LEGAL REASONING SKILLS

Kehar Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration)

(1988) 3 SCC 609

CASE ANALYSIS

Submitted by
Shreya Ghosh Dastidar
Division B, BA LLB, PRN – 16010323154,
Semester III, Batch 2016-21

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Symbiosis International University, Pune

In
July, 2017

Under the guidance of

our respected faculty members
Prof. Ambrina Khan
Prof. D. Ganesh Kumar

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Symbiosis International University, Pune
 CERTIFICATE

This project titled Kehar Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC
609, submitted to Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad for Legal Reasoning Skills as part of
my internal assessment is based on my original work and has not been submitted elsewhere
for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated into the research project has
been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date: 24th July, 2017
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude towards our respected professors of Legal Reasoning
Skills – Dr. Ambrina Khan and D. Ganesh Kumar, who conducted many classes for us to
know about basic concepts of this subject and also helped us to learn about the practical
details and my institution, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad for their ardent support and
guidance.
I would also like to acknowledge all the sources I have referred which has helped me to
complete this project on. Their constructive guidance and criticism helped me in
completing this task.

Signature of the candidate

Date: 24th July, 2017
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE………………………………………………………………… 1-2

2. ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………..………...3

3. ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES………………………………………………………………4-5

4. PROVISIONS OF THE LAW APPLIED………………………………………………………......6-8

5. JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE COURT……………………………………………………………9

6. RATIO DECIDENDI………………………………………………………………………….…...10-11

7. ANALYSIS AND OPINION………………………………………………………………….…...12-13

8. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………….…….…14

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………….15
 INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE

The case of Kehar Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration) is basically related to the
assassination of our first lady Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In this case there were 3 accused namely
Satwant Singh, Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh, who were accused of being involved directly or indirectly in
the murder or assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The first two were found guilty and convicted, but the
third (Balbir Singh) was acquitted of all charges due to some facts not being proved.

The facts of the case are as follows:

On October 31, 1984 at around 9 AM, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, was
going to her office from her residence on a walkway. Two bodyguards assigned to ensure her
protection were waiting for her near the gates. One of them was Beant Singh, Sub Inspector, and
moments later, he fired 5 bullets at the PM with his service revolver. At the same time, another
bodyguard, Satwant Singh, Constable, also opened fire on her with his service carbine, releasing
nearly 25 rounds of ammunition. Needless to say, the PM was grievously injured and fell down.
The 2 assassins were arrested by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and taken to the guard barracks,
where they were shot. As a result, Beant Singh died, and Satwant Singh suffered great injuries,
but eventually recovered from his wounds. The PM was rushed to AIIMS hospital, where she
later died. Apart from Satwant Singh, Kehar Singh who was uncle of deceased Beant Singh’s
wife and Balbir Singh were held for criminal conspiracy to assassinate Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

It was argued by the prosecution against Kehar Singh that he was a religious fanatic and had
harboured a most intense hatred against Mrs. Indira Gandhi for causing damage to the Akal
Takht in the Golden Temple at Amritsar, when she approved Operation Blue Star. Kehar Singh
could influence Beant Singh as he was the uncle of his wife. Using his cunning, he brainwashed
Beant Singh and Satwant Singh and made them turn into religious bigots. He made them undergo
the Amrit Chhakna Ceremony on October 14 and 24, 1984, respectively. He also took Beant
Singh to the Golden Temple on October 20, 1984.

On October 31, 1984, Balbir Singh’s duty was to start in the evening. When he reported for duty,
he was asked to go to the Security Police Lines. The next day, on November 1, 1984, at around 3
AM when he was asleep, he was awakened and his house was searched but nothing except a
book on Sant Bhindranwale was recovered. At about 4 AM, he was allegedly taken to the
Yamuna Velodrome (a track designed for cycling), and was kept there for quite a long time, only
to be released late in the evening. This custody at the Yamuna Velodrome was called as de facto
custody. But there was no evidence supporting this incident, in which he was later allowed to go.
However, on December 3, 1984, he was allegedly arrested and his person was searched and only
a few pieces of paper were recovered from his person, with entries said to have been written by
him.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the 3 accused appellants – Satwant, Kehar and
Balbir Singh. They were accused of sentences under Sections 120-B, 109 and 34 read with
Section 302, and also of substantive offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, and Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.

