shibu soren trial court judgement-jha murder case

-:1:-S.C. NO. - 3/06 CBI Vs. Shibu Soren etc.

IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J . TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI

State (C.B.I.) vs. 1) Shibu Soren,S/O Sh. Sohran Soren,R/O 17, Gurudwara Rakab GanjRoad, New Delhi.

2) Sunil Khaware,S/O Sh. Bardhan Khaware,R/O Vill. Maheshmara, Distt. B. Deoghar, .

3) Ashish ThakurS/O Late Sh. Atul Krishna Thakur,R/O Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, Tagore Hills, Distt.Ranchi, .

4) Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu,S/O Sh. Ram Lal Mehta,R/O Vill. Tikra Toli, Near NipunPetrol Pump, P.O. Piska Nagri, P.S.Ratu, Distt. Ranchi, .

5) Sh. Shalendra Bhattacharya,S/O Late Sh. U.K. Bhattacharya,R/O Central Office, J.M.M. Party,Bariyatu Road, Distt. Ranchi,.


6) Sh. Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip,S/O Sh. Ram Lal Mehta,R/O Vill. Tikra Toli, Near NipunPetrol Pump, P.O. Piska Nagri, P.S.Ratu, Distt. Ranchi, .

7) Pashupati Nath Mehta@Posho,S/O Sh. Shyam Lal Mehta,R/O Vill. Piska Nagri, Distt.Ranchi, .

S.C. NO. - 3/06RC No. - 5 (S)/96-SIU-(XI)/CBI/

New Delhi.U/Sec. 364/302/201/120-B IPC.

J U D G M E N T :-

“The criminal trial cannot be

equated with a mock scene from a stunt

film. The legal trial is conducted to

ascertain the guilt or innocence of the

accused arraigned. In arriving at a

conclusion about the truth, the courts

are required to adopt a rational approach


and judge the evidence by its intrinsic

worth and the animus of the witnesses.

The hypertechnicalities or figment of

imagination should not be allowed to

divest the court of its responsibility of

sifting and weighing the evidence to

arrive at the conclusion regarding the

existence or otherwise of a particular

circumstances keeping in view the

peculiar facts of each case, the social

position of the victim and the accused,

the larger interests of the society

particularly the law and order problem

and degrading values of life inherent in

the prevalent system. The realities of life

have to be kept in mind while

appreciating the evidence for arriving at

the truth. The courts are not obliged to

make efforts either to give latitude to the

prosecution or loosely construe the law

in favour of the accused. The traditional

dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to


be replaced by a rational realistic and

genuine approach for administering

justice in a criminal trial. Criminal

jurisprudence cannot be considered to be

a Utopian thought but have to be

considered as part and parcel of the

human civilization and the realities of

life. The courts cannot ignore the

erosion in values of life which are a

common feature of the present system.

Such erosions cannot be given a bonus in

favour of those who are guilty of

polluting society and mankind.”

It was so observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, at Para-10 in the case reported as (2000) I Supreme

Court Cases 247, “State of H.P. Vs. Lekh Raj And Another.”

and specifically keeping in mind the aforesaid cue, I shall

proceed further for disposal of this matter.


2. Seven accused persons, namely, (1) Shibu Soren, (2)

Sunil Khaware, (3) Ashish Thakur, (4) Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu, (5) Shalendra Bhattacharya, (6) Ajay Kumar Mehta @

Dilip and (7) Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho have been

chargesheeted by C.B.I. for facing trial in a case bearing RC

NO. 5(S)-96/SIU/XI New Delhi for offence punishable

364/302/201/120-B I.P.C. on the basic accusation of having

hatching criminal conspiracy by all the accused being

masterminded by accused Shibu Soren for abduction and

murder of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, P.A. of accused Shibu Soren

and in pursuance of said conspiracy, abducting said Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha by accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish

Thakur on 22.5.94 at about 11.00 p.m. near Dhaula Kuan and

thereafter committing murder of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha by

striking heavy iron rod on his head by accused Nand Kishore

Mehta @ Nandu inside his house in village Tikra Toli, Distt.

Ranchi, at about midnight in the last week of May,1994 and


thereafter removing dead body of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha by

accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Ajay Kumar Mehta @

Dilip, Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho, Shalendra Bhattacharya

besides one lady and two other unknown persons and

concealing the dead body of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha by

burying it near brick klin of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu and subsequently removing the said dead body and

burying it at jungle in Piska Bagan, Piska Nagri, Distt. Ranchi

from where the remains dead body was ultimately exhumed on

13.8.98 by the CBI team in the presence of independent

witnesses and Executive Magistrate.

3. The precise case of the prosecution as found reflected

from the case record is as given below:-

Shashi Nath Jha (deceased) being working as


P.A./P.S. to accused Shibu Soren, the then M.P. from Bihar

was handling the confidential and secret matter and was

having full knowledge of financial transactions of accused

Shibu Soren. That on 26.7.93 'No Confidential Motion' was

tabled in Lok Sabha against the minority Congress (I)

Government led by Sh. P.V. Narsimha Rao and it is alleged

that in order to defeat the said 'No Confidential Motion',

support of four J.M.M. M.Ps including Shibu Soren was

mobilised by giving them illegal gratification of huge amount

and a separate chargesheet relating to said case bearing RC

NO. 5A/(96)/ACU/VIII was filed by C.B.I. before the Special

Judge, Delhi. It is further alleged that said Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha (deceased) being full aware of illegal gratification as

received by accused Shibu Soren, had been demanding a

substantial share out of the said amount from Shibu Soren,

who was evading to part with. It is also alleged that said Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha was apprehensive of safety to his life from


Shibu Soren prior to 3-4 months of the incident as Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha had disclosed about this aspect to his mother Smt.

Priyambda Devi (PW-20) and to Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-36).

It is further alleged that on 22.5.1994 at about 11.00

p.m. Sh. Shashi Nath Jha visited the tea shop of Sh. Bali

Karan Pandey (PW-3) at Dhaula Kuan near petrol pump and

purchased cigarette. In the mean while a white ambassador

car stopped opposite said shop and two persons, came out of

the said car and insisted for purchasing cigarette and Bali

Karan Pandey refused to oblige as he had closed the shop but

on the request of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha being known to Bali

Karan Pandey, he gave cigarette to them. Said two persons

being known to Shashi Nath Jha talked with Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha and after some time suddenly they pushed Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha inside the car and said car speded away from the

spot.


As said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was found missing,

missing report of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was got lodged by his

brother Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19) on dt. 24.5.1994 at police

post North Avenue vide D.D. NO. 19, copy of which is EX. PW-

45/B but said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was not found traceable.

Thereafter, on the basis of written complaint dt. 02.6.1994 of

Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19), which is EX. PW-19/A, F.I.R.

bearing No. 168/94, U/S 365 IPC was registered on 02.6.1994

at P.S. Parliament Street, New Delhi and copy of said FIR is

EX. PW-43/A.

As the local police was clueless in its investigation, in

pursuance of orders dt. 14.2.1996 as passed by Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi in Crl. Writ No. 390/95 as filed by Smt.

Priyambda Devi (PW-20), mother of the deceased, investigation

of that case transferred to Crime Branch. But, even the Crime


Branch also could not get any positive result, said mother of

deceased filed another Crl. Writ registered as Cr. (Writ) No.

620/96 praying for transfer of investigation by an independent

agency. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated

10.10.1996 as passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in

criminal writ petition No. 620/96, the investigation of this case

was transferred to C.B.I. and fresh F.I.R. bearing RC NO. 5(S)-

96/SIU/XI was registered by C.B.I. on dt. 16.10.96, copy of

which is EX. PW-45/A. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also

monitored the investigation by C.B.I. in this case.

It is further alleged that Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

(deceased) after being abducted from Delhi was taken to the

village Tikra Toli, District Ranchi and he was seen there in the

company of leaders of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (J.M.M.) Party

including Nand Kishore Mehta, Shalendra Bhattacharya, Ajay

Kumar Mehta and Pashupati Nath Mehta in the last week of


May, 1994, on the day of football tournament in the village.

Said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was thereafter taken to the house of

Nand Kishore Mehta, where liquor and meat were served at the

party. On the said night Charu Oraon (PW-4) also attended

the said party at the house of accused Nand Kishroe Mehta

and after taking liquor he had fallen asleep and at about

midnight on hearing the scream of “BACHAO-BACHAO”, he

woke up and saw Sh. Shashi Nath Jha lying on the ground

and Nand Kishore Mehta hitting him with a heavy iron rod on

his head. Thereafter Sh. Shashi Nath Jha started bleeding

from his head and became unconscious. Then, Sh. Charu

Oraon (PW-4) being terrified left the house of Nand Kishore

Mehta @ Nandu with the help of accused Pashupati Nath

Mehta @ Posho. It is further alleged that Sh. Sudershan Soni

(PW-6), neighbour of accused Nand Kishore Mehta, also woke

up on hearing scream in the said midnight and came out of his

house and saw that body of Shashi Nath Jha being removed


from the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta by accused

Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip,

Pashupati Nath Mehta, and placing the body of Shashi Nath

Jha in an Ambassador Car, waiting outside. Shalendra

Bhattacharya along with one lady also came out from the

house of Nand Kishore Mehta and sat in said car, which left

the spot being followed by accused Nand Kishore Mehta and

Pashupati Nath Mehta on a motorcycle towards Ranchi Road.

It is further alleged that on the next morning some villagers

had noticed half buried human body near a pond in the village

near brick klin of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu,

being snatched by dogs and when Dr. Gautam Sharma (PW-5)

enquired about it from accused Nandu, he advised him to keep

quite and mind his own business. It is further alleged that

thereafter body of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was shifted from the

aforesaid place to a nearby safer place and buried at Piska

Bagan, Piska Nagri (Distt. Ranchi) where from remains of dead


body was exhumed by the C.B.I. Team on 13.8.1998 in the

presence of Sh. Ravinder Nath Panda, Executive Magistrate

(PW-35), Ex-mukhia of village Sh. Jag Niwas Mehto (PW-12),

Dr. Sushil Kumar Shukla (PW-30), Sh. U.K. Goshwami, D.S.P.

C.B.I. (PW-46) and Inspector V.K. Pandey (PW-45) vide

Recovery Memo (Panchnama) EX. PW-30/A. Post mortem of

the said recovered remains of skeleton was got conducted on

the same day at Ranchi Medical Hospital through Dr. Ajit

Kumar Chaudhary (PW17) vide Post Mortem Report EX. PW-

17/A and as per said report age, sex and injury over the skull

and time of death found matched with that of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha. The recovered “Skull” and other articles were sent to

Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and

on the basis of the superimposition test with the enlarged

photograph of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha vide report EX. PW-16/A

it was opined that the said skull could be of the individual as

per photograph mark item – 11 (photograph of Sh. Shashi


Nath Jha) and the injuries on that skull, were ante mortem

and must have been caused at the time of death.

It is further alleged that on 2.6.1994 when Amar Nath

Jha (PW-19), brother of the deceased along with his mother

Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20) and Kumari Kavita (PW-24) and

Kumari Preeti (PW-25), daughters of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

met accused Shibu Soren at his residence, accused Shibu

Soren is alleged to be stated that Sh. Shashi Nath Jha has

already died and said Shibu Soren also offered to get admitted

both the daughters of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha in Day Boarding

School and to bear their expanses. It is further alleged that

when family members of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha requested

accused Shibu Soren to get hand over the investigation of the

case to C.B.I. and to give media publicity, Shibu Soren was

found evading to do so. It is further alleged that during

investigation it revealed that accused Sunil Khaware and


Ashish Thakur, are the persons, who abducted Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha from Dhaula Kuan on 22.5.1994. Efforts were made

for their interrogation and thereafter Sunil Khaware was

arrested on 29.11.1997 and Ashish Tahkur surrendered in the

court on 23.1.1998. Accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish

Thakur declined to participate in the T.I.P. on the ground that

they have been already shown to the witness. During the

course of investigation, other accused persons were arrested

and interrogated, statement of the relevant witnesses were

recorded, necessary steps towards investigation were carried

out by the I.O. and after the conclusion of the investigation

chargesheet against aforesaid seven accused was filed by the

C.B.I. before the court of Ld. C.M.M., Delhi on 10.11.1998.

Thereafter matter was committed and assigned for trial to the

court of Sh. Ajit Bharihok, the then Ld. A.S.J. Delhi and

during the course of trial this case was ultimately transferred

to this court.


3. On hearing both the sides on the point of charge and

in pursuance of order on charge dt. 27.2.1999, the formal

charges were framed on dt. 6.3.1999 against the said accused

persons by Sh. Ajit Bharihok, the then Ld. A.S.J. Delhi as

under :-

(A) Charge for offence punishable U/S 120-B IPC r.w.

Sec. 364/302 IPC against accused Shibu Soren.

(B) Charge for offence punishable U/S 120-B IPC r.w.

Sec. 364/302 IPC and for substantive offence punishable U/S

364 IPC as against accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish

Thakur.

(C) Charge for offence punishable U/S 120-B IPC r.w.


Sec. 364/302 IPC and for substantive offence punishable U/S

302/201 IPC as against accused Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu and

(D) Charge for offence punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec.

364/302 IPC and for substantive offence punishable U/S 201

IPC as against accused Shalendra Bhattacharya, Ajay

Kumar Mehta @ Dilip and Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho.

In response to the aforesaid charges framed against

them, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for

trial.

4. During the course of trial, the C.B.I. in support of its

case got examined as many as 46 prosecution witnesses as

narrated bellow :-


� PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj, an officer from G.M. (Vigilance)

M.T.N.L., Delhi who is witness to informal T.I.P. of accused

Sunil Khaware at C.B.I. Office, New Delhi, on 10.12.1997.

He is a formal witness but found turned hostile.

� PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Pancholi, an officer from G.M.

(Vigilance) M.T.N.L., Delhi, who is also a witness to informal

T.I.P. of accused Sunil Khaware at C.B.I. Office, New Delhi

on 10.12.1997. He is also a formal witness but turned

hostile.

� PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey, who was working at a

tea shop at Dhaula Kuan, where Sh. Shashi Nath Jha visited

to purchase cigarette on 22.5.1994 at about 11.00 p.m. and

he is stated to be the eye-witness of abduction of Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha. But, said PW-3 found hostile on identification

aspect of both accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish Thakur.


� PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon, who participated in the drink

party along with victim and some other accused at the house

of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu and is stated to be

the eye-witness to the killing of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

(deceased) by accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu in the

midnight in the last week of May,1994 inside the house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu at village Tikra Toli,

Distt. Ranchi. Said PW-4 is the most material witness. His

statement U/S 164 Cr. P.C. was also got recorded on dt.

16.9.1998 and the same is EX. PW-28/O, which materially

corroborate his deposition in the Court.

� PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma, is a resident of same

village Tikra Toli, Distt. Ranchi and knew Shashi Nath Jha

(deceased) as well as accused Shibu Soren, Nand Kishore

Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho, Shalendra


Bhattacharya. He deposed to have seen Shashi Nath Jha in

the company of accused Nand Kishore Mehta, Pashupati

Nath Mehta and others along with a goat going towards the

house of Nand Kishore Mehta in the evening of last week of

May,1994 in the same village. He also deposed to have seen

accused Shalendra Bhattacharya along with one dark

complexioned lady sitting in a white Ambassador car parked

near house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta on that evening.

He also deposed to have heard about snatching of a dead

body by dogs near brick klin of accused Nand Kishore Mehta

@ Nandu after about 1/2 days. He is a material witness.

� PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni, who is neighbour of the

accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu and is eye-witness of

the victim Sh. Shashi Nath Jha going towards the house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu in the company of

other accused. He also deposed to have seen about removal


of the body of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha from the house of

Nandu by accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati

Nath Mehta @ Posho, Dilip Mehta and placing it in waiting

Ambassador car parked in front of house of accused Nand

Kishore Mehta, on that midnight in the last week of

May,1994. He also deposed that accused Shalendra


house of Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu and they sat in the

said car, which speeded from the spot being followed by

accused Pashupati Nath Mehta and Nand Kishore Mehta on

a motorcycle. Thus, he is also a material witness.

� PW-7 Sh. Subodh Krishan Prasad, who is Sub

Inspector of Police (Photo) Range, Photo Unit, C.I.D. Ranchi.

He had taken photographs of exhume of the part of dead

body from Piska Bagan, Piska Nagri by C.B.I. Team on

13.8.1998. He also deposed to have done videography of


exhumation process. He proved 12 photographs as EX. PW-

7/D-1 to EX, PW-7/D-12 and Video Cassette as Ex. PW7/A.

� PW-8 Sh. Jumman Ali, who is the owner of the plot

where football match was held, and was stated to be

attended by some leaders of Jharkhand Party. He is a

formal witness.

� PW-9 Mohd. Mumtaz Ahmed Khan, who is an

Advocate from Ranchi and joined J.M.M. Party in 1981. He

deposed about the allotment of J.M.M. Party ticket to

accused Nand Kishore Mehta (who joined J.M.M. Party in

1994) in Assembly Election in 1995 from Hatia Constituency,

by J.M.M. Party, Executive Committee headed by Shibu

Soren, thereby rejecting claim for said party ticket by himself

and Sunil Fakira, who joined J.M.M. Party in 1985-86.


� PW-10 Sh. Vijay Raje, Junior Engineer, C.P.D.W.

from Ranchi. He had prepared the site plan of house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu and of place of

recovery of the dead body, on the pointing out by Sh. Charu

Oraon (PW-4) and Sh. V.K. Pandey (PW-45) and proved said

site plan as EX. PW-10/A and EX. PW-10/B and information

sheet as EX. PW-10/C. Thus, he is a formal witness.

� PW-11 Sh. Shamim Akhtar, deposed that he know

Shalendra Bhattacharya, who is a leader of J.M.M. Party and

had seen him along with one dark complexioned lady Tara

Dev, who is also a leader of J.M.M. Party, traveling in a white

Ambassador Car in May,1994 in the village.

� PW-12 Sh. Jagniwas Mehto, who is Ex-mukhia of

village Piska Nagri and he is a Punch witness to exhume of

remains of human skeleton from Piska Bagan, Piska Nagri,


Distt. Ranchi by C.B.I. Team on 13.8.1998 vide recovery

memo EX. PW-30/A. He deposed to the said aspect and

thus a formal witness.

� PW-13 Dr. S.K. Lahiri, Sr. Scientific Officer, C.F.S.L.,

Lodhi Road, who has conducted some Polygraphy Test and

prepared report and deposed in that aspect. Thus, he is a

formal witness.

� PW-14 Sh. Ram Dev Gop, who is a villager from

Tikra Toli and is a formal witness.

� PW-15 Kumari Kamla, daughter of PW-14, who is

also a formal witness.

� PW-16 Dr. T.S.N. Murthy, Joint Director, F.S.L.

Hyderabad. He has conducted the superimposition test of


the recovered “Skull” with the help of enlarged photograph of

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and prepared report, which is EX. PW-

16/A, whereby, opining that the skull belonging to the

individual, in the photograph marked item – 11 (photograph

of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha).

