Devender
Pal Singh V. Vs [2002] Insc 168 (22 March 2002)
M.B.
Shah Shah, J.
By
judgment and order dated 24/25.8.2001, in Sessions Case No.4 of 2000, the
Designated Court-I, New Delhi convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 3(2)(i) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') and Section
120-B read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 323, 436 and 427 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to death and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. He
was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the
offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of TADA and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-. Against that judgment and order, the appellant has filed Criminal
Appeal No.993 of 2001 and for confirmation of death sentence, the State has
filed Death Reference Case (Crl.) No.2 of 2001 before this Court.
It is
the prosecution version that on 11.09.1993 Mr. M.S. Bitta, the then President
of Indian Youth Congress (I) was in his office at 5, Raisina Road, New Delhi. At about 2.30 p.m., Mr. Bitta left the office and the car
in which he was travelling came out of the main gate of 5, Raisina Road and one
pilot car, in which security personnel provided to him were sitting, was ahead
of his car. The pilot car slowed down in order to take right turn on Raisina Road. In the meantime, one bus came on Raisina Road, from the side of Windsor Palace. At that time, there was an explosion in a car parked
outside 5, Raisina Road.
Though,
Mr. Bitta was not hurt badly, a number of other vehicles parked on the road and
footpath caught fire. Because of the bomb blast nine persons succumbed to the
injuries and 29 other persons sustained injuries. During the course of
investigation, it was learnt that Kuldeep, Sukhdev Singh, Harnek, Devenderpal
Singh and Daya Singh Lahoria, all members of KLF, a terrorist organisation,
were behind this blast and their aim was to assassinate Mr. Bitta.
It is
the further prosecution version that secret information was received that
appellant Devender Pal Singh who was in custody of German authorities was to
come to Delhi from Frankfurt on the night of 18/19.1.1995. On his arrival, he
was handed over to IGI Airport police authorities by Lufthansa Airlines Staff. Immediately
upon his arrest, he tried to swallow cyanide capsule. However, he was
prevented.
Other
accused Daya Singh Lahoria, who was extradited from USA to India was also
arrested. He was also tried along with the appellant but was acquitted by the
Designated Court on the ground that there was no evidence against him and that
he has not made any confessional statement. The Court also observed that there
was no iota of material on record to corroborate confessional statement made by
accused Devender Pal Singh against his co-accused Daya Singh Lahoria and
prudence requires that in absence of corroboration, benefit should go to Daya
Singh Lahoria.
In
this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that except the so
called confessional statement, there is no other evidence against the appellant
and the said confessional statement is neither voluntary nor true and in any
case there is no corroborative evidence.
Hence,
the judgment and order passed by the Designated Court convicting the appellant
requires to be set aside.
For
appreciating the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant,
the relevant evidence led by the prosecution is required to be considered. It
is the say of PW37 Inspector Severaia Kujur that on 19.1.1995 he was posted at Immigration Airport and at the time of clearance of flight LH-760 at about 2.30 a.m., the staff of LH flight handed over Devender Pal
Singh who was deported from Germany. He
was interrogated by PRO Vigilance and SB Branch and it was found that he was
having forged passport, so he made a rukka under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act. Further, PW83 Inspector Tej Singh Verma,
Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, has also stated that on 19.1.1995 he
was posted at IGI Airport as Sub Inspector and that accused Devender Pal who
was deported from Germany was arrested in case FIR No.22 of 1995 for the
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section
12 of the Passport Act. During the course of interrogation, in the said case,
he made a disclosure statement. He has also stated that personal search was
conducted and that travelling documents were recovered from the accused. Along
with the disclosure statement and personal search memo, he was handed over to
ACP K.S. Bedi who conducted the investigation of this case. In
cross-examination, he has denied that Devender Pal Singh had not made any
disclosure statement and that his signatures were obtained on blank sheets.
Now,
as against this, we have to consider the evidence of PW130 Mr. K.S. Bedi, ACP.