In due course, the accused had to take their trial in the Court of Session. During this time, the
Delhi High Court issued two notifications. By the first notification, it was directed that the trial
of the case shall be held in the Central Jail, Tihar according to law. By the other notification, the
High Court directed that “the case be tried by Shri Mahesh Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge,
New Delhi.” Following the above notifications, the accused were tried in Central Jail, Tihar. The
learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of all charges levied against them, and sentenced
them to death.

On appeal the High Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial
court against all the three who were accused. Again an appeal was made to the Supreme Court,
and this time the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to Kehar Singh and
Satwant Singh, but acquitted Balbir Singh for want of sufficient evidence.
 ISSUES RAISED

The issues raised during this trial of Kehar Singh and Others v State (Delhi Administration)
were as follows:

1. Whether or not the High Court has the power to direct the trial of the case at a place other
than the normal location of the Court of Session?

2. Whether or not the trial inside the jail premises is contradictory to having an open trial,
as is the right of the accused?

3. Was the Court’s refusal to let the accused use the report of the Thakkar Commission
justified?

4. Did Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh truly deserve the death sentence?
 ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Advocates who appeared for the Appellants – Kehar Singh and Others:

Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate (R.S. Sodhi, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, R.M. Tewari, Ashok Sharma and
Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates, with him).

Advocates who appeared for the Respondent – State (Delhi Administration):

G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General and S. Madhusudhan Rao, Senior Advocate (P.
Parmeshwaran, Ms. A. Subashini, M.V. Chelapathi Rao, S.P. Manocha and A.P. Ahluwalia, Advocates,
with them).

Arguments advanced by counsel for the Appellants:

1. Preliminary objections were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the procedure at
the trial. First contention raised by him was about the venue of the trial and the manner in which this venue
was fixed by the Delhi High Court by a notification under Section 9(6) of the Cr PC.

2. Second contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant was in relation to the trial held in jail,
and it was argued that under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, open and public trial is one of the
constitutional guarantees of a fair and just trial and by holding the trial inside Tihar Jail this guarantee has
been affected and accused have been deprived of a fair and open trial as envisioned under Section 327 of
the Cr PC.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states:

Protection of life and personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.1

3. The other objection that was raised was that under Section 327, Cr PC, it was only the trial judge, the
Sessions Judge who could for any special reasons hold the trial in camera or a part of the trial in camera
but there is no authority conferred under that section onto the High Court to shift/move the trial to a place
where it finally ceases to be an open trial. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to many decisions
from the United States, England and also indigenous decisions made by our Courts and argued that open
trial is a part of the fair trial which an accused is always entitled to.

4. Another point put forth by the counsel for the appellant was that by preventing the accused from getting
the papers of the Thakkar Commission, its report and statements of persons recorded and who are

1 G. Sankaranarayanan, The Constitution of India (P. 24) (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 9th Edition, 2016)
prosecution witnesses at the trial the accused have been deprived of substantial material which could be
used for their defence.

5. These main points were argued by the counsel appearing for Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh, and counsel
appearing for Satwant Singh adopted these arguments and in addition made his preliminary objections
pertaining to the evidence of post-mortem, ballistic expert and like matters.

Arguments advanced by counsel for the Respondent:

1. In reply to the objection raised by the Appellants’ counsel in regard to the location of trial set by a
notification issued by the High Court under Section 9(6), Cr PC, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent (Delhi Administration) attempted to justify such an order by contending that if the High Court
had the authority to issue notification fixing the place of sitting it was open to the High Court also to fix
the place of sitting for a particular case whereas emphasis by learned counsel for the appellant was that
Section 9(6) only authorizes the High Court to fix the place of sitting generally. So far as any particular
case is concerned, the second part of sub-clause (6) permits the trial court with the consent of the parties to
sit at any other place than the ordinary place of sitting.

The Supreme Court first refuted this argument made by the counsel for the respondent on the ground that
the proviso under which the High Court fixed the place for sitting was mentioned in a local amendment
applicable only to the state of Uttar Pradesh, and not to Delhi. But they considered it from another
perspective, and found that the contention put forth by the counsel for the appellant was without any
substance whatsoever. They said that notwithstanding the terms of the notification issued by the High
Court, the notification was issued by the Delhi High Court under Section 9(6) of the CrPC, and under it,
the Court could have done nothing more, or nothing less than what it did. Therefore, the Tihar Jail was
another place, apart from the Tiz Hazari and New Delhi, where the Sessions Court could have a sitting
ordinarily. Hence, in this view, the notification issued by the High Court was not erroneous, the Supreme
Court said.

