VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

                         (2013) 11 S.C.R. 212


A               VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS.
                                    v.
                           STATE OF BIHAR
                  (Criminal Appeal No.791 OF 2009)
                        SEPTEMBER 20, 2013
B
             [A.K. PATNAIK AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

           Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
    - s.3(1) - Retaliatory attack by group of extremists leading
c   tq death of 35 persons and injury to 7 persons - Accused-
    appellants convicted and sentenced to death - Justification
    - Held: On facts, even if deficiencies in the prosecution are
    ignored, prosecution case against appellant no. 2 is rather weak
    - His name not mentioned in the FIR - PW-2 injured witness
0   failed to identify appellant no.2 in Court - None of the other
    witnesses including PW-3, another injured witness, attributed
    any role to him - In the circumstances, appellant no.2
    deserves acquittal - As far as appellant no.3 is concerned,
    in addition to his name being mentioned in the FIR as one
E   who was slitting the throats, he was identified by PW-2 injured
    witness in Court - Appellant no. 3 was attributed the role of
    slitting the throats by PW-2 in his oral deposition - Though
    other witnesses did not attribute any specific role to him, he
    was identified by them as a participant in the crime - As far
    as appellant no. 1 is concerned, PW-2 stated in oral evidence
F   that he. was slitting the throats, and he identified him in the
    court as well, though no other witness attributed any particular
    role to him - PW2 being an injured witness, his testimony
    cannot be ignored - He attributed a specific role to appellants
    nos.1 and 3 - Conviction of these two accused us.302 /PC
G   and other charges accordingly upheld - However, the incident
    occurred in 1992 and the charges were framed in 2004 and
    more than nine years passed thereafter also, and the
    appellants have been facing the trauma of the crime and the
                                  212
H
 VYAS RAM@ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                   213
                 BIHAR
trial all this period - Besides, the manner in which the           A
investigation proceeded far from satisfactory - Possibility that
due to their poverty and caste conflict the accused were drawn
in the melee and participated in the crime - Taking into
account the circumstances, death sentence awarded to
appellant nos. 1 and 3 commuted to life imprisonment, which        B
is to mean the rest of their natural life - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss.302 rlw 149, 364 rlw 149, 307 rlw 149, s.436 rlw 149 and
s.435 rlw 149.

     Penal Code, 1860 - s. 149 - Common intention -                C
Punishment prescribed by s. 149 - Nature of - Held: It is in a
sense vicarious, and does not always proceed on the basis
that the offence has been actually committed by every
member of the unlawful assembly - At the same time if a
person is a mere bystander, and no specific role is attributed
to him, he may not come under the wide sweep of s. 149.            D

     In a gruesome carnage, a group of extremists caused
the death of 35 persons and injury to 7 persons. All the
victims belonged to the Bhumihar community. The
incident was claimed to be an attack by the members of             E
the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in retaliation to an
earlier attack by the Bhumihar community.
     The Designated Trial Judge sentenced four accused
to death under Section 3(1) of the Terrorists and
                                                                   F
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), and
to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC.
Their death sentence was confirmed by a bench of three
judges of this Court by a majority of two versus one in
Krishna Mochi and Others v. State of Bihar (wherein the
Senior Judge cm the bench viz. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B.            G
Shah, rendered a separate judgment acquitting one
accused and commuting the death sentence of the other
three to life imprisonment). Another group of four
accused though convicted under Section 3(1) of TADA,
                                                                   H
    214     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life on each
  count. Their conviction and sentence was set aside by
  this Court in Bihari Manjhi and Others v. State of Bihar
  and Rajendra Paswan v. State of Bihar.

8      Three other accused viz. Tyagi Manjhi alias Tyagi-jee,
  Vijay Yadav and Madhusudan Sharma, tried along with
  the accused-appellants, were acquitted for want of
  sufficient evidence. -The three appellants were, however,
  held to be members of an unlawful assembly, and
C convicted and sentenced to death under Section 3(1) of
  TADA, and to life imprisonment on each count under
  Sections 302r/w149, 364r/w149, 307r/w149 of l.P.C, and
  for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 436
  r/w 149 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under
  Section 435 r/w 149 IPC.
D
       Before this Court, the main grounds raised by the
  appellants pertained to unreliable investigation especially
  in the light of the non examination of the informant, and
  the belated recor<!iJlg of the statement of the witnesses.
E Furthermore,-ttfe appellants stressed upon the fact that
  no particular role was assigned to them, and in such a
  scenario there cannot be any conviction, leave aside the
  death sentence, for merely being present in the unlawful
  assembly at the place of incident.
F       Partly allowing the appeal and dismissing the Death
    Reference case, the Court
       HELD: 1. The defining ingredient for the involvement
  of the accused would be the common intention. Section-
G 149 of l.P.C makes it amply clear that if an offence is
  committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
  prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or
  such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely
  to be committed in prosecution of that object, every
H person who, at the time of the committing of that offence
 VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF               215
                  BIHAR
is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that            A
offence. The punishment prescribed by Section-149 is in
a sense vicarious, and does not always proceed on the
b~sis that the offence has been actually committed by
every member of the unlawful assembly. At the same time
if a person is a mere bystander, and no specific role is       B
attributed to him, he may not come under the wide sweep
of Section 149. [Para 18) [230-B-D]

     Baladin v. State of U.P AIR 1956 SC 181 and Masalti v.
State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202: 1964 SCR 133 - relied on.       C

     2.1. The submission of the appellants which does merit
a close scrutiny and a thorough examination by the court
is, however, concerning the allegedly faulty investigation,
especially the failure of the prosecution to conduct a Test
Identification Parade, and the delay in recording the          D
statements of the witnesses which according to them
rendered the entire alleged identification of the appellants
do'Ubtful. [Para 19] [230-E-F]
     I;
     2.2. In the present case, as per the statement of PW      E
21 the investigation prior to him had been conducted by
PW22 who was the sub inspector and the officer incharge
of Tekari Police station at the time of occurrence, as Ram
Japit who had originally been entrusted with the
investigation had fallen ill. PW 22 was the one who was
the officer incharge of the Tekari P.S, and had gone for       F
routine patrol at about 9 p.m. on 12.2.92, when he heard
sounds of explosion. He heard from one person, whom
he met on the way, that explosion was taking place in the
north. On going there, he met three chowkidaars who told
him that 'partywalas' had come, and set the village on fire,   G
and were terrorising people by firing and exploding
bombs. Interestingly, none of these people, through whom
the police had come to know of the incident, were
examined. Their fard bayan was not taken. PW 22 has
                                                               H
       216     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2013] 11 S.C.R.
                                                         .       -~-




