Delhi District Court
State vs Tajender Singh And Ors. on 27 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 04
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLNDO10154222017
SC No. 403/17
FIR No. 105/81
PS - Palam Airport
U/s 121/121A IPC r/w section 120B IPC.
State
Vs.
1. Tajender Pal Singh
S/o late Sh. Harbans Singh
R/o H. No. 289/R, Model Town
Jalandhar, Punjab
and H. No. 776, Housing Board Colony,
Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar,
Punjab.
2. Satnam
S/o late Sh. Kashmir Singh
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81
PS - Palam Airport Page no. 1 of 79
R/o H. No. 229, Advocate Enclave,
Sector, 49A, Chandigarh and Village
Bauripur, Mohalla Samsharpur,
Ward no. 4, Ponta Sahib, Distt. Sirmor
Himachal Pradesh (previous address).
3. Gajender Singh PO
S/o Sh. Manohar Singh
C/o Sh. Darshan Singh (brother of accused)
H. No. 2851, Ground floor, Sector22C,
Chandigarh
R/o H. No. 3646, Sector23D,
Chandigarh.
4. Karan Singh @ Kinni PO
S/o late Sh. Balwant Singh
Sector3, Model Town, Digiana,
PSGangial, Jammu, J&K and village
villageFaujipura, District Badgam,
J&K.
5. Jasbir Singh Chima PO
S/o Sh. Mira Singh
VPO Tepla, Distt. Ambala, Haryana
and village Chilla Manoli, Distt. Mohali,
Punjab (previous address).
Date of Institution : 21.11.2017
Date of Arguments : 14.08.2018
Date of Judgment : 27.08.2018
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81
PS - Palam Airport Page no. 2 of 79
JUDGMENT:
1. Accused Tajender Singh and accused Satnam Singh are charged that on or before 29.09.1981, they along with absconding accused Gajinder Singh, Jagbir Singh Cheema and Karan Singh conspired to commit an offence of waging war or attempting or abetting to wage war against the Government of India and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they along with abovementioned absconding accused persons hijacked Air India Flight No. IC 423 (BOING 737) carrying 111 passengers with 06 crew members and took the said flight to Lahore while shouting slogans "Khalistan Zindabad, Bhindrawale Amar Rahe, Khalistan Lekar Rahenbge".
BRIEF HISTORY OF CASE:
2. Air India flight IC423 (Boeing 737) took off from Palam Airport to Srinagar on 29.09.1981 and was hijacked in air. The plane was forced to land at Lahore, Pakistan.
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 3 of 79
3. Proceedings in the present case begin with appearance of accused Satnam Singh, before the then court of learned ACMM, New Delhi. Accused Satnam Singh filed an application dated 09.12.1999 before the then ACMM, New Delhi, stating interalia that he had hijacked the Indian Airlines Flight No. IC423 on 29.09.1981 carrying 107 members, 04 children and 06 crew members on board from Delhi to Srinagar and forced that flight to land at Lahore, Pakistan and that he was arrested, chargesheeted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life in Pakistan. He also filed a copy of judgment passed by Ch. Fazal Karim, Spl. Judge, Lahore, Pakistan, whereby he was convicted for offence u/s 402B r/w section 34 of Pakistan Penal Code.
4. He further stated in his application that on 09.08.1999, he had surrendered before the court and was released on bail on 13.08.1999. It was further stated that he had already undergone imprisonment and thereafter cannot be again criminally prosecuted in view of Article 20 and 21 of Constitution of India. Accused Satnam Singh, therefore prayed for his discharge.
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 4 of 79
5. On the said application the then learned ACMM, passed detailed order dated 11.02.2000, thereby concluding that trial of accused Satnam Singh in India would be hit by double jeopardy, because he had already been convicted for the incidence, by the competent court of Pakistan. The then ACMM court accordingly discharged the accused Satnam Singh. In the said order dated 11.02.2000, detailed discussion about Section 300 Cr.PC and Article 20 (2) Constitution of India was made. Legal opinion of the Chief Prosecutor Crime and Railways was also discussed. In the said opinion Chief Prosecutor Crime and Railways, reported that coaccused Tajender Pal Singh could not be tried in this case because he had already been convicted by Lahore Special Court of Pakistan.
6. After discharge of accused Satnam Singh, vide order dated 11.02.2000, coaccused Tajender Pal Singh also moved an application on 19.07.2000 for seeking his discharge stating interalia that he has also been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in case FIR no. 15/85 u/s 402B r/w section 34 Pakistan Penal Code by State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 5 of 79 Special Court, Lahore, Pakistan and that he had already undergone life imprisonment and therefore cannot be criminally prosecuted for the same offence in India. He also prayed for his discharge.
7. Report were called on the application of accused Tajender Pal Singh.
8. Order sheet dated 11.07.2006 of the then ACMM, New Delhi reflects that during the course of proceedings, it was revealed that main court file of FIR 105/81 titled as State Vs Harsimran Singh had been consigned to record room vide order dated 13.05.1983 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla, the then learned ASJ, New Delhi. Accordingly file was requisitioned from record room. Simultaneously, police headquarter was directed for sending concerned IO or deputing any other competent officer to appear before the court to pursue the case along with VRK file bearing FIR no. 105/81 of PS Palam Airport.
9. The order sheet dated 02.08.2006 records that Mr. Sanjay Kumar, LDC, Record Room, Sessions, informed the then ACMM court that file in question was destroyed State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 6 of 79 on 20.06.2002. In the same order sheet SHO PS Parliament Street sought more time to trace the file from VRK.
10. Vide order sheet dated 16.09.2006, it is recorded that file could not be traced from VRK.
11. Vide order sheet dated 31.10.2006, it is recorded that Addl. SHO PSPalam, appeared in the court. He was unable to give any satisfactory reply to the question whether chargesheet has been filed against accused Tajender Pal Singh or not. Addl. SHO PSPalam, however confirmed that chargesheet was filed against one Harsimran and the case was decided in his favour by the court of Sh. M.K. Chawla, the then learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
12. Thereafter, vide order sheet dated 31.10.2006, it is recorded that despite repeated attempts of SHOPalam, file could not be traced from VRK and DD no. 24 dated 04.10.2006, has been recorded to this effect. Submissions of ACP Sh. B.B. Chaudhary, that request had been made to Judicial Desk Officer, Jaisalmer House, Ministry of Home Affairs, to trace the documents regarding State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 7 of 79 prosecution sanction in this case, are also recorded. It is further recorded that as per report dated 26.10.2006 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the sanction file of this case is not available/traceable. In the same order dated 31.10.2006, the then court of learned ACMM, raised following queries to the Commissioner of Police:
1) Whether the present accused Tejinder Pal Singh who has already faced conviction in Lahore Court has ever been charge sheeted in respect of the alleged offences in FIR No. 105/81;
2) Whether any sanction has ever been taken from the Government against the accused who have returned to India after having undergone conviction in respect of the offences covered under Chapter 6 of IPC dealing with offences against the nation.
