REPORT

Regardh'lg the facts and circumstances

Relating to the death of

Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyay~,.

·By

Honourable Mr. Ju~tice Y. V. Chandrachud

(Commission of Inquiry)
'
 REPORT

Regarding the facts and circumstances

Relating to the death of

Shri Deen Dayal U padhyaya

By

Honourable Mr. Justice ·r. V. Chandrachud

(Commission of Inquiry)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Contents Page~

PART I
I IntrOduction 1-4
II ScOpe of the Reference s-8
PART II
III The Fateful Journey II-16
IV The Strange Story Of Mughalsarai 17-31
V _ Fateh Bahadur Singh Investigates 32-38
VI Investigation by the C.I.D. and the C.B.I. 39-44
VII Expert Evidence • 45-48

PART III
VIII Sessions Trial 51-60
IX The Shape of the present prOceedings 61-67

PART IV
X The Much-maligned Major • 71-77
XI When was Shri Upadhyaya last seen alive? 78-84
XII, DiscOvery of the bOdy and its possible planting near the pole. 85-99
XIII Theft of the bedding • 100-103
ICIV Motivation for the murder: Is it political ? • 104-x2g
XV The Jan Sangh attack on the C.B.I. '124-131
kvi Conclusion . 132-137

PARTV
Annexures . . 139-160

(i)
 PART I
(Chapters I to ll)

(ii')
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, who was elected as the President

·of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in December 1967, died during a train
journey on the night between the lOth and 11th February 1968.

2. The death occurred in mysterious circumstances and there-

fore some members of the Parliament asked, during the course of
obituary references on the 12th, that the investigation of the matter
be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The C.B.I. put
up two young men-Bharat Lal Dom and Ram Awadh-for trial
before the Special Sessions Judge, Varanasi. By his judgment of
.June 9, 1969, the learned Judge held that Shri Upadhyaya died a
homicidal death but he acquitted both the accused of the charge of
murder as well as of the charge that they had committed theft after
making preparations for causing death. However, he convicted
Bharat Lal under Section 379 of the Penal Code for committing theft
of Shri Upadhyaya's belongings and sentenced him to a term of four
years. Bharat has filed an appeal against his conviction and sen-
tence, which is pending in the High Court of Allahabad.

3. The learned Judge observed in his judgment that the prosecu-

tion was unable to prove its case "mainly because of paucity of
evidence", that "there have also been deficiencies here and there
during the investigation", that as a criminal Court, his function was
merely to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the .
charges against the accused, that he could not in the very nature of
things conduct a probe into the truth of the matter, that the prose-
cution was unable to offer a satisfactory explanation of some circum-
stances, that there was no "concrete data" before him to show that
the murder was committed for a political motive and that "the
offence of murder not having been proved against the accused, the
problem of truth about the murder still remains".

4. On June 22, 1969, over seventy members of the Parliament

made a written demand that a Judicial Commission be appointed to
conduct a further inquiry into the matter so that persons who had
committed the murder of Shri Upadhyaya could be brought to book.
On August 4, 1969, the Chief Minister of U.l'. announced in the
State Assembly that the State Government had decided not to file
an appeal against the decision of the Special Judge. On August 5,
1969, the Union Home Minister made a statement in the Lok Sabha
that the Government had decided to appoint a Commission of In-
quiry as desired by some members.
 2
5. Accordingly, the Government of India issued the following:
notification on October 23, 1969:-
"No. 31/13/69-Pol.l(A)
Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs.

New Delhi-1, the 23rd October 1969.

NOTIFICATION
S.O. WHEREAs the trial conducted by the Special Sessions
Judge, Varanasi, in the case relating to the death of Shri Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya has resulted in the acquittal of the two accused
persons on the charge of murder of Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya;
AND WHEREAS the learned Sessions Judge has opined that the
problem of finding the truth about the death still remains;
AND WHEREAS there has been a persistent demand from the public
for a further inquiry to ascertain the truth;
AND WHEREAS the Central Government is of opinion that it is
necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of
making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance,
namely, the death of Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya in suspicious
circumstances;
Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3
of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952), the Central
Government hereby appoints a Commission of Inquiry consisting of
Shri Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, Judge of the Bombay High Court,
as sole member.
2. The Commission shall inquire into all the facts and circum-
stances relating to the death of Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya and
make its report to the Central Government. The Commission will
be expected to complete its inquiry and make its report by the 30th
April 1970.
3. The Central Government is of opinion that, having regard to
the nature of the inquiry to be made and other circumstances of the
case, all the provisions of sub-section (2), sub-section· (3) sub-
section (4) and sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Comm\ssions
of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952), should be made applicable to the
said [Link] and th~ Cent!al Government hereby .directs under
sub-sectlon (1) of the sa1d sect10n 5 that all the provis10ns aforesaid
~;hall apply to the said Commission.

Sd/-T. C. A. SRINIVASAVARADAN
•
Joint Secretary to the Government of India."
 3
6. The time for submitting the report was extended first upto
August 31, 1970 and then upto October 31, 1970. The large mass of
evidence before the Commission made these extensions necessary.
7. On November 17, 1969 the Commission issued a notification in-
viting "all persons acquainted with the subject-matter of the Inquiry
to furnish to the Commission statements regarding all the facts and
circumstances relating to the death of Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya".
Every such statement was to be supported by an affidavit and was
required to be sent so as to reach the Commission before December
31, 1969. The notification was published in fourteen newspapers of
Agra, Allahabad, Kanpur, Lucknow; New Delhi and Varanasi.
8. On a written request made by Shri Nanaji Deshmukh,
Treasurer of the Jan Sangh, the date for submitting statements was
extended upto January 31, 1970. The Central Bureau of Investiga-
tion filed a sworn written representation to explain its point of view.
The Jan Sangh also filed a written representation through its
Treasurer in support of its case. In all, 59 affidavits were received
by the Commission. Details in regard to those affidavits appear in
Annexure I to this report.
9. The Commission interviewed Shri Nanaji Deshmukh and the
C.B.I. officials at Delhi. The Commission went to Varanasi on the
9th February and at 11-30 A.M. it inspected the spot of occurrence
in the Mughalsarai Railway Yard, in the presence of parties and
their Counsel. At 5-30 P.M. a meeting was held to decide upon
the procedure to be followed before the Commission. The parties
explained their respective cases briefly and agreed that evidence
should begin on the 9th March at Varanasi. It was further agreed
that evidence recorded in the Sessions Court should be treated as
evidence before the Commission, with liberty to either side to recall
any witness for further examination-in-chief or for further cross-
examination.
10. A list of the important witnesses examined in the Sessions
Court is at Annexure II. A list of the important documents produced
in the Sessions Court is at Annexure III.
11. On the night of the 9th February, the Commission inspected
the spot of occurrence once again. It was suggested by the parties
that the incident leading to the death of Shri Upadhyaya had taken
place at night and therefore it would be necessary to inspect the spot
at night. A complete demonstration of shunting operation was
shown on this occasion, efforts having been made to reproduce events
and conditions approximating as nearly as possible to those of the
eventful night. ·The importance of shunting operations consists in
the fact that the bogie in which Shri Upadhyaya was travelling was
detached from the train at Mughalsarai and was attached to another
train bound for Patna. The dead body of Shri Upadhyaya was found
in the Mughalsarai Railway Yard, near a traction pole, by which the
shunting engine had to pass and repass several times.
12. Two sittings were held at Varanasi for recording evidence:
from 9th to 12lt- March and 18~h to 27th March 1970. During this
 4
period, the Jan Sangh examined 44 witnesses. The Commission and
the Counsel visited the site once again in March.
13. Two sittings were held at Delhi: from 9th April to 13th April
and from 24th April to 30th April 1970. During this period! the Jan
Sangh examined seven witnesses while the C.B.I. exammed ten
witnesses.
14. The next sitting of the Commission was held in Bombay from
the 22nd June. The C.B.I. examined thirteen more witnesses and
closed its case on the 30th June.
15. A list of witnesses examined before the Commission is at
Annexure IV. A list of documents produced before the Commission
is at Annexure V.
16. Shri C. D. Seth, Counsel for the Jan Sangh, commenced his
arguments on the 30th June and concluded them on the 7th July.
Shri Bipin Behari Lall, Counsel for the C.B.I., commenced his
arguments on the 7th July and concluded them on the 22nd. Shri
M. C. Bhandare, Counsel for the Commission, commenced his sub-
missions on the 22nd and completed them on the 27th July.
17. Shri Seth took ill in Bombay and therefore he could not make
his reply before the 19th August. He commenced his reply on the
19th and finished it on the 21st August. Shri Lall gave a reply to the
submissions made by Shri Bhandare.
 CHAPTER II
SCOPE OF THE REFERENCE
1. Unnatural deaths commonly give rise to three alternative infer-
·ences: that the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal. Shri
Upadhyaya's death occurred in circumstances which are wholly
incompatible with the first two inferences. Accident can be ruled out
in reference to events immediately antecedent and subsequent to
the death. Suicide is inconceivable. The mood of the moment, the
purpose of the journey and the equable temper of Shri Upadhyaya
render it impossible that he put an end to his own life. Murder re-
mains the sole alternative to pursue, not only because accident and
suicide can be reasonably excluded but because the contemporaneous
span of events leaves no doubt that Shri Upadhyaya was murdered.
Later, I will turn to those events for their proper appreciation but
it is relevant that right from the time that the dead body lying near
the traction pole was identified as being of Shri Upadhyaya, all
concerned were clear that the death was homicidal. It is significant
that in the Sessions Court no one ever suggested that the death might
be accidental or suicidal. Normally, a Judge trying a charge of
murder considers whether the prosecution has proved that death
was homicidal. Here it was unnecessary because it was undisputed
that death was homicidal. Such a concession is recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 50 of his judgment. It was not
suggested· before me either that death was due to accident or suicide.
2. Thus it was common ground at all stages that Shri Upadhyaya
was murdered. The difference in the rival versions is that accord-
ing to the Central Bureau of Investigation the murder was com-
mitted by common thieves for small gain. It was conceived and
executed on the spur of the moment. According to the other current
of opinion, the murder was pre-planned and was committed for poli-
tical motives.
3. Bharat Lal and Ram Awadh are jail birds. Their acquittal of
the charge of murder led to the popular belief that after all the
murder was not committed just by common thieves. True, that the
learned Sessions Judge has indicated in his judgment (para 195)
that "the failure of the charge regarding murder in this case does
not in any sense imply that the theory of the accused having been
killers is false or that it was a political crime". He has also observed
(para 194) that the charge of murder failed because of "paucity of
evidence" and that there was no warrant for the criticism that "the
investigating agency in this case deliberately and purposely avoided
the political origin of the crime, set up a false theory of a chance
murder by thieves and pinned the same on two scapegoats". He
however proceeded to say (para 195) that ''a criminal trial is not a
probe or inquiry into the truth about the occurrence", that the sole
question before him was "whether the evidence on record establishes
5
 6
the guilt of the accused", that a Court of law cannot, by reason of
the rules of evidence whi!!h apply to Court proceedings, look at data
"which may be highly pertinent and conducive to a persuasion of
the ascertainable truth" and that "the offence of murder not having
bet!n proved against the accused, the problem of truth about the
murder still remains".

4. This Commission has been appointed to tackle this "problem

of truth about the murder". It is a different problem-problems of
truth are often fraught with difficulties.
5. ,\fter reciting that the "learned Sessions Judge has opined that
the problem of finding the truth about the death still remains", the
notification regarding the appointment of the Commission refers to
the death of Shri Upadhyaya in "suspicious circumstances" and says
that the Commission "shall inquire into all the facts and circum-
stances relating to the death of Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya".

6. The notification advisedly does not ask the Commission to in-

quire into the "murder" of Shri Upadhyaya for that would have
excluded the inquiry whether it is at all a case of murder. The cause
of death was an· open issue before me, regardless of who said what
in the Sessions Court. Parties, however, stuck broadly to the con-
tentions raised in the Sessions Court. The Central Bureau of In-
vestigation contended before me that the murder was committed by
petty thieves for mercenary motives. The Jan Sangh said that the
murder was pre-planned and was perpetrated for political motives.
Almost the only point on which the two sides agreed was that Shri
Upadhyaya was murdered.

7. Thus, though I am not precluded from considering whether the

death of Shri Upadhyaya could be accidental or suicidal, it is un-
necessary to do so as that is no bady's case and as those possibilities
can be safely ruled out. I must therefore start with the hypothesis
that Shri Upadhyaya died a homicidal death and proceed to inquire
into the facts and circumstances relating to his murder.

8. It is necessary to say a word about the essential distinction

between the scope of the Sessions trial and the scope of the inquiry
before me. Firstly, the question with which the Sessions Court was
primarily concerned was whether the prosecution had established
beyond a reasonable doubt that the two particular accused-Bharat
La! and Ram Awadh-had committed the offences of which they
were charged, namely, murder, theft and theft after making pre-
paration for causing death. I am not directly concerned with the
question whether the two accused committed the murder, though if
I find that the murder has been committed by common thieves ' it
would be a good ground for supposing that the two accused mlght
be connected with the murder. They are common thieves.

9. Secondly, motive for the murder was a matter of secondary

importance in the Sessions Court. Motive is not a sine qua non for
proof _of an offenc~ and th~refore th~ prosecution is never obliged to
establish the motive behmd a cnme. The limited relevance of
 7
motive in the criminal Court is that (i) absence of motive is a
factor to be taken into censideration in determining the guilt of the
accused and that (ii) motives can supply a clue to the intention.
10. On the other hand, motive for the murder of Shri Upadhyaya
is the central theme of the task before me. Parties are not arrayed
here as 'Prosecutor' and 'Accused'. In fact, no one in particular is
accused before me of having killed Shri Upadhyaya, though it is
alleged that a conspiracy was hatched by certain persons to commit
the murder. If I find that the motive for the murder was political,
I shall have answered a large number of incidental questions. Such
a finding will necessarily imply that the murder was not committed
by petty thieves for motives of gain and that the. Central Bureau of
Investigation wrongly believed that the murder was committed by
Bharat and Ram Awadh. Thus, proof of motive will furnish a clue
to tne suspicious circumstances surrounding the murder. What is
more, if I find that the murder was committed for political ends,
the fact that I cannot fix the persons who made politics a handmaid
of crime will not introduce any infirmity in my finding on the central
issue of motive. It is sufficient for my purpose to find, if that be
true; that political opponents are at the back of Shri Upadhyaya's
death. I need not labour to identify them by their names. That, I
consider, to be a natural limitation of any inquiry like the present.
I cannot investigate whether 'A' or 'B' has committed the murder. I
have not the means at my disposal to determine individual guilt. I
can however certainly find whether the crime is committed by pettv
thieves or whether it is an offspring of a conspiracy hatched by poli-
tical opponents.

11. The third point of distinction is procedural. The learned Ses-

sions Judge felt handicapped that by reason of the provisions of the
Evidence Act, he could not look at data "which may be highly perti-
nent and conducive to a persuasion of the ascertainable truth". I
suffer from no such restriction, for the rules of evidence do not
strictly apply to the proceedings before me. I must however confess
that though I do not suffer from the handicap from which the Ses-
sions Judge suffered, I suffer from an inconvenience from which he
was immune. I have to grapple with quite a mass of irrelevant and
hearsay evidence which makes it difficult to separate the grain
from the chaff. I could not reject that evidence on the ground of its
inadmissibility under the Evidence Act but that does not mean that
I must accept it as good evidence. Evidence may be admissible and
yet it may not be acceptable. That is not an uncommon phenomenon.
12. The scope of this inquiry is wider than the scope of the Ses-
sions Trial. I must determine why the murder was committed-a
question that has wider ramifications than the question before the
Sessions Court. namely, whether the accused before it were guilty
of the crime imputed to them. It was enough for the Sessions Court
to hold that the offence of murder was not brought home to the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt and that Bharat alone was guilty
of simple theft. Any further inquiry was unc3.1Jod for. That is why
the learned Judge observed that "a criminal trial is not a probe or
inquiry into the truth about occurrence". My inquiry is what a
 8
criminal trial cannot be-l can conduct a :erobe into the real truth.
Bharat and Ram Awadh may or may not be guilty. For me that is-
be&ide the point. My task is to find why the murder was committed,_
whosoever might have committed it. This task will of course become
easier if the hand of a political group can be seen behind the crime.
Likewise, the task will be lightened if it appears that the murder·
was accompanied by a simple theft.
13. This approach will eliminate a possible conflict of jurisdiction.
between the Commission and the Court. The order of acquittal in
favour of Ram Awadh and the acquittal of Bharat of the charges
under Sections 302 and 382 of the Penal Code have become final.
Bharat's appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section
379 is pending in the Allahabad High Court. Fortunately, my in--
quiry covers a different field and I hope that nothing that I say will
embarass Their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court while hear-
ing Bharat's appeal. I will take care to steer clear of that course,_
subject of course to the basic requirements of the inquiry into the:
facts and circumstances relating to the murder of Shri Upadhyaya.
 PART II
(Chapters m to Vll)
 CHAPTER III

THE FATEFUL JOURNEY

1. Before dealing with the questions that arise before me it is
necessary to mention the salient facts. '
(i) Th;e man tha.t was Upadhyaya

2. ~ormally, while inquiring into a murder, it is beside the point

to consider what was the status or the stature of the victim and what
political philosophy he professed. It becomes relevant here to refer
to the political persuasions of Shri Upadhyaya, for his political
beliefs and the zealous efforts he made to put them into practice are
alleged to have led to his murder.
3. Born in a middle-class family in 1916, Shri Deen Dayal Upadh-
yaya joined the Rashtriya Swayamsevaka Sangh in'1937, after a
brilliant academic career. In 1951, when the Bharatiya Jan Sangh
was founded, he became a Secretary of its U.P. branch. In 1952,
when the annual session of the Jan Sangh was held at Kanpur, he
became the General Secretary of the Jan Sangh-a post which he
held for fifteen years. On Decembre 28, 1967 he was elected in the
Calicut Session as the President of the Jan Sangh.

4. Though a student of mathematics, Shri Upadhyaya had varied

:scholarly interests. He wrote books and delivered lectures on sub-
jects ranging from 'Economics' to 'Electioneering'. He edited two
newspapers-'Panchajanya' and 'Swadesh'-and a · monthly called
"Rashtradharma'. He is the author of a book on 'Chandragupta
Maurya' and of a Hindi biography of Shri Shankaracharya. His col-
lected writings and speeches have been published in books like
'Rashtra Chintan', 'Political Diary' and 'Integral Humanism'. He
had founded a publishing company called 'Rashtradharma Praka-
shan Ltd.' Lucknow.
5. Shri Upadhyaya was a voracious reader and while travelling
be would always carry a 'jhola'. containing books on varied subjects.
.He was carrying such a cloth bag on the fateful journey. The bag
and the books remain untraced.
6. He was so devoted to The cause of his party that Dr. Shyama
Prasad Mukerji, the Founder-President of the Jan Sangh, had said
that if he could secure the help of two more 'Deen Dayals', he would
be able to alter the political picture of the country. It is said that
Shri Upadhyaya used to collect information about persons engaged
in anti-national activities and keep it in a sacret file. He was carry-
:ing a file with him on the particular journey. What the file con-
ta!ned is a matter of conjecture but it has not been traced.
11
 12
7. Usually clad in a Dhoti, a Kurta and a jacket, he used to carry-
a woollen shawl in winter. Such a shawl was found on his deadJ
body, covering his face amost completely. He was of medium height,
had thick moustaches and mostly wore spectacles. He disliked intense:
cold. He used to read and write till late in the night and was a late
riser. He never took alcoholic drinks and did not even care for tea ..
He was a bachelor.

8. Glowing tributes were paid to his memory in the Lok Sabha on

February 12, 1968, though he was not a member of the Parliament.
The Speaker described him as "a selfless and dedicated worker", the
Prime Minister described him as "a man of firm ideals", Shri Ranga
said that he had a "powerfu~ personality", Shri Hiren lVlukerjee
called him "a fro~t rank figure in the political life of the country"
who was marked for "his simplicity and the utter dedication with
which he had .espoused the cause that he had taken up", Shri S. M.
Joshi said that he was struck by Shri Upadhyaya's "straightforward-
ness and simplicity". Shri Nath Pai said that he was "a valiant
fighter on this very vital front of revolution, that of nationalists",
Shri N. C. Chatterjee said that he was struck by Shri Upadhyaya's·
"wonderful organising effort and his quiet and unostentatious man-
ner of working", Shri Prakash Vir Shastri said that Shri Upadh-
yaya was "the real brain of the Jan Sangh" and that it was evident
from his speech at the Calicut Session that he was striving to show
a new path not only to the Jan Sangh but to the whole nation,
while Shri J. B. Kripalani said that he was "simple in his habits,
sincere in his outlook" and that "though he belonged to a party, he
had a catholic outlook". Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, who succeeded
Shri Upadhyaya as the President of the Jan Sangh safd that Shri
Upadh:yaya was the architect of Jan Sangh victories in both the
Houses, that the credit for building up the party must go to him and
that he was a man of "simple living and· high thinking" who had
dedicated his life to the cause of his motherland.
9. In a condolence meeting which was held on the Ramlila Mai- ·
dan, Delhi, on the 13th evening, speaker after speaker, including
Shri Morarjee Desai the then Deputy Prime Minister and Shri Y. B.
Chavan the then Home Minister, paid glittering tributes to the·
memory of Shri Upadhyaya. It was said that he had a "many-
splendoured personality", that his life was "an open book", that he·
had "godly qualities", that he was an "Ajatashatru", that he had'
"an implicit faith in the lihity and oneness of the country", that he
was an "ideal Indian", that he was ... a living embodiment of Indiarr.
culture" and that he had "built bridges of understanding".
10. Such was the stature of the man, such were the ways of his;
life and such the impact of his personality.

(ii) The Patna-bound journey

11. After the Calicut Session was over, Shr1 Upadhyaya travelled
from place to place, visiting Mysore and Bombay on way back. He
left Bombay by train on January 7, lll68 and reached Lucknow on
the 9th. Then he went to Kanpur, Delhi, Bhopal, Nagpur and
 13
Bareilly; eventually reaching Lucknow on February 6, 1968. At
Lucknow he stayed with Smt. Lata Khanna, a Jan Sangh worker.
With her used to live her sister Smt. Sarla Rani.
12. On the 7th, Shri Ashwini Kumar, Organising Secretary of the
Bihar Jan Sangh, met Shri Upadhyaya and inVi~d him to the meet-
ing of "Bihar Pradeshik Karya Samiti" which was to be held in
Patna on the lOth and 11th. Shri Upadhyaya was unable to give a
firm reply as his presence was likely to be needed in Delhi. Ashwini
Kumar then went back to Patna and repeated his request on phone
on the lOth morning. Shri Upadhyaya accepted the invitation say-
ing that he would come by the Sealdah Express if he could get a
reservation or else by the Punjab Mail.

13. Unfortunately, he did get a berth on the Pathankot-Sealdah

Express. He asked Harischandra, the Office Secretary, to buy for
him a ticket to Patna. Harischandra sent Uma Shankar, the typist,
to do the needful and at 9.45 A.M. a reserved berth was allotted to
Shri Upadhyaya.

14. Shri Upadhyaya's berth was reserved in the 'A' cabin of a

composite First-cum-Third Class bogie, bearing No. 1935. The bogie
is commonly known as the "F C T bogie". It is normally attached
to the Pathankot-Sealdah Express at Lucknow, is detached at
Mughalsarai and is. re-attached there to the Toofan Express. This
process involves shunting operations in the Mughalsarai Yard. Nor-
mally, the Patna bound FCT bogie is at the rearmosf of the Sealdah
Express, which facilitates its detachment and re-attachment. On the
lOth, it was wrongly marshalled third from the rear, necessitating
six more shunting operations than would be required if it was mar-
shalled last. Instead of attaching a fresh Patna bogie at Lucknow,
the bogie which was to be detached at Lucknow was converted into
a Patna bogie and that bo'gie was third from the rear.
15. In Railway parlance, the Sealdah Express which runs bet-
ween Pathankot .and Sealdah, is called '52 Down' on the journey
between Pathankot and Mughalsarai. After Mughalsarai till Sealdah,
it is -called- '18 Down'. The .Toofan Express which _ runs . between
Delhi and Howrah is called '8 Down'. The Sealdah Express takes
the grand chord -route via Dhanbad while the· Toofan Express goes
to Howrah via Patna. Passengers traveJlin·g from Lucknow to
Patna by the Sealdah Express are therefore booked in the FCT bogie.
16. The FCT bogie has a First-Class compartment consisting of
three Cabins: 'A', 'B' and 'C'. A corridor runs along these cabins.
The train touches the various stations on way, sometimes on the
corridor side and sometimes on the cabin side. There are two toilet
blocks in the First-Class compartment, a European style block on
the 'C' side and an Indian style block on the 'A' side.
17. Shri Upadhyaya's berth was reserved in the 'A' Cabin of the
F. C. T. bogie. The only other reservation in this four-berthed cahin
was in the name of one M. P. Singh, an Assistant Geologist in the
'Geological Survey of India'. The 'B' Cabin which was a two-berthed
coupe, was unreserved. In the remaining cabin of the First Class-
 14
the four-berthed 'C' Cabin-one berth was reserved in the name
of 'Major S. L. Sharma'. Thus, out of ten berths in the three cabins,
only three were reserved. The 'C' Cabin was towards the engine.
18. Shri Gauri Shankar Rai, a Member of the U. P. Legislative
Council, who wanted io go to Ballia, held an unreserved ticket and
occupied the lower berth in the middle cabin, that is, the ·~· Cabin.
After placing his bedding on the berth he went to meet a frrend who
was travelling by the same train. When Shri Rai came back, he
found to his chagrin that his bedding was not in the 'B' Cabin. On
inquiries he learnt that the b,edding was removed to the 'C' Cabin,
because Shri Upadhyaya wanted to travel by the 'B' Cabin instead
of the 'A' Cabin where his berth was reserved. It suited Shri Upa-
dhyaya's convenience because he did not like to travel in a com-
partment which was directly on the wheels, as the 'A' Cabin was.
Shri Gauri Shankar Rai reconciled himself to the position and tra-
velled in the 'C' Cabin.
19. Shri Rai did not mind the change because the explanation
came from Shri Pitambar Das wlio was then a senior Member of the
U.P .. Legislative Council. Shri Pitambar Das, a Jan Sangh member,
had gone to the station to see off Shri Upadhyaya. So had Shri Ram
Prakash, the U.P. Deputy Chief Minister. The 'Samyukta Vidhayak
Dal' Ministry was then in power in U.P. and Jan Sangh was one of
the constituent units of the Dal. Shri Ram Prakash joined the State
Cabinet as a Jan Sangh member.
20. The S. V. D. Ministry fell on the 17th February 1968 but Shri
Charan Singh, the Chief Minister, continued in office as a care-taker
till the 25th, on which date the Presidential Rule was promulgated
in U.P.
21. Shri Pitambar Das introduced Shri Gauri Shankar Rai to Shri
Upadhyaya. Whether Shri M. P. Singh was also introduced to Shri
Upadhyaya is a matter of dispute.
22. Another passenger also travelled by the 'C' Cabin along with
Shri Rai. One Subedar Sidh Singh, who was then attached to the
'Driver and Maintenance' Course at Faizabad obtained a ticket on
a military warrant at 6 P.M. and caught the Sealdah Express. He
found that a berth was available in the 'C' Cabin and he therefore
occupied it. He was dressed in a military uniform.
23. What happened to the reservation of 'Major S. L. Sharma' is
one of the fierce points of controversy. A person by the name of
Su~endra M~han Sharma, aged 30, holding the rank of an Acting
MaJor, was m command of the Field Battery Regiment at Namkom,
near Ranchi. After his marriage in Delhi on the 17th January, he
went to Lucknow on the 8th February. On the lOth at 2·20 P.M., he
secured a reservation on the Sealdah Express by phoning the R.T.O's
office. On reaching the station in the evening, he found that his
name "''as wrongly shown in the reservation chart as 'Major S. L.
Sharma', against a lower berth in the 'C' Cabin of the F.C.T. bogie.
The number of his ticket was also wrongly shown as 06171, the
correct number being 06172. Major S. M. Sharma says that he then
 15
travelled by the direct Train Service Coach and not by the F.C.T.
bogie. Padam Singh, the Coach Attendant of the Service Coach
heaped error on error by mentioning his name in the Reservation
Chart of the coach wrongly as 'Maj. S. N. Sharma'. That entry was
made against an upper berth in the 'A' Cabin. The service coach
had seven First Class Cabins and was fifth from the front.
24. On the lOth, B. D. Kamal, the Travelling Ticket Examiner,
was in charge of the Sealdah Express from Lucknow to Mughalsarai.
He performed the duties of the Conductor on the particular journey.
After obtaining a copy of the reservation. chart at the Charbagh
Railway Station, he claims to have gone to the F.C.T. bogie to check
up the passe!lgers. He went first to the 'C' Cabin which was un-
lighted and inquired laconically of the person standing therein:
"Major Saheb?". That .person, who was in civilian dress, replied:
"Yes". He then found that Shri Upadhyaya had occupied a berth in
the 'B' Cabin. M.P. Singh asked Kamal to wake him up at Vara-
nasi.. Kamal's claim that he checked up the passengers in the F.C.T.
bogie is challenged by the C.B.I.
25. The Pathankot-Sealdah Express arrived at the Charbagh
Station, Lucknow, at about 6·25 P.M. and departed at 7 P.M. Subedar
Sidh Singh got out at Faizabad where the train arrived at 9·26 P.M.
Shri Upadhyaya had got down on·the platform, probably for a stroll,
and while getting in again he had a brief conversation with Shri
Gauri Shankar Rai.
26. The train reached Shahganj at 11·25 P.M~ where Shri Rai got
out. He held a ticket for Ballia via Varanasi and would have
normally travelled as far as Varanasi.. But. he was told by a co-
passenger at Lucknow that it was more. convenient to go to Ballia
via Shahganj. He, therefore, got down at Shahganj. He however
got down from the wrong side as the Ballia train was standing on
that side and as no coolie was available. He and that co-passenger-
Shri Srivastava, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate-'-travelled together
from Shahganj to Ballia by a connecting train.
27.. After Shahganj, . therefore, the only First Class Passengers in
the F.C.T. ·bogie were M. P. Singh in the 'A' Cabin and Shri Upadh-
yaya in the 'B''Cabin, both being bound for Patna.
28. The train reached Jaunpur at 12·27 A.M., when K. L. Shukla,
Private Secretary to the Raja of Jaunpur delivered to Shri Upadh-
yaya a note written by the Raja. The Raja of Jaunpur, Shri Yada-
vendra Dutt Dubey, was a leading member of the Jan Sangh. The
note concerned an allegation that a Jan Sangh candidate had lost
the election to an Assembly seat as the Raja did not support him.
29. The train reached Varanasi at about 1·12 A.M. with the plat-
form on the corridor side of the compartment. As the train reaches
Varanasi, the mystery deepens. M. P. Singh had a lot of luggage
and had therefore booked the bulk of it in the brake van. He was
anxious that the luggage should be transhipped at Mughalsarai .from
the brake van of the Sealdah Express to the brake van of the Toofan
Express to which the F.C.T. bogie was to be attached at Mughalsarai.
 16
He had therefore given instructions at Lucknow to a Railway
employee that he should be woken up at Varanasi. Varanasi to
Mughalsarai is but half an hour's run, the only station in between
being Kashi where the train has a scheduled halt of five minutes.
30. M.P. Singh claims to have woken up on his own at Varanasi.
As he came out of his cabin, he saw a person standing in the corridor
of the compartment. That person was middle aged and had a woollen
shawl on. In a short while, Conductor Kamal came to the compart-
ment and asked M. P. Singh as to who had given instructions for
being woken up at Vara1aasi. M.P. Singh said he had given the ins-
tructions. But then the person in the corridor interjected to say
that he had informed that he wanted to get down at Mughalsarai.
M. P. Singh said: "Well, you may be the person". M. P. Singh is
equally divided in his mind whether or not the person was Shri
Upadhyaya.
31. M.P. Singh then went to the bathroom towards the side of the
'A' Cabin, tried twice or thrice to open it but did not succeed. He
then used the European Style bath-room towards the side of the 'C'
Cabin. He came out of the bath-room, had a cup of tea, returned to
· his cabin, closed the door of the cabin and kept sitting on his berth
till the train arrived at Mughalsarai.
32. According to Conductor Kamal, he woke up M. P. Singh at
Varanasi by knocking on the door of his cabin with a key. After he
talked to M. P. Singh, he saw a person coming out of the 'B' Cabin.
Kamal asked him to open the door of the compartment saying that a
passenger in 'C' Cabin who had to alight at Mughalsarai was also
to be woken up. The person however told Kamal that the passenger
in 'C' Cabin had got down at Shahganj. Kamal verified for himself
that there was no one in the 'C' Cabin. Kamal is unable to say
whether the person who came out of the 'B' Cabin was Shri Upadh-
yaya. He could only say that the person was lean, that he had on
him a slate coloured shawl, that he had put on white clothes and
that he was wearing a Dhoti.
33. The train left Varanasi at about 1·40 A.M. and after stopping
at Kashi for about 5 minutes, it steamed into Mughals'arai ·at about
2·10 A.M. But very definitely, Shri Upadhyaya was not in the
train-not the living Shri Upadhyaya at any rate.
 CHAPTER IV

THE STRANGE STORY OF MUGHALSARAI

1. What happened at Mughalsarai is' in parts stranger than fiction.
Many men at Mughalsarai behaved in ~ strikingly uncommon
manner. What they did is contrary to one's expectations of normal
.humari. behaviour in comparable situations. Similarly, some of the
,events at Mughalsarai are woven in an uncommon pattern. When
normal expectations about men and events are belied, suspicion
begins together. There is no end to such suspicious circumstances
here. There is almost a cloud of them that is apt to befog the real
issue. Fortunately, by careful scrutiny it is possible to clear the
-vision and to offer a rational explanation of what once seemed
>Strange. ·

(i) The impostor who hoodwinked M. P. Singh.

2. So, t'lae [Link] entered the Mughalsarai Station at about 2·10 A.M.
with the platform on the cabin side. Admittedly, Shri Upadhyaya
was not in his cabin. Admittedly, Shri Upadhyaya was not alive
either. His bedding, the attache case and the other belongings· were
ilying in the 'B' Cabin, apparently uncared for.
3. M. P. Singh wanted to ensure the franshipment of his luggage
from the brake-van of. the Sealdah Express to the brake-van of the
Toofan Express, at [Link]. He was therefore· up and awake
from Varanasi. After the Sealdah Express entered th~ Mughalsarai
Station, he went to· the 'A' side bath-roo'M·which lie had • found
jammed at 'VaranaSi.- This time he ~ould open' it. He took a wash
and came out of the compartment from the door near the 'C' Cabin.
While passing by the 'B' Cabin he saw that it was empty. A bedding
was lying spread on ~he lower berth arj.d a file was lying on the
side table. ·Neither in 'tHe. bath-roorri ·nor anyWhere else in the com-
partment did he ~ee anything unusual. .He saw no blood-stains.
4. He went to the parcel office, gave instructions for the transfer
of his luggage and returned to the F.C.T. bogie witbiri about seven
minutes. The bogie had. not yet been detached. As he entered the
compartment by the •c·· sid.e door, he saw a young man standing in
the corridor, looking towards the 'B' Cabin. The person was "20 or
22 years of age, was dark in complexion, had small bright eyes and
prominent . cheek-bones"
5. The following conversation ensued between the two:
M. P. Singh: What is the matter?
The Stranger (pointing to the 'B' Cabin): Where has he gone?
1vi. P. Singh: Who?
 18
The Stranger (again pointing to the 'B' Cabin): My father was
there.
M.P. Singh: He might have got down.
6. The stranger then entered the 'B' c~bin, placed the file on the
b dding rolled the bedding and brought It out on tbe platform. A_s
h: kept' the bedding on a wooden bench, it got unrolled. .He rolle~ It
· nd called some one asking him to take tbe bedding outside
~~! st~tion. M. p. Singh then got into his cabin and fell asle_ep as
10

quickly and soundly as he did between Lucknow and Varanasi. The

F.C.T. bogie was thereafter detached from the Sealdah Express and
was attached to the Toofan Express but he was overcome by sleep
as soon as he got into his cabin. He does not know when the Toofan
Express left Mughalsarai.
7. M. P. Singh identified the young man as Bharat Lal, both il_l the
committing Court and in tbe Sessions Court. However, in the Iden-
tification parade held on March 11, 1968, he had failed to pick out
Bharat Lal as being the very same man.
8. M. P. Singh vias truly hoodwinked, for having known that
Shri Upadhyaya was travelling in 'B' Cabin, it is strange that he
believed that the riff-raff boy was Shri Upadhyaya's son. But then
he is not tbe only one who has contributed to the strange story of
Mughalsarai.

(ii) Traction Pole No. 1276

9. Since it is alleged by one side and denied by tbe other that
Shri Upadhyaya,. after . being; pushed out of the compartment,
dashed against a traction -pole, it is ·necessary to know the position
of that pole in relation tO tbe other landmarks of the Mughalsarai
Station.
10. Mughalsarai is one of the busiest Railway junctions. It is said
that it handles tbe largest goods traffic in India, perhaps in Asia.
The large volume of goods traffic brought in its trail a large volume
of Railway thefts. Receivers of stolen property flourish on these
thefts.
11. Though the Mughalsaraj Station has many platforms and an
extensive yard; : we are concerned primarily with platform Nos. 1
and 2 and an area of a little over a furlong on the western side of the
station.
1~. The east-bound Pathankot-Sealdall Express (52-Down) was
received on platform No. 1 of the Mughalsarai Station at about 2-10
A.M. on the 11th. The track by which it entered the station is called
line No. 9 or 'Banares Down Line'. This line is to the north of the
main station building. After the train reaches Muahalsarai it is
designated as '18 Down'. " '
13. The Toofan Express (8-Down) also east-bound, was received
on platform No.2 at about 2·50 A.M. The track by which it entered
 19
the station is called line No. 10. This line is to the south of the main
station building.
14. Platform Nos. 1 and 2 are about 80 feet apart, to the north and
south respectively of the main building. Platform No. 2 runs along
the whole southern side of the statiori building. Platform No. 1
begins from where the 'Parcel Siding' ends. The parcel siding which
is to the north of the Station building is about 200 feet long and is to
the west of platform No. 1. There is a by-pass to the parcel siding
from line No. 9. On the particular night, three bogies were waiting
in the parcel siding for being. attached to the Sealdah Express-two
being bound for Dhanbad and one for Bhubarieshwar.
15. To the south of line No. 9, that is the Banares Down Line, is a
track called 'Buffer Line' or 'Water Column Line'. Line No. 10 by
which the Toofan Express carne is to the south of the Buffer Line.
In other words, the Buffer Line occupies a portion between Line 9
and 10. The Buffer Line leads to what is known as 'Down Slip
Siding' or 'O.C. Siding'. By 'O.C. Siding' is meant 'Officers' Carriage
Siding'. The platform of the O.C. Siding-platform No. 7-is about
140 feet long. The O.C. Siding serves an important purpose in that a
bogie which is required to be detached from one train and attached
to another train can, if necessary, be kept there after the detachment
and to await the attachment. The F.C.T. bogie was thus kept in the
O.C. Siding for about ·25 minutes-after its detachment from the
Sealdah Express and before its attachment to the Toofan Express.
There is an electric pole about ten yards to the west of platform
No.7.
16. If the east-bound trains, like Sealdah Express or Toofan Ex-
press,, enter the Mughalsarai Station by line·No. 9 or line No. 10,
they have to pass by an electric traction pole, No. 1276. This pole is
to the south of line No. 9 by which the Sealdah Express ca:me·and to
the north of line No. 10 by which the Toofan Express carne. Every
east-bound train received on platform No. 1, like the Sealdah Ex-
press, has to come by line No. 9. Likewise every east-bound train
received on platform No. 2, like the Toofan Express, ha:s to come by
line No. 10. The traction pole is 748 feet away from the western end
of platform No. 1. It is 4 feet away from the southern rail of line
No. 9. It is about 20 feet high.
17. To the north-east of the traction pole is an electrical steel
junction-bbx, measuring 2'X2'. It is 10" high ;above the ground
level. The southern face of this box is almost · in line with the
northern face of the traction pole. In simpler language, the junction-
box is roughly between line No. 9 and the traCtion pole.

18. An iron strip, a foot and quarter to the west of the junction-
box, runs between the traction pole and the southern rail of line
No. 9. It is rivetted on one side to that rail and on the other to the
traction pole. When I inspected the site in February and March 1970,
the iron strip was partly buried under the ballast. It was above the
ballast, over a distance of about 28" from the southern rail of line
No. 9. It lay covered by the ballast over a distance of about 15"
thereafter. It emerged again at a distance of about 7" from the pole.
 2U
That was also how the strip lay when the learned Sessions Judge
inspected the site on March 31, 1969. Nearer the pole, the arm of the
.strip rivetted to the pole made an 'L' shaped angle with the open
.Portion of the strip.
19. To the south-east of the traction pole is the 'West Central
•Cabin. To be exact, the north-east corner of the Cabin is 105' from
the traction pole while the north-we~t corner is 61' from the P?le.
.Roughly, the cabin is at ~t a'":erage distan?e of 80' fr?m the traction
pole. There is a tower light m the same line as the 'West . Central
Cabin" to its west. The light is 73' odd away from the traction pole.

20. The Sealdah Express was 1022' long. The distance between
ihe engine and the F.C.T. bogie, which was third from last, was
.803'. The traction pole being 748' from the western end of platform
No. 1, the engine had already steamed into the station wh~n th~
F.C.T. bogie was near the traction pole. Platform No. 1 IS 1145
long.

(iii) The Shunting Operations

21. It .is necessary to describe, with some particularity, the

:shunting operations performed at Mughalsarai, because a . dead
body, later identified as of Shri Upadhyaya, was discovered near the
traction pole during those operations. The precise stage of the
:shunting operations at which the body was first seen has a material
bearing on (a) the existence of a conspiracy to commit the murder,
(b) the manner in which the murder was committed, (c) the place
where. the murder was· committed, and (d) the thorny question
whether the murder was committed elsewhere and the body -laid
near the traction pole while the shunting was in progress.
22. The Sealdah Express arrive-d on platform No. 1 at about
2·10 A.M. The F.C.T. bogie had to be detached from it for being
attached to the ToofanExpress. The Toofan Express was still to
arrive, but naturally, the shunting operations did not await its
arrivaL. The first part of the operations-the detachment of the F.C.T.
bogie from the Seaidah Express-could in. any event be finished
before the arrival of the Toofan Express.
23. The shunting operations began at about 2·20 A.M. four persons
being directly in charge thereof:· Abdul Gafoor the driver· of the
shunting engine, Drigpal and Shobnath the shunting porters and
Kishori Misra the shunting Jamadar who was the head of the team.
Ram Surat was the fireman. The shunting porters operate from the
gro1:1nd by sho~ng hand~signals. The shunting Jamadar is on the
engine along With the dnver and the fireman. He is also called the
_'gunner'. The shunting engine is called the 'Pilot'.
24. It is necessary to know what precisely was the extent of the
wor:k which the shunting team was required to do on the particular
night. I will then describe the steps that had to be taken to com-
plete the job. ·. '
 21
25. F.C.T. bogie No. 1935 came to be wrongly marshalled third
from the rear. It should have been marshalled last. Were it so
marshalled, it could have been detached from the Sealdah Express
without involving any other bogie in the shunting operations. The
F.C.T. bogie could not on this occasion be detached without detach-
ing the last two bogies along with it. The last two bogies had
therefore to be detached from the Sealdah Express and again
attached to it. The Guard's Van (TLR 5443) was at the rear while a
Dhanbad bogie, 'CT 4337', was second last.
26. When the Sealdah Express arrived at Mughalsarai, three
bogies were standing in the Parcel Siding for being attached to that
train. These bogies had therefore to be shunted. The last of these
three (ZFT 791) was d~stined for Bhubhaneshwar. The other two
(GT 9536 and ZFT 788) were destined for Dhanbad.
27. These three bogies could not be attached straightaway to the
Sealdah Express, for that would have meant a repetition of the
mistake committed earlier in the marshalling of the F.C.T. bogie to
that train. The two Dhanbad bogies of this unit of three bogies had
to be placed next after the Dhanbad bogie (GT 4337) of the Sealdah
Express. That would bring the three Dhanbad bogies together so as
to facilitate their detachment at Dhanbad. Next after these three
bogies would come the Bhubhaneshwar bogie. The Guard's Van
{TLR 5443) would bring up the rear.
28. During the shunting operations, the pilot has, of necessity; to
-cross over from one line to another. In this case, in order to complete
the shunting, the pilot had to make use of three ·different
lines,-line No. 9, line No. 10 and the buffer line (also known as the
Water Column Line).
29. The cross-over from line No. 1(} ta the buffer line is arranged
by the operation of a hand-point located near the eastern end of the
-cross-over. The crosscover to the parcel siding is arranged by the
operation of another [Link]. These points are generally ope-·
rated by a 2nd grade !everman. On the particular occasion, these
points were adjusted by Leverman Ramdas. ' The cross-over from
the buffer line to line No. 9 is however· arranged from the West
Central Cabin. A 1st grade !everman called Ishwar Dayal was. on
.duty in that cabin on the particular night .
.30. When the Sealdah Express arrived on platform No. 1 by line
No. 9, the pilot was standing. in readiness, in the Railway siding
called 'Suja Siding'. On the instructions of the . East Cabin, the
pilot, together with the shunting team, moved westwards along p~at­
form No. 2, that is line No. 10, in order to commence the shuntmg
operations. On the way, Shobnath got down from the engine near
the Pay Office and went to platform No. 1 for disengaging the last
three bogies of the Sealdah Express. The pilot then came as far
westwards as the West Central Cabin.
31. When the pilot was standing near the West Central Cabin,
Leverman Ramdas. gave clearance to it for going on to the buffer
line, by operating a hand-point near the cabin. But an idle shunting
 !)!!

engine driven by the Haradwar was blocking its way. After

Haradwar cleared off by going further west, the pilot moved further
on the buffer line. Another point was then adjust~d so as t~ put
the pilot from the buffer line to line No. 9. The pilot accordmgly
switched on to line No. 9. The stage was now set for the movement
of the pilot eastwards. Drigpal was showing the hand-signal fr?m
the ground as the pilot was due to move to platform No. 1 by lme
No. 9, for detaching the last three bogies from the Sealdah Express.