    A stated in his deposition that he informed the SP of the
      gravity of the situation, and the SP came at the place of
      occurrence with his force and they all proceeded further.
      At this point of time, they were approached by one Sarwan
      Kumar, who had come running to them, after coming to
    B know that they were police officers. His hands were tied
      at his back, he told them that extremists had come to the
      village, and had proceeded toward the east. Sarwan
      Kumar was also not examined. The reason given for this
      by PW22 is that Sarwan Kumar did not give the entire
    c account of the happening, and because the entire village
      was on fire. The statements of none of the women who
      were weeping near the culvert were recorded either.
      Understandably, they were very upset, and possibly not
      in the position to give their statements. However, this does
      not explain as to why the statements of none of those
    0
      people from whom the police had originally come to know
      of the incident, had been recorded, and why the F.l.R was
      recorded on the Fard bayan of the informant later at 3 a.m.
      in the morning when the chowkidaars, the mukhiya and
      Sarwan Singh had much earlier informed the police about
    E the incident. [Para 25] [232-G-H; 233-A-H]

           2.3. PW 22 claims to have taken over the
      investigation after Ram Japit Kumar was not available at
      the place of occurrence, but he did not have any written
    F orders or approval for proceeding with the investigation.
      In para 28 of his deposition it is also revealed that none
      of the material exhibits of the case were submitted to the
      Court as the Malkhana had been attacked by the
      extremists in 1996, and all its articles were, consequently
    G destroyed. In para 35 of his cross examination he had
      admitted that it had been recorded in para 23 of the police
      case diary that Ram Japit was busy with the investigation.
      In para 2 of the case diary it was mentioned that
      investigation of this case had been endorsed by the SP
    H to Ram Japit Kumar who was at the place of occurrence.




                                                             '         '
'                            '
 VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                 217
                  BIHAR
This contradicts his statement that Ram Japit was not            A
available at the place of occurrence. In para 43, PW22
admits that n? T.l.P was conducted of any suspect. PW22
investigated the case for only 8 days, and did not
mention any time and place of the examination of any of
the witnesses. There are also discrepancies in the               B
depositions of PW21 and PW22 as far as the extent of
case diary recorded by PW22 is concerned. In addition
to this, no seizure list was prepared. [Paras 26, 27] [234-
B-F]

    Krishna Machi and Others v. State of Bihar 2002 (6) SCC      C
81: 2002 (3) SCR 1; Bihari Manjhi and Others v,, State of
Bihar and Rajendra Paswan v. State of Bihar 2002 (4) SCC
352: 2002 (2) SCR 1173; Kamaksha Rai v. State of U.P.
1999 (8) SCC 701; Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
1997(1) SCC 283: 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 225 and Dilavar             D
Hussain v. State of Gujarat 1991 (1) SCC 253: 1990 (2)
Suppl. SCR 108 - referred to.
    Vijay. Kumar Baldev Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
2007 (12) SCC 687: 2007 (7) SCR 601; Hitendra Vishnu             E
Thakur v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1994 SC 2623: 1994 (1)
Suppl. SCR 360 and Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar
AIR 1974 SC 1822: 1974 (2) SCR 609 - cited.

     3.1. In the present case, even if the deficiencies in the
                                                                 F
prosecution are ignored, and the oral evidence on recol"d
is looked into, the case of prosecution against appellant
no.2 is rather weak. His name was not mentioned in the
FIR. PW-2 who is an injured witness, though states in the
dock that he had seen the appellants slitting the throats,
he failed to identify appellant no.2 in Court. None of the       G
other witnesses including PW-3, who is another injured
witness, have attributed any role to him. None of them
said. that he was a member of MCC. Madhusudan who
was named at Sr. No.5 in the FIR also faced a similar
allegation. It was. PW-2 who named Madhusudan as one             H
    218     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A of the accused who slit the throats of the deceased, but
  had failed to identify him in the dock. In the absence of
  other witnesses throwing any light on his participation in
  the occurrence, Madhusudan was acquitted by the
  designated Judge. In paragraph 39 of his judgment in
B Krishna Mochi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aggarwal (who· had
  rendered the' leading judgment of conviction) rejected the
  theory of some of the accused being mere sight-seers.
  This was because, as the paragraph indicates, a specific
  role was attributed to them such as entering into the
c houses by breaking open the doors, and forcibly taking
  the inmates, tyiog their hands and taking them to the
  temple and thereafter near to the canal, where their legs
  were tied, and thereafter killing some of them. As far as
  appellant no.2 is concerned, no such role is attributed to ·
0 him by any of the witnesses. This being so, appellant no.2
  is entitled to have the same yardstick applied to him as
  was applied to Madhusudan. In the circumstances,
  appellant no.2 deserves an acquittal. [Para 29] [235-E-H;
  236-A-C]

E       3.2. As far as appellant no.3 is concerned, in addition
  to his name being mentioned in the FIR as one who was
  slitting the throats, he was identified by PW-2 injured
  witness in Court. Appellant no.3 is attributed the role of
  slitting the throats by PW-2 in his oral deposition. Though
F other witnesses did not attribute any specific role to him,
  he was identified by them as a participant in the crime.
  As far as appellant no.1 is concerned, though his name
  was mentioned in the FIR, the heinous act of slitting the
  throats was not attributed to him in the FIR. PW-2 has
G however stated in oral evidence that appellant no.1 was
  slitting the throats, and he identified him in the court as
  well, though no other witness has attributed any
  particular role to him. PW2 being an injured witness, his
  testimony cannot be ignored. It is true that his testimony
H was not accepted in Krishna Mochi, but that was so with
 VYAS RAM@ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                219 .
                 BIHAR
respect to other acc:used. In the present case, he has          A
attributed a spe1cific role to the,se two <accused. There is
no reason to diisca.rd his evidence. The conviction of
these two accus\ed under Section 302 of IPC and other
charges will haw! to be upheld. [Paras 30 and 31] [236-
D-H]                                                            B
       3.3. Question tlf :sentence in regard tr.> appellant nos.
  1 and 3: It is true thut in Krishna Mochi, by a majority of
  two versus one, the' crime in the instant case WQs held
  to be one which deserved the extreme penalty of death.
  However, as far as; the present trial is concerned, the C
  occurrence of the crime is of February 1992 and the
. charges were framied in May 2004. More than nine years
  have gone thereafter also, and the appellants have been
  facing the trauma off the crime and the trial all this period.
  Besides, the manner in which the investigation has D
  proceeded was far from satisfactory. In all cases where
  death sentences are to be awa.rded, the circumstances
  of the accused are also, requir1ed to be considered. The
  leading judgment of c onvictio1n in Krishna Mochi, was
                        1