It is his say that on the relevant date he was posted in Operation Cell, Lodhi
Colony. He received information that an KLF extremist namely Davenderpal Singh
@ Deepak has been detained in Germany in the last week of December, 1994, he
was trying to get released from there and that he would proceed to Pakistan or
he may be deported to India. He along with other officers went to IGI Airport to
check the incoming passengers from Frankfurt, Germany. At 2.30 a.m., Lufthansa Airlines Staff handed over the accused who was
having forged travelling documents to PW 37. He tried to swallow a capsule in
plastic foil which was caught and after this he disclosed that his name was Devender
Pal Singh. On that basis, IGI airport staff registered a case vide FIR No.22
dated 19.1.1995. It is his further say that on that date he made disclosure
statement describing his involvement in many cases including a bomb blast at 5,
Raisina Road. Therefore, he collected the copy
of the disclosure statement Ex.PW83/A and made his formal arrest in the present
case. He produced the accused before Shri B.B. Chaudhary, ACMM, New Delhi and secured his police remand for
10-days. He was interrogated on 21.1.1995 and accused again made a disclosure
statement in which he admitted his involvement in the bomb blast at Raisina Road. On 22.1.1995, he gave in writing
that he wanted to make confession. Thereafter, he informed Mr. B.S. Bola, DCP
(PW121) for recording the confessional statement. Mr. Bola after following the
procedure recorded his confessional statement on 23rd January, 1995. On 24th
January, 1995, he was
produced before the Court of ACMM, New Delhi before the expiry of police custody remand and from there the accused
was taken by the Punjab Police.
In
cross-examination, Mr. Bedi has stated that he was not having any prior
information that accused was being deported from Germany to India but he had gone to IGI Airport for
checking the passengers coming from Germany in the expectation that the accused might have been deported. He also
admitted that in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.PW83/1, no article
was recovered from the accused or at his pointing out. He further stated that
there is no recovery memo pertaining to the car recovered from Bulandshahar on
the judicial file.
However,
there is a reference about the car in a photocopy of DD No.69 dated 30.10.1993
of PS Bulandshahar. This DD was not brought by him. He denied the suggestion
that the involvement of the accused persons was within the knowledge of police
prior to 19.1.1995. He also admitted that on 23.1.1995, the DCP used the
computer installed in his office for recording the statement of the accused. He
also admitted that he had given a wireless message informing the Punjab Police
that accused would be produced before the court on 24.1.1995 and that is how
the Punjab Police had sought his police remand. He has denied the suggestion
that accused was forced to make a false confessional statement before the DCP
and the accused was deliberately produced prior to the expiry of police remand
and was sent to Punjab. He admits that thereafter accused
remained in police custody for more than two months in Punjab. In further cross-examination, he
has stated that he had not produced the copy of the confessional statement or
the original before the learned ACMM when the accused was produced before him.
He also admitted that before the accused was produced before ACMM on 24.1.1995,
he was formally arrested by the police of Police Station Sriniwaspuri. He also
admitted that Investigating Officers of the case pertaining to P.S. Sriniwaspuri
and Punjab Police were present inside the court when the accused was produced
before the ACMM. He has denied the suggestion that accused was put under fear
and duress or that he was warned not to reveal the true circumstances under
which the confessional statement was recorded or that in case he so reveals, he
would be done to death by Punjab Police.
PW121
Mr. B.S. Bola, DCP recorded the confessional statement of accused. In the cross-examination,
he has admitted that he was aware about the entire facts of the case prior to
the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 15 of TADA.
The
prosecution also led the evidence of PW131 ASI Kamlesh who recorded the
confessional statement on the computer as per the dictation of accused which is
running into nine pages. She has admitted in cross-examination that during the
period of six hours when his statement was recorded accused was not provided
any water or snacks and the matter typed out on the computer was not saved nor it
was taken on a floppy.
The
prosecution has also examined PW133 Mr B.B. Chaudhary, ASJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi,
who was ACMM, New Delhi at the relevant time stated that accused was produced
before him when he was in police custody. He asked only one question to the accusedwhether
his statement was recorded by DCP on 23.1.1995? To that, accused answered in
affirmative and his signatures were obtained on the application in confirmation
of his admission of having made a statement before the DCP. He admitted that he
had not asked any other question. It is his say that he did not think it
necessary to take the accused to his chamber to assess his mental state. He
also admitted that at that time no statement of accused was produced before
him.
