium.   The consequential explosion of  the  bombs
      which was timed with the celebrations on account of   Republic Day was
      definitely designed   to disrupt  the celebrations  and  terrorize the
      people in  general  and   those  who  had  gathered  at  the  time  of
      celebration  in  particular.    We,  therefore,  hold  that  from  the
      confession, the involvement of accused Ghulam Nabi  in  entering  into
      the conspiracy,  execution and  facilitation  thereof  is   completely
      made out.  As held by this Court, the confession of an  accused  is  a
      substantive piece of evidence and his conviction  can  be  founded  on
      such confession itself.  We, therefore, hold Ghulam Nabi Guide  to  be
      guilty of the offences with which he was charged.

      17.    However, as regards the other  accused,  namely,  Wasim   Ahmed
      Malik,  apart from  the confession of Ghulam Nabi Guide that is to say
      the confession of co-accused,  nothing has been placed on record which
      could lend corroboration as regards his role  in  the  conspiracy  and
      execution thereof.     We have minutely considered  the  material  but
      could not locate  anything  which  could  afford  such  corroboration.
      Going by the rule of prudence as highlighted by this Court in the case
      of State vs. Nalini (supra), we  do  not  find  any  justification  to
      reverse the finding of  acquittal as  recorded   in  respect  of  said
      Wasim Ahmed Malik.  We,  therefore, affirm   the  acquittal  of  Wasim
      Ahmed Malik as recorded by the trial court  in respect of the offences
      with which he was charged.

      18.   Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed.  The  acquittal  of
      Wasim Ahmed Malik is confirmed.   However,   the order of acquittal in
      respect of Ghulam Nabi is set aside and said accused Ghulam Nabi Guide
      is convicted of the offences with which he was charged.  This being an
      appeal against the decision of acquittal rendered by the trial  court,
      we deem it appropriate to issue notice to said Ghulam  Nabi  Guide  on
      the issue of sentence.  The authorities are directed to  produce  said
      Ghulam Nabi Guide before this Court so that appropriate opportunity to
      address this Court on the sentence  to  be  awarded  to  him,  can  be
      afforded to him.


      19.     The  appeal  stands  allowed  in  the  aforesaid  terms.   The
      authorities are directed to ensure that Ghulam Nabi Guide is taken  in
      custody forthwith and brought before this Court  for  the  hearing  on
      sentence.

      20.   We also direct the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to pay
      to  Mr.  Dushyant  Parashar  Rs.20,000/-  as  remuneration   for   the
      assistance rendered to this Court.





                                                                …………………………J.
                                              (A.K. Sikri)






                                                                …………………………J.
                                              (Uday Umesh Lalit)


      New Delhi,
      July 01, 2015
-----------------------
      [1] (1994)3 SCC 569
      [2] (1999)5 SCC 253

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 = In the present case the versions of PW1 and PW2 are completely consistent establishing the basic ingredients of demand and acceptance. The tainted currency notes were found on the person of the appellant. The explanation give by him soon after the incident through his letter dated 10.06.2003 is completely different from the theory put forth while the appellant examined himself as DW2. In our view, the demand and acceptance thus not only stand fully established but the presumption invocable under Section 20 of the Act also stood unrebutted The other two cases cited by the appellant dealt with situations where the demand and acceptance were not fully established and despite that an attempt was made to rely on the presumption invocable under Section 20 of the Act. Such is not the case in the present matter. It is further well established that where misconduct is proved, the alleged enmity between the complainant and the delinquent officer is immaterial. (See B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of A.P.[4])..

Non-Reportable


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.697 of 2011




      Chaitanya Prakash Audichya                       …. Appellant


                                   Versus


      C.B.I.                                                         ….
      Respondent




                               J U D G M E N T




      Uday Umesh Lalit, J.






      1.    This appeal by Special Leave challenges the judgment  and  order
      dated 06-12-2010 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal
      Appeal No.12 of 2010 by which the High Court affirmed  the  conviction
      and sentence of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and  13(2)
      of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred  to  as
      “the Act”).


      2.    The case of the prosecution was that PW1 Chandra Shekhar Bandari
      was sole proprietor of M/s JCS Associates, which firm was  undertaking
      construction work for governmental agencies. The firm was awarded  two
      contracts in March 2003 by Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Betul,  Goa
      and it was mandatory requirement to have a licence from the office  of
      the Assistant Labour Commissioner,  (Central)  Vasco.   PW1  therefore
      applied for requisite licence vide applications, Exts. 31 and 32  with
      necessary documents along with prescribed fees  and  the  applications
      were received in the office on 13-05-2003. According to  PW1,  he  was
      told that the applications would be  processed  within  seven  to  ten
      days.  Since  no  communication  was  received  within  ten  days,  he
      approached the appellant who was  then  working  as  Assistant  Labour
      Commissioner (Central) Vasco. PW1 was told by the appellant  that  his
      application would be duly processed.  However nothing was heard in the
      matter.


      3.    According to the case of the prosecution the  appellant  was  to
      visit the site of the proposed construction on  29-05-2003.   PW1  was
      therefore present at the site. The appellant  came  and  verified  the
      documents at the site itself. According  to  PW1,  the  appellant  was
      camping in the Rest House when PW1 went to meet him. The appellant had
      prepared Inspection Notes, Ext. 33 bearing signatures of the appellant
      and PW1. In the rest house the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.30,000/-
       towards illegal gratification for issuance of  licence  to  PW1.  The
      appellant told him to pay Rs.10,000/- by  next  day  and  the  balance
      amount of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid after issuance of the licence.


