Punjab-Haryana High Court
U.T. Chandigarh vs Satnam Singh And Ors on 28 October, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
1. CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003
Reserved on: 24.09.2024
Date of Decision: 28.10.2024
U.T. Chandigarh
......Appellant
Versus
Satnam Singh and others
.....Respondents
2. CRA-S-179-SB-2003
Balwinder Singh
......Appellant
Versus
The State of U.T. Chandigarh
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Rajiv Vij, Addl. PP for U.T. Chandigarh
Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-S-179-SB-2003) and
for respondents No.1, 4 and 6 (in CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003)
Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate with
Mr. Shubhkarnan Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10.
Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with
Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate
for respondent Nos.7 and 9 (in CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003).
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. 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.
1 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -2-
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.
“xxx
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.”
2 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -3-
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-S-
179-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
3 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -4-
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 Satnam Singh
visited Model Jail, Burail on 23.4.1998, 22.5.1998 and 8.6.1998 mentioning
his name in the jail record as Charanjit Singh. Keeping in view the
seriousness of the Beant Singh murder case the movement of accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh @ Tara was restricted to Model Jail,
Chandigarh, thus through notification issued by the Chandigarh
Administration under section 268 Cr.P.C. On suspicion a letter was written
by the Asstt. Supdt. Jail to the Superintendent Jail requesting him to verify
the address supplied by said Charanjit Singh. The necessary verification in
this regard was made by SI Balkar Singh of Crime Branch Office (CBO) and
constable Nirmal Singh of CID Branch of Chandigarh police and it was
found that no person exists in the name of Charanjit Singh son of Bahadur
Singh resides at village, Rally. About two days prior to the date of
occurrence a secret information was received by SI Dilsher Singh that one
person representing himself as Charanjit Singh used to frequently meet
dreaded terrorists Jagtar Singh Hawara lodged in Burail Jail, Chandigarh,
thus is likely to send explosive material in the shape of sweets in the Jail, to
cause blast of Model Jail, Burail, so that the accused in Beant Singh’s
murder case may be able to escape from custody. On 11.6.1998, a police
party headed by SI Dilsher Singh including Samsher Singh public witness
was holding a nakabandi at a little distance from the main outer gate of the
jail. At about 12:00 noon, accused Satnam Singh appeared from Chandigarh
side. The said accused was apprehended on suspicion and on search one box
of sweet box shape was recovered from the possession of the accused
4 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -5-
containing RDX in the shape of Pinnies. Weight of RDX in the Pinnies
shape was found to be one kg and 100 gms. Two pinnies of 100 gms, each
were separated for sample. Two sample parcels containing two Pinnies were
sealed with seal BS and were taken in police possession along with
remaining case property. Accused Satnam Singh admitted that his real name
is Satnam Singh and he is resident of village Salempur. During the course of
investigation on the same date in accordance with the disclosure statement of
accused Satnam Singh one Kg. and 700 gms. of Explosive Substances
(RDX) along with two wireless sets was recovered from a wheat drum kept
in a room of the house of Satnam Singh situated in village Salempur. Out of
the explosive material two samples of 100 gms. each, were separated.
Sample parcels were sealed with the seal of BS and were taken in police
possession along with the remaining case property as became recovered
from the house of accused Satnam Singh. Seal after its use was handed over
to Samsher Singh witness. Accused disclosed that he was called by Jagtar
Singh Hawara to meet him in the jail with explosive substance in the shape
of sweet Pinnies. Two bus tickets were also recovered from his possession.
Upon one of bus ticket telephone No. 694753 of Baljit Singh Khalsa along
with house number was mentioned. On the second ticket, cellular telephone
numbers of Bittu and Toni were found written who are residing abroad.
7. After the registration of the case the other co-accused
mentioned above were also taken in custody on different dates. It is alleged
that in the month of September, 1997, Jaswant Singh accused met accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh @ Tara in Burail Jail, Chandigarh,
and later on with the help of accused Daljit Singh Rajput Advocate, he
purchased a cellular phone and obtained a cellular phone connection in his
5 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -6-
own name. After getting some mechanical and technical defects, in the
cellular phone bearing No.98140 11957, becoming removed, subsequently it
was sent to the accused in jail with the help of Sheetla Parshad Mishra,
Assistant Supdt. Model Jail, Chandigarh. It is also alleged that later on
keeping in view the needs of the accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar
Singh @ Tara, accused Daljit Singh Rajput and Jaswant Singh obtained
another cellular phone and SIM card in the name of Lakhwinder Singh. In
the month of February, 1998, accused Daljit Singh Rajput pressurized his
neighbour Gurpreet Singh @ Chinku, who is owner of City Portrait and
threatened him, that he is working for Khalistan and is advocate of Jagtar
Singh Hawara. D.S. Rajput pressurized Gurpreet Singh to supply mobile
phones and SIM cards with STD and ISD facility. The payment of mobile
phones purchased in the name Jaswant Singh was made through S.P. Mishra,
Asstt. Supdt. Model Jail. S.P. Mishra paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- in this
regard to Jaswant Singh. It is alleged that when Jaswant Singh had come to
purchase mobile phone, he was provided with mobile phone and SIM card,
only on account of the influence of D.S. Rajput, Advocate, who maintains
his office on the first floor of the building where City Portrait shop exists.
For this purpose Jaswant Singh had taken an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the
office of Sh. D.S. Rajput. D.S. Rajput took responsibility of payment of the
remaining amount of Rs.7,000/- on behalf of Jaswant Singh, thereafters D.S.
Rajput also used his influence to obtain mobile phones on cheaper rates.
Mobile Telephone with SIM card No. 98140 11957 and 98150 78457 were
managed and provided to the accused as per allegations of prosecution.