� PW-17 Dr. Ajit Chaudhary is tutor from Department

of Forensic Medicine, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi. He

has conducted the post mortem on the skeleton remains on

the same day it was exhumed i.e. on 13.8.1998 and proved

his report as EX. PW-17/A. As per said Post Mortem Report,

the sex, age, injury over skull and time of death found to be

matched with that of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha. Thus, he is a

material witness.

� PW-18 Sh. Vijay Nath Jha, who is younger brother of

victim Sh. Shashi Nath Jha. He deposed about various


material aspect as against accused Shibu Soren including

the fact Shibu Soren though one Bhaskar had offered him

Rs. 3-4 lacs for withdrawal of their complaint and thereafter

extending threat to him by Shibu Soren. Thus, he is a

material witness.

� PW-19 Sh. Amar Nath Jha, is the elder brother of

deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and he is the complainant of

this case. After missing of Shashi Nath Jha, he lodged

missing report vide D.D. NO. 19 dt. 24.5.1994 at P.P. North

Avenue, Delhi, copy of which is EX. PW-45/B and thereafter

gave another complaint on dt. 2.6.1994, which is EX. PW-

19/A on the basis of which F.I.R., copy of which is EX. PW-

43/A was registered at P.S. Parliament Street, New Delhi.

He deposed on various material aspect as against accused

Shibu Soren. Thus, he is a material witness.


� PW-20 Smt. Priyambda Devi, who is the mother of

deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and have deposed about

various material aspect as against accused Shibu Soren

including fact that her son Shashi Nath Jha was

apprehensive of safety to his life from his employer i.e. Shibu

Soren, as disclosed to her 3/4 months prior to the incident.

Thus, she is a material witness.

� PW-21 Sh. Dhani Ram, who is a taxi driver, stated to

be operating taxi from Diplomat Taxi Stand, Chanakya Puri,

Delhi. He deposed to have dropped Sh. Shashi Nath Jha on

22.5.1994 at about 9.15 p.m. at Dhaula Kuan Bus Stand.

Thus, he is a formal witness.


� PW-22 Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, P.A. to Sh. Simon

Marandi, M.P., and stated to be a friend of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha being P.A. to Shibu Soren, M.P. He is also a formal

witness.

� PW-23 Sh. Satbir Ahmed, who had seen the

deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha on the evening of 22.5.1994

lastly. He is a formal witness.

� PW-24 Kumari Kavita, who is the daughter of the

victim Sh. Shashi Nath Jha. She deposed to the effect that

on 2.6.1994 she along with her sister Preeti and

grandmother went to the house of Shibu Soren and when

asked about her father, Shibu Soren stated them to the

effect that he has already died. She also deposed that when

her grandmother told him that she would lodge a report with

CBI, Shibu Soren stated, “MAIN KHUD CBI HUN” She also


deposed to the effect that Shibu Soren had offered to get her

and her sister admitted in Day Boarding School and pay for

their expenses but it was declined.

� PW-25 Kumari Preeti, who is also a daughter of the

deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and she has deposed in the

line of her sister Kumari Kavita (PW-24).

� PW-26 Sh. Shashi Kumar Tripathi, who used to

write book of accounts of Sh. Sushil Kumar, C.A. (PW-36).

He deposed to have seen the victim with said Sushil Kumar.

Thus, he is a formal witness.

� PW-27 S.I. Sukhi Ram, who on receipt of the

complaint from Amar Nath Jha (PW-19) made endorsement

EX. PW-27/A and got the F.I.R. registered at P.S. Parliament

Street, on 2.6.1994. Thus, he is a formal witness.


� PW-28 Sh. Viney Kumar Gupta, the then Ld. M.M.

Delhi, who had recorded the statement U/S 164 Cr. P.C. of

Charu Oraon (PW-4), Priyambda Devi (PW-20), Km. Kavita

(PW-24) and Km. Preeti (PW-25) and proved said statements

as EX. PW-28/O, EX. PW-28/B, EX. PW-28/K and EX. PW-

28/F, respectively. Thus, he is a formal witness.

� PW-29 Ms. Asha, a freelance journalist, working with

Mukti Tirki and deposed about visit of Shashi Nath Jha to

their office on 20.5.1994. She is a formal witness.

� PW-30 Dr. Sushil Kumar Shukla, Medical Officer

from Sadar Hospital Ranchi, who is a Panch witness to

exhume of the remains of the dead body from Piska Bagan

on 13.8.1998, as per recovery memo EX. PW-30/A. Thus, he

is a formal witness.


� PW-31 Sh. Praveen Kumar Oraon from village Kathi

Pur, Ranchi. He is also a formal witness.

� PW-32 Sh. G.R. Bhashkar, Retired Principal,

Hyderabad, who has examined injury on the skull as sent to

F.S.L. Hyderabad and proved his report as EX. PW-16/A

from “Point-A to B”, which indicate that there was a fracture

on the left frontal region of the skull and said fracture is

ante-mortem and the person must have received the fracture

at the time of his death. Said PW-32 also proved his

Clarificatory Report EX. PW-32/A indicating about that the

fracture that the possibility of a heavy metal rod causing the

injury cannot be ruled out.

� PW-33 Dr. K.C. Gandhi, Director Andhra Pradesh


State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, under whose

supervision superimposition test was conducted by Dr. T.S.

Murthy (PW-16) and he has forwarded said report EX. PW-

16/A. Thus, he is a formal witness.

� PW-34 Smt. Surekha Ganguli, Asstt. Director from

Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, who has

proved her “Biological and Serological Examination Report”

from “Point-A to B” on EX. PW-16/A. She is a formal

witness.

� PW-35 Sh. Ravinder Nath Pandey, A.D.M., who is

witness to recovery of the remains of the skeleton from Piska

Bagan, on dt. 13.8.1998 by C.B.I. Team as per Recovery

Proceedings EX. PW-30/A. Thus, he is also a formal

witness.


� PW-36 Sh. Sushil Kumar, C.A., who is closely known

to accused Shibu Soren and deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

and deposed about various material aspects, including

deposit of Rs. 30 lacs on 31.7.1993 at P.N.B. Nauroji Nagar

Branch, New Delhi by accused Shibu Soren. He also

deposed about demand of Rs. 15 lacs by deceased Shashi

Nath Jha from accused Shibu Soren. He also deposed that

in 3rd week of January, 1994 Sh. Shashi Nath Jha had

informed him about his apprehending danger to his life from

Shibu Soren. Thus, he is a material witness.

� PW-37 Dr. B.P. Sinha, Director of M/s Subarna Agro

Dairy, from whose plot remains of dead body were recovered

on 13.8.1998, by the C.B.I. Team. Thus, he is also a formal

witness.

� PW-38 Sh. Mukti Tirthi, who is known to victim Sh.


Shashi Nath Jha. He deposed about visit of Shashi Nath

Jha at his office on 20.5.1994. Thus, he is a formal witness.

� PW-39 Inspector R.L. Yadav, who was associated

with the main I.O. of this case, and is a witness to search of

residence of accused Sunil Khaware on 29.11.1997. He is a

formal witness.

� PW-40 Sh. Ramesh Prasad Sahu from village Tikra

Toli and who know accused Nand Kishore Mehta very well.

He deposed that Nand Kishore Mehta is a member of

Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Party, whose leader is Shibu

Soren. Shibu Soren and his party members used to visit the

house of Nand Kishore Mehta. Thus, he is a formal witness.

� PW-41 Sh. Vijay Mahto, who is the neighbour of


accused Nand Kishore Mehta. He also deposed that Nand

Kishore Mehta is a member of J.M.M. Party, whose main

leader is Shibu Soren and they used to visit house of Nand

Kishore Mehta @ Nandu. He is also a formal witness.

� PW-42 S.I. Satyapal Singh, who had deposited the

case property at F.S.L. Hyderabad vide EX. PW-33/A. and

deposed about deposit of case property and that it remained

intact during his custody. Thus, he is a formal witness.

� PW-43 S.I. Inderwati, who has recorded the F.I.R.

No. 168/94, U/S 365 IPC, P.S. Parliament Street being

working as Duty Officer on 2.6.1994 at P.S. Parliament

Street and proved the copy of F.I.R. as EX. PW-43/A. Thus,

she is a formal witness.

� PW-44 Sh. Hemant Soren, who is the son of accused


Shibu Soren. He deposed about official residence of his

father Shibu Soren at 17, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road, New

Delhi and knowing about Shashi Nath Jha. Thus, he

deposed about formal aspect.

� PW-45 Vinod Kumar Pandey, who is the I.O. of this

case. He deposed that he received the investigation of this

case on 18.12.1997 while working as Inspector in CBI SIU-

IX Branch. He further deposed about the various steps as

taken by him during the course of investigation and on

completion of investigation filing the chargesheet on

10.11.1998 in the Court of Ld. C.M.M., Delhi. He also

deposed that the previous I.O. D.S.P. Jasbir Singh has since

expired.

� PW-46 Sh. U.K. Goshwami, D.S.P. C.B.I., New Delhi.

He deposed that in 1998, he was posted as Inspector in SIU-


IX Branch C.B.I. and was assisting in the investigation of

this case to V.K. Pandey, I.O. Thus, he is a formal witness.

5. After examination of the aforesaid 46 PWs by C.B.I.,

Prosecution Evidence was closed and thereafter statement of

accused persons U/S 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded in which the

accused persons denied the allegation of the prosecution and

claimed to be innocent and have been falsely implicated in this

case. The accused persons have not examined any witness in

their defence. However, they have filed some documents on

the case record.

6. I have heard Sh. A.K. Singh, Ld. Special P.P. for

C.B.I., Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused

Sunil Khaware and Sh. R.K. Naseem, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for

remaining accused persons and perused the relevant material

as available on the case record.


7. Sh. A.K. Singh, Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. made

submissions as per the case of the prosecution, by broadly

dividing it under three heads:-

I. The first head concerning the abduction part of

the deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha.

II. Second head concerning the murder and

disposal of the dead body of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha.

III. Third head concerning the conspiracy part of

the accused persons for abduction and murder of


Regarding the abduction part of the deceased Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha - it is submitted by Ld. Special P.P. that it

is the accused Ashish Thakur and Sunil Khaware, who have

abducted Sh. Shashi Nath Jha on dt. 22.5.1994 at about


11.00 p.m. by pushing him in a white Ambassador Car at

Dhaula Kuan near petrol pump, which has been witnessed by

Sh. Bali Karan Pandey (PW-3) and said PW-3 have identified in

informal T.I.P. at C.B.I. Office in the presence of two

independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Lekhraj (PW-1) and Sh.

Anil Kumar Pancholi (PW-2). Ld. Special P.P. has taken me

through the deposition of said PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj, PW-2 Sh.

Anil Kumar Pancholi and PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey, who

are the relevant witnesses concerning the abduction part of the

case of the prosecution. It is also added by Ld. Special P.P.

that as the said PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj, PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar

Pancholi and PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey did not support the

stand of the prosecution in the light of their earlier statement

U/S 161 Cr. P.C., they were cross-examined on behalf of C.B.I.

but it does not mean that their entire deposition are treated to

be washedoff from the case record. It is also added by Ld.

Special P.P. that by being won over by the accused persons


said PWs have resiled from their earlier statement and not

supported the prosecution case, the accused persons cannot

be given any benefit for the same. It is also added by Ld.

Special P.P. for CBI that from the deposition of PW-3 Sh. Bali

Karan Pandey, it is clearly reflected that Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

had come to his tea shop at about 11.00 p.m. in May,1994 at

Dhaula Kuan while he was closing his shop and being his

regular customer said PW-3 gave him cigarette and thereafter

at the request of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, PW-3 Sh. Bali

Karan Pandey once again reopened the shop and delivered

cigarette packet to another person, who along with another

person came out from the white Ambassador Car. Ld . Special

P.P. has also taken me through the deposition of PW-3 Sh. Bali

Karan Pandey, who stated that said two persons after talking

for some time with Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, pushed him into the

car and thereafter said car left the spot. Ld. Special P.P. for

C.B.I., thus, stressed that from the deposition of PW-3 Sh. Bali


Karan Pandey, it is clearly established that said two persons,

being known to Sh. Shashi Nath Jha abducted Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha by pushing him inside the said white Ambassador

Car. It is further added by Ld. Special P.P. that during the

course of investigation accused Ashish Thakur and Sunil

Khaware were arrested and both of them refused to participate

in the T.I.P. Proceedings, however, their Informal TIP was

conducted at the CBI Office in the presence of independent

public witnesses, namely, Sh. Lekhraj (PW-1), Sh. Anil Kumar

Pancholi (PW-2) and both the said accused were correctly

identified by the eye-witnesses, PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey.

Thus, it is urged by Ld. Special P.P. for CBI that the

prosecution has successfully established its part of the case

relating to abduction of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha. It is also added

by Ld. Special P.P. that as Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was found

missing from 22.5.1994, his missing report was lodged by his

brother Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19) vide D.D. NO. 19 dated


24.5.1994 at P.P. North Avenue and ultimately F.I.R. bearing

No. 168/94, U/S 365 IPC was registered at P.S. Parliament

Street, New Delhi on dt. 2.6.1994, copy of which is EX. PW-

43/A. It is also added by Ld. Special P.P. that on dt.

29.11.1997 when accused Sunil Khaware was arrested, his

house was searched by C.B.I. and several incriminating

documents were got recovered from his house vide search

memo EX. PW-39/A and the said recovered documents clearly

establish that said accused Sunil Khaware is a leader of

J.M.M. Party and having concern with J.M.M. Party

leader,namely, Shibu Soren and others. Therefore, these

documents establish nexus of accused Sunil Khaware with

other accused persons. It is also added by Ld. Special P.P.

that as Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was found abducted on

22.5.1994 and was murdered in the last week of May, 1994 i.e.

within a very short span of period, hence, it can be safely

presumed that Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was abducted for murder


and therefore Sec. 364 IPC is clearly made out as against both

the said accused persons. It is, thus, urged by Ld. Special P.P.

for C.B.I. that prosecution has successfully established its case

concerning the abduction part of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha by the

accused Ashish Thakur and Sunil Khaware on dt. 22.5.1994 at

about 11.00 p.m. from Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi and hence

both the said accused persons be convicted for the substantive

offence punishable U/S 364 I.P.C.

Thereafter, Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. focused his

submission on second aspect that is concerning the

murder and disposal of dead body of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha. In this respect, it is submitted by Ld. Special P.P. for

C.B.I. that the three eye-witness on different aspects

concerning this head has been examined by C.B.I. and said

witnesses are - (1) Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4), (2) Dr. Gautam

Sharma (PW-5) and (3) Sh. Sudershan Soni (PW-6). It is also


added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-

4) is the most material witness as he has himself attended the

drink party in which deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and other

accused,namely, Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho, Nand

Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip and

Shalendra Bhattacharya were seen along with the deceased

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha in the house of accused Nand Kishore

Mehta @ Nandu and it is PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon, who has

seen the incident of striking iron rod on the head of Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha by accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu on that

midnight. It is further added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that

Dr. Gautam Sharma (PW-5), who know accused Shibu Soren,

Suraj Mandal, Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath

Mehta besides Sh. Shashi Nath Jha being working as P.A. of

accused Shibu Soren, have clearly deposed in the court that in

the last week of May,1994 at about 6/6.30 p.m. he had seen

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha in the company of accused Nand Kishore


Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath Mehta and some others along

with a goat going towards the house of Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu. Dr. Gautam Sharma (PW-5) also deposed that accused

Shalendra Bhattacharya along with one dark complexioned

lady sitting on a Ambassador Car parked near the house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta on that evening. It is also added

by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that the said part of the

deposition of PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma is also found

corroborated from the deposition of PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni,

who is the neighbour of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu

as said PW-6 Sudershan Soni has deposed that he knew Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha, accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu and

others. He added in his deposition that his house is situated

in front of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu. He also

added that there was a party at the residence of accused Nand

Kishore Mehta @ Nandu in May, 1994 and he had seen

accused Shalendra Bhattacharya, Shashi Nath Jha and Nand


Kishore Mehta @ Nandu in the village on that evening and one

white Ambassador Car parked near the house of accused Nand

Kishore Mehta @ Nandu. Said PW-6 also added that on that

night at about 12.00/1.00 a.m. on hearing “BACHAO –

BACHAO” he came out of his house and noticed accused Nand

Kishore Mehta, Pashupati Nath Mehta and Dilip Mehta

carrying out Shashi Nath Jha from the house of accused Nand

Kishore Mehta and placing him at the rear seat of Ambassador

Car parked in front of house of Nand Kishore Mehta. Said

PW-6 had also seen accused Shalendra Bhattacharya along

with one lady coming out from the house of Nandu and

thereafter sitting in the said car along with two other and after

that said car left the spot being followed by accused Nand

Kishore Mehta and Pashupati Nath Mehta on a motorcycle. It

is also added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that after 2-3 days

of said incident it was heard by the villagers about lying of a

partly buried human body near brick klin of accused Nand


Kishore Mehta and snatching of said dead body by the dogs

and same is found corroborated from the deposition of Dr.

Gautam Sharma (PW-5) as well as Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4). It

is also added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that after about one

week of the said incident when Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4) had

asked the accused Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho as to why

said person was killed, Posho stated to have replied, “that man

was an outsider, Harami and Womaniser” and therefore he

should not worry about him. Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. have

taken me through the deposition of said PW-4 Sh. Charu

Oraon, PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma and PW-6 Sh. Sudershan

Soni during the course of his submission. It is also added by

Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that the material part of the

deposition of said PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon, PW-5 Dr. Gautam

Sharma and PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni have remained intact in

their cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel. It is also

added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that mere suggestion by


Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that they were deposing

falsely in the court being enemical with the accused persons

could not be of any help for the accused and the same cannot

be a ground for throwing out their deposition. It is also added

by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that thereafter ultimately on

13.8.1998 on source information by C.B.I. human skeleton

remains along with some other articles were got recovered from

Piska Bagan in the village Piska Nagri, which is near to the

brick klin of Nand Kishore Mehta, where a partly buried

human body was stated to be lying and being snatched by the

dogs earlier. It is also added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that

it appears that after said hearing in the village said dead body

was ultimately removed and re buried at jungle of Piska Bagan

from where said body was exhumed by C.B.I. Team on

13.8.1998 in the presence of Ex-mukhia Sh. Jagniwas Mehta

(PW-12) Dr. Sushil Kumar Shukla (PW-30) Sh. Ravinder Nath

Pandey, A.D.M. (PW-35) vide Panchnama EX. PW-30/A. It is


also added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that said human

skeleton remains were immediately sent by C.B.I. for post

mortem examination and same was got done by Dr. Ajit Kumar

Chaudhary (PW-17) and as per Post Motem Report EX. PW-

17/A his opinion regarding sex, age, injury over the skull, time

of death matched with that of the deceased Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha. It is also added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that Sh.

T.S.N. Murthy, Joint Director, F.S.L. Hyderabad (PW-16) had

conducted the superimposition test on the recovered skull with

the help of enlargement photograph of deceased Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha and have prepared his report EX. PW-16/A, wherein,

indicating that the said skull matched with that of photograph

of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha. It is also added by Ld. Special P.P. for

C.B.I. that PW-32 Dr. G.R. Bhaskar, Professor Forensic

Medicine, Hyderabad, who had examined the recovered skull

and has given his opinion regarding injury as found reflected

on the portion 'Point-A to B' of report EX. PW-16/A, which


indicate as under :-

(A) Fracture on the left frontal

region of the scull,

(B) The fracture is ante mortem in

nature.