3) If in case the final report has not been filed against the accused Tejinder Pal Singh the Commissioner of Police shall also inform this court regarding the status of investigations against all the accused who have returned to India after having undergone the period of conviction from Lahore, Pakistan and also if the State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 8 of 79 investigating agency intends to proceed further in the case.
13. In compliance of order dated 31.10.2006, report was filed in the then court of learned ACMM under the signature of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Railways. In response to first query DCP informed "During the enquiries conducted and material gathered on the matter pertaining to the queries raised by the Hon'ble Court, there is nothing to suggest that the accused Tejinder Pal Singh was chargesheeted in the present case in question. It is however certain that no investigation was carried out against him after his return to India after serving conviction sentence in Pakistan. In the matter of the accused Satnam Singh in the instant case, the Delhi Police did not press the charges against him and the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal did not proceed the trial proceedings against him for reasons finding mention in the current order dated 31.10.2006 of the Hon'ble Court. On perusal of the order dated 11.02.2000 of the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal, the then ACMM, New Delhi, it is clear State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 9 of 79 that the accused Tejinder Pal Singh after serving conviction sentence in Pakistan had reached New Delhi from Canada on 25.12.1997. He was then interrogated by the Delhi Police and a legal opinion of the then Chief Prosecutor/Crime & Railways was sought who had opined that the accused Tejinder Pal Singh could not be tried in India as the same was violative of the provisions envisaged in Section 300 Cr.PC of India.
14. In response to second query of the court about the sanction against the accused Tejinder Pal Singh, DCP in his report has stated "A request was made to the Judicial Desk Officer, Jaisalmer House, Ministry of Home Affairs for tracing the documents regarding the prosecution sanction in this case. The MHA has informed vide Letter No. F.9/17/2006 dt. 26.10.2006 that the record pertaining to this case is not traceable there. The Home Deptt., GNCT Delhi have also informed vide letter no. F.24/29/2006 dt. 22.11.2006 that no such sanction has been granted u/s 196 Cr.PC by them in this case as per record maintained in their office.
15. Thereafter various orders were passed by the then State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 10 of 79 court of learned ACMM and investigating agency took time to decide future course of action. In the order sheet dated 05.09.2009 it was recorded by learned ACMM2 "In case none is appearing on behalf of investigating agency on the next date of hearing, it shall be presumed that they are not interested in the present case and the application filed by the accused Tajender Singh".
16. Thereafter on 01.10.2011, supplementary charge sheet was filed before the court of learned ACMM against all accused persons. The said supplementary charge sheet remained pending for consideration and ultimately vide order dated 30.08.2012, the then court of learned ACMM1, Dwarka took cognizance of the offences u/s 121/121A/124A/122B IPC and issued NBWs against accused persons.
17. In response to process issued by the court accused Tajender Singh and Satnam Singh, appeared in the court. Accused Gajender Singh, Jasbir Singh and Karan Singh, did not appear. Accused Gajender Singh and Jasbir Singh were declared PO vide order dated 27.12.13. Accused Karan Singh was declared PO vide order dated State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 11 of 79 03.02.2014 of the then ACMM01, New Delhi.
18. Vide order dated 17.11.2017 of ACMM01, New Delhi, case was committed to Sessions court. Case was assigned to this court on 21.11.2017 vide order dated 20.11.2017 of learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
CHARGESHEET:
19. In brief, the case of prosecution in chargesheet is:
a) Sh. G.S. Diwan, Sr. Security Officer, Palam Airport, Delhi vide his letter No. DAD/SEC/8936/930 to SHO PSPalam, reported that on 29.09.1981 at 12:20 hours their flight no. IC423 (BOING 737) carrying 107+4 passengers with six crew members took off for Amritsar Srinagar. At 13:26 hours a message was received that one Gajender Singh, a supporter of Dal Khalsa armed with a kirpan had hijacked the plane to Lahore. Information was further received that he was assisted by at least one more associate whose identity has not been confirmed. Both these hijackers were armed with kirpans and their objective behind hijacking the plane was to State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 12 of 79 express resentment against the alleged killings at Mehta Chowk. On this information, present case was registered u/s 392/397/398/34 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act r/w section 10 of the Indian Aircraft Act, 1934 and the investigation was taken over by SHO PSPalam.
b) The case was subsequently transferred to Crime Branch on 30.09.1981. During investigation one Harsimran Jeet Singh was arrested and chargesheeted on 10.07.1982. However, the said accused was acquitted of the charge and file was consigned to record room vide order dated 30.05.1983 passed by Sh. M.K. Chawla, the then ASJ. Accused persons Gajender Singh, Karan Singh, Satnam Singh, Jasbir Singh and Tejinder Pal Singh were arrested in Lahore, Pakistan vide FIR no. 216/81 u/s 402 B r/w section 34 PPC PSSouth Cantonment, Lahore and were prosecuted and tried in Lahore vide case No. 15/85 u/s 402A, 402B, 402C r/w section 34 of Pakistan Penal Code and were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Hon'ble Judge Fazal Karim, Special Court, Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. They underwent imprisonment from 30.09.1981 to 31.10.1994.