Mobile telephone bearing SIM card No. 11957 was supplied from City
Portrait Centre, whereas, Mobile phone SIM card No. 78457 was supplied
6 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -7-
by the Sales Executive of Essar Company. Earlier the mobile phone
connection could not be provided with ISD facility by Spice Co. It is alleged
that in the beginning the efforts were made to obtain Mobile SIM Card in the
month of February, 1998 also in the name of Jaswant Singh but he could not
give his proper address and identity as he had shifted his place of residence
by that time. Thereafter owing to the influence of accused D.S. Rajput,
Advocate, the address of Lakhwinder Singh who used to work in City
Portrait Centre was supplied and mobile phone SIM card was obtained in his
name. Lakhwinder Singh agreed to give his address as he was asked to do so
by Gurpreet Singh @ Chiku. It is alleged that accused D.S. Rajput used to
send Jaswant Singh accused and few other persons to use telephone facilities
in the STD PCO which was being run by Harish Kumar Passi in SCO No.18,
Sector 22, Chandigarh. D.S. Rajput also used to send fax messages etc. and
on one occasion he talked on telephone No. 89140 11957 in connection with
conspiracy of the Burail Jail blast.
8. It is also alleged that Satnam Singh was directed by Jagtar
Singh Hawara to collect Rs.1,44,000/- from Baljit Singh Khalsa resident of
Sector 40, Chandigarh from his STD Booth, situated at the gate of
Gurudwara, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh, and to hand over that amount to
accused Balwinder Singh as price of the explosive material. Baljit Singh
accused was also instructed to hand over the amount of Rs. three lacs
received from Hawala by Jagtar Singh Hawara. It is alleged that the said
amount was taken from Baljit Singh by Satnam Singh and he purchased
three kgs. of explosive material from Balwinder Singh. As per allegations of
the prosecution during investigation Jaswant Singh disclosed that Jagtar
Singh Hawara, gave him address and telephone number 001-7187848316 of
7 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -8-
one Banti alias Didar Singh alias Dari who lives in America. Jaswant Singh
talked to one Banti alias Didar Singh on telephone. Apart from it accused
Balwinder Singh as per instructions of Jagtar Singh Hawara contacted
Professor Devinder Singh on telephone at Amritsar and asked him to arrange
meeting with Banti alias Didar Singh. Balwinder Singh went to Amritsar and
met Banti alias Didar Singh and Tonny. Accused Balwinder Singh met
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh @ Tara mentioning his father’s name
as Nagina Singh. In this case the Hawala amount could not be received in
time and an amount of Rs. two lacs was received from Dr. Jasmer Singh son
of Teja Singh, resident of Mohali with the undertaking that this amount will
be sent to his daughter who was then living abroad. The payment of this
amount of Rs. two lacs was arranged by Jaspal Singh Dhillon, from Dr.
Jasmer Singh. Jaspal Singh Dhillon, distributed the amount to Jagtar Singh
Hawara and families of terrorists which came from Hawala channel with the
help of S.P. Mishra, Asstt. Supdt. Jail and accused Jaswinder Singh Jail
warden.
9. As per prosecution version, Labh Singh son of Mit Singh told
the police that when he had gone to jail, then he disclosed that he listened to
the talks which occurred between Jaswant Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara and
Additional Supdt, Model Jail, in the month of September, 1997. The said
talks related to the jail break conspiracy which happened between these
persons. At that time Jaswant Singh was given necessary directions to
arrange mobile telephone etc. In the month of February, 1998 Labh Singh
witness again went to Burail Jail where he heard the conversation between
Balwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jaswinder Singh, Jail Warden, in
connection with the conspiracy, to blast Model Jail, Chandigarh, thus for
8 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -9-
making it easy for breaking the jail to facilitate the accused to escape from
the prison. S.P. Mishra used to make arrangements to bring in jail Pizaa etc.
and other eatables of the liking of the accused, and S.P. Mishra used to make
payment of these eatables. During investigation, two registers of the jail
containing entries of the visitors were taken in police possession. Sample
writing and signatures of Satnam Singh, Balwinder Singh and Baljit Singh
were obtained and the handwriting expert opined that the disputed writing
and signatures in jail registers are in the hand of Satnam Singh the and
Balwinder Singh accused. The sample parcels containing explosive
substance were sent to the Director, CFSL, Chandigarh. The CFSL report
declared that the sample parcels contained explosive substances (PETN). As
per version of the prosecution all the accused mentioned above hatched a
conspiracy with each other under the guidance of Jagtar Singh Hawara to
blast the Model Jail, Burail, so that the accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and
Jagtar Singh @ Tara, may escape conveniently from the prison. Apart from
them S.P. Mishra, Asstt. Supdt. Jail, Jaswinder Singh Jail Warden and D.S.
Rajput, advocate provided full support and co-operation and took active part
for the success of this mission. On these allegations after recording
statements of the prosecution witnesses, preparing site plan and completion
of necessary investigation all the ten accused were challaned Sections 419,
420, 225-B, 468, 120-B IPC and Sections 4, 5, & 6 of the Act.
10. On appearance, the copies of documents were supplied to the
accused free of costs and thereafter the case was by order dated 28.9.1998
thus committed the accused for facing trial before the Court of learned
Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Accused Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh
were served charge sheet under Sections 419, 468, 471, IPC. Accused
9 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -10-
Satnam Singh was served charge sheet under Section 5 of the Act, and all
the ten accused were served charge sheet under sections 4 of the Act. Except
Satnam Singh all accused by order dated 16.10.1998 made by Sh. S.S.
Lamba, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, thus were
served charge sheet under Section 6 of the Act.
Committal Proceedings
11. Since the offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the
Act, were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, thus, the learned
committal Court concerned, through a committal order, hence proceeded to
commit the accused to face trial before the Court of Session.
Trial Proceedings
12. The learned trial Judge concerned, after receiving the case for
trial, made an objective analysis of the incriminatory material, adduced
before him. Resultantly, he proceeded to draw a charge against accused, for
the commission of offences respectively punishable under Sections 419,
468, 471 of the IPC, besides for offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and
6 of the Act. The afore drawn charges were put to the accused, to which they
pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial.
13. In proof of its case, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses,
and, thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, closed the
prosecution evidence. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned
trial Judge concerned, drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
but thereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication.
However, they led 14 witnesses in their defence into the witness box.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-convict
14. The learned counsel for the aggrieved convict-appellant has
10 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -11-
argued before this Court, that the impugned verdict of conviction, and,
consequent thereto order of sentence, thus require an interference. He
supports the above submission on the ground, that it is based on a gross
misappreciation, and, non-appreciation of evidence germane to the charge.