      4.    On the next day  i.e.  on  30.05.2003  PW1  decided  to  file  a
      complaint against the appellant in the office of CBI, Panaji and  gave
      written complaint, Ext. 34 which  was  received  at  1.15  pm  in  the
      office. The necessary  approval  having  been  received  at  1.56  pm,
      appropriate steps for registering the crime and to  lay  a  trap  were
      undertaken.  A request was sent to the  office  of  Assistant  General
      Manager, Bank of India, Panaji at about 2.25 pm to depute two officers
      from the Bank to act as panch witnesses. In  the  mean  time  FIR  was
      registered at  3.15  pm  in  pursuance  of  said  complaint  Ext.  34.
      Accordingly PW2 Ranjit Singh Thakur and one Karapurkar, both officials
      from the Zonal Office of Bank of India  were  sent  to  act  as  panch
      witnesses at about 4.30 pm. Pre trap proceedings were undertaken.  The
      numbers of three currency notes of Rs.1000/- each and  fourteen  notes
      of Rs.500/- each produced by PW1 were  noted.  Phenolphthalein  powder
      was applied to the currency notes. The panch witnesses  and  PW1  were
      explained and briefed about the trap and  those  currency  notes  were
      kept in the shirt pocket of PW1 with instructions not to  touch  those
      notes unless and until demand was made by the appellant.  The  members
      of the raiding party then left the office of CBI  at  about  5.30  pm.
      Since PW1 was unaware about the residential address of the  appellant,
      the party first went to his office where one of the  clerks  gave  the
      residential address of the appellant, whereafter the  party  proceeded
      to his residence.  PW1 along  with  PW2  went  to  the  house  of  the
      appellant which was situated on the ground floor of  a  building.  The
      door was opened by wife  of  the  appellant  who  told  PW1  that  the
      appellant was not available and that he had told her that in case  PW1
      came, he should be asked to  wait.   She  further  conveyed  that  the
      appellant would be back after 10.00 pm where upon PW1  told  her  that
      they would come back later and left the place. The raiding party  then
      waited till 10.00 pm.




      5.    At about 10.15 pm PW1 and PW2  went  to  the  residence  of  the
      appellant who opened the door and invited them inside.  The  appellant
      asked PW1 whether he had brought Rs.10,000/- as told by the appellant.
       Thereafter PW1 handed over the amount of Rs.10,000/-  kept   in   his
      shirt  pocket to the appellant who told him that the licence would  be
      issued on Monday i.e. 02.06.2003.   The appellant then kept the amount
      in his T-shirt pocket.  PW2 was all the while sitting with  PW1.   PW2
      then came out of the house and upon his  signaling  the  raiding  team
      went inside.  The wrist of the right hand of the appellant was caught-
      hold of and the fingers of his  right  hand  upon  being  dipped,  the
      solution turned pink.  The numbers of currency notes were verified and
      the portion of T-shirt of the appellant also turned  pink  upon  being
      dipped in the solution.  Post-trap panchnama was drawn.  The search of
      the house of the appellant conducted thereafter resulted  in  recovery
      of cash leading to registration of a separate case  against  him  with
      which we are presently not concerned.


      6.    The investigation was completed  and  appropriate  sanction  was
      granted for prosecuting the  appellant  for  the  offences  punishable
      under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and13(2) of the Act.  The  charges  were
      framed and the matter was tried in the court of Special Judge, Goa  at
      Madgaon vide Special Case No.6 of 2009.  The  prosecution  principally
      relied upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to establish  the  demand  and
      acceptance of gratification by the appellant.  PW1 also deposed to the
      facts regarding his application for issuance of licence,  his  meeting
      with the appellant in the Rest House on 29.05.2003, the demand made by
      the appellant at that time and his complaint lodged on the  next  day.
      He further deposed that the appellant had asked him  to  come  to  his
      house after office hours on 30.05.2003 along  with  bribe  amount  and
      that when the wife of the appellant opened the door of the  house  she
      said that the appellant had conveyed that in  case  PW1  came,  he  be
      asked to wait.  PW2 while supporting the version of PW1,  stated  that
      when PW1 asked about his licence, the appellant told him that in  case
      PW1 paid the agreed amount the appellant would issue  the  licence  on
      the next day.  The witness further stated that PW1 thereafter took out
      and gave  the money to the appellant which was kept by  the  appellant
      in his T-shirt pocket.  PW3 Sadanand Naik, Upper Division Clerk in the
      office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner,  Vasco  stated  that  the
      applications preferred by PW1  were  registered  on  13.05.2003,  that
      those applications were in order, that the appellant had told  PW3  to
      keep those applications pending and  that  similar  applications  were
      disposed of normally within 2-3 days.  PW6  Police  Inspector  Chonkar
      Investigating Officer deposed  about  the  various  steps  during  the
      course of  the  trap  proceedings  including  pre-trap  and  post-trap
      panchnama.


      7.    The appellant examined his immediate successor  in  office  Shri
      Karamchand as DW1 and himself as DW2.  It  was  his  case  that  after
      conducting inspections at various sites on 30.05.2003 he returned home
      at 10.30 pm and while  he  was  preparing  to  retire  two  unexpected
      visitors, namely, PW1 and PW2 came to his residence.  It  was  further
      deposed that PW1 had pushed something in his  shirt  pocket  whereupon
      the appellant put his hand in the pocket to find out what it was, when
      someone who had entered his house caught hold of his hand.  He further
      stated that after the  raid,  he  was  placed  under  arrest  and  was
      released on bail  on  04.06.2003  whereafter  he  wrote  letter  dated
      10.06.2003 to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour.