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 13 of 79
c) Thereafter, accused Tejinder Pal Singh
returned to India after serving his life imprisonment in Pakistan on 25.12.1997.
d) Thereafter, another accused Satnam Singh reached India in 1999 through Nepal by hoodwinking Indian Agencies. On 09.08.1999 he surrendered before the court of Smt. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, the then ACMM, New Delhi and requested for his discharge from the present case. The said court vide its order dated 11.02.2000 discharged accused Satnam Singh under the provisions of section 300 Cr.PC and Article 20 (2) of Constitution of India.
e) On 19.07.2000, accused Tajender Pal Singh also moved an application in the court of ACMM, New Delhi for his discharge from this case in view of provisions of section 300 Cr.PC r/w article 20 (2) of Constitution of India citing the precedent of the discharge of accused Satnam Singh. During the hearing of the said application, court ordered further investigation vide its order dated 16.01.2007 specially under the charges of sedition as they were not the State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 14 of 79 charges framed by the Lahore Special Court, Pakistan.
f) During investigation literature of Dal Khalsa was downloaded from its website. It was revealed that all the five hijackers were members of Dal Khalsa, an organization based in Amritsar (Punjab) and formed to achieve the complete independence of Punjab from India.
g) During investigation, efforts were made to trace the police file from different corners of Delhi Police including VRK, but the same was found to be destroyed vide order No. 72931/HAR (IGIA) dated 17.05.1999. The record was also not found in the record room of court and it was reported that the record pertaining to the said case had been destroyed on 20.06.2002.
h) The National Aviation Company of India Ltd (formerly known as Indian Airlines Ltd) reported that the copy of the original complaint on the basis of which the FIR was lodged was also not available with their office. However, Indian Airlines Ltd. vide letter no. DPE/Misc./474 dated 29.03.2007, provided the names and addresses of the four crew members of IA Flight No. IC 423 which was hijacked. However, the addresses of the State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 15 of 79 remaining two crew members were not available with their office.
i) During investigation statement of Sh. G.S. Diwan was recorded and statements of all four crew members of the said flight namely Capt. Shewak Nichaldas Dembla, Capt.T.P. Sinha, Sh. Devender Kumar Mehta and air hostess Ms. A. Rajni, were recorded. In their statements they stated that Gajender Singh, Karan Singh, Satnam Singh, Jasbir Singh and Tejinder Pal Singh had hijacked the plane and took it to Lahore (Pakistan). Hijackers also raised antiIndia and proKhalistan slogans and stated that they wanted to avenge the arrest of Sant Bhindrawala and action of Government of India against Sikhs in which 19 innocents Sikhs were killed at Mehta Chowk. They also stated that accused persons also forced to land the aircraft at Lahore, without permission of the Government of Pakistan, under threat to life of crew members and passengers.
j) During investigation efforts were made to trace the passengers of the said flight. However, Indian Airlines could not provide the list of passengers as the State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 16 of 79 same was not found available in their records. Efforts were also made at Diplomatic level to obtain the certified copy of the judgment pronounced by the Special Court at Lahore but the same could not be procured.
k) The two accused persons namely Tejinder Pal Singh and Satnam Singh were in India while the others namely Gajender Singh, Karan Singh Kinni and Jasbir Singh Cheema were reported to be abroad, as per interrogation of their family members in India.
l) On 10.02.2010 the previous IO Inspector Arvind Kumar sent a request letter along with required documents for grant of sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC to charge sheet the said 05 accused persons for the offences u/s 121/121A/124A/120B IPC. Thereafter, GNCTD vide its order dated 06.10.2010, granted sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC against the all five accused persons.
CHARGES:
20. In view of the allegations against the accused persons in the chargesheet, charges u/s 121/121A IPC r/w section 120B IPC were framed against both accused State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 17 of 79 persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Both accused were discharged from offences u/s 124A IPC.
EVIDENCE:
21. In support of its case prosecution examined 10 witnesses.
22. PW1 Sh. M.A. Ashraf, Dy. Commissioner Excise, Government of India, proved the sanction granted u/s 196 Cr.PC for the prosecution of the accused persons as Ex.PW1/A.
23. PW2 ASI Sumer Singh, testified that on 30.03.2007, he was working as Head Constable in Vernacular Record Keeper (VRK) South and SouthEast District. On the said day on arrival of one police official from PSPalam Airport, he checked the record of case FIR no. 105/81 of PSPalam Airport, u/s 121, 121A, 124A and 120B IPC but the said record was not available in VRK.
24. PW3 Sh. Satish Kumar Meena, Assistant General Manager (Pers.), Air Indian Engineering Services Limited, A320 Complex, IGI Airport, TerminalII, State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 18 of 79 testified that on 28.03.2007, he received a letter Ex.PW3/A from Inspector Arvind Kumar vide which he had sought details of 06 employees as mentioned in the letter. He furnished the information vide letter reference no. DPE/Misc474 dated 29.03.2007 and proved the said letter as Ex.PW3/B.
25. PW4 Sh. H.K. Sharma, testified that in September 2009, he was working in the R.K. Puram Office of IB as Assistant Director. In response to query from DCP Crime and Railways, he, vide his letter dated 09.09.2009 Ex.PW4/A, provided the names and addresses of the hijackers of Indian Airlines Plane in 1981, as available in their record.
26. PW5 Sh. Shewak Nihchaldas Demble, was the Captain of Indian Airlines Flight No. IC423.
27. PW6 Ms. A. Rajni, was the Air hostess of the Indian Airlines Flight No. IC423 (BOING 737).
28. PW7 B.S. Jakhar, had conducted the part investigation in the present case and recorded the statements u/s 161 Cr.PC, of two witnesses namely A. Rajni and Mr. S.N. Demble on 04.09.2007 and 20.11.2017 State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 19 of 79 respectively. On 03.05.2008, he had written a letter to Chief Security Officer (CSO), Indian Airliens for requisitioning the rukka sent by the office of CSO for registration of FIR. He proved the copy of said letter as Ex.PW7/A.
29. PW8 Arvind Kumar, ACP Crime Branch, testified that the present case was assigned to him for further investigation. He proved the notice u/s 91/160 Cr.PC dated 15.03.2007 to Deputy General Manager (Operations), Indian Airlines, Northern Region, Palam Airport as Ex.PW8/A; letter dated 16.03.2007 from General Manager (OPS), Indian Airlines, whereby it was informed that they do not have any record of the crew members as Ex.PW8/B and the application for grant of sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC as Ex.PW8/C.
30. PW9 Sh. M.N. Sampat Kumar, testified that in the year 2011, he was working as General Manager Security with GMR company situated at New Urban Bhawan, opposite Terminal 3, IGI Airport. In September, 2009 he retired from Air India. On 14.04.2011, he replied to IO vide his letter No. DELSEC08:069 (Police) 611 dated State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 20 of 79 12.05.2008, Ex.PW9/A. As per his reply the original letter reference no. DAD/SEC/8936/930 dated 29.09.1981, was not available in the office and the same might be available in the office of Regional Security of Air India Northern Region.