Submissions of the learned counsel for U.T. Chandigarh
15. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued before
this Court, that the verdict of conviction, and, consequent thereto sentence(s)
(supra), as become imposed upon the convicts-appellant, are well merited,
and, do not require any interference, being made by this Court, thus in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, he has argued that the
appeal, as preferred by the convict-appellant, be dismissed. He further
submitted that all the accused have been erroneously acquitted of the charges
drawn against them and further prayed that all the accused be convicted
under the charged offences.
Reason for acquittal of accused Satnam Singh as assigned by the
learned trial Court
16. The learned trial Court acquitted accused Satnam Singh for the
reason, that his date of arrest was doubtful. According to the defence
witnesses’, who are police officials who unrebuttedly caused the arrest of
accused Satnam Singh, the said accused became arrested on 08.06.1998,
whereas, the prosecution case is that the accused Satnam Singh was arrested
on 11.06.1998. The further effect of the above discrepancy, as arising from
the contra distinct dates’ of arrest of accused Satnam Singh, as became
deposed by the defence witnesses concerned, rather to occur on 08.06.1998,
whereas, the prosecution alleging that the said accused becoming arrested on
11.06.1998, was that, it resulted in a further inference, that the making of the
disclosure statement by the accused Satnam Singh, thus on 11.06.1998, and
11 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -12-
the consequent thereto recovery of explosive material, in the shape of
pinnies, as became effected on 11.06.1998, but also coming under a shroud
of grave doubt, resultantly the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.
Emphasizingly also when the said recovery was made on 11.06.1998, near
Model Jail, Burail, besides when then, the accused Satnam Singh was
already under arrest, therebys a more deeper cloud of doubt engulfed the
prosecution case, especially when the prosecution case, is that the accused
Satnam Singh was not under arrest, at the stage of seizure (supra), rather
taking place. Resultantly, when therebys a more sombre cloud of doubt
engulfed the prosecution case relating to the discrepancy appertaining to the
actual date of arrest of accused Satnam Singh, therebys the benefit of doubt
became assigned to the accused concerned.
Reason(s) for acquittal of accused Jaspal Singh Dhillon
17. As per the prosecution, the said accused is alleged to have
arranged a sum of Rs.2 lacs from Jasmer Singh (prosecution witness No.24)
to arrange RDX for blowing Model Jail, Burail. Since the said witness while
stepping into the witness box turned hostile, as such, the allegation levelled
against the accused Jaspal Singh Dhillon, thus could not be proved. One
more prosecution witness No.5 (Labh Singh) is also alleged to have
overheard the conversation between accused Jaswant Singh and accused
Jagtar Singh, whereins, there were incriminatory expressions against the
present accused Jaspal Singh Dhillon, but since Labh Singh while stepping
into the witness box as PW-5 rather resiled from his previously made
statement in writing. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the
previously made statement of PW-5. Furthermore, thereby the incriminatory
role assigned to Jagtar Singh in his conspiring with the accused concerned,
12 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -13-
for breaking Model Jail, Burail, but also become concluded to be suffering
from erosion. Resultantly, the acquittal made vis-a-vis (supra), is a well
made acquittal.
Reason for acquittal of accused Baljit Singh Khalsa
18. As per the prosecution case, accused Baljit Singh Khalsa is
alleged to have received the hawala amount, thus for further handing over
the said amount to accused Satnam Singh. The sole witness in this regard,
i.e. prosecution witness No.18 (Nawab Ali), however turned hostile upon his
stepping into the witness box, and, denied qua the happening of any
transaction between accused Satnam Singh and accused Baljit Singh Khalsa.
Resultantly, the acquittal made vis-a-vis (supra), is a well made acquittal.
Reason for acquittal of accused Balwinder Singh
19. As per the prosecution case, accused Balwinder Singh is alleged
to have sold 3 kilograms of RDX to accused Satnam Singh. Since the role
attributed to co-accused Jaspal Singh Dhillon, and accused Baljit Singh
could not be proved, as the link chain (supra) was missing, hence the role
attributed to the present accused Balwinder Singh also could not be proved.
It is further the case of the prosecution that PW-5 (Labh Singh) had
overheard inside the jail, the conspiratorial conversation which occurred
inter se accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh @ Tara, Balwinder
Singh and S.P. Mishra, with expressions that Balwinder Singh will arrange
RDX, but since the said witness while stepping into the witness box turned
hostile, and, as such the incrimination attributed to (supra), was declared to
remain unproven. Resultantly, the incrimination drawn against the accused
(supra) becomes well concluded to not become cogently established.
13 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -14-
Reason for acquittal of accused Sheetla Parshad Mishra and Jaswinder
Singh
20. As per the prosecution case, both the accused misused their
influence to help the accused so that their conspiracy to blow up the Model
Jail, Burail, thus succeeds. Sheetla Parshad Mishra is further alleged to have
made arrangements to bring pizza and other eatables from Domino’s. In this
regard also, the prosecution witness No.4 (Harsharan Marwaha) turned
hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution while stepping into
the witness box, therebys the incrimination (supra) attributed to the accused
became well declared to remain unproven.
Reason for acquittal of accused Jaswant Singh and Daljit Singh Rajput
21. As per the prosecution case, the accused Jaswant Singh is
alleged to have purchased mobile phone with sim card in his own name,
besides in the name of Lakhwinder Singh, thus with the influence of accused
Daljit Singh Rajput. Regarding these two accused persons, it has been
observed by the learned trial Court, that nothing incriminating came in
evidence against both them. Moreover, since no such mobile phones nor the
apposite sim cards became recovered from the jail premises, so as to connect
both the accused (supra) vis-a-vis the incriminatory role assigned to them.
Furthermore, since the learned trial Court concerned, while acquitting both
the accused and S.P. Mishra, thus well observed, as under.