(C) There is no evidence of any

repair or healing of the fracture

which establish that the person

must have received the fracture

at the time of his death.

It is further added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that

the additional report of said Dr. G.R. Bhaskar (PW-32) which is

proved as EX. PW-32/A, indicate that the possibility of a heavy

metal rod causing the said injury cannot be ruled out. It is,

thus, urged by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that the aforesaid


report EX. PW-16/A and EX. PW-32/A corroborate the fact

that the recovered skeleton remains from the Piska Bagan in

village Piska Nagri, Distt. Ranchi as per the recovery memo EX.

PW-30/A being coupled with post mortem report EX. PW-

17/A, clearly establish that the said skeleton remains is of

deceased Shashi Nath Jha. It is also added by Ld. Special P.P.

for C.B.I. that no doubt the Ld. Defence Counsel have tried to

put in the cross-examination to some PWs to the effect that the

said part of the dead body is of one Aleem, who was murdered

by Gautam Sharma, his son-in-law Rajesh Pandey and other,

but those PWs have not supported the said stand of Ld.

Defence Counsel in their cross-examination neither any

documentary evidence relating to that aspect have been filed

on record on behalf of the accused nor accused have led any

defence evidence in this respect and hence said stand of the

accused deserve to be rejected outrightly. It is, thus, urged by

Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that the prosecution have


successfully proved its case to the effect that Shashi Nath Jha,

who was seen in the company of accused Nand Kishore Mehta,

Shalendra Bhattacharya, Ajay Kumar Mehta, Pashupati Nath

Mehta on the evening of last week of May,1994 in the village

Tikra Toli, Distt. Ranchi and thereafter inside the house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta while taking drink and meat and

ultimately accused Nand Kishore Mheta was seen by Sh.

Charu Oraon (PW-4) while striking a thick iron rod on the head

of Shashi Nath Jha and bleeding from his head and thereafter

removal of the body of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha from the house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta by accused Nand Kishore Mehta,

Pashupati Nath Mehta and Ajay Mehta and placing it at the

rear seat of a waiting whit ambassador Car parked outside the

house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta and accused Shalendra

Bhattacharya along with one dark complexioned lady coming

out from the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu

and sitting in the said car and thereafter leaving of said car


from the spot by being followed by accused Nand Kishore

Mehta @ Nandu and Pashupati Nath Mehta on a motorcycle

and hearing of the villagers regarding lying of partly buried

dead body and snatching of dogs upon it, near brick klin of

Nandu Mehta and ultimate recovery of the human skeleton

remains from Piska Bagan which is near to said brick klin of

Nandu Mehta, clearly establish the case of the prosecution

that the accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu has committed

murder of deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha on that night in his

house and thereafter the dead body was removed by the

accused Nand Kishore Mehta, Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho,

Ajay Kumar Mehta and Shalendra Bhattacharya in pursuance

of their common design. Hence, prosecution established its

case U/S 302 IPC as against accused Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu and U/S 201 IPC as against four accused persons,

namely, Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Ajay Kumar Mehta @

Dilip, Shalendra Bhattacharya and Pashupati Nath Mehta @


Posho.

The third part of the submission of Ld. Special

P.P. for C.B.I. relate to the hatching of conspiracy by all

the accused persons for abduction and murder of Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha. It is submitted by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I.

that said conspiracy was masterminded by accused Shibu

Soren for elimination of his P.A./P.S. Sh. Shashi Nath Jha,

who has been demanding a sum of Rs. 15 lacs from accused

Shibu Soren who had received huge sum as bribe for voting

against “No Confidence Motion” in favour of minority Congress

(I) Government led by Sh. P.V. Narsimha Rao in July, 1993. It

is also added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that it was the very

motive on the part of the accused Shibu Soren for eliminating

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and therefore Shibu Soren hatched

conspiracy with other accused persons who are his party

(J.M.M.) local leaders. It is also added by Ld. Special P.P. for


C.B.I. that the following conduct on the part of the accused

Shibu Soren establish his mastermind in hatching said

conspiracy with other accused for abduction and murder of

Shashi Nath Jha. :-

(1) The accused Shibu Soren preferred to remain out of

Delhi during the relevant period of abduction and murder of

deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha as accused Shibu Soren is

stated to have left for Bokaro on 17th /18th May,1994 and came

back to Delhi on 1.6.1994. Bokaro is stated to be at short

distance from the place Village Tikra Toli, Distt. Ranchi, where

Shashi Nath Jha was murdered.

(2) On 02.6.1994 accused Shibu Soren, who suggested

Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19), brother of the deceased, not to

mention anyone's name in police complaint as suspect for

kidnapping of Shashi Nath Jha.


(3) On 2.6.1994 it is accused Shibu Soren, who for the

first time uttered from his mouth in the presence of mother

and daughters of the deceased that Shashi Nath Jha had

already died, which establish that accused Shibu Soren was

already having knowledge about the “Abduction and killing of

Shashi Nath Jha”, on 2.6.1994 which is within the span of 10

days of abduction of said Shashi Nath Jha.

(4) On 2.6.1994 the accused Shibu Soren had offered to

get admitted the daughters of the deceased in the Day

Boarding School and to bear their expanses, also indicate

about his knowledge regarding “Abduction and killing of

Shashi Nath Jha.”


(5) The offer of Rs. 3/4 lacs by accused Shibu Soren to

Sh. Vijay Nath Jha (PW-18), brother of deceased for withdrawal

of case.

(6) Accused Shibu Soren was not interested for transfer

of the investigation to C.B.I. by taking the plea that “MAIN

KHUD CBI HUN.”

(7) The deceased Shashi Nath Jha was apprehending

danger to his life from accused Shibu Soren and he had stated

about the same 3-4 months earlier to his mother Smt.

Priyambda Devi (PW-20) and Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-36).

(8) In the year 1995 i.e. after the incident, the accused

Shibu Soren being head of J.M.M. Party allotted the Assembly

ticket to accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu from “Hatia”

Constituency as a token of reward in considering the help of


Nand Kishore Mehta for elimination of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha,

as wanted by accused Shibu Soren. Said Assembly ticket was

allotted to accused Nand Kishore Mehta by rejecting claim for

said seat by other senior party leader from locality.

(9) The accused Shibu Soren floated and financed a

business firm “M/s Simex International” in which Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha, one Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-36) and wife and son of

accused Shibu Soren were made partner but in April, 1994 Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha was removed from the said firm.

(10) The accused Shibu Soren has got deposited Rs. 30

Lacs in cash in P.N.B. Nauroji Nagar Branch, New Delhi on dt.

31.7.1993 out of the bribe amount as received by him by

voting against “No Confidence Motion”. Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

being P.A./P.S. of accused Shibu Soren having knowledge of

said bribe received by Shibu Soren, had been demanding Rs.


15 Lacs from accused Shibu Soren, who was not interested to

part with.

It is also added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that

since the D.N.A. Experts who prepared D.N.A. Reports dt.

11.6.2001 and 9.3.2005 were not examined before this Court

and said D.N.A. Reports were not exhibited, the same cannot

be taken into consideration. He stress upon this point that

there is also a judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India to this aspect. It is further added by him that as

said D.N.A. Experts were not examined by CBI, the accused

persons cannot place their reliance upon said D.N.A. Reports

specifically when they have also not examined said D.N.A.

Experts in their defence evidence.

It is further added by Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. that it


is also established from case record that accused Shibu Soren

being head of J.M.M. Party and other accused persons are

local leaders of the J.M.M. Party, accused Shibu Soren hatched

a conspiracy with the other accused persons for elimination of

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and as a result of which said Shashi Nath

Jha was abducted by accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish

Thakur on dt. 22.5.1994 at about 11.00 p.m. from Dhaula

Kuan, Delhi and thereafter said Shashi Nath Jha was handed

over to other accused persons at village Tikra Toli, Distt.

Ranchi, where Shashi Nath Jha was seen in the company of

other accused persons, namely, Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu,

Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho, Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip,

Shalendra Bhattacharya and drink party was arranged at the

house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu and Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha was given full drink and meat and ultimately

in the midnight he was killed by accused Nand Kishore Mehta

@ Nandu and thereafter his dead body was removed by


accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath Mehta

@ Posho, Dilip, Shalendra Bhattacharya and was buried

initially near brick klin of accused Nandu Mehta, but when it

was heard in the village regarding snatching of the dogs over

partly buried dead body, the same was removed from the said

place and re-buried at jungle of Piska Bagan in village Piska

Nagri from which the remains of the human skeleton was

recovered by C.B.I. Team on 13.8.1998 and was ultimately

found to be matched with that of deceased Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha. Thus, Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I. urged that prosecution

has successfully established its case relating to conspiracy for

committing abduction and murder of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and

hence all the accused also deserve to be convicted for offence

punishable U/S 120B r.w. Sec. 364/302 I.P.C. Ld. Special

P.P. for C.B.I. also referred and relied upon the following

judgments in support of his contentions for convicting the

accused persons :-


(1) 1993, Crl. L. J. 2516, “AjayAggarwal Vs. Union of India.”

(2) 1997 Crl. L. J., “Piare Singh Vs.State of Punjab.”

(3) 1987Crl. L. J., 1406, “PunnePalai Vs. The State.”

(4) AIR 1983 S.C. 689, “Ram Pratap& Ors Vs. State of Haryana.”

(5) AIR 2000 S.C. 2988, “State ofW.B. Vs. Mohemnat Omer”

(6) AIR 2001 S.C. 2842, “Ram GulamVs. State of Bihar.”

(7) AIR 2002 S.C. 2920, “ManiKumar Thapa Vs. State ofSikkim.”

(8) AIR 2004 S.C. 69, “KamaljitSingh Vs. State pf Punjab.

(9) 1998 Crl. L. J. 2930, “P.V.Narsimha Rao Vs. State (CBI)”

(10) 68 (1997) DLT 5036, “P.V.Narsimha Rao Vs. State (CBI)”


(11) 2005 Crl. L. J. 3950, “State Vs.Navjot Sandhu.”

8. Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused

Sunil Khaware has made very precise and pointed

submissions, whereby, praying for acquittal of accused Sunil

Khaware. It is submitted that accused Sunil Khaware is

innocent and is a resident of District Deoghar and have got no

concern with other accused persons. It is further submitted by

him that only role as attributed against accused Sunil

Khaware by the C.B.I. is that he along with co-accused Ashish

Thakur have abducted Sh. Shashi Nath Jha on 22.5.1994 at

about 11.00 p.m. from Dhaula Kuan and prosecution has got

examined three PWs, namely, Sh. Bali Karan Pandey (PW-3),

who is stated to be the eye-witness of said abduction and other

two formal PWs, namely, Sh. Lekhraj (PW-1) and Sh. Anil

Kumar Pancholi (PW-2) as the witness in whose presence


accused Sunil Khaware is stated to have been identified by

said PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey in an informal T.I.P. on dt.

10.12.1997 at C.B.I. Office. It is further added by Ld. Counsel

for accused Sunil Khaware that PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey

has not deposed anything as against this accused Sunil

Khaware nor he has identified him as one of the abductor of

Shashi Nath Jha. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for

accused Sunil Khaware that as PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey

was found to be hostile, he was cross-examined on behalf of

C.B.I. but despite that no material as against this accused

Sunil Khaware could be brought on record. It is also

contended that there is noting on record to establish that this

accused Sunil Khaware was having any connection with Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha and said fact is found corroborated from the

deposition of PW-45 Sh. V.K. Pandey, I.O. of this case as he

has admitted it to be correct that there is noting on record to

suggest that Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was known to Sunil


Khaware. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that

neither PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj nor PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Pancholi

have supported the stand of the prosecution to the effect that

on 10.12.1997 accused Sunil Khaware was identified by Sh.

Bali Karan Pandey (PW-3) in their presence. It is further added

that as PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj and PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Pancholi

were also found to be hostile, they were cross-examined on

behalf of C.B.I. but no material to help the stand of the

prosecution as against this accused Sunil Khaware could be

brought out from them. It is further contended by Ld. Defence

Counsel that it is even not the case of the prosecution that this

accused Sunil Khawre was seen with the deceased Shashi

Nath Jha at village Tikra Toli and/or in the house of accused

Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu in the said drink party or at the

time of removal of the body of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha in the said

midnight. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that there

is nothing on record to establish that this accused Sunil


Khaware was having a party to conspiracy with other accused

persons for abduction and murder of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and

therefore accused Sunil Khaware deserves to be acquitted.

9. I have also heard eloquent and pointed submission as

made by Sh. R.K. Naseem, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for all the

accused except accused Sunil Khaware. It is submitted by

Ld. Counsel that concerning the abduction part of Shashi Nath

Jha, there are only three witnesses, namely, (1) PW-1 Sh.

Lekhraj, (2) Sh. Anil Kumar Pancholi and (3) PW-3 Sh. Bali

Karan Pandey, who have been examined by the CBI, but none

of them have deposed as against accused Ashish Thakur and

Sunil Khaware. From the perusal of the deposition of PW-3

Sh. Bali Karan Pandey, it is reflected that in May,1994 at

about 11.00 p.m. when Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was present at

his shop two persons got down from the Ambassador car, came

at the shop for purchase of cigarette, they might be known to


said Shashi Nath Jha but their basic purpose was to purchase

cigarette. It is also added that even otherwise as there is no

element of force, deception, allurement in taking Shashi Nath

Jha in the car, their conduct cannot be treated as abduction.

Even otherwise, the conduct on the part of Shashi Nath Jha in

not raising alarm also negate the theory of abduction. It is

also added by Mr. Naseem, Ld. Counsel, even, as per the case

of the prosecution as Shashi Nath Jha was found to be moving

in village Tikra Toli along with others also ruled out the case of

the prosecution of abduction for murder of Shashi Nath Jha.

Ld. Defence Counsel also added that as none of the connected

PWs, namely, PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj, PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar

Pancholi and PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey, have deposed as

against accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish Thakur as the

abductor nor PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey has identified the

said accused Ashish Thakur and Sunil Khaware in the Court

during the course of his deposition, the case of the prosecution


regarding abduction by these accused Sunil Khaware and

Ashish Thakur is demolished. It is further contended by Mr.

Naseem, Ld. Counsel, even otherwise, it is not the case of the

prosecution that said two accused, namely, Sunil Khaware and

Ashish Thakur were seen at the village Tikra Toli with Shashi

Nath Jha on that day and the same exonerate both these

accused even relating to stand of prosecution relating to

conspiracy of abduction and murder of Shashi Nath Jha. It is

further added that since PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey is the

back bone of prosecution case and he has not supported the

prosecution case, hence, it gives a severe blow on the stand of

the prosecution itself. It is also added that once the case of the

prosecution regarding abduction by these two accused goes the

entire case of the prosecution regarding conspiracy for

abduction and murder of Shashi Nath Jha also falls to ground.

Mr. Naseem, Ld. Counsel also also buttressed his submission

by contending that no 'motive' on the part of the accused


persons for abduction and murder of Shashi Nath Jha could

be established by prosecution. He added, though, as per the

case of the prosecution four J.M.M. MPs including accused

Shibu Soren had received huge amount of money as bribe for

voting against “No Confidence Motion” in July,1993 and Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha had demanded money from accused Shibu

Soren with whom he was working, no specific evidence

regarding receipt of huge amount as bribe by accused Shibu

Soren nor about said demand of money from accused Shibu

Soren by deceased Shashi Nath Jha could be established by

C.B.I. It is further added that none of the five family members

of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, who were examined before this Court

as PW-18 Sh. Vijay Nath Jha, PW-19 Sh. Amar Nath Jha, PW-

20 Smt. Priyambda Devi, PW-24 Kumari Kavita and PW-25

Kumari Preeti, have deposed about said demand aspect of

money by Shashi Nath Jha from accused Shibu Soren. Since,

prosecution has failed to prove any motive as against accused


Shibu Soren and as against the other accused persons for

elimination of Shashi Nath Jha, it demolish the conspiracy

part of the accused persons for abduction and murder of

Shashi Nath Jha and as the conspiracy part, which is based

on the circumstantial evidence and the prime factor motive for

said conspiracy is found missing, it gives severe blow on the

stand of the prosecution on this aspect. It is further added by

Ld. Counsel that the grievances of the family members of the

deceased Shashi Nath Jha as against Shibu Soren is only

based upon morality and not otherwise. It is further added

that Shibu Soren did whatever was possible from his side on

coming to know about missing of Shashi Nath Jha, as when he

came to Delhi on 01.6.1994 he visited family of Shashi Nath

Jha on 01.6.1994 and thereafter called them on 02.6.1994 and

suggested to file complaint of kidnapping of Shashi Nath Jha

and not to name anyone because they do not know about any

offender. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that offer


by accused Shibu Soren to get admitted the daughters of

Shashi Nath Jha and to bear further expanses are only out of

humanitarian consideration and not otherwise. It is further

added by Ld. Defence Counsel that from the conduct of

accused Shibu Soren being out of Delhi during 16th /18th

May,1994 to 31st May,1994 no incriminating inference can be

drawn against him, rather it indicate about his innocence. It

is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is nothing

on record to suggest that during said period accused Shibu

Soren hatched conspiracy with the other accused and got it

executed for elimination of Shashi Nath Jha. It is, thus, urged

by Mr. Naseem, Ld. Counsel that the prosecution could not

establish about the alleged conspiracy for abduction and

murder of Shashi Nath Jha by these accused persons. It is

further added that in order to attract the charge offence

punishable U/S302/201 IPC, the prosecution has to establish

that it is Shashi Nath Jha, who was killed and thereafter his


dead body was disposed by the accused persons but in the

present case, the prosecution have failed to establish as

regards killing of Shashi Nath Jha and recovery of his dead

body. If it is not the dead body of Shashi Nath Jha but of

someone else the entire edifice of case of prosecution collapse.

To substantiate his stand in this respect, it is further added by

Ld. Defence Counsel that both the DNA Reports negate the

recovery remains of human skeleton is of Shashi Nath Jha

being not biologically related with his family members as

examined. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that no

doubt can be casted on the said D.N.A. Reports as the result of

D.N.A. Test is scientifically accurate and he relied upon the

judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as

reported as “AIR 2001 S.C. 2226”. It is further contended by

Mr. Naseem, Ld. Counsel that as the recovery of parts of the

dead body could not be established as that of Shashi Nath

Jha, the entire case of prosecution relating to offence


punishable U/S 302/201 IPC goes out, as the accused persons

have been specifically charged concerning deceased Shashi

Nath Jha and not of anyone else. It is further added by Ld.

Defence Counsel that the family of the deceased disowned the

part of the dead body as recovered by CBI on 13.8.1998 from

Piska Bagan and therefore they have not come forward to

receive the said dead body which also negate the stand of the

prosecution on the identity aspect of dead body of deceased

Shashi Nath Jha. It is further submitted by the Ld. Defence

Counsel that as per the missing report EX. PW-45/B Shashi

Nath Jha was wearing white kurta payjama, liberty chappal

and not any such jeans pant, belt, kara etc as found

mentioned in Panchnama EX. PW-30/A. It is further

contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that the deposition of Sh.

