This article is written by Seep Gupta, from the Institute of Law, Jiwaji University. This is an exhaustive article which deals with the case analysis of Kehar Singh & Ors Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)

Introduction

Background of the case

This case is famously known as the ‘Indira Gandhi Assassination case.’ It is one of the well-renowned cases of all times. The then Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi (1966-1984) was brutally shot and assassinated by her security counsels. This case fetched vast attention at that time. All the accused were hanged after the pronouncement of the judgement by the honourable Supreme Court. This article deals with the detailed analysis of this renowned case.

Facts of the case

• Earlier in June 1984, an army operation named, ‘Operation Bluestar’ took place under the leadership of Mrs Indira Gandhi who was the then Prime Minister of the country. In this operation, armed forces entered the Golden Temple complex which is located in Amritsar and cleared off all the terrorists who were hiding there and were fabricating conspiracies against India.
• The terrorists who were hidden there belonged to the extreme radicalised Sikhs known as Khalistan who wanted a separate nation for Sikhs. The operation wiped off all the militants and this caused damage to several lives and properties. This also caused damage to Akal Takht in the Golden Temple Complex which offended the religious sentiments of Sikhs.
• The aggrieved Sikhs openly showed their resentment towards Indira Gandhi and protested against her. Many Sikhs openly held rallies against her as well. They were deeply hurt and this incident provoked them to no extent. On October 31, 1984, Indira Gandhi had an interview with an Irish reporter at her official residence located at Safdarjung. The two-building was connected by the narrow cemented pathway known as TMC Gate.
• In the morning of 31st October, Indira Gandhi stepped out from her house at 9:10 A.M. She was accompanied by her staff which included Head Constable Narayan Singh, Rameshwar Dayal, Assistant Sub. Inspector Nathuram, Attendant and R.K. Dhawan Special Assistant. These people were closely related to Mrs Gandhi. 
• In pursuance of their common intention, accused Beant Singh and Satwant Singh who had prior knowledge of the scheduled programme of Mrs Gandhi, scheduled their duties in such a way that Beant Singh would be present at the TMC gate and Satwant Singh in the TMC booth. Accused Satwant Singh whose duty was on beat number 4, managed to get duty near TMC booth by fabricating the story that he has dysentery. At the time, when Indira Gandhi along with the persons mentioned above passed beside the TMC gate, the accused Beant Singh who was prepared with his loaded armed gun fired five rounds and Satwant Singh shot twenty-five bullets on Mrs Gandhi, due to which she fell flat on the ground and was rushed towards (All India Institute of Medical Science) AIIMS where she succumbed to her injuries.

Facts according to the post mortem reports

• The apparent cause of death was revealed on 31st October, where, as per the post mortem reports, Mrs Gandhi died due to shock and haemorrhage which were caused by the multiple firing of bullets into her body. This is a sufficient reason to cause the death of a person under ordinary circumstances.
• Both the assassins were fired by bullets by the Indo-Tibetian Border Police (ITBP) personnel in which Beant Singh sustained injuries and died on the spot, while another assassin received severe injuries. Rameshwar Dayal who was with Mrs Gandhi at that time also received bullets and grave injuries as a result of shots fired by the accused. 
• It was also alleged that there were not only these 2 persons in the conspiracy. It was a cold-blooded murder with a well-planned motive. This assassination of the highest order was done with the ulterior motive in a mind with the common intention. Another person who was alleged to be included in this conspiracy was Balwant Singh who was known to hold several rallies and protests against Mrs Gandhi and had shown open resentment against her on several occasions for ‘Operation Bluestar’. It was also alleged that he was part of the conspiracy and also communicated his plans with Beant Singh to assassinate Mrs Gandhi.
• Another person who was allegedly involved in this conspiracy was Kehar Singh who was a religious Bigot and a religious fundamentalist person. He was a fanatic in nature. He too had immense hatred and was aggrieved because of Operation Bluestar which caused damage to Akal Takht in the Golden Temple Complex of Amritsar. He was said to influence Beant Singh who was his nephew by compelling him to listen to provocative, hatred-filled religious messages under ‘Amrit Chakna Ceremony’ at a Gurudwara situated in R.K. Puram Delhi. He also took Beant Singh to Golden Temple Amritsar on 20th October 1984. Later on, ‘Kara’ and ‘Ring’ of Beant Singh were discovered from the house of Kehar Singh.

Beant Singh died due to the injuries on the spot so he was disposed of from all the charges. All the other accused Satwant Singh, Balwant Singh and Kehar Singh were charged under Sections 120b, 109, 34 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. And they were also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959.