31. PW10 Inspector Virender Dalal, SHO PSMalviya Nagar, is the IO of the case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS:
32. The entire incriminating evidence was put to both accused persons at the time of recording of their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC. Accused persons denied incriminating evidence against them. They further stated that they had signed applications seeking their discharge Ex.A and Ex.A1 for the sole purpose of discharge and had signed the same at the instance and instructions of their respective counsel.
33. Accused persons chose not to lead evidence in defence.
ARGUMENTS: State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 21 of 79
34. Lengthy arguments were addressed by learned Sh.
S.K. Kain, Addl. PP for State and Sh. Maninder Singh, learned counsel for accused persons.
35. Learned Sh. Kain has submitted that prosecution has been able to prove its case against both accused persons through their own admissions and through examination of prosecution witnesses. Learned Sh. Kain has drawn attention of the court to section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred as 'The Act'), which provides as follows :
58. Facts admitted need not be proved - No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings :
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
36. Learned Sh. Kain has drawn the attention of the State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.FIR no. 105/81
PS - Palam Airport Page no. 22 of 79 court to discharge applications moved by both accused persons. It is submitted that both applications were signed by both accused persons personally with proper legal assistance. Sh. Kain has argued that the applications contained material admissions and confessions on behalf of accused persons under their signatures and those admissions/confessions were filed during pending judicial proceedings and need not be formally proved by the prosecution and the court must take judicial notice of the facts occurring in the case file and that neither of accused can now be allowed to resile or backtrack from the admissions voluntary made by them in their respective applications of discharge. He has further argued that accused Satnam Singh, specifically admitted that he had hijacked Indian Flight no. IC423 on 29.09.1981 with 107 passengers, children and crew members. He further argued that accused Tajender Pal Singh also admitted in his application for discharge that he along with accused Satnam Singh was tried in the case No. 15/85 u/s 402B Pakistan Penal Code by the Spl.
Judge, Lahore, Pakistan and was convicted for hijacking State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 23 of 79
of Indian plane.
37. Learned Addl. PP has further submitted that admission of both accused persons must be taken as proof of their presence in Indian Airlines Flight No. IC423 on 29.09.1981. He has further submitted that admission of both accused persons has proved the fact that they hijacked the said flight and for the said act of hijacking they were convicted by the court of Spl. Judge, Lahore, Pakistan. He has further argued that testimony of PW5 Sh. Sewak Nischaldas Demple and PW6 Ms. A. Rajni, details the acts of hijackers of the Indian Airlines Flight no. IC423. PW5 in his statement categorically stated that one of the hijacker Gajender Singh had sent message to Lahore authorities that the Indian plane was hijacked to secure the release of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala, who was arrested by the then Indian Government. Sh. Kain further argued that for the act of hijacking accused persons along with coaccused used their kirpan to terrorize the crew members as well as passengers of flight no. IC 423, which amounts to the use of force. The purpose of the act of accused persons was to seek forceful State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 24 of 79 release of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala by illegal means of hijacking, hence both accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 121 and 121A IPC. Sh. Kain has further drawn attention of the court to the testimony of PW6 Ms. A. Rajni. He argued that though PW5 and PW6 have failed to identify the accused persons but PW6 categorically stated the role of accused Tajender Pal Singh and Satnam Singh. P6 in her testimony at page no. 2 stated "During the same time three more persons namely Karan Singh, Tejinder Pal Singh and Satnam Singh who were sitting in the fourth row, stood up from their seats and started shouting slogans of Khalistan Zindabad, Bhindrawala amar rahe, khalistan le kear rahenge". Sh. Kain has submitted that nonidentification of accused persons by PW5 and PW6 is immaterial in view of own admission of accused persons about their involvement in hijacking of Indian Flight No. IC423. He has further argued that confession of one accused person in his application may be read as piece of evidence against other accused in view of section 30 of The Act, which reads as under : State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 25 of 79
30. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence - When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession".
38. Per contra learned Sh. Maninder Singh has submitted that prosecution must stand on its legs and facts stated in the application for discharge of accused persons should not be taken out of context and the only purpose for filing of applications Ex.A and Ex.A1 by accused persons was to seek their discharge and the facts stated therein should not be taken as voluntary confessions and the words used therein need not to be interpreted out of context. Sh. Singh has further argued that even otherwise contents of the application for discharge by accused persons do not satisfy ingredients of section 121 and 121A IPC. It is further argued that mere State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 26 of 79 filing of applications by accused persons do not relieve the prosecution to prove its case positively against accused persons. He has further argued that court must not act on the alleged admissions or the confessions referred by learned Addl. PP and must see whether any independent evidence has occurred on record against either of accused.
39. Sh. Singh has further argued that there is no proper sanction for prosecution of either of accused persons and the prosecution case must fail on this ground alone.
40. Court has considered arguments advanced by learned Sh. S.K. Kain, Addl. PP for State and Sh.
Maninder Singh, for accused persons.
POINTS FOR DETERMINTION:
41. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and in view of mandate of section u/s 354 (1) (b) Cr.PC, following points for determination are culled out :
1) Whether prosecution has not been able to prove proper application of mind for grant of sanction u/s State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 27 of 79
196 Cr.PC ?
2) Whether conviction of accused persons in the
absence of records and main chargesheet of FIR no. 105/1981 would be unjustified?
3) Can admissions/confessions in the applications for discharge of accused persons, be acted upon?
4) Whether prosecution has been able to satisfy the ingredients of section 121 or 121A IPC against the either of accused?
42. The court shall deal with each point for determination one by one.
WHETHER PROSECUTION HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND FOR GRANT OF SANCTION U/S 196 CR.PC:
43. The prosecution has examined PW1 Sh. M.A. Ashraf, Dy. Commissioner Excise, Government of Delhi. He proved the sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC. This witness proved the sanction order as Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A. No other witness was examined to State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 28 of 79 prove the sanction or proper application of mind for grant of sanction.
44. PW1 stated that after going through the draft chargesheet, it appeared to Lieutenant Governor of Delhi that accused persons have prima facie committed the offence punishable u/s 121/121A/124A/120B IPC and as per the directions of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, he on behalf of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, conveyed the sanction for prosecution of accused persons.