Charu Oraon (PW-4), who have seen accused Nandu Mehta

hitting iron rod on the head of Shashi Nath Jha, is also

falsified from the post mortem report EX. PW-17/A which


indicate injury on the skull by 'sharp cutting weapon' and not

by any such iron rod. It is further added by Ld. Defence

Counsel the deposition of PW4 Sh. Charu Oraon, PW-5 Dr.

Gautam Sharma and PW-6 Sh. Sudhershan Soni are not found

to be reliable and trustworthy as their conduct appears to be

unnatural and their deposition are inconsistent at different

stage. It is further added by Mr. Naseem, Ld. Defence Counsel

that it is only after the recovery of the part of the dead body on

13.8.1998 by C.B.I. statements of said PW-4 Sh. Charu


Soni were recorded to suit the strategy of the prosecution, and

hence deserve to be kept out of consideration. It is also added

by Ld. Defence Counsel that the deposition of PW-4 Sh. Charu

Oraon to the effect that immediately after seeing Nand Kishore

Mehta striking iron rod on the head of Shashi Nath Jha, he left

the spot, is falsified from the deposition of PW-6 Sh.

Sudershan Soni, who also stated to have came out from his


house in that midnight after hearing scream, but said PW-6

Sh. Sudershan Soni have not deposed to have seen Sh. Charu

Oraon (PW-4) coming out from the house of Nand Kishore

Mehta @ Nandu and therefore the same reflect inconsistency in

the statement of both said PWs i.e. PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon and

PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni. It is further added by Ld. Defence

Counsel that PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon has deposed in the court

that on that day evening when he went to the restaurant of

Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho, Posho met and thereafter on

being invited by Posho he along with Posho went to the house

of Nandu Mehta to attend drink party. But, said deposition of

PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon is found falsified from the deposition of

PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma as he stated that he had seen

Shashi Nath Jha along with accused Posho, Nand Kishore

Mehta and others at about 6/6.30 p.m. and said part of the

deposition of PW4 Sh. Charu Oraon and PW-5 Dr. Gautam

Sharma being contradictory also falsified their deposition. It is


further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that if the accused

Posho was a party to conspiracy for abduction and murder of

Shashi Nath Jha then he would not have invited PW-4 Sh.

Charu Oraon to attend at said drink party at the house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta. Ld. Defnece Counsel further

added that if PW4 Sh. Charu Oraon, PW-5 Dr. Gautam

Sharma and PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni had seen about the

aspect of incident as narrated by them in their deposition,

there is no reason as to why they did not intimate about the

same incident to the local police by that time and same also

create suspicion on the reliability of their deposition. It is also

added by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is also contradiction

in the deposition of PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon, and PW-6 Sh.

Sudershan Soni as PW4 Sh. Charu Oraon stated there is no

house near house of accused Nandu but PW-6 Sh. Sudershan

Soni deposed that his house is in front of house of accused

Nandu Mehta. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that


as PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon, PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma are

enemical with the accused persons and even otherwise as they

are criminal, their deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy

and reliable specifically in such serious offence. Ld. Defence

Counsel further added that there reflect clear cut

inconsistencies on the point of time from the deposition of PW-

4 Sh. Charu Oraon as to when he told about the incident to

PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma. Ld. Defence Counsel further

contended that the deposition of PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon

indicate that Shashi Nath Jha was given injury on his head by

iron rod by accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu but same is

falsified from the Post Mortem Report EX. PW-17/A, which

indicate that the injury on the recovered skull could have been

caused by sharp cutting weapon and same also falsify the

deposition of PW-4 SH. Charu Oraon. It is also added by Ld.

Defence Counsel that the additional report EX. PW-32/A as

given by Dr. G.R. Bhaskar (PW-32) have been obtained by


C.B.I. under influence and the same does not deserve

consideration. Ld. Defence Counsel further added that since

the D.N.A. Test Report dt. 11.6.2001 and 9.3.2005 were

brought on the case record at the initiative carried out by the

prosecution but the bare fact that as said D.N.A. Report goes

against prosecution, prosecution should not be allowed to

retract from the said D.N.A. Report under the plea that the

D.N.A. Experts have not been examined by the prosecution.

He further added that since the D.N.A. Test were got

conducted by taking the blood samples of the relatives of the

deceased for comparison of the same with the recovered dead

body parts at the initial request of C.B.I. only and thereafter

Court passed the necessary order for carrying out the, D.N.A

Test in consequence of which D.N.A. Test Report were placed

on record. The same cannot be thrown out merely on the

ground that the D.N.A. Experts have not been examined before

this Court. It is thus urged by Ld. Defence Counsel that as the


deposition of PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon, PW-5 Dr. Gautam

Sharma and PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni are not trustworthy

and reliable being inconsistent and unnatural and as the

D.N.A. Report clearly establish that the said recovered part of

dead body as exhumed by C.B.I. is not that of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha and as the accused have been specifically charged for

abduction and murder of Shashi Nath Jha and none else and

hence the entire case of the prosecution is found to be

demolished. It is further added that as the prosecution have

further failed to establish the motive on the part of the accused

persons for abduction and murder of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, the

case of the prosecution concerning conspiracy for abduction

and murder of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha by the accused persons

also fails. It is, thus, urged by Mr. Naseem, Ld. Defence

Counsel as prosecution have failed to prove its case for the

charged offence against accused persons, they deserve to be

acquitted.


10. I went through the relevant case record including the

testimonials of PWs thoroughly and on careful analytical

examination of the same, following pieces of circumstances as

against the accused persons found emerged :-

1) Deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was working as

P.A./P.S. to accused Shibu Soren, M.P., at his residential

office at 17- Gurudwara, Rakab Ganj Road, New Delhi

during the relevant period. - same is found supported from

the deposition of Sh. Vijay Nath Jha (PW-18), Sh. Amar Nath

Jha (PW-19), Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20), Sh. Shabir Ahmed

(PW-23), Km. Kavita (PW-24), Km. Preeti (PW-25) and Sh.

Sushil Kumar (PW-36).

2) Accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu is a

member of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (J.M.M.) Party, and


accused Shibu Soren is the main leader of said party and

accused Shibu Soren and his party members used to visit

the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu - same

is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Ramesh Prasad

Sahu (PW-40), Sh. Vijay Mehto (PW-41).

3) Accused Shalendra Bhattacharya is also the leader

of J.M.M. Party and said Shalendra Bhattacharya along

with one dark complexioned lady, namely, Tara Devi, who

is also a leader of J.M.M. Party used to travel in white

ambassador car and were seen in the village in May,1994 -

same is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Shamim

Akhtar (PW-11).

4) Accused Shalendra Bhattacharya along with dark

complexioned lady was found sitting in Ambassador car


parked near the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta in

the evening in the last week of May,1994, on the day when

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was seen along with accused Nand

Kishore Mehta @ Nandu and others going towards the

house of accused Nandu Mehta at village Tikra Toli - same

is found supported from the deposition of Dr. Gautam Sharma

(PW-5).

5) On that evening when Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4)

entered in the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu to attend the drink party, he had seen one white

car parked in the courtyard in the house of accused Nand

Kishore Mehta @ Nandu - same is found supported from the

deposition of Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4), coupled with his earlier

statement dt. 16.9.1998, U/S 164 Cr. P.C. which is EX. PW-

28/O.


6) The accused Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho is the

cousin brother of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu -

same is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Charu

Oraon (PW-4).

7) Accused Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip is real brother

of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu - same is found

supported from the particulars of the accused in the case

record.

8) 4 MPs of J.M.M. Party including accused Shibu

Soren are stated to have received huge amount as bribe for

voting against 'No Confidence Motion' voted in Lok Sabha

on dt. 28.7.93 in favour of minority Congress-I

Government led by Sh. P.V. Narsimha Rao, for which

separate chargesheet in respect of that case bearing RC

NO. 5(A)/96/ACU/VIII was filed by CBI in the court of


Special Judge, Delhi against accused Shibu Soren and

others. Against the order on charge dt. 6.5.1997 as passed

by Ld. Special Judge, matter was challenged before Hon'ble

High Court of Delhi, and order on charge of Special Judge

was upheld vide judgment dt. 12.9.1997 by Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi as reported in 1997 (43) D.R.J. 108 “P.V.

Narsimha Rao Vs. CBI”, wherein, at para-7, it was observed

as under :-

“7. The 'No confidence

Motion' was lost on the 28th. The four

J.M.M. MPs and seven MPs of Ram

Lakhan Singh Yadav group voted against

the Motion. And, on the 29th and the

30th the J.M.M. MPs received a part of

the promised booty. For the rest

arrangements were being made in

Bangalore.”


The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble High Court was

challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and

matter was decided vide judgment dt. 17.4.1998 as

reported in 1998 Crl. L. J. 2930, “ P.V. Narsimha Rao Vs.

State (CBI)” and in concluding part of judgment at Para

-181 it was observed as under :-

“181. We now set down the effect uponthe accused of our findings.

We have held that thealleged bribe takers who voted uponthe no-confidence motion, that is SurajMandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi,Shalendra Mehto, Ram Lakhan SinghYadav, Ramsharan Yadav, Roshan Lal,Anadi Charan Das, Abhay Pratap Singhand Haji Gulam Mohammed (accused no.3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21) areentitled to the immunity conferred byArticle 105(2)”


(9) Accused Shibu Soren got deposited Rs. 30 Lacs in

P.N.B. Nauroji Nagar Branch, New Delhi on dt. 31.7.1993 -

same is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Sushil

Kumar (PW-36).

(10) Sh. Shashi Nath Jha (deceased) had been

demanding Rs. 15 Lacs from accused Shibu Soren - same

is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Sushil

Kumar (PW-36).

10) The business firm M/s Simex International was

floated and financed through accused Shibu Soren in

which there were four partners, namely, Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha (deceased), Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-36), Smt. Rupi Devi

and Sh. Hemant Soren (wife and son of accused Shibu

Soren respectively). But on 22.4.1994 Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

was outsted from the said firm - same is found supported


from the deposition of Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-36).

11) Prior to 3-4 months of the incident Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha was apprehensive of his personal safety from

accused Shibu Soren - same is found supported from the

deposition of Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20) and Sh. Sushil

Kumar (PW-36).

12) Accused Shibu Soren was out of Delhi during the

relevant period i.e. from 22.5.1994 to 31.5.1994 - same is

found supported from the deposition of Sh. Vijay Nath Jha

(PW-18), Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19) and Smt. Priyambda Devi

(PW-20).

13) Sh. Shashi Nath Jha (deceased) was found missing

from the evening of 22.5.1994 - same is found supported

from the missing report D.D. NO. 19 dated 24.5.1994, EX. PW-


45/B and F.I.R. No. 168/94, U/S 365 IPC, P.S. Parliament

Street, copy of which is EX. PW-43/A coupled with deposition

of Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19) and Smt. Priyambda Devi

(PW20).

14) At about 11.00 p.m. in May, 1994 Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha was seen being abducted by two persons while pushing

him into a white Ambassador Car at Dhaula Kuan near tea

shop of Sh. Bali Karan Pandey (PW-3) - same is found

supported from the deposition of Sh. Bali Karan Pandey (PW-

3).

15) Sh. Shashi Nath Jha (deceased) was seen in the

company of accused Nand Kishore Mehta, Pashupati

Nath Mehta, Shalendra Bhattacharya in the village Tikra

Toli, District Ranchi, in the evening of last week of

May,1994 - same is found supported from the deposition of


Dr. Gautam Sharma (PW-5) and Sh. Sudershan Soni (PW-6).

16) Sh. Shashi Nath Jha (deceased) was found having

taking meat and drink in the company of accused

Pashupati Nath Mehta, Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu,

Charu Oraon (PW-4) on the said night in the house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu - same is found

supported from the deposition of Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4).

17) In the said midnight, inside the house of accused

Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu on hearing scream

“BACHAO-BACHAO” Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4) woke up and

noticed accused Nandu Mehta striking a thick iron rod

twice on the head of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and it started

profuse bleeding from his head. - same is found supported

from the deposition of Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4) coupled with

his earlier statement U/S164 Cr. P.C., EX. PW-28/O.


18) In the said midnight on hearing scream “BACHAO-

BACHAO” Sh. Sudershan Soni (PW-6), neighbour of accused

Nand Kishore Mehta, came out of his house and noticed

accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath

Mehta, Dilip Mehta taking out body of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

from the house of Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu and

placing it on the rear seat of the waiting ambassador car in

which, accused Shalendra Bhattacharya and one lady, who

came out of the house of Nandu Mehta, sat in the car along

with two other persons and thereafter said car left the spot

being followed by accused Pashupati Nath Mehta and

Nandu Mehta on a motorcycle - same is found supported

from the deposition of Sh. Sudershan Soni (PW-6)

19) 2-3 days after the said incident it was heard in

the said village that dogs were snatching a partly buried


human body near brick klin of Nand Kishore Mehta -

same is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Charu

Oraon (PW4) and Dr. Gautam Sharma (PW-5).

20) When Dr. Gautam Sharma (PW-5) met accused

Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu that evening in the village

and asked him about lying of said dead body near his brick

klin, Nand Kishore Mehta responded him to the effect he

should mind his own business as he has no concern on the

said aspect - Same is found supported from deposition of

Dr. Gautam Sharma (PW-5).

21) After about one week of said incident, Sh. Charu

Oraon (PW-4) when asked accused Pashupati Nath Mehta as

to why said person was killed, to which accused Pashupati

Nath Mehta justified the killing by responding that,

“said person was outsider, Harami and Womaniser”- same


is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Charu Oraon

(PW4) coupled with statement U/S 164 Cr. P.C. dt. 16.9.1998

EX. PW-28/O.

22) On 02.6.1994 accused Shibu Soren has suggested

complainant Amar Nath Jha (PW-19), brother of deceased

not to mention the name of anyone in the police

complaint as suspect for kidnapping of his brother and

Hemant Soren S/O Shibu Soren has threatened him by

stating that, “AAP KISI KA BHI NAAM LENGE TO HUM

SE BURA KOI NAHI HOGA.” - same is found supported

from the deposition of Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19).

23) On 2.6.1994 accused Shibu Soren stated in his

house in the presence of Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20),

Km. Kavita (PW-24), Km. Preeti (PW-25) to the effect that


Shashi Nath Jha had already died - same is found

supported from the deposition of Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW20),

Km. Kavita (PW-24), Km. Preeti (PW-25).

24) On 02.6.1994 accused Shibu Soren had offered to

get admitted daughters of Shashi Nath Jha in the Day

Boarding School and to bear the expanses in this regard,

which was declined by Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20) -

same is found supported from the deposition of Smt.

Priyambda Devi (PW-20), Km. Kavita (PW-24) and Km. Preeti

(PW-25).

25) ON 2.6.1994, accused Shibu Soren challenged

mother and daughters of Shashi Nath Jha that even if they

will search for Shashi Nath Jha, they can do so in Delhi

only, not beyond that of - Same is found supported from

the deposition of Kumar Preeti (PW-25).


26) The behaviour of accused Shibu Soren with the

family members of deceased Shashi Nath Jha after his

disappearance was found not normal. - Same is found

supported from the deposition of Kumari Kavita (PW-24).

27) Accused Shibu Soren is stated to have been

avoiding the issue for tracing out Shashi Nath Jha

whenever contacted by relative of deceased Shashi Nath

Jha. - Same is found supported from the deposition of Sh.

Vijay Nath Jha (PW-18).

28) Accused Shibu Soren is stated to have extended

threat to Sh. Vijay Nath Jha, brother of deceased (PW18)

once and in C.B.I. Office for withdrawing the complaint. -

Same is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Vijay Nath

Jha (PW-18).


29) When Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20) requested

accused Shibu Soren to handover the case to C.B.I., the

accused Shibu Soren is stated to have evaded the said

request by stating that, “MAIN KHUD CBI HUN” - same is

found supported from the deposition of Smt. Priyambda Devi

(PW-20), Km. Kavita (PW-24) and Km. Preeti (PW-25).

30) Accused Shibu Soren is stated to have asked Sh.

Vijay Nath Jha (PW-18), who is brother of deceased, to

withdraw the case and to take Rs. 3-4 lacs, through one

Bhaskar and as Sh. Vijay Nath Jha (PW-18) declined he was

threatened by accused Shibu Soren - same is found

supported from the deposition of Sh. Vijay Nath Jha (PW-18).

31) On 5/7th July,1995 Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19)

stated to have been advised by Sh. Pawan Kumar, who was


P.A. to Sh. Siman Marandi, M.P., who met them earlier at

residence of Shibu Soren, that they were unnecessary

making efforts for tracing Shashi Nath Jha and they should

withdraw their case - Same is found supported from the

deposition of Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19)

32) Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19), who is brother of

deceased is stated to have been threatened by Hemant

Soren and Durga Soren, both sons of accused Shibu

Soren. - same is found supported from the deposition of Sh.

Amar Nath Jha (PW-19).

33) In the month of October / November, 1994 Sh.

Sushil Kumar (PW-36) asked accused Shibu Soren regarding

whereabouts of Shashi Nath Jha, upon which Suraj Mandal

accompanied with accused Shibu Soren stated to the effect

that Shashi Nath Jha had already died. - same is found


supported from the deposition of Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-36).

34) The Executive Committee of J.M.M. Party being

headed by accused Shibu Soren allotted party ticket

concerning “Hatia” Constituency in Assembly Elections in

the year 1995 to the accused Nand Kishore Mehta, Member

of J.M.M. Party, thereby, declining the claim for said

ticket of senior party members, namely, Mohd. Mumtaz

Ahmed Khan, who joined J.M.M. Party in 1981, Sunil

Fakira, who had joined J.M.M. Party in 1985-86. - same is

found supported from the deposition of Mohd. Mumtaz Ahmed

Khan (PW-9)

35) That on 13.8.1998 in the presence of independent

Panch witness Sh. Jagniwas Mehto ex-mukhia of village

(PW-12) Dr. Sushil Kumar Shukla (PW-30), Sh. Ravinder

Nath Pandey, A.D.M. (PW-35) and S.I. Subodh Krishan


Prasad, Photographer (PW-7) one human skeleton remains

besides some articles were exhumed from Piska Bagan in

the village Piska Nagri by C.B.I. Team vide Panchnama

(recovery memo) EX. PW-30/A - same is found supported

from the deposition of Sh. Jagniwas Mehto ex-mukhia of

village (PW-12) Dr. Sushil Kumar Shukla (PW30), Sh. Ravinder

Nath Pandey, A.D.M. (PW-35) and S.I. Subodh Krishan Prasad,

Photographer (PW-7).

36) From the Panchnama (recovery memo) EX.

PW30/A, it is reflected that besides remains of human

skeleton, some articles i.e. one orange colour cloth piece,

one Metal Kara, one jean's pant “Brand sticker” etc. were

also recovered. The deceased Shashi Nath Jha on the day

of incident was stated to be wearing a Kara and jean's pant

as Sh. Charu Oraon ( PW-4 ), who is an eye-witness and had

seen the deceased closely in the drink party inside the


house of accused Nand Kishore Mheta @ Nandu deposed as

under :-

“I do remember it at the time of

occurrence said Mr. Jha was wearing a

“Kara”. He was wearing a jean's pant, it

was probably of maroon colour.”