      8.    However, the version in said letter dated 10.06.2003,  on  which
      the appellant heavily relied and which was also placed  on  record  in
      the present appeal, was to the following effect:
           “After conducting inspections  when  I  returned  back  at  home
           around 10.15 pm two persons i.e. Shri Chandra Shekar along  with
           another person forcefully entered in my house and pressurized me
           to accept some bribe and demanded to serve cold  drinks.   Since
           this was an odd time and nobody was  available  nearby  to  help
           hence I acted as per their desire.  They forcefully dropped some
           rupees in my pocket and threatened me.  Since myself  was  alone
           with my wife and I was very much tired after conducting  lot  of
           inspections in remote area and due to long journey I was not  in
           a position to think much to come out from the situation.   After
           that immediately, some CBI Officers entered and  pressurized  me
           to take out the money from my pocket.   When  I  requested  them
           that this fellow has forcefully put this money in my pocket  and
           if they want they can take it from my pocket and that I  am  not
           aware also that how much money they have put in my  pocket,  the
           CBI Officers were not ready to listen to  my  request  and  they
           pressurized me to take out the money with my own hand.”




      9.    The trial court after considering the material on record came to
      the conclusion  that  the  case  against  the  appellant  stood  fully
      established and that he had abused his position as public  servant  by
      accepting illegal gratification and had committed offences as alleged.
       The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 7  of  the  Act
      and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay  fine
      of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof to suffer simple  imprisonment  for
      two months.  The appellant was also convicted under  Section  13(1)(d)
      read  with  Section  13(2)  of  the  Act  and  sentenced   to   suffer
      imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-,  in  default
      whereof to undergo simple  imprisonment  for  two  months.   Both  the
      sentences were ordered to run concurrently.  The  appellant  preferred
      Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2010 in the High Court and the High Court  by
      the judgment under appeal confirmed the  conviction  and  sentence  as
      ordered by the trial court.  In this  appeal  by  special  leave,  the
      appellant was directed to be  released  on  bail,  which  facility  he
      continues to enjoy.


      10.   Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior Advocate along  with  Shri
      Manu Mridul, learned Advocate  appearing  in  support  of  the  appeal
      submitted inter alia, that  (1)  the  FIR  in  the  present  case  was
      registered at 3.15 pm on 10.05.2003 whereas the services of the  panch
      witnesses were requisitioned at about 2.25 pm  i.e.  even  before  the
      registration of the crime.  (2)  In the complaint Ext.34 the place and
      time for acceptance of money as demanded by the public servant was not
      mentioned at all.  (3)  The fact that  on  the  day  in  question  the
      raiding party first went to the office also indicated the  absence  of
      fixing of such definite place and time; which makes the  case  of  the
      prosecution completely suspect.  (4)  The entire trap  was  undertaken
      without making any preliminary investigation  which  as  per  the  CBI
      manual ought to have been undertaken first.  (5)  The way the  raiding
      party had conducted itself showed it was clearly a case of the  public
      servant being chased. (6) The appellant  was  responsible  for  having
      initiated  certain  proceedings  against  PW1  and  thus  the  present
      complaint was not bona fide.


      11.   In support of these  submissions  reliance  was  placed  on  the
      decisions of this Court in  P. Parasurami Reddy v.   State  of  Andhra
      Pradesh[1],    Banarsi Dass v. State of  Haryana[2]    and   State  of
      Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma[3].






      12.   Shri P.K. Dey, learned Advocate appearing  for  the  respondent,
      while  countering  the  aforesaid  submissions  submitted  that  after
      receipt of the complaint at about 1.15 pm on 30.05.2003 the  requisite
      approval was received on fax at about 1.56 pm, whereafter  looking  to
      the allegations in the complaint that the money had to be  given  that
      very day, immediate steps were undertaken.  As part of  the  exercise,
      services of panch witnesses were requisitioned while the FIR was being
      registered.  He further submitted that since the money had to be  paid
      by 30.05.2003, because of paucity of time no preliminary investigation
      was undertaken.  Relying on the testimony of PW3 he submitted that the
      applications preferred by PW1 were ordered by the appellant to be kept
      pending and that  the  acceptance  of  gratification  on  the  day  in
      question completely clinched the matter.  Relevant currency notes were
      found in possession of the appellant and in his submission the  aspect
      of demand and acceptance also stood proved by consistent  versions  of
      PW1 and PW2.


      13.   We have gone through the  record  and  considered  the  relevant
      material.  The fact that PW1 was awarded contracts by ONGC and that it
      was a mandatory requirement to have the  requisite  licence  from  the
      office of the  Assistant  Labour  Commissioner  is  well  established.
      Further the fact that PW1 preferred applications Exts.31  and  32  for
      necessary licences is also established on record.   According  to  PW3
      the  applications  were  registered  on  13.05.2003   and   that   the
      applications were in order.  Furthermore, according  to  this  witness
      such applications would normally be dealt with in 2-3  days  and  that
      the applications were kept pending because of the instructions of  the
      appellant himself.  Though a feeble attempt was made  to  submit  that
      there were interpolations in the applications, the assertion that  the
      applications were complete and kept pending because of instructions of
      the appellant could not be controverted.  We, therefore,  accept  that
      the applications were complete in all respects and as  stated  by  PW3
      they were kept pending because of the instructions of  the  appellant.
      It is also part of the record that the site in question was  inspected
      by the appellant on 29.05.2003 as the inspection  notes  Ext.33  would
      disclose.   The assertion on part of PW1 that he had  an  occasion  to
      meet the appellant that day is well supported.  Though it  was  denied
      that any meeting had taken place in the Rest House  where  demand  was
      made as alleged, the facts as they stand unfolded, fully  substantiate
      the assertion made by PW1.