32. For completing the shunting of the Sealdah Express

(18-Down) and the Toofan Express (8-Down), the pilot had to
·undertake fourteen oper11tions.

33. In the first of these operations, the piiot came from the Suja
Siding in the east, went westwards by line No. 10 and crossed over
to the buffer line. In the second operation, the pilot crossed over
to line No. 9 and headed eastwards for platform No. 1.

34. In the second operation, the pilot went past traction pole No.
1276 while going by line No. 9 to pl11tform No. 1. In the first opera-
tion also the pilot had crossed the traction pole. That was when it
came by line No. 10 and crossed over to the buffer line. But that was
a little distance away from the traction pole. While going to plat-
form No. 1 by line No. 9, the pilot went past the tr11ction pole very
closely. There was then no track and no obstruction of any sort
between the pilot and the pole. The pilot passed the pole on its
south, that is, the pilot was to the south of the pole. The Sealdah
Express, it may be recalled, went past the traction pole while enter-
ing the Mughalsarai Station, with the pole to its south.

35. In the third operation, the pilot brought with it the last three
bogies of the Sealdah Express and receded from line No. 9 to the
Buffer Line after crossing the traction pole.· This time also, the pilot
went past the pole as closely as it did during the second operation.

36. In the fourth operation, the pilot went eastwardS by the Buffer
Line to the 'O.C. Siding', with all the three bogies and left the
F.C.T.. bogie at that siding.: It had to go past the traction pole,
closely by its south. ·

, 37. ~n. thT fifth ?Peration, after leaving the F.C.T. bogie at the
O.C. S1dmg, the p1lot went westwards on the buffer line with the
two remaining bogies. It crossed the traction pole exactly as it did
during the fourth operation.

38. The net five operations-Nos. 6 to 10-were occupied by (i) the

shunting of the two remaining bogies of the Sealdah Express-
Guard's Van No. TLR 5443 and Dhanbad bogie No. GT 4337 and
(ii) the shunting of the three bogies waiting in the parcel siding for
bemg attached to the Sealdah Express-Bhubhaneshwar bogie No.
ZFT 791 and the two Dhanbad bogies Nos. GT 9536 and ZFT 788.
Five operations ~ecame _nec~ssary as the bogies had to be marshalled
accordmg to the1r destmat10n. It was only in the sixth operation
 23
that the pilot went past the traction pole with the two bogies of the
Sealdah Express. In operations Nos. 7 to 10, it was not necessary
for the pilot to cross the pole.
39. The position at the end of the tenth operation was that the
pilot had attached the three parcel-siding bogies and had re-attached
the Guard's Van and bogie No. GT 4337 to the Sealdah Express.
The Guard's Van was marshalled last, next was the Bhubhaneshwar
bogie and the three next bogies were the ones destined for Dhanbad.
40. That completed the shunting of the Sealdah Express. These
ten operations took between 20 and 25 minutes. Roughly, therefore,
the shunting of the Sealdah Express was over between 2-40 A.M. and
2-45 A.M. The train left Mughalsarai at 2-55 A.M.
41. The Toofan Express arrived at 2-50 A.M. on platform No. 2,
by line No. 10. The .F.C.T. bogie which was kept at the O.C. Siding
had now to be attached to it.
42. In the eleventh operation the pilot went back from platform
No. 1 to the buffer line, crossing the traction pole. In the twelfth
operation, the pilot went to the O.C. Siding by the buffer line, cross-
ing the pole and picked up the F.C.T. bogie. In the thirteenth opera-
tion, the pilot together with the F.C.T. bogie went back by the buffer
.[Link], crossing the pole. In the final, that is the 14th operation, the
pilot crossed over to line No. 10 and attached the F.C.T. bogie to
the Toofan Express, which was standing on platform No. 2. These
four operations took roughly five to seven minutes. The Toofan
Express left Mughalsarai at 3-14 A.M.
43. If the F.C.T. bogie was properly marshalled at the rearmost
of the Sealdah Express, only eight operations would have been re-
quired to detach it from that train and to attach it to the Toofan
Express. As a result of the wrong marshalling, 6 more operations
became necessary. These 6 operations took ten minutes. The
shunting therefore took ten minutes more than it would have nor-
mally taken. The overall time taken by the shunting operations
was about 30 or 35 minutes instead of the normal 20 or 25 minutes.

44. An analysis of the fourteen operations reveals:

(i) That the traction pole (No. 1276) was always to the north of
the pilot.
(ii) That the pilot crossed the traction pole quite closely dur-
ing the 1st operation.
(iii) That the pilot passed by the traction pole very closely on
nine occasions, that is, during operations 2 to 6 and 11
to 14.
(iv) That in operations 9 and 10, the pilot came close to the
traction pole but did not cross it, and
(v) That the F.C.T. bogie (No. 1935) was lying at the O.C. Siding
solitarity for about 25 minutes, between the beginning of
the 5th operation and the conclusion of the 12th.
 24
45. I should have liked to avoid such a copious reference to so
drab a procedure as shunting but that was not possible. '!'he dead
body having been discovered during the shunting operations and
members of the shunting team having made conflicting statements
as to when they first saw the body, the shunting procedure has assum-
ed great significance. The truthfulness of the shunting team can
best be tested in the light of the shunting procedure. In some mea-
sure, the validity of the Jan Sangh allegation that the murder of
Shri Upadhyaya was committed in the F.C.T. compartment and the
dead body was kept near the traction pole later, presumably during
the shunting operations, can also be judged in the background of the
movements of the pilot and its team.

(iv) Discovery of a dead body

46. Whether the dead body was discovered during the earlier part
or the later part of shunting operations is a matter of serious dispute.
It being common ground, however, that the dead body was discover-
ed during the shunting, the members of the shunting team are in
the best position to say when the body was seen first.

47. Drigpal the shunting porter, Kishori Misra the shunting

Jamadar and Abdul Gafoor the driver of the pilot stated in the
Sessions Court with one voice that the body was seen first during
the 2nd of the fourteen operations. After Haradwar's engine which
was blocking the way cleared off, Drigpal signalled the pilot to move
eastwards, towards platform No. 1 where the Sealdah Express was
standing. Drigpal ensured that the points were set for the pilot to
cross over from the buffer line to line No. 9 which leads to platform
No. 1. Drigpal was walking on the south of the pilot, a little ahead
of it, showing his hand-signal to it.· The pilot was moVing eastwards
slowly. Drigpal, however, crossed over and went to the north of
the pilot, when traction pole No. 1276 was just six paces away to the
east. He caught the handle of the engine door and just as he was
getting in by the northern door, he saw a dead body lying near the
traction pole. The body was lying to the north of the pole.
Drigpal saw it from a distance of 6 or 7 paces.

48. Drigpal told Kishori Misra; who was the head of the !<hunting
te~m, that a dead body was lying near the traction pole. Kishori ,
M1s~a and Abdul Gafoor saw the body for themselves, without
gettmg down from the engine. Kishori Misra then shouted to the
~abinman that the 'Saheb', that is the Assistant Station ·Master. be
mformed that a dead body was lying there. It was then
2-15 or 2-20 A.M.
49. The pilot, thereafter, went to pla~fonn N'o. 1 where B. N.
Prasad, the Assistant Station Master, was on duty. When he de-
manded of Kishori Misra why the pilot was late, the latter told him
that t~e delay was caused because Haradwar's engine had blocked
the p1lot and. because a dead body was lying on the way. Th€'
A._8.M. told h1m to go ahead with the shunting, lest explanation
m1ght have to be offered about the delay and added that he would
make the necessary arrangements. During the rest of the shunting,
 25
the body continued to be near the traction pole, None went near
it-either to see what had happened or to ascertain whether the-
person was living or dead.
50. That is the version of Drigpal and Kishori Misra in the Sessions
Court.. Rbdul Gafoor and .A.S.M. Prasad supported it-the· former
by saying that he saw the dead body when he heard Drigpal tell
Kishori Misra about it and the latter by saying that when the pilot
came to platform No. 1 for detaching the F.C.T. bogie, Kishori Misra
mentioned as one of the causes of delay that a dead body was lying on
way. But the A.S.M. denied in the Session Court that he had gone-
to see the dead body at about 3-15 A.M., on receiving the phone
message from the Cabin that a body was lying near the pole.

51. Ramdas, the !everman who adjusted the hand-points, also·

supported these witnesses in the Sessions Court. He said that while
th_e pil?t ':Vas going to platform No. 1 for fetching the F.C.T. bogie,.
Kishon M1sra shouted from the engine that a person was lying near
the pole and that the 'Saheb' be informed about it. He indicated.
that he saw the body from a distance after he went to the Cabin.
but never went near it.
. 52. But then these are strange men. They had given out a'
wholly different story to the U.P.C.I.D. soon after the incident. And
when they were recalled in the Sessions Court specifically for being.
confronted with their earlier statements, each of them denied tha~
any statement was at all made to the U.P.C.I.D. They said that.
their statements were recorded by the C.B.I. for the first time!
That is clearly false.
53. The U.P.C.I.D. had in fact verified or recm;ded their state-·
ments-those of Kishori Misra, Abdul Gafoor and A.S.M. Prasad on.
February 12, 1968, that of Ramdas on 13th and that of Drigpal on.
the 14th. Kishori Misra and A.S.M. Prasad were interrogated by
S.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh of the Government [Link] Police on the·
12th morning. Their statements were verified in the evening by-
D.S.P. Tewari of the U.P.C.I.D.
54. Drigpal had then stated that he saw a dead body near the·
traction pole for the first time when, after finishing the shunting
of the Sealdah Express, the pilot was taking the F.C.T. bogie from.
the O.C. Siding to platform No. 2 for attaching it to the Toofan
Express. That would be some time after 2-50 A.M., because the
Toofan Express arrived at Mughalsarai at 2-50 A.M. He had further
stated that he went near the body and shouted to Kishori Misra that.
a man was lying dead.
55. Kishori Misra's stand before S.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh and:
the U.P.C.I.D. was similar, though he did not pin-point the stage of
shunting when Drigpal told him of the dead body. He said that
Drigpal saw the body and mentioned it, after the shunting of the·
Sealdah Express was completed.
56. Abdul Gafoor, the driver. had wholly denied any knowledg~
of the dead body during the shunting. He told the U.P.C.I.D. that
 26
at about 4-30 A.M. Kishori Misra was sent for by the A.S.M. and that
on his return. Kishori Misra told him that an unidentified body was
lying near the station.
57. A.S.M. Prasad had stated before S.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh
and the C.I.D. that after the Toofan Express departed at 3-14 A.M.
he came to know on phone from the West Central Cabin that a dead
body was lying near the cabin, on the down line and that he and
Ramdas !everman had gone to the traction pole to see the body.
58. Ramdas had stated before the C.I.D. that Kishori Misra and
Drigpal disclosed when the shunting operations were over that a
person was lying dead near the pole and asked that the A.S.M.
should be informed about it. Ramdas had further stated that he and
A.S.M. Prasad had gone near the dead body immediately after the
A.S.M. was apprised on phone that a dead body was lying near
the pole.
59. Thus, these important witnesses have made conflicting state-
ments. The conflict does not exist in the sense that the evidence of
one or more of them is irreconcilable with the evidence of others.
'The conflict is that whereas they had all indicated before the
U.P.C.I.D. that the dead body was noticed at about 2-50 A.M., they
indicated in the Sessions Court, one and all, that the body was
first seen at about 2-20 A.M. They did not on either occasion mention
in so many words the time of the night when the body was seen but
they referred to the dead body in relation to a particular stage of
the shunting operations.

60. At this stage, therefore, I will only say that the dead body
·was first noticed during the course of shunting by Drigpal. He saw
it, told Kishori Misra about it and he also saw it. They saw the
.body some time between 2-20 A.M. and 2-55 A.M.

(v) The position of the body

61. There is refreshing unanimity as to the position in which the

body was lying and its condition.
62. Drigpal, who noticed the body first, saw it from a distance of
·6 or 7 paces. He says that it was lying on its back, with the head
towards east and legs towards the west. It was lying to the north
-of the traction pole but quite close to it. The person was clad in a
white Dhoti and a darkish cloth was wrapped round his body. The
face was covered with that cloth and could not be seen.

63. Kishori Misra peeped out of the engine and saw the body
when his attention was drawn to it by Drigpal. He says that he did
not look at the body carefully but he saw that it was lying straight
quite near the pole, with the head towards east and legs towards the
west. The [Link] and head were covered with a chaddar.

64. Abdul Gafoor had a fleeting look at the dead body. He could
only say that the body was lying on its back, near the traction pole.
 27
65. That is the description given by the three members of the
shtjnting team, who were the first to see the dead body. As one of
them went near the body, they are unable to furnish further details.

66. Substantially similar, though even less complete, details were

given at one time by B. N. Prasad, the Assistant Station Master, and
Leverman Ramdas but they disowned before the C.B.I. what they
had admitted before the U.P. C.I.D.

67. When A.S.M. Prasad was interrogated on the 12th, first by

S. L. Fateh Bahadur Singh and then in the evening by the U.P. C.I.D.
he told them that after the Toofan Express left Mughalsarai at
3 ·14 A.M., he went to his room and at 3 ·15 A.M., Ishwar Dayal, the
!everman, told him on phone that a person was lying dead near the
cabin otwards the down line. He therefore went to the spot with a
First Aid Box. He asked !everman Ramdas to accompany him who
took with him a lamp. He saw that a person was lying with his
head towards the east and legs towards the west, the face being
covered with a chaddar. He removed the chaddar and felt the body
but found that the person was dead. All this was disowned by
A. S. M. Prasad, so much so that in the Sessions Court he denied
having made any statement at all before S. I. Fateh Bahadur Singh
or the U.P. C.I.D.

68. The C.B.I. recorded B. N. Prasad's statement on March 29,

1968 when he made many changes in his story. He told the C.B.I.:
(i) that Kishori Misra had told him about the dead body when the
pilot had gone to platform No. 1 for picking up the F.C.T. bogie; (ii)
that he went to his room five or seven minutes after the Toofan Ex-
press left Mughalsarai when he found that a 'Number-Taker', called
Nageshwar Singh was talking to the West Central Cabin about a
dead body and that he took the receiver and asked the person at the
other end as to what the matter was about. At the other end was
uverman Ramdas, who said that a person was lying dead near the
cabin and requested that the necessary arrangements should be
made and (iii) that he told Ramdas that he and others should watch
the dead body and that he himself would !live information about
the dead body. A. S. M. Prasad stuck to this statement in the
Sessions Court, denying that he had gone to see the body after re-
ceiving information in that behalf.

69. Leverman Ramdas has adopted the same pattern. On Febru-

ary 13, 1968, he told the U.P. C.I.D. that after the shunting of Sealdah
Express was over, Kishori Misra and Drigpal told him while the
pilot was going back that a person was lying dead near the pole and
that the A.S.M. should be informed about it. Ramdas told the C.I.D.
that he pas•ed on the information to Ishwar Dayal who in turn
passed on the information to the A. S. M. on phone and that he had
gone to see the dead body along with the A. S. M.

70. He however told the C.B.I. on April 1, 1968, that when the
pilot was going to platform No. 1 for picking the F.C.T. bogie,
Kishori Misra shouted to the Cabinman that a dead body was lying
3-167 H.A.
 28
near the track and that a little after 3 ·10 A.M. he conveyed the in-
formation to the A. S. M. on phone when the latter said that he
would inform the G. R. P.

71. Unfortunately, therefore, no useful assistance can be obtain-

ed from A. S. M. Prasad and Leverman Ramdas. Whether they saw
the dead body is itself doubtful.
72. But one thing is certain; and that is that A. S.M. Prasad sent
a copy (K-36) of a Memo to the Government Railway Police through
his peon Kashinath Jaiswal, stating:
"One man found lying almost dead near West Centre Cabin
as reported by W /Centre Cabin Leverman at 3/15 Hrs. Please
attend and do needful."

73. 'rhe memo (ka-34) was prepared at 3·25 A.M. and its copy
was received by Constable Sachchu Lal of the G. R. P. 'rhana at
3 ·35 A.M. The A. S. M's Office and the G.R.P. Thana are situated on
the same platform, namely, platform No. 2. Prabhu Singh Bhati,
the Station House Officer, who is the centre of a sharp controversy,
was on sick leave since the lOth afternoon and therefore Sachchu
Lal sent a constable, Rameshwar Tiwari, to call Sub-Inspector Fateh
Bahadur Singh who, being the "Day Officer", was in charge of
emergencies and off-beat matters. Sachchu Lal also asked Ramesh-
war Tiwari to call two other constables, Mahomed Zahoor aad
Gafoor. In the meanwhi:le, Sachchu Lal claims to have sent Consta-
be Ram Prasad who was on platform duty to keep a watch on the
dead body.

74. Rameshwar Tiwari contacted S. I. [Link] Singh at

his quarters but the latter seems to have instructed Tiwari to take
Zahoor and Gafoor with him, saying that he would go to the spot of
occurrence directly. The two constables Zahoor and Gafoor went
to the G.R.P. Thana where at 3·45 A.M. they were asked by Sachchu
Lal to proceed to the spot. S. I. Fateh Bahadur Singh reached the
spot within about 15 minutes thereafter. The dead body was thus
seen by bim and the three Constables, Ram Prasad, Zahoor and
Gafoor, say, between 3·40 A.M. and 4 A.M.

75. Ram Prasad who would be the first among them to reach the
dead body has given a very detailed description of the position and
condition of the body. This is what he says:
"As I went near the dead body, I found that it was lying
towards the north of the electric pole and to the south of the
railway line coming from Benaras and going to platform
No. 1, that is, it was lying between the traction pole and the
line which goes to platform No. 1. The head of the dead body
was towards the east and the legs were towards the west.
There is one junction-box in the north-east corner of the elec-
tric pole at a distance of one cubit. The dead body was lying
at a distance of about 9" towards the west from the junction-
box."
 29
"The head of the dead body was covered with a cloth. All the
same, some portion of the right eye and of the nose was ·visible
and was shining. This could be seen by taking a glimpse from
the northern side but not from the western or southern side.
The head of the dead body was facing the sky and was slightly
inclined towards the north. The body was lying fully stretch-
ed but the left foot was found resting on the right foot near
the ankle joint. The left hand was bent near the elbow and
was resting on the abdomen. The right hand which was also
bent near the elbow was slightly inclined towards the body
and had come out of the shoulder line. The palm was facing
upwrads but_ the fingers were bent as in the case of a half-
closed fist. The palm of the left hand was facing downwards.
The fingers of the left hand were somewhat bent. There was
a Chaddar under the head of the body, the front corner of
which covered the face of the body. If one tried to take a
glimpse from the northern side. one could have a view of a
portion of the nose, right eye and the head through the fold
of the Chaddar. This Chaddar had fullv covered the should-
ers." -
"I had seen the dead body from a close range after lighting a
match-stick. In the right fist of the dead body there was a
five-rupee note, while a wrist watch was found on the left
wrist of the deceased. The head of the deceased was to the
west of the electric pole at a distance of about 9 inches. The
deceased was wearing a dhoti and had put on socks and
shoes."
"The right hand was seen resting at a distance of 8 to 12
fingers from the head. The condition of the fist clinching the
five rupee note was such that the note could be easily taken
out. It could even be taken out without opening the fingers.
It was only when I lighted a match-stick that I came to know
that it was .a five rupee currency note. The wrist watch was
on the inner side of the wrist, while the wrist watch belt was
seen on the outer side of the left wrist. I cannot however say
whether it was a leather belt or a metal belt."
"I am unable to say whether the portion of the ground on
which the dead body lay was covered with grass or stones.
There were however small stones around and near the body.
On both the sides of the legs, I could see ballast at a distance
of about one cubit from the dead body. There was however
no ballast towards the west in the line of the legs_ The right
hand was resting on the ground. The ballPst was at a dis-
tance of about 9" from the right hand. The head was also
resting. on the ground. The ballast was found spread out
towards the south beyond the electric pole. There was how-
ever no trace of any stones in the straight line of the body
towards the east. The left ankle was at a distance of H cubits
towards the west from the north-west corner of the electric
pole. The left arm was a little towards the north of the elec-
tric pole in a straight line, but I will not be ab1e to say how
much." -
 30
"I lighted a match-stick and saw the dead body by standing
towards north near the head but I had not touched the dead
body. At that time, the right eye was open. The head was
not completely inclined towards the right side; it was slight-
ly tilted towards the right. I did not however notice whether
the neck was twisted." When I saw the dead body I did not
find the forearms and the ha!lds <:overed with a Chaddar."
76. Ram Prasad says that he remained near the dead body for
'ibout 15 or 20 minutes. He left when Constables, Zahoor and
Gafoor, arrived at the spot. He did platform duty till 6 A.M. and
thereafter he went to the G. R. P. Thana. He did not, however,
make any entry at the Thana that he had seen the body, much less
about its position or condition. His statement was recorded for the
first time on the 17th April by Inspector Puri of the C.B.I.

77. Constable Mohammad Zahoor was near the dead body from
about 3·45 A.M. till about 10 A.M. except for a brief while when at
about 6-30 A.M. he had gone to the A.S.M's Office along with Dr. B. R.
Chakravarty, the Assistant Medical Officer. Zahoor says that when
he and Constable Gafoor went to the spot, the dead body was lying
to the north of the traction pole. Immediately after they went to
the spot, Constable Ram Prasad left and within 15 or 20 minutes
S. I. Fateh Bahadur Singh arrived. Finding that the doctor had not
yet come Fateh Bahadur left, apparently to fetch him.

78. It may be recalled that A. S. M. Prasad had sent a m"mo to

the G.R.P. at about 3·25 A.M., stating: "One man found almost lying
dead near West Centre Cabin ...... Please attend and do needful."
He had prepared a copy of this memo for being sent to the Assistant
Medical Officer but he did not send it for the flimsy reason that only
one peon was available and that peon had taken a copy of the memo
to the G. R. P.

79. A. S. M. Prasad says that after sending ihe memo to the G.R.P.
at 3·25 A.M. he attended to a few trains and then ohoned Dr. Chakra-
varty at his house at about 4 · 20 A.M., informing -him about the dis-
covery of the body. On being told by Prasad that the person
appeared to be dead, Dr. Chakravarty asked to be contacted after
the G. R. P. Officer had arrived, so that he could go to the spot.
Prasad says that on receiving a phone from S. I. Fateh Bahadur
Singh at about 5·30 A.M. that he had come to the Thana, he phoned
Dr. Chakravarty, who arrived at about 5·55 A.M. He gave a copy of
the memo to Dr. Chakravarty. Fateh Bahadur and Dr. Chakravarty
then went to the spot. Dr. Chakravarty returned to Prasad's Office
within half an hour and wrote a memo (Ka-35) at 6·35 A.M., certify-
ing that the person was dead and directing that post-mortem exami-
nation be performed.

80. Dr. Chakravarty says that the dead body was lying to the
north of the traction pole, slightly oblique in relation to the pole,
the face being covered with a Chaddar. On removing the Chaddar,
he saw a gaping wound on the right parietal region. The head was
 31
about 10" away from .the junction-box, while the feet were "inclined
towards the cabin-side". The head was towards north-east and the
legs towards south-west.

81. Dr. Chakravarty had made his initials on the original memo
in token of having received its copy and he had put the time of re-
ceipt as "5·55 A.M.". Later on when the dead bady was identified as
that of Shri Upadhyaya, Dr. Chakravarty altered the time to
"3 ·55 A.M.".
82. Dr. Chakravarty explained this alteration by saying first that
the memo was prepared by the A.S.M. at 3·25 A.M. and it would have
gone against the A.S.M. if it appeared that he delivered the memo
at 5 ·55 A.M. In other words, the alferation was maBe to protect the
A.S.M. from a possible charge of negligence. When, however,
Dr. Chakravarty's attention was drawn to the statement which he
had made to the C.B.I. on April 8, 1968, he admitted that he made the
alteration to protect himself, as the memo asking him "to attend and
do needful" was drawn at 3 · 25 A.M., whereas he had gone to the
A.S.M's Office at 5 ·55 A.M. Thus, even the Medical Officer has con-
tributed his mite to the mysteries of this mafter.
83. S. I. Fateh Bahadur Singh went to the traction pole at about
4 A.M. whep. he saw the dead body lying between the traction pole
and the Benaras Down Line, with its head towards the east and the
legs towards west. The head was about a span away from the junc-
tion-box, to its west. The right hand was bent near the elbow, in the
right palm was a five rupee note. The left hand, bent near the
elbow, was resting on the abdomen· with the palm facing down-
wards. There was a watch on one of the wrists. The left leg was
resting across the right leg and the body was lying fully stretched.
The head was inclined awards the right. There were shoes and
socks on the feet. The face was covered with a Chaddar.

84. So, this is what Drigpal the Shunting -Porter, Kishori Misra
the Shunting Jamadar, Abdul Gafoor the Shunter, Constable Ram
Prasad, Constable Mohammad Zahoor, S. I. Fateh Bahadur Singh
and Dr. B. R. Chakravarty have to say about the position of the dead
body.
85. Thus runs the strange story of Mughalsarai.
 CHAPTER V
FATEH BAHADUR SINGH INVESTIGATES
1. Fateh Bahadur Singh is an inexperienced Officer of moderate
intelligence. After passing the High School Examination, he started
his career as a Constable in 1956, became .a Head Constable in 1966
and was selected as a Sub-Inspector in 1967. He stumbled into the
instant case as an investigating officer as he happened to be the
"Day Officer" of the G.R.P. Thana, and as Prabhu Singh Bhati, the
Station Officer, was on sick leave. He was in charge of the investi-
gation for just thirteen hours but even during that brief period he
has left imprints of his inexperience on the case.
2. On receiving the message sent by Constable Sachchu Lal
through Constable Rameshwar Tiwari, he went to the spot at about
4 A.M. He waited for the doctor to arrive but since he did not come,
he went to the G.R.P. Thana at about 5·30 A.M. There he collected
a camera, a coffin and the material for drawing a panchayatnama.
He contacted the A.S.M. who in turn called the doctor. He and Dr.
Chakravarty then went together to the spot at about 6 A.M. Dr.
Chakravarty stayed there for about half an hour but Fateh Bahadur
continued to remain near the dead body till about 10 A.M.
3. He gave instructions to Constables Mohammad Zahoor and
Gafoor at about 6 ·45 A.M. to inspect the place over a distance of
about a furlong in order to see if there were blood-stains. No blood-
stains were, however, noticed in the vicinity of the traction pole.
4. After the day-break, at about 7·30 A.M., he took a photograph
(Ka-29) of the dead body, in which the raised position of the right
hand and the peculiar placement of the fingers of the right palm are
brought out clearly. One can even see a part of the currency note
protruding out of the semi-clinched fist, from an opening between
the palm and the small finger. The photograph, however, is not of
the whole body but of the portion from the head to a little above
the knees.
5. Fateh Bahadur showed some resourcefulness in taking the
photograph of the dead body but he neutralised its efficacy by dis-
turbing the position of the body before photographing it. He
thought that a photograph is but an aid to identification. He over-
looked that though that is its primary purpose, a photograph, pro-
perly conceived, can serve as an aid to other important consider-
ations like the position of the body. The position of the body could
furnish a clue to the mode of murder.
6. Fateh Bahadur removed the Chaddar from the face, pulled the
dead body a little to the east, kept the head on the junction-box
gave support to the body by placing a stone near the waist, placed
32
 33
the Chaddar under the head and took the photograph. While the
body was being arranged for the photograph, some blood dripped on
the ground from the Chaddar.
7. It must be conceded that Fateh Bahadur is not a bad photo-
grapher. But his investigation lacks imagination. Had he not altered
the original position of the body, one would have had documentary
evidence to show how the body was lying. For that, one is now
driven to rely on the oral word of witnesses whose veracity is not
entirely unquestionable. Some of them, like the members of the
shunting team have made different statements at different times.
Some like Dr. Chakravarty have tampered with the record. Some
like Constable Ram Prasad were contacted by the C.B.I. as late as
17th April. Fortunately, the evidence of these witnesses on the
position of the body is uniform and cqnsistent.

8. After taking the photograph, Fateh Bahadur removed the

currency note from the right palm and asked Constable Zahoor to
remove the clothes and the other articles from the dead body. The
deceased was found wearing a Khaddar banyan, a grey sleeveless
woollen sweater, then a full-sleeved white cotton sweater and on
top a full-sleeved chocolate coloured woollen sweater. He was
wearing a Dhoti and had put on socks and shoes. He had a wrist
watch on his left wrist on which was inscribed the name "Nana
Deshmukh". Under the banyan was a sacred thread to which was
attached a key. While the clothes were being removed, a little
blood fell from the clothes and the head injury on the ballast. ·Apart
from this blood and the blood which trickled when the body was
being arranged for the photograph, no blood at all was seen near-
about the traction pole.
9. In the inner pocket of the banyan were found four currency
notes of five rupee each, one currency note of one rupee and t\'vo
tickets-one, a First Class journey ticket from Lucknow to Patna
and the other a reservation ticket for 52 Down, bearing No. 47546.

(ii) Dead body identified.

10. At about 8·45 A.M. Sub-Inspector Jagannath Singh of the
G.R.P. was asked by Fateh Bahadur to ascertain in what name the
particular reservation was made from Lucknow. As the Lucknow
line was defective and the Patna line was engaged, Jagannath Singh
went to the Control Office from where the Operator spoke on the
direct Lucknow line. It was about 9·40 A.M. when the Operator told
J agannath Singh that the particular reservation was made by 52
Down in the name of "Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, President,
Bharatiya Jan Sangh". Jagannath Singh then ascertained that the
Reservation Slip mentioned the Telephone Number of the passenger
as "23509". He therefore instructed the Operator to phone that
number and say that a dead body on which the particular tickets
were found was discovered in the Mughalsarai Yard. The Operator
gave that information at 10·10 A.M.
11. S. I. Jagannath Singh went back to the G.R.P. Thana and
asked a Head Constable to call the local Jan Sangh workers.
 34
12. In a short while, Fateh Bahadur went back to the G.R.P.
Thana with the dead body. At about 10·20 A.M., Shri Ram P~akas_h,
the then Deputy Chief Minister U.P., phoned the Mughals~r~ Rail-
way Protection Force Office from Lucknow and gave certam mstruc-
tions to Jagannath Singh. Surprisingly, the G.R.P. Thana had then
no phone of its own.
13. At about 10·30 A.M., Vishwanath Prasad Agarwal, a Jan
Sangh Office bearer, went to the G.R.P. Thana. in pursuance of a
message given by Banmali Bhattacharya, a Railway employee, and
identified the dead body as that of Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya.
The sad news spread like wild fire and soon a large crowd collected
near the G.R.P. Thana on platform No. 2.
(iii) The Inquest Report
14. Fateh Bahadur claims that he had started writing the Inquest
Report at the spot itself and indeed so promptly that he had written
out the details regarding the condition of the body even before dis-
turbing the body for the purpose of photographing it. He stitched
the dhoti, which was on the dead body, around it and took the body
to the Thana at about 10·15 A.M. At about 10·30 A.M., the Assistant
Station Master was asked to instruct the onward Railway Station to
detain the F.C.T. bogie and to take charge of the unclaimed luggage,
if any, in the First Class Compartment.
15. The Inquest Report (Ka-40) is drawn in the printed form and
purports to have been completed at 10·45 A.M. The place of inquest
is shown as 'Pole No. 1276', while the first informant is stated to be
the Assistant Station Master's peon. The cause of death is stated to
be unknown.
16. The inquest report mentions that the dead body was lying
near pole No. 1276 to the south of the Banaras Down Line and north
of the Buffer line, near the lid of the "Trunk Repeat" (that is, the
junction-box), that the face was covered with a Chaddar, that there
was a five rupee note in the hand, that there was a watch on the left
wrist, that the head was tilted towards the right, that the left foot
was on the right foot and that there were socks and [Link] on the
feet.
17. After referring to the fact that the dead body was photo-
graphed, the inquest report proceeds to describe the injuries which
were found on the body. It says that there was a deep wound on the
right side of the head, that there were confusions and abrasions on
the whole of the back, that blood was flowing from the right ear
and from a wound on the head, that there was a blue mark above
the right eye, that the right arm appeared to be fractured between
the elbow and the shoulder, that both the ankles were fractured
that the right eye was open and that the left eye was closed. '
18. Fateh Bahadur has further mentioned in the inquest report
that no marks of blood were found near about the place where the
body was lying, that no marks of trampling on the ballast were
noticeable and that it was not certain as to how the injuries were
caused.
 35
19. The inquest report concludes with a reference to the identi!i,-
cation of the dead body by Vishwanath Agarwal and the fact that a
large number of people had come to see the body.
20. The important points to be noticed about the inquest report
are:
(1) That the time when death was reported or when the in-
quest proceedings commenced is not mentioned therein.
(2) That the precise location of the body qua the traction
pole, in the sense whether the head was to the north, west
or south, is not clearly indicated therein.
(3) That, originally, it was stated in the report that the head
was lying on the junction-box ("Dhakhan par sar para
hua"), but this has been altered to read that the head was
lying near the junction-box ("Dhakkan ke pas sar para
hua").
(4) That though the inquest report purports to have been
completed by 10·45 A.M., this cannot be accurate because
the fact that a large number of people had gathered to see
the dead body and that Fateh Bahadur left for Varanasi
in order to have the post mortem examination performed
there, could only be mentioned later.
21. The learned Sessions Judge was obviously perturbed by these
features and, therefore, thought that by reason of these infirmi-
ties" .... the value of the inquest report as an authentic contem-
poraneous record of the first observations and impressions of the S.I.
and the Panchas is considerably impaired".

(iv) Ancillary steps taken by Fateh Bahadur

22. Fateh Bahadur claims to have prepared a sketch of the in-
juries (Ka-256) near the pole itself. At about 11 A.M. he handed
over the articles recovered from the person of the deceased to the
Head Moharrir and then went back to the traction pole. He attached
a part of the ballast pebbles and the earth on which blood had fallen.
first when the body was arranged for the photograph and then when
the clothes were removed from the body. He then prepared a rough
site plan (Ka-258) in which the head is shown as almost touching
the western end of the junction-box. He returned to the G.R.P.
Thana at about 12 noon where he was working till about 3 P.M.,
except for yet another visit to the traction pole along with the Dis-
trict Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy In!l-
pector General of Police.
23. At 11·42 A.M. a telegram (Ka-55)_ was received from Mokamah
G.R.P. stating that a leather suit-case containing clothes and docu--
ments, "probably belonging to Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, M.P., was
found lying in the I Class compartme11t of 8 Down". At 3 P.M. an-
other telegram was received to the same effect. At 10·50 P.M. a third
telegram (Ka-59) was received containing a full description of the
 36
.contents of the suit-case and mentioning that it was found under the
lower berth. The suit-case contained various ;;trticles. of personal
use, a motor driving licence and the pass-port 1ssued m favour of
Shri Upadhyaya.
24. Finally, Fateh Bahadur sent a memo to the Station Superin-
tendent, Mughalsarai, asking him to take steps . to have the F.C.T.
bogie sealed, and a telegram to the Station Supermtendent, Howrah,
asking him to get the names and addresses of the passengers
travelling in the F.C.T. bogie.

25. By 3 P.M. a large crowd had collected near the G.R.P. Thana.
At about 3 P.M. Fateh Bahadur Singh and Constables Zahoor and
Gafoor placed the body on a truck and took it to Varanasi for the
post mortem examination. A Magistrate and an Additional Supe-
rintendent of Police accompanied the dead body.

(v) Autopsy
26. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. S. M. Patankar, Additional
Civil Surgeon, Varanasi, at about 5·50 P.M. The autopsy was slightly
delayed, because at 11·30 A.M. Shri Ram Prakash, the Deputy Chief
Minister, had given telephonic instructions to Dr. Murli Manohar
Joshi, a Joint Secretary of the U.P. Jan Sangh at Allahabad, that
he should immediately proceed to Varanasi and that the post mortem
examination should be deferred until his (Shri Ram Prakash's)
arrival. Dr. M. M. Joshi reached Varanasi by car at about 4 P.M. and
on his way he came across the truck near the Grand Trunk Road,
Varanasi. He followed the truck to the mortuary. Shri Ram Prakash
arrived at the mortuary at about 5·30 P.M. and the post mortem
began at 5·50 P.M. Several Jan Sangh workers, including some of
the prominent leaders of the party, like Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee
(now the President of the Jan Sangh), Shri Balraj Madhok (an
Ex-President of the Jan Sangh) and Shri Jagdish Mathur were
present at the mortuary.

27. A group photo was taken at the mortuary in which some of

these persons can be seen standing near the dead body. Two more
photographs were taken at the instance of the Deputy Chief Minister
by one K. M. Bhatiya of the Goras Studio, Varanasi. The enlarge-
ments of these photographs are Exs. Ka-30 and Ka-31. In Ka-30 Shri
Upadhyaya can be seen lying on the post mortem table. The right
ear is bleeding and the feet are awkwardly bent near the ankles
owing to the fractures. In Ka-31 the back has been raised slightly so
that the wound on the head and the contusion on the right side of the
upper back can be seen.

28. There is a sharp controversy before me whether one more

photograph of the injuries was taken. Dr. M. M. Joshi says that not
two but three photographs of the injuries were taken at the mor-
tuary-one of the head injury and the injury on the right shoulder
another of the injuries on the back and the third of the-injuries 0~
the right bllttock. The Deputy Chief Minister has also stated in
 37
his evidence that three photographs were taken of the injuries. I
have before me only the group photo (Ex. 55) and the two photo-
graphs Ka-30 and Ka-31.

29. The post mortem report (Ka-1) mentions that rigor mortis
was present in the neck and limbs, the right eye was ecchymosed, the
left eye was hazy and that there was bleeding from the right ear,
the right nostril and the mouth. The left ear and the left nostril
were normal.

30. Dr. Patankar has mentioned that he found the following in-
juries on the body:
(1) Vertical lacerated wound 7 cms.X1 [Link] deep on
right side of head commencing at 5 ems. above the right
ear (2!X2/5").
(2) Contusion with abrasion 20 ci)1S.X8 ems. on right shoulder
blade and right shoulder back part (8"X 3").
(3) Contusion with abrasion 18 cms.x7 ems. on right side of
lower part of back of chest and right loin (7"X2f').
(4) Abrasion 4 cms.X1 em. on middle of left shoulder blade.
(5) M:1ltiple abrasions in an area of 7 cms.X5 ems. in between
the shoulder blades.
(6) Abrasion 10 cms.x3 ems. on middle of back.
(7) Contusion with abrasion 16 cms.X8 ems. on right buttock.
(8) Abrasion 3 cms.x2 ems. on back of left shoulder.
(9) Simple fracture of lower ends of tibia and fibula left.
(10) Simple fracture of lower ends of tibia and fibula right.
(11) Abrasion 2 cms.X1 em. on outer side of right ankle.

31. Injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were, according to Dr. Patankar, caused

by a blunt weapon and injuries Nos. 4 to 8 and 11 by friction. As
there were no contusion marks around injuries Nos. 9 and 10 on the
legs, Dr. Patankar concluded that the fractures were a result of
indirect injury.

32. On an internal examination of the dead body, Dr. Patankar

found:
(1) An area of contusion 11 cms.X9 ems. on the right temple
around injury No. 1.
(2) A similar area of contusion 9 cms.X8 ems. on the occipital
region.
(3) Comminuted depressed fracture of the right parietal and
. the right temporal bones.
(4) Depressed fracture of the right side of the sphenoid bone.
 38
(5) Laceration of the dura below the depressed fracture and
extensive subdural haemorrhage on the right side of the
brain below injury No. 1.
(6) Congestion of the brain and frac~ure ~f the middle and
anterior fossa of the skull on the nght srde.
(7) Fracture of seven ribs from the 3rd to the 9th.
(8) Puncture of the pleura on the right side below the frac-
ture of 4th and 5th ribs.
(9) Presence of ten ounces of blood in the right pleural
cavity, and
(10) Laceration of the middle part of the right lung.

33. Dr. Patankar opined that death was caused by shock and
haemorrhage following injuries to the skull and lungs.
34. About a month later, that is, on 9th of March 1968 Dr. Patan-
kar prepared from memory a diagram (Ka-77/1) showing the frac-
ture of the legs. A rough sketch (Ka-78) of the injuries and the
other fractures was prepared by him even later, partly from memory
and partly on the basis of the post mortem report. These diagrams
were drawn by him, as he says, to indicate the approximate site of
the injuries to the Investigating Officers.

(vi) Back to Mughalsarai

35. Fateh Bahadur Singh returned to Varanasi at about 10·55 P.M.

and made an entry (Ka-14) in the General Diary, recapitulating the
events of the day. The time when he reached the body first is again
not specifically mentioned in this entry. Further, departing from an
observation in the inquest report, Fateh Bahadur has mentioned in
the diary that, before taking the. photograph of the dead body, the
head was lifted and placed on the junction-box.
36. Soon thereafter the Head Moharrir registered an offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After registration of the
offence, Fateh Bahadur remained in charge of the investigation for
about thirteen hours only. On the morning of the 12th, he interro-
gated B. N. Prasad the Assistant Station Master, Kishori Misra the
Shunting Jamadar and Ishwar Dayal, the Leverman of the West
Central Cabin. At about 12·15 P.M. on the 12th the investigation
was taken over by the U.P. C.I.D.
 CHAPTER VI
INVESTIGATION BY THE C.I.D. AND THE C.B.I.
1. Shri D. K. Tewari, D.S.P., who was working as the Sector
Officer of the U.P.C.I.D. at Varanasi, had reached Mughalsarai along
with two Inspectors on the evening of the 11th itself, because as soon
as the identity of the deceased was established it was commonly
anticipated that the investigation may be entrusted to the C.I.D.
But the investigation was formally taken over by D.S.P. Tewari at
12·15 P.M. on the 12th.
2. He re-interrogated B. N. Prasad, Kishori Mishra and Ishwar
Dayal and verified the statements made by them on the 12th morn-
ing before Fateh Bahadur Singh. The stand of the shunting team at
that stage was that they had first noticed the dead body after the
shunting of 52 Down was completed, that is, at about 2·50 A.M.
3. D.S.P. Tewari then recorded the statement of an important
witness, B. D. Kamal, who had functioned as the Conductor-Guard
of the Sealdah Express from Lucknow to Mughalsarai. Yadav, the
·Conductor-Guard of the train from Mughalsarai to Madhupur, was
also interrogated. He produced a relief memo in which he had noted
that the reservation chart of the F.C.T. bogie had not been received
by him at Mughalsarai when he took charge of the train from Con-
ductor Kamal and that an unclaimed leather suit-case had been
made over to the G.R.P. at Mokamah. The reservation chart of the
F.C.T. bogie has remained untraced.