45. Along with the chargesheet, IO has filed request letter for grant of sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC. The same was exhibited in the testimony of IO as Ex.PW8/C. The said request letter further contained a letter dated 15.05.2010 which is purportedly written by Addl. DCP, Crime to DCP (Hqs). The last paragraph of the said letter is reproduced herein below: "In view of the above facts, it is requested that the necessary sanction of the competent authority u/s 196 Cr.PC to prosecute the accused persons namely (1) Gajender Singh S/o Manohar Singh, (2) Satnam Singh S/o Kashmir Singh, (3) Tejinder Pal Singh S/o Harbans State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 29 of 79 Singh, (4) Karan Singh Kini S/o Balwant Singh and (5) Jasbir Singh Chima S/o Mira Singh may kindly be obtained and conveyed to this offence for further course of action. Copies of the chargesheet, Rukka, FIR and disclosure statements of the accused persons are also enclosed for ready reference". (emphasis supplied)
46. Learned Sh. Maninder has rightly argued that Worthy Addl. DCP has specifically mentioned that the copies of chargesheet, rukka, FIR and disclosure statements of accused persons are enclosed along with request for sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC. He has rightly argued that letter appears to have been written without consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and without application of mind. It is written in the chargesheet itself that rukka was not available despite efforts made by the IO. It is further mentioned in the chargesheet that even the original file of FIR no. 105/1981 could not be traced in VRK. PW2 ASI Sumer Singh also testified to the similar effect that record of case FIR no. 105/1981 PSPalam was not available in VRK. It has come in the ordersheets of the committal State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 30 of 79 court that even the main chargesheet of FIR no. 105/81 was not available in the record rooms of court and the same was destroyed. Rukka as well as FIR no. 105/81 was not available. Hence, same could not have been sent to any authority for seeking sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC. Similarly, there is no disclosure statements of accused persons. None of the IO stated that he recorded any disclosure statement of accused. No disclosure statement has been annexed with chargesheet. Hence, the same could not have been sent alongwith application for sanction of prosecution. Hence, letters for grant of sanction and consequent sanction were written without application of mind and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
47. Now coming to the letter of sanction Ex.PW1/A, it is again mentioned in the same that the allegations in case FIR no. 105 dated 29.09.1981 PSPalam were considered.
48. It is rightly submitted by learned Sh. Singh that if the rukka or FIR no. 105/81 was not available with the police authorities or in the court records or otherwise in the office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, the contents of State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 31 of 79 the same could not have been considered by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. Hence, the sanction has been drafted in a mechanical manner.
49. Moreover, crossexamination of PW1 reflects that he is not aware of the facts and circumstances under which the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, had accorded any sanction for prosecution of accused persons. In his crossexamination PW1 stated "No one has appeared before me to brief the case of the prosecution. I do not know whether Hon'ble Lt. Governor had not gone through the draft charge sheet and other documents and he was not briefed about the case by anyone. I did not draft the sanction order, nor I typed it nor it was typed on my dictation or in my presence. I cannot recall whether any document was brought to my notice or to the notice of any other office staff including the worthy governor to verify the addresses of the persons named in Ex.PW1/A against whom the sanction was allegedly accorded". He further stated "There is no document on record, signed or initiated or written by the Lt. Governor to reflect that I was authorized to sign on behalf of Lt. Governor in the State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 32 of 79 sanction order Ex.PW1/A". ]
50. Sh. Maninder Singh, has relied upon the judgment in the case of Md. Yaqub Vs State of West Benbgal, C.R.A. No. 490 of 2001 with C.R.A No. 11 of 2002, decided on 03.09.2004, to submit that sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC is not a mere formality and the prosecution case is bound to fail for improper sanction.
51. In the case of Md. Yaqub Vs State of West Bengal (supra), it was held : ................. Now, section 196 Cr.PC prohibits the Court in mandatory terms to take cognizance of certain offences as mentioned therein without previous sanction of the Central of State Govt., as the case may be, the object being to prevent unauthorized persons from intruding in matters of State. Sanction is required before cognizance is taken (AIR 1966 SC
220). sanction constitutes a condition precedent to prosecute and confers jurisdiction. Defect in jurisdiction cannot be cured by section 465 [AIR 1948 PC 82; 49 CWN 53 (FB)]. Sanction should be expressed with sufficient particularity and strict adherence to the language of the section. Though not essential it is plainly State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 33 of 79 desirable that the facts should be referred to on the face of sanction, but if it is not so shown, the prosecution must prove by extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. Otherwise, the sanction is invalid. It is plain that the Govt. cannot adequately discharge the obligation of deciding whether to give or withhold a sanction without knowledge of the facts of the case (AIR 1948 PC 82). Similar is the decision reported in Masukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs Gujarat, 1997 SCC (Cri) 1120 where it was held that grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Govt. Servants against frivolous prosecution (AIR 1979 SC 677). Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact and that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been onsidered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 34 of 79 must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established on extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. All that is required is sanction for prosecution and not sanction for investigation. Initiation of a criminal proceeding and prosecution are not the same and one thing. Sanction is permission to prosecute granted by the authorities concerned (AIR 1955 Cal 517). So, though there may not be so much objection for using the word "permission" instead of "sanction", the requirements of section 196 do not appear to have been fulfilled here as permission or sanction was sought for on 15.09.1999 i.e. on the date of arrest of accused Ahmed Ali and the permission or sanction to investigate was accorded on the following date 16.09.1999 thereby leading to suggest that the sanctioning authority had no scope to apply mind to the facts of the case as also material and evidence collected during investigation. Moreover, neither any name of the offender nor the fact of the case has been borne out in the sanction order nor State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 35 of 79 there was any attempt on the part of the prosecution to prove it by extrinsic evidence. Accordingly, prior sanction which is a sine qua non for prosecution being invalid; cognizance taken is bad in law and the prosecution must fail on this ground alone. (emphasis supplied).
52. In the sanction order of this case, it is written that request for sanction was accompanied with the disclosure statements of the accused persons but PW8 IO of case categorically stated "It is correct that I did not sent any disclosure statement of accused to the sanctioning authority".
53. In the case of Jhancy Margaret and Ors. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors., Crl. P. No. 4676 of 2013, decided on 18.12.2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted the excerpt from the judgment in Mansukh Lal as follows:
19. Since the validity of "Sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 36 of 79 necessarily follows, that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be had for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution". (emphasis supplied).
54. In the case in hand it is already discussed that the sanctioning authority has referred to the documents which were never the part of the request letter for sanction. Hence, a clear nonapplication of mind or the State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 37 of 79 consideration of extraneous material is reflected.