Sh. Gautam Sharma (PW-5), who had seen the

deceased in the company of some other accused going

towards the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta on that

evening, deposed as under :-

“When I saw Shashi Nath Jha

with Khashi (goat) he was wearing a pant

and shirt.”


It indicate that the recovered articles

could be connected with deceased Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha. - Same is found supported from the deposition of Sh.

Charu Oraon (PW-4) and Sh. Gautam Sharma (PW-5).

37) That on 13.8.1998 the recovered skeleton remains

were examined by Dr. Ajit Kumar Chaudhary, Tutor,

Department of Forensic Medicine, Rajinder Medical

College, Ranchi, (PW-17) and he proved his post mortem

report dt. 13.8.1998 as EX. PW-17/A and as per said report

his opinion regarding sex, age, injury over the skull and

time of death matched with that of deceased Shashi Nath

Jha - same is found supported from the deposition of Dr. Ajit

Kumar Chaudhary (PW-17) coupled with the post mortem

report EX. PW-17/A.

38) Sh. T.S.N. Murthy, Joint Director, F.S.L.


Hyderabad (PW-16) conducted superimposition test on the

said recovered skull and prepared his report EX. PW-16/A

and he opined that said skull item no-1 matched with that

of the photograph Mark-11 (photograph of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha) - same is found supported from the deposition of Dr.

T.S.N. Murthy (PW-16) and Dr. G.R. Bhashkar (PW-32) coupled

with Superimposition Test Report EX. PW-16/A.

39) Dr. G.R. Bhaskar, Professor of Forensic Medicine,

Hyderabad (PW-32) examined the recovered skull and gave

the opinion regarding causation of injury as per his

observation from “Point-A to B” of report EX. PW-16/A,

indicating :-

(a) Fracture on the left frontal

region of the skull.

(b) The fracture is ante-mortem in


nature.

(c) There is no evidence of any

repair or healing of the fracture and

indicates that the person must have

received the fracture at the time of his

death.

Said Dr. G.R. Bhaskar (PW-32) also proved his

clarificatory report dt. 23.2.1999 EX. PW-32/A indicating -

“The possibility of a heavy

Metal rod causing the injury cannot be

ruled out.”

The said report from Point-A to B of EX. PW-16/A

and EX. PW-32/A corroborate the deposition of eye-witness

Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4) that he had noticed in the

midnight of last week of May,1994 that Nandu Mehta


striking twice a thick iron rod on the head of Jhaji inside

the house of Nand Kishore Mehta - same is found

supported from the deposition of Dr. G.R. Bhaskar (PW-32)

and Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4) coupled with report EX. PW-16/A

and EX. PW-32/A.

40) Sh. Vijay Nath Jha (PW-18), younger brother of Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha deposed that Sh. Dinesh Bhatt, A.C.P.

Delhi Police told to his mother that it was a political case

and political pressure were being exerted on police and

hence advised his mother to make efforts to get the

investigation transferred to C.B.I. Smt. Priyambda Devi

(PW-20), mother of deceased filed a petition before Hon'ble

High Court of Delhi and on her petition Hon'ble High Court

ordered for the transfer of the investigation to the C.B.I.

In pursuance of order dt. 10.10.1996 of Hon'ble High Court

of Delhi F.I.R. NO. RC/5/96/SIU/XI was registered by


C.B.I. on 16.10.1996 vide copy of F.I.R. EX. PW-45/A -

same is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Vijay Nath

Jha (PW-18), Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20) and S.I. V.K.

Pandey (PW-45).

41) Shashi Nath Jha was found abducted at about

11.00 p.m. in May,1994 from Dhaula Kuan in front of shop

of Bali Karan Pandey (PW-3) in a white ambassador car as

seen by PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey.

In the last week of May, 1994, in the evening at

about 6/6.30 p.m. at Village Tikra Toli (Distt. Ranchi) Dr.

Gautam Sharma (PW-5) saw Shashi Nath Jha (deceased) in

the company of accused Nand Kishore Mehta, Pashupati

Nath Mehta and others along with a goat going towards

house of Nand Kishore Mehta. Said PW-5 further noticed

on that evening, one white ambassador car parked near


house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta and accused

Shalendra Bhattacharya along with one dark complexioned

lady was found sitting in rear seat of that car.

On that evening at about 7/8.p.m. when Sh. Charu

Oraon (PW-4) went inside the house of accused Nand

Kishore Mehta to attend drink party, he saw one white

Ambassador car parked in the courtyard near well inside

house of Nand Kishore Mehta.

On that evening Sh. Sudershan Soni (PW-6) had

also seen white Ambassador car parked near house of Nand

Kishore Mehta. On the said midnight, after hearing

scream “BACHAO – BACHAO” when said PW-6 came out of

his house he saw accused Nand Kishore Mehta, accused

Pashupati Nath Mehta, accused Dilip Mehta removing body

of Shashi Nath Jha from the house of Nand Kishore Mehta


and placing it at rear seat of Ambassador car, parked in

front of house of Nand Kishore Mehta. Accused Shalendra

Bhattacharya along with one lady came out from house of

Nand Kishore Mehta and sat inside said car, which left

from the spot, being followed by accused Pashupati Nath

Mehta and Nand Kishore Mehta on a motorcycle.

Thus, it seem that white Ambassador car was used

for abduction of Shashi Nath Jha from Delhi as well as for

disposal of body of Shashi Nath Jha at village Tikra Toli -

Same is found supported from the deposition of Sh. Bali Karan

Pandey (PW-3), Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4), Dr. Gautam Sharma

(PW-5) and Sh. Sudershan Soni (PW-6).

11. Relating to Sh. Shashi Nath Jha the prosecution has

examined three witnesses, namely, PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj and PW2

Sh. Anil Kumar Pancholi, who are stated to be witness in


informal T.I.P. concerning accused Sunil Khaware, as stated to

be held on 10.12.1999 in the C.B.I. Office, where, PW-3 Sh.

Bali Karan Pandey, who is stated to be the eye-witness of

abduction of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, has identified accused

Sunil Khaware in the said informal T.I.P. From the perusal of

the deposition of PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey, it is reflected

that at about 1.15/11.30 p.m. in May,1994 while he was

closing his tea shop at Dhaula Kuan, at the request of Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha, being his regular customer he opened the

shop and gave cigarette to him and closed the shop. In the

mean time one white Ambassador car came there and one

person came out from said car and asked him to give cigarette

but he declined. On which at the request of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha that person is known to him “APNA ADMI HAI ISSE

CIGARETTE DE DO”, said PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey

reopened the shop and delivered the cigarette to that person.

Said PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey further added that actually


two persons came out from the said car but one of them had

asked for the cigarette. He also added that those two persons

talked to Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and they pushed Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha into the car and thereafter the said car left the spot.

From the deposition of PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey, it is

clearly reflected that on the point of identity of the accused

persons he has turned hostile and have neither identified

accused Sunil Khawre or Ashish Thakur as the persons, who

came on that day to his shop and abducted Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha. Despite cross-examination by Ld. Spl. P.P. for C.B.I. no

material to help the stand of the prosecution C.B.I. could be

abstracted from him. He specifically denied the suggestion

that he had identified accused Sunil Khaware on 10.12.1997

at C.B.I. Office. He also denied the suggestion of Ld. Special

P.P. that on 29.1.1998 he had identified accused Ashish

Thakur in CBI Office. He specifically deposed as he had seen

those two persons only once he cannot identify them.


Similarly, PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj and PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar

Pancholi are also found to have turned hostile and not

supported the stand of prosecution to the aspect that on

10.12.1997 in their presence accused Sunil Khaware was

identified by PW-3 SH. Bali Karan Pandey in the CBI Office. In

the cross-examination by Ld. Spl. P.P. for C.B.I. both PW-1 Sh.

Lekhraj and PW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Pancholi maintained the

same stand and denied the suggestion that Sh. Bali Karan

Pandey had identified accused Sunil Khaware in their

presence. Thus, from the deposition of PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj, PW-

2 Sh. Anil Kumar Pancholi and PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey, it

is clearly reflected that none of them have deposed anything in

the court as against accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish

Thakur nor they have identified said accused in the Court. As

said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was found missing from 22.5.1994,

his brother Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19) lodged the missing

report on dt. 24.5.1994 vide D.D. NO. 19 at police post North


Avenue, New Delhi, copy of which is EX. PW-45/B and

thereafter on the basis of complaint dt. 02.6.1994 EX. PW-

19/A, F.I.R. bearing No. 168/94, U/S 365 IPC was got

registered at P.S. Parliament Street, New Delhi and copy of

said FIR is EX. PW-43/A. Afterwords, said Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha was stated to have been seen in the company of accused

Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho

and Ajay Kumar Mehta and other persons in the evening in

the last week of May,1994 at village Tikra Toli, Distt. Ranchi

and thereafter said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was seen taking

liquor and meat along with accused Nand Kishore, Ajay Kumar

Mehta, Pashupati Nath Mehta in the house of accused Nand

Kishore Mehta which was witnessed by PW-4 Sh. Charu

Oraon, who also attended said party and after taking liquor he

slept but on hearing scream “BACHAO – BACHAO” he all of a

sudden woke up and saw accused Nand Kishore Mehta

striking iron rod twice on the head of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and


it started profuse bleeding and he was rendered unconscious

on the same and said PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon being terrified

being seen the incident immediately left the spot. Thereafter,

on hearing scream of “BACHAO – BACHAO” Sh. Sudershan

Soni (PW-6) came out of his house, which is in front of house

of accused Nand Kishore Mehta and had seen accused Nand

Kishore Mehta, Pashupati Nath Mehta, Ajay Mehta removing

the body of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha from the house of Nand

Kishore Mehta and placing it on the rear seat of the white

Ambassador car parked outside the house of Nand Kishore

Mehta. Thereafter, accused Shalendra Bhattacharya along

with one lady also came out from the house of Nand Kishore

Mehta and sat in the said car which left the spot being followed

by accused Nand Kishore Mehta and Pashupati Nath Mehta on

a motorcycle. 2-3 days after the said incident it was heard in

the said village Tikra Toli about snatching of dogs over a partly

buried human body lying near brick klin of Nand Kishore


Mehta and after about one week of said incident when Sh.

Charu Oraon (PW-4) asked accused Pashupati Nath Mehta as

to why that person was killed, Pashupati Nath Mehta stated to

have justified the killing that person by responding that said

person was “Outsider, Harami and Womaniser”.

As the local police could not succeed in investigation

in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,

investigation of this case was transferred to Crime Branch, but

as the Crime Branch also could not show positive result in the

investigation, ultimately, in pursuance of order dt. 10.10.1996

in a Criminal Writ Petition bearing No. 620/96, investigation

of this case was transferred to CBI and the investigation was

being monitored by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and

ultimately on the conclusion of the investigation chargesheet

was filed by CBI on 10.11.1998. During the course of

investigation on 13.8.1998, the CBI team exhumed one human


skeleton besides some articles from the Piska Bagan in village

Piska Nagri, Distt. Ranchi vide recovery memo EX. PW30/A in

the presence of independent witness and Executive Magistrate.

On the same day post mortem on the recovered skeleton was

got conducted through Dr. Ajeet Kumar Chaudhary (PW-17)

vide Post Motem Report EX. PW-17/A and as per his opinion,

the age, sex, time of death matched with that of deceased Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha. The Superimposition Test on the recovered

skull was also got done with the help of enlarged photograph of

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and vide report EX. PW-16/A as

conducted by Dr. T.S.N. Murthy (PW-16) it was opined that the

said skull matched with the photograph of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha. Dr. G.R. Bhaskar (PW-32) examined the recovered skull

and gave his opinion regarding causation of injury as per his

observation from “point-A to B” of EX. PW-16/A indicating as

under:-





nature.





death.





ruled out.”

Thus, the deposition of Sh. Charu Oraon (PW-4) that


in the midnight of last week of May,1994 that he saw Nand

Kishore Mehta striking twice a thick iron rod on the head of

Jhaji, which is found corroborated from the aforesaid report

EX. PW-16/A & EX. PW-32/A.

12. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld.

defence counsel tot he effect that as Sh. Shasi Nath Jha did

not raise any alarm at the time of his pushing into the car by

those two persons on 22.5.94 at about 11.00 p.m. and as he

was found seen roaming in village Tikra Toli in the last week of

May,1994 and thereafter seen taking liquor and meat in the

house of Nand Kishore Mehta, so no case of abduction could

be made out. As from the perusal of the deposition of PW-3

Sh. Bali Karan Pandey, it is clearly reflected that those two

persons, who were talking to Sh. Shasi Nath Jha in front of his

shop pushed him into the car and thereafter said car speeded

away from the spot. No body knows what conversation took


place between Sh. Shasi Nath Jha and those two persons and

mere that fact that Sh. Shasi Nath Jha did not raise any alarm

cannot negate the aspect of his abduction. Similarly, from the

deposition of PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma and PW-6 Sh.

Sudershan Soni, it is reflected that Sh. Shasi Nath Jha was

found in the company of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu, Pashupati Nath Mehta in the evening in the village

Tikra Toli and thereafter he was seen in the company of said

accused inside the house of Nand Kishore Mehta and as he

was not seen moving independently in the village Tikra Toli,

the point of abduction Sh. Shasi Nath Jha clearly establish

from the same. Further more, as said Sh. Shasi Nath Jha was

found killed and his body was seen to be removed from the

house of Nand Kishore Mehta in a white Ambassador car in the

midnight in the last week of May,1994 i.e. within a period of

about one week of his abduction, it can be safely presumed

that Sh. Shasi Nath Jha was abducted for the purpose of


murder on 22.5.94 from Delhi and therefore the case U/S 364

IPC could be successfully established by the prosecution.

However, as neither PW-1 Sh. Lekhraj nor PW-2 SH. Anil

Kumar Pancholi nor PW-3 Sh. Bali Karan Pandey have

identified the accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish Thakur in

the court nor deposed against them as the abductor of Sh.

Shasi Nath Jha, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that

the prosecution could not establish its case for offence

punishable U/S 364 IPC as against said accused Sunil

Khaware and Ashish Thakur in this respect.

13. As regards the aspect on the point of murder and

removal of dead body of Sh. Shasi Nath Jha, I do not find any

force in the submission of Mr. R.K. Naseem, Ld. Defence

Counsel to the effect that as there are several discrepancies

and contradiction in the deposition of PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon,

PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma and PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni,


their deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable.

The substantive part of the deposition of said PW-4 Sh. Charu


Soni, could not be demolished in the cross-examination by the

Ld. Defence Counsel. No doubt, some sort of discrepancies

has been brought on record in the cross-examination of PW-4

Sh. Charu Oraon, PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma and PW-6 Sh.

Sudershan Soni, but I am of the considered view that the said

discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of various

witnesses being usual and natural and even otherwise as they

are found to be formal in nature without striking at the route

of the matter and the same cannot be treated as fatal for the

prosecution. In the case reported as, “JT 1999 (9) SC 43

State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and another”, it was observed by

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-

“In the depositions of witnesses


there are always normal discrepancy,

however, honest and truthful they may

be. Such discrepancies are due to normal

errors of observation, normal errors of

memory due to laps of time, due to

mental disposition such as shock and

horror at the time of occurrence, and the

like.”

It was further observed in the said judgment as under

:-

“The traditional dogmatic hyper

technical approach has to be replaced by

rational, realistic and genuine approach

for administering justice in a criminal

trial.”

That in the case AIR 1983 SC 753/1983 Crl. L.J.

1096” it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as

under :-


“Overmuch importance cannot be

given to minor discrepancies. Discrepancies

which do not go to the root of the matter and

shake the basic version of the witnesses,

therefore, cannot be annexed with undue

importance. More so when the all important

“probabilities/factor” echoes in favour of the

person narrated by witnesses.”

In another case reported as AIR 1981 SC

1237/1981 Crl. L.J. 743 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India as under:-

“The prosecution evidence no doubt

suffers from inconsistencies here and

discrepancies there but that is a shortcoming

from which no criminal case is free. The

main thing to be seen is whether those

inconsistencies, etc. go to the root of the

matter or pertain to insignificant aspect

thereof. In the former case, the defence may


be justified in seeking advantage of the

incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In

the latter, however, no such benefit may be

available to it. That is a salutary method of

appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.”

14. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld.

Defence counsel for keeping out the deposition of material

witnesses PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon, PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma

and PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni on the ground that said PWs

are interested witnesses being enemical with the accused

persons. As I am of the considered view that mere fact that

the witnesses are enemical towards the accused persons by

itself cannot be a ground for rejection of the deposition of said

PWs and my said view is found supported from AIR 1978

Supreme Court 1506, “Sadhy Singh Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh.” it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in Para-9 as under :-


“The fact that the witnesses were

inimically disposed towards the accused

persons by itself cannot be a ground for

total rejection of their evidence.”

15. Mr. Naseem, Ld. Defence Counsel has also contended

that the deposition of PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon to have seen the

accused Nand Kishore Mehta hitting iron rod on the head of

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha is also falsified from the Post Mortem

Report EX. PW-17/A, which indicate injury over the skull by

sharp cutting weapon and not by such iron rod. I do not find

any force in the said submission of Ld. Defence Counsel, in

view of the fact that Dr. G.R. Bhaskar (PW-32), who had

examined the skull and gave his opinion regarding causation of

injury as per his observation from “Point-A to B” of report EX.

PW-16/A, indicating as under:-





nature.





death.





ruled out.”

Besides that, I am of the considered view that when


the opinion of a medical witness is contradicted by another

medical witness, the opinion of that expert should be accepted

which support the direct evidence and my said view is found

supported from the following judgments :-

1. AIR 1997 SC 2274.

2. 1987 Crl. L.J. 1406

16. Another point of contention as raised by Mr. Naseem

Ld. Defence Counsel is that since the accused persons have

been charged for offence punishable U/S 302/201 IPC for

causing murder of Sh. Shasi Nath Jha and for disposal of his

dead body and no one else and as the prosecution could not

establish the recovered skeleton from Piska Bagan on 13.8.98

as per recovery memo EX. PW-30/A is that of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha, the entire case of the prosecution falls to ground. In

support of his contention to the effect that the recovered


skeleton part is not of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, Ld. Defence

Counsel kept his reliance upon the both D.N.A. Reports dt.

11.6.2001 and 9.3.2005 which negate the stand of the

prosecution regarding recovered skeleton is that of Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha and both said reports clearly indicate it was not

biologically related with the relative of the deceased. Ld.

Counsel also added that the plea of the prosecution that said

D.N.A. Reports should not be considered by this Court on the

ground that DNA Experts, who have prepared those reports

were not examined, is misconceived. It is further added that

the recovered skeleton parts is not that of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

is also found supported from the Post Mortem Report EX. PW-

17/A, which indicate the injury on the skull, could have been

caused by sharp cutting and not by any iron rod, which is the

stand of prosecution as per deposition of PW-4 Sh. Charu

Oraon. Ld. Defence Counsel in order to buttress his said

contention relied upon the judgment reported as “AIR 2001


S.C. 2226”, to the effect that the result of the DNA Report is

scientifically accurate. Ld. Counsel also added that the said

recovered skeleton is not that of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha. As per

the missing report EX. PW-45.B said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was

wearing white kurta pyjama and not any jean's. It is also

added that the recovered articles like jean's pant sticker and

kara also negate the recovered body is that of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha as he do not use the same. Thus, Ld. Defence Counsel

urged that as the recovered skeleton is not of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha and the accused persons have been charged for abduction,

murder and removal of dead body of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, the

entire case of the prosecution collapsed and the accused

persons deserve to be acquitted.