4. One more person was interrogated on the 12th at Mughalsarai

and that was Abdul Gafoor, the driver of the shunting pilot. At
<ibout 4 P.M. information was received that the F.C.T. bogie was sealed
<it Howrah.
5. D.S.P. Tewari had learnt from the Deputy Chief Minister on
the evening of the 11th itself that Shri Gauri Shankar Rai, an M.L.C .
.of Lucknow, had travelled by the F.C.T. bogie along with
Shri Upadhyaya. Inspector Tripathi contacted Shri Gauri Shankar
Rai at Ballia at about 9 P.M. on the 12th and recorded his statement.
Shri Rai said (1) that a petty military officer had travelled with him
in the 'C' Cabin of the First Class Compartment of the F.C.T. bogie
and had got down at Faizabad, (2} that he had seen Shri Upadhyaya
at Faizabaj and (3) that he had himself got down at Shahganj and
had proceeded to Ballia from there. On the previous day, Conductor
B. D. Kamal had stated (1) that a person in civilian dress was stand-
ing in the 'C' (.,',in at Lucknow and had acknowledged being "Major
Sharma", (2} th<>t this person was not found in the 'C' Cabin at
Varanasi, and (3) that when he (that is Kamal) inquired of
'Shri Upadhya,ya at Varanasi in regard to that person, Shri Upadhyaya
said that he had got down at Shahganj. It is thus that suspicion
began to gather round the activities of Major Sharma.
39
 40
6. On the 13th, D.S.P. Tewari interrogated Ram Surat, the Fire-
man of the shunting pilot and Ramdas, the Junior Leverman of the
West Central Cabin. He also recorded the statement of S.I. Fateh
Bahadur Singh. On the night between the 13th and 14th, the F.C.T.
bogie which was sealed at Howrah arrived at Mughalsarai.

7. On the 13th night, D.S.P. Tewari left for Rakhamines in an

effort to trace M. P. Singh. He reached there by a circuitous route
on the 15th morning and recorded the statement of Singh at 2 P.M.
Singh says therein:

(1) That at Varanasi, he found that the door of the lavatory

near the 'A' Cabin was jammed,
(2) That the man in the corridor at Varanasi was clean-shaven
and was not Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya,
(3) That the stranger told Conductor Kamal that he had also.
given instructions that he wanted to get down at Mughal-
sarai, and
(4) That he, that is Singh, saw the bedding in "B" Cabin being.
removed at Mughalsarai by a young man who, on being.
questioned, said that it belonged to his father.
D.S.P. Tewari came back to Varanasi along with M. P. Singh
on the night between the 16th and 17th.

8. From the 14th to 16th, that is, during the period when D.S.P_
Tewari was away, investigation was more or less of a routine kind_
But a matter of consequence which happened on the 14th was that
the Home Minister announced in the Parliament that "at the request
of Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh, it has now been decided to entrust
the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation ........... "
The Home Minister explained that the U.P. Police Officers had
already started the investigation and that they and the C.B.I. Officers.
"will be a single team for investigation". Accordingly, a team of
Investigators from the C.B.I. headed by Shri John Lobo D.I.G. and
Shri J.P. Sharma, S.P. reached Varanasi on the 15th. They formally
took over investigation from the U.P.C.I.D. on the 18th when the
Central Government issued a notification with the consent of the
U.P. Government, extending the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special
Establishment to the State of U.P., for the investigation of the offence
in regard to the death of Shri Upadhyaya.

9. Ncthing of note happened on the 15th. On the 16th, a list of

the belongings of Shri Upadhyaya given by Smt. Sarla Rani was
received. On the evening of the 16th, Inspector Yadav accompanied
by the C.B.I. Officers took charge of a towel, a bouquet of flowers and
a piece of flannel from a place which is about four furlongs from the
Malviya bridge. It was suspected that thes<: articles bore blood-
stains. On the same day, Inspector Pandey interrogated Bhola Rauth
Bharati, the sweeper who had first located the suit-case under the
berth while cle&di:ng the 'B' Cabin at Patna.
 41
10. The night of the 16th and 17th of February provided an impor-
tant clue to the Investigating Officers. Inspector Baijnath Singh of
Kotwali, Varanasi, who was instructed to assist the investigation,
interrogated one Mati Bahadur, a night Chowkidar, in the Mughal-
sarai Bazar at about 11 P.M. Mati Bahadur claimed that he had seen
two persons carrying a bedding on a rickshaw to the house of one
Lalta Kalwar alias Lalta Vaish, a notorious receiver of stolen pro-
perty at Mughalsarai, after the Sealdah Express had left [Link]
on the particular night. Mati Bahadur thought that Jogender Singh,
a noto'rious railway thief, was one of those two persons. Imme-
diately after contacting Mati Bahadur, Inspector Baijnath Singh raid-
ed the house of Lalta Kalwar along with InspectorS. S. Upadhyaya.
From there they recovered a hold-all~ a Kambal, a Chaddar, a Gadda
and a coverless pillow. The recovery memo in respect of these
articles is Ka-89. Lalta was put under arrest. J ogender Singh was
found not to bear any connection with the offence.

11. On the 17th, D.S.P. Tewari sent Inspector Yadav to fetch

Shri Gauri Shankar Rai from Ballia. He then went to Mughalsarai
and asked M. P. Singh to re-enact his movements on platform No. 1
on the night of occurrence so as to ascertain the time-lag between
his leaving the compartment for the Luggage Office and his return to
the compartment, when he saw the [Link] being taken away.
These movements took about 7 minutes. In the evening, Lalta
Kalwar produced a towel and a pillow cover from a washing line
in the Court-yard of his house. The recovery memo in respect of
these two articles is Ka-90.

12. On the 18th, the investigation was formally taken over by

the C.B.I. The C.B.I. Officers. headed by D.I.G. John Lobo and
J. P. Si1arma, the Superintendent of Police, had set up their head-
quarters in the Circuit House after reaching Varanasi on the 15th
evening. D.S.P. Kapoor was in charge of the investigation for four
days from the 18th, pending the arrival of D.S.P. Baijal who was
appointed as the Chief Investigating· Officer.

13. On the 18th, D.S.P. Kapoor inspected the site in the presence
of the officers of the G.R.P. and the C.I.D. He directed Inspector
Singh to interrogate Lalta Kalwar and it was during that interroga-
tion that the name of Bharat La! came to light as a close associate
of Lalta Kalwar. Before this, that is, on the 17th the name of Ram.
Awadh had transpired during the investigation as being another
assQciate of Lalta Kalwar.
14. On the 19th, Subedar Sidh Singh, "the petty military officer",.
who had travelled in the 'C' Cabin with Shri Gauri Shankar Rai from
Lucknow to Faizabad. was interrogated by Inspector Bholan Das at
Faizabad. This interrogation did not resolvP. the mystery surround-
ing Major Sharma.
15. On the 20th, efforts were made to trace Ram Awadh. Tile
statement of K. L. Shukla, Secretary to the Raja of Jaunpur was also
recorded on that day. That statement showed that Shri Upadhyaya
was alivt at J aunpur in any case.
 42
16 On the 21st Naik Har Govind Pandey of the R.T.O.'s Office
at Lu'cknow was in:terrogated. He stated that a seat for Major "S. L.
Sharma!' was reserved over a telephone on the lOth of February. The
Officer who asked for a reservation on phone wanted a berth from
Lucknow to Gomoh but as that was not available, a seat was booked
for him in the F.C.T. bogie upto Mughalsarai. This ':Vas a basic
disclosure which furnished a clue to the movements of MaJor Sharma.

17. On the 26th the Director of the C.B.I. issued an order saying
that Shri M. P. Sin:gh, D.I.G. will be associated with the investigation
of the case. Accordingly, D.I.G. Singh reached Varanasi on the 27th
and participated in the further investigation.
18. On the night between the 28th and 29th of February, Inspector
Puri arrested Ram Awadh at Bhadaun Dhal near Kashi Railway
Station and took him to the Circuit House, Varanasi at about 2 A.M.
Ram Awadh's interrogation tended to implicate Bharat Lal in the
case. On the 29th Kapil, a nephew of Lalta Kalwar, was interro-
gated. He stated that Ram Awadh and Bharat Lal had taken the
bedding to Lalta Kalwar's house on the night between the lOth and
11th of February. At about 10-15 P.M. on the 29th, Inspector Baijnath
Singh of the Kotwali arrested Bharat Lal near Harischandra Ghat,
Varanasi.
19. On the next day, that is, the 1st of March, Bharat led the
Police to three egg and fish dealers, near Dasaswamedh Ghat, called
Moti, Bhallu and Abdul Aziz. The waist-coat of the deceased was
recovered from the person of Moti, while the coat, muffler and the
Kurta of the deceased were recovered from the houses of Bhallu and
Aziz in Nawab Ganj. The recovery memos in respect of these arti-
cles are Ka-13 to Ka-15. On the same day, the statement of Padam
Singh, the Coach-Attendant of the "Through First Class Coach" of
the Sealdah Express was recorded.
20. On the night of the 2nd, Inspector Baijnath Singh took a
search of the house of one Munni Domin and recovered a canvas
bag, a cap, a chappal, a tooth-brush and tooth-powder under the
recovery memo Ka-7. Except for the canvas bag, these articles have
been identified as belonging to Shri Upadhyaya. Radhey Shyam,
who is Munni's son and Manik, the brother of Bharat Lal, were pre-
sent in Munni's house at the time of the search and they were also
arrested.
21. On the 2nd, Bharat made a statement to the C.B.I. admitting
that he. and Ram Awadh had entered t~e train at Kashi. But he put
the entire blame on Ram Awadh by saymg that it was he who pushed
a passenger out of the train.
22. In pursuance of the statement of Naik Har Govind Pandey
Inspector Jha reached Gomoh on the 29th of February and on th~
3rd of March he recorded the statement.• of Major Surendra Mohan
Sharma who was attached to 131 Battery, Ranchi. Major Sharma
stated that he had booked a seat on phone but as his name was
wrongly mentioned as "Major S. L. Sharma" and as the number of
his ticket was wrongly shown as "06171" instead of 06172, he did not
 43.
travel by the F.C.T. coach. Instead 'he tr<tveUed bY the 'fra~ Ser!
vice Coach of which Padam Singh w<ts the Coach-Attendant.

23. On the 3rd, D.S.P. Baijal came to know after interrogating

Bharat that a pair of spectacles. was given by Bharat to one Indo
Domin. Baijahwent to Indo's house which is quite near :M:unni's
when she offered to produce two lenses and a spectacle frame from
under the water near the bank o_f the Ganges. These articles, which
have also been identified as belonging to Shri Upadhyaya, were
recovered under the memo Ka-99.

24. On the 6th of March, identification proceedings were held in

the presence of a Magistrate for identifying the various articles,
which were seized·as stated above. Smt. Lata Khanna and her sister
Smt. Sarala Rani with whom Shri Upadhyaya used to stay in Luck-
now, and Shri Nanaji Deshmukh identified the various articles as
belonging to Shri Upadhyaya. Only the canvas bag was not properly
identified.
25. On the 7th March, Bharat made a confessional statement to the
C.B.I. stating that he and Ram Awadh had entered the I Class com-
partment of the F.C.T. bogie at Kashi, that Ram Awadh stole a
Jhola from the 'B' Cabin when the passenger had gone to the [Link]-
tory, that the passenger detected the theft after he came out of the
lavatory, that the passenger then threatened them that he would
hand them over to the Police, that while the [Link] was standing
near the door of the I Class compartment he and Ram Awadh push-
ed him out and that when the train reached Mughalsarai Station
they committed theft of the belongings of the passenger.

26. On the 11th of March, an identific_ation parade was held in

the jail for identifying Bharat and Ram Awadh. M. P. Singh failed
to identify them. On the same day, :M:[Link] made a statement before
Inspector Sukh Deo Singh saying that Bharat had made a confes-
sion to her earlier that he had pushed a person out of a Calcutta.
bound train and haq taken his belongings.
27. On the 13th of March, Dwarika, a co-prisoner of Bharat and
Ram Awadh sent an application through the Jail Authorities that on
the 11th after the identification parade was over, Bharat had made a
certain disclosure to him. In pursuance of this application
Shri Tyagi, a Magistrate, recorded Dwarika's statement under Sec-
tion 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the 16th. Dwarika has
~tated therein that Bharat had told him that Ram Awadh first hit
Shri Upadhyaya with a rod and then pushed him out of the train.

28. On the 25th of March, the statement of Shri Parasnath Srivas-.

tava, an Assistant Jailor, was recorded.. He stated that :Sharat had
told him on that day that he and Ram A wadh had pushed
Shri Upadhyaya out of the train and had stolen his belongings.

29. On the 25th and the 31st of March respectively, the statements
of Lalu and Nlinhku, two rickshaw-pullers of Kashi, were recorded.
4-167 H.A.
 44-
They stated that on the particular night they were standing with
their rickshaws at or near the Kashi Railway Station and had seen
Bharat and Ram Awadh together.
30. On the 6th April, the statement of Sharda, a rickshaw-puller
of Mughalsarai, was recorded, wherein he stated that Bharat and Ram
Awadh tpok the bedding by his rickshaw to the house of Lalta
Kalwar. On the 8th, the statement of Bhaiya Lal, another rickshaw-
puller, was recorded to corroborate Sharda. On the 17th of April,
Gur Prasad, an employee of a Tea-stall at the Kashi Railway Sta-
tion, was interrogated. He said that Bharat and Ram Awadh took
tea at his stall and rushed to [Link] the Sealdah Express on the
particular night.
31. In the light of this data, the C.B.I. Officers re-interrogated the
members of the shunting team and B. N_ Prasad, the Assistant Sta-
tion Master. Ha,radwar, whose engine was said to have blocked the
shunting pilot, was interrogated on the 23rd of March, R N. Prasad
on the 29th, Drigpal and Kishori Misra on the 30th and Abdul Gafoor
and Ramdas on the 1st of April. R N. Prasad and Ramdas were
further interrogated on the 9th and lOth of April respectively.
Ishwar Dayal was interrpgated on the lOth April.
32. The statement of Constable Ram Prasad was recorded for the
first time on the 17th April.
33. Thus, the crux of the investigation conducted by the C.I.D.
and the C.B.I. consisted in the recovery of articles stolen from the
'B' Cabin of. the F.C.T. bogie by which Shri Upadhyaya was travel-
ling. These recoveries were made between the 16th of February and
the 3rd of M:;irch 1968. The two accused Ram Awadh and Bharat
were arrested on the 29th of February, the former at Kashi and the
latter at Varanasi. During the investigation, the investigating offi-
cers obtained evidence in regard to three extra-judicial confessions
made by Bharat to Munni, Dwarika and Parasnath Srivastava res-
pectively. The C.B.I. also recorded two statements of Bharat, one
dated the 2nd of March being self-exculpatory and the other dated the
:7th of March being in the nature of a confession. These two state-
ments were, of course, not admissible in the Sessions Court, being
mere statements made to the Police during the course of investiga-
tion. But as the proceedings before me are not hide-bound by the
rules of evidence, these statements have been taken on the record.
34. During the course of investigation D.I.G. Lobo made an
interim report on the 20th March and a final report on the 29th April
1968 to the Director, C.B.I. These reports were prepared by him in
consultati9n with D.I.G. Singh. It is on the basis of the data refer-
red to above and on the basis of expert opinion that the C.B.I. filed
the charge-sheet against Bharat Lal and Ram Awadh on the 4th of
May 1968. I must now turn to the expert evidence.
 CHAPTER VII

EXPERT EVIDENCE
1. The investigating ·officers took the aid of a number of Medico-
legal Experts and Forensic Experts in an attempt to seek confirma-
tion of the conclusion which they had reached. Their conclusion was
that Shri Upadhyaya was pushed out of the train, that he dashed
against the traction pole and died an instantaneous death.

2. The first of such experts is, of course, Dr. Patankar who

-conducted the post mortem examination on the evening of the 11th of
February 1968. The post mortem report is Ex. Ka-1.

3. Then comes Dr. I. Bhushan Rao, Director of Medical and Health

Services to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, who spent two days
in Varanasi, the 5th and 6th of Miarch. He studied the inquest
report, the post mortem report, the photographs, the shape and
position of the traction pole and he inspected the F.C.T. bogie and
the clothes of the deceased. He also held discussions with Dr. Patan-
kar and the investigating officers. He submitted his report Ka-77 on
the 23rd of March. The main points emerging from that report are:

(1) ·That the death was caused instantaneously.

(2) That the firm gripping of the currency note in the right
hand was a typical case of cadaveric spasm showing that
the note was gripped in the particular manner at the
moment of sudden death.
(3) That the head injury, complementary injuries Nos. 5 and
6 and injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 7 which are in the nature of
imprint abrasions covering the region between the right
shoulder and the buttock, could only have been caused by
a long weapon having a considerable width.
( 4) That the pattern of these injuries and the fact that injuries
Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are preliminary to injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 7
show that the body dashed against the western face of the
traction pole with great force.
(5) That the absence of blood-stains inside the bogie rules out
the possibility of an attack in the bogie.
(6) That the absence of external marks on the seat of leg frac-
tures shows that those injuries also were not caused in the
compartment, and
{7) That the typical fractures of the leg bones were caused by
a fall from a moving train, the feet falling on the ground
at an angle.
45
 46
4. A team of experts consisting of Dr, S. N. G~g, ?irec~or. of
Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, Shri Muker]l, V1ce-PnnC1pal
of the Central Detective Training School, Calcutta and Shri P. N-
Mehra, an Instructor in that Schoo~ reacheg V~ranasi on the ev~~ing
of the 12th February and was there till the 15th. They VlSlteci
Mughalsarai on 13th, 14th and 15th alan_!,! with the Scientific Section
Experts of the U.P.C.I.D. Their repprt is Ka-65 dated 15th February
1968. They ex~ed the F.C.T. bogie which on being sealed at:
Howrah had reached Moghalsarai on the night between the 13th and.
14th. No trace of blood could be found inside the bogie. They did.
not find any blood stains on the suit-case either, which was received
in the meanwhile from Mokamah G.R.P. Dr. Garg, however, found
some oily substance in the corridor of the bogie near the Attendant's
seat which is near the lavatory on the side of the 'A' Cabin. The
team took certain measurements and found that the traction pole
was 28" from the floor pf the bogie and 19!'' from the edge of the
handle bars. They took photographs (Ka-41 to 49) showing the trac-
tion pole, the junction-box, the Banaras Down Line, a dummy lying
in the position of Shri Upadhyaya as shown by S.I. Fateh Bahadur
Singh and the abraded areas on the heels of the shoes worn by the
deceased.
5. Shri Bhattacharya, Assistant Director, Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, was c~lled to Varanasi after the recovery of the bedding
and the pillow cover. He reached Varanasi on the 22nd of February
and inspected the articles which were seized from Lalta Kalwar on
the 16th and 17th February. These articles were then lyinJ.! in the
custody of Shri N. K. Sharma, a Magistrate. Shri Bhattacharya.
tested the articles for the presence of blood by applying the Benzidine
test and found that there was no blood on any article, except that
there was a tiny speck of blood in a corner of the pillow. He wa~
not in a position to test the articles by the application of the Spec-
troscopic test, because fibres from the stains had to be examined for
such a test and the Magistrate would not allow Shri Bhattacharya
to remove any part of the stains. Shri Bhattacharya's report is
Ka-52 dated the 22nd February 1968.
6. The last team of Forensic Experts was headed by Dr. N. K. Sen>
Directpr of West Bengal Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta, who
was accompanied by Dr. S. Chowdhary and Shri Majumdar. This
team arrived at Varanasi on the 11th of March and stayed there till
the 13th. They found a blackish impression along the length of the
shawl and another f~t blackish impression almost parallel to it.
At Ka-126 is a photograph of these impressions. They further found
that the two full-sleeved sweaters and the banyan which were on the
person of the deceased had characteristic blood-stains on the right
shoulder region suggesting that the blood had dripped from above
and had soaked inwards. The blood-stains appear vividly in photo-
graphs Ka:-122 to Ka-125. The stain on the full-sleeved woollen pull-
over, which was the outermost garment worn by the deceased apart
from the shawl, begins about 13! ems. from the mid back line of the
pullover and is about 19 ems. long.
7. Dr. Sen's team also found two areas bearing fresh marks of
abrasions on the outer surface of the right shoe, of which the photo-
 47
.graphs are Ka-127 and Ka-128. They examined the Dhoti"· of the
-deceased, the pillow and the pillow cover and found a ·small stain
on the ;pillow only which Dr. Bhattacharya had also found earlier•

8. ·On the 11th and 12th, Dt. Sen's team inspected the site and
.dug up places around the traction pole in an attempt to locate possible
.blood-stainS but could tind none. _ They obtained control impressions
'from the surface of the traction pole,- collected superficial scrapings
from the pole, examined the bogie and found a chance finger print
.on the outer surface of a window glass. The specimens collected by
this team were examined in the West Bengal Forensic Science Labo-
ratory.- Dr. Chowdhary tested the articles for blood, while two
-others, Dr. N. Das and Shri Basak, did the physical examination.
Dr. Ghosh did the biological examination. Dr. Sen, Dr. Chowdhary
and Dr. N. Das submitted a joint report Ka-120 on the 16th of May
1968. · The detailed blood examination report of Dr. Chowdhary
himself is Ka-131 dated the 22nd of May. The consolidated Sectional
reports pf Dr. Ghosh, Dr. N. Das and Shri Basak are dated the 29th
of July and are respectively Ka-133, Ka-133(a) and Ka-133(b).

9. -The report of Shri Basak says that the greasy substance col-
lected from near the Attendant's seat by Dr. Garg's team showed
light orange coloured fluorescence under ultra violet light but no
such fluorescence was observed on the woollen shawl. It must be
stated that Inspector Mukerji who had sealed the bogie at Calcutta
has stated that spots of undiluted phenyl were noticed near the
Attendant's seat. As admitted by Shri Bhattacharya, phenyl is one
of the substances which can destroy blood marks. The substance
however does not appear to have been tested from this angle.
10. The team of Dr. Sen found no blood on any of the belongings
of the deceased, except a small speck on the pillow. That was stated
to be a stain caused by direct contact and not by soaking. The dust
collected from the abrasion marks on the shoes was found to consist
of minute fragments of ballast, identical to the ballast near the trac-
tion pole. The blackish impressions on the woollen shawl were found
on microscopic and spectroscopic examination to have the same
ingredients as were present in the dust collected from near the traction
pole.
11. The position of blood-stains on the two full-sleeved sweaters
and the banyan coupled with the absence of blood-stains on the
~leeveless woollen sweater showed, according to this team of experts,
that the head of tlie deceased was inclined to the right side and that
the blood dripping from the ear fell directly on the outermost gar-
ment, that is, the full-sleeved woollen sweater. The blood soaked
through the other garments successively, except the sleeveless
sweater which was outside the range of soaking.
12. Dr. A. B. Roychowdhary, the Serologist, has stated in his re-
ports Ka-295 and Ka-296 dated the 13th May 1968 that the blood on·
the clothes of the deceased, the blood on the bottom of the left shoe
:and the small speck of blood on the pillow belonged to the 'B' group
to which the blood of the deceased belonged.
 48
13. Two more experts were consulted on the "dynamics" of the·
matter. They are Shri K. P. Singh, Professor of Mathematics at the-
Banaras Hindu University and Shri Chellam. They opined that for a.
body to [Link] a running train and dash against the traction pole-
in a near vertical position, an outsi!ie push woul!l be necessary.
14. Evidence in regard to the op_inion of these experts was leci
in the Sessions trial. Before me the Jan Sangh led the evidence of
a Medico-legal Expert called Dr. R. N. Kataria, a well-known Sur-
geon of Delhi. His opinnion is almost diametrically opposite to that
of Dr. Bhushan Rao. Dr. Kataria says that he had seen the injuries
and had examined some of them on the evening of the 11th February
when the dead body of Shri Upadhyaya was brought to Delhi.
According to him,
(1) Death could not have been instantaneous and at least one·
hour must have elapsed between the time when the in-
juries were caused and the time when death occurred.
(2) That the injuries could not have been caused in the course-
of a single transaction.
(3) That some of the injuries could have been caused inside the·
compartment.
(4) That the right fore-arm was not held against gravity but
was resting on the junction-box, and
(5) That the contusions on the occipital region were ante-
mortem and not post-mortem.
15. The C.B.I. further examined Dr. Bhushan Rao before me in,
order to meet the points made out by Dr. Kataria.
16. The opinion given by this imposing array of experts would·
afford considerable assistance in ascertaining the cause of death and
the manner in which the murder of Shri Upadhyaya was committed.
 PART ID
(Chapters VIll to IX)

=·

49
 CHAI:''.!.'ER VIII

SESSIONS TRIAL
1. Bharat Lal and Ram Awadh were tried by Shri Murli Dhar, the
learned Special Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Sessions trial No. 74 of
1968. They were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the indiim Penal Code for causing the death of Shri Upadhyaya in
pursuance of their common intention. They were also charged under
Sections 379 and 382 of the Penal Code for committing theft of Shri
Upadhyaya's belonging and for committing theft after making pre-
parations for causing death in order to the committing of the theft.
2. The defence of the accused was one of outright denial. They
denied that, as alleged by the prosecution, they boarded the Sealdah
Express at Kashi, that they pushed Shri Upadhayaya from the train,
that they committed theft of his articles or that any of the articles
were given or sold by them to Lalta Kalwar, Moti, Bhallu, Abdul
Aziz, Munn1 and Indo. They denied their previous association. They
contended that the Police had made scape-goats of them-as they were
habitual thieves. Bharat denied that he had made extra-judicial
confessions to Munni, Dwarika or Parasnath Srivastava.
3. The prosecution examined 128 witnesses in the Sessions Court.
Five witnesses, namely, B. D. Kamal the Conductor-Guard, Nagesh-
war Singh the Number-Taker at the Mughalsarai Railway Station,
Shri Nanaji Deshmukh who was then the All-India Secre-
tary of the Jan Sangh, Dwarika the co-prisoner to whom Bharat
was alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession and Mati Baha-
dur the night-watchman at Mughalsarai Bazar were examnied as
Court witnesses. The prosecution tendered 299 exhibits while 94
-exhibits were tendered by the Defence. 18 documents were taken
on the record as Court exhibits.

4. The learned Judge divided the witnesses in sixteen groups. I

would like to re-formulate the groups and mention the more import-
ant witnesses examined in the Sessions Court.

(i) Witnesses regarding fina1isation of Shri Upadhayaya's

Programme.
(1) Ashwini Kumar P.W. 75, (2) Harischandra P.W. 23 and (3)
Shri Nanaji Deshmukh C.W. 3.

(ii) Departure from Lucknow, the articles taken by Bhri

Upadhyaya on the journey and his personal habits.
(1) Smt. Sarla Rani P.W. 22, (2) Harischandra P.W. 23, (3) Smt.
'Lata Khanna P.W. 76 and (4) Shri Nanaji Deshmukh C.W. 3.
51
 52
(iii) Co-travellers of Shri Upadhyaya.
(1) Shri Gauri Shankar Rai P.W. 28, (2) Subedar Sidh Singh.
P.W. 29 and (3) M. P. Singh P.W. 31.

(iv) Other witnesses regarding journey from Lucknow to

Varanasi.
(1) B. D. Kamal C.W. 1, (2) K. L. Shukla P.W. 27, (3) Padam.
Singh P.W. 90 and (4) Major Surendra Mohan Sharma P.W. 91.

(v) Discovery of the body.

(1) Drigpal P.W. 4, (2) Kishori Misra P.W. 5, (3) Abdul Gafoor·
P.W. 6, (4) Haradwar P.W. 7, (5) Leverman Ramdas P.W. 8, (6) B ..
N. Prasad P.W. 9 and (7) Nageshwar Singh C.W. 2.
(vi) Police Officers who were the first to know of the occurrence.
(1) Sachchulal P.W. 11, (2) Ram Prasad P.W. 12, (3) Zahoor P.W.
14, (4) S. I. Jagannath Singh P.W. 18 and (5) S. I. Fateh Bahadur-
Singh P.W. 118.

(vii) Indentity of the body.

Vishwanath Prasad Agarwal P.W. 16.
(viii) Recoveries and seizures.
(1) Abdul Aziz P.W. 43, (2) Bhallu P.W. 44, (3) Moti P.W. 45, (4):
Manik P.W. 97, (5) Munni P.W. 98, (6) Radhey Shyam P.W. 99 and.
(7) Indo P.W. 50.

(ix) Extra-judicial confessions.

(1) Parasnath Srivastava P.W. 58, (2) Munni P.W. 98 and (3)·
Dwarika c.w. 4.
(x) Witnesses regarding the journey from Mughalsarai to
Howrah.
(1) Kalika Prasad Safaiwalla P.W. 128, (2) Bhola Bharati P.W.
38, (3) S. R. Kundu P.W. 36 and (4) VajayDeo P.W. 37.
(xi) Medical evidence and Expert witnesses.

(1) Dr. B. R. Chakravarty P.W. 13, (2) Dr. S. M. Patankar P.W.

33, (3) Dr. Bhushan Rao P.W. 32, (4) Dr. S. N. Garg P.W. 21 (5)
Shri Bhattacharya P.W. 19, (6) Dr. S. Chowdhary P.W. 72, (7) 'Shri
T. N. Majumdar P.W. 81, (8) Dr. N. Das P.W. 74, (9) Dr. D. N •.
Chellam P.W. 24 and (10) Dr. K. P. Singh P.W. 30.

(xii) Investigating Officers.

(1) S. I. Fateh Bahadur Singh P.W. 118, (2) S. I. Jagannath Singh.
P.W. 18, (3) D. S. Tewari P.W..:.123, (4) Inspector Baijnath Singh.
 53
P.W. 124, (5) D.S.P. Baijal P.W. 127, .(6) D.S.P. Kapoor P.W. 115,
(7) D.S.P. Badri Sharma P.W. 122 and (8) Inspector Puri P.W. 121.

5. The more important documents produced in the Sessions Court.

are listed in Annexure III to this report.

6. The findings of the learned Judge can be briefly summarised as

follows:
(1) That Major S. M. Sharma travelled by the Sealdah Express
but he travelled by the through First Class bogie of which Padam
Singh was the Coach-Attendant and not by the F.C.T. bogie by which
Shri Upalhyaya was travelling.

(lA) The booking in the name of "Major S. L. Sharma" was not

in any way a part of a conspiracy to commit the murder of Shri Upa-
dhyaya. The seat was wrongly reserved in the name of "Major S.
L. Sharma", though Major Surendra Mohan Sharma had told Naik
Har Govind Pandey, R. T. O's Clerk at Lucknow, to book the seat in
the name of "MajorS. M. Sharma". MajorS. M. Sharma had nothing
to do with the death of Shri Upadhyaya. (Paragraph 66 to 68 of the
Judgment).
(2) The evidence of B. D. Kamal, the Conductor-Guard that he·
had checked the passengers travelling in the First Class Compart-
ment of the F. C. T. bogie at Lucknow and that a person in civilian
clothes, who was standing in the 'C' Cabin, had confirmed that he
was Major Sharma really means that Kamal assumed that either Shri
Gauri Shankar Rai or Subedar Sidh Singh was the passenger in
whose name the particular reservation stood. "After all if there was
a man who intended to use the reservation at some point en route,
but had no mind to travel on the berth from Lucknow, he is unlikely
to have invited attention to himself by standing in a dark cabin and
admitting that he was Major S. L. Sharma." (Paragraphs 62 to 64).
(3) The evidence of Kanhaiya Lal Shukla, Secretary to the Raja
of Jaunpur, shows that Shri Upadhyaya was alive till Jaunpur.
(Paragraph 65).
(4) Kamal's version_ regarding the presence of a stranger in the
corridor of the First Class <;:ompartment of the F. C. T. bogie at Vara-
nasi, is consistent both with the stranger being Shri Upadhyaya him-
self and with the stranger being a clever imposter who had been
shadowing the compartment since Shahganj. Kamal had however
neither identified the stranger nor had he given an adequate descrip-
tion for identifying the stranger. Kamal's evidence did not therefore
prove that the stranger in the corridor was Shri Upadhyaya. On the
other hand, M. P. Singh's version was inconsistent with the stranger
being Shri Upadhyaya. Therefore, the evidence did not prove that
Shri Upadhyaya was alive at Varanasi. (Paragraphs 71·-to 73).
(4A) However, ." ...... this finding does not nessarily imply that
there was a stranger in the compartment at Varanasi. All that can
be said is that on the material on record there is fair likelihood of
 54
this being so" -and therefore, .one could. only say that "it is not po~iti­
vely proved that Shri Upadhyaya was alive.at_Yar~asj.. "E'urth~r,
a reasonable doubt arises that there was an urudentified stranger m
the eompartmentatVaranasi and [Link] of the 'A! side lavatpry,
door was also suspicious." (Paragraph: 74).
(5) It was quite possible .for a.n outsider,_ who [Link] that Shri
Gauri Shankar Rai had dettamed at ShahganJ, to get mto .the com-
partment at Shahganj, Jaunpur or Zafarabad and remain in the com-
partment till the train reached Varanasi. Such a person could have
avoided detection at Jaunpur by concealing himself in the dark 'C'
Cabin or in one of the two lavatories. (Paragraph 73).
(6) The evidence of Lalu, Nanhku and Gur Prasad could not be
relied upon for the purpose of holding that Bharat and Ram Awadh
were at the Kashi Railway Station on the night of the occurrence.
There was therefore no evidence to prove the presence of the accused
at the Kashi Railway Station on the night between the lOth and 11th
of February 1968. (Paragraphs 76 to 136).

(7) The prosecution version that the two accused had boarded the
train at Kashi could not however be discarded for the mere reason
that no one could have had an opportunity to enter the compartment.
Railway thieves would know how to open a compartment which is
bolted from inside. In the alternative, the door by which K. L.
Shukla left the compartment at Jaunpur after seeing Shri Upadhyaya,
or the door by which Kamal left the compartment at Varanasi, might
have been left open. Perhaps, even the door by which Shri Gauri
Shankar Rai left the compartment at Shahganj may have continued
unbolted from inside. (Paragraph 75).
'(8) Though Shri Upadhyaya's bedding was removed from the 'B'
Cabin by a person in the presence of M. P. Singh, there was no evi-
dence to show that Bharat was the person who had removed the bed-
ding. M. P. Singh had failed to identify Bharat in the identification
parade held on 11th March 1968. (Paragraphs 87 to 90).
'(9) There was clear evidence to show that Bharat and Ram
Awadh were jail-birds and were friendly with each other. · (Para-
graphs 53 to 56).

(10) There was equally clear evidence to establish Ram Awadli's

[Link] intimacy with. Lalta Kalwar.. The evidence showed
that the former used to live \\ith the latter.· (Paragraphs 92 to 93).

(11) No reliance could be placed on Sharada and Bhaiya Lal the

rickshaw-pullers, for their statements were recorded for the first tune
on the 6th and 8th April 1968 respectively. The late emergence of
these witnesses without a satisfactory explanation made their evi-
dence SlJ,'ipect. It could not, therefore, be concluded that Bharat and
Ram Awad~ ha~ transpor::ed the bedding of Shri Upadhyaya from
~ughalsara1 Ra1lw:ay Stat1on to :talta Kalwar's house, in Sharada's
nckshaw. The eVldence of Mah Bahadur did not also prove that
fact. (Paragraphs 94 to 106). ·
 :55
(12) The bedding· and the other. articles; like Chaqdar, Kambar.
Gadda, Razai and the pillow, were recovered from the house of Lalt.a
Kalwar on the night between the 16th and 17th February 1968. On
the 17th, Lalta Kalwar produced a towel and a:pillow cover. These
articles were identified by Smt. Lata Khanna, Smt. Sarala Rani and
Shri Nanaji Deshmukh as' belonging to Shri Upadhyaya. (The evi-
dence in regard to the recoveries of these articles went unchallenged
in the Sessions Court.) (Paragraphs 107 to 109).
(13) The evidence of Abdul Aziz, Bhallu and Moti shows that
Bharat had sold articles like a woollen coat, a woollen Kurta and a
woollen muffler to them on or about the 11th February. Shri UPa-
dhyaya was carrying these articles [Link] him when he left Lucknow
on the lOth evening by the Sealdah Express. (Paragraphs 116 to 123).
(14) The evidence of Radhey, Munni and Mahik shows that the
canvas bag, a cap, a chappal, a tooth-brush and tooth-powder were
passed on by Bharat to Munni. These articles, with the exception
of the canvas bag, were identified as belonging to Shri Upadhyaya.
(Paragraphs 124 to 134).
(15) The evidence of Indo shows that Bharat had given a pair
of spectacles to her. The spectacles were identified as belonging to
Shri Upadhyaya. (Paragraphs 135 to 137).
(16) Nanaji Deshmukh's evidence that Shri Upadhyaya used to
carry two chaddars in the bedding could not be accepted as proof of
the fact that one of the chaddars was missing. Neither Smt. Lata
Khanna nor Smt. Sarala Rani, who had given a list of the articles
taken by Shri Upadhyaya on the particular journey, had mentioned
that there were. two chaddars in the bedding. One chaddar was re-
covered from Lalta Kalwar~s house and that was the only: chaddar
contained in the bedding. (Paragraph 164).
(17) Parasnath Srivastava, the Assistant Jailor, could not be re-
garded as a dependable or truthful witness. His evidence therefore
could not be accepted to show that Bharat had made on extra-judi-
cial confession to him on the 25th of March 1968. That confession is
"tailored to suit the prosecution version". '(Paragraphs 17(} to 172
and 176 to 182).
'(17A) The fact that the prosecution did not rely on the extra-
judicial confession alleged to have been made by Bharat to Dwarika,
a co-prisoner, on the 11th of March 1968 complicated the issue. The
confession could not be discarded on the ground that it was not made
at all but it was not safe to rely on the confession as it was not cor-
roborated. The confession, being exculpatory, could ·not be used
against Ram Awadh in any event. (Paragraphs 173 to 175 and 183 to
186).
(17B) The extra-judicial confession made by Bharat to l\'Iunni
on or about the 11th of February is not established on the evidence.
Munni had disclosed as late as the 11th of March that the particular
confession was made to her by Bharat. · However; the evidence of
Munni and Radhey could be accepted to· the extent to which they
said that while passing on the articles Bharat had stated that he
 56
had stolen the articles from a Calcutta bound train. (Paragraphs
187 to 190).
(18) Drigpal, Kishori Misra, Abdlll Gafoor, Lever_man Ra~das
.and B. N. Prasad had made different statements at different times
and therefore it could not be held on the basis of their evidence that
the dead body was seen first during the first stage of the shunting,
.at about 2.20 A.M. "The utmost that can be said is," that the dead
body was discovered "some time between 2.20 and 2.50 and either
during the first step or during the fourth or 5th step'' of shunting.
[(Paragraphs 138 to 140).
(19) Regarding the position in which the body was found, " ....
·there was no way of undoing the initial bungling by Railway staff
.and Fateh Bahadur Singh who failed to keep an accurate and precise
·record of the condition of the body". (Paragraph 165).
(19A) The fact that the body was seen lying straight on its back
with the legs fully stretched and the fact that the face was covered
by a Chaddar created "a very strong doubt that the body had been
tampered with before discovery and was not in a condition which
. ·could have come about naturally following the alleged impact
[Link] the pole". (Paragraph 144).
(19B) " .... Considered in isolation, the fact that the body had
been interfered with would undoubtedly open" several theoretical
:possibilities, but it was unlikely that after the body was ejected from
the running train, it was brought from somewhere else and placed
near the traction pole for the purpose of confounding the investiga-
tion. The proper inference therefore is that the body was ejected
from the train near the traction pole "and the intereference was
··Of a limited kind, viz., straightening up of the body and covering the
face with a Chaddar.'' (Paragraph 145).

(20) The five rupee note must have been held in a firm grip.
·Constable Ram Prasad had seen the body in a cursory fashion in
the light of match sticks and one could not take his evidence too
"literally when he says that the currency note could have been taken
·out easily from the right hand of the deceased. The evidence of
·s.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh showed that the currency note could not
be removed easily. Dr. Bhushan Rao's evidence establishes that
it was a case of cadaveric rigidity and therefore, the note must have
'been held firmly in the right hand at the moment of death. {Para-
:graph 146).

(20A) The investigating officers were questioned specifically as to

-why the deceased could have been carrying the five rupee note at
-the particular time, but they had to admit that during the course
'()f investigation no particular theory came to light. "That this pro-
minent point remained, or could be left, unsolved is rather intri-
·guing." (Paragraph 191).

(20B) The suggestion made on behalf of the prosecution that the

·deceased had taken out the note for buying something or perhaps for
$ending a. telegram to Patna was a "purely speculative hypothesis".
 57
Considering the nature and habits oj Shri Upadhyaya, this suggestion
was "not at- all plausible". (Paragraph 191).
"(21) As regards the injuries, it was unfortunate that during the
autopsy "precise and detailed data regarding shape and locations of
the injuries" was not collected. It was surprising that neither Dr.
Patankar nor any other authorities thought of having all the injuries
photographed in details. .(Paragraph 165).
(21A) The injuries or, at any rate, some of them were caused by
.a fall from the moving train involving a violent impact with the
-tration pole. (Paragraph 157).
(21B) The fracture of as many as 7 ribs and the indirect bilateral
iractures of both the leg bones. strongly suggest that the cause of
the injuries was a fall from the train. (Paragraph 158).
(21C) The relatively low shunting speed of 3 to 4 miles per hour
-would militate against the injuries having been caused during the
-course of shunting (Paragraph 158).
(21D) The leg fractures above the ankle joints involving inverted
position of the right leg and everted position of the left leg coupled
with the abrasions on the corresponding side of the shoes which
contained ballast particles and further coupled with the absence of
any direct external injuries would show clearly that the leg fractures
were caused by a fall from the train. (Paragraph 158).
(21E) The contusions on the back which are in the nature of
"imprint abrasions" and the leg fractures show that the deceased fell
from a running train involving an impact of the back with a broad
object having a straight edge. (Paragraph 158).
(21F) "The crucial point" in favour of the conclusion that the
jnjuries were caused by an impact with the pole is the absence of
any plausible alternative explanation of injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 7.
"The Defence itself was unable to suggest how and with what weapon
these injuries could be caused inside the bogie. Excluding some of
the other possible sources of these injuries, the only hypothesis
left in the field is that the deceased struck against the traction pole
after being thrown out from the running train, "with the rider that
this finding is in the zone of probabilities only and cannot have the
degree of certitude required for proof in a criminal case. The reason
for this absence of certitude is the absence of precise and adequate
medico-legal and forensic data which would lead to clear-cut and
firm conclusions." (Paragraph 158) .