2. In reply to another argument made by the counsel for the appellants in relation to the nature of the trial
being ‘closed’ and not ‘open,’ the counsel for the respondent argued that this was not a matter related to
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in any way, and that Section 327 of the Cr PC is not a constitutional
right. The counsel for the respondent said that tomorrow Section 327 may be amended in such a way that it
becomes unnecessary for criminal trials to be conducted in the open. Article 21 contemplates procedures
established by law as on the day on which the Constitution was adopted and therefore it is not so easy to
contend that by amending the Code of Criminal Procedure the effect of the procedure established by law
indicated in Article 21 could be taken away.

3. As for the final argument made by the counsel for the appellants in relation to them not receiving the
papers of the Thakkar Commission, the counsel for the respondent stated that the Thakkar Commission by
its own regulation and notification clearly made the enquiry into Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s assassination a
confidential affair and in addition to that there was amendment made to Commissions of Inquiry Act by
ordinance which provided that if the Government by notification decided not to put the report of the
Thakkar Commission before the House of Parliament or legislature for scrutiny, then the report could not
be placed before said organs of government. Therefore, the Commission’s report was not only confidential,
but even the Parliament had no right to see it. So, the accused could not ask for either the report or the
statements made before the Thakkar Commission for the purposes of trial or strengthening their defence.
 PROVISIONS OF THE LAW APPLIED

The legal provisions/laws applied to the case are as follows:

INDIAN PENAL CODE :

From the Indian Penal Code, 18602:

1. Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: When a criminal Act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for
that in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

2. Section 109: Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no
express provision is made for its punishment: Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the
punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

Explanation: An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed

in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the
abetment.

3. Section 120-A: Definition of criminal conspiracy: When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done:

i) An illegal act, or
ii) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no such agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.

Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object.

2 P.R. Reddi, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (P. 10, 37, 45, 46, 135, 144, 151) (Asia Law House, Hyderabad, 24th Edition, 2016)
4. Section 120-B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy: 1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of
two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding
six months, or with fine or with both.

5. Section 302: Punishment for murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Classification of offence: Punishment – Death, or imprisonment for life, and fine – Cognizable – Non-
bailable – Triable by Court of Session – Non-compoundable.

6. Section 300: Murder:

Firstly:- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or

Secondly:- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely
to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or

Thirdly:- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or,

Fourthly:- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

7. Section 307: Attempt to murder: Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment
for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempts by life convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment
for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
Other laws applied were:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE :

From the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:

1. Section 9(4).
2. Section 9(6).
3. Section 194.
4. Section 327.
5. Section 2(p).
6. Section 354(3).

EVIDENCE ACT :

From the Evidence Act, 1872:

1. Section 10.
2. Section 145.
3. Section 155.
4. Section 157.

INDIAN CONSTITUTION :

From the Indian Constitution:

1. Article 21 – in relation to right to open public trial – Criminal trial held within jail premises pursuant to
High Court’s order under Section 9(6) Cr PC – Whether violative of Article 21.

2. Article 21 – in relation to procedure established by law.

 JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE COURT

In this case, the judgement was given by a three judge bench consisting of Justices G.L. Oza, B.C. Ray and
K. Jagganatha Shetty, on 3rd August, 1988. The Supreme Court in this case, which they deemed to be under
the rarest of rare category, held that it was not just a person who was ruthlessly murdered, but a renowned
and respected political figure, the Prime Minister of India. Concluding the judgement, Justice Shetty said:

“This takes me to the question of sentence... now the normal sentence for murder is
imprisonment for life and not sentence of death. The court is required to give special reasons for
awarding death sentence. Special reasons mean specific facts and circumstances obtained in the
case justifying the extreme penalty. This Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab3 has indicated
certain guidelines to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of
imposing death sentence arises. It was observed that in cases where there is no proof of extreme
culpability the extreme penalty need not be given. It may be given only in the rarest of the rare
cases, where there is no extenuating [mitigating] circumstance. In Machhi Singh v. State of
Punjab4, this Court again indicated some principles as to what constitute “the rarest of rare
case” which warrant the imposition of death sentence. The High Court has carefully examined
these principles and given reasons why in this case, the death sentence alone should be
awarded.”

“In my opinion, the punishment measured is deserved. There cannot be tow opinions on this
issue. The “Bluestar Operation” was not directed to cause damage to Akal Takht. Nor was it
intended to hurt the religious feelings of Sikhs. The decision was taken by the responsible and
responsive government in the national interest. The Prime Minister (late) Mrs. Indira Gandhi
was, however, made the target for the consequences of the decision. The security guards who
were duty bound to protect the Prime Minister at the cost of their lives, themselves became the
assassins. Incredible but true. All values and all ideals in life; all norms and obligations are
thrown to the winds. It is a betrayal of the worst order. It is the most foul and senseless
assassination. The preparations for and the execution of this egregious crime do deserve the
dread sentence of the law.”