  rendered by Hon'ble Aggarwal J., and he noted in para E
  33 of his judgment that in the present case there was more
  or less a caste war b~tween the haves and the have nots.
  The appellants belonged to the latter category. The
  present incident was claimed to be a retaliatory attack by
  the members of MCC. They are essentially the persons F
  belonging to the scheduled castes and backward
  classes, and eco1nomically weaker and exploited sections
  of society. The a1ttack was supposed to be in retaliation
  to an earlier attack by the Bhumihar community, led by
  the Ranvir Sena. It must also be noted that none of the G
  witnesses have attributed to these appellants that they
  belonged to the MCC. It is quite possible that due to their
  poverty and caste conflict in the villages they were drawn
  in the melee and participated in the crime. At the same
  time no harm was done to women and children~ Appellant H
    220      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013) 11 S.C.R.

A No.1 worked with one Jamuna Singh. No harm was done
  to any member from his family either. This is not to say
  that such acts are to be condoned, but at the same time
  after taking into account these circumstances of the
  accused, death sentence was not warranted. [Para 32]
B [237-A-H; 238-A-B]
       3.4. Though the FIR was common, the testimonies in
  the two cases are in fact different, and on the analysis
  thereof one comes to the conclusion that one of the
  accused is not guilty, however, the other two are, but
C considering the circumstances in their case the death
  sentence is not warranted. The judgment convicting
  appellant no.2 is set-aside, and he will stand acquitted.
  As far as appellant nos.1 and 3 are concerned, although
  their convi~~ion under the offences for which they were
D charged is upheld, the death sentence awarded to them
  is commuted to imprisonment for life, which is to mean
  the rest of their natural life. [Paras 33, 35] [238-C-D; 239-
  D-F]
       Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v.
E State of Kamataka AIR 2008 SC 3040: 2008 (11) SCR 93
  and Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of
  Maharashtra 2009 (6) SCC 498: 2009 (9) SCR 90 - relied
  on.
F      Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 (2) SCC 684 and
    Machi Singh v. State of Punjab 1983 (3) SCC 470: 1983 (3)
    SCR 413 - referred to.
                           Case Law Reference:
          2002 (3) SCR 1             referred to     Para 4
G
          2002 (2) SCR 1173          referred to     Para 5
          2007 (7) SCR 601           cited           Para 10.
          1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 360    cited           Para 12
H         AIR 1956 SC 181            relied on       Para 16
 VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF              221
                  BIHAR
    1964 SCR 133                  relied on      Para 17      A

    1974 (2) SCR 609              cited          Para 19
    1999 (8) sec 101              referred. to   Para 23
    1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 225       referred to    Para 23      B
    1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 108       referred to    Para 28
    1980 (2) sec 684              referred to    Para 32
    1983 (3) SCR 413              referred to    Para 32
                                                              c
    2008 (11) SCR 93              relied on      Para 34
    2009 (9) SCR 90               relied on      Para 34
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 791 of 2009.                                              D
    From the Judgment & Order dated 11.02.2009 of the
Designated Court, Gaya in Case No. 430 of 1992.

                           WITH
                                                              E
Death Ref. Case (Crl.) No. 2 of 2011.

    Kamini Jaiswal, Abhimanue Shreshta, Shomita Bakshi,
K.G. Shaikh for the Appellants.

    Nagendra Rai, Shantanu Sagar, Smarhar Singh~ .Abhishek    F
Singh, Gopal Singh for the Respondent.            '

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                      \
      H.L. GOKHALE J. 1. This Criminal Appeal No. 791/2009
filed by Vyas Kahar alias Vyas-jee, Naresh Paswan and Sugai   G
Mochi alias Sugai Ravidas seeks to challenge the Death
sentence awarded to them by the Sessions Judge-of the-
Designated Court, Gaya, State of Bihar, by his judgment and
order dated 11.02.2009 in C.R Case No.430 of 1992 arising
out of Tekri PS Case No. 19/1992. All of them have been       H
    222      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013j! 11 S.C.R.


A convicted and sentenced to death und1er Section 3(1) of The
  Terrorists and Disrup1tive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
  (hereafter, referred to as TADA), and k>r lifo imprisonment on
  each count under Sections 302 read with 14!3, 364 r/w 149, 307
  r/w 149 of t,r;tdian Penal Code (IPC in short), for rigorous
B imprisonreent for 10 years under Section 436 r/w 149 IPC, and
  rigoroys imprisonment for 1 y1ear under Section 435 r/w 149
  IPC. The Death Reference Gase (R) No.2 of 2011 arises out
  ef the award of death sentence made by the said learned
  Judge under Section 366 of the Code of Crimin.al Procedure,
c 1973 (Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19 of TADA
    The initiation of prosecution