“34. As a result as per discussion above in detail, I have
no hesitation in holding that prosecution miserably failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubts that a
conspiracy was hatched by all the accused to smuggle explosive
material (RDX), two wireless sets and other required
instruments to blast Model Jail. The prosecution also failed to14 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DBCRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -15-
prove that the accused used their influence to receive money
from Hawala and utilized that money for success of this
conspiracy in any way. The prosecution also failed to prove that
D.S. Rajput, Jaswant Singh and S.P. Mishra used their
influence or supplied money as and when needed for obtaining
cellular phones and that these mobile phones were used for
commitment of the crime as alleged. Resultantly, I have no
hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable shadows of doubts that any of the accused has
committed an offence punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of
the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.”
22. Resultantly, the above assigned reasons’ for making an acquittal
vis-a-vis the accused (supra) are well made reasons and are not required to
be interfered with by this Court. Importantly, also when two wireless sets
which were allegedly used inside the jail by Jagtar Singh @ Tara and Jagtar
Singh Hawara, for theirs thereovers making conspiratorial talks with the
other accused rather remained unrecovered from the jail premises.
Finding of this Court
22. Initially, insofar as the verdict of conviction as pronounced by
the learned trial Judge concerned, upon convict Satnam Singh, thus is
concerned, since the same has remained unassailed, thereby the said verdict
of conviction and the consequent thereto order of sentence rather is required
to be upheld, given the same as such acquiring binding and conclusive
effect.
Signatured disclosure statement of convict Satnam Singh canvassed to be
an important incriminatory link against the accused Jagtar Singh @ Tara
and accused Jagtar Singh Havara.
23. During the course of investigations, being made into the appeal
FIR, accused Satnam Singh, made a signatured disclosure statement, to
which Ex. PW20/B is assigned. The signatured disclosure statement, as
15 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -16-
made by the accused is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
“x x x x x
In the presence of witnesses accused Satnam Singh S/o
Chamba Singh, R/o Village Salampur, PS Morinda, Distt.
Ropar has disclose during the arrest and police custody that he
had some more explosive in polythene then in bag and two
wireless set written upon made in Japan keep store in wheat
drum in our house. Which I only know. I can go with you and
get it recovered. Hence disclosure statement of accused was
taken and also get the signature’s of witnesses. Complete the
disclosure memo.
x x x x x”
24. The disclosure statement (supra), carries thereons the
signatures, of the accused concerned. In his signatured disclosure statement
(supra), accused Satnam Singh, confessed his guilt in keeping some more
explosive in polythene bag and qua also his keeping two wireless sets. The
further speaking therein is qua his keeping, and, concealing the same, in the
residential room. Moreover, the said signatured disclosure statement does
also makes speakings about his alone being aware about the location of his
hiding and keeping the same, and, also revealed his willingness to cause the
recovery of the same, to the investigating officer concerned, from the place
of his hiding, and, keeping the same.
25. Significantly, since the appellant has not been able to either
ably deny his signatures as occur on Ex.PW20/B nor when he has been able
to prove the apposite denial. Moreover, since he has also not been able to
bring forth tangible evidence but suggestive that the recovery is either
contrived or invented. Therefore, prima facie though the said memo is
concluded to be holding the utmost evidentiary tenacity.
26. Significantly also since post the making of the said signatured
16 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -17-
disclosure statement, by the accused to the investigating officer concerned,
the accused concerned, through recovery memo Ex.PW20/C, thus caused the
recovery of the explosive substance and two wireless set to the investigating
officer concerned. Consequently, when the said made recovery is also not
suggested by any cogent evidence to be a planted recovery. Resultantly, the
effect thereof, is that a valid recovery being made vis-a-vis the (supra), thus
by the accused, to the investigating officer concerned. In sequel, the makings
of the valid signatured disclosure statement, by the accused concerned,
besides the pursuant thereto effectuation of valid recovery (supra), thus by
the accused concerned, to the investigating officer concerned, thus prima
facie acquire some probative vigor.
27. However, yet for assessing the vigor of the said made disclosure
statements and consequent thereto made recoveries, it apt to refer to the
principles governing the assigning of creditworthiness to the said made
disclosure statements and to the consequent thereto made recoveries. The
principles governing the facet (supra), become embodied in paragraphs
Nos.23 to 27 of a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Criminal Appeal Nos.1030 of 2023, titled as “Manoj Kumar Soni V. State
of Madhya Pradesh”, decided on 11.08.2023, relevant paragraphs whereof
become extracted hereinafter.
23. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure
statements under Section 27, Evidence Act made by the accused
himself seems to be well established. The decision of the Privy
Council in Pulukuri Kotayya and others vs. King-Emperor
holds the field even today wherein it was held that the provided
information must be directly relevant to the discovered fact,
including details about the physical object, its place of origin,
and the accused person’s awareness of these aspects. The Privy
17 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -18-
Council observed:
The difficulty, however great, of proving that a fact
discovered on information supplied by the accused is a
relevant fact can afford no justification for reading into s. 27
something which is not there, and admitting in evidence a
confession barred by s. 26. Except in cases in which the
possession, or concealment, of an object constitutes the gist of
the offence charged, it can seldom happen that information
relating to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the
prosecution case. It is only one link in the chain of proof, and
the other links must be forged in manner allowed by law.
24. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements of
co-accused too is settled; the courts have hesitated to place
reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used
them merely to support the conviction or, as Sir Lawrence
Jenkins observed in Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty,
to “lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused”. In
Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar, this Court, speaking
through the Constitution Bench, elaborated upon the approach
to be adopted by courts when dealing with disclosure
statements:
13. …In dealing with a criminal case where the
prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused person
against another accused person, the proper approach to
adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an
accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be
satisfactory and the court is inclined to hold that the said
evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said
accused person, the court turns to the confession with a view
to assure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw
from the other evidence is right.