      14.   Complaint Ext.34 preferred on 30.05.2003 itself  disclosed  that
      the money was demanded and that the complainant was asked to make  the
      payment by 30.05.2003 itself.  Given the assertions in the  complaint,
      the submission that no preliminary investigation could  be  undertaken
      because of paucity of time is well founded.   At  the  same  time  the
      incongruity in the timing when services of panch witnesses were sought
      for also pales into insignificance.  It is true that the complaint did
      not state or suggest any time and place at which the  complainant  was
      supposed to fulfill the demand.  Though in   P.  Parasurami  Reddy  v.
      State of Andhra Pradesh (supra)  there are certain  observations  that
      there was no prior commitment fixing the time and place for  receiving
      the bribe, the  decision  discloses  that  there  were  various  other
      circumstances which weighed with this Court.  In any case,  the  facts
      in the present case show otherwise.
            It was asserted by the complainant in his  examination  that  he
      was asked by the appellant to see  him  at  his  residence  after  the
      office hours.  Further, when PW1 and PW2 went  to  the  house  of  the
      appellant, the conversation which PW1 had with wife of  the  appellant
      clearly shows that the visit of PW1 was quite expected.  On this issue
      there was no effective cross examination at all.  It  would  therefore
      be inconsequential if no prior commitment regarding fixing of the time
      and place for receiving the bribe was mentioned in the complaint.


      15.   In the present case the versions of PW1 and PW2  are  completely
      consistent  establishing  the  basic   ingredients   of   demand   and
      acceptance.  The tainted currency notes were found on  the  person  of
      the appellant.  The explanation give by him soon  after  the  incident
      through his letter dated 10.06.2003 is completely different  from  the
      theory put forth while the appellant examined himself as DW2.  In  our
      view, the demand and acceptance thus not only stand fully  established
      but the presumption invocable under Section 20 of the Act  also  stood
      unrebutted.


      16.   The other two cases cited by the appellant dealt with situations
      where the demand and acceptance were not fully established and despite
      that an attempt was made to rely on the  presumption  invocable  under
      Section 20 of the Act.  Such is not the case in  the  present  matter.
      It is further well established that where misconduct  is  proved,  the
      alleged enmity between the complainant and the delinquent  officer  is
      immaterial. (See B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of A.P.[4]).


      17.   In the circumstances  we  are  not  persuaded  to  take  a  view
      different from the one which weighed with the courts below.  Affirming
      the decisions taken by the High Court and the trial court, we  dismiss
      the present appeal.  The bail bonds stand cancelled and the  appellant
      shall be taken in custody forthwith to undergo the sentence awarded to
      him.




                                                                …………………………J.
                                              (A.K. Sikri)






                                                                …………………………J.
                                              (Uday Umesh Lalit)


      New Delhi,
      July 01, 2015
-----------------------
      [1]  (2011) 12 SCC 294,
      [2]  (2010) 4 SCC 450
      [3]  (2013) 14 SCC 153
      [4] 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 323

We are conscious that we are considering an appeal against acquittal and that going by the law laid down by this Court, the view taken by the High Court ought not to be interfered with if it is a possible view. However, in our considered opinion, the view which weighed with the High Court cannot be termed as a possible view in the matter. It is well settled that in such circumstances it is open to an appellate court to consider the matter afresh[2]. Having undertaken such exercise, we are of definite conclusion that PW1 is a natural witness whose presence at the time and place of incident is established and is worthy of acceptance. However, mindful of the fact that in the original reporting he had attributed lalkara to respondent Basant Lal alone while the tractor was being driven by respondent Om Prakash, which meant that the other two accused, though sitting on the tractor were not attributed any overt act, we grant benefit of doubt to the other two accused, namely, Lalji and Gyan Prakash. It could possibly be put that Brahmadeen, an old man of 90 years would normally be accompanied by someone for assistance but would be unaccompanied while easing out and therefore the time and place was so deliberately chosen, in which case culpability of every occupant of the tractor would be made out. However, in the absence of any material establishing that, Lalji and Gyan Prakash are entitled to benefit of doubt.

                                        Non-Reportable


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1506 of 2009






      Kamla Kant Dubey                                   …. Appellant


                                   Versus


      State of U.P. & Others                                   ....
      Respondents
                                    WITH


                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2409 of 2009


      State of U.P.                                      …. Appellant


                                   Versus


      Basant Lal Dubey and others                  …. Respondents




                               J U D G M E N T






      Uday Umesh Lalit, J.




   1. These appeals by special leave challenge the judgment and order  dated
      15.05.2009 passed by the High Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  in
      Reference No.6/2008 and in Criminal (Capital) Appeal No.3588  of  2008
      acquitting the respondents accused of the charges under  Sections  302
      read with 34 IPC.