          2... As per the First Information Report (FIR) dated
    13.0:t1992, there was a gruesome c;arnage in which 35
D   persons were killed, and 7 persons were injured. All of them
    belonged to the Bhurnihar community of village Bara, police
    station Tekari, District Gaya, State of Bih,ar. The FIR was lodged
    on the, basis of the fard-bayan of the inf()rmant Satendra Kumar
    Sharma who had sta,ted that at 9:30 pm on 12.02.92, when the
E   informant was pre'Paring to go to bed, he heard sounds of
    explosions and firing. He saw thf~ village ablaze. About 10-15
    unknown people knocked at the door c1f his house violently, and
    told him that thr.!y had come to pie~; up one Dayanand and
    Haridwar Sing~1. as according to them they were hidden in one?
F   of the house;s. When the i,nformant opened the door, he was
    forcibly tal<.en to the north-eastern side of the village, near a
    temple. 1-',e found many of his relatiives sitting there, and their
    hands v 1ere tied at the back by the, extremists. Soon thereaf,ter
    5-6 pF~ople including one of the appellants, viz. Bugal Machi
G   carT'.e there, and told the other extremists to bring all those
    pe.ople near the canal since their leader one Kirani Yadav had
    d;irected so. The ladies were sen·t home, and these people werEi
     taken near the canal. The in.formant claims that he had.
     overh1eard the extremists saying that they did not intend to spare
     any p1 erson belonging to the Bhumihar caste. Some firing was
H
  VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF 223
           BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
heard from the west, and some of the extremists, including            A
Sugai Mochi fearing the arrival of police started slitting the
necks of people. The informant somehow managed to escape,
though he lists some 37 persons whose dead bodies he claims
to have seen. He also mentions the name of 8 injured people.
The extremists retreated soon after the arrival of police, shouting   B
slogans of "MCC (Maoist Communist Centre) zindabad".
According to him there were about 500 extremists in all, out of
whom some 300 were armed with firearms and explosives, and
many were in police uniform. He named 34 people in the FIR
including two of the appellants viz. Vyas Ram and Sugai Mochi,        c
but the name of Naresh Paswan is not mentioned.

     3. On the statement of the informant, the police registered
the case under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA, and under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326, 436, 452, 341 and 342
of IPC. During the investigation, many arrests were made, and         D
the confessional statement of Bihari Manjhi was recorded. After
further investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against as
many as 119 persons, out of whom 13 were brought to trial,
showing the remaining persons as absconders.
                                                                      E
Proceeding of the trial at the earlier stage

     4. The learned Designated Judge who conducted the trial
of the Case C.R. No.430 of 1992, by his judgment and order
dated 8.6.2001, acquitted four of these accused viz. Nanhey
Yadav, Nanak Teli, Naresh Chamar and Ramashish Mahto.                 F
 Four other accused viz. Krishna Mochi, Dharmendra Singh alias
 Dharu Singh, Nanhey Lal Mochi and Veer Kuer Paswan alias
Veer Kuer Dusadh were sentenced to death under Section 3(1}
of TADA, and for life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 149
of IPC. Their death sentence was confirmed by a bench of three        G
judges of this Court by a majority of two versus one, on
15.04.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2001 read with Death
Reference No.1 of 2001 i.e. Krishna Mochi and Others v.
State of Bihar reported in 2002 (6) SCC 81 (wherein the Senior
Judge on the bench viz. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah,                H
    224     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 11 S.C.R.

A rendered a separate judgment acquitting Dharmendra Singh ·
  and commuting 4he death sentence of the other three to life
  imprisonment).
                                  'I
        5. Another group of accused facing the said trial viz. Bihari
B Manjhi, Ramautar Dusadh alias Lakhan Dusadh, Rajendra
  Paswan and Wakil Yadav though convicted under Section 3(1)
  of TADA, were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life on
  each count. Bihari Manjhi, Ramautar Dusadh and Wakil Yadav
  filed one appeal, and Rajendra Paswan filed a separate one.
C Both these appeals were heard together and allowed. Their
  conviction and sentence was set aside by this Court in a
  unanimous judgment of the same bench of three judges
  rendered on the same day i.e. 15.04.2002 in Bihari Manjhi and
  Others v. State of Bihar and Rajendra Paswan v. State of Bihar,
  reported in 2002 (4) sec 352.
D
  Acquittal of three other accused in the present
  proceeding

       6. Three other accused viz. Tyagi Manjhi alias Tyagi-jee,
E Vijay Yadav and Madhusudan Sharma, were tried along with
  the present appellants subsequently, as all of them were
  absconding at the time of the earlier mentioned proceeding.
  The charges were framed against them on 15.04.04. As
  reflected in the presently impugned judgment and order, all the
  accused pleaded to be not guilty, and took the defence of false
F implication. At the end of the trial, the above referred Tyagi
  Manjhi, Vijay Yadav and Madhusudan Sharma were acquitted
  for want of sufficient evidence. The three appellants herein
  were, however, held guilty and sentenced to death amongst
  other punishments as mentioned earlier.
G
       7. The designated court observed that as far as the
  accused, Tyagi Manjhi and Vijay Yadav were concerned, both
  of them had been named in the confessional statement of
  Bihari Manjhi but that confession was not accepted to be
H reliable by the Supreme Court in Bihari Manjhi and Others v.
 VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                      225
          BIHAR [H.l. GOKHALE, J.]
State of Bihar (supra). The aforesaid confessional statement           A
had not been produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate while
producing the accused Bihari Manjhi before him, and the said
statement was produced for the first time at the time of the trial
i.e. after a lapse of five years from the date of its alleged
recording. Thus it was hit by rule 15 of TADA (Prevention)             B
Rules, 1987. In the absence of other evidence, these two
accused were therefore acquitted, as it was held that the
prosecution had not been able to prove the charges against
them. As far as Madhusudan was concerned, he was named
in the FIR at serial no.5. The only prosecution witness, PW2,          c
Birendra Singh who had named him as one of the accused who
had slit throats of the deceased, had failed to identify him in
the dock. There was no other evidence to throw light on his
participation in this incident. Madhusudan was also accordingly
acquitted.                                                             D
Prosecution case against the present appellants

     8. Appellant No.1 Vyas Ram who was named in the FIR
at serial no.1 had been identified by PW-2, Birendra Singh. He
had identified him in the dock also. He had also been identified       E
by PW-16 Brajesh Kumar, and PW-17 Bunda Singh who had
identified all the appellants in the dock. Appellant No.3 Sugai
Machi had been identified by PW-2, PW-3 Lawlesh Singh and
PW-15 Ram Sagar Singh apart from PW-16 and PW-17.
Appellant No.2 Naresh Paswan was also identified by all of             F
these witnesses except PW-3.