From
the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, questions that arise for
consideration are (i) whether the confessional statement is true and voluntary?
and (ii) whether there is any corroboration to the said statement? Before considering
the evidence led by the prosecution, it is to be stated that accused in his
statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had sought asylum
in Germany and was deported from there on
refusal of asylum. He has denied recovery of cyanide capsule from him. He has
also denied having made the application Ex.PW121/B expressing desire to make a
confessional statement. He has also denied having made the confessional
statement before Mr. Bola on 23.1.1995. According to him, he was made to sign some
blank and partly written papers under threat and duress and entire proceedings
were fabricated upon those documents.
He has
also stated that before he was produced before the ACMM, he was told that if he
made any statement to the Court he would be handed over to Punjab Police who
would kill him in an encounter, and as he was under fear, he made a statement
before learned ACMM. He has also stated that he was taken to Punjab and brought back after about three
months and thereafter he sent an application from jail on 21.4.1995 retracting
his confessional statement and clarifying the circumstances under which the
said statement was recorded.
It is
apparent that Investigating Officer Mr. K.S. Bedi has improved his version by
stating that accused tried to swallow cyanide capsule when he was arrested. As
against this, it is the say of PW37 Severaia Kujur and PW83 Inspector Tej Singh
that accused was handed over to them by the staff of Lufthansa Airlines and
nowhere they stated that at that time accused tried to swallow any pill. It
appears that Mr. K.S. Bedi tried to give colour to the story that appellant
tried to swallow the cyanide pill. If that story was genuine, necessary panchnama
of the cyanide pill would have been made at the spot. Further, it is admitted position
on record that during the course of investigation of the bomb blast, the police
had learnt that Kuldeep, Sukhdev Singh, Harnek, Devenderpal Singh and Daya
Singh Lahoria, who were members of KLF, a terrorist organisation, were behind
the blast. Therefore, it would be difficult to believe that the IO Mr. Bedi had
gone to the Airport only for keeping a watch. On the contrary, Mr. Bola has
admitted that on his instructions, ACP KS Bedi had gone to the Airport to
arrest the accused on the basis of intelligence reports of involvement of
accused and his group in the bomb blast case.
Therefore,
the version of Mr. Bedi that he had gone at the IGI Airport to check the incoming passengers
from Frankfurt Germany cannot be relied upon. From the evidence of DCP Mr. Bola it is apparent
that information was received that accused was coming from Germany and, therefore, a watch at IGI Airport was
kept.
Apart
from the aforesaid improvement, it is difficult to believe that the accused who
was arrested for travelling on a forged passport after landing at the airport,
would make a disclosure statement involving himself in various crimes including
the bomb blast. There was no earthly reason to make such disclosure on 19th
itself so that accused could be arrested by Mr. K.S. Bedi for the alleged
involvement in the offence under the TADA. It is also admitted that when the
accused was produced before ACMM, the confessional statement was not produced
for the perusal of the ACMM and the ACMM only asked him the questionwhether he admits
making confessional statement before DCP B.S. Bola. It would be difficult to
accept that if confessional statement was recorded and when the accused was
produced before the Magistrate, he would be taken there without the said
confessional statement. Rule 15(5) of TADA requires that every confession
recorded under Section 15 shall be sent forthwith to the CMM or the CJM having
jurisdiction over the area in which such confession has been recorded and such
Magistrate shall forward the confession so received to the Designated Court which may take cognizance of the
offence. In this view of the matter, there was no reason to produce the accused
before the ACMM without so- called confessional statement.
Further
sub-section (1) of Section 15 of TADA specifically provides inter alia that in
case confession made by a person before the police officer is recorded by such
police officer either in writing or on any mechanical device like cassettes,
tapes or sound tracks from out of which sounds or images can be reproduced,
shall be admissible in trial of such person for an offence under this Act or
rules made thereunder. The confessional statement was recorded on computer and
floppy thereof is not produced in the court and is admitted to have not been
saved in the computer by ASI Kamlesh.
