http://JUDIS.NIC.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 727 of 1997

PETITIONER:
Central Bureau of Investigation

RESPONDENT:
Akhilesh Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/2004

BENCH:
K.G. Balakrishnan & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

This is an appeal preferred by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the order

passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow. By the impugned order passed by the
High Court, the respondent was discharged from the criminal case filed against him.

The facts in short are as follows. Respondent Akhilesh Singh was one of the
accused in a criminal case registered under Section 120-B read with Section 302 and
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against him and he filed a
petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court. The
learned Single Judge quashed the charges framed against the respondent. The allegation
against the respondent was that he entered into a conspiracy with another accused Dr.
Sanjay Singh and in furtherance of the common object of the conspiracy joined hands with
other accused to cause the murder of one Syed Modi on 28th July, 1988.

Deceased Syed Modi was a badminton player of international fame. He was a

national champion of badminton for eight years and during the relevant time he was
working as a Welfare Superintendent of North Eastern Railways at Lucknow. Amita
Kulkarni was the wife of the deceased Syed Modi. She was also a badminton player and
both of them represented India in the international meet held at Beijing in 1978. During th
at
time, there arose intimacy between the two players and later they decided to marry. But
this was not liked by the parents of Syed Modi. Amita Kulkarni was a native of Bombay
and her father was a senior business executive in a textile mill and her mother was a
teacher by profession. Amita Kulkarni joined service as a clerk in Indian Railways, but sh
e
later came to Lucknow to take up assignment as an officer in the managerial cadre in the
Marketing Division of the Cooperative Dairy Federation. The original accused, Dr. Sanjay
Singh was at the helm of affairs of this Cooperative Dairy Federation. Dr. Sanjay Singh
was active in politics and it is alleged that he enjoyed great political and social influenc
e as
he was a lineal descendent of the princely family of Amethi. He also held the post of a
Cabinet Minister in the State of Uttar Pradesh for some period. It was further alleged by
the prosecution that Amita Kulkarni came in close contact with Dr. Sanjay Singh and this
was not liked by deceased Syed Modi. However, the differences are stated to have been
sorted out and it is alleged that the marriage between Syed Modi and Amita Kulkarni was
solemnized in 1988 at the residence of Dr. Sanjay Singh. It is alleged that even after the

marriage, Amita Kulkarni continued to have her meetings with Dr. Sanjay Singh and
deceased Syed Modi used to raise objections and there were frequent quarrels between
Syed Modi and his wife. It is alleged that Dr. Sanjay Singh was informed of these
developments and he wanted to do away with Syed Modi. He took the assistance of the
respondent, Akhilesh Singh, who had criminal antecedents and was involved in several
criminal cases, including murder. The respondent was alleged to have association with
other accused, namely, Amar Bahadur Singh, Balai Singh, Jitendra Singh @ Tinku. After
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
this incident, Amar Bahadur Singh and Balai Singh died and their names were removed
from the array of parties. The above three accused were said to be the constant
companion of the respondent Akhilesh Singh and they acted as his body guards. On
20.7.1988, the respondent introduced one Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu to Dr. Sanjay Singh
and the respondent obtained a Maruti van bearing registration number HYG 1959 from one
Abdul Khaliq in exchange of his own Gypsy jeep. The prosecution case is that the
respondent handed over this van to the other accused and they conspired to kill Syed Modi
on 24.7.1988. The respondent along with the co-accused stayed at room no. 13 of Royal
hotel at Lucknow in order to carry out their mission to liquidate Syed Modi. The
respondent left for Delhi by Gomti mail in the morning of 27.7.1988. On 28.7.1988 at
about 7.45 P.M., Syed Modi was shot dead by Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh @
Pappur and Balai Singh outside the north gate of the K.D. Singh Babu stadium at Lucknow
when the deceased was coming back after his badminton practice. All the three killers
escaped from the place of incident in the Maruti van NO. HYG 1959 driven by Jitendra
Singh @ Tinku.

The respondent was arrested on 16.8.1988 and the investigation revealed that the
respondent was at Haridwar on 28.7.1988 and he had been trying to contact his
accomplices at Lucknow to find out the developments.

The police recovered some bullets from the place of occurrence and also from the
dead body of deceased Syed Modi. The police also recovered a point 38 bore revolver
pursuant to the confession made by Amar Bahadur Singh. A point 9 mm pistol was
recovered at the instance of accused Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu. On the basis of the
material available with the investigating agency, they filed a charge sheet against the
respondent. It is interesting to note that the original accused Dr. Sanjay Singh and Mrs.
Amita Kulkarni were implicated as accused, but both of them were discharged by an order
passed by the Sessions Judge and that order of discharge was challenged by the State
before the High Court unsuccessfully. A Special Leave Petition also was filed before this
Court and that too ended in dismissal on 27.1.1994. Therefore, the very basis of the
alleged conspiracy by the respondent with Dr. Sanjay Singh lost its substratum.
Admittedly, the respondent was not present at Lucknow when the incident happened.
Respondent was implicated in the case on the basis of the alleged conspiracy between
himself and the original accused Dr. Sanjay Singh. There is no other material placed
before the court to prove the complicity of the respondent. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent drew our attention to the various
reasons given by the learned Single Judge for passing the impugned order. There was no
direct evidence to show that the respondent had supplied the weapons and rendered
assistance to the assailants in carrying out the common object of killing Syed Modi. Had
the conspiracy charge been established, at least some of the acts and conduct of the
respondent could have been made admissible under the provisions of Section 10 of the
Evidence Act. Once the main accused, who is alleged to have hatched the conspiracy and
who had the motive to kill the deceased was discharged, and when that matter had attained
finality, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in holding that no purpose would be
served in further proceeding with the case against the respondent.

Another contention urged by the appellant was that the High Court exercised the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Court after a long lapse of time.
It
is true that the respondent challenged the framing of charges against him after a
considerable delay, but it seems that the order of discharge passed in favour of the main
accused attained finality only in 1994 when this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

It was thereafter only that the respondent approached the court with an application under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Single Judge in those
circumstances condoned the delay. We do not think that the power exercised by the High
Court suffered from any illegality or perversity. Going by the facts and circumstances of
the case, we do not think that this is a fit case where this Court can interfere. The appea
l is
dismissed accordingly.