     9. The evidence of these prosecution witnesses was held
to be sufficient to show their participation in the crime since they
were held to be members of an unlawful assembly, and were
sentenced to death under Section 3(1) of TADA, and for life            G
imprisonment on each count under Sections 302 r/w 149, 364
rlw 149, 307 r/w 149 of l.P.C, and for rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years under Section 436 r/w 149 IPC and rigorous
imprisonment for 1 year under Section 435 r/w 149 IPC.
                                                                       H
    226      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 11 S.C.R.


A   Submissions by the appellants

        10. The main grounds raised by the learned counsel for
  the appellants Ms. Kamini Jaiswal to challenge the impugned
  order are the non application of TADA in the present case, the
  effect of the amended Section 20A of TADA, unreliable
8
  investigation especially in the light of the non examination of
  the informant, and the belated recording of the statement of the
  witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellants, has referred
  to the supplementing opinion of Katju J. in Vijay Kumar Baldev
  Sharma v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (12) SCC
C 687, and submitted that after TADA came to an automatic end
  on 24.05.1995, and when there was no further extension of the
  period for which the act would remain in force, the continuation
  of the proceeding thereafter was clearly violative of the
  constitution.
D
        11. It was further submitted that the prosecution had not
  been able to prove the notification of the notified area as
  required under Section 2(f) of TADA, and therefore, the
  constitution of the designated court for this area under Section
E 9(1) of the act was bad. Section 9(1) of the TADA lays down
  that "The Central Government or the State Governmentmay by
  notification in the official Gazette constitute one or more
  designated courts, for such an area or areas or for such case
  or class or group of cases as may be specified in the
F Notification." It is, therefore, necessary to prove that the area/
  district where the occurrence took place is notified under
  Section 2(f) to invoke TADA.

       12. The learned counsel for appellants also relied on the
  amended Section 20A which came into existence on 22-05-
G 1993. According to Section 20A(1) no information in the form
  of FIR can be recorded by the police without prior written
  approval of the District Superintendent of the police. That is the
  condition precedent for recording of the FIR, and no cognizance
  of an offence can be taken without compliance of Section
H 20A(1 ). It was contended that in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v.
 VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                      227
          BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1994 SC 2623, this Court          A
has held that the amended Section 20A had retrospective
effect.

      13. However, most of these arguments have already been
rejected by the relevant observations in the majority judgment
                                                                       8
of this Court in Death reference 1/2001, i.e. Krishna Mochi's
case (supra} decided on 15.04.02. Besides as far as
applicability of Section 20A is concerned, the submission on
behalf of the appellant is not wholly correct. In fact at the end of
paragraph 25 of Hitendra Thakur (supra}, this court has held           C
that the amendment of 1993 would apply to the cases which
were pending investigation on 22.5.1993, and in which the
challan had not been filed in Court till then. The present case
was registered on 13.02.1992, the charge-sheet was submitted
on 12.02.1993, and the cognizance was taken 6 days thereafter
i.e. on 18.02.1993. Thus, all these steps were taken before            D
coming into force of the amendment act. Therefore, the
appellants cannot claim the benefit of the amendment, nor does
the case cited by them come to their rescue.

     14. Non-examination of the informant is once again                E
stressed by the appellants in defence. The informant is, as
claimed by the appellants, a member of Sawarna Liberation
Front, and was the accused in the carnage known as Miyanpur
Narsanghar. Non examination of S.I. Ram Japit Kumar also
weakens the prosecution's case, because according to the               F
counsel for appellants he was entrusted with the preliminary
investigation, but neither the case diary was brought in, nor was
he examined.

     15. The learned senior counsel for the State Mr. Rai on
the other hand submitted that the above submission is                  G
completely misconceived, and reiterated the findings of the
Apex Court in para 35 of Krishna Machi v. State (supra} viz.
that an F.l.R is not a substantial piece of evidence, and non-
examination of the informant would not entitle the appellants to
                                                                       H
    228      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 11 S.C.R.


A an order of acquittal on this ground alone. The case should be
  examined on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution.
  The carnage of Miyanpur had taken place after the carnage in
  the present case. The prosecution witnesses in the present case
  had supported the Fard-Bayan. As far as non-examination of
B Ram Japit Kumar is concerned, it was submitted that he was
  directed to investigate the case under the verbal orders of
  Suptd. of Police, Gaya. However, Ram Japit Kumar never
  made himself available for taking over the investigation of the
  case, and then the investigation was consequently entrusted to
c Suresh Chander Sharma, who had been examined as a
  prosecution witness (PW-21). This has also been observed in
  para 36 of the judgment in Krishna Mochi (supra).

        16. Furthermore, the appellants have stressed upon the
  fact that no particular role was assigned to them, and in such
D a scenario there cannot be any conviction, leave aside the death
  sentence, for merely being present in the unlawful assembly at
  the place of incident. In Baladin v. State of UP reported in AIR
  1956 SC 181 a bench of three Judges held in paragraph 19
  as follows:-
E
       "19. . .. It is well settled that mere presence in an assembly
       does not make such a person a member of an unlawful
       assembly unless it is shown that he had done something
       or omitted to do something which would make him a
F
       member       of an unlawful assembly, or unless the case falls
       under section 142, Indian Penal Code."

  The Court was concerned with a trial of some 57 persons for
  murder of 6 persons, out of whom 36 were convicted under
  Sections 148, 2011149 and 3021149 IPC, and 9 of whom were
G sentenced to death, and others were given different
  punishments for the roles assigned to them. This court
  examined the evidence, and upheld their sentences including
  death. Where some specific role was attributed to some of the
  accused like inciting the mob, the court held in paragraph 24
H of the judgment that the theory of the person being a mere sight-
  VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF 229
           BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
seer will not help them. However, at the same time, where the        A
court found that four of the appellants had not been assigned
any particular part in the occurrence, nor any overt act had been
attributed to them, they were given benefit of doubt and
acquitted. The court held in paragraph 28 that "they might
possibly have been spectators who got mixed up in the crowd."        B