From
the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that the confessional statement of the
appellant is recorded by DCP B.S. Bola (PW121) who was the Investigating
Officer at the relevant time. Admittedly, the accused was in police custody. Thereafter
he was handed over to the Punjab Police. Further, from the record it appears
that accused was wanted in bomb blast case since 1993 and as soon as he arrived
at the IGI Airport, he was arrested and was handed over to PW130 Mr. K.S. Bedi,
ACP. It is stated that Mr. Bedi also recorded the disclosure statement of the
appellant on 21.1.1995, wherein he admitted his involvement in the bomb blast
case. Thereafter, confessional statement under Section 15 of the TADA was
recorded by DCP B.S. Bola. In such state of affairs, doubt may arisewhether the
accused has made any confessional statement at all. In Kartar Singh v. State of
Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569], this Court observed thus: - "Though it is
entirely for the court trying the offence to decide the question of
admissibility or reliability of a confession in its judicial wisdom strictly
adhering to the law, it must, while so deciding the question should satisfy
itself that there was no trap, no track and no importune seeking of evidence
during the custodial interrogation and all the conditions required are
fulfilled." In such case it would be unsafe to solely rely upon the
alleged confession recorded by Investigating Officer. Further, looking at the
original confessional statement, there appears to be some substance in what is
contended by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that his
signatures were taken on blank paper. Under Rule 15(3)(b) of the TADA Rules,
the police officer who is recording the confession has to certify the same
"under his own hand" that the said confession was taken in his
presence and recorded by him and at the end of confession, he has to give
certificate as provided there under.
In the
present case, the certificate was not given under the hands of D.C.P., but was
a typed one.
Further,
for finding out whether the statement is truthful or not, there must be some
reliable independent corroborative evidence. In the present case, co-accused Daya
Singh Lahoria who was tried together with the appellant was acquitted on the ground
that there was no evidence against him and that as he had not made any
confessional statement. However, for connecting the appellant, the learned
Judge has relied upon the decision in Gurdeep Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.),
[(2000) 1 SCC 498] for holding that when the confessional statement is
voluntary, corroboration is not required. It appears that the Court has not
read the entire paragraph of the said judgment and has missed the previous
lines which read thus: - "For the aforesaid reasons and on the facts and
circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation to hold that the confessional
statement of the appellant is not only admissible but was voluntarily and
truthfully made by him on which the prosecution could rely for his conviction.
Such confessional statement does not require any further corroboration. Before
reliance could be placed on such confessional statement, even though
voluntarily made, it has to be seen by the court whether it is truthfully made
or not. However, in the present case we are not called upon nor is it
challenged that the confessional statement was not made truthfully." From
the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that before solely relying upon the
confessional statement, the Court has to find out whether it is made voluntarily
and truthfully by the accused. Even if it is made voluntarily, the Court has to
decide whether it is made truthfully or not. But in Gurdeep Singh's case
(supra), there was no challenge made to the fact that it was not made
truthfully.
In the
confessional statement it is mentioned that accused hired rooms at Sahibabad, Jaipur
and Bangalore. Merely because some house numbers
are mentioned in confessional statement, it cannot be held that as house
numbers are found by police officers, it is a corroborative piece of evidence.
None of the neighbours has deposed before the court that the accused stayed in
the said houses. To write such numbers is easy for investigating officers
because they were investigating the case from the date of the bomb blast i.e.
since 1993.
No
independent witnesses or landlord came forward to depose that accused resided
in the said premises or took it on lease. No incriminating articles were found
from the said house or places mentioned in confession to connect the accused
with the crime. Even PW80 Harcharan Singh who sold the car which was seized at
the scene of offence in 1993, has not stated that appellant-accused purchased
the said car or that acquitted accused Daya Singh purchased the same. PW44 Prehlad
Sharma, property dealer of Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, stated that in August,1993 he had arranged a house on rent basis for
two boys, who told themselves to be working as contractor in G.D.A. He, also,
failed to identify accused as the boys who came at his shop to take the
premises on rent. On 28.9.1993, the police came to him and informed that some
RDX was recovered from that house, shown some photographs to him and he
identified two photographs of the said persons. However, he has not identified
the accused as the boy who came at his shop to take the premises on rent.