(21G) As regards the head injury, notwithstanding the opinion of

:Dr. Bhushan Rao, it is difficult to hold that the head injury could not
nave been caused inside the compartment. The mention of a rod-
lllow in the extra-judicial confession deposed to by Dwarika and _in
:Bharat's confessional statement to the Police dated the 7th of March
1968 furnish a tangible basis for supposing that the head injury was
·caused in the compartment. The up-lifted posture of the right hand
:firmly gripping the note "may well have been a defensive posture to
 58
ward off a coming blow on the·right of. the head" •. It is not possible
to be dogmatic that the back injuries. could not have been caused
within a few minutes of the death occurring as a result of the head
injury. . "I am, therefore, tinable to exclude the likelihood of ins-
tantaneous death resulting from the head injury inside the train and
the impact with the traction pole occurring later." Books on Medical
Jurisprudence show that, howsoever serious 'the head injuries may
be, they are not instantaneously fatal and in many cases volitional
acts are possible after serious head injuries. (Paragraph 161).
(21H) The absence of blood in the compartment cannot be
regarded as conclusive on the question whether the head injury
could have been caused inside the compartment. The bogie went as
far as Calcutta before it was sealed and it was cleaned up at a
number of places. Blood-stains might have been wiped .or washed in
that process. (Paragraph 163).
(211) The blood-stain on the pillow-case, the blood-stains on the
instep of the left shoe and the extensively washed stains, though not
proved to be of blood, on the pillow cover and the towel, point in the
direction of some injury having been caused inside the compartment.
Lalta Kalwar showed an ''intriguing urgency" to have the pillow
cover and the towel washed. This arouses one's "suspicion and
curiosity", because Shri Upadhyaya could not have carried such
dirty clothes with him. However, one has at the same time to con-
cede the possibility that the origin of blood, if any, in the compart-
ment may be unconnected with injury No. 1. (Paragraph 163).
(21J) ". . . . . . the net result of eJg>ert testimony regarding the
manner and cause of death is that it shows a high degree of prob-
ability that the occurrence involved the pushing of the victim from
the running train in the vicinity of the traction pole and a fall in-
volving impact of his back with the pole resulting in the back and
leg injuries. It is, however, not possible to say that the head injury
was also .caused by the traction pole impact." (Paragraph 165).
(22) There are several disturbing features of the case and many
flaws in the investigation:
(a) There was no adequate explanation regarding M. P.
Singh's evidence about the presence of a stranger in the
compartment at Varanasi,
(b) No explanation was also offered as to why the deceased.
was carrying the five rupee note at the particular time,
(c) It was not shown how the garments on the person of the
deceased came to be stained in the shoulder region,
(d) It is difficult to understand why, if thieves had committed
the murder, they waited for about 7 or 8 minutes after the
train reached the Mughalsarai Station, for removing the
bedding, and
(e) Lastly, why Lalta Kalwar had the stains on the pillow
cover and the towel washed from Mitia Dhobin so urgent-
ly also remained unexplained.
 59
"What is somewhat surprising is ~hat the prosecution has not even
suggested any cogent explanation on these points." (Paragraph 19).
(23) The Railway Authorities and the Government Railway
Police were negligent and callous in the early stages of the incident.
B. N. Prasad, the Assistant Station Master, did not go to the body
immediately, which is ''simply atrocious". S. I. Fateh Bahadur
Singh was obviously negligent in attending to the dead body. "The
enormity of his careless approach is shown by the fact that even
after medical examination at 6·35 admittedly no attempt was made
till about 8 ·45 A.M••••••• to locate the identity of the deceased .... "
His other fault lay in disturbing the body before taking a photo-
graph. (Paragraph 194).
(24) There is no substance in the allegation that Shri Upadhyaya
was murdered because some political rivals wanted to seize his files
ip. which he is said to have been keeping information regarding anti-
national activities. The allegation that the files contained such in-
formation was "too nebulous". (Paragraph 192).
(24A) There is equally no substance in the contention that · the
murder of Shri Upadhyaya had a communal aspect. The sixteen
letters containing threats which were produced by Shri Nanaji Desh-
mukh were mere "fUlmination of some perverse and mischievous
individual hostile to R.S.S. and Jan Sangh. Crackpots and psychotics
who indulge in threatening, abusive and obscene letters are a
common feature .... I am unable to regard the failure of the investi-
gating agency to attach much importance to these letters ...... as a
short-coming". (Paragraph 192).
(25) There was no warrant for the criticism made by the defence
that the Investigating Agency "deliperately and purposely avoided
the political origin of the crime, set. up a false theory of a chance
murder by thieves and pinned the same on two scapegoats". (Para-
graph 194).
(25A) " .... unexplained dealings with the belongings of the de-
ceased can be nothing more than a ground for suspicion, but the law
is clear that suspicion is not proof .... ". (Paragraph 193).
(25B) " .... The prosecution has not been able to prove this· case
mainly because of paucity of evidence. There have also been defi-
ciencies here and there during the investigation. . . . But a story
supported. by meagre or poor legal evidence and a false story are
two different things. I should like ~o state pointedly that on the
material before me I have not found any basis for suspecting that the
investigating agency did not bonafide believe the accused to be the
culprits or that it has deliberately tried to prop up a false story or
intentionally avoided the theory of political murder." (Paragraph
194).
(25C) However, "the [Link] murder not having been proved
against the accused, the problem of truth about the murder still
remains". But "the failure of the charge regarding murder in this
case does not in any sense imply that the theory of the accused
5-167 H.A.
 60
having been the killers is false or that it was a political crime .... the
possibility of the prosecution story being actually substantially true
remains quite real". (Paragraph 195).
7. Consistently with these findings, the .learned Sessions Judge,
by his judgment of the 9th June 1969, acquitted Ram Awadh of all
the charges. Bharat was also acquitted of the charges levelled
against him, except the one under Section 379 of the Penal Code.
The acquittal in favour of Ram Awadh has become final as it was
not challenged, but Bharat's appeal against his conviction for theft
is pending in the High Court of Allahabad.
 CHAPTER lX
THE SHAPE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
1. In pursuance of a notification issued by the Commission calling
for sworn information, 58 affidavits were filed before me in support
of the case of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh. The Central Bureau of In-
vestigation filed one affidavit which has been sworn by D.S.P. Baijal,
who was the Chief Investigating Officer.
2. The Jan Sangh examined 51 witnesses before me, 43 being from
out of those who had filed affidavits. The remaining 8 had not filed
any affidavit before me. The C.B.I. examined 23 witnesses before
me. The Jan Sangh has filed 32 documents while the C.B.I. has
filed 72 documents before me. They have been duly exhibited.
3. The case of the Jan Sangh is:
(a) That Shri Upadhyaya was murdered for political reasons.
It is alleged that l:je used to collect information regarding
anti-national activities and he used to keep that informa-
tion in a file and some diaries. The fact that the file and
the diaries have not been traced is said to support the
case that Shri Upadhyaya was not murdered by mere
thieves.
(b) That certain Muslim Organisations had held Shri Upadh-
yaya responsible for the communal riots !It Meerut. It was
openly declared that Jan Sangh leaders had to be elimi-
nated. Some Communists, it is said, were willing to lend
a helping hand to the communalists.
(c) That ever since the Calicut Session, which was held in
December 1967, Shri Upadhyaya was being shadowed by
suspicious characters. Ultimately. the Communists and
communalists joined hands and took the help of Major
Surendra Mohan Sharma for perpetrating the murder of
Shri Upadhyaya. Major Sharma is the son-in-law of
V. N. Sharma who in turn is said to be closely connected
with Dr. Faridi, the President of "Majlis Mushawarat".
(dJ That Major Sharma travelled by the I Class compartment
of the F.C.T. bogie from Lucknow so that he could wait
for an opportune moment to execute the conspiracy. At
the other end, namely, at Mughalsarai, the Communists
had taken the necessary steps to further the object of the
conspiracy. It was as a part of this scheme that Prabh11.
Singh Bhati of the G.R.P. Mughalsarai, had gone on leave
on the lOth afternoon, feigning sickness.
(e) That known communists, like Prabhu Singh Bhati, Ram-
, das the Ticket Collector, :Pranav Kumar alias Dada Ghosh,
61
 62
Satyanarayan Tiwari, Munne Lal Gupta and Dr. Shiv~
tahal Mehta were moving about in a suspicious manner:-
round about the time of the murder.
(f) That Shri Upadhyaya was murdered in the running train
after the train had left Zafarabad at 12·41 A.M. Strange,
sounds coming from the I Class compartment were heard.
by persons travelling in the Third Class compartment of
the F.C.T. bogie after the train had left Zafarabad.
(g) That the deceased must have been struck on the right-
side of his head while entering the 'B' Cabin with the
right side towards the corridor. Thereafter he must have
been thrown on the berth, with some one sitting on his
chest and some one on his legs.
(h) That Shri Upadhyaya must have been then carried
to the lavatory near the 'A' Cabin and held in a position
in which the blood from injury No. 1 would fall directly
on his right shoulder.
(i) That the grey chaddar which Shri Upadhyaya was carrying
could not be recovered by the Police because the murderers
might have destroyed it as it was blood-stained. The
pillow-cover and the towel were produced by Lalta Kalwar
on the 17th February 1968 but the stains were washed.
(j) That the blood-stains in the I Class compartment must
have been washed by the conspirators; or else the stains
might have got washed or wiped out in the normal course
when the bogie might have been cleaned or washed after
Mughalsarai.
(k) That when the train reached Varanasi, the deceased must
have been still in the 'A' Cabin side lavatory. That is why
M. P. Singh found that he could not open it. While going:
to the 'C' cabin side lavatory, M. P. Singh found a clean-
shaven stranger · in the corridor near the 'B' Cabin and.
that stranger could only be ''Major Sharma".
(1) That, as the murder was preplanned, the news of Shri'
Upadhyaya's death had spread in Varanasi even before·
the dead body was identified by Vishwanath Prasad.
Agarwal. The conspirators gloated over their success and
spread the news immediately on coming to know that the·
purpose of the conspiracy was fulfilled.
(m) That when the suspicion fell on Communists, some of
them like Dr. Shivtahal Mehta, Munnelal Gupta anci
Satyanarayan Tiwari absconded.
(n) That the murder was committed in the running train and
the dead body was subsequently placed near the traction
pole in order to simulate an accident. That is why the
body was discovered by members of the shunting team not
 63
at the ~omm~ncement of the shunting; .as stafed by . them
in the Sessions Court, but at the end of the first stage of
shunting; that is, at about 2·50 A.M. as stated by them on
12th February before the tr.P. Police, and
(o) That the C.B.I. manipulated the discovery of articles
belonging to Shri -Upadhyaya and ·concocted ·evidence to
show that the recoveries were made from Lalta Kalwar
and others.· The bedding, it is alleged, was recovered from
a pit near the Railway Club and not from the house of
Lalta Kalwar. By resorting to this expedient, the C.B.I.
could make scapegoats of two notorious railway thieves,
Bharat and Ram Awadh.

4. The C.B.I. stuck to the case made out by them in the Sessions
Court. They reiterated that the murder was committed by the two
accused and that. it is impossible that it was committed for political
reasons. The C.B.I. relied upon the recoveries and seizures of several
articles belonging to Shri Upadhyaya in support of their case that
be was done to death by common thieves.

5. The witnesses examined by the Jan Sangh may be grouped as

:follows:
(i) Witnesses examined to show that the murder was politically
motivated:
(a) (1) Shri Nanaji [Link] (Jan ) AccOrding to them, Shri Upadhyaya use i
Sangh Witness No. 51) and to collect information against anti-
nationals and_ keep that inforii13tiOn in a
(2) KailashpatiMisra (JS. W. 42)

,(b) (1) MaheshDatta(JS. V\'· 46) and

1 file or a diary.

They say that in certain ll\eetings, it was

·openly stated that Shri . Upadhyaya
(2) ShivarajBahadur(JS. W. 30) was responsible fOr ·the coll\munal
riots at Meerut and therefOre it was ne-
cessary to elill\inate Jan Sangh leaders.
(c) SardarJagjitsingh(JS. W. 31) He says that V. N. ShariiUI, the father-in-
law of Major S.M. ShariiUI and Dr.
Faridi are friends.
(tf) (1) Amarchand Shubh(JS. W. 45)
(2)J.T. Wadhwani(JS. W.48)
1They say that unknown persons were
shadOWing Shri Upadhyay ftom the
22nd Decell\ber 1967 when: the Cslicut
Session was held till the 10th of
(3) V. J. Bhagwat(J.S. W. 49) February 1968.
(4) Raj veer Sinha (JS. W. 26)
(S) Kartar Singh Lalchandra (JS. W.
44)
(6) Gyan Chand Agarwal (JS. W.
16)
(7)Ra!I\akantShukla(JS. W. 17)
(8) RaviShankarTrivedi(JS. W. 22)
and
,(9) Uma Shankar CJS.W. 2ol
 64
(e) (I) RamMurat(JS. W. 43) They describe the suspicious movements=
(2) Jhamar Singh (JS. W. 25j
(3) Trlveni Prasad (JS .W IS) an~
1
Jt
of Ramdas the Ticket COllectOr, Munne-
lal Gupta. Prabhu Singh Bhati, Pranav-
Kumar G~h, Satyanarayan Tewari.
and Dr. [Link].
(4) RameshSingh·(JS. w:rS)
f) Pratap Rai (JS. W. 27)
1 He. says that Prabhu Singh Bhati, while
being posted at Bareilly, used to abuse
Shri Upadhyaya particularly and the Jan

J. Sangh generally and was friendly with.

the Left Com,[Link].
(g) . (I) Daya Bahen (JS. W. 4) and
(2) Shriprakash as. W. S) lt
Tbey say that Ramdas the Ticket Collector
and Pranav Kumar Ghosh had
left Lucknow by the Punjab Mail on
J the roth afternoon.

(h) Dayaram Sinha (JS. W. 32) He says that Dr. Shivtahal Mehta. was not:
to be seen anywhere fbr over a m,onth after
} the 11\Urder of Shri Upadhyaya.
(i) ShriNanajiDes!unukh as. W. He. hild handed over a statell\ent to Shri
John Lobo during the course of investi-
SI)
gation. That was a· statement
made by one Prabhu Dayal saying:
that at about s A.M. on the xth Feb-
ruary I968 he came to know frOm S.N•.
Tewari the Assistant Train Examiner
at Akbarpur that Pandit Deen Dayal'
was murdered.

(ii) (I) ShriRam Prakash, the then Depu-

tyChiefMinister, U.P.(JS. W.
37) and
t They say that M.P. Singh was introduced'..
to Shri Upadhyay on the platfOrll\ of the
Lucknow Railway Station,
(2) Shri Pit3Illbardas, the Vice-Presi-
dent ofthe Jan Sangh (J.S. W. 2I)
J
(iis)(a) (I) R3Illa Shankar (J.S. W. 10) and They say that while travelling by the III'

(2)R3Illeshchandra cJS. W. ix)

lJ Class cOil\partti:\ent of the F.C.T. bogie
they heard strange noises cOrning·
from the I Class cOil\partll\ent, after
Sealdah Express had left Zafarabad.
(b) Ramacbarya Pandey He says that Rarna Shankar and Ramesh-
} chandra had disclosed that fact to
him.
(iu) (I) Devdatta Tiwari(J.S. W. I) }They say that the stranger in the I Class
· compartment at Varanasi was not Shr~
(2) Madan LalBajpai(J.S. W. 35) Upadhyaya.
and
(3) Laxrni Shankar Shukla (J.S. W.
36)
(u) Prabhu Narayan Upadhyaya (JS. ') He says that he saw Shri Gauri Shanka.,-
w. 33)

jJ
Rai getting down at Buxar frOm the.
Toofiln Mail on the 11\0rning of the·
nth.
(us) (I)VedPrakashAgarwal(JS. W.28) They say thar Sidh Singh get down.
and at Faizabad not from he F.C.T
bOgie but li<li1l another bogie. r
(2) RajNarayanAgarwai(JS, W.
29)
 65
(vji)(I)Chhote Lal(JS W. 2.) l They say that whet! the dead body was
(2.) ~~~anarayan Prasad (J.S. W. 3) J. ~.first, its head was on the iunction.
(3) L&ciiliu Ram (js. w. sj
(fliia) (I) Sukhanandan Prasad (JS. W, 39). ') 'J;'hey say [Link] the five rUPee !late: was held

1
and by the deceased loosely and not in a firm
- grip.
(2.) Raghubar Prasad (J$. W. 40)

(iJ<) Babban Singh (JS. W. I2) 1 He says that he and Vishwanath Pra,pd
.Agarwal inspected the area near abOUt
the traction pole but could not find
blood-marks anywhere.
(x) (I)Kashinath Pandey(JS. W.23)
and { [Link] say that the identity of the dead body
was known ev~ _befOre _Vishwanath
Prasad Agarwal had identified it.
(2) Bholanath Gupta (JS. w. i4)" J
(xi) (I) Shri Ram Prakssh, the then1 They say that three, and [Link] two, phcto-
Deputy Chief Minister, U. P. graphs of the injuries were taken befOre
(JS. w. 37) the commencement Of the post-m.•rtem
.. . ·. . ,
(2) Dr. M, M. Joshi ([Link]) arid
examination.
J
(3) Shri Ramacharya Pandey
'(JS. [Link])
(~ii) (I) Bishambar Nath (JS.W.I3) • I
. . . .,: . I They say that Guards were posted at
(2) Pan-chanan Srivastava (JS.W.i4)
and
(3) Laxman Singh Chturvedi ·
J I M.P. Singh's house in Paper Mill
Colony, Lucknow, after the 28th Feb-
ruary i968.
os.w....)
(xiii) Ramaciharya Pandey [Link]) ~ He_ has preduced a penonal diary (Ex. 40)
( containing a record Ofthe data collected
by him. between the 6th February and

(xiv) Dr. R. N. Kataria (JS.W.47)

I·1 roth March, 1968 regarding facts and
oirclUJIStaDces leading to the death of
Shri Upadhyaya.
He . haS. given hiS opihicn regardir g the
injuries on the person of Shri Upadhyaya,
his Opinion being contrary tO that Of
and J Dr, Bhushan Rao.
· ·· 1
(xv) (I) Kalpanatn Gupta (JS.W.38) '!nd "l They
say tnat tne l-'.H•f: Officers tortur<d
several persons dunng the course Of
(2) Lalta Vaishya @ Lalta Kalwar. · . investigation.
. (JS.W.4I) ,
6. The witnesses examined by the Central Bureau of Irivestie:ation
may be grouped
. •
as
'-
fol,Iows:
• - J .
. They have given evidence in rebuttal of

lt
(a) (l)R, :P. Shukla (C.B.I, Witness·.
No.2). the allegation that Shri Upadhyaya's
. [Link] were .. being .-watched by
(2) AII!Brnath HanUIIIBD Prasad some persons.
(CBI.W.3).
(3) P, L. Babbar (CBl.W.4) an<\
(4) G. J. Bijani (CBI.W.6) II
 -
66
(ii) (t) Radhey ShyaDI Sharma. S.S.P. . }They have giveli evidence. in rebuttal Of
. (CBI.W.23) and . the allegation that certain information
was· furnished to them during the
(2) Shri John Lobo, D.I.G., course of investigation hich was either
w.

not pursued or was. suppressed by

.
(CBI.W.21).
J then\.
(iii) (a) (r) Shaukat Ali (CBI. W.s) His. evidence show$ that frODI Ist February
till 10th February, no I Class ticket
was issued fer the journey ftODI Lucknow

(b) (I) D. P. Srivastava (CBI. W.7)

1
, 1 He
to Buxar, so that Shri Gauri Shankar
Rai cOuld not have travelled frOm
Lucknow to Buxur.
says that Shri G. S. Rai got down at
Shahganj and travelled with hiD\ frOIJ\
j. Shahganj to Bal!ia.
(iv) (I) S. N. P. Sinha Additional S. P.,l-They refute the allegation that letters
Varanasi (CBI.'W.t7) and · centaining a certain type [Link]
were received by th<DI·
(2)Radhey Shy= Sharma, S.S.P., ]
Varanasi (CBI.W.23)

(v)(I) B. N. MehrOtra (CBI.W.t)and ')

· · } They say that no Guards were pOsted at
(2) Daljeet Singh Of the Arrned f the house of M. P. Singh.
Constabulary, U.P. (CBI.W.2o) J
(vi) (I) Kalika Prasad Tripathi(CBI.W •'l He rebuts the evidence led by the Jan
19). } Sangb in suppOrt of its case that the
news regarding the death Of Shri
Upadhyaya had spread even before the
dead body was identified by Vishwanath
Prasad Agarwal.
1
vi1) (t) Badri Sharma D.S.P., C.B.I.
(C.B.I.W.r6)
(2) Shri John Lobo, DIG, CBI.
I
They have given evidence to refute the
Jan Sangh casein regard totheAkbarpur
(CBI.W.2r) ] incident in which Prabhu Dayal and
. f. Sacyanarilyan Tewari bad figured.
(3) Baccha Rai, a Railway employee
(CBI.W.I3) and
I
(4) Barahu Singh, a Railway
ployee (CBI.W.I4)
ell\- I
'J
(viii) (I) M. A. Khan, InspectOr. C.B.I.
(CBI.W.9) I'l InP. hiss. Bhati.
repOrt Ex. 73 he had cleared Off

(ix) (I) K. B. Vishwanath Nair, a Tra- 'l He rebuts the evidence of Shri Nanaji
ffic Officer Of the I.A.C. }- Deshbrnukh that he had left Delhi for
(CBI.W.B) J BoDibay on the 9th February.
(x) (I) ODI Prakash Cbnatwal 01 [Link]- ] He was examined to shew that Shri Nanaji
"-OW Telephone Exchange Deshrnukh cOUld notnhave giv<n aLy
:cBI.W.r2) . · instructions on telephone to Shri
RamacharyaPandeyon the nth February
J to cOllect the relevant data ;n regard to
the death 'of Shri Upadhyaya.
(XI) (I)Dr. Shushan Rao ([Link]) • }He reiterated and amplified what he had
·

stated in the Sessions Court. ·

(xi•) (I) Dr. Shivtaha!Mehta ([Link])} He was specifically invcl~td by the Jan
Sangb witnesses as being cOncerned with
the murder Of Shri Upadhyaya. He
denieS the SeVeral allegatiOns made
against him.
 67
..(xii•) (I) Prabhu Singh Bhati of the }He, like Dr. Shivtahal Mehta, refUtes
C.R.P. Mughalsarai(CBI.W.t8) allegations of his invo!ve~nent in the
murfder of Shri U padhyaya.
•(xiv) (t) Jagdeesh Vasty (CBI.W.n) He prOduced a file regarding an inquiry
held into the c<>nduct of Dr. R. N.
} Kataria by the Irwin Hospital to which
he was attached as an Honorary.
and
·(xv)(t) M.P. Tandon, Deputy Regis- I HesaysthattheaflidavitOfDr.M.M. Joshi
trar, Allhabad High Court. } c<>uld not have been sWOrn on tst
(C.B.I. W.22) J February_. 1969.
7. On a request made by Counsel for the C.B.I., the evidence of
-n.I.G. John Lobo in regard to the two reports dated the 20th March
and the 29th April 1968 made by him to the Director, C.B.I., was
taken in camera.
8. It is on the basis of this evidence and the evidence led in the
Sessions Court that I have to ascertain the facts and circumstances
xelating to the death of Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya.
 PART IV

(Chapters X to XVI)
 CHAPTER X
THE MUCH-MALIGNED MAJOR
1. Major Surendra Mohan Sharma, 30, is a key figure in the-
controversy, because the allegation of the Jan Sangh is that either-
he or a person masquerading as Major Sharma travelled by the-
! Class compartment of the F.C.T. bogie and participated in the-
murder of Shri Upadhyaya. I will begin my assessment of the case-
with a consideration of this question.
2. In 1968, Major S. M. Sharma was the Commander of a Field_
Battery Regiment at Namkom, near Ranchi. On January 14, 1968,_
he proceeded on a month's leave. He obtained a First Class return
soldier's ticket (No. 06172) Ex-Namkom to Delhi on the basis of a
military warrant issued by his regiment. The issuance of the ticket
is proved by Julias Turkey, A.S.M. Namkom.
3. Major Sharma was married in Delhi on the 17th January to
the daughter of one V. N. Sharma who is the Branch Manager of·
'Cipla' Company, at Lucknow. The branch office is situated in the·
house of Dr. Faridi, President of an organisation called 'Majlis.
Mushawwarat'.
4. Major Sharma left Delhi on the 7th February and reached
Lucknow on• the 8th. He could have extended his stay at Lucknow ·
till the 11th for he had to join his regiment on the 14th but he-
decided to leave on the lOth.
5. He says that he phoned the R.T.O.'s Office on the lOth morning
for reservation by the Sealdah Express upto Gomoh, where one has-
to change for taking the connecting train to Ranchi. Though he was
assured that there would be no difficulty in getting. the reservation,
he phoned again at about 1.30 P.M. This time, Naik Har Govind-
Pandey of the R.T.O's Office told him after checking the Reservation
Register that the military quota was full but that he would try to.
get a reservation from the general quota. The military quota
consisted of 2 berths in the Train Service Coach. Pandey asked·
Major Sharma to contact him in the evening for confirmation of the·
reservation.
6. Pandey says that be then went to the Reservation Office and·
filled up a reservation slip for a berth from Lucknow to Gomoh.
The Reservation Clerk told him that no berth was available in the·
Gomoh bogie but that be could give a berth in the F.C.T. bogie as
far as Mugbalsarai. Pandey then prepared a fresh reservation slip
{Ka-71) in which he mentioned the rank of the passenger as "Mai.".
his hame as "S. L. Sharma", and his ticket number as "06171". The·
name should have been written as "S. M. Sharma" and the correct
number of the ticket was "06172". The ticket number was men-
tioned by Pandey in the column "Wa~rant/Ticket N:o.'', after striking
7r
 72
-eut the word "Warrant". The reservation slip was initialled b;y
J'andey, "for R.T.O.".
7. Dressed in civilian clothes, Majojr S. M. Sharma reached the
station about 15 minutes before the train was due to leave. He says
that he asked a Railway employee who was on the platform as to
where he could find his berth. The employee consulted a chart and
told him that a berth was reserved for him in the 'C' Cabin of
the F.C.T. bogie. Major Sharma however found that the name was
mentioned in the chart as "Maj. S. L. Sharma". His father-in-law
who along with others had come 'to see him off said that it might be
a spelling mistake. Major Sharma therefore compared the numbei
of the ticket but even that could not tally. He says that he, there-
fore, inquired if a berth was available elsewhere. On being told that
one was available in the Train Service Coach, he went to that coach
where Padam Singh, the Coach-Attendant, accommodated him in
the 'A' Cabin and noted his name in his reservation chart, Ka-177.
Padam Singh however mentioned the name as "Maj. S. N. Sharma".
8. Thus Major Surendra Mohan Sharma having with him ticket
No. 06172 was described by Naik Pandey as "Maj. S. L. Sharma"
having ticket No. 06171 and by Padam Singh as "Maj. S. N. Sharma".
·These mis-descriptions are the principal foundation of the argument
regarding the involvement of Major S. M. Sharma.
9. Major Sharma says that he travelled by the Train Service
Coach (No. 1730) as far as Gomoh and reached his regiment late on
the 11th. He left for regimental exercises on the 12th and returned
on the 28th. His statement was recorded by Inspector Jha of the
C.B.I. on the 3rd March at Ranchi.

10. Now the first question which arises on this evidence in whe-
ther Major S. M. Sharma travelled by the Sealdah Express on the
lOth February and if so, whether he travelled by the Train Service
Coach (No. 1730). Frankly, I am unable to see any good reason for
qisbelieving Major Sharma on any part of his narrative. lt is in-
disputable that he had taken a month's leave from the 14th January,
that he had obtained a return ticket (No. 06172) on a military
warrant, from Namkom to Delhi and that he got married on the
17th at Delhi. The fact that he trwelled by the Sealdah Express
by Coach No. 1730 is borne out by Padam Singh's reservation chart,
-though his name was wrongly shown therein as "Mai. S. N. Sharma".
[ have no qoubt that Padam Singh made an inadvertent error in
showing the name as "S. N. Sharma" instead: of showing it as "S. M.
Sharma". There is a close phonetic similarity between the letters
·'M' and 'N' and such errors are by no means uncommon. Conductors
and Coach-Attendants have to attend to a large number of requests
of a varied kind from a variety of persons. In the very nature of
things they have but a short time within which to solve the difficul-
ties of the passengers. Besides, what is important for a Coach-
A:ttendant like Padam Singh is to make an entry in the reservation
~hart showing that a particular berth was utilised during a particular
_JOUrney.. In: the hurry of the moment. persons in the position of
Padam Smgh are known not to r~v l'•lfficiont attention to what for
-their purposes are mere trifles. Whether the passenger to whom a
 ·73
"berth is allot:ted is "S. M." or "S. N." or "S.. L." Sharma is a matter
<Qf little or no consequence to them.· Such indifference or carelessness
·cannot of course be encouraged but that is a simple facf of life to
which one· cannot shut cine's eyes.
11. I would give no importance to Padam Singh's description that
the Major Sharma who travelled by Coach No. 1730 was clean-shaven.
In fact, Major S. M. Sharma had thin moustaches but Padam Singh
is making a mistake once again. His conduct does not show that he
was particularly careful or observant and therefore it is difficult to
believe that he had noted the description of Major S. M. Sharma
with any particularity. He had no reason to do so. The seven
cabins in his coach were almost fully occupied and it would not be
easy for him to remember who had and who did not have moustaches.
Whether the passenger whom he had accommodated in his coach was
clean-shaven or not was a matter of no moment to him. It was to
him as unimportant as whether his correct names was "S. M." or
«S. L." Sharma. That Padam Singh was not uncommonly careful
or methodical can be seen from the fact that he did not even enter
the number of Major Sharma's ticket in the reservation chart, though
.he was required to do so.
12. If Major Sharma joined his regimental exercises on the 12th-
and that is not challenged~he must have reached Ranchi on the
11th and that could only be if he left Lucknow on the lOth. He held
a return ticket from Namkom to Delhi and was on one month's
leave from t)l.e 14th January.
13. A question which comes to mind immediately is: Why should
Major S. M. Sharma tell a lie that he travelled by the Train Service
·Coach? Is it at all possible that he was connected with the murder
of Shri Upadhyaya? ·
14. He was a freshly married young man and it puts quite some
·strain on one's credulity to accept that, for no reason, he joined the
-conspiracy to commit Shri Upadhyaya's murder and actually parti-
·cipated in the act of murder within three weeks of his marriage. He
is supposed to have lent his assistance at the instance of his father-
in-law, V. N. Sharma, who asked him to undertake the mission
because of his own friendship with Dr. Faridi. So, Pr. Faridi, alleg-
ed to harbour communal hostility towards Shri Upadhyaya, requisi-
tioned the services of V. N. Sharma who in turn agreed to sacrifice
bis son-in-law, and in that process the future of his daughter, in a
murderous venture. To crown 'this absurd sequence, Major Sharma's
wife, father-in-law and 2 brothers-in-law had gone to see him off
at the Station. Secrecy is the badge of conspiracy but Major Sharma
seems to have thrown it to the winds. He had an open air about
him to the extent that while on a mission of this magnitude he is
supposed to have travelled in his own name with a slight modifica-
tion in his initials. I think this is all too thin to be stretched further.
!5. That disposes of one aspect of the matter, namely, whether
MaJor S. M. Sharma was a party to the conspiracy and whether he
travelled by Coach No. 1730, of which Padam Singh was the Attend-
ant.
 74
16. I am clearly of the view that Majo~ Surendra :tyrohan Sharl!la'
travelled by the Train Service Coach (No. 1730), which necessarily
implies that he did not travel by the F.C.T. bogie (No. 1935). Fur-
ther that he was not even remotely connected or concerned with.
Shri ' Upadhyaya's murder. In noting down h'1s name as "S. L .
Sharma" and the number of his ticket as 06171, Naik Har Govind
Pandey committed a careless error, which in the co11:text o~ t_he·
various circumstances mentioned above has no particular signifi-
cance. Pandey was new to his work as he was posted to the R.T.O.'s
office in J anuacy 1968 for the first time. It is sad that such casual;:
errors can prove costly to the public.
17. Another and a more important aspect of the matter still'
survives and that is whether someone else masqueraded as Major
Sharma and travelled by the I Class compartment of the F.C.T. bogie.
18. On this issue, the balance of probabilities is against the view
that anything of the sort could have happened. A pretender feigning
to be Major Sharma would not court the risk of borrowing his
initials and his ticket number so closely, especially, when the real
Major Sharma was travelling by the same train. But then B. D.
Kamal has something to say on this point, which it is urged, may tilt
the balance.
19. Kamal, a Travelling Ticket Examiner, worked as a Conductor
on the Sealdah Express from Lucknow to Mughalsarai on the lOth·
Februacy 1968. He was examined in the Sessions Court as a Court
witness. He says that before the train left Lucknow, he entered the·
I Class compartment of the F.C.T. bogie to check the passengers on
the basis of a reservation chart. He went to the 'C' Cabin first
wherein, he says, a man, 45 or 50 years of age, dressed in white
civilian clothes was standing. The cabin was unlighted. Kamal'
asked the man: "Major Saheb?" and that man replied: "Yes".
Kamal then checked the passengers in the 'B' and 'A' Cabins, namely,
Shri Upadhyaya and M.P. Singh respectively. He says that he made·
tick-marks in his reservation chart against the three names and
handed over the chart to the A.S.M's Office at Mughalsarai.
20. This evidence, even if it is taken at its face value, does not
by itself show that someone, pretending to be Major Sharma, travel-
led by the F.C.T. bogie from Lucknow to Mughalsarai. But it would
show that a person falsely claiming to be Major Sharma was standing
in the 'C' Cabin, at Lucknow, somewhat suspiciously.
21. It is however difficult to accept Kamai's claim that he checked
the passengers in 'the three cabins of the F.C.T. bogie. The best
evidence of that fact would be the reservation chart of the F.C.T~.
bogie on which Kamal is supposed to have made tick-marks in tokerr
of his having checked the passengers. . That chart could never be
traced. It could not be found in the A.S.M's Office and Yadav the
Conductor of the train from Mughalsarai onwards says that he r{ever
received it. ' ·
22. On the other hand, w'e have the chart (Ka-73) of Reservation
Ticket Collector Shiv Bachan Singh, who was on reservation duty
 75
{)n the platform. In that chart, Shiv Eachan has made tick-marks
against the I Clas~ passengers who had reservations in the F.C.T.
bogie. He has thus made tick-marks against the names of M. P. Singh,
"Major S. L. Sharma" and Shri Upadhyaya. He has even shown in
the chart that Shri Upadhyaya who held a reserved berth in the 'A'
Cabin has shifted to 'E' Cabin. It is clear from this chart that Shiv
Bachan had checked the passengers. That is as it should be, because
even according to Kamal, it is the duty of the Reservation T.C. to
check the passengers in the F.C.T. bogie and to accommodate passen-
gers in that bogie, if there is any vacancy. Kamal has further admit-
ted that Shiv Eachan had told him expressly that he had checked
the passengers in the F.C.T. bogie and that Shri Upadhyaya wanted
to shift to the 'E' Cabin. It seems difficult to hold that after this
.assurance, Kamal re-checked the passengers.

23. That he did not check the [ Class passengers in the F.C.T.
bogie is clear from his admission that he did not notice either Subedar
Sidh Singh or Shri Gauri Shankar Rai in the 'C' Cabin. Kamal says
that immediately after he came out of the F.C.T. bogie, it was time
for the train to leave and he had to rush to get in the Train Service
·Coach. At that stage, it is impossible that Sidh Singh and Shri Rai
were not in the 'C' Cabin.

24. In fact, Kamal does not appear to have gone anywhere near
the F.C.T. bogie. Shri Ram Prakash the Deputy Chief Minister, Shri
1'itambar Das, Harishandra and others had gone to the Station to
see Shri Upadhyaya off and they were all standing in a group in front
of the 'E' Cabin. Kamal says that he saw no one on the platform
nearabout the 'E' Cabin.

25. Kamal admits that he did not check the tickets of the I Class
passengers in the F.C.T. bogie at Lucknow and further that after the
train left Lucknow, he never went to the F.C.T. bogie, though he
used to get down at almost every intermediate station. He does not
know if any one got down from the F.C.T. bogie at Faizabad and
Shahganj. That shows that he was not concerned with the passen-
gers travelling by the F.C.T. bogie or with the possible accommoda-
tion available therein. Therefore, he could not have possibly check-
ed the passengers at Lucknow.

26. After Kamal went to the Train Service C:oach, Padam Singh
the Coach-Attendant gave him the reservation chart (Ka-177) of
that coach. Kamal admits that it was his duty to check the passen-
gers travelling by that coach but that he did not do so. He had over
half an hour at his disposal to do so, for he travelled by that coach
from Lucknow to Earabanki. If he did not do what was his plain
duty to do in regard to the checking of passengers in the Train
Service Coach, it is not likely that he did his duty in regard to the
checking of passengers in the F. C. T. ·bogie.

27. Apart from the merits of Kamal's evidence regarding the

presence of the pretender in the 'C' Cabin. it seems unlikely that if
B-167 H.A.
 76
the person had got into the Cabin for a nefarious purpose, he would
own up being "Major Saheb". It involved the risk that ~e Conductor
may want to check his ticket. The false claim would m that event
be exposed on the very threshold. The impostor would have rather
disowned being the 'Major Saheb' and got into some other compart-
ment in order to wait for a more propitious opportunity to get back
into the I Class (!Ompartment during the journey. Conspirators are
never so raw as to allow such slips to nip the conspiracy in the bud ..

28. The evidence of Subedar Sidh Singh and Shri Gauri Shankar
Rai shows that they travelled by the 'C' Cabin, the former upto
Faizabad and the latter upto Shahganj. Apart from them, there was
no other passenger in the 'C' Cabin, not at any rate till SbaJ::.ganj.

29. The Jan Sangh has examined two witnesses-Ved Prakash

Agarwal and Raj Narayan Agarwal-to show that Sidh Singh did
not travel by the F. C. T. bogie, but I am unable to accept that evi-
dence. Ved Prakash, a member of the Jan Sangh, says that except
for one man, people who got down at Faizabad on the lOth night
from a I Class bogie near the engine were all civilians. The passenger
who was in the army uniform was 'short, stout and wheat com-
plexioned'. I do not think that on this evidence one can exclude
that Sidh Singh got down at Faizabad from the F. C. T. bogie. As
regards Raj Narayan, he had travelled by the Train Service Coach
and he got down at Faizabad. He would not know what other pas-·
sengers had got down from the other bogies.

30. The Jan Sangh has similarly examined one Prabhu Narayan
Upadhyaya to disprove that Shri G. S. Rai got down at Shahganj.
Prabhu Narayan says that he saw Shri G. S. Rai gettin·g down from
the Toofan Mail at about 4·30 A.M. on the 11th. This cannot be true·
for, in the first place, we have the independent testimony of Shri
Durga Prasad Srivastava, Deputy Collector of Ballia, that he and
Shri G. S. Rai travelled together from Shahganj to Ballia after
alighting from the Sealdah Express at Shahganj. Secondly, the evi-
dence of Shaukat Ali Muravat Ali, a booking clerk at the Charbagh
Railway Station, Lucknow, shows that from the 1st to the lOth Feb-
ruary 1968, no I Class ticket was sold for a journey from Lucknow
to Buxar. On the other hand, two tickets were sold on the lOth Feb-
ruary for a journey from Lucknow to Ballia, one via Shahganj and
the other via Varanasi. It is clear that Shri Rai travelled on one of
these tickets. The fact that he got down from the off-s'fde at Shah-
ganj has no special significance. He did so because he could not
fin~ a coolie and as the train for Ballia was waiting on the off-side~
It JS also clear that he preferred to go to Ballia via Shahganj, because
that is more convenient than going via Varanasi. The latter course
means getting down at Varanasi at an odd hour of the night and
waiting for the ~onnecting train to arrive. The Sealdah Express
reaches ShahganJ at 11·25 P.M. and the Ballia bogie is kept waiting
at the station so that one can ·get in and relax, till the train for
Ballia leaves Shahganj in the morning.
 77
31. Thus, the evidence of Sidh Singh and Gauri Shankar Rai
shows that none else apart from them travelled by the 'C' Cabin from
Lucknow to Shahganj. The presence of the middle-aged stranger
clad in white, in the 'C' Cabin at Lucknow is therefore both impro-
bable and innocuous.
32. I have no doubt that Major Surendra Mohan Sharma, much-
maligned, did travel by the Train Service Coach from Lucknow to
Gomoh and that no one masqueraded as Major Sharma from Luck-
now to Shahganj.
 CHAPTER XI
WHEN WAS SHRI UPADHYAYA LAST SEEN ALIVE?
1. The case of the Jan Sangh is that Shri Upadhyaya was murder-
ed in the running train between Jafarabad and Varanasi. The rival
version is that he was pushed out of the train when the F.C.T. bogie
was near the traction pole, that he dashed against the pole and died
instantaneously.
2. After the train left Lucknow at 7·00 P.M. Subedar Sidh Singh,
who was travelling in the 'C' Cabin along with Shri G. S. Rai was
the first to get down. He detrained at Faizabac! at 9·26 P.M.
3. The evidence of Shri Rai shows that Shri Upadhyaya had come
out of the compartment at Faizabad Station. Shri Rai was taking
his food with his back towards the corridor side when Shri Upadh-
yaya got back into the train by the door near the 'C' Cabin. The train
was then about to leave. Shri Upadhyaya and Shri Rai had a brief
conversation on whether the door should be bolted.
4. After Faizabad the train halted at Reedganj, Ayodhya, Akbar-
pur and Shahganj. The train reached Shahganj at 11·25 P.M. Shri
Rai got out of the train from the off-side to catch the connecting
train for Ballia.
5. ThUs when the train left Shahganj, there were only two pas-
sengers in the I Class compartment of the F.C.T. bogie-Shri Upadh-
yaya in the 'B' Cabin and M. P. Singh in the 'A' Cabin.
6. The next halt after Shahganj was Jaunpur where the train
recahed at 12 ·45 A.M., with the platform on the cabin-side. K. L.
Shukla, Private Secretary to the Raja of Jaunpur had gone to the
:Station to deliver a letter written by the Raja to Shri Upadhyaya.
He found that both the doors of the I Class compartment w'l'!re bolt-
ed from inside. There was no light inside any of the three Cabins,
but Shri Upadhyaya had put down thl! glass shutter only and K. L.
Shukla could see in the light of a lamp on the platform that he was
lying asleep on his berth. In a shortwhile, Shri Upadhyaya came
out when Shukla handed over to him the letter of the Raja. They
went inside, Shri Upadhyaya switched on the light in his cabin,
read the letter and told Shukla that he would send a reply to the
Raja.
7. The evidence of Shukla was not challenged at any stage. That
evidence establishes that Shri Upadhyaya was alive when the train
left Jaunpur, which was at 12·30 A.M.
8. The train reached Jafarabad at 12·39 A.M. and the question
which requires examination is whether as alleged by the Jan Sangh
Shri Upadhyaya was murdered berween Jafarabad and Varanasi.
78
 9. Two witnesses have been examined by the Jan Sangh in sup-
port of this case. They are: (1) Rama Shankar, and (2) Ramesh
Chandra. Both of them say that on the lOth evening they travelled
by the III Class compartment of the F. C. T. bogie, which is imme-
diately next to its I Class compartment. Two or three minutes after
the train left Jafarabad, they claim to have heard a shriek first and
then a thud. It is alleged that these noises which emanated from
the I Class compartment were directly related to the assault on Shri
Upadhyaya. In its issue of lOth March 1968, the 'Organizer' has
described these noises picturesquely as 'Third Class noises from
Frist Class Compartment'.

10. The possibility that Shri Upadhyaya was assaulted imme-

diately after the train left Jafarabad can be excluded in relation to
a variety of circumstances to which I will come later. But the evi-
dence fo these two witnesses fails to carry conviction on its own
merits. The I Class and the III Class compartments, though parts of
the F. C. T. bogie are not so close to one another that a shriek and
a thud would be heard while the train was in motion. It was a chilly,
wintry night and it is common experience that passengers take care
to down the shutters on such nights. If persons sitting in the III
Class compartment could hear the noise, M. P. Singh, the next door
neighbour, should have been rattled out of his sleep.

11. The conduct of the two witnesses after they got down at
Varanasi is so unnatural that they could not have possibly heard
any noises during the journey. They claim that they had written
letters to the S. S. P. Varanasi, informing him that they had heard
strange noises during the journey. This is falsified by the evidence
of S. N. P. Sinha, Additional S. P. Varanasi and Radhe Shyam
ShBrma, S. S. P. who say that they did not receive any communica-
tion at all from either of the witnesses. If, as contended by the Jan
Sangh, Shri Ramacharya Pandey knew on the 14th of February that
the two persons had heard strange noises on the particular night,
he would have taken them to the C. B. I. That admittedly was not
done. The evidence of Rama Shankar and Ramesh Chandra must
therefor.e be rejected.
12. The train reached Varanasi at 1·25 A.M. A question of import-
ance which requires determination is as regards the identity of the
person, who standing in the corridor in front of the 'B' Cabin, talked
to B. D. Kamal.
13. Kamal, Conductor of the Sealdah Express, went to the F.C.T.
bogie immediately after the train reached Varanasi. He wanted to
wake up M. P. Singh because the latter had given instructions at
Lucknow accordingly.
14. Kamal says that he opened a glass shutter, knock'ed on the
'A' Cabin by inserting his hand through the corridor and woke up
M. P. Singh. Kamal then waited outside forM. P. Singh to come
out of his cabin and open the door of the compartment. Kamal
wanted to wake up the passen'g\er travelling in the 'C' Cabin, for his
 80
chart showed that the passenger was booked for Mughalsarai. It
may be recalled that "Major S. L. Sharma" was allotted a berth in
the ·c• Cabin, from Lucknow to Mughalsarai.