     17. In Masalti v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1965 SC
202, the accused had brutally killed one Gayadin and four
members of his family, and then set the bodies on fire in the
middle of the field. This had happened due to rivalry between        C
two factions. F.l.R disclosed 35 persons as assailants and five
more persons were added to the list by a subsequent committal
order leading to the charges being framed against all 40
persons. A bench of four judges of this Court did not accept
the defence that specific role had not been attributed to the
accused, and that the mere presence of the accused in the            D
unlawful assembly at the time of the incident does not justify the
imposition of death sentence. However, as a rule of prudence,
the court fixed the minimum number of witnesses needed to
accept prosecution case to base a conviction on. It was
emphasised by the court that it was unsafe to rely on the            E
evidence of persons who spoke generally without specific
reference to the identity of the individuals, and their overt acts
that took place in the course of incident. This judgment laid
down the principle of common liability viz., that where a crowd'
of assailants, who were the members of an unlawful assembly          F
proceed to commit a crime, in pursuance of the common object
of that assembly, it is often not possible for the witnesses to
describe the actual part played by each one of them, and when
a large crowd of persons ·armed with weapons assaults the
intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them have      G
to take part in the actual assault. In that case several weapons
were carried by different members of the unlawful assembly,
and an accused who was the member of such an assembly and
was carrying firearms was not permitted to take any advantage
                                                                     H
    230      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 11 S.C.R.


A   of the fact that he did not use those firearms, though other
    members of the assembly used their respective firearms.

       18. Thus, the defining ingredient for the involvement of the
  accused would be the common intention. Section-149 of l.P.C
8 makes it amply clear that if an offence is committed by any
  member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common
  object of that assembly, or such as the members of that
  assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of
  that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of
  that offence is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that
C offence. Masalti (supra) emphatically brings home the principle
  that the punishment prescribed by Section-149 is in a sense
  vicarious, and does not always proceed on the basis that the
  offence has been actually committed by every member of the
  unlawful assembly. At the same time we cannot ignore the law
D as laid down in Baladin (supra) that if a person is a mere
  bystander, and no specific role is attributed to him, he may not
  come under the wide sweep of Section 149.

       19. The submission of the appellants which does merit a
E close scrutiny and a thorough examination by the court is,
  however, concerning the allegedly faulty investigation, especially
  the failure of the prosecution to conduct a Test lden8fication
  Parade, and the delay in recording t_he statements of the
  witnesses which according to them rendered the entire alleged
F identification of the appellants doubtful. The appellants claim
  to be entitled to the benefit of doubt as it is dangerous to
  uphold the death sentence of the appellants on such shaky
  evidence. The appellants draw support from a judgment in the
  case of Jamuna Chaudhary v. State qf Bihar reported in AIR
G 1974 SC 1822. In that case benefit of c;toubt was given to some
  of the accused in view of the unsatisfactory material on record.
  At the same time, we must also note that in that very matter
  where there was evidence of an injured witness, deposing
  against the accused, the same was accepted. The appellants
  have also drawn the attention of the court to the fact that a set
H
 . VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                     231
            BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
 of persons who were accused in the same case had been                  A
·acquitted in the case of Bihari Manjhi and Others v. State
 (supra). However, here the bone of contention is with respect
 to their participation itself, in the light of the deficiency in the
 investigation. Those deficiencies also find a place in Hon'ble
 Mr. Justice Shah's observations in the Krishna Mochi case              B
 (supra).

Deficiencies in the prosecution:-

Non examination of lnvestig~ting Officer, Non submission
of his case records                                                     C

     20. Suresh Chander Sharma (PW21) who had taken over
the investigation after Ram Japit Kumar, had admitted in his
cross examination that the entire investigation had been
conducted by Ram Japit Kumar. PW 21 had not recorded the                D
statements of many witnesses including the three chowkidaars
who were the first to meet inspector Vijay Pratap Singh the then
Station lncharge, and report the incident to him when he had
come on patrolling, and heard the sounds of firing and
explosion. The investigation conducted by Ram Japit had never           E
been brought on record nor was his case diary submitted.
PW21 had also admitted that the case diary was not with him,
and that he had not seen the notification under TADA (para 61).
It was also admitted that investigation has been done on the
oral instructions ofthe Superintendent of Police without the
necessary written orders from him or Director General of Police.        F

Statement of the SP

     21. According to the statement of the Superintendent of
Police Sunil Kumar, he received the information of Bihari               G
Manjhi's arrest on 27.2.1992, and he went there to record the
statement. He claims to have met Bihari Manjhi and told him
to make his statement without fear or favour, and Bihari Manjhi
did so. However, the same officer was not able to identify Bihari
Manjhi in the Court. Moreover, the police personnel of P.S.
                                                                        H
    232      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A Tekari were busy in making arrests, and a number of V.l.Ps
  were visiting. So the investigation had been entrusted to Suresh
  Chander Sharma, Inspector from Chandauti Police Station.
  Surprisingly, he does not remember whether written permission,
  to invoke TADA was taken or not, and whether under TADA
B the investigation had to be carried out only by an officer of rank
  of DSP or above.

    Station in-charge 'of Police Station Bodh Gaya, Virendra
    Kumar Singh.

C        22. He admitted that he was an accused in the murder
    case of Vasuki Yadav, nephew of Vakil Yadav, (one of the
    accused in the present case), and had filed a petition before
    the Supreme Court for quashing the cognizance taken against
    him in that case.
D
          23. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shah had drawn support from the
  principle laid down in Masa/ti's case to emphasise the
  impossibility of basing the conviction on such shaky
  i-."'!vestigation. Such a view had been taken in a catena of other
E judgments, like Kamaksha Rai· v. State of U.P., reported in
  1999 (8) SCC 701. These principles were also followed in
  Binay Kumar Singh 17. State of Bihar reported in 1997(1) SCC
  283.

         24. The delay in recording the statements of witnesses by
F   the Investigating Officer and absence of the Test ldentifi~tion
    Parade were also instrumental in demolishing the credibi'lity of
    the investigation, and thus led to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shah's
    dissenting opinion.

