TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court orders fresh examination in case, limits it to 4 days, urges quick disposal of appeals</h1> <h3>Sudevanand Versus State through CBI</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order and directed the High Court to summon Vikram for further examination to determine the truth. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the retraction made by Vikram, the Approver.2. Delay in filing applications for further evidence.3. Application of Section 311 and Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).Summary:1. Validity of the Retraction Made by Vikram, the Approver:The case revolves around the attempt on the life of the Chief Justice of India in 1975, where two live hand grenades were lobbed inside the car of the Chief Justice, which did not explode. The investigation led to the arrest of several individuals, including Santoshanand Avadhoot, Ranjan Dwivedi, and Sudevanand Avadhoot. Vikram, one of the accused, made a confessional statement u/s 164 CrPC and requested pardon u/s 306 CrPC. However, in 1978, Vikram retracted his statement, claiming it was obtained under coercion by the CBI. The retraction was recorded in Danapur jail and later supported by officials in Bihar. Vikram later testified that his retraction was made under threats from Bihar officials. The Supreme Court noted that one of Vikram's statements must be false but could not determine which one without further examination.2. Delay in Filing Applications for Further Evidence:The appellants filed applications in 1997-1998, seeking to introduce Vikram's retraction and other related documents into the appeal record, summon Vikram for further cross-examination, and consider his evidence from the L.N. Mishra murder case. The Delhi High Court dismissed these applications due to the delay of over 20 years. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the delay should not have been the sole ground for rejection, especially since the appeals had been pending since 1976. The court emphasized that further cross-examination of Vikram would not have significantly delayed the appeal's disposal.3. Application of Section 311 and Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):The Supreme Court examined whether summoning Vikram for further cross-examination was permissible under the law. The CBI opposed the appellants' request, arguing that Vikram's confessional statements were voluntary and that his retraction had no legal sanctity. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from previous cases like Mishrilal v. State of M.P. and Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan, where witnesses' later statements were found to be for extraneous reasons. The court noted that Section 391 CrPC allows the appellate court to take additional evidence if necessary to arrive at a just decision. The court held that the High Court should have summoned Vikram for further examination to determine the truth.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order refusing to summon Vikram for further examination. It directed the High Court to summon Vikram for additional evidence, limiting the examination to four days. The court also expressed distress over the prolonged delay in the case and urged the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to ensure the appeals are disposed of within six months. The appeals were allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
