KEHAR SINGHTS Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by leave are directed against the conviction of the three appellants Kehar Singh. Balbir Singh and Satwant Singh under S. 302 read with S. 120-B IPCand the appellant Satwant Singh under. S. 302 read with S. 120-B, S. 34 and S. 307 Indian Penal Code and also under S. 27 of the Arms Act. All the three were sentenced to death under S. 302 read with S. 120-B. The conviction and sentence of these appellants were confirmed by the High court of Delhi by its judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos. 28-29 of 1986 and Confirmation Case No. 2 of 1986. The case relates to a very unfortunate incident where the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi was assassinated by persons posted tor her security at her residence.

(2.) The facts brought out during investigation are that Smt. Indira Gandhi had her residence in New Delhi at no. 1,safdarjung Road. Her office was at No. 1, Akbar Road which was a bungalow adjoining her residence. In fact the two bungalows had been rolled into one' by a campus with a cemented pathway about 8 ft. wide leading from the residence to the office and separated by a sentry gate which has been referred to as the TMC Gate and a sentry booth nearby. Smt. Indira Gandhi had gone on a tour of Orissa and returned to New Delhi on the night of 30/10/1984. At about 9 a. m. on the fateful day i. e. 31/10/1984 Smt. Gandhi left her residence and proceeded towards the office along the cemented path. When she approached the TMC Gate and was about 10 or \\ I ft. away therefrom she was riddled with a spray of bullets and she fell immediately. She was removed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences ('aiims' for short) but to no avail. A wireless message about the occurrence was received at 9.23 a. m. by the Wireless Operator Head Constable Ram Kumar Public Witness 38 at Tuglak Road Police Station having jurisdiction over the place of occurrence. The Duty Officer- Public Witness 1 deputed Sub- Inspector Vir Singh Public Witness 20 and Constable Mutaj Raj to visit the spot at once. They were soon joined by the Station House Officer Inspector Baldev Singh Gill Public Witness 21. These persons roped off the area of occurrence to isolate it, placed it in charge of the constable and then proceeded to AIIMS.

(3.) In the meanwhile it was decided to entrust this investigation to Rajendra Prasad Kochhar Public Witness 73 then Inspector in the Homicide squad of the Crime Branch of Delhi Police. However, as is only to be expected having regard to the circumstances, the government soon decided to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to pursue the investigation. On 9/11/1984 the Delhi Administration issued two notifications. By one of these in exercise of powers under S. 7 (1 of Delhi Police Act, S. Anandram, INDIAN POLICE SERVICE was appointed as an Additional Commissioner of Police and was declared for the purpose of S. 36 Criminal Procedure Code to be a police officer superior in rank to an officer-in-charge of a police station. By the other notification issued in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 7 (2 (b) of the Police Act, Anandram was authorised to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of Commissioner of Police in relation to this case and any other offences connected thereto. The notification shows that copy of each of them is forwarded for publication to the Delhi Gazette. Some time later on 22/12/1984 the Administration in exercise of powers under S. 8 (1 of the Police Act appointed Des Rai Kakkar and M. S. Sharma as Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police respectively designating them as officers superior to an officer-in-charge of a police station and placed their services at the disposal of Shri Anandram. We understand that Shri R. P. Kapoor was named as the Chief Investigative Officer but it was Mr Kochhar who was closely associated with the investigation throughout except for a short period between 15/11/1984 when the SIT assumed charge and 27/11/1984 when his services v. 'ere lent to SIT and he is an important witness of the prosecution so far as investigation is concerned.