25. In yet another case of discrediting a flawed conviction
under Section 411, IPC, this Court, in Shiv Kumar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh overturned the conviction under Section 411,
declined to place undue reliance solely on the disclosure
statements of the co-accused, and held:
24. …, the disclosure statement of one accused cannot
be accepted as a proof of the appellant having knowledge of
utensils being stolen goods. The prosecution has also failed to
establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the
utensils seized from him were stolen articles. The factum of
selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the
18 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -19-
conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those
articles. The essential ingredient of mens rea is clearly not
established for the charge under Section 411 IPC. The
prosecution’s evidence on this aspect, as they would speak of
the character Gratiano in Merchant of Venice, can be
appropriately described as, “you speak an infinite deal of
nothing.” [William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act 1
Scene 1.]
26. Coming to the case at hand, there is not a single iota
of evidence except the disclosure statements of Manoj and the
co-accused, which supposedly led the I.O. to the recovery of the
stolen articles from Manoj and Rs.3,000.00 from Kallu. At this
stage, we must hold that admissibility and credibility are two
distinct aspects and the latter is really a matter of evaluation of
other available evidence. The statements of police witnesses
would have been acceptable, had they supported the
prosecution case, and if any other credible evidence were
brought on record. While the recoveries made by the I.O. under
Section 27, Evidence Act upon the disclosure statements by
Manoj, Kallu and the other co-accused could be held to have
led to discovery of facts and may be admissible, the same
cannot be held to be credible in view of the other evidence
available on record.
27. While property seizure memos could have been a
reliable piece of evidence in support of Manoj’s conviction,
what has transpired is that the seizure witnesses turned hostile
right from the word ‘go’. The common version of all the seizure
witnesses, i.e., PWs 5, 6, 11 and 16, was that they were made to
sign the seizure memos on the insistence of the ‘daroga’ and
that too, two of them had signed at the police station. There is,
thus, no scope to rely on a part of the depositions of the said
PWs 5, 6, 11 and 16. Viewed thus, the seizure loses credibility.
28. Furthermore, in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Criminal Appeal No.2438 of 2010, titled as “Bijender @ Mandar
V. State of Haryana”, decided on 08.11.2021, the relevant principles
governing the assigning of creditworthiness become set forth in paragraph
19 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -20-
16 thereof, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
16. We have implored ourselves with abounding
pronouncements of this Court on this point. It may be true that
at times the Court can convict an accused exclusively on the
basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of
inculpatory material. However, in order to sustain the guilt of
such accused, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be
shrouded with elements of doubt. We may hasten to add that
circumstances such as (i) the period of interval between the
malfeasance and the disclosure; (ii) commonality of the
recovered object and its availability in the market; (iii) nature
of the object and its relevance to the crime; (iv) ease of
transferability of the object; (v) the testimony and
trustworthiness of the attesting witness before the Court and/or
other like factors, are weighty consideraions that aid in gauging
the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the recovery.
(See: Tulsiram Kanu vs. The State; Pancho vs. State of
Haryana; State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr and Bharama
Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of Karnataka).
29. Furthermore, in another judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.863 of 2019, titled as
“Perumal Raja @ Perumal V. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police”, decided
on 03.01.2024, the relevant principles governing the assigning of
creditworthiness become set forth in paragraphs 22 to 25 thereof, paragraphs
whereof become extracted hereinafter.
22. However, we must clarify that Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, as held in these judgments, does not lay down the
principle that discovery of a fact is to be equated to the object
produced or found. The discovery of the fact resulting in
recovery of a physical object exhibits knowledge or mental
awareness of the person accused of the offence as to the
existence of the physical object at the particular place.
Accordingly, discovery of a fact includes the object found, the
20 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -21-
place from which it was produced and the knowledge of the
accused as to its existence. To this extent, therefore, factum of
discovery combines both the physical object as well as the
mental consciousness of the informant accused in relation
thereto. In Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra12,
elucidating on Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it has been held
that the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the
section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be
a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a
person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery
of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the
police will fall foul and not meet this condition. The third is that
at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in
police custody. Lastly, it is only so much of information which
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in
recovery of a physical object which is admissible. Rest of the
information is to be excluded. The word ‘distinctly’ is used to
limit and define the scope of the information and means
‘directly’, ‘indubitably’, ‘strictly’ or ‘unmistakably’. Only that
part of the information which is clear, immediate and a
proximate cause of discovery is admissible.
23. The facts proved by the prosecution, particularly the
admissible portion of the statement of the accused, would give
rise to two alternative hypotheses, namely, (i) that the accused
had himself deposited the physical items which were recovered;
or (ii) only the accused knew that the physical items were lying
at that place. The second hypothesis is wholly compatible with
the innocence of the accused, whereas the first would be a
factor to show involvement of the accused in the offence. The
court has to analyse which of the hypotheses should be accepted
in a particular case.
24. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by
the police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application
to ensure credibility of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable
to abuse. However, this does not mean that in every case
21 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -22-
invocation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be seen with
suspicion and is to be discarded as perfunctory and unworthy of
credence.
25. The pre-requisite of police custody, within the meaning of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, ought to be read pragmatically
and not formalistically or euphemistically. In the present case,
the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37) was made by the
appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal on 25.04.2008, when he
was detained in another case, namely, FIR No. 204/2008,
registered at PS Grand Bazar, Puducherry, relating to the
murder of Rajaram. He was subsequently arrested in this case,
that is FIR. No.80/2008, which was registered at PS
Odiansalai, Puducherry. The expression “custody” under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It
includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance
by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at
the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed,
for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police.
30. Now the principles set forth thereins are that the defence, is
required to be proving;
i) That the disclosure statement and the consequent thereto
recovery being forged or fabricated through the defence proving
that the discovery of fact, as made in pursuance to a signatured
disclosure statement made by the accused to the investigating
officer, during the term of his custodial interrogation, rather not
leading to the discovery of the incriminatory fact;
ii) That the fact discovered was planted;
iii) It was easily available in the market;
iv) It not being made from a secluded place thus exclusively
within the knowledge of the accused.
v) The recovery thereof made through the recovery memo in
22 of 35
::: Downloaded on - 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -23-
pursuance to the making of a disclosure statement, rather not
being enclosed in a sealed cloth parcel nor the incriminatory
item enclosed therein becoming sent, if required, for analyses to
the FSL concerned, nor the same becoming shown to the doctor
concerned, who steps into the witness box for proving that with
the user of the relevant recovery, thus resulted in the causings of
the fatal ante mortem injuries or in the causing of the relevant
life endangering injuries, as the case may be, upon the
concerned.