“Having regard to the views which I have expressed, i too would dismiss the appeals of Kehar
Singh and Satwant Singh, but allow the appeal of Balbir Singh by setting aside his conviction
and sentence, and acquitting him of all the charges.”

3 (1980) 2 SCC 684

4 (1983) 3 SCR 413
 RATIO DECIDENDI

All the three judges were unanimous in awarding the death sentence to Kehar and Satwant Singh, and in
acquitting Balbir Singh for want of sufficient evidence.

As for the issue regarding the venue of trial as fixed by the Delhi High Court and its validity, Justice Shetty
said:

“Section 9(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be divided into two parts. The first part
provides power to the High Court to notify the place or places for the Court of Session to hold its
sittings for disposal of cases. The second part deals with the power of the Court of Sessions in
any particular case to hold its sittings at a place not notified by the High Court. The words
"place or places" used in S. 9(6) indicate that there could be more than one place for the sitting
of the Court of Session. The different places may be notified by different notifications. There may
be a general notification as well as a special notification. The general notification may specify
the place for the class of cases where Court of Session shall sit for disposal. The special
notification may specify the same place or a different place in respect of a particular case.

Sections 9(4) and 194 of the Code are the closely related sections and they may also be
examined to understand the true meaning of the words "place or places" in the first part of
Section 9(6). Section 9(4) empowers the High Court to appoint a Sessions Judge of one division
to sit at such place or places in another division for disposal of cases. The High Court while so
appointing need not direct him to sit only at the ordinary place of sittings of the Court of
Sessions. There is no such constraint in Section 9(4). The High Court may also issue a separate
notification under Section 9(6) specifying the place or places where that Sessions Judge should
sit for disposal of cases. Section 194 provides power to the High Court to make a special order
directing an Additional or Assistant Session Judge of the same division to try certain specified
cases or a particular case. If the High Court thinks that the Additional or Assistant Sessions
Judge should hold the Court at a specified place, a separate notification could be issued under
Section 9(6).”

As for the issue regarding the trial in jail being a violation of the accused persons’ right, Justice Oza said:

“The trend of decisions of this Court has clearly indicated that the procedure must be fair and
just. Even expeditious trial has been considered to be a part of the guarantee under Article 21.
Undisputedly the procedure established by law as indicated in Article 21 is as provided in
Section 327 and unless on facts it is established that what is provided in Section 327 was
prevented or was not permitted, it could not be said that merely because trial was held at a
particular place it could be said to be a trial which was not open to public. Merely suggesting
the difficulties in reaching the Jail will not be enough, to say that it ceased to be a public trial. It
was not that part of the Jail where the prisoners are kept but was the Office block where there
was an approach, people were permitted to reach and the trial was held as if it was held in an
ordinary place and in fact what the High Court did by issuing a notification under Section 9(6)
 was not to fix place of trial of this Particular case in Tihar Jail, but the High Court by the said
notification made Tihar Jail also as one of the places where a Sessions Court could ordinarily sit
and in this case, therefore, the trial was held at this place. As soon as a trial is held whatever the
place may be the provisions of Section 327 are attracted and it will be an open Court and every
citizen has a right to go and unless there is evidence or material on record to suggest that the
public at large was not permitted to go or someone was prevented from, on the facts in this
particular case, attending the trial or that the trial was in camera. In fact, without an
appropriate order it could not be said that what is contemplated under Section 327 or under
Article 21 was not made available to the accused in this case and, therefore, it could not be
contended that there is any prejudice at the trial.”

As regards the accused not being able to use the Thakkar Commission report, Justice Oza said:

“The report of a Commission is a recommendation of the Commission for the consideration of

the Government. It is the opinion of the Commission based on the statements of witnesses and
other material. It has no evidentiary value in the trial of a criminal case. In the instant case, the
Courts below were also justified in not summoning the reports of the Thakkar Commission.
Moreover, the Commission framed regulations under Section X of the Act in regard to the
procedure for enquiry and Regulation 8 provided that in view of the sensitive nature of enquiry
the proceedings will be in camera unless the Commission directs otherwise. So far as recording
of evidence and the proceedings of the Commission are concerned they were held in camera
throughout and even the reports, interim and final were stated by the Commission itself to be
confidential. Normally, the Government was supposed to place the report of the Commission
before the House of the People, but the Government did not do that, amended the Commission of
Inquiry Act, 1952 and notified that the reports of the Thakkar Commission shall not be laid
before the House of the People in the interest of the security of the State and in public interest
and the said notification also got approved by the House of people.”