      2.    According to the case of the prosecution:-


      A)    One Brahmadeen Dubey owned lands in District Mirzapur  in  State
      of Uttar Pradesh.   Under two sale deeds, he sold two parcels of  land
      admeasuring 10 bighas and 6 bighas to Rama Kant Dubey and Sushil  Kant
      Dubey respectively.  Two registered deeds in this behalf were executed
      on 02.02.1993. However, it came to the notice that there was already a
      sale deed executed on 09.09.1992 in respect  of  very  same  lands  in
      Kolkata in favour of Basant Lal Dubey and others.  This   led  to  the
      filing  of   Civil  Suit  No.160  of  1993  by   Brahmadeen    seeking
      cancellation of sale deed dated 09.09.1992,  submitting,  inter  alia,
      that the deed in question was a sham  document which was  obtained  by
      setting up an imposter in place of the owner i.e. Brahmadeen Dubey.
      B)    On 16.11.1994, brother-in-law of  Brahmadeen  named  Kedar  Nath
      Dubey was murdered while sons of Kedar Nath were also injured  in  the
      transaction.  In respect of said incident, Basant Lal  Dubey  and  his
      three sons Lalji, Gyan Prakash and Om Prakash were  facing  trial  for
      having caused the murder of Kedar Nath and injuries to his sons.
   C) Civil Suit No.163/1993 was at an advanced stage of trial.   The matter
      depended  upon  the  testimony  of  Brahmadeen.   Around  this   time,
      Brahmadeen was assaulted with lathi and dandas by Basant Lal Dubey and
      his sons, Lalji, Om Prakash, Gyan Prakash.  In respect of said assault
      a separate case was registered and was also going on.
      D)    Brahmadeen aged about 90 years was living with the sons of Kedar
      Nath Dubey on whom  he depended because of his old age.
      E)    On 26.11.1998 at about 8.00 in the morning PW1 Kamla Kant Dubey,
      son of Kedar Nath Dubey alongwith Brahmadeen had gone to ease  out  at
      some distance from the village.  At that time Basant Lal and his  sons
      Lalji, Om Prakash and Gyan Prakash came on  a  tractor  driven  by  Om
      Prakash from a small road along side a Canal.  Lalkara  was  given  by
      Basant Lal that the old man be killed and should  not  be  allowed  to
      escape.  The tractor swerved and was driven straight in the  direction
      where Brahmadeen was easing out.  He got up in fright but the  tractor
      pushed him down and he was crushed.  The tractor took round  and  came
      back again to crush him.  PW1 who was easing  out  at  some  distance,
      raised shouts which attracted the attention  of  villagers,  whereupon
      the tractor escaped towards western side of the village.


      3.    PW1 then reached Police Station Vindhyachal,  District  Mirzapur
      with a written complaint narrating the facts about civil litigation as
      well as the fact that his father Kedar  Nath  was  done  to  death  on
      16.11.1994 and that said Brahmadeen was an important witness who could
      have proved that the alleged sale  deed  executed  in  Kolkata  was  a
      forged document. As regards the incident it was stated as under:-
           “Today dated 26.11.1998 in the morning at about 8 a.m. I and  my
           fufa had gone to ease out at some distance from the  village  in
           the orchard situated at south  direction,   then  suddenly  from
           canal patri,  Sri Basant Lal son of Radharaman Dubey,  Lalji and
           Gyan Prakash and Om Prakash Dubey all sons of Basant  Lal  Dubey
           came from  front side and Basant Lal said by giving Lalkara that
           “is budhe sale ko maro bhag na jay”,  in the meantime Om Prakash
           having brought the tractor towards my fufa  and  pushed  him  by
           tractor,  rolled over the same upon him by taking rounds.  After
           felling down of my fufa with an intention to kill him  and  also
           in order to destroy the evidence again by taken  may  rounds  of
           tractor crushed him due to which he died  on  the  spot.   After
           having eased out midway I rushed to the side of the village  and
           on raising alarm they went back from patri of  canal  by  taking
           their tractor.  This incident was witnessed by me and many other
           persons from the village.  The tractor was being  driven  by  Om
           Prakash.”




   4. Pursuant to this complaint, First Information Report was registered at
      9.30 a.m. on 26.11.1998 and  investigation  was  undertaken.   PW6  Om
      Parkash Singh, SSI went  to  the  spot  and  prepared  spot  panchnama
      Exh.Ka.14. He found marks of wheels of tractor which  as  depicted  in
      the spot panchnama showed marks of tyres in circular or round  motion.
      In the inquest it was found as under:
           “The dead body was lying in the chak of Badri Narayan  Dubey  in
           flat position,  the head  as  towards  West,  legs  were  facing
           East, right hand was on the  stomach,   left  hand  was  on  the
           earth,  the mouth was open, right eye was also open, left eye is
           closed,  left leg was straight, right leg  was  bent  upon   the
           ankle of the leg was on the mend of the chak-road,  on the  left
           side of the dead body there was  a  bamboo  Danda  and  Lota  of
           steel,  some portion of the face of the deceased was inside  the
           earth.  The description of the dead body is that he is  of  fair
           complexion, the face is round, well built body with eye, ear and
           nose and the age was about  90  years.   On  the  dead  body  of
           deceased there was a white dhoti,   a  banyan  of  brown  khakhi
           colour,  a full handed sweater of brown colour and janew of  red
           colour, gamacha of cross border,  havai chappal  but  on  search
           nothing was recovered.


                 On making inspection of the injuries on the dead body:-


        1. Towards right side the portion of head was pressed.


        2. On account of head injury the parietal bone was coming  out  and
           blood was oozing


        3. On account of injury on the left leg the skin of  the  same  was
           torn.


        4. On account of injury on right leg the skin was damaged upto knee
           and from adjacent to knee, skin of left leg was torn  and  there
           was swelling in the bottom of the right leg.