Issues raised

Several issues were raised in this case. Soon after the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, the Government of India constituted a commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. The commission was headed by Justice M.P. Thakkar who was the sitting judge of the court. There were several issues which were presented on the table that was to be proved. These issues are mentioned below:

• That, whether all the sequences and events of the crime were somewhat related to the assassination of Mrs Gandhi?
• Whether the crime could have been avoided and whether security forces who were employed to protect Mrs Gandhi and were responsible for the security of her were indulged in the commission of such a grave crime?
• Whether there were any loopholes or flaws in the duties of the army personnel who were deployed for the security of Mrs Gandhi?
• Did the defences or flaws in the proper and secured arrangement of the security system play a crucial role in facilitating the commission of the crime?
• Whether there was any hidden intention or conspiracy or whether any person, group of persons or any agency was responsible for the commission of this crime?
• Was there any negligence on the part of any individual for providing medical assistance to Mrs Gandhi or the lack of ordinary care as taken by a prudence man?

So, these were some of the important questions that were raised in front of the commission. Now, the commission needed to find any clue or cue signs regarding it. These issues had to be scrutinised thoroughly.

Arguments raised by the appellant

The appellant, in this case, filed two appeals in the High Court of Delhi. One by Satwant Singh and others by Balwant Singh and Kehar Singh jointly challenging their conviction and sentence. Several contentions were raised in the appeals:

1. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, everyone has the right to a speedy, open and public trial which is given under the right to life and personal liberty. This right is also depicted under the concept of natural justice. The trial court violated this right by holding the trial in the Tihar Jail. This right of a fair and open trial has also been contemplated under Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.
2. That only in special cases, the case is to be recorded in the camera. Camera trial is not crucial and it is nowhere given or defined in Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. That the High Court does not have any power or authority to announce or to shift the trial of the criminal case at a place other than the normal seat or branch of the court of session. Section 9(6) of the CrPC does not specify the place for hearing of individual cases. This section does not confer any such authority on the High Court. In the instant case, the High Court notified the place as Tihar Jail for the hearing.
4. In the present case, it is given that the trial court passed the orders that the hearing will take place at Tihar Jail and the jail authorities will regulate the entry of press and media for securities. This depicts that the trial is restricted and it is not an open trial for sure.
5. That the trial court has violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution by restricting public access to the judicial proceedings. There should not be any discrimination between the common citizens and between the media person. The court should follow the first come first serve basis.
6. That the related documents and all the relevant materials related to the examination of the witnesses by the Thakkar committee were not made available and provided to the appellants. They are also entitled to the relevant material based on which they could construct their defences and could present them during the trial.
7. It was also appealed that it is not necessary for the High Court under Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 to refer the case to the particular judge.
8. That the High Court has misinterpreted and misconstructed the scope of Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.
9. The confession of Satwant Singh was wrongly recorded under Section 164 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. It cannot be used against an accused and for the conviction of the accused.
10. There was not any evidence that Kehar Singh took Beant Singh to Gurudwara and exposed him to provocative bhajans. It was also contended that the fingerprints found on the gun were not compared with Satwant Singh.
11. On the behalf of Balbir Singh, it was contended that he was not arrested at the Najafgarh bus stand. Since he was in police custody so the question of absconding does not arise at all.
12. That there is being no charge under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and accused are only liable for the crime of abetment and not for the crime of murder.

So, these are the contentions that were made on the behalf of the appellants.

Arguments raised by the respondents

On behalf of the respondent-state, several points were made. These are mentioned below:

1. That the court under the Special Leave petition which is given in Article 136 of the Indian Constitution was not expected to interfere in the concurrent findings of the trial courts.
2. According to the counsel on behalf of the respondent, it was contended that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution violated as it only talks about the procedure established by the law and not the substantive law. The procedural law can be amended at any time.
3. That the place where the trial was held was not closed, rather it was an open office block where there was an entry for all the people including the friends and relatives of the accused. Entry was provided to every person including the ordinary citizens as well.
4. The high court had the authority to fix the place of sitting and trial for the particular case if it had the authority to issue notification under Section 9(6) of CrPC. It was also contended that the language of the Commission of Inquiry is protection and statements of witnesses are protected, confidential and cannot be revealed.
5. The court thus rejected the appeals of Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh and allowed the appeal of Balwant Singh.
6. The latter part of Section 194 of CrPC provides that the High Court can specify the judge for the trial court. There is no irregularity in the section.
7. According to Section 327 of the CrPC, the provision of a fair and open trial for the public is given. An open place can be defined as any place where there is not any restriction for ordinary citizens to see. The court did not put any restrictions on the trial.
8. There was not any violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, in this case. There were no restrictions on the right to life of the accused and trial was held in a legalised manner.
9. No question regarding the absconding matter will arise as the examination of witnesses regarding the absconding matter wasn’t conducted.
10. The document which was found during the search and seizures from the personal belongings of Balwant Singh did not indicate any connection of him with Beant Singh and there was no indication that Balwant Singh was involved and had anything to do with the conspiracy. Although, it was written ‘felt like killing’ in the document. But, it cannot be interpreted as he was involved in the conspiracy.
11. Hence, the court had concluded that Balwant Singh had good relations with Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh but, he was not involved in the conspiracy related to the assassination of Indira Gandhi due to lack of evidence against him.