No doubt, I found force to some extent in the said

submission of Ld. Dekfence Counsel that DNA Reports dt.

11.6.2001 and 9.3.2005 deserve to be considered by this Court


and should not be rejected on the ground that the DNA

Experts have not been examined before this Court. Since, in

pursuance of the exercise carried out by the prosecution the

said DNA Reports have been placed on record, I do not feel any

shy for considering the same. No doubt, both the DNA Reports

do not strengthen the stand of CBI to the effect that the

recovered skeleton is that of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha but there are

other ample material on record which indicate that the said

recovered skeleton is of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and some of the

same are given as under :-

� As per the Post Mortem Report EX. PW-17/A as

prepared by Dr. Ajeet Kumar Chaudhary (PW-17), his

opinion regarding age, sex, time of death matched with that

of deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha.


� As per the Superimposition Test as conducted by Sh.

T.S.N. Murthy (PW-16) on the recovered skull with the help

of enlarged photograph of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha vide his

report EX. PW-16/A, clearly indicate that the said skull

could be of that of person shown in photograph Mark-11

(which is photograph of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha). I am of the

considered view that a superimposition test of the skull is

duly admissible as per Sec.-9 of the Evidence Act to prove

that the skeleton was that of the deceased. My said view is

found supported from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case reported as “AIR 1963

SC 1074 “Ram Lochan Ahir Vs. State of West Bengal.”

� Dr. G.R. Bhaskar (PW-32) on examining the recovered

skull has given his opinion regarding causation of injury as

per his observation from “Point-A to B” of report EX. PW-

16/A indicating as under :-





nature.





death.





ruled out.”


� From the Panchnama (recovery memo) EX. PW30/A,

it is reflected that besides remains of human skeleton, some

articles i.e. one orange colour cloth piece, one Metal Kara,

one jean's pant “Brand sticker” etc. were also recovered. The

deceased Shashi Nath Jha on the day of incident was stated

to be wearing a Kara and jean's pant as Sh. Charu Oraon (

PW-4 ), who is an eye-witness and had seen the deceased

closely in the drink party inside the house of accused Nand

Kishore Mheta @ Nandu deposed as udner :-

“I do remember it at the time of

occurrence said Mr. Jha was wearing a

“Kara”. He was wearing a jean's pant, it

was probably of maroon colour.”

Sh. Gautam Sharma (PW-5), who had seen the


deceased in the company of some other accused going towards

the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta on that evening,

deposed as under :-

“When I saw Shashi Nath Jha

with Khashi (goat) he was wearing a pant

and shirt.”

It indicate that the recovered articles could be

connected with deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha.

� That on 13.8.1998 the recovered skeleton remains

were examined by Dr. Ajit Kumar Chaudhary, Tutor,

Department of Forensic Medicine, Rajinder Medical College,

Ranchi, (PW-17) and he proved his post mortem report dt.

13.8.1998 as EX. PW-17/A and as per said report his

opinion regarding sex, age, injury over the skull and time of

death matched with that of deceased Shashi Nath Jha.


� Moreover, it is well settled that in case of conflict

between opinion of two competent medical witnesses, the

opinion of that expert should be accepted which support the

direct evidence and my said view is found supported from

following judgments :-

AIR 1997 SC 2274.

1987 Crl. L.J. 1406.

In the light of the aforesaid material as found

available on the case record which is found supported from the

ocular evidence of PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon coupled with other

medical evidence, which is Post Mortem Report, EX. PW-17/A,

Superimposition Test Report EX. PW-16/A and observation

from “Point-A to B” of report EX. PW-16/A and clarificatory

report EX. PW-32/A as prepared by Dr. G.R. Bhaskar (PW-32),

it can be safely concluded that the recovered skeleton as


exhumed from Piska Bagan, Piska Nagri by CBI Team on

13.8.98 vide recovery memo EX. PW-30/A can be treated as

the skeleton of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha.

17. Now the next question arises that “If the said

recovered skeleton could not be found to be of Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha (deceased), can it be fatal for the case of the

prosecution?” Does the recovery of the dead body is

absolutely necessary for establishing the conviction of

murder? Simple answer to these questions would be “No.” I

am of the considered view that it is not at all necessary for

conviction for murder to establish corpus delicti. Even in the

absence of recovery of the dead body the fact of death of

deceased can be established like any other fact and my said

view is found supported from the following judgments as

rendered by our Hon'ble Supreme Court of India :-


AIR 2002 SC 2920, “Mani Kumar Thapa Vs. State

of Sikkim” it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in Para-4 as under :-

“4. In a trial for murder, it is

neither an absolute necessity nor an

essential ingredient to establish corpus

delicti. The fact of the death of the

deceased must be established like any

other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases

may not be possible to be traced or

recovered. There are a number of

possibilities where a dead body could be

disposed of without trace, therefore, if the

recovery of the dead body is to be held to

be mandatory to convict an accused, in

may a case the accused would manage to

see that the dead body is destroyed which

would afford the accused complete

immunity from being held guilty or from

being punished. What is therefore


required in law to base a conviction for an

offence of murder is that there should be

reliable and plausible evidence that the

offence of murder like any other factum

of death was committed and it must be

proved by direct or circumstantial

evidence albeit the dead body may not be

traced.

In 2006 VII AD (SC) 481, “Ramjee Rai & Ors. Vs.

State of Bihar.” it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Para-20 & 21 as under :-

“20. It is now a trite law that corpus

delicti need not be roved. Discovery of the

dead body is a rule of caution and not of law.

In the even, there exists strong circumstantial

evidence, a judgment of conviction can be

recorded even in absence of the dead body.

[See Rama Nand & Ors. Vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 1 SCC 511].


21. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary & Ors.

Vs. State of Bihar[ (2001) 8 SCC 311], this

Court noticed the decision in Rama Nand

(supra) and opined :-

“There can be no dispute with the

prosecution of law set out above. As is set

out in the various authorities (referred to

above), it is not at all necessary for a

conviction for murder that the corpus

delicti be found. Undoubtedly, in the

absence of the corpus delicti there must be

direct or circumstantial evidence leading

to the inescapable conclusion that the

person has died and that the accused are

the persons who had committed the

murder.”

In the present case from the deposition of three

material eye-witnesses, namely, PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon, PW-5


Dr. Gautam Sharma and PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni, who are

eye-witnesses on different aspects and in totality it has been

clearly established by prosecution regarding murder of Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha by accused Nand Kishore Mehta by striking

heavy iron rod twice on the head of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha on

which profuse bleeding started and Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was

rendered unconscious and thereafter removal of the dead body

of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha by accused Nand Kishore Mehta,

Pashupati Nath Mehta, Ajay Kumar Mehta by taking out the

dead body from the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta and

placing it in white Ambassador car park outside the house of

Nand Kishore Mehta, wherein, accused Shalendra

Bhattacharya and one lady came out from the house of Nand

Kishore Mehta and sat in the said car which left the spot being

followed by accused Nand Kishore Mehta and Pashupati Nath

Mehta on a motorcycle in the midnight of last week of

May,1994. In the present case, from the deposition of PW-5


Dr. Gautam Sharma and PW-6 Sh. Sudershan Soni, it is

clearly reflected that on that day evening in the last week of

May,1994 Sh. Shashi Nath Jha was seen in the company of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta, Pashupati Nath Mehta, Ajay

Mehta going towards the house of accused Nand Kishore

Mehta and accused Shalendra Bhattacharya along with dark

complexioned lady were found sitting in a white Ambassador

car on that evening near the house of accused Nand Kishore

Mehta. Thereafter, at about 8.00 p.m. it was seen by PW-4 Sh.

Charu Oraon that accused Nand Kishore Mehta along with Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha and two other persons were taking meat and

liquor in the house of Nand Kishore Mehta in which PW-4 after

taking some liquor he slept but in the midnight on hearing

scream of “BACHAO – BACHAO” he suddenly woke up and

found accused Nand Kishore Mehta striking twice with an iron

rod on the head of Jhaji (photograph of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

(EX. P-1) as of said Jhaji has been identified by said PW-4 Sh.


Charu Oraon during the course of his recording statement U/S

164 Cr.P.C., which is EX. PW-28/O dt. 16.9./98) Said PW-4

Sh. Charu Oraon also deposed that thereafter profuse bleeding

started from head of said Jhaji and he became unconscious

and after seeing the said incident PW4 Sh. Charu Oraon got

terrified and immediately ran away from the spot. Said part of

deposition of PW-4 is found corroborated from his earlier

statement as recorded U/S 164 Cr. P.C., which is EX. PW-

28/O. Further more, it has also come on record that on

hearing scream of “BACHAO–BACHAO” on that midnight PW-

6 Sh. Sudershan Soni (whose house is opposite to house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta) came out from his house and

noticed accused Nand Kishore Mehta, Pashupati Nath Mehta

and Ajay Mehta removing the body of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

from the house of Nand Kishore Mehta and placing it on the

rear seat of a white Ambassador car parked outside the house

of Nand Kishore Mehta. Thereafter, accused Shalendra



house of Nand Kishore Mehta and sat in the said car, which

left the spot being followed by accused Nand Kishore Mehta

and Pashupati Nath Mehta on a motorcycle. From the

deposition of PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon and PW-5 Dr. Gautam

Sharma, it is also reflected that after 2-3 days of the said

incident it was heard in the village about snatching of dogs

over a half buried human body near brick klin of accused

Nand Kishore Mehta. From aforesaid material as available on

the case record, it is reflected that accused Nand Kishore

Mehta caused murder of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha by striking a

heavy iron rod twice on his head and after ensuring that Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha had already died, he along with other co-

accused have removed the body of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha by a

Ambassador car in the said midnight. Same is also found

corroborated from the fact that PW-5 Dr. Gautam Sharma

asked accused Nand Kishore Mehta about lying of said dead


body near his brick klin, accused Nand Kishore Mehta

responded Dr. Gautam Sharma (PW-5) to mind his own

business. Further more, said PW-4 Sh. Charu Oraon deposed

in the court that after about one week of said incident when

he asked accused Pashupati Nath Mehta as to why that person

was killed, Pashupati Nath Mehta justified the killing of said

persons by adding that said person was “an outsider, Harami

and Womaniser”. Further more, the lying of half buried

human dead body near brick klin of Nand Kishore Mehta when

came to the notice of village it appears that said dead body has

been shifted to a nearby safer place and buried at the jungle of

Piska Bagan, Piska Nagri from where it was ultimately

exhumed by CBI Team vide recovery memo EX. PW-30/A on

dt. 13.8.98 and the remains of the human skeleton could be

connected with that Sh. Shashi Nath Jha as found

corroborated from the Post Mortem Report EX. PW-17/A,

Superimposition Test Report EX. PW-16/A and clarifictory


report EX. PW-32/A besides the recovered articles with that of

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha.

18. In the light of the aforesaid material as available on

the case record, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that

the prosecution has successfully established its case relating

to offence punishable U/S 302 IPC for causing murder of Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha as against accused Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu and for offence punishable U/S 201 IPC for causing

disappearance of the evidence of murder of Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha, thereby, removing the dead body of said Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha by accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath

Mehta @ Posho, Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip and Shalendra

Bhattacharya.

19. Regarding the hatching of conspiracy by all the

accused persons for abduction and murder of Sh. Shashi Nath


Jha, it is contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that none of the

accused including Shibu Soren had any motive for elimination

of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha nor the prosecution could

establish about the receipt of bribe amount by accused Shibu

Soren for voting against “No Confidence Motion” nor the

prosecution could establish about the demand of amount by

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha from accused Shibu Soren. I do not find

any substance in the said submission. As from the perusal of

the material as available on the case record, it reflect that it is

the accused Shibu Soren, who entertained the motive for

elimination of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha in order to evade making

payment to said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha as demanded by him

being having knowledge of receipt of huge amount as bribe by

accused Shibu Soren for voting against “No Confidence

Motion” in July,1993. By entertaining the motive for

elimination of Shashi Nath Jha, who was working as his

P.A./P.S. accused Shibu Soren masterminded for hatching the


conspiracy with other accused,namely, Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu, Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho, Shalendra

Bhattacharya and Ajay Kumar Mehta, who are his party

members and two others thereafter the deceased Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha was abducted on 22.5.1994 from Dhaula Kuan,

Delhi and handed over to accused at village Tikra Toli, Distt.

Ranchi, where deceased Shashi Nath Jha was seen in the

company of accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati

Nath Mehta @ Posho, Ajay Kumar Mehta in the evening of last

week of May,1994 and ultimately in the said midnight Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha was murdered and thereafter his dead body

was disposed by four accused persons, namely, Nand Kishore

Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho, Ajay Kumar

Mehta and Shalendra Bhattacharya in pursuance of the

criminal conspiracy hatched by them.

20. I would like to add it here that concerning accused


Ashish Thakur and Sunil Khaware there is nothing on record

to establish that they abducted Shashi Nath Jha from Delhi

and handed over him to other accused at village Tikra Toli for

causing murder of Shashi Nath Jha. Further more, there is no

evidence as against said accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish

Thakur that the deceased Shashi Nath Jha w2as seen in their

company in the evening in the last week of May,1994 at village

Tikra Toli nor said accused were seen in the said drink party

on that day in the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta nor

they were seen along with other accused while removing the

dead body of Shashi Nath Jha from house of accused Nand

Kishore Mehta. In view of the same I have no hesitation to

indicate that the prosecution could not establish that accused

Sunil Khaware and Ashish Thakur were the abductor of

Shashi Nath Jha from Delhi or they were party to the

conspiracy for abduction and murder of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha.


21. In (2003) 11 SCC 271, State of Punjab Vs. Karnail

Singh, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Para-12 as under :-

“12. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of

doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion

and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made

sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape

than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing

justice according to law. [(1990) 1 SCC 445 : 1990 SCC (Crl)

151 : AIR 1990 SC 209, “Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpal

Singh”] The prosecution is not required to meet any and

every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [ (1992) 2 SCC

86 : 1992 SCC (Crl) 241 : AIR 1992 SC 840, “State of U.P.

Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava”] A reasonable doubt is not an

imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt

based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of


the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is

argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable

because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is

too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous

hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being

punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish.

[ (1978) 4 SCC 161 : 1978 SCC (Crl.) 564 ; AIR 1978 SC

1091, “Inder Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) ] Vague

hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. “A judge

does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no

innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a

guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties.” [ (1994

AC 315 : (1994) 2 All ER 13 (HL) “Per Viscount Simon in

Stirland Vs. Director of Public Prosecution quoted in 1998

Supp SCC 686 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 48 : AIR 1988 SC 1998,

“State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh”, SCC p. 692, para 17)


Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest

for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite

other than the truth. [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri)

1033 : (1974) 1 SCR 489, “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs.

State of Maharashtra, [ (1988) 4 SCC 302 :1988 SCC (Cri)

928 : AIR 1988 SC 2154, “State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal

and [ (2002) 8 SCC 381 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 32 : (2002) 7

Supreme 276, Gangadhar Behra Vs. State of Orissa”) ]

22. As conspiracy is the primary charge against the

accused, let, me advert to the law of conspiracy, it's definition,

essential features and proof :-

In AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2640, “State of Tamil

Nandu Vs. Nalini and Others.” it was observed by Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Para-646 to 655 as under :-


“646. To record conviction under

Section 120-B, it is necessary to find the

accused guilty of criminal conspiracy as

defined in Section 120-A of I.P.C. which

reads as under :-

“120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy-

When two or more persons agree

to do, or cause to be done-

(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal

means, such an agreement is designated

a criminal conspiracy.

Provided that no agreement

except an agreement to commit an offence

shall amount to a criminal conspiracy

unless some act besides the agreement is

done by one or more parties to such

agreement in pursuance thereof.


Explanation- It is immaterial

whether the illegal act is the ultimate

object of such agreement, or is merely

incidental to that object.”

647. The ingredients of the offence of

criminal conspiracy are : (i) an agreement

between two or more persons; (ii) the

agreement must relate to doing or causing

to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an

act which is not illegal in itself but is done

by illegal means. The proviso and the

explanation are not relevant for the

present discussion.

648. Though the meeting of minds of

two or more persons for doing/or causing

to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal

means is a sine qua non of the criminal

conspiracy, yet in the very nature of the

offence which is shrouded with secrecy no

direct evidence of the common intention of


the conspirators can normally be produced

before the Court. Having regard to the

nature of the offence, such a meeting of

minds of the conspirators has to be

inferred from the circumstances provided

by the prosecution, if such an inference' is

possible.

649. In Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar

Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1964) 2 SCR 378

: (AIR 1965 SC 68 : 1965 (1) Cri. L.J. 608),

Subba Rao, J. speaking for himself and his

learned colleagues, observed (Para 8) :-

“The essence of conspiracy is,

therefore, that there should be an

agreement between persons to do one or

other of the acts described in the section

The said agreement may be proved by

direct evidence or may be inferred from

acts and conduct of the parties.”


650. In Shivnarayn Laxminarayan Joshi

Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 465

: (AIR 1980 SC 439 : 1980 Cri. L.J388), S.

Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., speaking for a two-

Judge Bench, observed (Para-14) :-

“It is manifest that a conspiracy

is always hatched in secrecy and it is

impossible to adduce direct evidence of the

same. The offence can be only proved

largely from the inferences drawn from

acts or illegal omission committed by the

conspirators in pursuance of a common

design which has been amply proved by the

prosecution as found as a fact by the High

Court.”

651. In Mohammad Usman Mohammed

Hussain Maniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra,

(1981) 2 SCC 443 : (AIR 1981 SC 1062 :

1981 Cri. L. J. 588), another two Judge

Bench of this Court pointed out (Para 17) :-


“For an offence under Section

120-B the prosecution need not necessarily

prove that the perpetrators expressly

agreed to do and/or caused to be done the

illegal act; the agreement may be proved

by necessary implication.; In this case, the

fact that the appellants were possessing

and selling explosive substances without a

valid licence for a pretty long time leads to

the inference that they agreed to do

and/or caused to be done the said illegal

act, for, without such an agreement the act

could not have been done for such a long

time.”

652. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.

Krishan Lal Pardhan, (1987) 2 SCC 17 ;

(AIR 1987 SC 773 ; 1987 Cri. L.J. 709),

Natrajan, J. observed (Para-8) :-

“In the opinion of Special Judge


every one of the conspirators must have

taken active part in the commission of

each and every one of the conspiratorial

acts and only then the offence of

conspiracy will be made out. Such a view

is clearly wrong. The offence of criminal

conspiracy consists in a meeting of mind of

two or more persons for agreeing to do or

causing to be done an illegal act or an act

by illegal means, and the performance of

an act in terms thereof. It pursuant to the

criminal conspiracy the conspirators

commit several offence, then all of them

will be liable for the offence even if some of

them had not actively participated in the

commission of the offences.”