        5. Injury on the right ear.


           6.    Injury on the right eye.”



   5. The body of the deceased was then  sent  for  post  mortem  which  was
      undertaken by PW4 Dr. K.N. Mehrotra on 27.11.1998.  The features noted
       in the post mortem were as under:
           “In External Examination it was  found  that  the  body  of  the
           deceased was of average built.  After death there  was  mark  of
           contusion on back, thigh and hips. Rigor-mortis were present  in
           both the activities memos.  The head was depressed from the left
           side.  Right eye came outside and there was swelling in the left
           eye.  Red blood was  oozing  out  from  mouth,  nose  and  eyes.
           Stomach had also swelling.


           INJURIES PRIOR TO HIS DEATH:


           (1)    5cm.x2cm.  lacerated  wounds  on  right  eye  and   right
                 forehead.  Eye ball is protruded and  bursted.   Skull  was
                 laterally compressed.  All skull bones are  protruded  into
                 pieces:


           (2)   7cm.x7cm. contusion with swelling over left eye;


           (3)   19cm.x4cm. abrasion on front side of right leg;  knee  and
                 upper leg;


           (4)   9cm.x7cm. abrasion left upper leg at medial  aspect  13cm.
                 below the knee joint;


           (5)   3cm.x1cm. abrasion over posterior of right lower arm;
           (6)   5cm.x7cm. contused swelling on left chest  and  underlying
                 ribs are fractured.


                 In Internal Examination the  Doctor  has  found  that  all
                 bones of skull were broken in pieces.  Membranes and  brain
                 were busted.  All bones of left  chest  were  broken.   Air
                 pipe of nostril Tricia Kleenex  and  brachia  were  broken.
                 Left lungs were protruded and left lung  became  yellowish.
                 Both the chambers of the heart were  empty.  Teeth  of  the
                 deceased was missing.  Pancreas was empty.  There was gases
                 in small intestine and gases and waste were also  found  in
                 the large intestine.  Lever, spleen and both kidneys became
                 yellow and urinary bladder was empty.”




   6. Accused Gyan Prakash was arrested on 27.11.1998.   Accused Basant  Lal
      and Lalji surrendered in Court on 04.12.1998 while  proceedings  under
      Section 83 of  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  were  initiated  against
      accused Om  Prakash  who  was  later  arrested.  After  conclusion  of
      investigation charge sheet was filed and charges were  framed  against
      the respondents  under  Section  302  read  with  34  IPC  for  having
      committed the murder of Brahmadeen in the manner as stated above.


   7. During the trial, prosecution examined six witnesses. PW1  Kamla  Kant
      Dubey, an eye witness reiterated his assertions made in the  complaint
      and stated, inter alia,  (i)  about  the  civil  litigation  and  that
      Brahmadeen had filed civil suit seeking cancellation of sale  deed  in
      favour of Basant Lal,  submitting that  was  obtained  fraudulently  ;
      (ii) that his father Kedar Nath Dubey was murdered in respect of which
      said Basant Lal Dubey and his sons Lalji, Om Prakash and Gyan  Prakash
      were facing trial;  (iii) that the accused  had  assaulted  Brahmadeen
      with lathies and dandas in respect of which a separate case  was  also
      going on; and  (iv) regarding  the present incident in question  which
      resulted in  the death of Brahmadeen.


           In his testimony he also stated that as a result of  his  shouts
      other villagers including PW3 Shyam Narayan had reached the  place  of
      occurrence.  In his cross examination,  the assertions that there  was
      a civil litigation initiated by Brahmadeen,   that  the  accused  were
      also facing charge of having caused the murder of Kedar Nath Dubey and
      that  a separate case  for having  assaulted  Brahmadeen  was  pending
      against them, were not challenged.


   8. The prosecution also examined PW3 Shyam Narayan who stated that  as  a
      result of shouts of PW1 he had arrived at the site of  occurrence  and
      seen the accused making  good  their  escape.   Medical  evidence  was
      unfolded through PW4 Dr. K.N. Mehrotra.  The Investigating Officer PW6
      Om Prakash  Singh,  inter  alia,  stated  about  preparation  of  spot
      panchnama and the inquest undertaken  by  him.   In  their  statements
      under Section 313 the accused submitted that Brahmadeen had executed a
      valid sale deed in their favour and denied  rest  of  the  allegations
      claiming themselves to be innocent.  However no witness  was  examined
      in defence.


   9. The trial court observed that the name of PW3 was not mentioned in the
      original complaint and it would be doubtful to accept him  as  witness
      who had seen the accused making good their escape.   The  trial  court
      accepted that the first information report was lodged with promptitude
      and was well supported by the inquest and spot panchnama.  It observed
      that  the  motive  alleged  by  the  prosecution  was  proved   beyond
      reasonable doubt. The trial court accepted the eye witness account  of
      PW1 and considered whether the testimony  of  sole  witness  could  be
      relied upon. Having found corroboration to  the  version  of  the  eye
      witness on material particulars, it accepted such  testimony  and  the
      case of the prosecution.  It convicted all the accused  under  Section
      302 read with 34 IPC.  By its subsequent order, it observed that a  90
      year old infirm man was done to death in a gruesome manner  purely  on
      account of greed for property and as such the case called for  extreme
      punishment.   It therefore  imposed  death  penalty  on  the  accused,
      subject to confirmation by the High Court.