15. Kamal says that while he was thus waiting on the platform, a
person came out of the 'B' Cabin and stood in the corridor. Kamal
requested him to open the door as he wanted to wake up the passen-
ger travelling in the 'C' Cabin, who was due to get down at Mughal-
sarai. The person, who had come of the 'B' Cabin replied that the
man had already got down at Shahganj. Kamal, however, wanted
to verify it for himself and so he asked the stranger to open the
door. After the door was opened, Kamal went in but found that the
'C' Cabin was empty. The person who came out of the 'B' Cabin
was, according to Kamal, wearing a white dhoti and had a shawl on.

16. Kamal's statement was recorded by the C.I.D. on the 12th

February. The C.B.I. recorded his statement first on the 27th Feb-
ruary and then on the 17th March.

17. The version of M.P. Singh as regards this incident is striking-

ly different. · His statement was recorded by D. S. P. Tewari on the
15th of February at Raghamines, where he had gone for a depart-
mental camp which was to last for three months. He said in that
statement:
(1) That the person who was standing in the corridor in front
of the 'B' Cabin was not Shri Upadhyaya in so far as he
remembered. His reason for saying so was that the per-
son was clean-shaven and had no moustaches, whereas
Shri Upadhyaya had moustaches; and
(2) That the stranger had probably put on a white pyjama,
though that could not be said with any certainty. He was
however sure that the stranger was not wearing pants.

18. When. M. P. Singh was examined in the Sessions Court he

stated in his examination-in-chief that he was not certain whether
the stranger was or was not Shri Upadhyaya. In his cross-examina-
tion he stated at first that he had not seen the face of the stranger
carefully. He however diluted the effect of this statement by say-
ing that he had noted that the stranger had two or three white hair
on his chin. He explained the statement which he had made before
D. S. P. Tewari on the 15th February by saying that it was merely
his impression that the stranger had no moustaches and that he was
not Shri Upadhyaya. On a second thought, he felt that he had not
seen the man carefully. M.P. Singh further stated that the stranger
was wearing either a Dhoti or a Pyjama but not pants. Finally, he
stated that the chances of the stranger being Shri Upadhyaya were
"fifty-fifty".

19. M.P. Singh's statement was recorded by the C.B.I. on the lOth
March. ·
 81
~0. There is only one other aspect of M. P. Singh's evidence to
which reference must be made. He stated that when the train
reac_hed Varanasi, he went to the bath-room on the side of the ·A'
Cabm but could not open it though he tried to open it twice or
thrice. He thereafter went to the other bath-room near the 'C'
Cabin.
~1_. I~ is clear that on some of the important aspects of the Vara-
nasi mcident, there is a fundamental difference between the versions
of M:P. Singh and B. D. Kamal. Kamal's evidence tends to show
t~at the person who came out of the 'B' Cabin was Shri Upadhyaya ·
himself but it fails to inspire confidence. In the context of the un-
true evidence given by Kamal that he had checked the F.C.T. passen-
gers at Lucknow, it would be unsafe to rely on [Link] holding that
the person who came out of the 'B' Cabin was Shri Upadhyaya.
22. Equally, however, it would be hazardous to place reliance on
the evidence of M.P. Singh in order to determine the identity of the
stranger. It is true that Shri Ram Prakash, the Deputy Chief Min-
ister and Shri Pitambar Das have stated before me, as Haris-
chandra had stated in the Sessions Court, that M. P. Singh was in-
troduced to Shri Upadhyaya at the Lucknow Railway Station. M. P.
Singh however denies the introduction and I am left with an uneasy
feeling that the evidence that M. P. Singh was introduced to Shri
Upadhyaya is given merely to add weight to the earliest statement
of M. P. Singh that he was certain that the stranger was not Shri
Upadhyaya. Shri G. S. Rai who was admittedly introduced to Shri
Upadhyaya says that M. P. Singh was not introduced in his pre-
sence in any case.
23. Shri Ram Prakash had filed an affidavit dated the 25th Janu-
ary 1970 before the Commission but he does not say therein that
M. P. Singh was introduced to Shri Upadhyaya. He has mentioned
therein that Shri Pitambar Das had introduced Shri Rai to Shri
Upadhyaya.
24. At Ex. 4 is a statement dated the 19th March 1968 made by
Shri Ram Prakash before D.S.P. Baijal, which has been accepted
by him as correct. There also he has stated that Shri Rai was intro-
duced to Shri Upadhyaya. I have therefore no doubt that Shri Ram
Prakash and Shri Pitambar Das are not right in saying that M. P.
Singh was introduced to Shri Upadhy~ya. ~ere was no occasio~
for such an introduction and I am certain that 1t was not made. Shn
Rai was introduced because there was a wrangl'e over the shifting
of his lugga·ge and he had shown some courtesy and consideration
to Shri Upadhyaya.
25. The reason why I do not propose to rely on t~e evidence of
M. P. Singh for fixing the identity of the strangex: IS th~t he has
made conflicting statements from time to time. His earhest state-
ment was that the stranger was very certainly not. Shri Upadhyaya.
He neutralised his firm conviction in course of time and put the
chances of the stranger being Shri Upadhyaya at "fifty-fif~"· A
vacillating witness like this cannot be trusted when he claims to
have identified the stranger. Besides, if he could not identify Bharat
whom he had seen even more closely, it is unlikely that he could
have identified the stranger as Shri Upadhyaya.
26. On a balance of probabilities, Kamal seems to be right in
saying that M. P. Singh did not come out of his cabin at all. It is
the stranger who seems to have evened the door for Kamal. The
bulk of the conversation was between Kamal and the stranger, and
not between M. P. Singh and the stranger. Then again, Kamal was
standnig face to face with the stranger, whereas M. P. Singh would
only be standing by his-side, assuming that he came out of his cabin
at all. The evidence of Singh gives an impression that though he
holds a post-graduate qualification in Science, he was unconcerned
with the true facts of life. His statement of the 15th of February
reads as if he was trying to be in tune with an early theory that
Shri Upadhyaya was murdered before the train had reached
Varonasi.
27. Therefore, one can neither rely on Kamal for holding that the
stranger was Shri Upadhyaya, nor on M. P. Singh for holding that
the stranger was not Shri Upadhyaya. In other words, the oral evi-
dence of these witnesses is not adequate to prove either hypotheses
-either that Shri Upadhyaya was alive or that he was not alive at
Varanasi. Whether the probabilities of the case and the other cir-
cumstances are more consistent with one hypothesis than with the
other is a separate matter. That depends on the plausibility of the
theory that Shri Upadhyaya was murdered in the running train and
his body was subsequently placed near the traction pole. I will deal
with that aspect later. ·
28. The Jan Sangh has examined three witnesses in support of
its case that the person in the corridor was not Shri Upadhyaya.
They are: (1) Dev Datta Tiwari, (2) Madan Lal Bajpai and (3)
Laxmi Shankar Shukla.
29. Dev Datta Tiwari has stated that h'e had gone to the Varanasi
Station ot see off a friend's son, Ram Bali. While they were taking
tea on the platform, he saw two persons talking with Conductor
Kamal in English. One of them had come out of the 'A' Cabin, and
the other out of the 'B' Cabin. One had put on a full-pant and a
long coat, while the other had put on a pyjama and had a shawl on
his person.
30. I find it difficult to uphold the claim of Dev Datta because
there is apparently no reason why his attention should have been
drawn to the conversation between Kamal and the two strangers or
to the dress worn by them. If it were true that Dev Datta had gone
to the Station to see off Ram Bali, it is surprising that this import-
ant fact should not have found place in the affidavit of the 22nd of
January 1970 filed by him before the Commission.
31. Dev Datta's allegation that he had disclosed the particular
incident to Radhe Shyam Sharma, S:S.P. is denied by the latter. It
seems to me surprising that a leading member of the Jan Sangh like
 83
Dev Datta l!hould not ·have supplied such an important piece of in-
formation to the C.B.I.
32. Dev Datta's claim that he saw through the window that one
of the two p~ssengers had a pyjama and a shawl on is really too tall.
H'e has admitted that the pas~engers were leaning on the window
while talking to the Conductor. He could not have possibly seen
the lower garments worn by them. It is significant that Nanaji
Deshmukh had said in the Sessions Court that he did not know the
names of persons who had direct knowledge of the matter. Nanaji
should have really said that Dev Datta had furnished to him data
showing that none of the two persons could be Shri Upadhyaya. It
is said that Shri Upadhyaya never talked in English with anyone
who could understand Hindi.
33. The evidence of Laxmi Shankar Shukla must fall with that
of Dev Datta, because he merely says that on the 12th of February
Dev Datta had told him that a stranger was impersonating Shri
Upadhyaya and was talking to Kamal in English. Laxmi Shankar, a
Professor in the Engineering College Banaras Hindu University, has
added his own spice by introducing the new element of impersona-
tion.
34. For the same reason, the evidence of Raniacharya Pandey and
Nanaji Deshmukh must also be discarded to the extent that they
say that Dev Datta Tiwari had told them that a person who was
talking to the Conductor was talking as if he was Shri Upadhyaya.
35. The only evidence that remains to be considered on this
aspect is that of Madan Lal Bajpai, a railway clerk. He says that on
the particular night he and two others had gone to the Varanasi
Station to meet one B. D. Tewari who was to come by the Sealdah
Express. While he was looking out for Tewari, he saw a young man
of about 30 years asking Kamal in English as to how long it would
take for the train to reach Mughalsarai. The person was clean-
shaven, wheat complexioned, was wearing a pyjama and was stand-
ing in the I Class compartment of the F.C.T. bogie.
36. This witness is in the same category as Dev Datta Tiwari. It
is not likely that Madan Lal ha,d gone to meet Tewari, because as
admitted by him, Tewari did not come to Varanasi by any other
train round about that time. Madan Lal is one of those split-second
witnesses who hear a significant conv',ersation or see a significant
detail in a passing moment. I find it hard to believe that while look-
ing out for Tewari, Madan Lal happened to be passing by the F.C.T.
bogie when the conversation was going on and that he could even
see that the person standing in the compartment was clean-shaven,
wheat complexioned, of average height and was wearing a pyjama.

37. Madan Lalhas given a touch of drama to his evidence by say-

ing that he had once gone to the Sessions Court while the trial of
Bharat and Ram Awadh was going on and to his surprise he found
that the person who was in the witness-box, Major S. M. Sharma,
was the very person who was talking to Kamal on the particular
 84
llight. The only difference was that he was clean-shaven first but
standing in the witness-box he had moustaches. Madan Lal im-
mediately wrote a chit and passed it on to the Defence Counsel sug-
_gesting that the witness be photographed. He claims to have made
a similar suggestion to others in the Court-room, including Rama-
charya Pandey. ·
3'8. This coincidence is even more unnatural than the earlier. It
is also not possible to believe that Madan Lal would not disclose
such an important piece of information to the Investigating Officers.
I cannot believe that he either wrote a chit to the Defence Counsel
or made any disclosure to Ramacharya Pandey.
39. I am unable to see any connection between the closed toilet
near the 'A' Cabin and the presence of the stranger in the corridor,
assuming that he was not Shri Upadhyaya. Toilets do have the
disconcerting habit of getting jammed when needed most. But what
is really important is that it is highly improbable that the stranger
would voluntarily make a sort of public appearance by emerging out
of the 'B' Cabin if he had anything to do with any one kept in the
toilet in an injured or dead condition. No blood stains were found
.in any part of the toilet.
40. Putting it briefly, I would prefer to say, after considering the
entire evidence on this issue, that Shri Upadhyaya was definitely
alive at Jaunpur, but he was last seen alive only at Jaunpur. There
is no reliable evidence to show that he was seen alive at Varanasi,
.though this does not justify the inference that he was not alive
when the train arrived at Varanasi. The reason for this latter
observation is that just as I am not disposed to rely on Kamal's evi-
dence for holding that the person who came out of the 'B' Cabin was
Shri Upadhyaya, I am also not disposed to accept the nebulous ver-
sion of M. P. Singh that he was not Shri Upadhyaya.
41. The question whether Shri Upadhyaya was alive at Varanasi
oShall have to l:ie dealt with independently on a separate footing.
 CHAPTER XII
DISCOVERY OF THE BODY AND ITS POSSIBLE PLANTING
NEAR THE POLE

1. Whether the murder of Shri Upadhyaya was committed

-elsewhere and the dead body laid near the pole involves consideration
of four inter-dependent questions: (1) The possibility that the murder
was committed in the I Class compartment of the F.C.T. bogie;
(2) The possibility that death resulted due to an impact with the
traction pole; (3) The time when the body was first discovered; and
(4) The position in which the body was seen lying.
2. These are inter-connected questions because: (a) If the murdet
was committed in the compartment, it must follow that the body
was laid near the pole later; (b) If the death did not occur instan-
taneously as a result of an impact with the traction pole, the planting
of the body near the pole becomes a live possibility; (c) If the body
was discovered not at about 2-20 A.M. during an early stage of shunt-
ing, but at about 2-50 A.M. after the shunting of the Sealdah Express
was over, it must follow that the body was laid nel).r the pole during
the shunting operations, presumably after the shunting of the
Sealdah Express was completed; and (d) If the position and condition
of the body were such as to belie the case of a fall on the spot, there
would be a plausible basis for the supposition that the body was
brought to the pole from somewhere else. I might add that the rival
theories are specific. The allegation of the Jan Sangh is that the
murder was committed in the compartment while the train was in
motion. The case of the C.B.I. is that the death of Shri Upadhyaya
occurred because he was pushed from the running train and he
d<Jshed against the traction pole.
(i) Was the murder committed in the compartment?
3. I will first deal with the question whether the murder of
Shri Upadhyaya could have been committed in the compartment.
Several circumstances will have to be borne in mind while dealing
with this aspect.
4. In the first place, it must be remembered that no blood at all
was found in any part of the compartment. Bhola Bharati who
cleaned the 'B' Cabin and the I Class compartment at Patna with a
brush says that he did not notice any blood in the cabin or anywhere
m the compartment. Conductor Yadav who had accommodated a
passenger in the 'B' Cabin at Patna also says that he saw no blood-
stains anywhere in the compartment.
5. The bogie was sealed immediately after it reached Howrah and
it [Link] that condition at Mughalsarai on the night between the
13th and the 14th February. The Expert team headed by Dr. S. N.
85
 86

Garg Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hydexabad, says in its

repo~t (Ka-65) dated _the 15th of _February 1968 _that. no tr_ace of blood
wa& found either inside the bogie or on the SUit-case :Which was first
discovered at Patna and was sent to Mughalsarai by the G.R.P.,
Moka,mah. Dr. Garg had found some greasy stains near the Attend-
ant's seat which is close to the toilet near the 'A' Cabin, but the report
of Shri Basak (Ka-133B) shows that the greasy substance only showed
"light orange coloured fluorescence under ultra violet lamp".
6. Inspector Mukherjee, who had sealed the bogie at Calcutta has
;,tated that spots of undiluted phenyl were noticed near the Attend·
ant's seat. It is true that as admitted by Shri Bhattacharya, Assist-
am Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta, phenyl
can destroy blood stains. The criticism is also justified that the
greasy substance was not tested in order to ascertain if it contained
ph~nyl. But I find it difficult to attach importance to the stains of
phenyl near the Attendant's seat, assuming inspector Mukherjee to
be right in his lay observation. that the stains were of phenyl. On
the case made out by the Jan Sangh, there should have been a fair
sprinkling of blood at more than one place in the compartment. In
any event, the 'A' toilet should have shown traces of sizeable stains.
I am unable to agree that the blood stains in the compartment and
the toilet, which should have been found if the murder was com-
mitted in the compartment, might have gpt wiped out or washed in
the normal process when the bogie was cleaned. It is clear from
the evidence of S. R. Kandu, the Train Examiner at Howrah, that it
was not washed before it was sealed.
7. No blood was found on any part of the bedding, except the
caseless pillow, in a corner of which a tiny speck of human blood was
found. This is clear from the report (Ka-52) dated the 22nd Febru-
ary 1968, of Shri Bhattacharya. If Shri Upadhyaya was assaulted
in the 'B' Cabin, one should have found some evidence of that assault
in the shape of blood-stains either in the Cabin or on some part of
the bedding.

8. No~ much importance can be attached to the tiny dot of blood

on the pillow, though Dr. Roychowdhary the Serologist has stated
in his report (Ka-296) dated 13th May 196B, that the blood was of 'B'
Group. True that the blood of Shri Upadhyaya was also of 'B'
gr?up, but as stated by Dr. S. Choudhary, Special Officer, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Calcutta, the blood spot was caused by direct
contact a?d w_as not a :esult of the soaking of the blood through any
other article hke the pi~low cover. It may sound light-hearted and a
J_udge must always. avo~d that charge, but I would like to draw atten-
tion to a passage m Sir Sydney Smith's Forensic Medicine lOth
Edition, page 207, that stains on garments due to bugs are daused
by blood sucked from human beings and therefore such stains "will
give all the reactions for human blood."
9. The pillow cover which was produced by Lalta Kalwar on the
17th was ~ot found. to be blo~d-stained. It may perhaps be that
whatever kind of stams there might have been on it were obliterated
as Lalta had got it washed from Mitia, the washerwoman. That
 87
~annat however justify the inference that Lalta got the pillow cover
washed, because it was blood-stained.

10. The characteristic blood-stains on the banyan and the two

full-sleeved sweaters which appear clearly from the photographs
K-122, K-124 and K-125 are also inconsistent with the theory that the
murder was committed in the compartment. If the head injury was
-caused while Shri Upadhyaya was lying on his bed, the bedding
would have been profusely blood-stained. If the injuries were caus-
ed while he was in a standing posture, the blood would not have
fallen directly on the full-sleeved woollen sweater. The blood would
have trickled down from the injury towards the neck and the other
parts of the body. The photographs show that the blood fell on the
5houlder region only. That happened because, as is clear from the
photograph Ka-31, the blood trickled from the right ear directly on
to the shoulder region of the outermost full-sleeved woollen sweater,
·the head being tilted to the right.

11. It is significant that the clothes on the person of Shri Upa-

dhyaya and the articles in the bedding showed no signs of struggle.
'There was no tear on any part of the clothing. There was no injury
on the face and indeed there was no defensive injury on any part of
.Shri Upadhyaya's person.

12. M. P. Singh had passed by the 'B' Cabin at Varanasi. In fact,

.he first went from 'A' Cabin to the 'A' toilet and then from the 'A'
toilet to the 'C' toilet. Thus he walked through the whole of the
-compartment but he found nothing unusual.

13. Kamal also entered the compartment at Varanasi. He walked

_past the three cabins, for the thought he must wake up the passenger
in the 'C' Cabin. He saw nothing unusual. Were the stranger con-
·cerned with the murder, it is surprising that he should not only be
unruffled both in the matter of his composure and clothes but that
he should butt in while Kamal was conversing with M. P. Singh.
l.n fact, Kamal has stated that the man came out of the 'B' Cabin
on his own.

14. The 'A' toilet which was of the Indian Style, measured
·ti'-2"X3'-7". Inside the toilet would be a basin and the latrine. It
is hard to believe that not only was Shri Upadhyaya dumped into
the toilet in a dead or injured condition but the murdered had also
locked hirr:s_li in. Th~ jamming of the toilet at Varanasi could only
be significant if both the murderer and the victim were in the toilet.
That seems to me impossibie.

15. The tyri :J.l leg fractures of the tibia and the fibula could not
have been causod in the compartment. There were no external
marl::s of violen :e on the seat of those fractures. which must mean
that the fractures were caused indirectly and not by a direct appli-
cation of force. Considering the severity of the fractures. Dr. Bhu-
:shan Rao is right that they could not have been caused manually by
angulation or twisting of the. legs.
 88
16. I am unable to accept Dr. Kataria's opinion that the l~g frac-
tures could have been caused by angulation. That would mvolve
the adoption of a process rather too neat and meticulous. It is. con-
trary to all experience that a murderer will cover the legs w1th a
cushion and then twist them. Even a surgeon might find it some-
what difficult to produce such a result by such means.
17. The injuries on the back of Shri Upadhyaya have their own
significance. These injuries which appear from the photograph
Ka-31 are in the nature of imprint abrasions. The total length of
ihe back injuries Nos. 2 and 3 is 38 ems. The width of injury No. 2
is 8 ems. while that of injury No. 3 is 7 ems. The abraded contusion
.:>n the right buttock was 16 ems. X8 ems. Thus the total length of
injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 7 is 54 ems. One has to strain one's experience
and imagination to think of a weapon which would cause injuries of
such dimensions and that too in the compartment. In fact, I am
unable to picture out how such injuries could be caused while the
victim was in a standing posture. They could only be caused by
felling him down on the stomach, which would cause injuries on the
face and the front portion of the body. Such injuries are conspicu-
ously absent in this cas!":
18. Yet another significance of tne lmprint abrasions is that the
ob-ject which caused these injuries had to leave its mark through
four layers of clothes: the banyan and the three sweaters. After
causing the imprint abrasions, having met the resistance of four gar-
ments, the weapon has to break seven ribs. The post-mortem report
shows that ribs Nos. 3 to 9 were broken. This aspect of the matter
5hows that the imprint abrasions were caused not by a deliberate
physical attack but as a result of an impact with a broad and hard
object like a traction pole. A combination of mass and velocity has
produced the particular result.
19. Before concluding this topic, I might refer to a small detail.
Shri Upadhyaya had shoes on at the time when he met with his
death. It is not likely, howsoever allergic he might have been to
cold, that he was sleeping with his shoes on. The greater proba-
bility is that he had got ready to get down on the platform, though
perhaps for a different reason from that for which he had got down
at Faizabad and [Link]. ·
20. For these reasons, I am clearly of th~ view that Shri Upa-
dhyaya was not murdered in the compartment.

(ii) The true cause of death

21. If the injuries on the back and the legs could not have been
caused inside the compartment, they must stem from some source
ou~side the compartment. On a plain matter-of-fact-view, the only
obJeCt near about the place where the body was seen lying, which
could cause the back and the leg injuries would be traction pole No.
1276. The pole is situated at a distance of 748 feet from the western
end of platform No. 1 and is four feet to the south of the southern
rail of line No. 9. whiCh leads to platform No. 1. That is the line by
which the Sealdah Ex:;Jress entered the Mughalsarai Station.
 89
22. The eastern and west~rn faces of the traction pole are each
10" wide. They are com11rised of two small channels H" wide on
either side, joined by a zig-zag steel bracing in between, 7" in width.
The northern and southern faces are fiat, each being 7" in width.
23. I have already indicated my reasons for holding that the [Link]
injuries could not have been caused in the compartment. The posi--
tive aspect of that i~sue which has now to be considered is whether
the back injuries could be caused by an impact with the traction
pole.
24. In view of the fact that those injuries are in the nature of
imprint abrasions and that as a result of those injuries seven ribs
got broken, there is a high degree of probability that the injuries
were caused by an impact with the traction pole. I see no other
reasonable explanation of the injuries on the back and the buttock.
25. Attention must in this behalf be drawn to the fact that
Dr. S. Chowdhary, who was one of the members of Dr. N. K. Sen's
team of Experts, found that there was a blackish impression on the
shawl of Shri Upadhyaya, 93 cms.X5 ems. Another faint [Link]
impression 46 cms.X5 ems. was found above the earlier impression.
A photograph of these impressions is Ka-126. On a microscopic and.
spectroscopic examination, Shri N. Das, Senior Physicist of the West
Bengal Forensic Science L&boratory, Calcutta, found that the impres-
sions on the shawl contained the same ingredients as were found in
the dust and dirt particles collected from the traction pole. This, in
my opinion, is an important expert finding which lends considerable
support to the conclusion that Shri Upadhyaya dashed against the
traction pole with great force. The report of Shri Das is Ka-133A.
26. Regarding the leg injuries, Dr. S. Chowdhary's team further
noted that there were two areas bearing fresh m&rks of abrasions on
·the outer surface of the right shoe, close to the sole. The photo-
graphs are Ka-127 and Ka-128. On the left shoe fresh marks of
abrasions were found, some area bearing dark brown stains. The
photograph of the left shoe is Ka-73.
27. Shri N. Das's report Ka-133A shows that the dust collected
from the abrasion marks on the shoes consisted of minute fragments
of ballast, spectroscopically identical to the ballast collected from
the place where the body was found lying.
28. According to Shri Das, the abrasion marks on the shoes and
the presence of fine particles of ballast therein showed that the
[Link] fell on the ballast from a height, with the right foot inverted
and the left foot everted.
29. Shri Das's opinion accords with· the probabilities of the case
and must, therefore. be accepted. His opinion receives some support
from the photograph Kac130, which shows that the left heel was
involved in a sort of circulatory movement.
30. Frankly, I am unable to understand why the assailants should
have concentrated their attention on twisting Shri Upadhyaya's legs.
 90
'That, certainly, was not an easy means to achieve their ends. Ex-
perience shows that such crudity is adopted in crimes of a peculiar
pattern. Even granting that the murder was not committed for
mere mercenary motives. the gentle Shri Upadhyaya, described
eloquently as an 'Ajatashatru'. could not have aroused such intense
ire in his assailants.
31. It remains noy· ~o consider whether the head injury could have
been caused by an impact with the traction pole. That was a vertical
lacerated wound 7 ems. x 1 [Link]-deep on the right side of the
head commencing at 5 ems. above the right ear. On internal exami-
nation, an area of contusion 11 ems. x 9 ems. was found on the right
temple around this injury. On eversion of the scalp, another area
9 ems. x 8 ems. was found on the occipital region. There was com-
minuted depressed fracture of the right parietal and right temporal
bones and depressed fracture of the right side sphenoid bone. There
was extensive subdural haemorrhage on the right. side of the brain
below injury No. 1. The brain itself was congested.
32. The head injury has been a fertile source of conflicting argu-
ments. These arguments are largely based on the diametrically
-opposite opinions given by Dr. Bhushan Rao on the one hand and
Dr. R. N. Kataria on the other.
33. The shape of the head injury is faintly visible in the photo-
graph Ka-30. Its location can be better appreciated from the sketch
Ka-78 prepared by Dr. Patankar. Its nature is evident from the
notes, made by D.I.G. Lobo, of the discussion which he had with
Dr. Bhushan Rao on the 5th and 6th of March 1968. The notes are
Ka-68 and Ka-69.
34. The main difference between Dr. Bhushan Rao and Dr. Kataria
is that whereas according to the former death must have occurred
almost instantaneously after the head injury, according to the latter
death must have supervened not earlier than an hour after the head
injury and the other injuries were caused.
35. The main points on which the two experts have differed are
these: According to Dr. Bhushan Rao (1) Death must have taken
place instantaneously, a cadaveric spasm having occurred at the
moment of death; (2) All the injuries must have been caused at the
~arne time as a part of the same transaction; (3) The back and the
buttock injuries were in the same line of alignment; ( 4) The leg
fractures were caused first; (5) The head injury could not have been
caused inside the compartment and that (6) The contusions on the
-occipital region were post-mortem.
36. Dr. Kataria has expressed a sharply contrary opinion on every
one of these points. He has stated that (1) The blood circulation
must have continued after the infliction of the injuries; the blood in
the pleural cavity showed that the heart and lungs must have been
w<>rking after the injuries were caused, so that there could be no
cadaveric spasm; (2) The fractures of legs must have been caused
immediately before or after death, as there was no blood near the
site of those fractures; (3) Th~ presence of the black eye showed that
 91
the injuries leading thereto must have been caused at least an hour
before the black eye was caused; (4) All the injuries could have been
caused inside the compartment; (5) A single impact with the traction
pole could not have caused the injuries on the head. the right
shoulder, the lower back and the right buttock; (6) The occipital
injury was ante-mortem and that (7) The back and buttock injuries
were not in~ a straight line.
37. I have already indicated my reasons for holding that the
injuries on the back, the buttock and legs were caused partly as a
result of an impact with the traction pole and partly because
Shri Upadhyaya fell on the ballast from some height. Taking a
realistic view of the matter, it must, in my opinion, follow that the
head injury was caused at the same time as the other injuries were
caLtSed and as a part of the same transaction. I have attempted to
exhaust all reasonable possibilities in which the head injury could
be causp-1 independently of the other injuries, but every such possi-
bility militates against common-sense.
38. If the head injury was caused in the compartment, the assault
would leave behind some traces in the shape of blood or struggle.
Such traces are significantly absent. Then again, anyone who caused
a severe injury like injury No. 1 in the compartment would attempt
to cause further injuries on the other vital parts of the body. Such
injuries are not to be found. Instead, one finds the indirect injuries
like the fracture of the ribs and the fracture of the legs.
39. The contusion on the occipital region is apt to create a con-
fusion which one must avoid. It is important to bear in mind that
there was only one injury on the head and not two. The post-
mortem report shows that the contusion on the occipital region was
an internal injury, having no corresponding external mark of vio-
lence. Were there two injuries on the head, one above the right ear
and the other on the occipital region, it would have been difficult to
hold that both the injuries were caused by a single impact with the
traction pole. What must not be lost sight of is that the damage to
the occipital region was only internal. It was disclosed on an inter-
nal examination and is an obvious consequence of injury No. 1.

46. To agree with Dr. Kataria that an hour at least must have~
intervened between the time when the injuries were caused and tn<>
death is to create rather than solve a problem. To commit a grievous
assault on a person in the position of Shri Upadhyaya and to hold
him tied in an injured condition for an hour in a running train is a
fantastic task. I should have thought that if the murder was pre-
planned, the murdered would rather adopt the "hit and run" method~
He would achieve his object by giving a blow with sufficient severity
on a vital part of the body and then make himself scarce at thP
earliest chance. It is impossible to appreciate that the murderer
of Shri Upadhyaya would nurse a dangerous cargo, say, between
Jafarabad and Mughalsarai. He had to countenance the very rea-
sonable prospect of visitors calling -on the President of a political
organisation at intermediate Stations like Varanasi and Kashi.
Therefore, it is not possible to ac~er: Dr. Kataria's opinion that death.
7-167 H.A.
 92
was not instantaneous or that the several injuries were not caused
as a part of the same transaction.
41. Dr. Kat<1ria though a reputed Surgeon, is not an independent ·
wi;ness. On his ~wn admission he has been associated with the Jan
Sangh since a little before 1968. He has gone all out to support the
theory of Shri Nanaji Deshmukh that every one of the injuries. was
caused inside the compartment. He has made only a small modifica-
tion therein by saying that the fractures of the legs could not have
been caused at the same time as the other injuries, but were caused
a little before or a little after death.

42. There is an interesting sidelight to Dr. Kataria's evidence.

The Jan Sangh produced before me a truncated cutting from the
"Organiser" dated the 18th February 1968. It says that one could
make "the following" statement after discussing the matter regarding
Shri Upadhyaya's death with Shri Ram Prakash, Shri Balraj Madhok,
Shrimati Khanna and "a leading Surgeon". In that cutting, what
follows has not been included. It has been cleverly cut out.
43. That the reference in the cutting to "a leading Surgeon" is to
Dr. Kataria is clear from the diary of Shri Ramacharya Pandey in
which, under the date 13th of March 1968, he refers to a cutting from
the Organiser dated the 18th February in regard to "Dr. Kataria".
44. It is interesting to have a look at the whole of the news item
dated the 18th of February. It says expressly at page 2, that accord-
ing to the opinion of "A leading Surgeon of Delhi. ..... only the
sudden stroke in the head, causing instantaneous death, can explain
the closed eyes and the calm face".
45. Reading this, one ca!l understand why the whole of the cutting
was not placed before me. It is clear that the initial opinion of
Dr. Kataria was that death must have occurred instantaneously as a
result of the head injury. He has now made a valiant effort to estab-
lish that death must have supervened an hour after the injuries
were caused but I regret to have to say that his opinion is influenced
by his political affiliation. I find myself unable to accept that
opinion.
46. For these reasons, I am of the view that the injuries which
were found on the person of Shri Upadhyaya were caused by an
impact with the traction pole, after he fell on the ballast from the
running train. The fall first led to the fracture of the legs.

(iii) Discovery of the body

47. It is common ground that the body was discovered during the
shunting operations, that is sometime between 2-20 and 2-55 [Link].
It is however necessary to ascertain with precision when exactly the
body must have been seen first. That would help decide the issue
whether the body was planted near the pole.
48. This question is apparently rendered difficult by the conflicting
statemen~s made at different times by members of the shunting team.
 93
~d .others, like ,A.S.M. Prasad and. Leverman Ramdas who der~ve
their knowledge from them. Drigpal, the Shunting Porter, Kishori
Misra the Shunting J amadar and Abdul Gafoor the driver of the
shunting pilot stated in the Sessions Court that the body was seen
first at about 2-20 A.M. A.S.M. Prasad and Ramdas supported them.
They had however given a ver_y different version soon after the inci-
dent. The statements of Kishori Misra and A.S.M. Prasad were
recorded by S.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh on the 12th morning. Those
statements were verified by D.S.P. Tewari the same evening. Tewa,ri
also recorded the statelllents of Abdul Gafoor, Ramdas and Drigpal
on the 12th, 13th and 14th February respectively. The case of these
witnesses then was that the body was discovered after the first stage
·of shunting was over, that is at about 2-50 A.M. Abdul Gafoor had
gone to the length of denying all knowledge of the dead body and
said that he came to know about it in the early morning.

49. Ramdas and A.S.M. Prasad had then stated that they had gone
to see the dead body at about 3-15 A.M. In the Sessions Court they
took a somersault and stated that they had not gone to see the body
at all.

50. The question which falls for consideration on the data fur-
nished by these witnesses is whether the body was discovered at
2-20 A.M. or 2-50 A.M. It might appear an over simplication of the
issue, but consistently with my finding that the injuries were caused
by an impact ~th the traction pole, it must follow that the body
was lying near the pole since about 2-10 A.M. when the F.C.T. bogie
passed by the pole. In that event, the body which was lying so
close to the area of shunting operations must have been seen when
the shunting team passed by the body first, that is at about 2-20 A.M.
It is true that the shunting pilot always passed by the south of the
traction pole while the body was lying to the north of the pole.
Tl:[Link] however is immaterial, because the body was lying so close to
the three lines-Line No. 9, the Buffer Line and Line No. 10-on
which the pilot opera,ted, that even a casual observer could not have
missed it.

51. If one were to accept the earlier statements of these witnesses,

une would be driven to conclude that the body was .brought from
somewhere else and was placed near the pole during the shunting
·operations. But such a conclusion is impossible to accept and is far-
fetched. The fear of detection and the inherent difficulty involved in
transporting a dead body render it impossible that the body was
placed near the pole later.

52. There is a slightly different aspect of this matter to which I

must refer. The F.C.T. bogie is normally marshalled last and there-
fore it is not necessary to keep it in a solitary state at the 'O.C.
Siding'. It would always be accompanied by the shunting engine.
On the lOth evening, a bogie which was to be detached at Lucknow
was converted into an F.C.T. bogie and that bogie happened to be
3rd from the rear. It is clear from the evidence of A. R. Bansal, the
Guard of the Sealdah Express and A.S.M. Prasad that the decision
to convert the particular bogie into an F.C.T. bogie for Patna was
 94
taken at about 6-30 P.M. No one, therefore, could have known before-
hand that the F.C.T. bogie would be lying alone in the 'O.C. Siding'
at Mughalsarai, so as to facilitate the removal of the body therefrom
and its clandestine placement near the pole.
53. The question however still remains as to why these persons
made untrue statements before S.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh and D.S.P.
Tewari. The reason in my opinion is not far to seek.
54. The fi!Ct that the shunting engine was initially blocked by
Haradwar's engine caused some delay for the shunting engine to go
to platform No. 1. It is only natural that A.S.M. Prasad, who was
on duty on that platform, should ask Kishori Misra, the head of the
shunting team, as to why the delay was caused. And the most natu-
ral answer for Kishori Misra to make would be that the delay had
occurred because Haradwar's engine had blocked the way and be-
cause a dead body was lying on the way. Therefore, A.S.M. Prasad
would come to know of the dead body at the very threshold of the
shunting operations, that is at about 2-20 AM. He however took no·
steps to secure medical assistance or any sort of attention to the body
at least till 3-25 A.M. when he sent a copy of his memo to the G.R.P.
55. A.S.M. Prasad had therefore to explain his conduct, especially
because the person whose dead body was found was no less than
Shri Upa,dhyaya. The only way he could avoid a charge of remiss-
ness or negligence in his duty was to say that he came to know of
the dead body at about 3-15 A.M. and he prepared the memo (Ka-34)
within 10 minutes thereafter.
56. All others who were subordinates of A.S.M. Pra,sad evidently
played to his tune. In addition, they had to protect themselves, be-
cause if they were to admit that they had seen the body at 2-20 A.M.
they would also be required to explain why they were so callously
indifferent to it during the entire shunting operation. They found
an easy way out by saying: (a) That the body was seen at about
2-50 A.M.; (b) That Kishori Misra shouted to the Cabinman that a
dead body was lying near the pole; (c) That the Cabinma,n, Ishwar
Dayal, passed on the information to the A.S.M. on phone at 3-15 A.M.,
which was immediately after the A.S.M. went to his office after the
departure of the Toofan Express and (d) That the A.S.M. promptly
prepared a memo at 3-25 A.M. and sent a copy thereof to the G.R.P.
This was the device adopted by A.S.M. Prasad and his subordinates
to wriggle out of an inconvenient position.
57. I am therefore satisfied that D.I.G. Lobo is right in saying
that what the investigating team did was to persuade A.S.M. Prasad
and his subordinates to tell the truth even if it was inconvenient to
them or contrary to their interest. Not that "hectic efforts" were·
made by the investigating officers to obtain untrue statements from
these witnesses.
58. It is some consolation that these witnesses eventually told the·
truth but even in that act they have distinguished themselves as liars:
They stated that their statements were never recorded at all before
they were contacted by the C.B.I. This attitude is impossible to.
 95
appreciate. I am also not happy that the fact that the statements of
these witnesses were recorded between the 12th and 14th February
was suppressed by the prosecution from the Sessions Court and from
the Defence. The witnesses had to be re-called in the Sessions Court
after it came to light that they had given a wholly different version
before S.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh and D.S.P. Tewari. The witnesses
found themselves in a tight corner from which there was no escape.
They should have shown the simple honesty of offering an explana-
tion of their conduct, but instead they tried to escape by the back
door by totally denying the very fact that their statements were
recorded earlier. Dr. Chakravarty, who altered the record to show
that he attended to the body promptly at 3-55 A.M. was at least frank
to own up the alteration.
59. In my opinion, therefore, the dead body of Shri Upadhyaya
was discovered at 2-20 A.M. and not at 2-50 A.M. It was found lying
near traction pole No. 1276.
(iv) Position of the body
60. Fortunately, there is unanimity as to the position in which the
body was found. The members of the shunting team have given but
a brief description of the position, for they saw the body in passing.
Constable Ram Prasad, Constable Mohammad Zahoor, S.I. Fateh
Bahadur Singh and Dr. B. R. Chakravarty, the Assistant Medical
Officer, have given a detailed description of the position in which the
body was lying. I do not propose to rely on Ram Prasad as his
statement was recorded as late as the 17th April1968 and as he could
not have possibly noted so many details in the feeble light of match-
sticks.
61. The evidence ~hows that: (1) The body was lying fully
stretched on its back with the head towards the east and legs to-
wards the west; (2) The body was lying between line No. 9 and the
traction pole, that is to the south of the Banaras Down Line and
north of the traction pole; (3) The left leg was lying over the right;
(4) The face was covered with a chaddar; (5) The head was a few
inches to the north of the traction pole but clear of the junction-box;
(6) The legs were to the west, but slightly inclined towards the
south; (7) The left hand was bent near the elbow and was lying on
the abdomen; (8) There was a wrist watch on the left wrist; (9} The
right hand was in a raised position: (10) There was a five-rupee note
in the right palm and (11) There were socks and shoes on the feet.
62. It seems to me impossible to conceive that the position in
which the body was seen was the position in which the body had
initially fallen after dashing against the traction pole. After receiv-
ing the head injury and the other injuries the body could not have
come to rest in a fully stretched position. The evidence of the wit-
ntsses who saw the body first shows that the body was lying in a
s:ymmetrical manner, which is too neat to be natural.
63. Unfortunately, S.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh took a photograph
of the body after disturbing its position. He was all intent on secur-
ir:g a clue to the identity of the person anrf was wholly oblivious of
the implications of the posture in which the body was found.
 96
64. The Jan Sangh has led the evidence of three witnesses to show
that initially the head was lying on the juncti!)ii-box. They are:
Chhotelal, a coolie, Satyanarayan Prasad; a Jan Sailgh worker and
Lachhu Ram Suraj Bali, also a Jan Sangh worker. Out of these,
Chhotelal says that when he went to the body along with the
A.S.M., he saw that the head was lying on the junction-box. The
other two merely say that they were not allowed to go near the dead
body but that they heard that the body was laid near the track.
65. I do not think that these witnesses are speaking the truth.
Chhotelal is merely taking advantage of an alteration made by Fateh
Bahadur Singh in the inquest report. Initially, Fateh Bahadur had.
stated therein that the head was lying on the junction-box ("Dhak-
kan Par"). But he changed these words to read "near the junction-
box" ("Dhakkan ke pas"). The reason for this alteration really was
that Fateh Bahadur had kept the head of the body on the junction-
box in order to take a good photograph. He started writing the·
inquest report regarding the body as it was lying before him and
therefore he wrote that the head was on the junction-box. He
realised that he had to describe the position in which the body lay
originally and so he changed the wording appropriately. He was.
not right in disturbing the position of the body, but he was certain-
ly justified in correcting an error which had crept in the inquest
repprt.
66. This alteration gave to Chhotelal a plausible basis for saying
that the head was lying on the junction-box. Assuming the Jan
Sangh case to be true that the body was laid near the pole, it is
difficult to imagine that the conspirators would place it so neatly
in a bid to simulate an accident.
67. Though, however, I see no doubt that the original position of
the body wa.s disturbed, I am of the opinion that there could be no
ulterior motive behind it. In all probability, the members of the
shunting team who first saw the dead body shoved it aside, partly
to ensure their own convenience and partly out of a traditional res-
J3eCt for the dead. They must have covered the face with the
Chaddar, which was lying on the body, just as Fateh Bahadur Singh
stitched the body in the very Dhoti which was on it.
68. While considering this aspect, one must remember that if the
body was laid near the pole as a part of the scheme of conspirators,
it would not have been kept in such a symmetrical position. That
is a valid reason for holding that though the position of the body
was tempered with, the tempering was not motivated.
(v) The five-rupee note
69. One of the most intriguing features of this case is that a five
rupee currency note was found in the hand of the deceased. The
note was gripped in the right palm, the placement of the fingers of
the right hl\nd being very peculiar. As the photograph (Ka-29)
taken by Fateh Bahadur Singh shows, the right thumb was under
the other fingers and was resting on the palm. The currency note
was partly protruding out of the palm from the hollow space near
 97
the small finger. The photograph shows that the dght hand was
a raised position. It looks as i! it is suspended in the air againsh
iJ1i
gt<aVity. ·
70. Dr. Bhushan Rao studied the inquest report, the post-mortem
report and the photographs and submitted his report Ka-77. Accord-
ing to him 1 the head injury resulted ill instantaneous death which
was clear from the fact that there was iristantaneous rigor of the
right palm in which the Cui"rency note was gripped. In other words.
a cadaveric spasm had occurred at the moment of death.
71. In a well-known text-book, "Medical Jurisprudence" by
Gordon, Tutner and Price (3rd' Edition, page 417), it is stated that:
"Cadaveric spasm is a condition in which those muscles
which are in a state of normal contraction at the actual
moment of somatic death persist in this state throughout the·
period of molecular death when the other muscles are in the
state of primary flaccidity. Cadaveric spasm continues until
rigor mortis is developed in the other muscles and only passes
off in the stage of secondary flaccidity ..... .
"Cadaveric spasm may affect all the muscles of the·
body but it most commonly involves groups of muscles only,
such as the muscles of the fore-arms and hands. When some
object is held. in the hand of a person at the time of death.
the development of cadaveric spasm may result in this object
remaining. firmly grasped after death. An object cannot be
grasped in this manner during the ordinary development of
rigor mortis. Cadaveric spasm of this nature can be simulated
if an object is placed in the hand of the deceased during the
stage of primary muscular flaccidity, and if the fingers are then
tied into position around the object until rigor mortis is fully
developed. For practical purposes, however, if an object is
firmly grasped in the hand of the deceased it is strong pre-
sumptive evidence that the object was in his hand at the time
of death."
72. For testing the validity of Dr. Bhushan Rao's opinion it is
necessary to consider whether the currency note was gripped firmly
or loosely in the right palm. Constable Ram Prasad says that it
was possible to remove the note easily. I have already indicated
why I do. not propose to rely on his evidence. Apart from the fact
that his statement was recorded as late as the 17th of April, his
evidence is far too exaggerated to be believed. He claims to have
seen almost the whole universe in the light of matchsticks.
73. I would rather prefer to rely upon the evidence of Fateh
Bahadur Sing!:!_ and othelis that the note was gripped fairly firmly.
There is good reason for taking this view and that is a reason quite
independent of the expert opinion.
74. The more important question is whether the deceased was
carrying the note in his hand at the time of his death, rather than
whether the grip of the right palm was lirm. The Jan Sangh has
contended that the note must have been planted in the hand of the
 98
deceased by those who laid the body near the pole with an 1.11teriQ1
motive. To some extent, the contention that the note was plantec
must fall with the contention that the murder was committed else:
where and the body laid near the traction pole.
75. Apart from this consideration I am unable to understand
as to who would plant the note and 'why. Murderers, partic~arl:')l
political murderers, do not tarry after their purpose is accomplished
One can even understand, though I have rejected that theory:, tha1
the body was kept near the pole in order to simulate an accident
But I am unable to appreciate that in an attempt to enact an acci-
dent, the conspirators found leisure enough to ensure that no !pop-
hole was left. The theory of planting must therefore be ruled out.