vi) That the defence is also required to be impeaching the
credit of the marginal witnesses, both to the disclosure
statement and to the recovery memo by ensuring that the said
marginal witnesses, do make speakings, that the recoveries were
not made in their presence and by making further speakings that
they are compelled, tutored or coerced by the investigating
officer concerned, to sign the apposite memos. Conspicuously,
despite the fact that the said recovery memos were not made in
pursuance to the accused leading the investigating officer to the
site of recovery. Contrarily the recovery memo(s) becoming
prepared in the police station concerned.
vii) The defence adducing evidence to the extent that with
there being an immense gap inter se the making of the
signatured disclosure statement and the consequent thereto
recovery being made, that therebys the recovered items or the
discovered fact, rather becoming planted onto the relevant site,
through a stratagem employed by the investigating officer.
23 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -24-
31. Therefore, unless the said defence(s) are well raised and are
also ably proven, thereupon the making of a disclosure statement by the
accused and the consequent thereto recovery, but are to be assigned
credence. Conspicuously, when the said incriminatory link in the chain of
incriminatory evidence rather is also the pivotal corroborative link, thus even
in a case based upon eye witness account.
32. Be that as it may, if upon a prosecution case rested upon eye
witness account, the eye witness concerned, resiles therefrom his previously
made statement. Moreover, also upon his becoming cross-examined by the
learned Public Prosecutor concerned, thus the judicial conscience of the
Court become completely satisfied that the investigating officer concerned,
did record, thus a fabricated apposite previously made statement in writing,
therebys the Courts would be led to declare that the said made apposite
resilings are well made resilings by the eye witness concerned, thus from his
previously made statement in writing.
33. Moreover, in case the Court, in the above manner, becomes
satisfied about the well made resilings by the eye witness concerned, to the
crime event, thereupon the Court may consequently draw a conclusion, that
the recoveries made in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by the
accused, even if they do become ably proven, yet therebys may be the said
disclosure statement, and, the consequent thereto made recoveries also
loosing their evidentiary tenacity. The said rule is not a straitjacket principle,
but it has to be carefully applied depending upon the facts, circumstances
and evidence in each case. Tritely put in the said event, upon comparative
weighings being made of the well made resilings, thus by the eye witness
concerned, from his previously made statement in writing, and, of the well
24 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -25-
proven recoveries made in pursuance to the efficaciously proven disclosure
statement rendered by the accused, the Court is required to be drawing a
conclusion, as to whether evidentiary tenacity has to be yet assigned to the
disclosure statement and the pursuant thereto recovery memo, especially
when they become ably proven and also do not fall foul from the above
stated principles, and/or to the well made resiling by the eye witness
concerned, from his previously recorded statement in writing. Emphatically,
the said exercise requires an insightful apposite comparative analyses being
made.
34. To a limited extent also if there is clear cogent medical account,
which alike, a frailly rendered eye witness account to the extent (supra), vis-
a-vis the prosecution case based upon eye witness account rather unfolds qua
the ante mortem injuries or other injuries as became entailed on the apposite
regions of the body(ies) concerned, thus not being a sequel of users
thereovers of the recovered weapon of offence, therebys too, the apposite
signatured disclosure statement and the consequent thereto recovery, when
may be is of corroborative evidentiary vigor, but when other adduced
prosecution evidence, but also likewise fails to connect the recoveries with
the medical account, therebys the said signatured disclosure statement and
the consequent thereto recovery, thus may also loose their evidentiary vigor.
Even the said rule has to be carefully applied depending upon the facts,
circumstances, and, the adduced evidence in every case.
35. However, in a case based upon circumstantial evidence when
the appositely made signatured disclosure statement by the accused and the
consequent thereto prepared recovery memos, do not fall foul, of the above
stated principles, therebys they acquire grave evidentiary vigor, especially
25 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -26-
when in pursuance thereto able recoveries are made.
36. The makings of signatured disclosure statement and the
consequent thereto recoveries, upon able proof becoming rendered qua both,
thus form firm incriminatory links in a case rested upon circumstantial
evidence. In the above genre of cases, the prosecution apart from proving the
above genre of charges, thus also become encumbered with the duty to
discharge the apposite onus, through also cogently proving other
incriminatory links, if they are so adduced in evidence, rather for sustaining
the charge drawn against the accused.
37. Consequently, since the statutory provisions enclosed in Section
25 of the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof becomes extracted
hereinafter, do not assign statutory admissibility to a simpliciter/bald
confession made by an accused, thus before the police officer, rather during
the term of his suffering custodial interrogation, but when the exception
thereto, becomes engrafted in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
provisions whereof becomes extracted hereinafter. Therefore, therebys when
there is a statutory recognition of admissibility to a confession, as, made by
an accused before a police officer, but only when the confession, as made by
the accused, before the police officer concerned, but becomes made during
the term of his spending police custody, whereafters the said incriminatory
confession, rather also evidently leads the accused, to lead the investigating
officer to the place of discovery, place whereof, is exclusively within the
domain of his exclusive knowledge.
“25. Confession to police-officer not to be proved.–No
confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person
accused of any offence.
Xxx
27. How much of information received from accused may be
26 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -27-
proved.–Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person accused of any
offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information,
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered, may be proved.”
38. Significantly, it would not be insagacious to straightaway oust
the said made signatured disclosure statement or the consequent thereto
recovery, unless both fall foul of the above principles, besides unless the
said principles become proven by the defence. Contrarily, in case the
disclosure statement and the consequent thereto recovery enclosed in the
respective memos, do not fall foul of the above principles rather when they
become cogently established to link the accused with the relevant charge.
Resultantly, if the said comprises but a pivotal incriminatory link for proving
the charge drawn against the accused, therebys the snatching of the above
incriminatory link from the prosecution, through straightaway rejecting the
same, but would result in perpetration of injustice to the victim or to the
family members of the deceased, as the case may be.