  10. The death sentence so imposed led to
      Reference No.6/2000 in the High Court.   The  convicted  accused  also
      preferred Criminal (Capital) Appeal No.3588/2008.   The  matters  were
      considered together.  The High Court found three  infirmities  in  the
      version of PW 1 (a) He had  attributed  role  of  exhortation  to  two
      accused which was not so stated specifically in the first  information
      report.   (b)  The trial court having refused to rely on the testimony
      of PW3, it left no manner of doubt that PW1 had introduced PW3 as  eye
      witness to lend cogency to  the  case  of  prosecution.  (c)   He  had
      changed the place of occurrence inasmuch as the occurrence as shown in
      the FIR had taken place when he and the deceased were  going  to  Chak
      road whereas the situation was now improved upon by  stating  that  he
      had gone for answering the call of nature.
           It was also observed that the ocular  account  was  in  conflict
      with the medical opinion.  It stated as under:
           “The counsel for the appellant submits that ante mortem injuries
           are in conflict with ocular account.  In this connection, we may
           advert again to the prosecution  case  according  to  which  the
           deceased was repeatedly crushed under the wheels of the tractor.
            Our particular attention was drawn to injury No.1  which  could
           be result of the crushing by the wheel of tractor but in so  far
           as injury No.6 is concerned, it is only  on  the  left  part  of
           chest resulting in internal damage to the ribs but had  he  been
           crushed under the tyres,  then  right  chest  should  have  also
           sustained similar injuries.   By  this  reckoning,  the  medical
           evidence belies the  prosecution  case  that  the  deceased  was
           repeatedly crushed under the wheels  of  the  tractor.   In  the
           circumstances the submission of the learned counsel gains ground
           that the deceased came  under  the  wheel  of  the  unidentified
           tractor by accident and the version of PW1 with regard  to  this
           vital fact appears to be inherently improbable and intrinsically
           incredible and therefore, the same cannot be accepted.”


      11.    The High Court thus gave benefit of doubt to  the  accused  and
      allowed their appeal  acquitting  them  of  all  the  charges  leveled
      against them.    In the light of its discussion,  Reference  No.6/2008
      was also rejected.   These appeals  by  special  leave  filed  by  the
      informant and the State seek to challenge the correctness of the  view
      taken by the High Court in acquitting the respondents accused.


      12.   Shri T.N. Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the  complainant
      in Criminal Appeal No.1506 of 2009 and  Shri  Ratnakar  Dash,  learned
      Senior Advocate appearing for the State in Criminal Appeal No.2409  of
      2009 submitted that the  High  Court  erred  in  concluding  that  the
      medical evidence on record belied the case  of  prosecution  that  the
      deceased was repeatedly crushed under the wheels of the  tractor.   It
      was submitted that the alleged infirmities in  the  testimony  of  PW1
      were not infirmities at all and in any case were not of the  magnitude
      which could call for rejection of his evidence in toto, specially when
      the evidence regarding motive as placed by the  prosecution  was  very
      strong.  Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing  for  the
      respondents accused in both the appeals supported the  view  taken  by
      the High Court.  In his submission, the post  mortem  report  did  not
      indicate injuries  by  repeated  crushing  under  the  wheels  of  the
      tractor.  It was further submitted that the testimony of  PW1  was  so
      intermixed with falsehood and exaggeration that it would be  hazardous
      to rely on such testimony, more particularly,  in  an  appeal  against
      acquittal.


      13.   We have gone through the record and considered the  submissions.
      At the outset, it must be stated that PW4 Dr. K.N.  Mehrotra,  in  his
      examination clearly stated that the injuries in question were possible
      because of crushing by a tractor.  In the cross examination, all  that
      was suggested was that such injuries could also be possible by a  jeep
      or a truck.  We have seen the observations in the  post  mortem  which
      indicate that on internal examination it was found that all  bones  of
      the skull were broken in pieces, membrane and  brain  were  burst  and
      that eye ball had come out.  Further, all bones on the  left  side  of
      the chest were broken,  left  lung  was  protruding  out.   Air  pipe,
      trachea lerenex  were  also  broken.   The  external  examination  and
      injuries indicated in the post mortem suggest  crushing  injuries.  At
      least two areas, the left side of the skull and the left side  of  the
      chest appear to be crushed under the impact, which is consistent  with
      ocular version.  The spot panchnama Ext.Ka.14 shows tyre marks  having
      round or circular motion which indicate that  the  vehicle  must  have
      been brought back and used for repeated crushing. In the face of these
      facts, the assessment  that  the  medical  evidence  belies  that  the
      deceased was repeatedly crushed under the wheels of  the  tractor,  is
      completely incorrect.  Further, the area where the  incident  occurred
      is such where a vehicle would not enter by mistake causing an accident
      but the attempt was definitely deliberate.


      14.   We now proceed to consider the reasons which  weighed  with  the
      High Court while discarding the evidence  of  the  eye  witness.   The
      complaint Ext.P1 shows that  PW1  and  the  deceased  had  gone  at  a
      distance from the village for easing  themselves.   Narrative  clearly
      shows that it was at that stage that the tractor was  driven  straight
      towards the deceased.  We do not see how there was an  improvement  in
      the version in court as against the one which  finds  mention  in  the
      complaint Ext.P1 or that the place of occurrence was changed.  In  the
      very same complaint PW1 had said that after the incident he had raised
      alarm whereupon many persons from the village had arrived at the scene
      of occurrence.  It is true that he had not named PW3 as one  of  those
      persons in the complaint.   That  factor  may  certainly  weigh  while
      appreciating the testimony of witnesses.  Similarly, if as against the
      role of exhortation which was attributed to only  one  person  in  the
      complaint, if there is subsequent improvement in the oral testimony in
      court, that aspect of the matter can  also  be  taken  care  of  while
      appreciating the evidence and grain could  be  separated  from  chaff.
      But the question is whether these two reasons  are  strong  enough  to
      discard the testimony of the eye witness in toto. In our view, even if
      there were some improvements on part of PW1, these matters are not  so
      fundamental affecting the  very  core  to  such  an  extent  that  his
      testimony needs to be discarded completely.