G Analysis of the evidence on record

      25. In the present case, as per the statement of PW 21
  Suresh Chander Sharma the investigation prior to him had
  been conducted by PW22, Vijay Pratap Singh who was the sub
  inspector and the officer incharge of Tekari Police station at the
H time of occurrence, as Ram Japit who had originally been
 VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                   233
          BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
entrusted with the investigation had fallen ill. He further adds    A
that case diary fr9m para 1- 222 had been recorded by PW22
and the rest, from 223 to 538, by himself. He does not know
whether S.P wrote any letter to the government for the
invocation of TADA. PW 22 was the one who was the officer
incharge of the Tekari P.S, and had gone for routine patrol at      B
about 9 p.m. on 12.2.92, when he heard sounds of.explosion.
He heard from the Mukhia Sideshwar Yadav, whom he met on
the way, that explosion was taking place in the north. On going
there, he met three chowkidaars, Krishna Yadav, Bhola Paswan
and Dafadar Ramparwesh Singh who told him that 'partywalas'         c
had come, and set the village on fire, and were terrorising
people by firing and exploding bombs. Interestingly, none of
these people, through whom the police had come to know of
the incident, were examined. Their fard bayan was not taken.
PW 22 has stated in his deposition that he informed the SP of       0
the gravity of the situation, and the SP came at the place of
occurrence with his force and they all proceeded further. At this
point of time, they were approached by one Sarwan Kumar,
who had come running to them, after coming to know that they
were police officers. His hands were tied at his back, he told
                                                                    E
them that extremists had come to the village, and had
 proceeded toward the east. Sarwan Kumar was also not
examined. The reason given for this by PW22 is that Sarwan
 Kumar did not give the entire account of the happening, and
 because the entire village was on fire. The statements of none
of the women who were weeping near the culvert were                 F
recorded either. Understandably, they were very upset, and
possibly not in the position to give their statements. However,
this does not explain as to why the statements of none of those
people from whom the police had originally come to know of
the incident, had been recorded, and why the F.1.R was              G
recorded on the Fard bayan of the informant Satyendra Sharma
later at 3 a.m. in the morning when the chowkidaars, the
mukhiya and Sarwan Singh had much earlier informed the
police about the i:lcident. In fact statements of none of the
women, and persons belonging to the communities of                  H
    234       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A   Brahmans, schedule castes or Yadavs were recorded by PW-
    22.

         26. PW 22 claims to have taken over the investigation after
  Ram Japit Kumar was not available at the place of occurrence,
8 but he did not have any written orders or approval for
  proceeding with the investigation. In para 28 of his deposition
  it is also revealed that none of the material exhibits of the case
  were submitted to the Court as the Malkhana had been
  attacked by the extremists in 1996, and all its articles were,
C consequently destroyed. In para 35 of his cross examination
  he had admitted that it had been recorded in para 23 of the
  police case diary that Ram Japit was busy with the
  investigation. In para 2 of the case diary it was mentioned that
  investigation of this case had been endorsed by the SP to Ram
  Japit Kumar who was at the place of occurrence. This
D contradicts his statement (para 26) that Ram Japit was not
  available at the place of occurrence.

       27. In para 43, PW22 admits that no T.l.P was conducted
  of any suspect. PW22 investigated the case for only 8 days,
E and did not mention any time and place of the examination of
  any of the witnesses. There are also discrepancies in the
  depositions of PW21 and PW22 as far as the extent of case
  diary recorded by PW22 is concerned. PW 21 has stated it to
  be from para 1-222, while PW22 has stated it to be from 2-22
F in para 27, and in para 40, he has stated it to be from 1-212.
  In addition to this, no seizure list was prepared. In the deposition
  of PW 20, it was found that informant was never seen after the
  recording of fard bayan and further statement. In para 12 he
  also states that there was no need for obtaining sanction from
G government for invoking TADA as there was provision to that
  effect. He did not specify the provision.

    With evidence being in such a state, the question would
    be - who could be convicted ?
H         28. We cannot forget that in Krishna Mochi (supra) the
 VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                    235
          BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
 accused were tried on the basis of same FIR, and two Judges         A
 in a bench of three upheld the conviction of Krishna Machi,
 Dharmendra Singh, Nanhe Lal Machi and Veer Kuer Paswan.
 Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, in paragraph 96 of his judgm6'!t,
 noted that the investigation was totally defective, the witnesses
 had exaggerated to a large extent, they had not assigned any        B
 specific role to the accused except their presence in the mob
 at the time of offence, they nowhere stated that the identified
·accused were having any weapon of offence, and the
 investigating officers had not recovered any weapon of offence
 or any incriminating article from their possession. In paragraph    c
 96 (2) he referred to Di/avar Hussain v. State of Gujarat 1991
 (1) sec 253 and observed that when the accused are charged
 with heinous brutal murders punishable with highest penalty, the
judicial approach in such cases has to be cautious, circumspect
 and careful. He acquitted Dharmendra Singh. As far as the
                                                                     0
 other accused were concerned, although he upheld that
 conviction, presumably in view of the oral evidence on record,
 in view of the deficiencies noted by him, he altered their death
 sentence to life imprisonment.

      29. In the present case, even if we decide to ignore the · E
similar deficiencies in the prosecution, and look into the oral
evidence which has come on record, the case of prosecution
against appellant no: 2, Naresh Paswan is rather weak. His
 name was not mentioned in the FIR. PW-2 Birendra Singh who
is an injured witness, though states in the dock that he had seen F
the appellants slitting the throats, he failed to identify Naresh
 Paswan in Court. None of the other witnesses including PW-3
Lawlesh Singh, who is another injured witness, have attributed
any role to him. None of them said that he was a member of
MCC. It is material to note that Madhusudan who was named G
at Sr. No.5 in the FIR also faced a similar allegation. It was PW-
2 Birendra Singh who named Madhusudan as one of the
accused who slit the throats of the deceased, but had failed to
identify him in the dock. In the absence of other witnesses
throwing any light on his participation in the occurrence, H
    236      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A Madhusudan was acquitted by the learned designated Judge.
  In paragraph 39 of his judgment in Krishna Mochi (supra)
  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aggarwal, rejected the theory of some of
  the accused being mere sight-seers. This was because, as the
  paragraph indicates, a specific role was attributed to them such
B as entering into the houses by breaking open the doors, and
  forcibly taking the inmates, tying their hands and taking them
  to the temple and thereafter near to the canal, where their legs
  were tied, and thereafter killing some of them. As far as Naresh
  Paswan is concerned, no such role is attributed to him by any
c of the witnesses. This being so, Naresh Paswan is entitled to
  have the same yardstick applied to him as was applied to
  Madhusudan. In the circumstances, in our view, Naresh Paswan
  deserves an acquittal.
          30. As far as the other appellant no.3, Bugal Mochi is
D concerned, in addition to his name being mentioned in the FIR
  i as one who was slitting the throats, he was identified by PW-2
    injured witness Birendra Singh in Court. Bugal Mochi is
    attributed the role of slitting the throats by Birendra Singh in his
    oral deposition. Though other witnesses did not attribute any
E specific role to him, he was identified by them as a participant
    in the crime.
         31. As far as appellant no.1, Vyas Ram is concerned,
    though his name was mentioned in the FIR, the heinous act of
F slitting the throats was not attributed to him in the FIR. PW-2,
    Birendra Singh has however stated in oral evidence that Vyas
    Ram was slitting the throats, and he identified him in the court
    as well, though no other witness has attributed any particular
    role to him. Birendra Singh being an injured witness, his
    testimony cannot be ignored. It is true that his testimony was
G . not accepted in Krishna Mochi, but that was so with respect
    to other accused. In the present case, he has attributed a
    specific role to these two accused. There is no reason to
    discard his evidence. The conviction of these two accused
    under Section 302 of IPC and other charges will have to be
H upheld.
 VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                  237
          BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