55. In the case of Masukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622, it was held :
17. Sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions (See Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed V. State of A.P.) Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty.
18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority.
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 38 of 79 (See also Jaswant Singh V. State of Punjab and State of Bihar V. P.P. Sharma).
19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 39 of 79 sanction the prosecution".
56. In the case of Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124, decided on 25.10.1957, it was held: "It should be clear from the form of the sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the evidence before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case sanctioned the prosecution, and therefore unless the matter can be proved by other evidence, in the sanction itself the should be referred to indicate that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In Yusofalli Mulla v. The King 76 Ind App 158 : (AIR 1949 PC 264) (C ) it was held that a valid sanction on separate charges of hoarding and profiteering was essential to give the Court jurisdiction to try the charge. Without such sanction the prosecution would be a nullity and the trial without jurisdiction".
57. In the present case neither the sanctioning authority was called in evidence nor any official or officer who put the file before the Sanctioning Authority or briefed the Sanctioning Authority about the case has State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 40 of 79 been examined. PW1 was not even aware of the material considered by the Sanctioning Authority prior to the grant of sanction. Neither the sanction order was signed before him nor he was aware that sanctioning authority had perused the material placed before it, prior to grant of sanction. Sanction order itself contains reference to the material which was never part of record.
58. Hence, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, it appears to be rightly submitted by learned Sh. Singh that accused persons are entitled to acquittal for want of proper sanction in the present case.
59. Hence, this point is decided in favour of accused.
WHETHER CONVICTION OF ACCUSED PERSONS IN THE ABSENCE OF RECORDS AND MAIN CHARGESHEET OF FIR NO. 105/1981 WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED:
60. This is a unique case of its kind as prosecution against the present accused persons was not launched or initiated by the police but was got initiated on the filing of application for discharge by accused persons. As State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 41 of 79 already discussed in the brief history of the case, application for discharge was earlier filed by accused Satnam Singh. The said application was allowed by the court of then learned ACMM. Subsequently another application was filed by accused Tejinder Singh for his discharge mentioning that he has already been convicted by Pakistan Special Court for hijacking Indian Airlines Flight No. IC423. Upon this application, the then learned ACMM, New Delhi called various reports from the authorities and it was revealed that FIR no. 105/81 was registered at PSPalam qua incidence of hijacking Indian Airlines Flight No. IC423. As already discussed in the brief history of the case, it was also revealed that chargesheet was filed in the said FIR and one Harsimran Singh was acquitted by the then court of Sh. M.K. Chawla, learned ASJ on 30.05.1983. Order sheet dated 31.10.2006 of the committal court records as under: "On receipt of the application the main file was called but it was reported that the file in respect of accused Harsimranjit Singh has been weeded out.
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 42 of 79 Thereafter SHO PSPalam was directed to get the file from the VRK. I am informed by SHO Palam that despite repeated attempts he has not been able to trace the file from VRK and a DD No. 24 dated 04.10.06 of PS Palam has also been recorded to this effect. It has been stated that as per the order No.72931/HAR(IGIA) dated 17.05.99 the case files decided upto the year 1996 have been destroyed. ACP B.B. Chaudhary has submitted that a request had been made to Judicial Desk Officer, Jaisalmer House, Ministry of Home Affairs to trace the documents regarding prosecution sanction in this case but as per their report dated 26.10.2006 the same is not available/traceable".
61. Hence, it is clear that the main chargesheet filed by the police after registration of case FIR no. 105/81 was not available either with the police or in the court records. The documents and contents thereof cannot now be ascertained. It is further clear that the Ministry of Home Affairs was unable to trace the documents regarding the prosecution sanction in the FIR no. 105/81.
62. Court is in agreement with the submissions of State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 43 of 79 learned Sh. Singh that this court is not supposed to do any guess work about the grant or refusal of sanction for prosecution or about the proceedings in the main charge sheet arising out of FIR no. 105/81.
63. In the ordersheet dated 31.10.2006, court has raised queries whether the accused Tejinder Singh was chargesheeted in respect of alleged offence in FIR no. 105/81 and whether any sanction was ever taken from the Government against the accused.
64. In response to said queries the then DCP Crime and Railways reported that the record pertaining to the accused is not traceable in their office. It is worth to mention here that presence of accused or providing them a hearing is not necessary for grant of sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC. The sanction against both accused persons could have been granted or rejected even in their absence and even when they were lodged in Pakistan jail. In the absence of record of main chargesheet of FIR no. 105/81, it cannot be ascertained whether the said chargesheet contained any sanction qua accused Tejinder Singh and Satnam Singh. Court is not supposed to hypothicate State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 44 of 79 about the reasons which could have been available with the then sanctioning authority for grant or refusal of sanction. There may be various reasons for grant of sanction against both accused persons. Similarly, there may be various reasons for not prosecuting the accused persons. One such reason might be that accused persons were already facing trial before the competent court of common law in Pakistan. In response to other query as to whether accused Tejinder Singh was chargesheeted, Worthy DCP stated that there is nothing to suggest that accused Tejinder Singh was chargesheeted in the present case in question. He further stated that it is however certain that no investigation was carried out against him after his return to India after serving conviction sentence in Pakistan.
65. From the language used by worthy DCP, it is clear that there is no certainty of nonincorporation of the name of accused Tejinder Singh in the main chargesheet arising out of FIR no. 105/81. Worthy DCP is certain about one fact only that the investigation was not carried out after return of accused subsequent to his serving State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 45 of 79 sentence of imprisonment in Pakistan. The inclusion or noninclusion of name of accused Tejinder Singh or any other accused in the main chargesheet would again be guess work only. The court cannot presuppose that no investigation was carried out against the accused persons even when their names surfaced in the hijacking of Indian plane and forced landing of the same, in Pakistan.
66. Hence, the grant or refusal of sanction by the earlier competent authority, and/or incorporating the name of accused persons in the main chargesheet remains a grey area. It is possible that the sanction against both accused persons might have been refused. It is further possible that the sanction against both accused persons was granted and their names were incorporated in the main chargesheet. When two views are possible it is rightly submitted by learned Sh. Maninder Singh that view favourable to accused be taken. Reliance in this regard is placed in the case of Ashish Batham Vs State of M.P., (2002) SCC 317, wherein it was held :
8. Realities or truth part, the fundamental and basic presumption in the State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 46 of 79 administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by the heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is, greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between "conjectures" and "sure conclusions" to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record".