      15.   It has come on record that deceased Brahmadeen was 90  years  of
      age and was living with the family of PW1 because of his old  age.   A
      man of such advanced age can reasonably be expected to depend upon the
      assistance of the inmates of the house.  It would not be unnatural  in
      such circumstances for somebody from the house to  accompany  the  old
      man when he is required to answer the call of nature.  The  fact  that
      Brahmadeen was done to death while he had gone  to  ease  himself  and
      that his body was found in such area, is clear from the record and not
      disputed at all.  At the spot, a lathi, a lota and his hawaai  chappal
      were found  which  again  lend  support.   In  the  circumstances  the
      presence of PW1 at the relevant time and place is quite natural.


      16.   The record further indicates that soon after  the  incident  PW1
      rushed to the police station and  the  first  information  report  was
      registered in an hour and a half. The investigator rushed to the  spot
      where spot panchnama revealed tyre marks of the tractor in circular or
      round motion.  He also found lathi, lota and  hawaai  chappal  of  the
      deceased next to the body. The status of the body as disclosed in  the
      inquest also showed that it was run over by a vehicle which was  later
      substantiated by post  mortem.   Consequently,  we  find  the  version
      coming  from  PW1  to  be  consistent,  supported  by   all   relevant
      circumstances and lodged with promptitude.  Having found his  presence
      to be natural and his version getting  complete  support  on  material
      particulars,  in  our  considered  view,  the  witness  is  completely
      trustworthy.


      17.   It is settled principle that a conviction can well be founded on
      the testimony of a single witness if the court finds his version to be
      trustworthy and corroborated by record on material particulars[1].  We
      find on the touchstone of these principles the  testimony  of  PW1  is
      completely trustworthy.  Out of three infirmities found  by  the  High
      Court, one regarding place of occurrence is not correct  at  all.   So
      far as other two  infirmities  are  concerned,  it  is  well  accepted
      principle that the first information report  need  not  contain  every
      single detail and every part of the case of the prosecution.  However,
      assuming them to be improvements, in our view the basic substratum  of
      the matter does not get affected by such improvements  at  all.   Even
      after  segregating  the  part  which  appears  to  be  introduced   as
      improvement, the testimony of PW1  is  clear  and  creditworthy.   The
      feature that there was strong motive for the respondents to commit the
      murder in question is also clear from the record and the  trial  court
      had accepted that the respondents had  strong  motive  to  commit  the
      crime. The finding as regards motive has not even been touched by  the
      High Court. While PW1 narrated facts regarding civil  litigation,  the
      fact that the respondents accused were being tried for the  murder  of
      his father and that there was a separate case instituted against  them
      for having assaulted  Brahmadeen,  he  was  not  countered  in  cross-
      examination.  The motive therefore lends  complete  corroboration  and
      assurance while appreciating the version of PW1.


      18.   We are conscious that  we  are  considering  an  appeal  against
      acquittal and that going by the law laid down by this Court, the  view
      taken by the High Court ought not to be interfered with  if  it  is  a
      possible view.  However, in our considered  opinion,  the  view  which
      weighed with the High Court cannot be termed as a possible view in the
      matter.  It is well settled that in such circumstances it is  open  to
      an  appellate  court  to  consider  the  matter  afresh[2].     Having
      undertaken such exercise, we are of definite conclusion that PW1 is  a
      natural witness whose presence at the time and place  of  incident  is
      established and is worthy of acceptance.  However, mindful of the fact
      that in the original reporting he had attributed lalkara to respondent
      Basant Lal alone while the tractor was being driven by  respondent  Om
      Prakash, which meant that the other two accused, though sitting on the
      tractor were not attributed any overt act, we grant benefit  of  doubt
      to the other two accused, namely, Lalji and Gyan Prakash.    It  could
      possibly be put that Brahmadeen, an old man of 90 years would normally
      be accompanied by someone for assistance but  would  be  unaccompanied
      while easing out and therefore the time and place was so  deliberately
      chosen, in which case culpability of every  occupant  of  the  tractor
      would  be  made  out.   However,  in  the  absence  of  any   material
      establishing that, Lalji and Gyan Prakash are entitled to  benefit  of
      doubt.


      19.   We therefore set aside  the  acquittal  of  Basant  Lal  and  Om
      Prakash and restore the order of conviction as recorded  against  them
      by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 302  read
      with 34 IPC.  However, we do not deem it appropriate  to  restore  the
      sentence of death.  In our  view,  the  appropriate  sentence  in  the
      matter ought to be  sentence  for  imprisonment  for  life,  which  we
      proceed to impose on said Basant Lal and  Om  Prakash.   Consequently,
      the appeals are partly allowed.   The  acquittal  of  Lalji  and  Gyan
      Prakash as recoded by the High Court  is  affirmed.   The  appeals  as
      regards Basant Lal and Om Prakash are allowed and their  acquittal  is
      set aside.  Accused Basant Lal and  Om  Prakash  are  convicted  under
      Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and  sentenced  to  suffer  life
      imprisonment.  They are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to
      suffer the sentence awarded to them.






                                                            ....……………………..J.
                                              (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)



                                   ………………………..J.
                                              (Uday Umesh Lalit)
      New Delhi,
      July 01, 2015
-----------------------
      Ramnaresh vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2012) 4 SCC 257 which
      in turn relied upon Joseph vs. State of Kerala : (2003) 1 SCC 465 and
      State of Haryana vs. Inder Singh : (2002) 9 SCC 537
      [1] Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225