Similarly, PW69 Nasir Siddiqui, who was running a shop of electrical goods at Lajpat
Nagar had sold one water pump to a customer residing in Lajpat Nagar. The
police came to his show-room and pointed some photographs for identification of
the person who had purchased the water pump. He had identified the photograph
of that person.
However,
in the court, he refused to identify the accused as the customer who had
purchased the water pump from his shop.
In any
set of circumstances, let us consider the confessional statement as it is. In
the present case other accused D.S. Lahoria was tried along with the appellant
and was acquitted. The role assigned to D.S. Lahoria in the confessional
statement is major one. In the confessional statement, appellant Devenderpal
Singh has stated as under: - "I was born in Jullandar on 26.5.65.I
completed pre-engineering examination from Layal Pur Khalsa College Jullandhar
in 1984 and joined B.E. in the Mechanical at Guru Nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana
and completed my degree course in 1988..In the month of Nov.,1991, police came
to know about the names of the boys who were behind the car bomb attack on SSP/Chandigarh
and the police raided the house Partap Singh where Dr. Hari Singh and Videshi
had stayed one day before the blast.
Partap
Singh further disclosed that they are also known to me..The police raided my
house. I was not present in the house. My father and father-in-law were
arrested by the policeI was told that he alongwith Partap Singh, Balwant Singh Multani
and Navneet Singh Kadian @ Pal R/o village Kadia Distt. Batala and Mangal Singh
are wanted in SSP/Chandigarh bomb blast case.
Thereafter,
I went under ground and talked to my maternal uncle Shri Sukhdev Singh Sandhu
in Vencouver, Canada who advised me that the chances of release of his father
are very minimum as the case relates to Sumed Singh Saini and that he should
also go under ground.
In
August, 1993, plans were chalked out to eliminate M.S. Bitta because Keepa felt
that he is speaking to much against their movement and the militants. Keepa
along with Charni went to Punjab and took
out one quintal of RDX and left it with one Pawan Kumar @ Chajju at Ludhiana. They came back and sent Harnaik @ Chottu
to bring this RDX to their Sahibabad hideout. Part of this consignment was
brought by Pawan Kumar which was handed over to Kuldeep Keepa at Delhi Karnal
Border. Harnaik @ Chotu got the steel container fabricated for the bombs. Daya
Singh Lahora went to purchase an Ambassador Car which was subsequently used in
the bomb blast. The cordless telephone was purchased from Ludhiana by Harnaik. On 2nd September, 1993, Kuldeep Keepa and Navneet Kadian
conducted the reccee of the office of MS Bitta at 5, Rai Sina Road, New Delhi. Next day, Kuldeep Keepa, Navneet, Sukha @ Sangatpuria, Harnaik,
Lahoria and myself again came to the office of Bitta to watch the proceedings.
We
made two attempts on 6th and 9th September, 1993.
On 6th September, 1993, the mechanism did not work and we
could not trigger the blast. On 9th September, 1993, MS Bitta did not come to the office. Myself and Kuldeep Keepa
fixed the bombs in the rear seat and the dickey and the master receiver of the
telephone was placed on the rear seat. The two wires coming out the receiver
were connected to the detonators. Around 40 kgs. of RDX was used in the blast.
On
11.9.1993, we came to the office of Bitta at around 11 a.m. and the car was parked close to the front gate. Navneet, Keepa
and Sangatpuria were waiting in the back side of parking of Meridian Hotel alongwith
Gypsy No.DNC-1790 which was a fake number. I went to Connaught Place to bring Harnaik @ Chotu with whom
the time was fixed the previous day.
In the
meanwhile, MS Bitta went inside his office and we could not trigger off the
blast as none of us were in position. We decided to go back, but when we
reached Pragati Maidan, Keepa insisted on making another try.
We
reached Janpath Hotel and connected the wires in the parking area and sent Lahoria
to park the car near the gate of the office. The other five of us went in the
Gypsy and parked it in the parking area in front of Chelmsford club. Harnaik and myself got down
from Gypsy and went towards the office of MS Bitta. I positioned myself on the
opposite side of the office and Harnaik positioned himself close to the walls
of Jawahar Bhawan to save himself from the blast.