As per Justice Shetty, the reason given for awarding the death sentence was as follows:

“In the instant case, the crime charged was not simply the murdering of the human being, but it
was the crime of assassination of the duly elected Prime Minister of the country. The motive for
the crime was not personal, but the consequences of the action taken by the Government in the
exercise of constitutional powers and duties. In our democratic republic, no person who is duly
constituted shall be eliminated by privy conspiracies. The 'Operation Blue Star' was not directed
to cause damage to Akal Takht. Nor it was intended to hurt the religious feelings of Sikhs. The
decision was taken by the responsible and responsive Government in the national interest. The
late Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi was, however, made the target for the consequences of
the decision. The security guards who were duty-bound to protect the Prime Minister at the cost
of their lives, themselves became the assassins. All values and all ideals in life; all norms and
obligations were thrown to the winds. It was a betrayal of the worst order. It was the most foul
and senseless assassination. The preparations for and the execution of this egregious crime do
deserve the dread sentence of the law.” 5

5 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/667073/ (Visited on July 22, 2017)

 ANALYSIS AND OPINION

When it comes to analyzing this judgment, it seems pretty clear that the accused Kehar Singh had a secret
conversation with Beant Singh when he went to meet him to his house. The way in which both the men
conducted themselves was proof enough that they were planning to do a great wrong. They avoided the
company of their wives and children. They had come together to plan the assassination of Mrs. Indira
Gandhi, and were fuelled by their desire for vengeance because of what they thought the then Prime
Minister did by approving to the execution of Operation Bluestar. The awarding of death sentence to the
accused Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh was backed by circumstantial evidence and eyewitness accounts.
Kehar Singh had all the opportunity to assuage Beant Singh’s anger regarding the damage caused to the
Akal Takht, but he didn’t do anything of the sort, instead he cunningly brainwashed Beant Singh into
killing Mrs. Indira Gandhi. His action of having the conversation with Beant Singh in secret was proof of
his mala fide intentions.

As for Satwant Singh, eyewitness accounts put him firmly as the second assassin and co-accused along
with the deceased-accused at the time and place when and where Mrs. Indira Gandhi was riddled with
bullets. Eyewitnesses Narain Singh (PW 9), Rameshwar Dayal (PW 10) and Nathu Ram (PW 64), were
examined by the prosecution. According to Narain Singh, the Prime Minister was 10 to 11 feet away from
the TMC gate when Beant Singh took out his service revolver and fired 5 rounds at Mrs. Gandhi. At the
same time, Satwant Singh also fired 25 rounds of ammunition at Mrs. Gandhi. Narain Singh, Head
Constable, threw away the umbrella he was holding and ran at Satwant Singh to tackle him.

Nathu Ram was a servant of Mrs. Gandhi – faithful and loyal. His duties were limited to cleaning and
sprucing up Mrs. Gandhi’s library-cum-bedroom. He had been with her for a long time, when she was both
in and not in power. He saw Beant Singh and Satwant Singh fire bullets at Mrs. Gandhi and his witness
corroborated with that of PW 9 and PW 10. His evidence was simple and straightforward, without any
ulterior thought or design.