76. It must follow as a logical corollary of the last finding tha1

the deceased was carrying the note with him at the time of his death.
That gives plausibility to the opinion of Dr. Bhushan Rao in pre-
ference to that of Dr. Kataria.

77. Let me however frankly confess that it is difficult to imagine

the reason why Shri Upadhyaya was carrying the note in his hand.
Considering his habits and disposition, it is highly unlikely that
he wanted to make any purchases on the platform. Books, he had
enough V~<ith him to read and food, he did not care for. He was
suffering from chronic collitis. It may perhaps be that he wanted
to sent a telegram to Patna, as a final message had yet remained to
be sent that he would be arriving by the Sealdah Express. But this
is pure speculation.

78. The nature of the injuries has an indirect relevanL'e on the

question whether the deceased was carrying the note with him when
he met with his death. I have arrived at the conclusion that Shri
Upadhyaya was pushed out of the train as a result of which he
dashed against the traction pole. It is implicit in this finding that
though it was a chilly, wintry night and though he was aller~c to
cold, he was standing in the door of the compartment. Otherwise he
could not have been pushed out. If he was standing at the door,
evidently he wanted to get down, which could only be if lie had some
pressing piece of work to do on the platform. It must be in con-
nection with that purpose, that he had taken out the five-rupee note.

79. I might refer in this connection to a small but important

detail. Shri Upadhyaya had five upper garments on his person-the
shawl, the two full-sleeved sweaters, the sleeveless sweater and
the banyan. Only the banyan had pockets and it was in the inner
pocket of that banyan that four five-rupee currency notes one one-
rupee note, the reservation ticket and the journey ticket v/ere found.

80. It is clear that if Shri Upadhyaya wanted to take out the

money, he would have to reach the inner pocket of his banyan.
Trying to do so on the platform could be somewhat inconvenient
and awkard. He must therefore have taken out the note and j).,Jd
it in his hand before he stood at the door, having decided to ge1;
down on the platform at Mughalsarai.
 99
81. Taking all these circumstances into account, I am of the opi-
nion that Shri Upadhyaya had the curreney note in his right hand
immediately prior to his death. Instinctively, he must have held
it firmly at the moment of death. The evidence of the two Jan
Sangh witnesses, Sukhanandan Prasad and Raghubir Prasad Saxena,
that at 7-30 A.M. on the 11th they had seen a police cc 1stable taking
out the five-rupee note with case leaves me wholly unimpressed.
'Their evidence is both unnatural and untrue.
 CHAPTER XIH
THEFT OF THE BEDDING
1. Whether Bharat Lal committed· the theft, of Shri Upadhyaya's
bedding at the Mughalsarai Station, whether that bedding was re-
covered from Lalta Kalwar and whether other articles like the coat,.
kurta, chappals, spectacles etc., were seized from ;Bhallu, Moti,.
Aziz, Munni and Indo are matters which are not directly relevant
for my purpose. It am not hearing Bharat's appeal against his con-
viction for theft and as that appeal is pending before the Allahabad
High Court, I would like to avoid saying anything about the sub-
ject-matter of that appeal. It would also not enter into the question
whether Lalta Kalwar and others are receivers of stolen property.

2. But it is important for my purpose to decide whether Shri

Upadhyaya's bedding was stolen from the 'B' Cabin after the Seal-
dah Express arrived at Mughalsarai. If the theft was committed
on the heels of the murder, it would be legitimate to infer that the·
two inCidents are part and parcel of the same transaction.

3. On the question of the theft of the bedding, the evidence of

M. P. Singh is very important. He got down at Patna from the
Toofan Express to which the F.C.T. bogie was attached at Mughal-
sarai. From Patna he went to Tatanagar and from there to Rakha-
mines where he had to attend a three months' geological training
camp. His statement was recorded on the 15th of February at
Rakhamines by D.S.P. Tewari. He and Tewari left Rakhamines the
same evening and reached Mughalsarai at 2 A.M. on the 17th.
4. M. P. Singh said in his statement, as he said in the Sessions
Court, that after the [Link] Express reached Mughalsarai which
was at 2-10 A.M., he went to the 'A' bath-room and then got down
by the 'C' door. He wanted to go to the Parcel Office as he was
anxious that his luggage should be transferred from the brake-van
of the Sealdah Express to the brake-van of the Toofan Express.
He gave instructions accordingly to· the Parcel Office and returned
to the F.C.T. bogie within about seven minutes. As he entered the
I Class compartment by the 'C' door, he saw a young man standing
in the corrider, looking towards the 'B' Cabin. M. P. Singh asked
him as to what was the matter. The stranger pointed to the 'B'
Cabin and asked him "as to where he had gone". M. P. Singh
asked: "Who?". whereupon the stranger, pointing again to the
'B' Cabin, said that his "father was there". M. P. Singh ventured
an opinion that, "he might have got down".

5. M. P. Singh further says that the young man then entered

the 'B' Cabin and removed the bedding and the file. He had asked
for somebody's assistance for taking the bedding out of the station.
M. P. Singh entered his cabin and soon fell asleep.
100
 101
6. There was some dispute before me whether M.P. Singh's state-.
ment was recorded at Rakhamines on the 15th or whether it was
recorded some time after the 17th1 after he came to Mughalsarai
with D.S.P. Tewari. Apparently, there is a striking coincidence.
between the arrival of M. P. Singh at Mughalsarai on the night
between the 16th and the 17th and the recovery of the bedding the
same night. Taking, however, all factors into account, I am inclin-
ed to the view that M. P. Singh's statement must have been re-
corded at Rakhamines on the 15th. There is no doubt that D.S.P.
Tewati contacted him at Rakhamines on the 15th. It cannot be
that he was merely questioned there and his statement was record-
ed two or three days later.
7. Let us look at a comparable event which shows the pattern
of investigation. Inspector Jha, who was asked to trace Major
Sharma, contacted him at Ranchi on the 3rd of March 1968 and re-.
corded his statement the same day at Ranchi itself. That shows
that v.·hen important witnesses were traced and contacted by the.
investigating officers, the first step taken was to record statements.
of· those witnesses.
8. The fact that M. P. Singh's statement was recorded on the.
15th has an importance of its own. It is impossible to conceive that
at such an early stage of investigation D.S.P. Tewari of the U.P.
C.I.D. would put a false statement in the mouth of M. P. Singh
regarding an incident which was pregnant with endless possibili-
ties. D.S.P. Tewari had left Mughalsarai on the 13th night when
the investigation had assumed neither shape nor form. Even the.
announcement that the C.B.I. 1Nill be associated with the Investi-
gation came on the 14th. The C.B.I. team consisting of D.I.G. Lobo
and J.P. Sharma, S.S.P. reached Varanasi on the 15th. I have there-
fore no doubt that M. P. Singh told D.S.P. Tewari what in fact he
had seen.
9. There is a small detail which is said to render it improb-
able that M. P.. Singh could see the removal of the bedding. Con-
ductor Kamal has stated in his evidence that he got down after the
train reached Mughalsarai and while he was on his way to the brake-
van, he saw M. P. Singh standing on the platform near the F.C.T.
bogie. It may be recalled that M. P. Singh has stated that after·
the train reached Mughalsarai he first went to the brake-van and
then to the Parcel Office The argument is that if M P Singh was
merely standing on the platform, he did not go to the parcel office
and if he did not go to the parcel office, he did not come out of his
Cabin at all Therefore, he could not have seen the removal of the
bedding
10. I do not think that there is anything in the 'evidence to.
render it improbable that M. P. Singh had seen the removal of the
bedding. It may be that M. P. Singh was standing on the platform
for a brief second, when Kamal passed by him. Besides, both of·
them first went towards the brake-van, though not together, and
Kamal might have seen him then. The visit to the brake-van and
the Parcel Office was a very natural piece of conduct on the part of·
M. P. Singh. It is a matter of common knoweldge that in so far·
as is possible, one likes one's luggage to accoinoany oneself.
 102
11. The failure of M. P. Singh to identify Bharat in the parade
held on the 11th March does not impair his evidence tha~ the be~­
ding was stolen from the 'B' cabin. It only renders mfirm his
evidence regarding the identity of the thief. The benefit of that
infirmity has gone to Bharat.
12. It might appear strange that neither the w;rist :natch, nor
the money on the person of Shri Upadhyaya nor h1s su1t-case was
stolen. Now in regard to the wrist watch and the money, they were
on the person of Shri Upadhyaya and the thief would not have the
courage to go near the body and invite an easy detection. Besides,
the wrist watch was on the inner side of the left wrist and as would
appear from the photograph Ka-29, it was not easily visible. The
two full-sleeved sweaters had almost covered it.
13. The money on the person of Shri Upadhyaya-four five-rupee
notes and one one-rupee note-was in the inner pocket of the banyan
as stated by Fateh Bahadur Singh. It was diffic1:1lt for any one to
reach the money, for there were three sweaters on top of the banyan.
14. Shri Upadhyaya had also a five-rupee note in his hand, but
there were two difficulties in taking it away : One, the fear of
detection and two, firmness of the grip associated with cadaveric
spasm.
15. As regards the suit-case, the evidence of Bhola Rawat Bharati,
the sweeper, shows that it was under the lower berth. Conductor
Yadav, who was in charge of the Toofan Express from Mughalsarai
to Madhupur accommodated a passenger in the 'B' Cabin of the
F.C.T. bogie, at Patna. That passenger wanted the Cabin to be
cleaned. Yadav asked Bhola to clean up the cabin. Yadav also says
like Bhola that the suit-case was under the lower berth. It is im-
portant that while handing over the suit-case to the G.R.P. at
Mokamah, Y adav wrote a memo Ka-88 asking the G.R.P. to take
charge of the suit-case, which was found lying, "under the lower
berth". It is evident that the thief took away what he could easily
lay his hands on. The suit-case being under the berth, did not catch
his attention.
16. It is said that the conjoint theft of the bedding and the file
cannot fit in squarely in the scheme of a simple theft. Why, it is
asked, should a mere thief take away Shri Upadhyaya's file? I
will deal with the file more fully in the following chapter but I will
make a brief answer here. The file was taken away because M. P.
Singh was standing near the 'B' Cabin and the ruse of the thief
was that his father was travelling in the 'B' Cabin. He adopted a
posture sugRestive of a bonafide anxiety to take his father's luggage
on to the platform and then out of the station. If he were to be
choosy and select the bedding, M. P. Singh might perhaps have gone
v..iser, for a son who wanted to take away his father's luggage would
not leave a part of it behind. It may be recalled that .even Shri
Upadhyaya!s Jhola containing books was found missing.
17. As I have stated earlier in this chapter I am not concerned
with the re~o~eries of the various articles fro~ Lalta Kalwar and
others, for 1t 1s enough for my purpose to ascertain whether the
 1()3
murder was accompanied by theft. But the Jan Sangh has led
evidence before me to show that the bedding was really recovered
from a pit near· the Railway Club and not from the house of Lalta
Kalwar. I '-Vill deal with that evidence briefly.

18. Three witnesses, Mohan Lal Chaurasia, Deena Nath Sukhdeo

and Sakhraj Shivnandan have been examined in support of the pit
theory. These witnesses say that four or five days after Shri Upa,-
dhyaya's death, the G.R.P. asked them to act as Panchas to the re-
covery of the bedding. Two Police-men went into a pit and took
out the bedding from the bushes. The bedding contained, amongst
other articles, two bed-sheets, one of which was blood-stained. A
panchayatnama was drawn of the recovery which according to the
'-Vitnesses was signed by them.

19. There is an inherent improbabilitv in the evidence of these

witnesses. They are all connected with the Jan Sangh in some capa-
city or the other and it is difficult to believe that the Police would get
them to act as witnesses to a false document. It is surprising that
these witnesses did not approach the C.B.I. though according to them
it was a talk of the town that the C.B.I. Officers had committed fraud
in foisting the bedding on Lalta Kalwar. These witnesses have filed
affidavits before the Commission but there is no mention therein that
any of the articles in the bedding was blood-stained. If the witnesses
are right that two chaddars were found in the bedding and that one
of them was blood-stained, it is surprising that the Committee, which
was appointed by the President of the Jan Sangh to inquire into the
circumstances relating to the death of Shri Upadhyaya, should have
come to the conclusion that only one chaddar was recovered. Shri
Nanaji Deshmukh was the Chairman of that Committee. The allega-
tion is that Mohan Lal and Deena Nath had told him all about the
recovery of the bedding from the pit.
20. Kalpanath Gupta, who was examined before me by the Jan
Sangh, has stated in his affidavit that he was informed by the ricksha-
wallas that some persons had gone to the station in a black car and
had taken away the bedding from the station on the night of occur-
rence. Kalpanath has not referred to any such thing in his evidence
and it is therefore unnecessary to deal with his affidavit.
21. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the murder of Shri
Upadhyaya was accompanied by a theft of his belongings, the theft
having been committed within about ten minutes of the murder. The
thief knew that the true owner was no longer in a position to come
forward. In the bluff of the thief there was an air of confidence that
the field was clear for a safe theft. One had only to use one's wits.
 CHAPTER XIV
MOTIVATION FOR THE MURDER: IS IT POLITICAL?
1. If the death of Shri Upadhyaya was accompanied by a theft of
his belongings and if the murder and theft are a part of the same
scheme, it is a legitimate inference to draw that politics is no part
of this crime. The murder was committed for purposes of gain, the
immediate reason of the murder being either to avoid detection in
the act of theft or to facilitate the theft. The matter cannot, how-
ever, rest there.
2. The Jan Sangh has led a mass of evidence which shows, prim.a.
facie, that the movements of Shri Upadhyaya were being watched
over a period of time commencing from December 1967. That evi-
dence must be examined with care. During the course of obituary
references to Shri Upadhyaya's death, members of the Parliament
expressed a deep concern whether politics was no longer safe for
politicians, whether the price of political beliefs was as high as one's
life. This anxiety must be answered. Three Presidents· of the
Bharatiya Jan Sangh have died in circumstances apparently shroud-
ed in mystery, circumstances bewildering at least at first blush. Dr.
Shama Prasad Mukerji died while in detention in Kashmir in 1953,
Dr. Raghubir died in a motor car accident while on an election
campaign in 1963 and Shri Deen Dayal Upadhyaya died in 1968 during
a Railway journey, while on his way to a meeting of the Bihar Pro-
vincial Executive Committee of the Jan Sangh. Is the death of
Shri Upadhyaya a part of a pattern? As was said in the trial of
George Joseph Smith, popularly known as the "Brides-in-the-bath-
tub" murder case, in which three successive brides were found dead
in the bath-tub, one death in the bath-tub is accident, two deaths in
the bath-tub are coincidence and three deaths in the bath-tub are
myrder. Can this apply here? That doubt must be resolved and if
possible, set at rest.
3. Before discussing the evidence on this issue it would be worth-
while to know what Shri Nanaji Deshmukh has to say about the
motive behind Shri Upadhyaya's murder. Nanaji has been closely
associated with the Jan Sangh since its inception in 1951. He was its
All-India Secretary from 1965 and is at present its Treasurer. He
was the chairman of the Committee appointed by Shri Atal Behari
Vajpayee, who succeeded Shri Upadhyaya as the President of Jan
Sangh, for the purpose of collecting data 1:elating to the death of
Shri Upadhyaya.
4. In the concluding portion of his evidence before the Commill-
sion, N anaji says:
"I say that this is a case of political murder because Pandit
Deen Dayal was a soft-spoken, straightforward and a some-
what reserved person. He had no private enemies. He had
104
 105
dedicated his life to the cause of the country and he had no
worldly .possessions in regard to which he could have been
done to death. The opposition to him was ideological and
intellectual. The circumstances immediately leading to his
death appear to me to be wholly inconsistent with the death
having been caused for motives of gain. One of his most valu-
able wordly .possessions, namely, a wrist watch, was permitted
to remain with him, and the thieves certainly would not think
of such a thing. The thieves would not be interested in shifting
the venue of the offence. The very fact that the scene of
offence was shifted shows that there was a well-knit and well
executed conspiracy b:ehind this murder. The view that the
murder of Pandit Deen Dayal was politically motivated which
is held by the Jan Sangh members is shared by many others.
Acharya Kripalani in fact gave expression to :the same view
in Lok Sabha while paying a tribute to the memory of the
departed on the 12th February 1968."

5. I have already dealt with why the wrist-watch was not stolen.
I have also taken the view that in the circumstances of the case it is
not ;possible to hold that the venue of the offence was shifted by
laying the body near the traction pole. What remains to consider
is whether there was a "well-knit and well executed conspiracy"
·behind the murder.

{i) Unknown [Link] shadowing Shri Upadhyaya from 28th Decem-

ber 1967 to lOth February 1968.

6. The evidence led by the Jan Sangh that unknown suspicious

characters were shadowing Shri Upadhyaya fr·om 28th December
1967 till l-Oth February 1968 covers six different stages of Shri
Upadhyaya's movements during that period. I will deal with those
.'Stages chronologically.

7. The annual Session of the Jan Sangh was held at Calicut on

the 28th December 1967. Shri Amarchand Shubh who is a practising
lawyer at Delhi, an Executive Councillor in the Delhi Administration
and a Jan Sangh worker of long standing had attended that Session.
Shri Upadhyaya, the President-elect, was taken in a procession and
a cordon formed around his car. Amarchand says in his evidence
that a young man, whose name he subsequently came to know as
"Chandrashekhar", was asking one of the Jan Sangh workers who
had formed the cordon, as to who was the person who was being
taken in a procession and as to where he resided. Amarchand dis-
closed this incident to D.S.P. Badri Sharma on the 30th May 1968.

8. I am unable to attach any praticular significance to the inquiry

made by the young man. If he was a conspirator, it is unlikely that
he would ask one of the Jan Sangh workers who had formed the
cordon around Shri Upadhyaya's car, as to who he was and where
he resided. It seems to me that the young Chandrashekhar was
merely inquisitive and that the inquiries he made had no sinister
significance.
 lOG
9. The next incident took place on the 7th of January 1968 at. the
V. T. Station Bombay. Shri Jhamatmal Wadhwani now the Pres1dent
of the Bombay Jan Sangh and Shri Vasant Bhagwat, Organising
Secretary of the Maharashtra Jan Sangh, had gone to the ~tation
along with others to see off Shri Upadhyaya, who was travellmg by
the Pathankot Express. Wadhwani and Bhagwat say that while
they were talldng to Shri Upadhyaya on the platform, they saw a
person dressed in Khaki, loitering about in a suspicious manner.
Once or twice he entered the compartment by which Shri Upadhyaya
was to travel. Bhagwat asked him why he had got into the train.
He replied that he was checking up electrical connections. He was
not carrying any tools with him. After Shri Upadhyaya boarded the
train, he followed him. Wadhwani and Bhagwat asked him whether
he was travelling by the train, but he gave evasive replies, suggesting
half-heartedly that he intended to travel upto Dadar.
10. It is clear from the admissions made by the awo witnesses
that they did not act on their suspicion. Wadhwani has stated that
he did not report the matter to the Police, because he did not think
that the movements of the stranger "were so very suspicious". Bhag-
wat has admitted that he thought that the stranger "might perhaps
be a bonafide traveller". These admissions show that the stranger
could not have been connected with Shri Upadhyaya's murder.
11. Then we go to the incident which is alleged to have taken
place on the 3rd and the 4th of February at Delhi and Bareilly.
Raj veer Singh, Secretary of the District Jan Sangh, Bareilly, says
that he travelled from Delhi to Bareilly on the night between the
3rd and 4th by the Allahabad passenger. On the Delhi platform, he
met Shri Upadhyaya who was to go to Bareilly by the same train.
While Rajveer Singh was getting into his compartment at Delhi, a
young man asked him where Shri Upadhyaya was going. When the
train reached Bareilly, the same man asked him as to how long Shri
Upadhyaya would be staying at Bareilly.
12. In the first place, Rajveer Singh has not stated in his affidavit
dated the 31st of January 1970 what he has stated in his evidence.
Even assuminr; that he is right, the type of enquiries to which he
depose are quite often made casually. After all, politicians are the
focus of public interest and people do want to know if there are any
interesting public engagements in which politicians figure. Listen-
ing to their lectures is a favourite pastime of many.
13. The next incident is said to have taken place on the 5th of
February at Bhojipura. Kartar Singh Lalchand, Secretary of the
Bhojipura Jan Sangh, says that he had gone to the Station Master's
Office for collecting a parcel received in the name of "M/s Lalchand
Kartar Singh". There, he heard a stranger asldng the Station Master
details regarding the reservation made for Shri Upadhyaya. The
Station Master looked at a chart and gave the necessary informatica
to the stranger. That reservation is alleged to have been made for
the 5th.
14. Now in the first place, the Station Master of Bhojipura ·
Pyarelal Babbar, who was examined by the C.B.I. has stated ·that
 107
there was no reservation chart at Bhojipura, as reservations from
Bhojipura to Lucknow are made at Kathgodam. The Station Master,
therefore, could not have looked at any chart and told the stranger
that Shri Upadhyaya's reservation was made for a particular date.
The message book Ex. 69 does not contain any record of a message
asking that reservation be made for Shri Upadhyaya at any time
frorr: the 29th of December 1967 to the 12th of February 1968.
15. Rajendra Prasad Shukla. a C.B.I. witness has produced a re-
servation register Ex. 64, which shows that no reservation was made
for Shri Upadhyaya for a journey from Kathgodam to Lucknow on
the 5th.
16. How untrue the claim of Kartar Singh is, is further apparent
from the evidence of Amarnath Hanumanprasad, a C.B.I. witness,
who though a reservation clerk at Bhojipura, is also concerned with
the delivery of parcels. Ex. 65, the register of parcels, and Exs. 67
and 68, the parcel way-bills, show that the parcel meant for M/s
Lalchand Kartar Singh was delivered to one Laddan on the 7th
February. No parcel was delivered to Kartar Singh as claimed by
him.
17. Two witnesses, Professor Gyan Chand Agarwal and Rama-
kant Shukla, have given evidence regarding two incidents which
took place at Kanpur on the 7th of February. Professor Agarwal,
who is a Jan Sangh worker, says that he had gone to the Kanpur
Railway Station on the 7th. when the Jhansi Mail arrived at the
Station. Shri Upadhyaya came to Kanpur by that train in connection
with a meeting. Agarwal says that a stranger asked him on the
platform as to where Shri Upadhyaya would be staying in Kanpur
and what was his programme. Ramakant Shukla, also a Jan Sangh
worker, says that on the 7th morning he had gone to the Jan Sangh
office at Kanpur where Shri Upadhyaya was busy with a meeting.
Half an hour after the meeting was over, a stranger asked him where
Shri Upadhyaya was staying and what was his programme.
18. I would dismiss this evidence with a brief observation 'that
there is nothing to show that there was an evil design behind the
enquiries made by the strangers. Those who have such designs do
not make open enquiries.
19. The next incident is alleged to have taken place on the lOth
of February 1968 between 9·00 and 10·00 A.M. at the Charbagh
Railway Station, Lucknow. A witness called Ravi Shankar ·Trivedi
says that at about 9·15 A.M. he had gone to the Station for reserving
a seat for Shri Pitambar Das from Lucknow to Delhi. Witness says
that Uma Shankar had made the reservation for Shri Upadhyaya
from Lucknow to Patna just a little before. The witness heard a
stranger enquiring with the reservation clerk about the details of
the reservation made by Uma Shankar.
20. Ravi Shankar can be easily demonstrated to be an untruthful
witness. It is correct that Uma Shankar got a reservation for Shri
Upadhyaya, at about. 9·30 A.M. on the lOth February. But the
evidence of Govind BijaJ;Ii, a C.B.I. witness, who was working as a
8-167 H.A.
 108
reservation clerk at Charbagh shows that the reservation for Shri
Pitambar Das was made initially on the 1st of February for the
journey on the 9th, from Lucknow t~ Delhi. On the 4th of [Link],
the reservation was altered frvm a JOurney on the 9th to a JOUrney
on the lOth. This is borne out by the reservation sheets, Exs. 70 and
71. Therefore Ravi Shankar could not have gone to the Charbagh
Station on th~ lOth February to reserve a seat for Shri Pitambar
Das.
21. Thus, the evidence of this group of witnesses examined by
the Jan Sangh to show that unknown, suspicious persons were
closely following Shri Upadhyaya's movements from 28th Decem-
ber 1967 to lOth February 1968 fails to carry conviction. Lazy, inno-
cent enquiries arising out of idle inquisitiveness have been distorted
so as to have a sinister significance. The evidence gives the impres-
sion that in retrospect, the witnesses have imaginatively discovered
an evil design in what was plainly casual.

(ii) Evidence show'ing the presence of known persons, including

known Communists, near the traction pole on the lOth and round-
about Mughalsarai on the 11th February 1968.
22. The evidence under this head also covers six different inci-
dents.
23. The first of these is alleged to have taken place at about 7 · 00
P.M. on the lOth of February 1968 in the house of S.I. Prabhu Singh
Bhati, who was then attached to the G.R.P., Mughalsarai. A witness
called Ram Murat says that while passing by the house of Bhati, he
saw Munnelal Gupta, Ramdas the Ticket Collector and one other
person. These persons were talking between themselves, but on
seeing Ram Murat they receded into the house.

24. Apart from the fact that this evidence carries one nowhere,
Ram Murat cannot be believed. On the 3rd of March 1968, Shri
Nanaji Deshmukh had given a list Ex. 59 to D.I.G. John Lobo, con-
taining the names of certain Left Communists, who were suspected
to be concerned with Shri Upadhyaya's death. The names of Mun-
nelal Gu;:>ta and Ticket Collector Ramdas are mentioned in that Jist.
but significantly the alleged meeting in the house of Prabhu Singh
Bhati is not mentioned therein. In fact, the name of Bhati does not
at all find a place in Ex. 59.

25. The truthfulness of Ram Murat can be tested in another way

also. As stated earlier, Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee had appointed a
Committee for the purpose of collecting data relating to the death
of Shri Upadhyaya. Nanaji Deshmukh, who was appointed as a
Chain:nan ?f that Committee had co-opted Shri Ramacharya Pandey
to assist him. The report of the Committee was placed by Nanaji
Deshmukh before the meeting of the Central Working Committee of
the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, which was held at Bhopal on the 22nd and
23rd of March 1968. The report was simultaneously released to the
press. It has been published in an official publication of the Jan
Sangh, called "Apni Gatividhi", dated the 15th of April 1968.
 109
26. The report of the Committee is a comprehensive document re-
flecting the result of the efforts made by a Committee which was
appointed for a specific purpose. It is significant that there is no
reference in that report to the incident described by Ram Murat.
27. Ramacharya's personal diary Ex. 40 shows that he had con-
tacted Ram Murat on the 12th February. If that be so, one cannot
understand how the incident now described by Ram Murat does not
find a place in the report.
28. The next incident is also stated to have happened at about
7-GO P.M. on the lOth February but the venue this time is the Execu-
tive Engineer's office near the Railway Yard, on the same side as
Bhati's house.
29. Jhamar Singh, who describes this incident, says that he saw
Ticket Collector Ramdas and Bhati near the Engineering Office.

30. Here also it must be reacalled that Bhati 's name is not men-
tioned in the list Ex. 59 and Ticket Collector Ramdas' name has been
mentioned in a different context altogether. If Jhamar Singh v1ras
contacted by Ramacharya Pandey on the 12th of Febru&ry as would
appear from Ramacharya's diary Ex. 40, it is surprising that this inci-
dent should not find a place in Ex. 59. It is even more surprising
t'J?t there is no reference to it in the Committee's report published
in "Apni Gatividhi".

31. The third incident which is deposed to by Triveni Prasad and

Ramcsh Singh is alleged to have happened at about 8-00 P.M. on the
lOth. near about the traction pole. The effect of their evidence is that
while they were going to the house of one Tiwari where Triveni
Prasad had to repair a radio, they saw that Ticket Collector Ramdas,
Prabhu Singh Bhati and Pranav Kumar alias Dada Ghosh were stand-
ing near a tea-shop, which is in the north-west corner of the Railway
Yard and is about 70 paces away from the traction pole.

32. The fourth incident is also deposed to by the very two wit-
nesses. They say that at about 8-15 P.M. while they were returning
from Tiwari's house, they saw Munnelal Gupta, Saty:anarayan Tiwari,
D1·. Shivtahal Meht;~, Ticket Collector Ramdas and-- Pranav Kumar
Ghosh, standing four or five paces away from the tea-shop. They
were whispe1·ing that "the train arrives at 2-10 A.M." When they saw
the witnesses, they cut short their conversation.

33. A simple answer to the evidence in regard to these incidents

is that they do not find a place either in the list Ex. 59 or in the
report published in "Apni Gatividhi". I have no doubt that Triveni
Prasad and Ramesh Singh who are partisan witnesses have trotted
out a story from the blue.. Triveni Prasad displayed some anxiety
to conceal his connection with the Jan Sangh, but he had admitted in
his evidence in Criminal Case No. 103 of 1969 that he was a Treasurer
of a Jan Sangh Branch. The evidence in that case is at Ex. 17 (col-
lectivelv). There is no doubt that Ramesh Singh is also a Jan Sangh
v.-orke~.
 110
34. The fifth incident is after the murder and is alleged to have
taken place at about 9-00 p.m. on the 11th February. Jhamar Singh,
who has deposed to the second incident in this group, refers to th1s
incident also. He says that he went to Bhati's house where Ramdas.
Leverman and Drigpal Singh. the Shunting porter were also present.
Seeing Jhamar Singh, the three people stopped their conversation
abruptly. He asked Bhati as to what was wrong with his health as
he had taken sick leave from the lOth afternoon. Bhati said that
there was nothing particularly wrong with him. He also asked Bhati
as to why he did not go to the Police Station for investigation. Bhati
replied that there was nothing particular in the case and that Fateh
Bahadur Singh would be able to attend to it.
35. Jhamar Singh has been a Jan Sangh worker since 1958, having
been a whole-time worker from 1958 ti111962 at Mirza pur. The whole
of his evidence has an unnatural ring about it. In the first place, he
had no particular reason to go to Bhati's house. Secondly. it is diffi-
cult to believe that on being pointedly questioned in that behalf,
Bhati would affirm that there was nothing wrong about his health.
It is alleged that he has communistic leanings and he had gone on
leave on the lOth, feigning to be sick. He really wanted to get ready
for the impending murder of Shri Upadhyaya. If that be so Bhati
would have told Jhamar Singh, who is a known Jan Sangh worker,
that he was unwell and that he had therefore taken leave. He would
also never have stated that "there was nothing particular in the case."
36. It shall have been seen that Prabhu Singh Bhati figures in all
the incidents mentioned above under sub-head (ii), except the fourth.
It therefore becomes necessary to examine the question whether he
had anything to do with the murder of Shri Upadhyaya.
37. A Jan Sangh witness called Pratap Rai, who lives in Bareilly,
says that when Bhati was posted there in 1966-67, he was very friendly
with some of the Communist leaders of Bareilly. According to Pratap
Rai, Bhati used to say that the Jan Sangh is a tool in the hands of
the Americans. Bhati also used to abuse Shri Upadhyaya in objec-
tionable language.
38. Pratap Rai has no regard for truth, because though he had made
a statement before the C.B.I. officers when they were making con-
fidential enquiries about Bhati, he said in his evidence that he did
not remember whether he had made any such statement. It was only
when his attention was drawn to the statement Ex. 1 that he admitted
that the statement was in his hand and that it bore his signature. In
that statement he has expressly said that Bhati had never abused
Shri Upadhyaya or the Jan Sangh. He explained it by saying that
he had written out the statement blindly at the dictation of the C.B.I.
39. A mere look at the statement will show that it could not have
been written at the dictation of the C.B.I. officers. Bhati himself
has been examined by the C.B.I. before me and I am satisfied that
h~ has not~ing to do with the murder of Shri Upadhyaya. He was
fnendly w1th Mohanlal. the e'!der brother of Pratap Rai. In the dis-
pute between the two brothers over a family concern called "Vijay
Biscuit Factory", Bhati sided with Mohanlal. The price for that is
his involvement by Pratap Rai in the murder of Shri Upadhyaya.
 111
40. The report made by Inspector M. A. Khan of the C.B.I. which
is at Ex. 73 also shows that Pratap Rai is at the bottom of the allega-
tions against Bhati. It is a significant coincidence that Pratap Rai
who calls himself a Congressman should approach Shri Virendra
Varma. an Advocate of Bareilly. for drafting his affidavit. Kartar
Singh and Rajveer Singh whose evidence has been discussed by me
under sub-head (i) had also gone to the same lawyer in connection
with their affidavits.

41. Prabhu Singh Bhati must therefore be cleared of all suspicion.

There is nothing to show that he was in any manner concerned with
the murder of. Shri Upadhaya.

42. The sixth incident under this sub-head is alleged to have

taken place at about 10-00 P.M. on the 11th of February. Jhamar
Singh says that when he went to Mawai which is close to Mughal-
sarai, he saw Munnelal Gupta, Dr. Shivtahal Mehta, Satyanarayan
Tiwari and a Clerk of the G.R.P. office together.

43. This is really innocuous evidence. If indeed it had any signi-

ficance, it is strange that it does not find a place in· Ex. 59. The
names of Munnelal Gupta, Shivtahal Mehta and Satyanarayan
Tiwari are mentioned in Ex. 59 but in an entirely different context.
It is stated therein that Munnelal Gupta and Shivtahal Mehta were
not to be traced from the lOth morning till the 11th. Of Satyana-
rayan Tiwari it is stated that he had gone to Taranpur, which is
near Mughalsarai. on the lCth of February to meet Ticket Collector
Ramdas.

44. Jhamar Singh, who is an omnibus witness is supposed to have

been contacted by Ramacharya Pandey on the 12th of February.
It is surprising that what Jhamar Singh alleges now finds no place
either in the list Ex. 59 or in the report of the Committee, published
in "Apni Gatividhi", Ex. 56.

45. This is the entire evidence which was led by the Jan Sangh
to show that the movements of certain known persons including
Communists, on the lOth and the 11th of February were suspicious.
I am wholly unimpressed by that evidence. It is artificial, inno-
cuous, motivated and imaginative. It would be wholly wrong to
implicate any one in a grave charge of murder on the basis of such
flimsy evidence.

(iii) Previous preparation by Ramdp.s •and Pranav Kumar Ghosh and

subsequent abscondinq of Dr. Shivtahal Mehta.
46. The Jan Sangh has examined two witnesses, Kumari Daya
Bahen and Shreeprakash, to show that Ticket Collector Ramdas and
Pranav Kumar alias Dada Ghosh left Lucknow by the Punjab Mail
on the lOth at 11-30 A.M. It may be recalled that Ramdas and
Pranav Kumar are said to have been seen near the Mughalsarai
Station at different times between 7-00 P.M. and 8-15 P.M., the sam"
evening. I have dealt with that evidence under the previous sub-
head.
 112
47. The allegation seems to be that Ramdas and Pranav Kull_l~.::
who formed the main arm of the conspiracy, went to Mughalsara1 m
order to make necessary [Link] for facilitating execution of
the conspiracy.

48. Both Daya Bahen and Shreeprakash are Jan Sangh workers
and they seem to have permitted their loyalty to the party to influ-
ence their better judgment. Daya Bahen says that she had told
Ramacharya Pandey on the 13th of February that she had seen
the two persons getting into the Punjab Mail. This cannot possibly
be true, because as stated earlier, the name of Pranav Kumar Ghosh
does not find any place in Ex. 59. the list containing the names of
suspected Communists. Ticket Collector Ramdas' name is men-
tioned therein but it is stated against his name that he was in
Taranpur on the lOth of February, that three unknown persons had
gone to his residence on the lOth and that he went back to Luck-
now on the 11th by the Punjab Mail. The evidence of Daya Bahen
and Shreeprakash cannot therefore be accepted.

49. A witness called Dayaram was examined by the Jan Sangh

to show that right from the day on which Shri Upadhyaya died,
Dr. Shivtahal Mehta was absconding for a month and a half. Now
this is directly contrary to what is stated in Ex. 59. What is stated
there against Shivtahal Mehta's name is that he had left his village,
Dulhaipur, on the lOth February informing his wife that he would
come back after three or four days, but he returned on the 11th.
Many more things can be said about the utterly [Link] evidence
of Dayaram, but it is not necessary to do so. I will only mention
one more thing. He did not disclose to Jhamar Singh, a well-kno\1ill
Jan Sangh worker that Shivtahal was absconding. He admits that
he used to meet Jhamar Singh. Shivtahal Mehta has been examin-
ed by the C.B.I. before me and though, perhaps, he may be a
member of the Communist Party as shown by the hand-bill Ex.
85, I am satisfied that there is no substance in the allegation that
he was absconding.

(iv) The role of Dr. Faridi

50. Shri Ramacharya Pandey has stated in his diary Ex. 40, in
the weekly memo ending with the 3rd of March, that Rr. Faridi and
Prabhu Singh Bhati were the brains behind the conspiracy. I have
already rejected the charge that Bhati was connected with Shri
Upadhyaya's murder. I must now consider the validity of the
charge against Dr. Faridi.

51. Dr. Faridi, a Muslim, is a heart specialist practising at Luck-

now. He owns a house in Lucknow, a part of which is let out to
a company called 'Cipla', of which Shri V. N. [Link] is the Branch
Manager. On the 17th January 1966, V. N. Sharma's aaughter was
rn:arried to Major. Surendra Mohan Sharma, who commanded a
F1eld Battery Reg1ment at Namkom, near Ranchi. Major Sharma
had taken one month's leave from the 14th of January and he re-
turned to his headquarters on the evening of the 11th February. He
went for regimental exercises on the 12th.
 113
52. I have rejected as unsubstantial the allegation that Major
S. N. Sharma was in any manner connected with the death of Shri
Upadhyaya. I have held that he travelled by the Train Service
Coach and that no one masquerading as Major Sharma travelled by
the F.C.T. bogie, at any stage of the journey between Lucknow and
Mughalsarai. This conclusion necessarily implies that Major S. N.
Sharma was not used as a tool by Dr. Faridi. Nonetheless, it is
necessary to examine the charges against Dr. Faridi a little closely.

53. The Jan Sangh has examined three witness in support of

its case that not only Communists but Muslims like Dr. Faridi had
conspired to commit Shri Upadpyaya's murder. These v,itnesses
are: Maheshya Datta, Shivraj Bahadur and Sardar Jagiit Singh.

54. Maheshya Datta, a full-time Jan Sangh worker says that in

the communal riots at Meerut which took place in January 1968,
an organisation called "Jamiyat-ul-ulma'' had arranged a reception
for Sheikh Abdullah and that slogans like "Pakistan Zindabad",
"Jan Sangh Murdabad" and "Khun Ka Badia Khun Se Lenge" were
raised.
55. This evidence may be true or false but it cannot connect
Dr. Faridi with the murder of Shri Upadhyaya. Besides, slogans
may have a political utility but no thinking person ever takes them
too literally.
56.· Shivraj Bahadur, a cloth merchant of Lucknow says that in
early 1968 he had attended three meetings of an association called
"Majlis-e-Mushawwarat", Lucknow. Two out of these meetings were
presided over by Dr. Faridi and one by Ishahac Ilmi of Kanpur.
The latter is the Editor of an Urdu Daily called "Siasat".

57. Shivraj Bahadur says that Dr. Faridi declared in his speeches
that so long as the Jan Sangh was carrying on its propaganda, the
Majlis had no chance of survival and therefore it was necessary to
deal with the Jan Sangh properly. Dr. Faridi is further alleged to
have said that unless the leaders of the Jan Sangh were crushed,
the Majlis would not be able to make any headway and that the
Communist Party was ready to offer the necessary help. Ishahac
Ilmi is alleged to have said in his speech that the Jan Sangh, which
was working under the leadership of Shri Upadhyaya, was respon-
sible for the Meerut riots. According to Shivraj Bahadur. a report
of the speeches had appeared in 'Siasat'.

58. The C.B.I. has produced the relevant issues of 'Siasat'. It

stated before me by Counsel for the Jan Sangh that there was noth-
ing in these issues to bear out Shivraj Bahadur.

59. It is in my opinion not safe to accept the mere word of the

v..itness that fiery and provocative speeches were made by Dr.
Faridi. He says that the Police were present at the meeting. If
that were true, it would not have been yery difficult for the Jan
Sangh to produce better evidence in regard to the speeches made
in the three meetings. lt is also difficult to believe that such open
 114
provocation was given by the two speakers. Finally, assuming for
a moment that such speeches were made, there is nothing to show
that the threat was carried out by Dr. Faridi.
60. The evidence of Sardar Jagjit Singh is to the effect that the
relations between Dr. Faridi and Shri V. N. Sharma were cordial.
I will accept this for the purposes of a:gument, but ~t is a _fantastic
allegation to make that because of this so-called fnendsh1p, V. N.
Sharma agreed that his son-in-law may act as a tool in the hands
of Dr. Faridi.
61. It is interesting in this behalf to have a look at a certified
copy of a criminal complaint, Ex. 115, filed by V. N. Sharma agaiJ?-st
Dr. Faridi on the 6th of June 1967 in the Court of the Special
Magistrate, Lucknow. V. N. Sharma had alleged therein that Dr.
Faridi, the landlord had committed trespass on a part of the pre-
mises let out to the''Cipla' company.
62. The C.B.I. has also filed record of Miscellaneous Case No. 51
of 1970, which is Ex. 116. It shows that the Cipla Company was in
arrears of rent from 1st November 1966 to 31st January 1970.
63. This certainly is not evidence of cordiality. True that the
company and not V. N. Sharma was the tenant of Dr. Faridi, but
the company was acting through V. N. Sharma, as is clear from
Exs. 115 and 116.
64-65. In my opinion, the charge against Dr. Faridi that he is
connected with the murder of Shri Upadhyaya is baseless. It is
significant that in the report of the Committee appointed by Shri
Vajpayee, of which Shri Nanaji Deshmukh was the Chairman, there
is no reference to Dr. Faridi whatsoever.

