Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration)

Facts

On 31 October 1984 two security guards, Beant Singh and Satwant Singh, assassinated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi at her New Delhi residence in the wake of Operation Blue Star. Beant Singh was killed at the scene; Satwant Singh survived and was tried for murder. Kehar Singh, a relative who allegedly exerted religious influence over Beant Singh, held secret talks with him and arranged a visit to the Golden Temple, and was charged as a co-conspirator. Balbir Singh, another sub-inspector, was also charged with conspiracy on the strength of a recovered document and a witness's later-expanded statements.

Issues

• What is the standard of proof required to attract Section 10 of the Evidence Act, and whether the first part of Section 10 (reasonable ground to believe a conspiracy exists) must be satisfied before the acts or statements of one alleged conspirator become relevant against another.
• Whether the circumstantial evidence established that Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh were parties to the conspiracy to murder.
• Whether holding the trial within Tihar Jail premises violated the right to an open and public trial under Section 327 CrPC and Article 21.
• Whether a confession recorded in non-compliance with the form prescribed by Section 164 CrPC was admissible and curable under Section 463 CrPC, and whether statements before the Thakkar Commission could be used for cross-examination.

Arguments

The appellants argued that there was no prima facie proof of any agreement, so Section 10 could not be invoked; that Kehar Singh's contact with Beant Singh was innocent spiritual counsel and that the case against Balbir Singh rested on a worthless 'scrap of paper' and an improving witness; and that the jail trial and the defectively recorded confession were illegal. The State contended that secret meetings, retention of Beant Singh's gold articles, the Golden Temple trip and incriminating post-crime statements established a prima facie conspiracy, triggering Section 10, and that the trial location, the confession and the Commission statements were all lawfully dealt with.

Held

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and death sentences of Kehar Singh and Satwant Singh and acquitted Balbir Singh. It held that Section 10 has two parts: the first requires reasonable ground to believe two or more persons have conspired, and only once such a prima facie case of conspiracy is established does the second part make things said, done or written by any one conspirator in reference to their common intention relevant against the others. As to Kehar Singh, circumstantial evidence — the secret talks, the Amritsar trip, possession of Beant Singh's kara and ring, and his statement that anyone confronting the Panth would meet the same fate — indicated he was a co-conspirator. As to Balbir Singh, there was no evidence at all to establish prima facie participation in the conspiracy, so Section 10 could not be applied against him and Satwant Singh's confession could not be used against him; mere resentment over Operation Blue Star, shared by the whole community, did not amount to conspiracy. Satwant Singh's guilt was established by eyewitnesses, ballistic and medical evidence and his own confession.

Ratio decidendi

The first part of Section 10 of the Evidence Act is a condition precedent: a prima facie case of a conspiracy must first be shown before the second part can be invoked, and only then do the acts or statements of one conspirator made in reference to the common intention become relevant evidence against the others. Such evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy and a person's participation in it; it cannot be used where no reasonable ground to believe in the conspiracy is independently established.

Significance

A leading authority (the Indira Gandhi assassination case) on the scope and limits of Section 10 of the Evidence Act — now Section 8 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which retains the same conspiracy-relevancy rule — and on proof of criminal conspiracy by circumstantial evidence. It is repeatedly followed for the proposition that conspirator statements are admissible only after a prima facie conspiracy is shown, and that mere grievance or association is not conspiracy; Balbir Singh's acquittal illustrates the gatekeeping function of the first part of the section. The case is also cited on open/public trial under Article 21 and on curing defective confessions.

Related