Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ.
U.T. Chandigarh – Petitioner
Versus
Satnam Singh - Respondent
CRA-S No. 2294-SBA of 2003
Decided On : 28-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Rajiv Vij Addl. Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh , Ms. Ekta Thakur Adv. , Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal Adv., Mr. Shubhkarnan Singh Sandhu Adv. , Mr. R.S. Bains Senior, Advocate , Mr. Amarjit Singh Adv.

The court emphasized that disclosure statements must be corroborated by credible evidence to establish guilt, and acquittals were upheld due to insufficient evidence against several accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 225-B, 468, 120-B - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 4, 5, 6 - Conviction of two accused for conspiracy and possession of explosives - Acquittal of co-accused due to lack of evidence and hostile witnesses - The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy to blow up Model Jail, Burail, and the involvement of the accused in the alleged offences. (Paras 1-52)

(B) Evidence - Disclosure statements - The evidentiary value of disclosure statements made by accused during police custody is crucial, but must be corroborated by other evidence to establish guilt. (Paras 23-41)

(C) Acquittal - The trial court's acquittal of several co-accused was based on the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to hostile witnesses and lack of corroborative evidence. (Paras 16-21)

(D) Conviction - The conviction of Balwinder Singh was upheld based on handwriting expert testimony linking him to incriminating documents. (Paras 49-51)

Facts of the case:
The case arose from a conspiracy to smuggle explosives into Model Jail, Chandigarh, involving multiple accused linked to the assassination of a political figure. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to facilitate the escape of terrorists.

Findings of Court:
The trial court convicted Balwinder Singh for his involvement, while acquitting others due to insufficient evidence.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the validity of disclosure statements, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to support disclosure statements and the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeals dismissed; conviction upheld for Balwinder Singh, acquittals maintained for others.

Judgement Key Points

Case Overview

The appeals arise from a common verdict dated 14.01.2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in Sessions Case No.11 dated 6.10.1998/21.8.1999. (!) (!)
Conviction recorded against Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh under Sections 419, 468, 471 IPC; acquittal of co-accused Baljit Singh, Jaswant Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Sheetla Parshad Mishra, Daljit Singh Rajput, Jaspal Singh Dhillon, Jagtar Singh Hawara, and Jagtar Singh @ Tara. (!)
Sentences: 2 years RI under Section 419 IPC; 4 years RI and Rs.4000 fine under Sections 468 and 471 IPC each (default 9 months RI); sentences to run concurrently with set-off under Section 428 CrPC. (!) (!) (!)

Factual Background

Prosecution case stems from assassination of Beant Singh in August 1995; accused linked to smuggling explosives into Model Jail, Burail, to aid escape of Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh @ Tara. (!)
Satnam Singh visited jail under false name Charanjit Singh; apprehended on 11.06.1998 with 1.1 kg RDX in sweet pinnies; disclosure led to recovery of 1.7 kg RDX and two wireless sets from his house. (!)
Allegations against others: Supply of mobile phones/SIMs to jail inmates via Jaswant Singh, Daljit Singh Rajput, Sheetla Parshad Mishra; hawala money handling by Baljit Singh, Jaspal Singh Dhillon; Balwinder Singh supplied explosives. (!) (!) (!)
CFSL report confirmed PETN explosive in samples (73.24% and 72.01%). (!) (!) (!) (!)

Trial Proceedings

Charges under Sections 419, 420, 225-B, 468, 120-B IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6 Explosive Substances Act; committed to Sessions Court. (!) (!) (!)
Prosecution examined 26 witnesses; accused examined 14 defense witnesses; statements under Section 313 CrPC denied guilt. (!)

