TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Key Decisions in High Court Trial: Jail Trial Valid, Convictions Upheld, Acquittals Due to Lack of Evidence</h1> <h3>KEHAR SINGH Versus STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION</h3> The High Court's direction for a jail trial was deemed valid due to security concerns. The trial in Tihar Jail was considered a public trial with ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of High Court's Direction for Jail Trial2. Public Trial and Open Court3. Refusal to Call for Statements before Thakkar Commission4. Evidence Against Each AccusedSummary of Judgment:Issue 1: Validity of High Court's Direction for Jail TrialThe High Court's power to direct the trial of a case at a place other than the normal seat of the Court of Session was upheld. Section 9(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the High Court to specify the place or places for the Court of Session to hold its sittings. The High Court's decision to hold the trial in Tihar Jail was justified due to the security concerns and the prevailing situation.Issue 2: Public Trial and Open CourtThe argument that a trial inside the jail premises is not a public trial was rejected. The Court held that trials in jail are not inherently invalid. Section 327(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the place of trial shall be deemed an open court. The trial in Tihar Jail was conducted with sufficient safeguards to ensure it was a public trial. Representatives of the press and public were allowed to attend, subject to security checks.Issue 3: Refusal to Call for Statements before Thakkar CommissionThe Court upheld the refusal to call for statements made before the Thakkar Commission. Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act provides that statements made before the Commission shall not be used against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings except for perjury. The Court affirmed the view that the protection under Section 6 is comprehensive and prevents the use of such statements for any purpose other than prosecuting for perjury.Issue 4: Evidence Against Each AccusedBalbir Singh (A-2):The evidence against Balbir Singh was found to be insufficient. The document (Ex. PW 26/B) allegedly recovered from him was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies in his arrest and the lack of independent witnesses. The Court concluded that the evidence did not establish his involvement in the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. His conviction and sentence were set aside, and he was acquitted.Kehar Singh (A-3):The evidence against Kehar Singh, including his close association with Beant Singh, secretive conversations, and post-crime conduct, was found to be sufficient to establish his involvement in the conspiracy to murder Mrs. Indira Gandhi. His conviction and death sentence were upheld.Satwant Singh (A-1):The evidence, including eye-witness testimonies and ballistic reports, conclusively established Satwant Singh's role in the assassination. His conviction under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and 34 IPC, Section 307 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act was upheld. The death sentence was confirmed.Conclusion:- Criminal Appeal No. 180/87 (Kehar Singh): Dismissed, conviction and sentence maintained.- Criminal Appeal No. 182/87 (Satwant Singh): Dismissed, conviction and sentence maintained.- Criminal Appeal No. 181/87 (Balbir Singh): Allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, acquitted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