653. In, State of Maharashtra Vs.

Somnath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 : (1996

AIR SCW 1977 : AIR 1996 SC 1744 : 1996

Cri. L.J. 2448), Hansaria, J., speaking for a


three Judge Bench of this Court after

elaborate discussions of the various

judgments of this Court, concluded thus

(Para 24) :-

“To establish a charge of

conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in

either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal

means is necessary. In some cases, intent

of unlawful use being made of the goods or

services in question may be inferred from

the knowledge itself. This apart, the

prosecution has not to establish that a

particular unlawful use was intended, so

long as the goods or service in question

could not be put to any lawful use. Finally,

when the ultimate offence consists of a

chain of actions, if would not be necessary

for the prosecution to establish, to bring

home the charge of conspiracy, that each

of the conspirators had the knowledge of

what the collaborator would do, so long as


it is known that the collaborator would put

the goods or service to an unlawful use.”

654. From a survey of cases, referred to

above, the following position emerges :

In reaching the stage of meeting of

minds, two or more persons share

information about doing an illegal act or a

legal act by illegal means. This is the first

stage where each is said to have knowledge

of a plan for committing an illegal act or a

legal act by illegal means. Among those

sharing the information some or all may

form an intention to do an illegal act or a

legal act by illegal means. Those who do

form the requisite intention would be

parties to the agreement and would be

conspirators but those who drop out

cannot be roped in as collaborators on the

basis of mere knowledge unless they

commit acts on omissions from which a


guilty common intention can be inferred.

It is not necessary that all the conspirators

should participate from inception to the

end of the conspiracy; some may join the

conspiracy after the time when such

intention was fist entertained by any one

of them and some others may quit from

the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be

treated as conspirators. Where in

pursuance of the agreement the

conspirators commit offences individually

or adopt illegal means to do a legal act

which has a nexus to the object of

conspiracy, all of them will be liable for

such offence even if some of them have not

actively participated in the commission of

those offences.

655. The agreement, since qua non of

conspiracy, may be proved either by

direct evidence which is rarely available

in such cases or it may be inferred from


utterances, writings acts, omissions and

conduct of the parties to the conspiracy

which is usually done. In view of the

Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything

said, done or written by those who enlist

their support to the object of conspiracy

and those who join later or make their

exit before completion of the object in

furtherance of their common intention

will be relevant facts to prove that each

one of them can justifiably be treated as

conspirator.”

23. In “Yashpal Mittal Vs. Stkate of Punjab”, [1977 (4)

SCC 540] it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

as under :-


“The very agreement, the concert

or league is the ingredient of the offence.”

and that “it is not necessary that all the

conspirators must know each and every

detail of the conspiracy.”

In “State of H.P. Vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan [1987 (2)

SCC page 17] it was observed that :-

“Everyone of the conspirator

need not take active part in the

commission of each and every one of the

conspiratorial act.”

In “Mohd. Usman Vs. State of Maharashtra” 1981

(2) SCC 443, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India as under :-


“That the agreement amongst the

conspirators can be inferred by necessary

implication.”

In “Esher Singh Vs. State of A.P.” 2004 (11) SCC

585, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as

under:-

“The circumstances before,

during and after the occurrence can be

proved to decide about the complicity of

the accused.”

24. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld.

Defence Counsel to the effect that accused Shibu Soren had no

motive for elimination of his P.A./P.S. Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

and there is nothing on record that said Shibu Soren has

received huge amount as bribe for voting against “No


Confidence Motion” nor there is anything on record to show

about demand of money of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha from accused

Shibu Soren. To the contrary, four MPs of J.M.M. Party

including accused Shibu Soren are stated to have received

huge amount as bribe for voting against 'No Confidence

Motion' voted in Lok Sabha on dt. 28.7.93 in favour of minority

Congress-I Government led by Sh. P.V. Narsimha Rao, for

which separate chargesheet in respect of that case bearing RC

NO. 5(A)/96/ACU/VIII was filed by CBI in the court of Special

Judge, Delhi against accused Shibu Soren and others. Against

the order on charge dt. 6.5.1997 as passed by Ld. Special

Judge, matter was challenged before Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi, and order on charge of Special Judge was upheld vide

judgment dt. 12.9.1997 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as

reported in 1997 (43) D.R.J. 108 “P.V. Narsimha Rao Vs. CBI”,

wherein, at para-7, it was observed as under :-


“7. The 'No confidence

Motion' was lost on the 28th. The four

J.M.M. MPs and seven MPs of Ram

Lakhan Singh Yadav group voted against

the Motion. And, on the 29th and the

30th the J.M.M. MPs received a part of

the promised booty. For the rest

arrangements were being made in

Bangalore.”

The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble High Court was

challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and matter

was decided vide judgment dt. 17.4.1998 as reported in 1998

Crl. L. J. 2930, “ P.V. Narsimha Rao Vs. State (CBI)” and in

concluding part of judgment at Para -181 it was observed as

under :-

“181. We now set down the effect uponthe accused of our findings.


We have held that the

alleged bribe takers who voted upon

the no-confidence motion, that is Suraj

Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi,

Shalendra Mehto, Ram Lakhan Singh

Yadav, Ramsharan Yadav, Roshan Lal,

Anadi Charan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh

and Haji Gulam Mohammed (accused no.

3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21) are

entitled to the immunity conferred by

Article 105(2)”

It is also reflected from the case record that accused

Shibu Soren got deposited Rs. 30 Lacs in P.N.B. Nauroji Nagar

Branch, New Delhi on dt. 31.7.1993 - same is found

supported from the deposition of Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-36).

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha (deceased) had been demanding

Rs. 15 Lacs from accused Shibu Soren - same is found


supported from the deposition of Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-

36). From the aforesaid material it is established that in order

to evade making any such payment to Sh. Shashi Nath Jha,

accused Shibu Soren had the reason to entertain motive for

elimination of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, who had been

working as his P.A./P.S. and was having knowledge regarding

receipt of said bribe amount for voting against “No Confidence

Motion”.

25. Besides that, the following conduct on the part of

the accused Shibu Soren indicate his mastermind in hatching

said conspiracy with other co-accused, namely, Nand Kishore

Mehta, Pashupati Nath Mehta, Ajay Kumar and Shalendra

Bhattacharya, who are his party members, for abduction for

murder and murder of said Sh. Shashi Nath Jha :-

(1) The accused Shibu Soren preferred to remain out of


Delhi during the relevant period of abduction and murder of

deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha as accused Shibu Soren is

stated to have left for Bokaro on 17th /18th May,1994 and came

back to Delhi on 1.6.1994. Bokaro is stated to be at short

distance from the place Village Tikra Toli, Distt. Ranchi, where

Shashi Nath Jha was murdered.

(2) On 02.6.1994 accused Shibu Soren, who suggested

Sh. Amar Nath Jha (PW-19), brother of the deceased, not to

mention anyone's name in police complaint as suspect for

kidnapping of Shashi Nath Jha.

(3) On 2.6.1994 it is accused Shibu Soren, who for the

first time uttered from his mouth in the presence of mother

and daughters of the deceased that Shashi Nath Jha had

already died, which establish that accused Shibu Soren was

already having knowledge about the “Abduction and killing of


Shashi Nath Jha”, on 2.6.1994 which is within the span of 10

days of abduction of said Shashi Nath Jha.

(4) On 2.6.1994 the accused Shibu Soren had offered to

get admitted the daughters of the deceased in the Day

Boarding School and to bear their expanses, also indicate

about his knowledge regarding “Abduction and killing of

Shashi Nath Jha.”

(5) The offer of Rs. 3/4 lacs by accused Shibu Soren to

Sh. Vijay Nath Jha (PW-18), brother of deceased for withdrawal

of case.

(6) Accused Shibu Soren was not interested for transfer

of the investigation to C.B.I. by taking the plea that “MAIN

KHUD CBI HUN.”


(7) The deceased Shashi Nath Jha was apprehending

danger to his life from accused Shibu Soren and he had stated

about the same 3-4 months earlier to his mother Smt.

Priyambda Devi (PW-20) and Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-36).

(8) In the year 1995 i.e. after the incident, the accused

Shibu Soren being head of J.M.M. Party allotted the Assembly

ticket to accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu from “Hatia”

Constituency as a token of reward in considering the help of

Nand Kishore Mehta for elimination of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha,

as wanted by accused Shibu Soren. Said Assembly ticket was

allotted to accused Nand Kishore Mehta by rejecting claim for

said seat by other senior party leader from locality.

(9) The accused Shibu Soren floated and financed a

business firm “M/s Simex International” in which Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha, one Sh. Sushil Kumar (PW-36) and wife and son of


accused Shibu Soren were made partner but in April, 1994 Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha was removed from the said firm.

(10) The accused Shibu Soren has got deposited Rs. 30

Lacs in cash in P.N.B. Nauroji Nagar Branch, New Delhi on dt.

31.7.1993 out of the bribe amount as received by him by

voting against “No Confidence Motion”. Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

being P.A./P.S. of accused Shibu Soren having knowledge of

said bribe received by Shibu Soren, had been demanding Rs.

15 Lacs from accused Shibu Soren, who was not interested to

part with.

26. From the material as available on the case record it is

established that accused Shibu Soren being head of J.M.M.

Party and other accused persons, namely, Nand Kishore

Mehta, Pashupati Nath Mehta, Ajay Kumar Mehta and

Shalendra Bhattacharya, who are local leaders of the J.M.M.


Party, accused Shibu Soren hatched a conspiracy with the

other accused persons for elimination of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha

and as a result of which said Shashi Nath Jha was abducted

on dt. 22.5.1994 at about 11.00 p.m. from Dhaula Kuan, Delhi

and thereafter said Shashi Nath Jha was handed over to other

accused persons at village Tikra Toli, Distt. Ranchi, where

Shashi Nath Jha was seen in the company of other accused

persons, namely, Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati

Nath Mehta @ Posho, Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip, Shalendra

Bhattacharya and drink party was arranged at the house of

accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu and Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha was given full drink and meat and ultimately in the

midnight he was killed by accused Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu and thereafter his dead body was removed by accused

Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath Mehta @

Posho, Dilip, Shalendra Bhattacharya and was buried initially

near brick klin of accused Nandu Mehta, but when it was


heard in the village regarding snatching of the dogs over partly

buried dead body, the same was removed from the said place

and re-buried at jungle of Piska Bagan in village Piska Nagri

from which the remains of the human skeleton was recovered

by C.B.I. Team on 13.8.1998 and was ultimately found to be

matched with that of deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha.

27. In case reported as “2006 IX AD (S.C.) 81, “Trimukh

Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra.” it was observed by

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para-16 as under :-

“16. In a case based on

circumstantial evidence where no eye-

witness account is available, there is

another principle of law which must be

kept in mind. The principle is that when

an incriminating circumstances is put to

the accused and the said accused either

offers no explanation or offers an

explanation which is found to be untrue,


then the same becomes an additional link

in the chain of circumstances to make it

complete. This view has been taken in a

catena of decisions of this Court. [See

State of Tamil Nandu Vs. Rajendran

(1999) 8 SCC 679 (para-6); State of U.P.

Vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992

SC 2045 (Para-40); State of Maharashtra

Vs. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (Para-27);

Ganesh Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2002)

1 SCC 731 (Para-15) and Gulab Chand Vs.

State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (Para-4)]

By keeping the aforesaid cue in mind let us examine

the stand of the accused persons which they have displayed

during their examination U/S 313 Cr. P.C. before this Court.

From the case record, it is reflected that accused Shibu Soren

has responded to some Court question as recorded in his

statement U/S 313 Cr. P.C. interalia as under :-


Q4) It is in further evidence against you that Shri Shashi

Nath Jha S/o Shri Gangeshwar Jha was working as your personal

assistant and used to come to your above said residence during

that period. What you have to say ?

A. In the year 1994 Jharkhand was not separated from

Bihar. Thousands of people used to come to me. Shashi Nath Jha

was one of them. However, I never paid any regular salary to him

as a private secretary.

Q.54) It is in further evidence against you that PW.40 Ramesh

Prasad Sahu, deposed that he know accused Nand Kishore since

1978 as he was having a small restaurant adjacent to PW.40

petrol Pump situated at Tikra Toli, Piska Nagri, Ranchi. Said

PW.40's also deposed that accused Nand Kishore Mehta is member

of J.M.M Party to which you are the leader and you and your

party members oftenly used to visit the house of accused Nand

Kishore Mehta. What you have to say ?

A. It is incorrect. However, witness has falsely deposed

before this court.


Q.55) It is in further evidence against you that PW.41 Vijay

Mehto deposed that he knows accused Nand Kishore Mehta

resident of his village and is a member of a J.M.M political party

and you are the leader of said J.M.M party. What you have to

say?

A It is incorrect.

Q.87) It is in further evidence against you that PW.36 Sushil

Kumar deposed that he came in contact with you through Suraj

Mandal in July/August 1991. PW.36 also came into contact with

Shashi Nath Jha through you when he started visiting your

residence. What you have to say ?

A. I knew Suraj Mandal, however, I do not know about PW-

36 Sushil Kumar.

The answers of accused Shibu Soren in response to

the aforesaid questions appears to be untrue. Further more,

in response to Ques. No. 127 he responded as under :-

Q.127 Why this case against you ?

A. It is political case.


From the response to Que. No. 127, it is clearly

reflected that accused Shibu Soren has not given any

explanation as to how it is a political case and who had falsely

dragged him in this case nor he has got examined any defence

witness in support of his claim of being falsely implicated in

this case. On the contrary, from the perusal of the case

record, it is clearly established that this case was registered

because of missing of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, who was working

as P.A./P.S. to accused Shibu Soren and it is Sh. Amar Nath

Jha (PW-19), who is the brother of deceased Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha and is the complainant in this case and it is not even the

stand of accused Shibu Soren that said Sh. Amar Nath Jha

(PW-19) had any political enemity with him.

Similarly, accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu is

also found to have responded to some question during the


course of his examination U/S 313 Cr. P.C. which appears to

be untrue and some of the said questions and answers are as

given as under :-

Q1) It is in evidence against you that in the year 1994 your

co-accused Shibu Soren was the Member of Parliament of India.

What you have to say ?

A. It is incorrect.

Q2) It is in further evidence against you that your co-accused

Shibu Soren was the President of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Party.


A. I do not know.

Q3) It is in further evidence against you that during the

above said period your co-accused Shibu Soren was residing at 17,

Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road, New Delhi. What you have to say

?


A. It is incorrect.


Nath Jha S/o Shri Gangeshwar Jha was working as personal

assistant of your co-accused Shibu Soren and used to come to him

at above said residence during that period. What you have to say

?

A. It is incorrect.

Q.47) It is in further evidence against you that PW.5 Dr.

Gautam Sharma in the month of May, 1994 residing at Village

Tikra Toli, P.S. Rathunagri, District Ranchi and he is an

homeopathic practioner for the last about 25-26 years. What you

have to say ?

A. It is incorrect.


Prasad Sahu, deposed that he knows you since 1978 as he was

having a small restaurant adjacent to PW.40's petrol Pump

situated at Tikra Toli, Piska Nagri, Ranchi. Said PW.40 also

deposed that you are member of J.M.M Party to which your co-


accused Shibu Soren is the leader and he and party members

oftenly used to visit your house. What you have to say ?

A. It is incorrect.


Mahto deposed that he knows you as a resident of his village and

a member of J.M.M political party and Shibu Soren is the leader

of said J.M.M party. What you have to say ?

A It is incorrect.

From the response of accused Nand Kishore Mehta to

the aforesaid question during his examination U/S 313 Cr.P.C.

appears to be untrue. Said Nand Kishore Mehta in response

to Que. No. 127 and Que. No. 128 responded as under :-


A. This is a political motivated case as some of the

prosecution witnesses are local criminals and are my local

enemies.


Q.128 Why PWs have deposed against you?

A. The prosecution witnesses have deposed against me as

they have planted a false case against me in collusion with C.B.I.

as the prosecution witnesses are my enemies, who have deposed

against me.

And from the aforesaid response relating to Que. No.

127 and 128, it is clearly reflected that accused Nand Kishore

Mehta has not given any explanation as to how this is a

political motivated case and which PWs are enemical against

him and since when, nor he pointed out any rival political

leader, who had falsely implicated him in this case.


Similarly, accused Pashupati Nath Mehta is also

found to have responded to some question during the course of

his examination U/S 313 Cr. P.C. which appears to be untrue

and some of the said questions and answers are as given as

under :-




A. I do not know.




A. I do not know.





?

A. I do not know.





?

A. I do not know.

Q.47) It is in further evidence against you that PW.5 Dr.

Gautam Sharma in the month of May, 1994 residing at Village

Tikra Toli, P.S. Rathunagri, District Ranchi and he is an

homeopathic practioner for the last about 25-26 years. What you

have to say ?

A. I do not know.


Mahto deposed that he knows your co-accused Nand Kishore

Mehta resident of his village and is a member of a J.M.M political

party and Shibu Soren is the leader of said J.M.M party. What


you have to say ?

A I do not know.

In response to Que. No. 127 said accused Pashupati

Nath Mehta @ Posho responded as under :-


A. This is a political motivated case and the same has been

planted against us.

From the perusal of the same, it is clearly reflected

that accused Pashupati Nath Mehta has not given any

explanation as to how this is a political motivated case and as

to why he has been implicated and by whom.

Similarly, accused Shalendra Bhattacharya is also





under :-




A. I do not know.




A. I do not know.




?

A. I do not know.






?

A. I do not know.





you have to say ?

A I do not know.

In response to Que. No. 127 he responded as under :-


A. The case against me is filed because of political enmity

unleashed by rival political parties.


From the aforesaid response of accused Shalendra

Bhattacharya to the Que. No. 127, it is reflected that he has

not given any explanation about any political enemity for his

implication in this case nor he has disclosed about his rival

political leader, who has implicated him in this case.

Similarly, accused Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip is also




under :-




A. It is incorrect.





A. It is incorrect.




?

A. It is incorrect.





?

A. It is incorrect.


Prasad Sahu, deposed that he knows your co-accused Nand


Kishore since 1978 as he was having a small restaurant adjacent

to PW.40's petrol Pump situated at Tikra Toli, Piska Nagri, Ranchi,

said PW.40 also deposed that your co-accused Nand Kishore

Mehta is member of J.M.M Party to which your co-accused Shibu

Soren is the leader and he and party members oftenly used to visit

the house of accused Nand Kishore Mehta. What you have to say ?

A. It is incorrect.





you have to say ?

A It is incorrect.

In view of the aforesaid response as given by the

accused persons during the course of their examination U/S

313 Cr. P.C., which appears to be untrue and therefore it can

be treated as additional link in the chain of circumstances


concerning their hatching of conspiracy for elimination of Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha as the said conspiracy aspect is based on

circumstantial evidence.