Reasons for Acquittals (Trial Court Upheld)

Satnam Singh: Doubtful arrest date (defense evidence: 08.06.1998 vs. prosecution: 11.06.1998), casting doubt on disclosure/recovery. (!) (!) (!)
Jaspal Singh Dhillon: PW-24 (Jasmer Singh) and PW-5 (Labh Singh) turned hostile. (!)
Baljit Singh Khalsa: PW-18 (Nawab Ali) turned hostile. (!)
Balwinder Singh (initial acquittal overturned on appeal): Link evidence missing due to unproven roles of co-accused; PW-5 hostile. (!)
Sheetla Parshad Mishra & Jaswinder Singh: PW-4 (Harsharan Marwaha) hostile re: jail supplies. (!)
Jaswant Singh & Daljit Singh Rajput: No recovery of mobiles/SIMs from jail; no incriminating evidence. (!)
Overall: Failure to prove conspiracy, hawala use, or mobile facilitation; no wireless recovery from jail; hostile witnesses; no CDR evidence of conspiratorial calls. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Disclosure Statements & Recoveries

Satnam Singh's signed disclosure (Ex.PW20/B) led to recovery (Ex.PW20/C); signatures undisputed, but vigor negated by arrest date discrepancy and inquiry report findings. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Disclosure statements require corroboration by independent evidence; not sole basis for guilt, especially with hostile witnesses or planted recovery doubts. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Conviction Upheld (Balwinder Singh)

Handwriting expert (PW-10) opined disputed jail register entries (Ex.PW/4, Ex.PW10/6) matched specimen signatures (S22-S25); report unchallenged. (!)

Appellate Findings & Result

Satnam Singh's conviction unassailed, upheld. (!)
No merit in State appeal (CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003); acquittals maintained. (!)
Balwinder Singh's appeal (CRA-S-179-SB-2003) dismissed; conviction/sentence not perverse. (!)
Records to be sent down; case property to be destroyed post-limitation. (!)

JUDGMENT :

(Sureshwar Thakur, J.)

Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 14.01.2003, upon Sessions Case No.11 of 6.10.1998/ 21.8.1999, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, wherethrough in respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 225-B, 468, 120-B of the IPC, besides for offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellant-convicts Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh vis-a-vis offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471 of the IPC. However, the other co-accused namely Baljit Singh, Jaswant Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Sheetla Parshad Misha, Daljit Singh Rajput, Jaspal Singh Dhillon, Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh @ Tara, were acquitted from the charges drawn against them. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of 15.01.2003, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner.

Keeping in mind the age of the convicts and also other surrounding circumstances as mentioned above, I sentence convicts Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh under section 419 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Both the convicts are sentenced under section 468 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine each convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months more. Similarly both the convicts are sentenced under section 471 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine each convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months more.”

3. All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered to run concurrently. The period spent in prison by the convict, thus during the investigation or trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C., ordered to be set off from the above imposed substantive sentence(s) of imprisonment, upon the convicts.

4. The accused-convict Balwinder Singh becomes aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, becomes aggrieved from the consequent thereto sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence has chose to institute thereagainst criminal appeal bearing No.CRA-S179-SB-2003. However, accused-convict Satnam Singh has not challenged the verdict of conviction, and the consequent thereto sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine.

5. The U.T. Chandigarh has filed criminal appeal bearing No.CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003, seeking the conviction of all the accused for the charged offences.

Factual Background and investigation

6. The genesis of the prosecution case are that in the month of August, 1995 Sh. Beant Singh, the then Chief Minister, Punjab was assassinated in front of the Civil Secretariat building, Punjab, Chandigarh by a bomb blast. Number of accused were arrested in connection with the assassination of Sh. Beant Singh and two of them are Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh @ Tara who are accused in this case also. According to the prosecution version, accused Satnam Singh used to visit Burail Jail to meet Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh @ Tara who were confined in Model Jail, Chandigarh, mentioning his name in the jail record as Charanjit Singh son of Bahadur Singh, resident of Village Rally, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib. In fact Satnam Singh accused is son of Chamba Singh, resident of village Salempur, Distt. Ropar. Prior to the date of alleged occurrence