Question of sentence                                               A
       32. Then comes the question of sentence to appellant
 nos.1 and 3 i.e. Vyas Ram and Sugai Mochi. It is true that in
 Krishna Mochi (supra), by a majority of two versus one, the
crime in the instant case was held to be one which deserved        8
the extreme penalty of death. This was apparently on the lines
of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v.
 State of Punjab 1980 (2) sec 684 as being one belonging to
the rarest of the rare category. We have, however, to note that
 as far as the present trial is concerned, the occurrence of the   C
crime is of February 1992 and the charges were framed in May
2004. More than nine years have gone thereafter also, and the
appellants have been facing the trauma of the crime and the
trial all this period. Besides, as noted earlier, the manner in
which the investigation has proceeded was far from
satisfactory. In all cases where death sentences are to be         D
awarded, the circumstances of the accused are also required
to be considered as laid down by the Constitution Bench in
 Bachan Singh (supra) and later by a bench of three Judges in
 Machi Singh v. State of Punjab 1983 (3) SCC 470. The
 leading judgment of conviction in Krishna Mochi (supra), was      E
 rendered by Hon'ble Aggarwal J., and he noted in para 33 of
 his judgment that in the present case there was more or less a
 caste war between the haves and the have nots. The appellants
 belonged to the latter category. The present incident was
 claimed to be a retaliatory attack by the members of MCC.         F
They are essentially the persons belonging to the scheduled
castes and backward classes, and economically weaker and
exploited sections of society. The attack was supposed to be
in retaliation to an earlier attack by the Bhumihar community,
led by the Ranvir Sena. It must also be noted that none of the     G
witnesses have attributed to these appellants that they belonged
to the MCC. It is quite possible that due to their poverty and
caste conflict in the villages they were drawn in the melee and
participated in the crime. At the same time no harm was done
to women and children. Appellant No.1 Vyas Ram worked with         H
    238       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A   one Jamuna Singh. No harm was done to any member from
    his family either. This is not to say that such acts are to be
    condoned, but at the same time we have to consider as to
    whether after taking into account these circumstances of the
    accused, death sentence was warranted. We do not think so.
B
       33. It was emphasised before us on behalf of the State that
  in Krishna Mochi (supra), the death sentence was upheld as
  against four accused, by a majority of two versus one, on the
  basis of an FIR which is common to the present case, and that
C this was so done by relying upon oral testimonies recorded in
  that case which are somewhat similar to those in the present
  case. In this connection we must state that though the FIR was
  common, the testimonies in the two cases are in fact different,
  and on the analysis thereof we have come to the conclusion
  that one of the accused is not guilty, however, the other two are
D , but considering the circumstances in their case the death
  sentence is not warranted.

        34. Even with respect to the death sentence awarded in
  Krishna Machi (supra), having considered the dissenting
E opinion rendered by Hon'ble Shah J., we must note the
  approach adopted by this Court, subsequently, in a judgment
  of three judges in the case of Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali
  Manohar Mishra v. State of Kamataka reported in AIR 2008
  SC 3040. A Sessions Court and the High Court had imposed
F death sentence on the appellant in that matter, and two judges
  of this court who heard the matter had differed on the issue of
  sentence. The matter was refe"rred to three judges. The Court
  substituted the death sentence by imprisonment for life, though
  directed that the appellant shall not be released till the rest of
G his life. It was observed in paragraph 37 of the judgment as
  follows:-

               "37 ..... The absolute irrevocability of the death
          penalty renders it completely incompatible to the
          slightest hesitation on the part of the court ..... "
H
 VYAS RAM @ VYAS KAHAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                    239
          BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]      .
      We may as well profitably refer to what was observed in        A
para 149 of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State
of Maharashtra reported in 2009 (6) SCC 498 which is to the
following effect:-

          "149. Principle of prudence, enunciated by Bachan          8
    Singh is sound counsel on this count which shall stand
    us in good stead - whenever in the given circumstances,
    there is difference of opinion with respect to any
    sentencing prop (sic)/rationale, or subjectivity involved in
    the determining factors, or lack of thoroughness in
    complying with the sentencing procedure, it would be             C
    advisable to fall in favour of the "rule" of life imprisonment
    rather than invoking the "exception" of death punishment."

    35. (i) In the circumstances, Crl. Appeal No.791 of 2009
is allowed in part. The judgment convicting appellant no.2,          D
accused Naresh Paswan is set-aside, and he will stand
acquitted. He is acquitted of the offences for which he. was
charged, and it is ordered that he be released forthwith if not
required in any other case.
                                                                     E
      (ii) As far as appellant nos.1 and 3, accused Vyas Ram
and Sugai Mochi are concerned, although their conviction under
the offences for which they were charged is upheld, the death
sentence awarded to them is commuted to imprisonment for
life, which is to mean the rest of their natural life.
                                                                     F
    (iii) Consequently, the Death Reference Case (R) No.2 of
2011 filed by State of Bihar is hereby dismissed.

B.B.B.                         Appeal partly allowed & Death
                                       Reference dismissed.          G