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 47 of 79
67. There may be further a possibility that the prosecution against both accused persons was initiated but the same was withdrawn u/s 321 Cr.PC. Section 321 Cr.PC reads as under:
321. Withdrawal from prosecution - The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal
(a) If it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;
(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences:
Provided that where such offence
(i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.FIR no. 105/81
PS - Palam Airport Page no. 48 of 79
(ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or
(iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or
(iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution".
68. The withdrawal from the prosecution may be for various reasons. Court is again not supposed to hypothecate or start its own guess work for the reasons of withdrawal from prosecution. The fact of the matter is that power of withdrawal from prosecution is vested with State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 49 of 79 the State Government/Public Prosecutor/Prosecutor and the decision might be taken in pretrial or at posttrial stage. One of the reasons for withdrawal again might have been the prosecution of accused persons before the competent court at Pakistan. It is worth to mention here that the then court of Ms. Sangeeta Dhingra, the then learned ACMM, New Delhi, discharged accused Satnam on considering the prosecution and conviction of accused persons at Pakistan. If there is possibility that the prosecution against accused persons had been withdrawn at pre or pending trial stage, in the opinion of court accused persons cannot be convicted.
69. Court is not in agreement with the submissions of learned Addl. PP that accused persons have not taken any defence of being earlier chargesheeted, or about the withdrawal of prosecution u/s 321 Cr.PC. It is rightly submitted by learned Sh. Maninder Singh that before convicting the accused persons, court is required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the grounds for conviction. If there is possibility or doubt which goes in favour of accused persons, same may be highlighted even State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 50 of 79 at any stage before passing of judgment and the legal points can be argued at final stage also.
70. Prosecution case must stand on its own legs.
Prosecution cannot take benefit of the weakness of defence. Conviction of accused would make them liable to death penalty or life sentence. Graver the punishment higher the burden of proof. The court must weigh all probabilities, legal and technical, to satisfy that there is no bar against trial and that all requirements are proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
71. In the case of Kali Ram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, 1974 CRI. L.J. 1 (V 80 C1) = AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2773, Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: Observations in a recent decision of this Court, Shivaji Sahebrao Vs State of Maharashtra, Cri Appeal No. 26 of 1970, D/ 278 1973 = (reported in AIR 1973 SC 2662) to which reference has been made during arguments were not intended to make a departure from the rule of the presumption of innocence of the accused and his State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 51 of 79 entitlement to the benefit of reasonable doubt in criminal cases. One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. There are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which have to be present before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the court can State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 52 of 79 raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event, be for the accused to rebut the presumption.
The onus even in such cases upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal.
Leaving aside the cases of statutory presumptions, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed. The court may, of course, presume as mentioned in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The illustrations mentioned in that section, though taken from different State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 53 of 79 spheres of human activity, are not exhaustive. They are based upon human experience and have to be applied in the context of the facts of each case. The illustrations are merely examples of circumstances in which certain presumptions may be made. Other presumptions of a similar kind in similar circumstances can be made under the provisions of the section itself.
Whether or not a presumption can be drawn under the section in a particular case depends ultimately upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Human behavior is so complex that room must be left for play in the joints. It is not possible to formulate a series of exact propositions and confine human behavior within strait jackets. The raw material here is far too complex to be susceptible of precise and exact propositions for exactness here is fake.
Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 54 of 79 views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable : it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 55 of 79 timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab V. Jagbir Singh, Cri. Appeal no. 7 of 1972, D/ 68 1973 = (reported in AIR 1973 SC 2407) a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged.
Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 56 of 79 should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
It needs all the same to be reemphasised that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 57 of 79 accused. Reference is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the individual accused.
The conflict in this respect, in our opinion , is more apparent than real. As observed on page 3 of the book entitled "The Accused" by J.A. Coutts 1966 Edition, "when once it is realized, however, that the public interest is limited to the conviction, not of the guilty, but of those proved guilty, so that the function of the prosecutor is limited to securing the conviction only of those who can legitimately be proved guilty, the clash of interest is seen to operate only within a very narrow limit, namely where the evidence is such that the guilt of the accused should be established. In the case of an accused who is innocent, or whose guilt cannot be proved, the public interest and the interest of the accused alike require an acquittal". (emphasis supplied).
72. The principle was further reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Harbeer Singh Vs Sheeshpal and Ors, State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 58 of 79 Criminal Appeal nos. 16241625 of 2013, wherein it was held : It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
73. In Sujit Biswas Vs State of Assam, 2013 (5) LRC 133 (SC), also Hon'ble Apex Court held that : Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be' proved, and something that 'will be proved'.
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 59 of 79 In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 60 of 79 complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.
74. The fact remains that since filing of the application for discharge, investigating agency was of the opinion that they do not have the records of FIR no. 105/81. The facts recorded in the order sheets of committal court reflect that no additional material qua FIR no. 105/81 was gathered even subsequent to filing of application for discharge by accused persons. In view of various probabilities i.e. refusal to sanction, discharge of accused persons, withdrawal from prosecution etc., which could State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 61 of 79 have been verified from the record of the main charge sheet only, it would be unjustified to convict either of the accused persons. The probabilities must be weighed in favour of accused persons. In view of existence of any probability in favour of accused, prosecution is not entitled to seek conviction of either of accused. Hence, this point is also liable to be decided in favour of accused persons.
CAN ADMISSIONS/CONFESSIONS IN THE APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED PERSONS, BE ACTED UPON:
75. Court is not in agreement with the submissions of learned Addl. PP that accused Satnam Singh had himself stated in his application that he had hijacked the Indian Airlines Flight No. 423 on 29.09.1981, and same is sufficient to conclude the act of hijacking by accused.
76. The court is not concerned with the nomenclature or terminology used by accused in his application. Court requires proof of each ingredient of any offence to be brought on record. Merely because accused stated that he State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 62 of 79 hijacked Indian Airlines Flight, without narrating the details and the manner in which the plane was purportedly hijacked by him, court cannot conclude that plane was hijacked or the passengers were abducted. There may be various aspects in the mind of accused while moving the application for discharge. One such aspect may be conviction by Pakistan Court.
77. Section 43 of the Act stipulates that the judgments and decrees other than those mentioned in Section 40, 41 and 42 of the Act are not relevant unless the existence of such judgment, order of decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provisions of the Act.
