Open trial, Commission statement privilege, and conspiracy proof upheld in a high-profile criminal appeal

A jail trial was upheld where the High Court validly notified Tihar Jail as the Sessions venue under Section 9(6) of the Code, and reasonable regulation of access did not violate the right to an open trial under Section 327. Statements before the Thakkar Commission were protected by Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and could not be used for contradiction or other forensic purposes in the criminal trial; the Commission report had no evidentiary value. On the merits, Balbir Singh's involvement in conspiracy was not proved and his conviction was set aside, while the evidence established Kehar Singh's participation in the conspiracy and Satwant Singh's role in the , and the death sentence was affirmed as falling within the rarest of rare category.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had power under the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct that the Sessions trial be held at Tihar Jail and whether such a jail trial violated the accused's right to an open and public trial; (ii) Whether the accused were entitled to call for and use the statements and report of the Thakkar Commission in the trial; (iii) Whether the evidence established the guilt of Balbir Singh, Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh for criminal conspiracy and murder, and whether the sentence of death was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had power under the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct that the Sessions trial be held at Tihar Jail and whether such a jail trial violated the accused's right to an open and public trial

Analysis: Section 9(6) of the Code empowered the High Court to notify the place or places where the Court of Session would ordinarily sit, and the notification directing Tihar Jail as a venue was treated as a valid administrative exercise of that power. A trial held in jail is not illegal per se. Section 327 of the Code deems the place of criminal trial to be an open court so long as the public generally may have access to the extent the venue can conveniently contain them. The record showed that access was regulated for security reasons, but not denied, and press representatives and members of the public were allowed to attend subject to reasonable checks.

Conclusion: The challenge to the venue and the plea of denial of an open trial failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused were entitled to call for and use the statements and report of the Thakkar Commission in the trial

Analysis: Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act protected statements made before the Commission from being used against the deponent in civil or criminal proceedings, save for prosecution for false evidence. That protection was held to be wide enough to bar use of such statements for contradiction, impeachment, or other forensic use in the criminal trial. The Commission report itself was held to be recommendatory and without evidentiary value in the criminal case.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon the Commission statements and report was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the evidence established the guilt of Balbir Singh, Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh for criminal conspiracy and murder, and whether the sentence of death was justified

Analysis: As to Balbir Singh, the Court found the alleged arrest, recovery, and absconding story unsafe to accept, treated the document said to have been recovered from him as unreliable, and disbelieved the material attributed to him, including the evidence of the delayed and improved witness account. The evidence was held insufficient to establish his participation in the conspiracy. As to Kehar Singh, the Court relied on the proved course of association with Beant Singh, the secret conversations, the Amrit-taking incidents, the Amritsar visit, the retention of Beant Singh's gold articles, and his post-crime remark, holding that these circumstances established his participation in the conspiracy. As to Satwant Singh, the eye-witnesses, duty records, recovery of arms and ammunition, ballistic evidence, and the confession furnished ample proof that he fired on the Prime Minister and caused the fatal injuries and the injuries to Rameshwar Dayal. The death sentence was sustained as the case was treated as one of the rarest of rare, involving the assassination of the Prime Minister by persons entrusted with her security.

Conclusion: Balbir Singh was entitled to acquittal, while Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh were held guilty and the sentence of death was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only in part: Balbir Singh's conviction was set aside and he was acquitted, while the convictions and sentences of Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court may validly notify a jail as the place of Sessions trial under Section 9(6) of the Code, a jail trial is not vitiated if public access is reasonably available, statements before a Commission of Inquiry cannot be used in a criminal trial because Section 6 gives complete protection against such use, and criminal conspiracy must be proved by reliable evidence showing agreement or participation, not by suspicion or irrelevant circumstances.

---