(v) The Akbarpur incident

66. Shri Nanaji Deshmukh has stated in his evidence before me
that some time in February or Marcll 1968 he had handed over to
D.I.G. John Lobo the statement of one Prabhu Dayal, carriage fitter,
Akbarpur. Akbarpur is on the Lucknow-Mughalsarai line, a run
of about four hours from Lucknow. _In that statement Prabhu Dayal
has said that on the 11th of February at about 4-00 A.M. Satyana-
rayan Tiwari, a Train Examiner, told him at Akbarpur that a leade1
called Deen Dayal was murdered.
67. The statement of Prabhu Dayal which is Ex. Ka-264 is relied
upon by the Jan Sangh to show that as early as at 4-00 A.M. on the
night between the lOth and 11th it was known at a place as far as
Akbarpur that Shri Upadhyaya was murdered.
68. I am unable to attach any importance to Prabhu Dayal's
statement. Dy. S. P. Badri Sharma had made inquiries with Prabhu
Dayal but he repudiated the statement substantially and admitted
his enmity with Satyanarayan Tiwari. The four documents which
have been produced before me by the C.B.I., Exs. 83 84 86 and 119
'-""e no doubt that there was enmity between Pra'bh~ Dayal and
 115
Satyanarayan Tiwari. As recently before Shri Upadhyaya's murder
as the 26th of January 1968, Prabhu Dayal had filed an applicati01~
to the Divisional Superintendent, Nor them Railway, Lucknow,
complaining that Tiwari had assaulted him with a roller. The three
files at Ex. 83 show that there were complaints and counter-com-
plaints between Prabhu Dayal and Tiwari. Eventually, a depart-
mental enquiry was held against Prabhu Dayal at the instance of
Tiwari in wqich a fine was imposed on him. On the 3rd of March
1968, that is one day prior to the day when Prabhu Dayal wrote
out his statement, he had filed an appeal against the sentence im-
posed on him.
69. I have not the least doubt that Prabhu Dayal wanted to
involve Satyanarayan Tiwari falsely on account of his long-stand-
ing enmity with him.
(vi) Identification of the deceased
70. The case of the prosecution in the Sessions Court was that
the dead body of Shri Upadhyaya was identified by Vishwanath
Prasad Agarwal at about 10-30 A.M., after the body was taken to
the G.R.P. Office by Fateh Bahadur Singh. In answer to this, and
for the same purpose for which evidence regarding the Akbarpur
incident was led, the Jan Sangh has examined two witnesses before
me. They are: Kashinath Pandey and Bholanath Gupta. The
former says in his evidence that someone had phoned him at the
Varanasi City Office of the Jan Sangh at about 9·00 A.M. on the 11th
that Shri Upadhyaya was murdered and the body was kept near the
G.R.P. Office, Mughalsarai. He says that he tried to contact the
G.R.P. on the trunk telephone but that he could not do so. When
he went to see the body at Mughalsarai, he was surprised that Vish-
wanath Prasad Agarwal should be talking about the death of Shri
Upadhyaya as late as 10·30 A.M. The other witness Bholanath Gupta
says that at about 9·15· A.M. on the 11th he left Varanasi for Mughal-
sarai with Kashinath Pandey and others.
71. Kashinath Pandey's evidence that he had received a phone at
Varanasi at 9·00 A.M. to the effect that the dead body was kept near
the G.R.P. Office, is clearly false because the body was shifted from
the traction pole to the G.R.P. Office by [Link] Bahadur Singh at
10 · 00 A.M. Equally false is the claim of the witness that he tried to
phone the G.R.P. but could not do so. Kalika Prasad Tripathi, En-
gineering Supervisor, Trunk Telephones, Varanasi, who was exa-
mined by the C.B.I. says on examining the relevant record, that on
the 11th of February 1968 no trunk call was booked from Telephone
No. 4911 Varanasi, to No. 86 Mughalsarai or to the G.R.P., Mughal-
sarai. In fact, the G.R.P. had no phone of its own in February 1968.
The number of the Jan Sangh telephone ·at Varanasi is 4911. The
number of the Railway Station Telephone at Mughalsarai is 86.
72. Therefore, the evidence of Vishwanath Prasad Agarwal must
stand that he was the first to identify the body at 10·30 A.M. Prior
to that the Control Operator had informed S.I. Jagannath Singh at
about 9·40 A.M. that on checking with the Lucknow end, the reser-
vation ticket on the person of the dead body was found to have been
issued in the name of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya.
 116
(vii) Guards at the house of M. P. Singh
73. It may be recalled that whereas M. P. Singh had said before
D.S.P. Tiwari on the 15th of February that the stranger in the
corridor at Varanasi was not Shri Upadhyaya, he stated in the
Sessions Court that he had not seen the stranger carefully and that
there was a 'fifty-fifty' chance of the stranger being Shri Upadhyaya.
The case of the Jan Sangh is that threats were held out against
M. P. Singh's life and therefore he was labouring under a fear com-
plex. That is why, instead of describing the incident as it had
happened, he introduced the element of theft in it. It is urged that
the threats show that the two accused were mere scapegoats and
the real culprits wanted M. P. Singh to stick to the story of theft and
absolve them.
74. The Jan Sangh has examined three witnesses: Bishambhar
Nath Srivastava, Panchanan Srivastava and Laxman Singh Chatur-
vedi in support of its case. The first two witnesses say that armed
Police Constables were posted at the house of M. P. Singh, in the
Paper Mill Lane at Lucknow in February 1968. Laxman Singh
merely says that in January 1970 he had gone to the Paper Mill
Colony to check up the information regarding the posting of the
guards and that he met Bishambhar and Panchanan Srivastava.
75. The C.B.I. has examined B. N. Mehrotra, Senior Reserve Ins-
pector, Lucknow and Daljit Singh Ranbir Singh, Adjutant, Pradeshik
Armed Constabulary, Lucknow, to rebut the evidence led by the
Jan Sangh.
76. The evidence of these two witnesses leaves no doubt that no
guard was provided for duty at M. P. Singh's house, either by the
Reserve Police Office or by the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary. Nor-
mally, no other agency provides guards for private citizens.
77. The evidence of Bishambhar Nath and Panchanan sounds
absurd. They claim to have made inquiries with the guards them-
selves and they further say that the guards told them that they were
posted there because M.P. Singh's father had received a letter con-
taining a threat to his, that is, M.P. Singh's life. The guards them-
selves would not know the exact reason why they were posted and
even if they knew it, they would certainly not disclose it to
strangers. It is interesting to note that M. P. Singh had himself stated
in the Sessions Court that his father had told him that the Chief
Minister had received a letter that there was a threat to his, that is,
M. P. Singh's life and therefore guards would be kept at his house.
It seems to me that advantage is being taken of this part of M. P.
Singh's evidence, and an attempt was made to establish that guards
were posted atM. P. Singh's house. There is no substance in that
evidence.

(viii) The 'Tippu Sena' letters

78. Shri Nanaji Deshmukh had tendered a bunch of letters in the
Sessions Court, which are comprised in Exs. C-1 to C-18. He says
that after the murder of Shri Upadhyaya, a number of threatening
 117
letters were received by the "Organiser" and various Jan Sangh
workers and sympathisers. The letters purport to emanate from an
organisation called "Tippu Sena".
79. Most of these letters appear to have been written by the same
person. They contain filthy abuse at the policy of the Jan Sangh,
particularly for its attitude towards the Muslims. The letters con-
tain a warning that the leaders of Jan Sangh Ehould be prepared to
meet their 'Mughalsarai'.
80. I am unable to attach any importance to these letters. The
Jan Sangh has its political rivals as any other political party has. It
may perhaps be that some perverse political opponents of the Jan
Sangh gloated over Shri Upadhyaya's death and gave unrestrained
expression to their feelings in the letters. Such threats however
cannot be taken too seriously. In fact, how empty the threats were
taken to be, is clear from the fact that neither the report of the Com-
mittee presided over by Shri Nanaji Deshmukh nor the diary of
Ramacharya Pandey contains any reference to the letters.
81. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the 'Tippu Sena' letters
are mere sound and fury, signifying nothing.

(ix) The Missing File

82. The case of the Jan Sangh is that Shri Upadhyaya used to
collect information regarding anti-national activities and keep it in
a file and some diaries. A13 the file which Shri Upadhyaya was
·carrying with him has not been traced, it is urged that the file was
taken away for a political purpose. It could not have been taken
away by a mere thief. Nanaji Deshmukh and Ashwini Kumar, the
Organising Secretary of the Bihar Jan Sangh have stated in their
evidence that Shri Upadhyaya used to collect information about the
activities of the anti-nationals.
83. Before me, a witness called Kailash Pati Misra was examined
by the Jan Sangh on the same question. Kailash Pati, who has been
the Provincial Secretary of the Bihar Jan Sangh since 1960, says
that on the specific instructions given by Shri Upadhyaya, he and
the other Jan Sangh workers used to keep Shri Upadhyaya posted
about all types of anti-national activities. Kailash Pati claims to
have supplied· such information regarding the conditions prevailing
in Singhbhum, Santhal Paragana, Ranchi, Darbhanga and other
districts.
84. In view of the clear evidence of M. P. Singh that the person
who stole the bedding also carried away the file, it must be held that
Shri Upadhyaya did have a file with him when he left Lucknow on
the lOth evening. This file was stolen along with the bedding and
though the bedding has been traced, the file could not be traced.
85. I am however unable to hold that the particular file which was
stolen at Mughalsarai from Shri Upadhyaya's cabin could have con-
tained any secret or important information regarding anti-nationals.
It is remarkable that in the report of the Committee presided over by
 118
Nanaji Deshmukh there is no reference at ali to the file or the
diaries. In paragraph 8, the report says that ''Almost the en~1re
luggage of Panditji has been recovered ex~ept a bag contm~ung
books, a pillow and a slate coloured chaddar·'. If the file contamed
important matter, the report would have undoubtedly referred . to
it, especially when reference is made to the other articles which
were not traced.
86. Kailash Pati claims to have been supplying secret information
to Shri Upadhyaya for about six years. It is surprising that he has
not produced a single letter written by Shri Upadhyaya acknowledg-
ing receipt of the information. In fact, there is no evidence that
there was any correspondence between the two. Kailash Pati has
taken the easy course by saying that Shri Upadhyaya did not reply
back to him. That is impossible to believe. A person as methodical
and meticulous as Shri Upadhyaya would not have failed to send a
simple acknowledgement, though without discussing the nature or
the merits of the information supplied to him.
87. The C.B.I. recorded Kailash Pati's statement on the 3rd of
April 1968, which is Ex. 14. He did not even suggest in that state-
ment that he used to supply any information to Shri Upadhyaya. He
only stated that he had gone to receive Shri Upadhyaya at the Patna
Station first on the lOth night ancl then on the 11th morning, but
Shri Upadhyaya did not come by either train. Lastly, Kailash Pati
did not file any affidavit before the Commission, which normally he
would have done if he were in possession of such an important clue.
88. In my opinion, therefore, though the file which Shri Upadh-
yaya had taken with him on the jour11ey has not been traced, there
is no satisfactory evidence to show that the file was in the nature of
a precious political document. As the file has not been traced, so
have the books not been traced. Experience shows that thieves
promptly part with stolen articles which have a market value. Files
and books are valueless in the eye of the Receiver, though they may
be otherwise worth their weight in gold.
(x) The Personal Diary of Shri Ramacharya Pandey

89. Shri Ramacharya Pandey, who is a graduate of the Calcutta

University, edits a weekly called "Jan Deep" published from
Lucknow. He has written a dozen books of poetry.· He became a
member of the Jan Sangh in 1960.
90. He says that he received the news of Shri Upadhyaya's death
at about 9·45 A.M. on the 11th of February 1968 while he was
sitting in the Jan Sangh Karyalaya at Lucknow. He immediately
passed on the information to the Jan Sangh leaders including Nanaji
Deshmukh. Nanaji told him on phone to proceed to Mughalsarai
immediately and collect the relevant information regardincr the
death of Shri Upadhyaya. Ramacharya says, he accordinglyb con-
tacted several persons from day to day and noted their names in his
personal diary, Ex. 40. He says that he maintains the diary regular-
ly. The diary contains other personal jottings also.
 119
91. While in the witness-box, Ramacharya created a very favour-
able impression on me. He struck me as an ~arnest worker dedi-
cated to the cause of his party. I however regret to have to say that
I find myself unable to place any reliance on his diary.
92. The diary is of the year 1968 and is a publication of the Life
Insurance Corporation of India. It gives half a page for every day.
Iri addition, half a page is reserved for the "Weekly Memo", at the
end of every sunday.
93. The diary effectively commences on the 6th of February 1968,
in the sense that the movements or the activiti~s of Shri Upadhyaya
are noted in the diary on the 6th February for the first time. This is
strange because Ex. 58, the itinerary of Shri Upadhyaya which was
given by Shri Nanaji Deshmukh to D.I.G. Lobo on the 2nd of March
1968, shows that Shri Upadhyaya arrived in Lucknow on the 9th of
January 1968 and was there till the morning of the 20th. As the
diary shows, Ramacharya was in Lucknow fr!En the 7th to the 16th
January 1968. It is surprising that there is no reference in the diary
to any part of Shri Upadhyaya's programme from the 9th to the 16th.
It cannot possibly be that Ramacharya did not meet the President
of his party or that he did not attend any of his programmes from
the 9th to the 16th.
94. Under the date 8th of February, Ramacharya has stated that
Nanaji left Lucknow for Delhi and that he had gone to see him off
at the Lucknow Station. Now Nanaji has stated in his evidence that
he left Lucknow for Delhi on the 8th and that he went from Delhi to
Bombay by plane on the next day, that is the 9th February. Nanaji
has really committed an error in saying this because he must have
left Lucknow not on the 8th but on the 9th. As shown by the
evidence of K. B. Vishwanathan, Traffic Officer of the I.A.C., who
was examined before me by the C.B.I., reservation for Nanaji Desh-
mukh was made at Lucknow on the 8th by Flight No. 405 leaving
Delhi for Bombay on the lOth at 10·15 A.M. As Nanaji had not halted
at Delhi except to await the connection, he must have left Lucknow
on the 9th and not on the 8th.
95. But Ramacharya could not have committed such a mistake, if
he is right that he used to write the diary at the end of every day. It
seems that the diary has not been written regularly, but events have
been entered therein later so as to fitin with some scheme.
96. It is too much of a coincidence that under the date 9th of
February, a day prior to Shri Upadhyaya's death, Ramacharya should
refer to a talk he had had with Shri Up2dhyaya regarding his per-
sonal safety. It is an equally striking coincidence that Shri Upadh-
yaya should have told him: "No one can restrain death, as no one
can obstruct the course of life". This seems to me to have been
written after the event had happened, in ord•!r to lay the founda-
tion for the theory that there was danger to Shri Upadhyaya's life.
97. The entries made under the ·date 12th of February have a cru-
cial importance on the authenticity of the diary. The several notings
made under that date read like entries made by an investigating
 120
officer in a case diary. Frankly, I am unable to appreciate how just
a day or two after the death of Shri Upadhyaya, Ramacharya would
go about conducting a sort of a parallel investig~tion. At t~at stage
the anxiety of all concerned was to co-operate w1th the Police w~o
were investigating into the murder. Nothing had happened, till
then at any rate, to cast any doubt on the fairness of the official in-
vestigation.
98. I cannot accept Shri Nanaji Deshmukh's statement that he
had told Ramacharya on the 11th morning on phone that he should
collect the relevant information. Nanaji was then in Bombay and
knew nothing about the murder. In fact, there is a good basis for
doubting that Ramacharya at all telephoned Nanaji from Lucknow
on the 11th morning. Om Prakash Chatwal of the Lucknow Tele-
phone Exchange, who was examined before me by the C.B.I., has
stated that no trunk call was made from telephone number 23509
(Lucknow) to Bombay on the 11th February 1968. 23509 is the
telephone number of the Jan Sangh Karyalaya, Lucknow, where
Ramacharya says he received the information about Shri Upadh-
yaya's death.
99. The entries of the 12th February would put the smartest and
the most experienced investigator to shame. So efficient indeed was
Ramacharya. In one day he claims to have been able to contact
almost all the principal actors in this mysterious drama.

100. If the diary is authentic, to Ramacharya must go the credit

of having solved the riddle of Shri Upadhyaya's death within a short
span of two days. The C.B.I. took a little over two months and a
half to file the charge-sheet against the two accused. The learned
Sessions Judge took a year to decide the case. I have been grappling
with this mystery since February 1970. But, Rarnacharya concluded
on the 12th of February 1968 that Communists (whose names are
mentioned in the entry) were concerned with the murder and that
the five rupee note was planted to simulate an accident. The entry
of the 12th leaves me but with one feeling, that it was made months
after.

101. The diary mentions that Rarnacharya had contacted certain

witnesses on the 13th, 14th and 15th of February. Some of the per-
sons whose names are mentioned therein are Ravi Shan'Iar, Daya
Bahen, Rama Shankar, Ramesh Chandra and Rajveer Singh. I have
considered the evidence of these witnesses and have rejected it as
untrue. It is some measure of the truthfulness of the diary that it
refers to untrue witnesses.

102. I will now turn to another variety of entries showing that

the diary has been written subsequently. In these entries Rama-
charya, like a seer, has made advance reference to corning events.
For example, under the date 17th of February, it is mentioned that
the itinerary of Shri Upadhyaya (which is Ex. 58) was handed over
to D.I.G. Lobo by Nanaji on that date. Nanaji has admitted that
Ex. 58 was given by him to D.I.G. Lobo on the 2nd of March 1968.
There is an endorsement to that effect on Ex. 58 itself.
 121
103. This in my opinion proves beyond any doubt that the diary
was written out subsequently in support of a certain theory which
was to be made out. Otherwise, Ramacharya could not have possibly
written on the 17th that a certain event had happened which in fact
happened 13 or 14 days later.
104. Under the date 2!H;h of February it is stated that informa-
tion was obtained that "Major S. L. Sharma", the son~in-law of Shri
V. N. Sharma, had travelled by a particular train. As a matter of
fact, Major Sharma was traced at Ranchi on the 3rd of March. The
entry of the 29th of February is also therefore written after the
event.
105. Many more entries can be pointed out from the diary, to
show how untrue they are. They are however too numerous to
mention.
106. Ramacharya claims that Ex. 40 is his personal diary and not
a mere record of the investigation done by him. I am sorry to say
that the diary is pre-eminently a record of the investigation made by
Rama2harya. Pages after pages of the diary are blank. 13 days in
March, 27 days in April, 23 days in June and all the 31 days of July
are completely blank. I do not think that any life could run such a
blank course for so long a period. And, Ramacharya is a poet and a
politician. If there was no political event worth noting in the diary
during those days, his Muse at least could not have so cruelly de-
serted him. In any event, a personal diary can always have enough
food for thought in the shape of the endless problems of personal
life.
107. I Vvil! only refer to one more improbability in the investiga-
tion conducted by Ramacharya and leave the matter there. On the
day that Shri Upadhyaya died, the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal Ministry
was in power in U.P. The Jan Sangh was a constituent of the Dal
and in fact Shri Ram Prakash, who belongs to the Jan Sangh, was
the Deputy Chief Minister. It is impossible to believe that Nanaji
would ask Ramacharya to conduct a parallel investigation on the 12th
when one of the leaders of the Jan Sangh was occupying a high place
in the U.P. Cabinet. The Ministry fell on the 17th and the President's
Rule was introduced in U.P. on the 25th February. There was
therefore no reason for N anaji to suspect the t'ona fides of the Police,
at least till the 17th.
108. It is no pleasure to distrust political workers but Rama-
charya seems to have identified himself so completely with the cause
of his party that he permitted his vision to be blinded. He put him-
self in a position where he could not see truth from falsehood. I
must express my disapproval that any one should have beE>n a party
to the fabrication of a document for the purpose of producing it as
evidence.
(xi) The inherent improbabilities in the theory of ctJnspiru·~Y

109. I will briefly point out how, in the circumstances of the case,
there could have been no conspiracy behind Shri Upadhyaya's
murder.
 122
110. It was on the lOth morning that it was finally decided that
Shri Upadhyaya would go to Patna to attend a meeting on the 11th.
Even the office-bearers of the Jan Sangh at Patna did not know th!lt
Shri Upadhyaya would be travelling by the Sealdah Express. That
is why Kailash Pati Misra, the Provincial Secretary of the l3ihar Jan
Sangh, first attended the Punjab Mail on the lOth night and then
the Toofan Express on the 11th morning for receiving Shri
Upadhyaya.
111. A conspirator is supposed to have seen Uma Shankar reserv-
ing a berth for Shri Upadhyaya at about 9·45 A.M. He gets the rele-
vant information from the reservation clerk and the wheels of cons-
piracy are set in motion.

112. At about 11·30 A.M. Pranav Kumar Ghosh and T. C. Ramdas

leave Lucknow for Mughalsarai by the Punjab Mail. They constitute
the advance party.

113. Another arm of the conspiracy is that after 10·00 A.M. the
conspirators contact Dr. Faridi who approaches V. N. Sharma, who
in turn persuades his son-in-law Major Surendra Mohan Sharma t.o
:orget all about the recent marriage and participate in the murder.

114. Major Sharma tells Har Govind Pandey of the R.T.O's Office
at about 1 P.M., to reserve his seat in the F.C.T. bogie though mili-
tary quota was available in the Train Service Coach.

115. The conspirators have then to start thinking about the actual
mode of murder-whether it should be committed in the compart-
ment or outside and if it is committed in the compartment, how the
dead body should be dealt with. It is important to remember here
that the decision to convert the third last bogie of the Sealdah Ex-
press into an F.C.T. bogie for Patna was taken at about 6·30 P.M.
at Lucknow. Until then the conspirators, howsoever ingenious they
might have been, could not have imagined that the F.C.T. bogie
would be lying solitarily in the 'O.C. Siding' for some length of time.

116. In the background of all these hurdles; is it possible that the

conspirators would decide to commit the murder just before the
train reached Varanasi. There was always the danger of a visitor
calling on Shri Upadhyaya or even a sweeper entering the compart-
ment for cleaning it.

117. One of the intrinsic infirmities of the theory that the murder
was committed before Varanasi and the body laid at Mughalsarai is
that the Jan Sangh had a fairly large following in that tract. Given
the choice, the conspirators would have preferred sonie other area
for their operation.

118. Finally, laying the body on the track involved a grave risk·
for the conspirators. That would require the co-operation of the
members of the shunting team, against whom no conspiratorial
accusatiOn has been made.
 123
119. These intrinsic infirmities render it difficult to believe that
there was a conspiracy to commit Shri Upadhyaya's murder.
120. It seems to me that in their. moment of grief, those interested
in Shri Upadhyaya_ were. groping in the dark to discover the truth.
'They did not even hesitate to consult the plarlchette but they were
not satisfied .with the answers .they got there.. As reported in the
·"drganiser" dated the Hltli of March 1968, the planchette _favotired
the t11eo:ry that a drunken irian with a masked £ace knocked on the
·door of. Shri Upadhyaya's Cabih, entered the cabin, twisted his arm,
sat on his chest; and hit on his !i'ead before the trruri had reached
Varanasi, but_while the train was travelling at a slow speed. This
theory was found unsUitable ari\1 was dropped. In a quest for a
more plausible theory, politics was imported into the crime. I do
not think that either planchette or politics can yield a correct solu-
tion to the problem before me. ·

(xii) Summing up
121. Having considered tht1 entire evidence and tlie circumstances
bearing on this crucia:l issue, I have come to the conclusion that Shri
Upadhyaya's murder. was not politically motivated. There are cir-
cumstances here and there which on a superficial view may excite
one's suspicion. But suspicion is not proof. On a deeper . analysis,
such suspicion as appeared initially on the surface begins to wither.
Be it the enigmatic civilian in the. unlighted 'C' cabin at .Lucknow,
·Or the turn to the initials of Major Sharma, or Shri G. S. Rai changing
his mind in the midst of the journey and detraining at Shahganj on
the off-side, or the "fifty-fifty" stranger in the corridor, or the almost
bloodless death, or finally the five-rupee note in the right hand-
there is a rational explanation to each one of these circumstances.
Only, that he who seeks it will alone find it. I have striven .to .seek
-such an explimation and I am hopeful that the solution which I have
found will answer the requirements both of reason and conscience.
 CHAPTER XV
THE JAN SANGH ATTACK ON THE C.B.I.
1. On the 12th of February 1968 several members of the Parlia··
ment, while paying a tribute to the memory of Shri Upadhyaya,
asked that the investigation of the case should be entrusted to the
Central Bureau of Investigation. On the 14th of February, the then
Home Minister Shri Y. B. Chavan announced in the Parliament that,
at the request of the Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh it was decided-
to entrust the investigation tp the C.B.I. The Home Minister ex--
plained that the U.P. Police officers had already started the investi-
gation and that they and the C.B.I. officers will work together as a
single team.
2. Accordingly, a team of C.B.I. officers headed by D.I.G. John
Lobo and J. P. Sharma, S.P. reached Varanasi on the 15th. The
investigation was formally taken over by the C.B.I. from the
U.P.C.I.D. on the 18th February, after the Central Government noti·
fled, with the consent of the U.P. Government, that the jurisdiction ·
of the Delhi Special Establishment was extended to the State of
U.P. for investigation of the offence in regard to the death pf
Shri Upadhyaya. On the 26th, the Director of the C.B.I. issued an
order that Shri M. P. Singh, D.I.G. will be associated with the inves-
tigation of the case. D.I.G. Singh reached Varanasi on the 27th and
took part in the further stages .Qf the investigation.
3. The C.B.I. tea,m consisted of a large number pf officers. D.S.P.
Baijal was the Chief Investigating officer. He was assisted mainly
by D.S.P. Kapur, D.S.P. Badri Sharma, D.S.P. Sanyal, D.S.P. Srivas-
tava; Inspector Bhola,n Das, Inspector Sukhdeo Sinll:h. Inspector Jha
and Inspector Kapur.
4. The Jan Sangh has made a frontal attack on the C.B.I. It is
alleged that the C.B.I. officers deliberately suppressed the political
origin of the crime and gave a commonplace slant to it by making
scapegpats of two notorious thieves. Precious clues are said to have
been supplied to the C.B.I., but it is alleged that the C.B.I. officers
either turned a deaf ear or destroyed the efficacy of those clues by
disclosing valuable information to persons who were themselves
suspected of the crime. In other words, the very purpose for which
an independent organisation like the C.B.I. was entrusted with the
task of investigation, was frustrated on account of the oblique atti-.
tude adopted by the C.B.I. officers. The investigation, says the Jan
Sangh, is wholly wanting in bona fides.
5. Specific instances have been cited before me by the JaH Sangh,
showing the malJa fides of the C.B.I. The instances are like these;
(a) Though the statement of M.P. Singh must have been recorded
after the 17th of February, it was represented that it was recorded
by D.S.P. Tewari at Rakhamines on the 15th.
124
 125
(b) That though lVl. P.; Singh had .stated expressly in the state-
ment alleged to be of the 15th that the_ stranger in the corridor at
Varanasi was not Shri Upadhyaya, he was persuaded to dilute that
statement by saying that he had not seen the stranger carefully and
that there was ·a "fifty-fifty" chance of the stranger being
Shri Upadhyaya.
(c) That ·Kamal was deliberately dropped as a prosecution wit-
ness in the Sessions Court. The object of the C.B.I. in doing so was
to compel the Sessions Court to examine him as a Court witness so
that he could not be contradicted by reference to his earlier statement.
(d) The C.B.I. obtained false statements from the members of
the shunting team, which are wholly contrary to the ·statements
made by them before S.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh of the G.R.P. and
D.S.P. Tewari of the U.P.C.I.D.
(e) That though three photographs were taken of Shri Upa-
dhyaya's injuries before the commencement of the post-mortem
examination, only two photographs were produced in the Sessions
Court and the third was suppressed. This was done because that
photograph could have showed that the injuries on the back and the
buttock were not in a straight line. The traction pole theory derives
its main strength from Dr. Bhushan Rao's opinion that those injuries
were in a straight line and .could therefore be caused by a single
impact.·
(f) That though the bedding was seized from a pit, it was falsely
alleged that it was recovered from Lalta Kalwar. It was also fa1sely ·
alleged that the towel and the pillow-cover were taken charge of
from Lalta's house on the 17th of February.
(g) Two chaddars were found in the bedding, which was seized
from the pit. One of those chaddars, which was blood-stained, was
never produced before the Court, because it showed that Shri Upa-
dhyaya was· [Link] in the compartment. ·
.- . .'

(h) That false. evidence was obtained to show that Bharat had
made extra-judicial confessions to Munni, Dwarika and Parasnath
Srivastava. -
(i) That deliberate delay was caused in recording the st'atements
of Sharda, Bhaiyya Lal, Lalu, Nanhku an~ Gur Prasad, and . .
(j) That some of the· points which formed the core of the case
were deliberately left unexplained. -
6. Almost every one of these points has been· dealt with by me in
the 'course of my report. It would be needless repetition to furnish
the same answers once over again. I would however like to make
a brief observation on some of the points enumerated above.
7. M. P. Singh was indisputably contacted at Rakhamines on the
15th and the greater probability is that his statement was recorded
on· the same day. That is what happened in the case of Major S. M.
Sharma whose statement was recorded on the 3rd of March at
Ranchi, that is, on the very day. on which he was contacted. 'l'here
is no substance in the accusation that M. P, Singh was persuaded to
 126
dilute the effect of ·his earlier statement. From the 15th of February
1968 till the date that he gave his evidenee in the Sessions Court he
was consistently doubtful about the identity of the stranger. .What
was basically against the C.B.I. trersion ill M. P. Singh's statement
continued to be so at all stages of the investigation.
8. Regarding Kamal, the C.B.I. ·was in two minds whether or not
to examine him as its witness. In the charge-sheet filed on the 4th
of May 1968 his name was not included as a witness. On the 24th
July 1968, an application was made in the committing Court that his
name be included in the list of witnesses. On the 17th December
1968, an application was made in the Sessions Court that the prosecu-
tion did not want to examine him. One cannot approve of this vacil-
lating attitude but then the prosecution could not possibly adopt
Kamal as its witness. His version regarding the stranger in the 'C'
Cabin at Lucknow ·was quite clearly imaginary. I nave taken the
view that Kamal had not checked the passengers in the F.C.T. bogie.
He merely wanted to put up the pretence that he was very dutiful.
9. In regard to the conflicting statements of the shunting team,
however, the C.B.I. did not act fairly or properly. There was justi-
fication undoubtedly for obtaining fresh statements from Drigpal,
Kishori Misra, A.S.M. Prasad and others, because the statements
which they had made before the U.P.C.I.D. were not true. They
had made those statements to protect themselves and to save A.S.M.
Prasad from a possible charge of remissness in duty. But surely it
was ·the duty of the prosecution to disclose to the Court and to the
Defence that on an earlier occasion the witnesses had made state-
ments which were contrary to the statements recorded by the C.B.I.
This was not done. After the witnesses were examined, it came to
light that they had made conflicting statements at an earlier stage.
They had therefore to be recalled for further cross-examination.
Unabashedly they told the Court that their statements were record-
ed for the first time when they were contacted by the C.B.I. They
said so because when the C.B.I. recorded their statements no expla-
nation was sought from them as to why they had told the U.P.d.I.D.
that the dead body was seen by them after the first stage of shunting
was over. The C.B.I. officers should have questioned them pointedly
in regard to the earlier statements.
10. There is no substance in the grievance that three photographs
of the injuries were taken, out of which the one · that was iiicon-
venient was suppressed. The evidence of Dr. Mtlrli Manohat joshi
that three such photographs were taken seems to me untrue. It is
strange that In the affidavit which he filed before the Commission
there is no reference to the photographs at all. Dr. Joshi was a
member of the Committee appointed by the Jan Sangh to organise
the case before the Commission. His affidavit was sworn on the 1st
of February 1970, which was more than three months after the Com-
mission was appointed and yet he says nothing therein about the
ph?tographs: His evidence is also· directly- contrary to the represen-
tation subrmtted to the Commission by Nanaji, in which the latter
says that no steps were taken to have a photograph of all the injuries.
Thus, what Nanaji alleges is not that one photograph was suppressed
but that one more shOuld have been taken.
 127
11. I do not want to go further into the affidavit of Dr. Joshi, but
I must record that the endorsement on the affidavit that it was sworn
o~ 0e 1st of February 1970 before Shri N. P. Singh, the Oath Com-
mJssJoner, is false. Shri M. P. Tandon, Deputy Registrar of the
Allahabad High Court who was examined before me by the C.B.L
says that "Serial No. 38" which is endorsed on the affidavit does nut
correspond to that number in Shri N. P. Singh's Register of affidavits,
Ex. 98. That Register shows that affidavit Number 38 made before
Shri N. P. Singh related to a First Appeal and was sworn on the 27th
of January 1970.
12. K. M. Bhatia of the "Goras Studio" who took the photographs
~ays that he topk only two photographs in the mortuary at the
mstance of Shri Ram Prakash, the Deputy Chief Minister. Finally,
even the Jan Sangh published only two photographs in its booklet
"'Who killed Upadhyaya?" Those photographs are copies of Ex. Ka-30
and Ka-31 which were produced in the Sessions Court. Shri Rama-
charya has tried to support Dr. M. M. Joshi but there is no substance
in it. It is disturbing that people occupying responsible positions
should have been parties to such manipulations. The charge that
the C.B.I. suppressed one of the photographs is, thus, wholly
wlfounded.

13. Regarding the recovery of the bedding, the towel and the
pillow-case from the house of Lalta Kalwar, I have said that I would
prefer not to deal with that aspect except for considering whether
there is any truth in the allegation that the bedding was recovered
from a pit. I have taken the view that there is no truth in the pit
theory. However, that conclusion cannot by itself establish the truth
of the allegation that on the night between the 16th and 17th
of February, the bedding was recovered from the house of Lalta and
that on the 17th the towel and the pillow-case were similarly re-
covered. I do not want to enter into this aspect of the matter
because I have found that the murder of Shri Upadhyaya was accom-
panied by a theft of his belongings. That shows that the murder
wa~ influenced by plain mercenary motives and there was no politics
in it. It is needless for my purpose to pursue the thief any further,
either for the purpose of identifying him or for the purpose of trac-
ing the receiver. Bharat's appeal is pending in the Allahabad High
Court and perhaps, Their Lordships there may want to deal with
this problem.

14. I have discarded the allegation that the blood-stained slate

coloured chadda.r was found in the bedding and has been suppressed
by the C.B.I. There is no warrant for this accusation and it runs
counter to many other pieces of evidence.

15. I have not dwelt on the extra-judicial confessions in my re-

port. That is because I am not determining the guilt of Bharat or
of any other individual. Nonetheless, I would like to observe that
none of the three extra-judicial confessions seems plausible. I do
not however, think that the C.B.I. can be accused of having tutored
Mu~ni Dwarika or Parasnath into saying that Bhara.t had confessed
to the 'crime before them. If Shri Upadhyaya's murder were to have
 128
a political origin and the C.B.I. were to lead evidence of such extra-
judicial confessions, it might have been possible to say that an
oblique slant was given to the investigation to avoid an inconveninent
situation. But once it is clear th<1t the murder is not politically
motivated, no such charge can be made against the C.B.I. They were
right in their conclusion that the murder was committed by thieves.
You cannot then dub their investigation as mal_a fide if for proving
their thesis, they tried to collect evidence pointing in the direction
of theft. The evidence may fail to carry conviction but in fairness,
the charge that the investigation was influenced by an ulterior
motive cannot be sustained.
16. Regarding the delay caused in contacting witnesses like
Sharda, Bhaiyya Lal, Lalu, Nanhku and Gur Prasad, I would absolve
the C.B.I. of any charge of dilatoriness, except in the case of Gur
Prasad. The four others are but rickshawallas and theirs is a shift-
ing population. It could not have been easy to get their names,
particularly because the names could be obtained only from their
unwilling colleagues in the trade. It is notorious that in these mat-
ters there is quite a fraternity.
17. I am however unable to appreciate that Gur Prasad could not
be traced till the 17th of April. I visited the Kashi Railway Station
along with the Counsel and what I found was that the tea-stall of
Awat Ram, in which Gur Prasad works,_occupies a prominent place
near the very entrance to the station. It could not have been possi-
bly overlooked, for it is the only tea-stall within a radius of about
100 yards from the station. The search for Kashi witnesses was
intensive from the very beginning and therefore it is somewhat
puzzling that Gur Prasad could not be contacted before the 17th of
April. But this is a small point.
18. That finishes the answer to the more important points men-
tioned at the beginning of this chapter. I will now turn to the other
points of criticism against the C.B.I.
19. Two witnesses, Kalpanath Gupta and Lalta Kalwar have
stated before me that the C.B.I. officers used to torture the ricksha-
wallas and others. There is no substance in- this allegation. Kalpa-
nath said in cross-examination that he had received the particular
information from two rickshawallas, Sukku and Hari. He added in
re-examination that they gave up rickshaw driving as they were
beaten mercilessly by the Police and that in course of time they died.
Lalta followed the same pattern and said that his nephew, Kapil Deo,
died as a result of the torture at the hands of the G.R.P. and the
C.B.I. officers. Both the witnesses have resorted to a questionable
but time-honoured device of deposing in reliance on a dead source.
Such evidencs is hal"lll7 ever satisfactory. Torture by the Police to
the point of death would not have failed to evoke a strong public
reaction.
20. It was urged before me that D.I.G. Lobo was replaced by
D.I.G. Singh from the 26th February 1968 because the former had
expressed his agreement with the theory propounded by Nanaji
Deshmukh. There is no substance in this allegation. D.I.G. Lobo
 129
had submitted two reports to the Director of C.B.I., 0 ne, an interim
;report dated the 20th of March 1968 and the other, the final report
dated the 29th of April 1968. Shri Lobo was examined as a witness
before _me, his evidence in regard to the two reports having been
taken tn camera. Neither of these reports nor the evidence of
Shri Lobo would justify the inference that he had expressed his
a!lrec;ment with any theory advocated by Nanaji. Equally unsubstan-
t!al 1s _the charg~ that Shri Lobo was replaced by D.I.G. Singh.
~here. 1s ~lear eVIdence to show that he took an active part in the
mveshgatwn even after Shri Singh joined the investigating team.
In fact, the final report was submitted to the Director of C.B.I. by
.Shri Lobo.

21_. Since it is alleged that Nanaji Deshmukh had propounded a

.defimte theory when the C.B.L officers were investigating into tht-
case, it would be worthwhile considering whether any definite view
was ever expressed by Nanaji.

22. During the course of investigation, Nanaji had handed over to

.Shri Lobo a list Ex. 59, containing the names of eight suspected
.c;ommunists and describing their suspicious activities at the material
trme. This list was given on the 3rd of March 1968. The informa-
tion contained in Ex. 59 was verified by the C.B.I. and was found to
be baseless. .

23. As the Chairman of the Committee appointed by Shri. A. B.

Vajpayee, Nanaji collected data relating to the death of Shri Upa-
dhyaya with the assistance of Shri Ramacharya Pandey. ' The
Committee prepared its report in the middle of March 1968. It is
oublished in 'Apni Gatividhi' (Ex. 56) which is an official bulletin
(,~ the Jan Sangh. The particular issue is dated the 15th of April
1968. The report shows that the Committee was not in a position to
propound any definite theory. It only came to a tentative conclusion
that Shri Upadhyaya was murdered before the train had reached
Varanasi. In the concluding portion of the report, the Committee
~ays: "From all these facts, it is clear that behind this murder are
not only those thieves who have themselves confessed their guilt
but some other elements." This shows how the Committee was
groping in the dark lind how in spite of their best efforts, they found
jt difficult to come to any definite conclusion.

24. At Ex. Ka-263 there is a cutting from the Times of India

dated the 26th of Ma'rch 1968. It contains the report of a news con-
ference addressed by Shri Nanaji at Nagpur on the 25th of March.
Though Nan11ji said in that conference that it was a case of a politi-
cal murder, he added that the two accused who were arrested by
the C.B.I. were reported to have "canvassed for the Communist
Party ...... in the General Election". This shows that Nanaji himself
toyed with the idea that Bharat and Ram Awadh may be the real
culprits but that they were associated with the Communists.

25. The report of the news conference shows, as the report of

the Committee (Ex. 56) shows, that Nanaji had no grievance to make
 130
till as late as the 15th of April 1968 when the report in 'Apni Gati-
vidhi' was published, that the C.B.I. was suppressing tbe truth by
giving an over-simplied complexion to the case. The only cbarge
which Nanaji made against the C.B.I. in the news conference was.
that "The C.B.I. was too slow in its investigation". In the report
of the Committee no grievance at all is made [Link] the line of
investigation pursued by the C.B.I.

26. A charge was made against the C.B.I. that it was vir~~ally
dormant and that it meekly adopted whatever Inspector BaiJnath
Singh of the Varanasi Kotwali did. This charge is cruel. It must be
remembered that as stated by the Home Minister in the Parliament
on the 14th of February 1968, the C.B.I. was not placed in exclusive
charge of the investigation. It was to collaborate with the
U.P.C.I.D. Probably, the U.P.C.I.D. thought highly of Baijnath Singh
and leaned on him at all crucial stages of the investigation. The
C.B.I. did not object to it. I agree that Inspector Baijnath Singh
has been instrumental in obtaining clinching clues to the mystery
of Shri Upadhyay;1's murder, but that does not mean that the C.B.I.
was lying supine or that. it had abc:licat_ed its functions in favour of
Baijnath Singh. It is under the guidance of the C.B.I. officers that.
every important information was· collected. Therefore, it is not a
fair criticism to say that if the investigation is denuded of Baijnath
Singh's contribution, nothing will remain to the credit of the C.B.l
27. Counsel for the C.B.I. found fault with the shifting stand of
Nanaji. I do not agree with that criticism. True it is, that different
theories were suggested by the Jan Sangh at different times. But
it cannot be overlooked that the party had forfeited a priceless asset
in the death of Shri Upadhyaya. As stated by Nanaji, Shri Upa-
dhyaya was the true architect of the Jan Sangh success in the Gene-
ral Elections. A measure of the regard in which Shri Upadhyaya
was held by his followers can be found in the way they described
him. They called him 'Panditji'. ·For them there was darkness after
hi_s death and they did not want to leave any stone unturned to trace
the real culprits. To the extent to which false evidence has been
produced before me, I must express my strong disapproval. That
however is in the same vein in which I have expressed my dis-
approval of some of the lapses on the part of the C.B.I. I do not
see justification for finding fault with the Jan Sangh merely because
they propounded different theories at different times. They lacked
the equipment of the C.B.I., they lacked its official power and being
after all a political organisation they lacked its dispassionateness.
But complete identification with a cause which you hold dear is a
failing of politics. Therefore, I liave not dismissed the Jan Sangh
case out of hand merely because it was not consistent. I have endea-
voured to examine every one of the theories advocated by it at differ-
ent times and in this I have permitted myself to be influenced solelv
by the merits of each individual theory. •
28. Having ~onsidered the matter in all its aspects, I have come
to the conclusiOn that the C.B.f. conducted the investigation with
care and objectivity. Clues which were replete with possibilities
were pursued by them. Clues which were merely fanciful had to be
 131
left alone. Sins of commission and omission fall to the lot of all
policemen and one must confess that the debit side of· the C.B.I. is
not quite blank. But there is no substance in the charge that they
acted mala fide. I see nothing from which to infer that they gave
amnesty to Communists and.· communalists and found an easy way
out by catching two common thieves. I endorse their conclusion that
Shri Upadhyaya's murder was accompanied by a theft of his
belongings.
 CHAPTER XVI

CONCLUSION
1. I would like to give here a brief resume of my findings but I
must recall that it was not without misgivings that I embarked upon
·this task. Fortunately my fears proved false. Credit for that must
go in a large measure to the courtesy and con~ideration which I
received from all quarters. The case was complicated but Counsel
,.made it look simple. The care and ability with which Shri C. D.
Sheth and Shri Bipin Behari Lall presented their respective cases
for the Jan Sangh and Central Bureau of Investigation made my
task lighter. But above all, they put their points of view before me
with a certain amount of dispassionateness. They were ably sup-
ported by their juniors, Shri Chaudhary, Shri Tiwari, Shri Tripathi
. and Shri Chaube. I am thankful to them all for their assistance. I
must also express my appreciation of the help which I received from
. Shri M. C. Bhandare, Counsel for the Commission. The sifting of
evidence and the spade work which he did aided me greatly.

2. What made the case apparently complicated was a combination

of coincidences and a fusion of mysterious circumstances. Every
crime presents a problem in some measure but only a few bristle
with so many of them. That gives to Shri Upadhyaya's murder an
.eerie complexion. Look for example at the following facts:
(a) Major Surendra Mohan Sharma's name was taken down
by Naik Har Govind Pandey of the R.T.O.'s Office as Major
"S. L. Sharma" and his ticket number as 06171 instead of
06172.
(b) Padam Singh, the Coach Attendant of the Train Service
Coach took down the name of Major. Surendra Mohan
Sharma as Major "S. N. Sharma".
(c) Kamal, the Conductor of Sealdah Express, asserted that
when he checked up the passengers in the I Class com-
partment of the F.C.T. bogie at Lucknow, he found a
stranger dressed in civilian clothes standing in the
unlighted 'C' Cabin.
(d) Shri Gauri Shankar Rai, M.L.C., who was to travel from
Luc~ow to Ballia via Varanasi, changed his mind ~nd
detramed at Shahganj. He got down from the off-side.
(e) M.P. Singh found at Varanasi that the bath-room near the
'A' Cabin was jammed and could npt be opened.
(f) When M.P. Singh got back into the F.C.T. bogie at Mughal-
sarai .afte: visiting t~e Parcel Office, he saw a stranger
standmg m the corndor, opposite the 'B' Cabin.
132
 133

(g) That stranger hoodwinked M. P. Singh by feigning to be

the _son of t~e passenger who was travelling by the 'B'
Cabm (that 1s, Shri Upadhyaya) and he successfully took
away the bedding from the 'B' Cabin.