In view of the aforesaid material as available on the

case record including the incriminating pieces of

circumstances against the accused persons as narrated in

Para-10 of this judgment and applying the cue relating to the

conspiracy from the above referred judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, I have no hesitation to safely conclude

that accused Shibu Soren had masterminded the conspiracy

and by hatching the conspiracy with his party members,

namely, Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, Pashupati Nath Mehta

@ Posho, Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip and Shalendra

Bhattacharya and two other for commission of abduction for

murder and murder of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, which was

ultimately got executed by abducting Sh. Shashi Nath Jha


from Delhi on 22.5.1994 by two persons in a white

Ambassador car and thereafter taking said Shashi Nath Jha to

village Tikra Toli, Distt. Ranchi, where he was seen in the

company of other accused persons and ultimately murdered by

accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu in the midnight in the

last week of May,1994 inside his house and thereafter body of

Shashi Nath Jha was removed by accused Nand Kishore

Mehta, Pashupati Nath Mehta, Ajay Kumar Mehta and

Shalendra Bhattacharya in a white Ambassador car for burring

the same to some safer place for disposal of the same.

Therefore, the aforesaid five accused persons, namely, (1)

Shibu Soren, (2) Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu, (3) Pashupati

Nath Mehta @ Posho, (4) Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip and (5)

Shalendra Bhattacharya can be safely held liable for offence

punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec. 364/302 IPC for hatching

conspiracy for abduction for murder and murder of Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha.


28. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is as

under:-

(A) Accused Shibu Soren is found guilty for offence

punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec. 364/302 IPC and is convicted

accordingly.

(B) Accused Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu is found

guilty for offence punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec. 364/302 IPC

and for substantive offence punishable U/S 302/201 IPC and

is convicted accordingly.

(C) Accused Shalendra Bhattacharya is found guilty for

offence punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec. 364/302 IPC and for

substantive offence punishable U/S 201 IPC and is convicted

accordingly.


(D) Accused Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip is found guilty

for offence punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec. 364/302 IPC and

for substantive offence punishable U/S 201 IPC and is

convicted accordingly.

(E) Accused Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho is found

guilty for offence punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec. 364/302 IPC

and for substantive offence punishable U/S 201 IPC and is

convicted accordingly.

(F) However, accused Sunil Khaware and Ashish

Thakur are acquitted of the charged offence.

29. Before parting with this judgment, I would like to

place on record a word of my appreciation for Sh. A.K. Singh,

Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I., who being assisted by Inspector V.K.

Pandey, I.O. for his elaborate submission and for Sh. Anil


Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused Sunil Khaware for

his precise submission and for Sh. R.K. Naseem, Advocate, Ld.

Counsel for remaining accused, for his eloquent submission

during the course of final argument, which enable me to

render this judgment.

Let, these five convicts be heard separately on the

point of sentence.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (B.R. KEDIA)On 28th November, 2006. Addl. Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts

Delhi.


IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J . TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI

S.C. NO. - 3/06RC No. - 5 (S)/96-SIU-(XI)/CBI/

New Delhi.U/Sec. 364/302/201/120-B IPC. (Convicted)

State (C.B.I.) vs. 1) Shibu Soren,S/O Sh. Sohran Soren,R/O 17, Gurudwara Rakab GanjRoad, New Delhi.

2) Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu,S/O Sh. Ram Lal Mehta,R/O Vill. Tikra Toli, Near NipunPetrol Pump, P.O. Piska Nagri, P.S.Ratu, Distt. Ranchi, .

3) Sh. Shalendra Bhattacharya,S/O Late Sh. U.K. Bhattacharya,R/O Central Office, J.M.M. Party,Bariyatu Road, Distt. Ranchi.

4) Sh. Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip,S/O Sh. Ram Lal Mehta,R/O Vill. Tikra Toli, Near NipunPetrol Pump, P.O. Piska Nagri, P.S.Ratu, Distt. Ranchi.


5) Pashupati Nath Mehta@Posho,S/O Sh. Shyam Lal Mehta,R/O Vill. Piska Nagri, Distt.Ranchi.

ORDER ON SENTENCE :-

In pursuance of the conviction part of judgment dt.

28.11.06 as passed by this court whereby convicting five

accused, namely, (1) Shibu Soren, (2) Nand Kishore Mehta @

Nandu, (3) Shalendra Bhattacharya, (4) Ajay Kumar Mehta @

Dilip and (5) Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho, I have heard Sh.

A.K. Singh, Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I., Sh. R.K. Anand, Senior

Advocate, Ld. Counsel for convict Shibu Soren and Sh.

Gautam Chaubey, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for remaining four

convicts and perused the case record for passing this order on

sentence.

2. It is submitted by Sh. R.K. Anand, Senior Advocate,


Ld. Counsel for convict Shibu Soren that the convict Shibu

Soren has been found guilty as a conspirator and not as an

actual offender for offence of abduction and murder of Sh.

Shashi Nath Jha. It is further added that it is Shibu Soren

who struggled for more than four decades, which ultimately

resulted in creation of Jharkhand State. Mr. Anand further

buttressed his submission by adding that due to the

outstanding contribution for betterment and upliftment of the

tribal people and for creation of State of Jharkhand, Shibu

Soren is popularly known there as “Guru”. It is further added

that convict Shibu Soren is having high status in the society

and had been a Cabinet Minister in the Union Government. It

is further added that Shibu Soren is aged about 65 years and

not a previous convict. It is further strenuously contended by

Mr. Anand, Ld. Senior Advocate that even otherwise it cannot

be treated as “rarest of rare” case warranting death penalty for

convict Shibu Soren. In support of his said contention Mr.


Anand, Ld. Senior Advocate referred and relied upon various

paragraphs of the judgments as reported 2004 (2) Supreme

Court Cases 338 “Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand” as

rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and focused his

submission on the point that there is nothing on record which

can render the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate

nor there is any circumstances in the present case from which

it can be concluded that there is no alternative but to impose

death sentence. Mr. Anand, Senior Advocate also by relying

upon another judgment reported as AIR 1999 SC 1332 “Om

Prakash Vs. State of Haryana” forcefully contended that even

otherwise it is not the case of the prosecution that nature of

the crime and the circumstances of the offender is so revealing

that the convict Shibu Soren is menace to the society and

sentence of imprisonment of life would be inadequate. Thus,

by relying upon the aforesaid two judgments as rendered by

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India it is eloquently contended by


Mr. Anand, Ld. Senior Advocate that the sentence of death

penalty as against convict Shibu Soren is not warranted. It is

further added that the judgments as referred and relied by Ld.

Special P.P. for C.B.I. in support of his contention for awarding

death sentence against convict are not applicable to the facts

and circumstances of the present case.

3. Sh. Gautam Chaubey, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for

remaining four convicts fairly submitted that he adopt the

argument as made by Sh. R.K. Anand, Ld. Senior Advocate and

the same submission be also treated as submission on behalf

of the remaining four convicts. It is also added by Mr.

Chaubey, Ld. Counsel that these four convicts are also first

offender and not previous convicts.

4. However, Sh. A.K. Singh, Ld. Special P.P. for C.B.I.

forcefully contended the barbaric manner in which Shashi


Nath Jha (deceased) was killed when he was helpless and

empty handed and thereafter the dead body was disposed of

which ultimately resulted in snatching of dogs on his partially

buried dead body near brick klin of convict Nand Kishore

Mehta @ Nandu and thereafter removal of the same and

reburying it at jungle Piska Bagan, Piska Nagri, Distt. Ranchi

and considering the manner of commission of murder and

disposal of the dead body of Shashi Nath Jha being so barbaric

and inhuman, it warrant the death sentence against the

convict. In support of his said contention Ld. Special P.P. for

C.B.I. referred and relied upon the following judgments :-

1)1983 Crl. L. J. 1457, “Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab.

2) 2005 Crl. L. J. 3950 “State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. NavjotSandhu” and

3) 133 (2006) DLT 501 “State Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh.”


5. While laying down the principles on the point of

sentence, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

as under:-

In the case reported as 2005 II AD (SC) 157 “State

of M.P. Vs. Munna Chaubey and another”

“Therefore, undue sympathy to

impose inadequate sentence would do more

harm to the justice system to undermine the

public confidence in the efficacy of law and

society could not long endure such serious

threats. It is therefore, the duty of every

Court to award proper sentence having

regard to the nature of offence and the

manner in which it was executed or

committed etc. This position was


illuminatingly stated by this Court in :-

“Seveka Perumal etc. Vs. State of

Tamilnadu, AIR 1991 S.C. 1463.”

Further more, in “Dhananjay Chatterji Vs. State of

West Bengal 1994 (2) SCC 220” it was observed by Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India as under :-

“That shockingly large number of

criminals go unpunished thereby

increasingly, encouraging the criminals and

on the ultimate making justice suffer by

weakening the system's credibility. The

imposition of appropriate punishment is the

manner in which the court responds to the

society's cry for justice against the criminal.

Justice demands that court should impose

punishment befitting the crime so that

courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.


The Court must not only keep in view the

rights of the criminal but also the rights of

the victim of the crime and the society at

large while considering the imposition of

appropriate punishment.”

Further more, in another case reported as 1996 (2)

SCC 175, “Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan” it was observed by

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-

“That it is the nature and gravity of

crime but not the criminal, which are

germane for consideration of appropriate

punishment in a criminal trial. The court

will be failing in its duty if appropriate

punishment is not awarded for a crime which

has been committed not only against the

individual victim but also against the society

to which criminal and victim belong. The

punishment to be awarded for a crime must


not be irrelevant but it should conform to

and be consistent with the atrocity and

brutality with which the crime has been

perpetrated, the enormity of the crime

warranting public abhorrence and it should

respond to the society's cry for justice

against the criminal.”

Further more, in recent judgment reported as 2006 II

AD (SC) 607 “Dinesh @ Bhudha Vs. State of Rajasthan” it

was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-

“Public abhorrence of the crime

needs reflection through imposition of

appropriate sentence by the court.”

6. There is another side of coin which I cannot afford to

lost sight of while passing this Order On Sentence. There is no

doubt about it that the murder of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha had


adversely affected mentally, materially and monitorilly the

family of the deceased. No doubt, the life which is snuffed out

cannot be re-compensated but then monitory compensation

which at least can provide some solace to the family of the

deceased. I am conscious of the fact that it is the nearest

family members of the deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, who are

affected deeply and heavily due to killing of said Sh. Shashi

Nath Jha. Further more, from the perusal of the case record it

is clearly reflected that it is Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20) who

is the mother of the deceased approached Hon'ble High Court

of Delhi by filing Criminal Writ No. 390/05 on being aggrieved

that the local Delhi Police could not make any head way in the

investigation of this case and thereafter vide order dt.

14.2.1996 Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass order,

whereby transferring the investigation of this case to the Crime

Branch. But, even the Crime Branch also could not show any

positive result towards investigation said Smt. Priyambda Devi


(PW-20), mother of the deceased was constrained to file

another Criminal Writ petition registered as Crl. Writ No.

620/96, which was disposed by our Hon'ble Delhi High Court

vide order dt. 10.10.1996, thereby, transferring the

investigation of this case to C.B.I. and thereafter the

investigation of this case by C.B.I. was constantly monitored

by our Hon'ble Delhi High Court as a result of which C.B.I.

conducted the investigation successfully and filed the

chargesheet ultimately on dt. 10.11.1998. Further more, it is

also reflected from the case record that said Smt. Priyambda

Devi (PW-20), mother of the deceased, Kumari Kavita and

Kumari Preeti, both daughters of the deceased, Sh. Vijay Nath

Jha and Sh. Amar Nath Jha, both brothers of the deceased,

have been examined before this Court during trial as PW-20,

PW-24, PW-25, PW-18 and PW-19, respectively, and they have

deposed on various material aspect having significant bearing

on the fate of this case. Therefore, I am of the considered view


that they cannot be asked to stand aside of the Court

proceedings and to be treated as “Dumb Driven Cattle” in this

legal battle. In order to re-assure them that they are not

forgotten at the stage of consideration on the point of sentence,

I have no hesitation to resort to power as contemplated in Sec.

357 Cr. P.C. to award some monitory compensation to the

entitled persons out of them. In the case reported as 1989

Crl. L. J. 116, “Hari Kishan and State of Haryana Vs.

Sukhbir Singh and others”, it was observed by Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Para-10 as under :-

“Sub-section (1) of Section 357

provides power to award compensation to

victims of the offence out of the

sentence of fine imposed on accused. In

this case, we are not concerned with sub-

section (1). We are concerned only with

sub-section (3). It is an important

provision but Courts have seldom invoked


it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object

of it. It empowers the Court to award

compensation to victims while passing

judgment of conviction. In addition to

conviction, the Court may order the

accused to pay some amount by way of

compensation to victim who has suffered

by the action of accused. It may be noted

that this power of Courts to award

compensation is not ancillary to other

sentences but it is in addition thereto.

This power was intended to do something

to re-assure the victim that he or she is

not forgotten in the criminal justice

system. It is a measure of responding

appropriately to crime as well of

reconciling the victim with the offender.

It is, to some extent, a constructive

approach to crimes. It is indeed a step

forward in our criminal justice system.

We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to

exercise this power liberally so as to meet


the ends of justice in a better way.

Similar view was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in another case reported as 1994 (3) Supreme Court

Cases 430, “Dr. Jacob George Vs. State of Kerala”.

Further more, in another judgment reported as AIR

1998 (SC) 3164 “State of Gujrat & Anr. Vs. Hon'ble High

Court of Gujrat” it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Para-100 as under :-

“100. In our efforts to look after and

protect the human rights of the convict we

cannot forget the victim or his family in case

of his death or who is otherwise

incapacitated to earn his livelihood because

of criminal act of the convict. The victim is

certainly entitled to reparation, restitution

and safeguards of his rights. Criminal justice


would look hollow if justice is not done to the

victim of the crime. Subject of victimology

is gaining ground while we are also concerned

with the rights of the prisoners and prison

reforms. A victim of crime cannot be a

“forgotten man” in the criminal justice

system. It is he who has suffered the most.

His family is ruined particularly in case of

death and other bodily injury. This is apart

from the factors like loss of reputation,

humiliation, etc. An honour which is lost or

life which is snuffed out cannot be

recompensed but then monetary

compensation will at least provided some

solace.”

By taking the cue from the aforesaid judgments as

rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and applying the

same to the present case, I am of the considered view that the


family members of the deceased being the worst sufferer of

irreparable loss due to death of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, deserve

to be suitably compensated as per U/S 357 (1) (c) Cr. P.C. In

pursuance of Sec. 357 (1) (c) Cr. P.C. it is only the persons,

who are entitled to recover damage under the Fatal Accident

Act, 1855 are only entitled for compensation for loss due to

death. As per Sec. 1 (A) of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, it is

the wife, husband, parent and child, if any of the deceased are

entitled for damages due to death and as per Sec. 4 of said Act

the word “Parent” shall include father and mother and the

word “Child” shall include son and daughter. Therefore, in the

present case, it is Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20), mother of the

deceased, Kumari Kavita (PW-24) and Kumari Preeti (PW-25),

both daughters of the deceased Sh. Shashi Nath Jha are

entitled for compensation as per Sec. 357 (1) (c) Cr. P.C.

Since, accused Shibu Soren has been convicted for offence

punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec. 364/302 IPC and as per Sec.


120-B (1) IPC the said accused can be punished in the same

manner as if he had abetted such offence i.e. offence

punishable U/S 364 and 302 IPC and therefore Sec. 357 (1) (c)

Cr. P.C. is fully applicable in the present case.

Since, it is reflected from the case record, that it is

convict Shibu Soren, who had reason to entertain motive for

elimination of Sh. Shashi Nath Jha, who had been working as

his P.A./P.S. and it is convict Shibu Soren, who had

masterminded the criminal conspiracy and hatched it with

other convicts, which ultimately resulted in elimination of said

Sh. Shashi Nath Jha and specifically keeping in mind the

higher status, stand and position in the society of said convict

Shibu Soren and the fact that the family of the deceased

appear to hails from a economically lower strata of the society,

it would be just, fair and proper to impose Rs. 5 lacs as fine

besides substantive sentence of imprisonment upon the


convict Shibu Soren in pursuance of his conviction for offence

punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec. 364/302 IPC and in default of

payment of said fine amount the convict Shibu Soren will

undergo additional R.I. for one year. In case said fine amount

is deposited on behalf of convict Shibu Soren, the entire

amount is ordered to be treated as compensation as

contemplated U/S 357 (1) (c) Cr. P.C. and a sum of Rs. 1 Lac

is to be paid as compensation to Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW20),

mother of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs each are to be

paid as compensation to Kumari Kavita (PW-24) and Kumari

Preeti (PW-25) both daughters of the deceased Sh. Shashi Nath

Jha.

7. In “Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1980

(2) SCC 684” and “Machhi Singh & Others Vs. State of

Punjab 1983 (SCC) 470” the guidelines which are to be kept


in view when considering the question whether the case

belongs to the “rarest of rare” category for awarding death

sentence have been indicated by our Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India.

By taking the cue from the said judgment and

applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the

present case, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the

present case cannot be treated as being covered in the “rarest

of the rare” category for awarding death sentence as indicated

by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. I deem it proper to award

sentence upon these five convicts as under :-

(A) Convict Shibu Soren is awarded sentence of

imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5 lacs and in default of

payment of said fine additional R.I. for one year, in pursuance

of his conviction for offence punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec.


364/302 IPC. In case said fine amount is deposited on behalf

of convict Shibu Soren, the entire amount is ordered to be

treated as compensation as contemplated U/S 357 (1) (c) Cr.

P.C. and a sum of Rs. 1 Lac is to be paid as compensation to

Smt. Priyambda Devi (PW-20), mother of the deceased and a

sum of Rs. 2 Lacs each to be paid as compensation to Kumari

Kavita (PW-24) and Kumari Preeti (PW-25) both daughters of


(B) Convict Nand Kishore Mehta @ Nandu is awarded

sentence of imprisonment for life besides a fine of Rs. 10,000/-

(Ten Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine he shall

undergo additional R.I. for one year, in pursuance of his

conviction for offence punishable U/S 120-B r.w. Sec. 364/302

IPC and awarded sentence of imprisonment for life besides a

fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) and in default of

payment of fine he shall undergo additional R.I. for one year in


pursuance of his conviction for substantive offence punishable

U/S 302 I.P.C. and he is further awarded sentence of R.I. for

three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand only) and

in default of payment of fine he shall undergo additional R.I.

for six months in pursuance of his conviction for substantive

offence punishable U/S 201 IPC.

(C) Convict Shalendra Bhattacharya is awarded


(Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine he shall



IPC and further awarded sentence of R.I. for three years

besides a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand only) and in

default of payment of fine he shall undergo additional R.I. for

six months, in pursuance of his conviction for substantive

offence punishable U/S 201 IPC


(D) Convict Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Dilip is awarded









offence punishable U/S 201 IPC

(E) Convict Pashupati Nath Mehta @ Posho is awarded










offence punishable U/S 201 IPC.

However, it is made clear that the aforesaid

substantive sentence of imprisonment concerning the convicts

shall run concurrently.

8. Let, a copy of the judgment dt. 28.11.06 and copy of

this order on sentence be given free of cost to all the five

convicts and to C.B.I. immediately.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (B.R. KEDIA)On 5th December, 2006. Addl. Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts

Delhi.

shibu soren trial court judgement-jha murder case

Documents