39. Now coming the facts at hands, since the disclosure statement
and the consequent thereto recovery does become efficaciously proven by
the prosecution. Moreover, when none of the marginal witnesses, to the said
memos become adequately impeached rather for belying the validity of
drawing of the memo nor also when it has been proven that the said memo is
fabricated or engineered, besides when it is also not proven that the recovery
(supra) did not lead to the discovery of the apposite fact from the relevant
place of hiding, thus only within the exclusive knowledge of the accused.
40. Conspicuously also, when the said disclosure statement is but
not a bald or simpliciter disclosure statement, but evidently did lead to the
making of efficacious recovery(ies), at the instance of the accused, to the
27 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -28-
police officer concerned.
41. Consequently, when therebys the above evident facts rather do
not fall foul of the above stated/underlined principles in the verdicts (supra).
Consequently, both the disclosure statement, and, the consequent thereto
recoveries, when do become efficaciously proven, therebys prima facie
theretos immense evidentiary tenacity is to be assigned.
CFSL Report
42. A reading of the report (Ex.PI), as made by the CFSL
concerned, whereto the relevant seizure became sent for an examination
being made of the stuff inside the sealed cloth parcels, though reveals, that
the examined stuff inside the sealed cloth parcels, as became sent to it for
examination, thus being explosive substance(s). The said report is ad
verbatim extracted hereinafter.
“xxx
6. Articles Received: Two sealed cloth parcels. The seals
were intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per
forwarding authority letter.
Xxx
7. Purpose of reference: Chemical examination and report
REPORT
Various laboratory test such as color test,
chromatographic analysis and instrumental analysis were
carried out with exhibit-1 and 2 under reference. The results
thus obtained have been analysed as given below:-
(i) Pentaerythritoltetranitrate (PETN) a high explosive has
been detected in exhibit-1 and 2.
(ii) The percentage of PETN in exhibit-1 is 73.24% and
percentage of PETN in exhibit-2 is 72.01%.
NOTE: After examination all the remnants of exhibits were
sealed with the seals of CFSL EXPL CHD.”
28 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -29-
Reason(s) for disabling the vigor of the above memos
43. Emphasizingly when Mr.B.D. Bector in his enquiry report has
detailed therein, that the accused was arrested on 08.06.1998, besides when
the said date of arrest is not incontemporaneity to the seizure of RDX taking
place outside the jail, on 11.06.1998 from accused Satnam Singh, wherebys
the findings (supra) made by the Inquiry Officer, when do acquire utmost
evidentiary tenacity. Resultantly, therebys the incriminatory role of the
accused concerned, rather remained not cogently proven. The seizure memo
becomes extracted hereinafter.
“Search Memo
In the presence of witness, after searching the accused
Satnam Singh s/o Chamba Singh, R/o Village Salampur, PS
Morinda, Distt. Ropar, Punjab, a purple color cloth bag in his
right hand with black color flowers, in which a yellow color
balls (pinni) were found in the sweet box. The weight of all the
recovered balls (Pinni) were one KG and 100 gram. From these
recovered balls (High Explosive), 2/2 were separated weight
100/100 grams as a sample and each of them were put into a 2
separate cloth parcel then put in polythene and sealed with the
7 seals of seal “BS”. The remaining high explosive i.e. 900
grams along with above both sealed parcels taken into police
custody as proof. The stamp was handed over to the witness
Shamsher Singh after use. After completing the search memo
the signatures of witnesses were also taken.”
44. Furthermore, since the said date of arrest of the above, has been
thereins unrebuttedly expressed to happen rather not incontemporaneity to
the date of the seizure taking place on 11.06.1998. Resultantly, therebys this
Court is led to unflinchingly conclude that the prosecution has projected a
false and invented stand, that the accused Satnam Singh was arrested on
11.06.1998. Moreover, therebys the recording of the disclosure statement of
29 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -30-
accused Satnam Singh, by the Investigating Officer, on 11.06.1998 leading
to the consequent thereto recovery becoming made, does reiteratedly rather
negate the effect of the (supra). Moreover, thereby prima facie (supra)
inferences, as become recorded by this Court, that therebys prima facie
evidentiary worth is required to be assigned to the said respectively made
disclosure statement and to the consequent thereto made recovery memo, but
do also become rendered nugatory.
45. Moreover, therebys the incriminatory effect, if any of any
incrimination drawn against the other co-accused also but naturally looses
the apposite evidentiary effect.
46. Be that as it may, it is enigmatic that the Inquiry Report (supra)
drawn by Mr. B.D. Bector, became never adduced into evidence either by
the prosecution or by the defence, whereas, the (supra) carried thereins
unrebutted findings thus unfolding:
a) that the accused becoming arrested on 08.06.1998
wherebys, a dent is caused to the prosecution story that the
accused (supra), became arrested, on 11.06.1998.
b) That therebys reiteratedly a deep cloud of doubt
engulfs the makings of memos (supra) wherebys the drawing of
the memos concerned, becomes completely vitiated wherebys
no credence is to be assigned theretos.
c) As but a natural corollary thereto, from the factum qua
the overhearings by Labh Singh (PW-5) vis-a-vis the
conspiratorial talks which became exchanged inside the jail
inter se Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh @ Tara, Balwinder
Singh, Jaswant Singh and Sheetla Prasad, thus for reasons
30 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DBCRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -31-
(supra), rather not acquiring any evidentiary worth, besides with
the two wireless sets’ which became used, as such, by the
accused concerned, inside the Model Jail, Burail, remaining
unrecovered from the jail premises, but naturally sparks a
conclusion, that the incriminatory role of conspiracy which
becomes attributed to the accused concerned, thus remaining
unproven through adduction of firm clinching evidence.
47. Reiteratedly, the pivotal incriminatory link in the chain of
incriminatory circumstance, is that, (PW-5 Labh Singh) overhearing inside
the jail, thus the conspiratorial talk between Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar
Singh @ Tara, Balwinder Singh, Jaswant Singh and Sheetla Prasad,
regarding the blowing of Model Jail, Burail. However, reiteratedly when he
stepped into the witness box, he denied his having made the above previous
statement before the police officer concerned. The said denial(s) do have a
telling exculpatory effect, thus on the hereinafter counts:
a) When the investigating officer concerned, stepped into the
witness box, thus in his examination-in-chief, he openly spoke that though
he did record the statement of Labh Singh. However, when he became cross-
examined, the said speakings become attempted to be shred of their
evidentiary efficacy, through the defence counsel making suggestions to him
that the said previously made statement before the police rather was
fabricated and doctored. Even though the said suggestions become denied.
