Law Maker

Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)

Supreme Court of India · 3 August 1988 · 3 judges · 1988 AIR 1883; 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 24; 1988 SCC (3) 609

The Court upheld the convictions and death sentences of Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh for the conspiracy to assassinate Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, acquitted Balbir Singh, and held that the trial in Tihar Jail was a valid open trial.

Facts

On 31 October 1984 Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was shot at her residence by two security personnel posted to protect her, Satwant Singh and another who was shot dead soon after. Satwant Singh, Balbir Singh and Kehar Singh were tried for murder under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, and Satwant Singh also under Sections 34 and 307 IPC and the Arms Act. By notifications under Sections 9(6) and 194 CrPC, the Delhi High Court directed the Sessions trial to be held in Central Jail, Tihar, before a named Additional Sessions Judge. All three were convicted and sentenced to death, and the High Court confirmed. The trial court and High Court refused the accused's requests for statements recorded by the Thakkar Commission of Inquiry. The accused appealed by special leave.

Questions before the Court

  1. Whether the High Court could direct the Sessions trial to be held in Tihar Jail, and whether that trial was an open and public trial.
  2. Whether statements of prosecution witnesses recorded by a Commission of Inquiry could be called for and used to contradict them, in view of Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
  3. Whether the evidence proved the conspiracy against Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh, and the effect of Satwant Singh's confession not recorded in the prescribed form.
  4. Whether the death sentences were justified.

What the Court held

  • The High Court's notification under Section 9(6) CrPC directing the trial in Tihar Jail was within its power and needed no prior hearing of the accused. A jail is not a prohibited place for a criminal trial, which may be held there for security and other valid reasons.
  • Wherever a trial is held, Section 327 CrPC makes the place an open court. Here the court house was outside the main jail, press, counsel and relatives attended, and members of the public were admitted subject to security checks; no one was shown to have been refused access. The trial was not vitiated.
  • Under Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, a statement before a Commission cannot be used against the witness in later civil or criminal proceedings except a perjury prosecution, so the accused were not entitled to use the Thakkar Commission statements. Shetty, J. affirmed the view in Dalmia's case and overruled contrary Bombay and Assam High Court decisions.
  • Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence without proof of express agreement, but conduct must clearly show concurrence. Kehar Singh's close association with the assassins and his post-crime conduct proved his part. The case against Balbir Singh rested on a belated statement and uncorroborated incidents, which a co-accused's confession could not make good; he was acquitted.
  • Ray, J. held that a confession not recorded in the prescribed form can be cured under Section 463 CrPC if the mandatory requirements of Section 164(2) were met. Satwant Singh's guilt was in any event proved by eye-witness and other evidence.
  • Applying Section 354(3) CrPC and Bachan Singh, the Court found no mitigating circumstance: security guards had killed the Prime Minister they were posted to protect. The death sentences of Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh were upheld.

Why it matters

The judgment holds that a criminal trial may lawfully be held inside jail premises for security reasons, provided the court remains open under Section 327 CrPC with reasonable public and press access. It construes Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act as giving witnesses complete protection against use of their statements except in perjury prosecutions, overruling contrary High Court decisions. Shetty, J.'s opinion also restates how criminal conspiracy may be inferred from conduct and warns against inferring it from irrelevant facts.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“It may now be stated without contradiction that jail is not a prohibited place for trial of criminal cases. Nor the jail trial can be regarded as an illegitimate trial. There can be trial in jail premises for reasons of security to the parties, witnesses and for other valid reasons. The enquiry or trial, however, must be conducted in open Court. There should not be any veil of secrecy in the proceedings.”
K.J. Shetty, J.Page 91 of the judgment
“So far as this country is concerned the law is very clear that as soon as a trial of a criminal case is held whatever may be the place it will be an open trial. The only thing that it is necessary for the appellant is to point out that in fact that it was not an open trial.”
G.L. Oza, J.Page 44 of the judgment
“It means that the statement given before a Commission shall not be admissible against the person in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding save for perjury. There is. therefore, much to be said for the observation made in Dalmia's case and indeed that is the proper construction to be attributed to the language of sec. 6 of the Act.”
K.J. Shetty, J.Page 107 of the judgment
“I share this opinion, but hasten to add that the relative acts of conduct of the parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence as to what should be done. The concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence.”
K.J. Shetty, J.Page 115 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Case
Criminal Appeal Nos. 180 to 182 of 1987
Decided
3 August 1988
Bench
G.L. Oza, B.C. Ray, K.J. Shetty
Opinions
Unanimous in result, with three separate opinions. G.L. Oza, J. delivered the first judgment; B.C. Ray, J. concurred with both other judgments and added views on the jail trial and the confession; K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. agreed with Oza, J.'s conclusion and gave his own reasons.

Questions on this case

1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.