Therefore I believe that the court was right in sentencing the two accused – Kehar Singh and Satwant
Singh to death. As for Balbir Singh, due to lack of sufficient evidence the Court released him, and this
decision need not be contested. He was carrying a document in which the first few lines mentioned his
“desire to kill” and his many meetings with Beant Singh. Upon first glance it seems like incriminating
evidence, but the Court saw it as nothing but a reaction to Operation Blue Star. The religious sentiments of
the Sikh community were greatly hurt, and many people thought in impulse of hurting or even killing the
Prime Minister. It was not an offence to form an opinion about the government’s action; anyone could do
that, the Court said. As for the evidence of Amarjit Singh (PW 44), he and Balbir Singh did not share even
cordial relations and the former was not even invited to attend the latter’s marriage, yet he wants the Court
to believe that Balbir and Beant Singh kept him informed of their plans to kill the Prime Minister. He, as a
security officer, should have warned his superiors about this possible threat, but did not perform his duties
correctly, indeed, he neglected them. To give weight to his evidence would have been wrong on part of the
Court. But the Court made the right decision by absolving Balbir Singh of any charges and acquitting him.
As for the other points raised regarding to the change in place of trial and its appropriateness, I humbly
agree with the Supreme Court’s view that the High Court was not wrong in setting a different place of trial
at Tihar Central Jail. The reason being that in Section 9(6) of the Cr PC the words "place or places"
indicate that there could be more than one place for the sitting of the Court of Session. The different places
may be notified by different notifications. Sections 9(4) and 194 of the Code are the closely related
sections and they should be read along with Section 9(6) to understand the phrase "place or places" in the
first part of Section 9(6). Section 9(4) empowers the High Court to appoint a Sessions Judge of one
division to sit at such place or places in another division for disposal of cases. The High Court while so
appointing need not direct him to sit only at the ordinary place of sittings of the Court of Sessions. There is
no such constraint in Section 9(4), hence the High Court’s notifications cannot be said to be erroneous.

As for the point of the trial at Tihar Jail being violative of the accused persons’ right to life under Article
21, I don’t agree with the appellant-counsel’s contention, meaning that I agree with the Supreme Court’s
stand. It is so because the place 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, people were permitted to reach and the trial
was held as if it was held in an ordinary place. As soon as a trial is held whatever the place may be the
provisions of Section 327 are attracted and it will be an open Court and every citizen has a right to go and
unless there is evidence or material on record to suggest that the public at large was not permitted to go or
someone was prevented from, on the facts in this particular case, attending the trial or that the trial was in
camera.

Finally, as for the point of the accused not getting access to the report of the Thakkar Commission, all that
can be said that it was a confidential report and even the Parliament was not allowed to see it. The report of
a Commission is a recommendation of the Commission for the consideration of the Government. It is the
opinion of the Commission based on the statements of witnesses and other material. It has no evidentiary
value in the trial of a criminal case. So the accused were rightly denied access to the report of the Thakkar
Commission.
 CONCLUSION

The case of Kehar Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration) was a case of historical significance,
though of a very unpleasant and macabre character. It dealt with the assassination of our then Prime
Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, and how she was killed by those entrusted to safeguard her life. It was a
monstrous betrayal, fuelled by the actions of troops acting under her command during the execution of
Operation Blue Star, which lead to the Akal Takht in the Golden Temple at Amritsar being damaged.
Granted, that such an action would naturally evoke very hostile, if not downright lethal emotions from the
Sikh community, but it must be understood that it was a government action made after all forethought and
caution. Mrs. Gandhi’s intention was never to deface the Akal Takht in the Golden Temple, only to ensure
that the terrorist(s) hiding within the Temple surrendered, or were eliminated, but it was the final nail in
the coffin for her.

The Supreme Court categorized this case under the rarest of rare cases, and awarded the death sentence to
the accused named Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh (Beant Singh had died soon after he shot the Prime
Minister), for criminal conspiracy to murder a person and murder of the then Prime Minister in a most
brutal manner. 30 bullets fired from two different weapons at the same time would kill anyone, beyond a
shadow of a doubt. The violence with which the accused executed their plan was the reason why the
Court awarded the sentence of capital punishment to them. The Court however, acquitted Balbir Singh,
due to lack of sufficient evidence which would completely prove his guilt. This case is a chilling reminder
of how religious bigotry can blind a person’s reason to such an extent that he or she can see nothing but
revenge. The political leader of our country was gunned down due to this feeling of vengeance running
through the Sikhs at that time. It was a senseless action, and a senseless loss of a great political figure and
human being.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cases referred:

1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab: (1980) 2 SCC 684 at footnote 6, under Judgement given by the
Court.

2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab: (1983) 3 SCR 413 at footnote 7, under Judgement given by the
Court.

3. Kehar Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration): (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 609 at
footnotes 1, 2 and 5, under Introducing the case, Arguments from both sides and Judgement given by
the Court respectively.

Books referred:

1. G. Sankaranarayanan, the Constitution of India (P. 24) (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 9th
Edition, 2016): at footnote 3, under Arguments from both sides.

2. P.R. Reddi, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (P. 10, 37, 45, 46, 135, 144, 151) (Asia Law House, Hyderabad,
24th Edition, 2016): at footnote 4, under Provisions of the law applied.

Websites referred:

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/667073/: at footnote 8, under Ratio Decidendi.

2. https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/650351/kehar-singh-vs-delhi-administration

3. Manupatra