SUDEVANAND versus STATE THROUGH CBI

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 19-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 139 
SUDEVANAND 
v. 
STATE THROUGH CBI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2012) 
JANUARY 19, 2012 
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.311,· 391 -
Summoning of approver for cross-examination - Permission 
A 
B 
for - Arrest of appellant and other accused in connection to 
C 
attempt on the life of the then Chief Justice of India - Two 
months prior to that, Railways Minister was killed - Appellant 
and PW-1 in connection with said case - While on remand, 
PW-1 made a confessional statement and requested to be 
allowed to become an approver - He was produced before a 
D 
Magistrate, before whom he made a statement u/s. 164 and 
became approver - Subsequently approver made retraction 
in 1978 in jail disowning his earlier statements - Conviction 
of appellants u/ss. 115, 30711208, /PC r/w s.4(b) of Explosive 
Substances Act, 1908 - Applications by appellants praying to 
E 
call for and taking on appeal record, the statement made by 
approver, in jail and to summon the approver for further cross-
examination - Rejected by High Court - On appeal, held: High 
Court erred in refusing to summon the approver for his further 
examination as prayed for on behalf of appellants - Delay in 
F 
filing the applications ought not have been sole ground for 
rejecting the same - Appellants were anyway not responsible 
for the inordinate delay in their appeals, that remained 
pending since 1976, being taken up for hearing - As long as 
the appeals were pending, High Court ought to have 
considered the appellants' request for summoning approver G 
for further cross-examination on merits, and in light of the 
relevant legal provisions - High Court directed to summon 
approver for his further examination by the appellants - Penal 
139 
H 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A Code, 1860 - ss.115, 30711208 - Explosive Substances Act, 
1908 - s.4(b). 
The prosecution case was that on March 20, 1975, 
the car in which the then Chief Justice of India was 
8 travelling, along with others stopped at the crossing and 
two live hand grenades were lobbed inside the car. The 
grenades, liowever, did not explode and the occupants 
of the car, including the Chief Justice of India, escaped 
unharmed. A case was registered and investigation was 
started by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police. The case 
C was handed over to the CBI. About two and a half months 
before the attempt on the life of the Chief Justice of India, 
'LNM', the Minister of Railways was killed in a bomb blast. 
In connection with that case, 'Su' (appellant) and one 'V' 
were arrested at Bhagalpur. On July 27, 1975 they were 
D also arrested in the instant case relating to the attempt 
on the life of the Chief Justice and were brought to Delhi 
where they were sent on police remand from July 31, 
1975 to August 14, 1975. While on remand, 'V' made a 
confessional statement and requested to be allowed to 
E become an approver. He was produced before a 
Magistrate on August 14, 1975, before whom he made a 
statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. giving the details of 
the conspiracy to kill the Chief Justice of India. He was 
again produced before the Magistrate on August 22, 1975 
F before whom he made a similar statement for grant of 
pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. 
The CBI completed investigation of the case and 
submitted charge-sheet against the three accused 
G including the appellants and they were put on trial. The 
trial court convicted appellants 'Su' and 'Sa' under 
Sections 115, 307/120B, 'IPC and under Section 4(b) of the 
Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 
All the convicts filed appeals before the High Court. 
H During pendency of the said appeal, certain 
SUDEVANAND v. STATE THROUGH CBI 
141 
developments took place in 'LNM' murder case. That 
A 
case was also investigated by the CBI and in that case 
too 'Su' and 'Sa' (along with others) were accused and 
in that case also 'V' was granted pardon on becoming an 
approver. An inquiry was made into the circumstances 
8 
in which 'V' made the confessional statement and was 
tendered pardon to become approver. Following the 
enquiry, on September 30, 1978 the statement of 'V' was 
recorded at Danapur jail where he was lodged at that 
time. The statement was recorded in the presence of the 
Superintendent and the Jailor. The statement was also c 
recorded on a tape recorder. In this statement 'V' retracted 
from his earlier statements incriminating himself and the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.