(h) The thief took away the file also, which was apparently
of no value to him. The file was never traced.

(i) The thief did not, however, take away the wrist watch and
the sum of Rs. 21, which were on the person of Shri
Upadhyaya.

(j) The dead body of Shri Upadhyaya was found lying fully
stretched on its back, with left leg over the right and the
face fully covered with a shawl.

(k) In the right hand of the dead body was a five rupee note,
held in a peculiar way.

{1) The injuries on the person of Shri Upadhyaya presented a

unique combination-a head injury over the right ear,
imprint abrasions on the shoulder, pack and the right
buttock, and bilateral fractures of the legs, with the left
leg everted and the right leg inverted.

(m) There was no blood in any part of the compartment and

none worth the name near the traction pole either. A
substance like phenyl was however found near the attend-
ant's seat in the F.C.T. bogie.

(n) The blood-stains on the personal apparel of Shri Upadhyaya

had a characteristic pattern. There were blood-stains on
the shoulder region only of the two full-sleeved sweaters
and the full-sleeved banyan. There were no blood-stains
at all on· the sleeveless sweater. There were fairly large
blood-stains on the shawl.

•(o) The members of the shunting team and A.S.M. Prasad made
diametrically opposite statements before the C.I.D. and the
C.B.I. Their earlier version was that the body was first
seen at about 2-50 A.M. The version which they gave be-
fore the C.B.I. was that they saw the body first at about
2-20 A.M.

(p) Even an independent person like Dr. B. R. Chakravarty,

As>'llistant Medical Offider, tampered with the record.
A.S.M. Prasad gave him a copy of his memo, asking him
to attend the dead body. Dr. Chakravarty made an
endorsement on the original memo stating that he had re-
ceived the copy at 5-55 A.M., which was correct. He later
changed the timing to "3-55 A.M." by altering the figure
·"5-55" into "3-55".
 134
3. Now, look at the following coincidences:
(1) Originally Shri Upadhyaya was to go to Delhi but in res-
ponse to the invitation of the Bihar Branch of the Jan
Sangh, he decided on the lOth morning to go to Patna.
He had a tryst with Destiny.
(2) His berth was reserved in the 'A' Cabin of the F.C.T. bpgie,.
where M. P. Singh's berth was also reserved. But he
changed from 'A' to 'B' Cabin, by incurring to some extent
the displeasure of Shri Gauri Shankar Rai. Shri Rai's.
luggage was shifted from 'B' to 'C' Cabin without his con-·
sent. The result was that Shri Upadhyaya became the
sole occupant of the 'B' Cabin.
(3) Shri Rai met Shri Srivastava at the Lucknow Railway Sta-·
tion. On the latter's advice, Shri Rai got down at Shah-
ganj instead of getting down at Varanasi.
(4) Shri Upadhyaya dashed against a traction pole while fall-·
ing down from the F.C.T. bogie. There is hardly any other·
such pole on the particular line, within the vicinity of the
particula~: traction pole.

(5) Major Sharma could have afforded to leave Lucknow on

the 11th February as he was required to join his regiment
on the 14th but he decided· on the lOth that he should leave
the same day, and this in spite of his recent marriage
which had taken place on the 17th January.
(6) Though Major Sharma did not travel by the 'C' Cabin·
where his berth was reserved, another army officer, Sube-·
dar Sidh Singh, holding an unreserved ticket, travelled by
that cabin. ·

4. I have dealt with every one of these facts and have endeavour-·
ed to offer a rational explanation thereof. I have also qiscussed the
rival theories and have furnished an answer. I hope that I am right
in the solution which I have offered to the riddle of Shri Upadhyaya's.
death.

5. Stated briefly, I have taken the view:

(1) That Shri Upadhyaya was pushed out of the running train
when he was standing near the door of the I Class compartment of
the F.C.T. bogie.
(2) That he dashed against Traction Pole No. 1276 and died an
instantaneous death.
(3) That the injuries found on his person were caused in a single
transaction.

(4) That the injuries could not ~ave been caused inside the'
compartment.
 l:S5
'(5) 'i'hat it -cannot ·be tha't 'the murder was 'commit'tted 'in the com-
:part:"llent or 'elsewhere and lthe 'dead body laid near the :Pole in -ordel'
·to s1mulate an accident.
'{6) 'l'hat the dead •body was discovered at about 2-20 l\M during
·the earlier stage of shunting and not at about 2-50 A.M. after fue first
.stage of shunting was over.

(7) That the members of the -shunting team made conflicting

·statements before the cC:I.D. and the ,c:B.I. in order to save them-
selves and their superior officer B. N. Prasad from a possible charge
·of negligence.

(8) That B. N. Prasad,. the Assistant Station Master, changed his

·version to accord with truth, his earlier version having been infiuenc-
·ed by an anxiety to avoid a charge of remissness in duty.

(9) That the c,B.I. was right in obtaining further.. statements

from these witnesses but the prosecution was not justified in sup-
pressing from the Sessions Court and the Defence, a very material
circumstance that the witnesses had made . conflicting statements
before the C.I.D. ·

(10) That Dr. B. R. Chakravarty, Assistant Medical Officer, alter-

-ed the record to show that he had attended to the dead body at 3-55
A.M. though he had not done SO till 5-55 A.M., because he wanted to
create an impression that he had done his duty promptly.
(11) That the position In which the dead body was lying irutii!lly,
>Vas definitely distil.r'bed by 'some one-most probably by members
··of the shunting team.

(12) That this was not done for any ulterior purpose but was 4one
-either as a matter of ·convenience or out ·of a common human
:sympathy. · ·
(13) That S.I. Fateh Bahadur Singh further disturbed the position
-of the body for 'the 'pl!rpose •of taking a phot6graph.
(14) That the five rupee note was not planted in the hand of the
-dead body.
(15) ·That the body was first identified by Vishwahatli Prasad
Agarwal at about 10-30 A.M.
(16) That only two and not three photographs of the inj~~es were
taken at the mortuary by K. M. Bhatia of the 'Goras Studio
(1 'l) That Shri Upadhyaya was last seen alive at J a~'pur but ther~
is no reliable evidence to show that he was last seen ahve at Varanas1.
(18) That no reliance can be placed on the evidence of M. P.. Singh
or B. D. Kamal for holding that Shri [Link] was or was not
alive at Varan11si.
 136
(19) That in the context of the other circumstances, -however, it
must be held that Shri Upadhyaya was alive at Varanasi.

(20) That Major Surendra Mohan Sharma travelled from Luck-

now to Gomoh by the Train Service Coach and not by the F.C.T.
bogie !lf the Sealdah Express.

(21) That in the misdescription of liis initials and the ticket

number there was nothing more than an error, first on the part
of Naik Har Govind Pandey and then on the part of Padam Singh.

(22) That Shri Gauri Shankar Rai got down at Shahganj because·
it was more convenient to go to Ballia via Shahganj and he got.
down on the off-side because there was no coolie to carry his,
luggage.

(23) That apart from M. P. Singh; Shri Upadhyaya,. Shri Gaurii

Shankar Rai and Subedar Sidh Singh, no one else travelled by the-
I Class compartment between Lucknow and Varanasi.

(24) That the murder of Shri Upadhyaya was accompan~ed by-

an immediate theft, which shows that the two are part and parceL
of the same transaction.

(25) That the bedding of Shri Upadhyaya was not recovered from
a pit.

(26) That there is no reliable evidence to show that the missing

file contained any matter of political significance.

(27) That the murder was not committed for political motives,
(28) That neither the left Communists nor Dr. Faridi nor any
communalists are connected, directly or indirectly, with the murder,
and
(29) That there is no substance in the accusation that the C.B.I.
acted mala fide. '·

6. I have dealt exhaustively with the charge that Shri Upadhyaya's

murder was committed for political motives, as that was one of the
important points involved in my inquiry. On the 12th February
1968, some members of the Parliament had expressed a fear on the
floor of the House whe_ther in India, politics had become so unsafe
for politicians that one had to pay for one's political beliefs by one's
life. I can say with a certain amount of confidence that nothing
that has come before me can support the accusation that there was
any politics in Shri Upadhyaya's murder. Undoubtedly, he had poli-
tical rivals but his death is the rash and extempore handiwork of
mere thieves.
· 7. Before I conclude, a word of praise is due to: .the staff of the
Commission. Shri B. D. Divekar, Shri R. K. Gadagkar, Shri. K. M.
 137
Kulkarni and Shri G. G. Chavan have put in long hours of work
over the past six months. Shri Gadagkar particularly has been of
great help, as ever.
8. I must finally record my appreciation of the invaluable assist-
ance which I received from. Shri G. S. Nande, Secretary to the Com-
mission. He had to discharge a variety of functions and I am g~ad
to say that he excelled in· all that he did. His willing co-operation
and resourcefulness made my work so much lighter and enjoyable.

(Sd.) Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
20th October 1970. Commission of Inquiry
 PART V
ANNE XU RES
 ANNEXURE I

Re: The affidavits received by the Camrnissivn

Serial Name and address Date of the Reference to the Ren1axks,

No. affidavit evidence befOre if any
the Coll\l"nission

I 2 3 4 s
I. Shri Klllllal Krishna 20•I•I970 Not examined.
Shar!l\0, Faizabad.
2. Shri Ved Prakash 2D-I·I970 J. S. Witness No. 28
Agarwal, Faizabad.
3· Shri Raj Narain 20·I•I970 Do. 29
Raghunath Prasad
Agarwal, Faizabad.

4· Shri Satyanarayan 2o-I-I970 3

Prasad Bhagwandas, "
Mughalsaxai.

S· Shri Lachhu Rlllll Suraj 20·I·I970 8

Bali, Mughalsarai. "
6. Shri Madanlal Bajpai, 2I·I·I970 35
Varanasi. "
7· Shri Shreeprakash 2I·I·I970
" s
Hiralal, Lucknow.
8. Shri Harischandra 2I•I·I970 Not exa!llined.
Trilokiram, Lucknow.

9· Shri Bholanath Gupta 21·1•1970 J. S. Witness No. 24

Dukharan Sahu, Vara-
nasi.
10. Shri Deonath Girza 23·I•I970 Not exa!llined
ShankaJ Pandey,
Varaaasi.
II· Shri Ghanashyam 23·I·I970 Not exa!llined.
Jayantilal Maniar,
Vaxanasi.
I2· Shri Tribeni Prasad 23·1·1970 J. S. Witness No. IS
Baldev Prasad,
Mughalsarai.
Not exa!llined.
I3· Shri Anand Shankar 22•I•I970
Barnwal, Varanasi.

I4• Shri Kllshinath Shripati 22·I·I970 J. S. Witness No. 23

Pandey, Varanasi.

141
 142

I 2 3 4 s

IS• Shri Laxmi Shanker 22·I·I970 J.S. Witness No. 36

Lall Mani Shukla,
Varanasi.
I6. Shri Balvir Prakash 22·I·I970 Not e1<[Link].
Lal.J. Prasad Gupta,
Varanasi.
I7. Shri . _Raiilesh . Singh 23·I·I970 J.S. Witness No. IS
Faki_r Singh, Mughil-
sam.
I8. Shri Devdatta Hari- 22·I·I970 , I
krishna Tiwari, Vara-
llasi~

I9· Shri Ram .Janam 23·I·I970 Not [Link].

Mahendra Pandey,
Varanasi.
20. Shri Kalpaitath Dwar- 23·I·I970 J:s. Witness No. 38
kanath Gupta, Vara-
nasi.
2I. Shri Ram Murat 24•I•I970 , 43
Hardev, Mushalsarai.
22. Shri Ram Adhar Ram 24·I·I970 Not [Link].
Harakh, Mlighalsarai.
23· Shri Rameshchandra 24·I·I970 Do.
Radhamohi>.n Nigam,
Varanasi.
24· Shri Baboon Singh 24-I-1970 J.S. Witness No. 12
Ganesh Singh, Ni-
yamatabad.
25· Shri Vashistha Narayan 24•1•1970 Not exam,ined.
Tribedi, Varanasi.

26. Shri Ravi Shankar 24·I·1970 , 22

Rantashraya Trivedi,
Lucknow.
27· Shri Kartar Singh 23-I-1970 , 44
Lalchandra, Bhaujipu-
ra.
28. Shri Pratap Rai 23·1·1970 , 27
Hemandas, Biharipur.
29· Shri Bishambhat Nath 23·1·1970 J.S. Witness No. 13
Bhagvati Prasad Sri-
vastav, Lucknow.
30· Shri Panchanan Shivam- 23·1·1970 , 14
be rial Srivastav,
Lucknow.

31· Shri Uma Shankar 23-I-170 , 20

Puttanbt AmbarPur.
 2
3 4 s
32. Kumari, D•ya Bahen 23-1-1970 J.S. Witness No. 4
lshwarda~, LUcknow.

33· Shri Ra111eshcbandra 23-1-1970 , II

Gbanashyamdas,
Lucknow.
34· Shri Ramasbankar 23-1-1970 , IQ
Singh Girdhar Singh,
Lucknow.

35· Shri Ram Prakash 25-1-1970 , 37

Gopal Krishna Gupta,
Lucknow.

36. Shri Raiil Niwas 28-1-1970 Not exautined.

Kedarnath Sbariila,
Varanasi.

37· Shri Purnacbandra 28-1-1970

J. Goswami, Mughal-
sarai.

38. Shri Shohhanath 28-1-1970 Do.

Singh Shivmangal
Singh, Varanasi.

39· Shri Sukhanandan 27-1-1970 J.S. Witness No.39

Prasad Patiileshwar
Prasad, ¥ughalsarai.

40. Shri Sakbaraj Shiv- 27-1-1970 , 9

nandan, Mugbalsarai.

41. Shri Chhote Lal Ganga, 27-1-1970 ,

Mugbalsarai.

42. Shri Deena Nath Sukh- 27-1-1970 , 7

dev, Mugbalsarai.

Shri Brindavan 27-1-197r Not examined.

Chan<!,radatta LaXIIli-
ii8rliyan Datta, Mughal-
sarai.

44· Shri Ramnaresh Sadhu 27-.1-1970 ,

.Tiwari, M<rghaliarai~·

45· Snri Sardar Jagjit 27-1-1970 J.S. Witness No; 31

Singh Sardar Krupa!
Singh, Lucknow.

l'!\lri · :Gyan Chandra 28-1-1970 , 16

:An-'1119 SwarOOp Agar-
,w!!l, J(anpux.
 144
I 2 3 4 s

41· Shri Ramakant Deep- 28-1-1970 J.S. Witness No. 17

chand Shukla, Kanpur.

48. Shri Shivraj Bahadur 27·1·1970 30

Lala Jamunadas Bajaj,
Lucknow.
"

49· Shri Mohanlal Ramjilal 27-1-1970 6

Cha~rasiya, Mughalsa- "
sanu.

so. Shri Dayaram Subba 29-1-1970 32

Singh, Mughalsarai. "

51· Shri VasanWayaram 31·1·1970 49

Bhagwat, B ay. "
Shri Jhamatmal T. 3I•I•I970 48
Wadhwani, Bombay. "

52· Shri Anutrchand Shubh, 3o-I·I970 45

Delhi. "
53· Shri Jhamarsingh 3I·I·1970 25
RanUakhan Singh,
Niyamatabad, Moghal-
"
sarai.

54- Shri Prabhunarayan 3o-1-1970

Tribeni Prasad " 33
Upadhyaya, Va!iya.

SS· Shri Raghubir Prasad 30•I•I970

Mahesh Prasad 4.0
Saxena, Moghalsarai. "
s6. Shri Banwali Hari- 3o-I-I970 Not exam,ined.
mohan Bhattacharya,
Mughalsarai.

51· Shri Raj veer Sinha 3I·I·I970 J. S. WitnessN0.26

Dharnulveer Sinha,
Bareilly City.

s8. Dr. Murli Manohar I•2•I970

Joshi, Allahabad. " I9 The Affidavit
was PrOduced
by the witness
during his
eviderice on
I8·3•I970•
 145

I
3 4 s
S9• Shri H. B. D. Baijal, 28-I-1970 This affidavit
D.S.P. (C.B.I.), Delhi. was filed on
behalf of the
Central ButeaU
of Investiga-
tion. It sets
out briefly
the case of the
Central Buteau
of Investigation,

A Representation dated 27-I·I970, was,

filed before the CoiQmission on behalf of
the Bharatiya Jan Sangh by Shri Nanaji
Desbmukh, its Treasurer.

J.S. indicates
· that witness
was examined
by the Jan
Sangh.
 Am!EXURE 2

List of Witnesses examined in the Sesst'ons Couri at Varol!asi

(In Sessions Case No. 74 of I968.)

Serial Witness Nu!llber Name of the witness

Number

I 2 3

I. P. W. I Shri K. Dayal.
2. P. W. 2 Shi'i M. H. Razvi.
3· P. W. 3 Shri K. M. Bhatia.
4· P. W. 4 Shri Drigpal.
S· p. w. s Shri Kishori Mishra.
6. P. W. 6 Shri Abdul Gafoor.
7· P. W. 7 Shri Hardwari.
8. P. W. 8 Shri Rlllll Das.
9· P. W. 9 Shri B. N. Ptasad.
IO. P. W. IO Shri Kashinath.
II. P. W. II Shri Sachu La!.
I2. P. W. I2 Shri Rlllll Prasad.
I3· P. W. I3 Dr. B. R. Chakravarti.
I4· P. W. I4 Shri MOhanunad Zahoor.
IS• P. W. IS Shri P. N. Mehra.
16. P. W. I6 Shri Vishwanath Prasad Agarwal.
I7· P. W. I7 Shri A. B. Chakravarti.
I8. P. W. I8 Shri Jagannath Singh.
I9· P. W. I9 Shri B. Bhattacharya.
20. P. W. 20 Shri Ram Chander Singh.
2I. P. W. 2I Dr. S. N. Garg.
22. P. W. 22 Kumar; Sarla Rani.
23. P. W. 23 Shri Harish Chandra.
24· P. W. 24 Shri D. N. V. Chhallan.

146
_,.., ... _. __ __ .
147
·-· -~- --------·-·-
I 2 3

25· P. W. 25 Shri Govind J. Bijani.

26. P. W. 26 Shri Vikram Singh.
27· P. W. 27 Shri Kanhiya Lal Sunkla.
28. P. W. 28 Shri Gauri Shankar Rai.
29. P. W. 29 Shri Sidh Singh.
30. P. W. 30 Dr. K. P. Singh.
3Io P. W. 31 Shri M. P. Singh.
32. P. W. 32 Dr. I. Bhushan Rao.

33· P. W. 33 Dr. S. N. Patarkar.

P. W. 34 Shri M. M. Mnkheqe~
34·
35· P. W. 35 Shri S. N. P. Yadav.

36. P. W. 36 Shri S. R. Kundu.

37· P. W. 37 Shri Bijoy Deegan.

38. P. W. 38 Shri Bhola Rawat Basti.

P. W. 39 Shrimati Mitia.
39·
40. P. W. 40 .Shri Ved Prakash.

P. W. 41 Shri Kapil Deo.

41·
P. W. 42 Shri Hari Narayan.
42·
P. W. 43 Shri Abdul Aziz.
43·
P. W. 44 Shri Bhallu.
44·
P. W. 45 Shri Moti Lal.
45·
P. w..46 Shri Vijay Singh.
46.
P. W. 47 Shri Uma Kant.
47·
P. W. 48 Shri Sumer Singh.
48.
Shri .Kalyan Sundetan
49· P. W.49
so . Shrimati Indu.
so. P. W.
. Shri Durga Tiwari.
51· P. W. 51
.Shri Saiyad Mot>omad ./'.yul>.
52· P. W. 52
. Shri Raj Nath Tiwari.
53· P. W. '53
. Shri Nijamuddin Shah.
54· P. W. 54
. Shri ,Shyam Ki$hOr Sil!gl.
55· P. [Link]
. Shri .Acharii L~l Mishra
s6. P. w. s6
 f4B

I 2 3

57· P. W. 57 Shri Rllll\ Das Baijal.

58. P. W. 58 Shri Paras Nath Srivastava.
59· P. W. 59 Shri H. C. Basdeo Tiwari.
6o. P. W. 6o Shri R=ji Singh.
6r. P. W. 6r Shri Baleshwar Singh.
62. P. W. 62 Shri Bhuwaneshwar Char.d.
63. P. W. 63 Shri Sikandar Khan.
64. P. W. 64 Shri Bhola Ram.
65. P. W. 65 Shri Awadh Singh,
66. P. W. 66 Shri Mitra Singh.
67. P. W. 67 Shri Ranbhir S~ngh.
68. P. W. 68 Shri Haider Mchdi.
69. P. W. 69 Shri Sharda.
70. P. W. 70 Shri Bhaiya La!.
7Io P. W. 71 Shri Bashistha Rai.
72. P. W. 72 Dr. s. Chowdhari.
73· P. W. 73 Shri T. B. Soren.
74· P. W. 74 PrOfessor N. Das.
75· P. W. 75 Shri Ashwani Kumar.
76. P. W. 76 Shrirnati Lata Khanna.
77· P. W. 77 Shri S. K. Chakravarti.
78. P. W. 78 Shri Saryu Prasad Maurya.
79· P. W. 79 Shri MohoiiiOd MohoiiiOd Akhtar
8o. P. W. So Shri A. R. Bansal.
8r. P. W. Sr Shri T. Majumdar.
82. P. W. 82 Shri Balkaran.
83. P. W. 83 Shri Laxm,an Singh.
84. P. w. 84 Shri Nand Lal Srivastava.
85. P. W. 85 Shri Rlll1\ Swarup Singh.
86. P. W. 86 Shri Lallu.
87. p, w. 87 Shri Rameshwar Tiwari.
88. p, w. 88 Shri Kapiideo.
 149

I 2 3

8g. P. W. 89 Shri Mahavir Prasad.

go. P. W. 90 Shri Padam Singh.
9Io P. W. 9I Major S. M. Shariii8.
92. P. W. 92 Shri Ram Gulam.
93· P. W. 93 Shri H. C. Johri.
94· P. W. 94 Shri N. Das Gupta.
9S· P. W. 95 Shri Gurdev Prasad.
56 P. W. 96 Shri Nanku.
97· P. W. 97 Shri Manik.
98. P. W. 98 [Link] Munni.
~9· P. W. 99 Shri Radheshyam.
100. P. W. ICX> Shri Naik HargOvind Pandey.
IOI. P. w. IOI Shri P. C. Srivastava.
102. P. W. I02 Shri S. N. Gupta.
I03o P. W. I03 Shri T. N. Kapoor.
I04· P. W. I04 Shri S. P. Srivastava.
IOS· P •. W. IOS Shri Julius Turkey.
I06. P. W. I06 Shri N. K. Sharma.

I07· P. W. I07 Shri Bholan Das.

I08. P. W. I08 Shri S. B. Tripathi.
Iog. P. W. I09 Shri D. K. Yadav.

no. P. W. IIO Shri D. S. Singh.

III· P. W. III Shri Ishtiaq Ahmed.

II2. P. W. II2 Shri Sukhdev Singh.

II3· P. W. II3 Shri S. D. Jha.

II4• P. W. II4 Shri S. K. Sanyal.

P. W. us Shri K. C. Kapur.
IIS·
u6. P. W. u6 Shri Raj Bahadur Singh.

P. W. U7 Shri B. N. Khare.
U7•
P. W. uS Shri Fateh Bahadur Singh.
uS.
P. W. U9 Shri P. P. Mishra.
II9·
P. W. 120 Shri R. D. Pandey.
120·
 150

I 2 3

I:Z.I. P. W. 121 Shri B. R. Puri.

122. P. W. 122 Shri Badri Sharma.
123. P. W. 123 Shri D. K. Tiwari.
124. P. W. 124 Shri Baijnath Singh.
125. P.W. I25 Shri D. P. Srivastava.
126. P.W. I26 Shri Surendra Rai;
127. P. W. 127 Shri H. B. D. Baijal.
uS. P. W. 128 Shri Kalika Prasad Arya.

r. C. W. I Shri B. D. Kamal.
2. c. w. 2 Shri Nageshwar Singh.
3· c. w. 3 Shri Nanaji Deshmukh.
4· c. w. 4 Shri Dwarika.
S· c. w. s Shri Mati Bahadur Singh.

NOTE :-P. w. indicates PrOsecUtion witneS$.

C. W. indicates Court witness.
 ANNEXURE 3
~ist of important documenu prodUCed in the Sessitms [Link]

Serial Exhibit Number Description of the document

Number

I 2 3

r. Ka-r Post Mortem Report.

2. Ka-29 Photograph of the dec~ased, [Link]. bJ
S. I. Fateh Bahadur Singh.
3· Ka-30 Photograph showing ihjUries on heac
and the back.
4· Ka-31 Photograph showing the leg fractures.
S· Ka,.,..34 RepOrt by A.S.M. of time, when body wa1
seen.
6. Ka-40 Inquest Report by S. I. Fateh Bahadu1
Singh.
7· Ka-52 Expert Report by Mr. B. Bhattaeharya.
8. Ka-6s Expert Report of Dr. Garg.
9· Ka-69 Requisition slip fOr reservation, writtei
by Um.a Shankar.
ro. · Ka-70 Extract of reservation register.
n. Ka-77 Report of Dr. Bhooshan Rao, dated the
23rd March, 1968.
Sketch of injuries, prepared by Dr.
Patankar.
RecOvery Meii\o of f[old all etc. recOveree.
frOII\ Lalta, dated the 16th February
1968.
14· Ka-90 PrOduction Memo of pillow case, pillo~
cOVer etc., dated the x7fh February
I968.

NoRE :-' :ka '-represents the docUII\efitS prOduced by the PrOsecution.

151
 ANNEXURE 4
List of witnesses examined before the Commission

PART A (Witnesses examined by the Jan Sangh)

Serial Name of the witness Date on which the

Number withess was examined

II.
I 3

I. Shri Devdatta Harikrishna Tiwari· 9-3-I970

2. Shri Chhote La! Ganga Sao 9-3-1970
3· Shri Satyanarayan Prasad Bhagwandas 9-3-1970
4· Kumari Daya Bahen Ishwardas I0-3-I970
S· Shri Shreeprakash Hiralal IQ-;j-I970
6. Shri Mohanlal Ramjilal Chaurasiya , Io-3-1970.
7· Shri Deena Nath Sukhdev I0-3-1970.
8. Shri Lachhu Ram Suraj Bali 1o-3-1970.
9· Shri Sakhraj Shivnandan 10-3-1970·
10. Shri Rameshankar Singh Girdhar Singh II-3-1970.
u. Shri Rameshchandra Ghanashyamdas II-3-1970.
12. Shri Babban Singh Ganesh Singh . II-3-1970.
13. Shri Bishambhar Nath Bhagvati Prasad Sri- I2-3-I970•
vastav
I4· Shri Panchanan Shivamberlal Srivastav I2-3-I970•
IS· Shri Tribeni Prasad Balbhadra Prasad I2-3-I970.
I6. Shri Gyanchand AnandswarOOp Agarwal I8-3-I970,
I7. Shri Ramakant Deepchand Shukla I8-3-I970,
IS. Shri Ramesh Singh Fakir Singh 18-3-I970.
I8-3-I970, }
I9· Shri Murli Manohar Joshi
2S-3-I970·
20. Shri Uma Shankar Puttanlal I9-3-I970·
2I, Shri Pitambardasji Lala TriveDi Prasad I9-3-I970•
22. Shri Ravi Shankar Ramashraya Trivedi I9-3-I970•

152.
 153

I 2 3

23· Shri Kashinath Shripati Pandey 19-3-1970•

24 Shri Bholanath Dukharan Sahu Gupta 19-3-1970.
25· Shri [Link] Singh Ram Lakhan Singh 19-3-1970·
26. Shri Rajveer Sinha Dharmaveer Sinha 2o-3-1970.
27. Shri Pratap Rai Hemandas 2o-3-1970.
28. Shri Ved Prakash Ayodhya Prasad Agarwal 2Q-3-1970o
29. Shri Rajnarayan Raghunath Prasad Agarwal 2o-3-1970.
30. Shri Shivraj Bahadur Lala Jamunadas Bajaj 21-3-1970.
3Io Shri Sardar Jagjit Singh Sardar Krupal Singh . 21-3-1970·
21-3-1970· }
32. Shri Dayaram Subba Sinha 26-3-1970·
27-3-1970·
33· Shri Prabhunarayan Triveni Prasad Upadhyaya. 21-3-1970.

34· Shri Laxman Singh Mahenra Singh Chaturvedi 21-3-13770.

35· Shri Madanlal Mannulal Bajpai 22-3-1970.

36. Shri Laxn\ishankar Lallmani Shukla 22-3-1970.

37· Shri Ram Prakash Gopal Krishna Gupta 24-3-1970·

38. Shri Kalpanath Dwarkanath Gupta . 24-3-1970.
27-3-1970-
1
39· Shri Sukhanandan Prasad [Link] Prasad 25-3-1970· J
40· Shri Raghubarprasad Maheshprasad Saxena 25-3-1970-

41· Shri Laltaprasad Chaibarprasad Vaishya 25-3-1970-

42· Shri Kailashpati Pandit Hazari Mishra 26-3-1970.

43· Shri Ram Murat Hardev 26-3-1970.

44· Shri Kartar Singh Lalchandra . 27-3-1970.

45· Shri Amarchand Girdharilal Shubh 9-4-1970·

46. Shri Maheshya Pandit Rama Datta • 9-4-1970.
10-4-1970. 1
47· Shri Dr. R. N. Katariya
25-4-1970. J
48. Shri Jhamatmal T. Wadhwani I0-4-1970.

49· Shri Vasant Jairarn Bhagwat Io-4-1970.

13-4-1970· }
so. Shri Ramacharya Pandit Hariharnath Pandey
27-4-1970·
24-4-1970. }
51· Shri Nana Amritrao Deshmukh
25-4-1970.
 PART B (Witnesses examined by the Central Bureau Of InvestigatiQ;>)

Serial Name of the witness Date on which the

Number witness was examined

I 2 3

I· Shri Bramajnarayan Bishannarayan Mehretra 27·4-1970.

2. Shri Rajendraprasad Munnalal Shukla 28-4-1970-
3· Shri Arnarnath Hanumanprasad 28-4-1970-
4· Shri Pyarelal Shree Lalaram Babbar 28-4-1970-
S· Shri Shaukat Ali Muravat Ali 28-4-1970-
6. Shri Govind J. Bijani 28-4-1970.
7• Shri Durgaprasad Shivmbharprasad Srivastava . 29-4-1970.
8. Shri K. P. Vishwanathan 29-4-1970-
9· Shri Mukhatar Ahmed Khan Vakil Alunedkhan 29-4-1970-
IO. Shri Dr. I. Bhooshan Rae 30·4-1970. 1
22-6·1970- }.
23-6·1970. J
n. Shri Jagdeesh Rai Vasty 23-6·1970·
I2. Shri Om Prakash Chhatwal 23-6·1970.
I3· Shri Baccha Rai 23-6·1970.
I4- Shri Berahu Singh . 23-6-1970.
IS· Shri Shiv Tahal Mehta 23-6·1970.
24-6·1970. }
16. Shri Badri Sharma .
25-6-1970.'
I7· Shri S. N. P. Sinha 24-6-1970.
IS. Shri Prabhu Singh Harishchandra Bhati 24-6·1970.
19· Shri Kalila Prasad Ranlnath Tripathi 24-6·1970.
20. Shri Daljeet Singh Ranbir Singh 26-6-1970.
26-6-1970- }
21. Shri John Eufemiano Lobo
29-6·1970-
22. Shri Mahesbprasad MadanW Tandon 29-6-1970.
23 Shri Radhe-shyam Sunderlal Sharma 3D-6•1970o

154
 ANNEXiJRE s
(List of doc111nents before the Commissi~n)
PART (A Doc11n1ents prOduced by 'the Jan Sangh)

Exhibit Nature of the document Date Of prOduction

Number

I 2 3

6. Newspaper cutting of paPer "Gandiv, dated

1-2-1968 . , , , , ,
10. Booklet" Who killed Upodhyaya"

19· Le~ter dated 26-9-1969 adressed to Shri Surendra

Stngh Bhandari, tendered by Shri Am,archand
Shubh (witness No. 45) in his exam,ination-in-.
chief ., • . . , • . 9-4-70
Statement o~ -Drigpal. Badan Kohar, porter
Mughalsarat, tendered by J. S. Witness No. so
in [Link]-in-chief . 13-4•70

23 Statem,ent of B.' N. Prasad, A.S.M., Mughalsarai,

tendered by J. S. Witness No. so in his examina-
tion-in-chief .• 13·4·70
Statement ofRamdas,liverm,an, Grade II,Mughal-
sarai, tendered by I. S. Witness No. so in his
examination-in-chief .. 13-4-70

Statement of Abdul Gafoor, dated 12-z-6~, ten-

dered by J. S. Witness No. so, in his exam,;na-
tion-in-chief. • • • • • 13·4·70

26 .. Newspaper cutting of paper "Panchajanya'''

dated 12-2-68 13·4·70

Newspaper cutting of paper "Panchajanya •'

dated 12-2'68 .. 13·4·70

28. Ness paper cutting of paper 'f Sam,achar Times,

dated 13-2-68 • • . • • • 13·4·70

Newspaper cutting of ~aper " ~~achar T:iir,pc:;"

dated 13-Z-68 13'4·70

Newspaper cuttinr of paper "Sarnachar Times"

30- 13·4~70
dated 13-2-68 . • . • • . •
Neswpaper cuttings ·or papers" Statesman'' dated
18-4-68 and'' Panchajanya" date~ .26-2-68 • i3"4·70

Newspaper cuttings of paper '' Organiser" dated

18·2-68, 3-3-68, 12-3-68, 18-3-68, 24-3-68 and
31-3-~R
13·4·70
21-.7r70 }

155
11-167 H.A.
 156

I 2 3

33· Inland letter dated 12-2-68 addressed tc

Shri Chaudhari Charansing and Shri Ran
Prakashaji, Dy. Chief Minister
. ' '
34· Newspaper cuttings of paper "Panchajanya"
dated 26-2-68 and 4-3-68
••j .

35· Newspaper cuttings cif paper •' Panchajanya"

dated 13-II-67, 2D-II-67, 27-II-67and I·I-61
Booklet-Presidential Address by Sbri Deen
Dayal _Upadhyaya on the 14th Annual Sessio•
ofBharatiyaJana Sangh. (Pages 19,21 and 24
only)

37· Newspaper cutting of paper " Gandiv, dated

8-3-68
PrOceedings Book of Varanasi Nagar }ana [Link]
Letter dated 22-12,.69 frOIII the Secretary (Mr.
G. S. Nande) ColJUIIission oflnquiry re. death
of Shri Deen Oayal Upadhyaya. (The letter is
addressed to Shri .Nanaji Deshlllukh ofJana
Sangh) 13-4·70
40. Personal Diary of Shri R81118charaya Pandey
for the year .1968 • 13-4-70
Book-" Rashtra Chintalf" 24-4·70
Book-" Ekatanul ·MaQav [Link]" · 24-4·70
Book-" Political Diary" wrinen by Shri Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya

Sl· Article in "Organiser" dated 23-4-67 (Pages 8,

9 and 14) ,24-4·70
Newspaper cuttiD:gs .of .paper '' Organiser'' dated
17-9-67 and 8-ro-67
53· Newspaper cutting ..of paper "Orgaqiser" dated
8-~o-67

54· Newspaper cutting .of paper-" Organiser, dated

17·3-68 24-4-60

SS· Gtoup photograph of the Jana Sangh Leaders

with the dead-body of Shri Deen Dayal Upa-
dhyaya

12Zo Certified copy of Order Sheet in Criminal case

No. 248 of 1968 in case of State versus Shrimati
Mlinni under Section 4II Indian Penal Code,
pehding in the Court Of A.D.M. (J) Varanasi 30-6-70

123· Certified COpy of Order Sheet in Criminal case

No. 241 of 1968 in case of State <Jers!IS Lalta
Prasad under Section 4II Indian Penal Code,
pending in the Court of A.D.M. (J) Varanasi 30-6-70
 PART B (Documents prOduced by the Central Bureau of investigations)

Exhibit Nature of the docum,ent Date of prOduction

Number

I 2 3

I. Statement ofShriPratap Rai dated I7-4·68 20-3-70

4· Statem~t of Shri Ram Prakashji, Ex Dy. Chief

Minister dated I9-3-68 recOrded by C.B.I. 24-3-70

5· Newspaper cutting ofpaperuAaj, dated22-3-jO . 24-3-70

7· Newspaper cutting of paper "Gandiv" dated

22-II-69 24-3-70

14· Statement of Shri Kailash Pari Mishra, Secretary,

Bihar State Jana Sangh, Patna, dated 3-4-68,
recOrded by C.B.I. · ·
Book-" Din Daya I UpadhyayaHatya kand"
Part-!
56. Report of the Committee of tbe Bharatiya Jana
Sangh "Gati Vidhi" Official Bulletin • •
souvenir Of tbe Bharatiya Jana Sangh "-Who's
57·
Who" .

58. List of prOgrall\ffie of Pandit Deen Dayal Upa-

dhyaya.

59· List of persons of Left Coll\ll\unists ideology who

were away frOm. their duw on 10-2-68

60. Book-"Pandit Deen tDayal Upadlzyaya Malia

Prastltan'' 25-4-70

6!. Newspaper cutting ofpaper"Panchajanya" dated

26-2-68
62. Advertisell\ent for 3 publications :
"Rashtra Dharm.a"
"Panchajanya" and
"Tarun Bharat".
Panchajanya special issue dated 15-8-68 27-4-70
Register of Reservation of 1st class berths ofKath-
godam statiOn. (See page 74 dated 5-2-68) • 28-4-70
Foreign Delivery Register of N.E. Railway for
parcels Inwards and Delivery, dated 5-2-68 (The
whole Register). 28-4-70
65A. Entry on page 3 is marked as Exhibit •
66. Local and Foreign Inward and Delivery Luggage
Register of Bhojipura Railway StatiOn •

157.
12-167 H.A.
 1M

I 3

67·} Two [Link] Receipts Nos. F-296699 and

68. P-980927 of the Northern Railway and Central
Railway, respectively 28-4-70
Message Book of Bhojipura Railway Station 28-4·70
Three Reservation sheets of I Class reservation
dated 9-2-68 28-4-70
71- Three Reservation Sheets of I class dated
10-2-68 28-4-70
73· Report dated 17-4-68 frOm M.A. Khan, Police
Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Luck-
now 29-4-70
Sketch of human body 22-6-70
77· PhOtOgraph showing injuries on the dead body of
Shri Deen Daya!-Upadhyaya (Orig. Photo is
exhibited as Ka-31) 22-6-70
Certified cOpy of Exhibit Kha-69 on the file of
of the Speieal Judge Varanasi, in Sessions Trial
No. 74 of 1968 . . . . . . 22-6-70
(POrtion [Link] "A" "B" and "C" is exhibited
only)
So. } Two files No. F-20(144)/58-M & PH of Delhi
SoA. Adm,inistration Secretariat, Delhi . . .
Sr. Four Trunk Call Bills on Phone No. LW-
23509 • 23-6-70
82. Seven tickets Of Trunk Calls 23-6-70
Three files regarding conduct of Prabhu Dayal,
Fitter .
One file regarding conduct of Prabhu Dayal,
Fitter .
85. Hand Bill dated nil
86. One file regarding conduct of Prabhu Dayal,
Fitter, and his appeal to the Divisional Mecha ..
nical Engineer, Northern Railway, [Link] .
Original Statement of accused Ram Awadh dated
9-2-68 recOrded by C.B.I. • • • • 25-6-70
go. Original Statement of accused Bharat La! dated
2-3-68 recorded by C.B.I. 25-6-70
91. Original Statement of accused Bharat La! dated
7-3-68 recOrded by C.B.I. • · • • • 25-6·70
93· Order passed by the DirectOr of the Central Bu-
reau of Investigation, dated 26-2-68 asking Mr.
M.P. Singh, D.I.G. to supervise, contrOl and
direct the work of the investigating team • 26-6-70
94· Text of Planchet
26-6-70
 159

I 2 3

95· Interim Report dated 20-3-68 submitted by

Shri John Lobo .
Final Report dated 29-4-68 submitted by Shri
John Lobo . . • • • 29-6-70
97· Affidavit dated 1-2-70 of Dr. Murli Manohar
Joshi . 29-6-70
Register of Mr. M.P. Singh, Oath Com,m,[Link]"
Allahabad i_iigh Court • • • •

99· The issues of the Urdu Journal "Siasat" (18

issues) 30-6-70:
roo. Certified copy of the Judgment dated 25-6-55,
in Criminal Case No. I07/S4in the case Of State
vs. Sitn Ram. and Others
101. Certified cOpy of the Judgment dated 9-12·48, in
Criminal Case No. 189 of 1948 in the ca'e of
of Rex vs. Deo Dutta and Kedar Nath .
102- Certified cOpy of the 'order· dated May 21 of 1954
in case of No. I/54• Bholanath vs. Deo Dun • . 30-6-70
103- Newspaper cuitir:g Of paper "Azad" dated
25·8·54
Certified cOpy of the order dated I2-I2·59 in
.
30·6·70
104-
Criminal Case No. 27 of 1959 in the case of
Bhola and others vs. Panchayat Adalat 30-E-70

105· G.D. No. 15 dated 11-ro-67 pf P.S. Mughal-

. sarai . 30-6-70
106. G.D. No. rS dated 31-5 67 ofP.S. Mughalsarai • 30·6·70

107· G.D. No. 37 dated r6-6 170fP.S. Mughalsarai. 30·6-70

roB. G.D. No. 24 dated 15-11-67 of P.S. Mughalsarai/
VNS .• 30·6-70
109 G.D. No. II dated 5-12-67 of P.S. Mughalsarai/
Varanasi 30-6·70
no. Map of the Northern Railway 30-6-70
xu. Map of the North East Railway 30-6-';o

U2o Road map of Uttar Pradesh 30-6-70

II3 Time Table of [Link] Bus Service l:nween

Azamgarh and Shahganj and vice versa

114· Time Table of [Link] Bus Service between

Varanasi and Azam,garh and Vice-versa 3D-6-70

ns. Certified copy of the Complaint dated 7-7-67 filed

by Mr. V.N. Sharma against Dr. Fa1idi 30-6·70

n6- Certified cOpy of the application dated 21-2-70

in Misc. Case No. s1/70. 30-6-70
 160
I 3

Newspaper cutting of paper "Bharat" dated

18-2-68 30-6-70
n8. Newspaper cutting of paper "Gandiv" dated
19-2-68 30-6-70
Certified cOpy of the First Information Report
by Prabhu Dayal against Satya Narain Tiwari • 30-6-70
120. Newspaper cutting of paper "Milap" datt: d

IZI.
14-2-68
.
Chart of Fare and Distance in regard to the Bus
30-6-70

Route between Varanasi and Azamgarh • 30-6-70

Statement of M.P. Singh dated 15-2-68 recO,ded
by UP., C.I.D. . • • • •
125- Statement of M.P. Singh dated 10-3-68 recOrded
by C.B.I. . • . • • • •
r26. Sratement of B.D. Kamal dated 12-2-68 recOrded
by U.P., C.I.D.
r27. Statement of B.D. Kamal dated 27-2-68 recOrded
by C.B.l.
128. Supplementary state~t of B.D. Kamal recOrded
by C.B.I. I-7·70
129- Statement of Major S.M. Sharma dated· 3-3-6H
· recOrded by C.B.l.
130- Newspaper cutting of paper "Hindustan Timesu
dated 14--2-68

PAR1 C (Documents called for by the Commission)

I. RP:cOrd of the Sessions Court, Varanasi, in Sessions By cOnsent of the parties

Case No. 74 of 1968. this recOrd forms a
part Of the record be-
fore the Co mmis-
sion.