When Lahoria
came out of the car after parking immediately, thereafter, the cars of MS Bitta
started moving out and Lahoria gave a signal to Harnaik who pushed the button
of the hand set of the cordless telephone. The security car of MS Bitta was hit
and Bitta's car which was behind was not damaged. Since Lahoria was very
closed, he was hit by splinters on his back. Harnaik and myself went to the
parked Gypsy from where Sukha had already come towards 5 Rai Sina Road, New
Delhi to see whether any of us had been injured or not. Kuldeep and Navneet
were already sitting in the Gypsy. Four of us left the place and dropped Navneet
at the back of Meridian Hotel to come by bus or autho-rickshaw because he was a
Sikh and possibility of identification was more strong. Lahoria went to the
hospital in auto rickshaw and registered himself under the name of VK Sood and
left the hospital immediately after first aid. He went to his hideout which is
not known to me." There is nothing on record to corroborate the aforesaid
confessional statement. Police could have easily verified the hospital record
to find out whether D.S. Lahoria went to the hospital and registered himself
under the name of V.K. Sood on the date of incident and left the hospital after
getting First Aid. In any set of circumstances, none of the main culprits i.e. Harnaik
or Lahoria is convicted. In these set of circumstances, without there being
corroborative evidence, it would be difficult to solely rely upon the so-called
confessional statement and convict the accused and that too when the
confessional statement is recorded by the investigating officer. For this
purpose, it would be worth-while to refer to the decision in Topandas v. State
of Bombay [AIR 1956 SC 33 para 6]: - "Criminal conspiracy has been defined
in Section 120-A Penal Code:
"When
two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii)
an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a
criminal conspiracy.
By the
terms of the definition itself, there ought to be two or more persons who must
be parties to such an agreement and it is trite to say that one person alone
can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one
cannot conspire with oneself. If, therefore, 4 named individuals were charged
with having committed the offence under Section 120-B, Penal Code, and if three
out of these 4 were acquitted of the charge, the remaining accused, who was the
accused No.1 in the case before us, could never be held guilty of the offence
of criminal conspiracy." The court further discussed the aforesaid
question and referred to the decision in R. v. Plummer [1902 (2) KB 339 (C)]
and held as under: - "(1902) 2 KB 339 (C) which is cited in support of
this proposition was a case in which, on a trial of indictment charging three
persons jointly with conspiring together, one person had pleaded guilty and a
judgment passed against him, and the other two were acquitted. It was held that
the judgment passed against one who had pleaded guilty was bad and could not
stand. Lord Justice Wright observed at p.343:
"There
is much authority to the effect that, if the appellant had pleaded not guilty
to the charge of conspiracy, and the trial of all three defendants together had
proceeded on that charge, and had resulted in the conviction of the appellant
and the acquittal of the only alleged co-conspirators, no judgment could have
been passed on the appellant, because the verdict must have been regarded as
repugnant in finding that there was a criminal agreement between the appellant
and the others and none between them and him: see 'Harison v. Errington',
(1627) Poph 202 (D), where upon an indictment of three for riot two were found
not guilty and one guilty, and upon error brought it was held a "void
verdict", and said to be "like to the case in 11 Hen 4 c.2,
conspiracy against two, and only one of them is found guilty, it is void, for
one alone cannot conspire." In this view of the matter, when rest of the
accused who are named in the confessional statement are not convicted or tried,
this would not be a fit case for convicting the appellant solely on the basis
of so-called confessional statement recorded by the police officer.
Finally,
such type of confessional statement as recorded by the investigating officer
cannot be the basis for awarding death sentence.
In the
result, Criminal Appeal No.993 of 2001 filed by the accused is allowed and the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Designated Court convicting the appellant is set aside. The accused is
acquitted for the offences for which he is charged and he is directed to be
released forthwith if not required in any other case.
In
view of the above, Death Reference Case (Crl.) No. 2 of 2001 would not survive
and stands disposed of accordingly.
J.
(M.B.
SHAH) March 22, 2002.
Back