However, the said denial may have had an inculpatory effect, but only if
further speakings occurred in the cross-examination of the investigating
officer concerned, thus to the effect, that the said previously made statement
by PW-5, rather was in the presence of certain other persons and who also
31 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -32-
subsequently became led him into the witness box, thus for speaking the
fact(s) (supra), as became subsequently spoken by the investigating officer
concerned. However, for want of the speakings (supra) becoming made by
the investigating officer concerned, subsequent to his denying the
suggestions (supra), during the course of his facing cross-examination, but
leads to an inference, that the said apposite previous statement was doctored
and engineered, thus merely for obviously creating a false incriminatory role
against the accused concerned. As such, the non placings of reliance
thereons by the learned trial Judge concerned, appears to be both apt as well
as worthy of acceptance.
b) Moreover, the reasons for acquittal as made by the learned trial
Judge concerned, vis-a-vis accused are also well made reasons. The said
inference becomes erected on the ground that the prosecution witnesses
concerned, resiled from their respectively previously made statements in
writing. Moreover, when the prosecution witnesses concerned, after
becoming declared hostile by the learned trial Judge concerned, whereafters
they became subjected to a rigorous cross-examination by the learned Public
Prosecutor concerned, yet thereins, they did not make any speakings,
wherebys the denials as made in their respective examinations-in-chief, vis-
a-vis, theirs respectively making their previous statements in writing, before
the police officer, rather could be construed to be ill made renegings or ill
made denials, thus therefroms. Therefore, the said made renegings are well
made renegings. In sequel, no credible evidence exists on record to support
the charge against the accused concerned, that a conspiracy occurred for
blowing up the Model Jail, Burail whereins the accused concerned, became
lodged.
32 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -33-
48. Insofar as, the allegation regarding providing mobile phone
inside the jail is concerned, the learned trial Judge concerned, has discussed
the same in detail and observed, that though a mobile phone with SIM card
with STD facility, rather become purportedly arranged by Jaswant Singh in
his name from Gurpreet Singh alias Chiku, Proprietor of City Portrait Centre
and another mobile phone became arranged in the month of February, 1998
with STD and ISD facility, in the name of Lakhwinder Singh, thus with the
influence of accused D.S. Rajput. However, for want of recovery thereof
being made from the jail concerned, therebys the incrimination (supra) was
concluded to be not becoming unflinchingly proven. During investigation,
relevant CDR records were obtained and produced in Court. From the
perusal of those documents, the learned trial Court observed that it does not
appear that any inter se cellular conversation took place, inter se the seized
cellular phones, thus engaging the hardcore terrorists or any other person
having a criminal background. In any case, the said inference is a well made
inference, as the incriminatory inter se conversations over the seized mobile
phones would have been proven to have, occurred with the jailed terrorists
but only when the latter had a facility to receive those communications over
either cell phones issued in their names or over wireless sets. Since neither
the cell phones if issued to the jailed accused became recovered nor when
the wireless sets were recovered from the jail, therebys no inter se
conspiratorial conversations can be concluded to occur either over the
cellular phones concerned, nor over the wireless sets allegedly kept inside
the jail premises by the accused concerned, or over the cellular phones as
became legally/ illegally held by them. As such, the verdict of acquittal
recorded insofar as, the said incrimination is concerned, does not require any
33 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -34-
interference.
49. Be that as it may, the verdict of conviction recorded against
accused Balwinder Singh relating to a charge drawn for offences punishable
under Sections 419, 468, 471 of the IPC, thus is a well made findings. The
reason for so concluding becomes banked upon the deposition of PW-10,
who after comparing the disputed signatures of accused Balwinder Singh, on
Ex.PW/4 and Ex.PW10/6, with the specimen signatures Ex. S22 to S25 of
the accused (supra), thus made an unchallenged report Ex.PW10/26,
whereins, he opined that the disputed signatures as occur in the entries in the
jail register, to which respectively Ex.PW/4 and Ex.PW10/6 become
assigned, were in the handwriting of accused Balwinder Singh, given both
the disputed signatures and the specimen signatures bearing inter se
compatibility. Since no evidence became adduced by the learned defence
counsel for belying the report of the Handwriting Expert (Ex.PW14/26),
therebys immense evidentiary worth is required to be assigned to the report
of the Handwriting Expert. Reiteratedly, since no evidence became adduced
by the learned counsel for the accused to bely the report of the Handwriting
Expert, therebys the report of the Handwriting Expert, does acquire
evidentiary worth. In aftermath, the charge (supra), drawn against accused
Balwiner Singh is to be declared to become cogently established. As such,
the recordings of the conviction in respect of the said charges is a well
recorded findings, besides the consequent thereto awarding of sentence(s)
upon the accused (supra), are also well awarded sentence(s).
FINAL ORDER
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003
50. In aftermath, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and the
34 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141635-DB
CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003 AND CRA-S-179-SB-2003 -35-
same is dismissed. The verdict of acquittal, as become rendered by the
learned trial Judge concerned, is upheld and maintained.
CRA-S-179-SB-2003
51. The impugned verdict of conviction, and, also the consequent
therewith order of sentence, as becomes respectively recorded, and,
imposed, upon the appellant-convict-Balwinder Singh, by the learned trial
Judge concerned, does not suffer from any gross perversity, or absurdity of
gross mis-appreciation, and, non-appreciation of the evidence on record. In
consequence, there is no merit in the apposite appeal, and, the same is
dismissed qua the present appellant.
52. Records of the Court below, be sent down forthwith. Case
property, if any, if not required, be dealt with, and, destroyed after the expiry
of the period of limitation.
53. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are, also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
28.10.2024 JUDGE
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
35 of 35
::: Downloaded on – 31-10-2024 21:44:39 :::