Precedents

Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar

The court used this case to justify that there should be something more than a conspiracy. Merely engaging in a conspiracy is not a crime. There should be the commission of some illegal act or some omission in furtherance of that conspiracy. This is evident by the wordings of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Therefore, this section is dependent and should be coupled with the commission of some other offence. Whereas, Section 120-A, on the other hand, is an independent offence. 

To put it concisely we can say that for the acting upon the details and elements given in Section 107 of IPC mere combination of persons and agreement is not enough. While this is not a case with Section 120-A, in this the mere agreement is enough, if the agreement is to commit an offence.

Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab

The court used this case as a precedent to depict which cases can be included as, ‘rarest of rare cases’ which warrant the imposition of the death sentence to the accused persons. The court has successfully examined and scrutinised the principles and facts given in this case and formulated proper reasons with logical reasoning as to why the death sentence should be awarded in the present case. 

Sahai Singh and Others V. Emperor

The court used this case as a precedent to prove the point that holding a trial in jail is not a violation of Section 327 of the CrPC. In this case, the trial was held in jail and friends and family members of the accused were allowed to meet him. Although it is difficult for the council to arrive in jail for trial, it is not impossible. In the present case holding the trial in jail is not violative of any fundamental rights.

The judgement at a glance

This cowardly act which was committed by Indira Gandhi’s security counsels took her life in a brutal and horrendous way. She was unarmed when she was attacked. Her trust that she had placed in her bodyguards was breached. Section 194 of CrPC empowers the judge of the trial court to transfer the case to the High Court if it is necessary.

The trial was held in the Tihar Jail as that place seemed to be appropriate and according to Section 9 of the CrPC, the High Court can direct the trial and can choose a specific place.

According to Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, the statement of a witness is protected and cannot be used for self-incrimination. There are two restrictions to be given by the witness, the first one is Self Incrimination and another one is estoppel.

After hearing both the appeals, the court gave the verdict to acquit Balwant Singh as no proof or evidence were found against him. There was not any evidence that proved that Balwant Singh had any intention to kill Mrs Gandhi and no evidence could be found of his involvement in the conspiracy.

Indira Gandhi died as the result of injuries that were inflicted by Beant Singh and Satwant Singh by service revolver and carbine respectively. It was a criminal conspiracy. Besides the evidence of direct witnesses, the other evidence was in corroboration with the post mortem report, so the appeal of Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh had been dismissed.

The findings of the Trial Court and the High Court under Section 302 of the IPC with respect to 120B and 34 of IPC were proven against Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh beyond any reasonable doubt. As it is one of the rarest of rare cases so the death penalty was given to all the accused persons.

Overview of the judgment

This case fetched international attention and it had been a hot topic for years, even today. This case is one of the rarest of rare cases which lead to the passing of the death penalty for all the accused individuals. Mrs Indira Gandhi became the target of the consequences of her decision. The bodyguards who were duty-bound to protect her took her life in a very dreadful way. Their audacity has been unparalleled. This case has been marked forever in our minds.

Conclusion

The Indira Gandhi assassination case is one of the most crucial cases in the history of the Indian judiciary. Indira Gandhi was not only the Prime Minister of India but was the supreme leader elected by the masses democratically. She was brutally killed by her bodyguards because of the decision taken by her, under the garb of her constitutional power. It was the betrayal of the worst order. This case will continue to enshrine in the golden pages of the history of our country.

References

• https://www.lawnn.com/judgement-kehar-singh-ors-vs-state-operation-blue-star-1984/#:~:text=Fact%20of%20the%20Case%20%E2%80%93&text=Beant%20Singh%20and%20Satwant%20Singh,due%20to%20hamrage%20and%20shock.
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/667073/

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: