Kehar Singh and Others Vs State (Delhi Administration)

CASE BRIEF

Appellant – Kehar Singh and Others

Respondent – State (Delhi Administration)

Decided on – 01/04/1988

Statues Referred –

1. Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19, 21 and article 136.
2. Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 – section 3, section 4, section 5, section 6 and section 8.
3. Criminal Procedure Code, 1952 – section 9(6), section 164, section 194, section 327 and section 354(3).
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – section 10, section 145, section 155, section 157.
5. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – section 34, section 120B, section 302 and section 307.

FACTS

1. In June, 1984 Operation Blue Star was formed to enter Golden Temple Complex at Amritsar to flush out the terrorist. There was a huge chaos at the temple during this operation which resulted into damage of Akaltakht (the sacred tomb at the golden temple).
2. This initiated religious feelings of the Sikh Community leading to expressing their resentment towards Indira Gandhi as Indira Gandhi was then the Prime Minister of India and had ordered Indian Army to enter into the Golden Temple in order to detain the terrorists who had taken refuge in the temple to escape the police and this entire operation was operated as “Operation Blue Star, 1954”.
3. In October 1984 Indira Gandhi had an interview with Irish television.
4. Her staff accompanied her which included, head constable Narayan Singh, Rameshwar Dayal, Assistant sub – Inspector Nathuram, attendant and R K Dhawan special assistant.
5. Beant Singh and Satwant Singh had their duty on the gate of the building as scheduled.
6. Beant Singh then fired five rounds and Satwant Singh gave 25 shots at Indira Gandhi from their weapons, which was a planned revenge against her.
7. The post mortem report suggested that the death was due to hamrage and shock.
8. Both the assassins were arrested at Indo – Tibetan border where Beant Singh died and Satwant Singh suffered injuries.
9. Kehar Singh was the uncle of Beant Singh’s wife who was a religious fanatic and influenced Beant Singh to take revenge as it would be said the message of 10^th Guru of the Sikhs.
10. The charge sheet was filed against Satwant Singh, Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh. The offences were under section 120B, 109, 34, 302 of Indian Penal Code and section 27, 54, 59 of Arms act.

ISSUE

1. Open public trial right of an accused – sessions trial held in Tihar jail is whether a valid trial?
2. Whether High Court has the power to direct trial of case or place other than normal seat of sessions court?
3. Public trial open court restrictions on access how far valid?

CONTENTIONS BY PARTIES

Appellant’s Arguments

1. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that under article 21 of the Constitution speedy, open and public trial is one of the constitutional guarantees of a fair and just trial and by holding the trial in Tihar jail in present case this guarantee has been affected and the accused have been deprived of fair and open trial as contemplated under section 327 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The high court has no power to direct the trial of Criminal case at a place other than the normal seats of Court of Sessions.
2. The fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution need not to be under the mercy of the court and that there should not be any discrimination in the matter of public access to judicial proceedings and first come first should be the principle no matter what.
3. In spite of the prayer made by the accused during the trial about the copies of statements of witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution and were also examined before Thakkar Commission the same was not made available. Any report was not made available to them.
4. The High Court has misconstrued the scope of section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.
5. Confession of Satwant Singh being not recorded in the manner prescribed under section 164 of the code is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used for convicting the accused.
6. There is no evidence that Beant Singh and his wife were deliberately taken by Kehar Singh to expose them to provocative bhajans.
7. There is no substantive evidence from testimony of Bimla Khalsa that Beant Singh took Amrit on October 14, 1954 at the instance of Kehar Singh. Also, the finger prints found on the sten – gun of accused Satwant Singh were not tested in comparison and the two bullets recovered from the body were not examined for traces of blood or tissues. Post mortem examination ought to have been full and complete.
8. Balbir Singh contended that his arrest at Najafgarh bus stand was a make believe arrangement.

Respondents Arguments

1. It was contended that the court in an appeal under article 136 of the Constitution of India is not accepted to interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts arrived.
2. There is no question of any constitutional right under Article 21.
3. The premises where the trial was held was not that part of the jail where the prisoners are kept but was the office block where there was an approach and the trial was held as if it was held in an ordinary place.
4. If the confession is not recorded in the prescribed form, it is a mere irregularity can be cured by section 463 on taking evidence that the statement was recorded duly and that it has not injured the accused in his defence on merits.
5. The High Court had the authority to issue notification under section 9(6) of CrPC.

JUDGEMENT

The Apex Court’s bench comprising of Oza G.L., Ray B.C., Shetty K.J. held the following:

1. The incidence of present case took away a popular leader who was working for 40 years. Indira Gandhi was unarmed when she was attacked. The accused by the nature of their duty had confidence instilled on them.
2. Section 194 of CrPC sessions judge of the division by special order is supposed to allot cases to High Court. Also, Section 9 of CrPC states that the High court may direct trial if deemed necessary to a place such fit. Therefore, the trial held at Tihar jail was valid.
3. On analysis of section 6 of Commission of Enquiry Act there are two restrictions to be given by the witness – i) self – incrimination ii) Estoppel
4. Indira Gandhi died as a result of gunshot injuries by Beant Singh and Satwant Singh by service revolver and carbine respectively. Hence, it was a criminal conspiracy.
5. Besides the evidence of direct witness, the other evidences were in corroboration with the post mortem report. The appeal of Satwant Singh was dismissed.
6. The findings of Trial Court and High Court were proved against Satwant Singh and the same were upheld by Supreme court. The charge of conspiracy against Kehar Singh with Satwant Singh has been proved without any reasonable doubt.
7. It was one of the rarest of rarest case in which extreme penalty of Death was called off.

RULE OF LAW –

The provision of the law which was under scrutiny by the Hon’ble apex court of India was of the proof as to the criminal conspiracy to murder.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion it could be said that the court in present case delivered justice by establishing the provisions and validity of Constitutional Rights along with the witness testimony. Present case was however a concern for whole society and the verdict was precisely made.