78. Case of accused persons is not covered under section 40, 41 or 42 of the Act. Hence findings of the judgment of Pakistan Court, cannot be read against the accused persons to prove their presence or either of the alleged act committed by them on board flight no. IC423.
79. Otherwise also this court is not bound by the judgment of Spl. Judge at Pakistan and an independent appreciation of evidence is required to be done on the basis of evidence led in the court itself. Moreover, the State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 63 of 79 record on the basis of which judgment was passed by the Pakistan court i.e. the chargesheet, evidence etc. is not available before this court.
80. The judgment of the Pakistan Court is only relevant to the extent that accused persons were tried and convicted before the competent court of Pakistan for the offence u/s 402B Pakistan Penal Code and for no other purpose. The said fact of trial of accused persons was relevant for considering the plea of double jeopardy raised by accused in view of section 300 Cr.PC and Article 20 (2) Constitution of India.
81. It is thus held that observations in the judgment of conviction are not relevant except for the purpose of considering the plea of conviction or acquittal u/s 300 Cr.PC read in the light of Article 20 (2) Constitution of India. Hence, mere reference of accused as hijacker, does not in the absence of positive proof of the ingredients of hijacking and abduction, is not sufficient to substitute the proof of positive facts required to be proved by prosecution.
82. Moreover accused persons are protected against State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 64 of 79 selfincrimination under Article 20 (3) of Constitution of India. Court must see the intention and purpose of filing of application of discharge. Intention and purpose of filing of application for discharge was not to make confessions but was limited to seek discharge of the applicant. Reference of the earlier conviction by the Pakistan Court does not justify the judgment or the reasoning in the order of conviction but was only to highlight that the accused persons may not be subsequently tried in the courts at India.
83. Accused should not suffer by poor drafting of the applications by counsel. Even if it is presumed that accused had made some confessions or admissions before his then counsel or pleader, the said lawyer was not supposed to disclose the said communication to the court. In this regard reliance is placed upon section 126 of the Act, which is reproduced herein below:
126. Professional communications - No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 65 of 79 and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment:
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure (1) any such communication made in furtherance of any [illegal] purpose;
(2) any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.
It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, [pleader], attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client.
Illustrations
(a) A, a client, says to B, an attorney "I have State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 66 of 79 committed forgery, and I wish you to defend me". As the defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is protected from disclosure.
(b) .............
(c) ............
84. Learned Addl. PP has argued that aforementioned section cannot be read in favour of accused in this case because application for discharge was signed by accused persons themselves which reflects that they consented to the disclosure of the communication made in the application.
85. Court is not in agreement with the submissions of learned Addl. PP for the reasons already discussed. There was no informed consent of the accused to convey their confession or admission to the court. The facts and circumstances suggest that accused persons had approached their counsel only for seeking their discharge in the present case. During the course of arguments court put a specific query to the accused persons about their eduction. Accused Satnam Singh stated that he is 08th State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 67 of 79 standard pass and accused Tejinder Singh stated that he is 09th standard pass. Accused persons cannot be considered to be aware of nittygritties and the minute legalities of their applications. Though the applications have been signed by them but the background of accused and the facts and circumstances suggest that the same could have been done by them on the legal advise only. The accused therefore cannot be said to have given their informed consent for admission or confession by their lawyer who was disqualified to make disclosure statement in view of section 126 of the Act.
86. The opinion of the court that admissions in the applications for discharge of accused persons, should not be acted upon is further supported by the Scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'The Code').
87. Admittedly the applications for discharge were filed by accused at pretrial stage. Rather the proceedings of this case commenced only on filing of applications for discharge by accused persons. The code postulates recording of pretrial confessional statement under State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 68 of 79 section 164. For the sake of convenience the said section is reproduced herein below:
164. Recording of confessions and statements
- (1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:
[Provided that any confession or statement made under this subsection may also be recorded by audio video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence:
Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force].
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.FIR no. 105/81
PS - Palam Airport Page no. 69 of 79 may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect: "I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.FIR no. 105/81
PS - Palam Airport Page no. 70 of 79 the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.
(Signed) A.B. Magistrate".
(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under subsection (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
[(5A) ..............] (6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.
88. A bare reading of the above section clarifies that legislature provided various safeguards for recording of pretrial confessional statements of accused in the court. State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 71 of 79 Under section 164 (1), despite enjoying the powers of Magistrate, a police officer is not competent to record the confessional statement. Under section 164 (2), before recording pretrial confessional statement it is the duty of the court or Magistrate to inform the accused that he is not bound to make the said statement and that the statement may be used as evidence against him. It is further obligation of Magistrate to satisfy himself that the confession, is being made voluntarily.
89. Subsection 4 of section 164, casts an obligation upon Magistrate to certify that a person making a confessional statement is explained that he is not bound to make the said statement and that the said statement may be used as evidence against him and that Magistrate was satisfied that the confessional statement was voluntarily made. Magistrate is further obliged to certify that the confessional statement was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct and the same contains full and true account of the statement made by him.
90. In the case in hand, if vital admissions or State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 72 of 79 confessions against the accused exist in the application for discharge, in the opinion of court they should not be acted upon against accused. The facts and circumstances of the case suggest that the only purpose of filing those applications for discharge were to get rid of the entanglement of the accused persons in the case FIR no. 105/81. There is no intention to make the confessional statements. Possibly the accused persons were not even aware of the fact that these applications would be used as evidence against them. There is no supporting affidavit attached along with the application. The accused persons have already stated in their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC that the applications were drafted by their counsels and that they signed the same at the instance and advise of their respective counsel. They further stated that they were not explained the contents of the applications. This court has already discussed section 164 of the Code, which casts a duty upon the Magistrate to satisfy about the voluntariness of confession and to properly warn the accused against the use of same and further to certify that all formalities prior to recording the confessional State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 73 of 79 statement have been completed and confession was read over to the person.
91. In the case in hand the record does not suggest that such formalities were even completed by the lawyer of accused. There is nothing to suggest that even the lawyer for accused persons had warned or properly guided them that statements in their applications for discharge may be used against them or may amount to confessional statement or the vital admissions. There is no Oath Commissioner, or the Magistrate, or the Court involved in drafting or filing of the applications and to explain the contents and the consequences of the facts stated in the applications to accused persons.
92. In the facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the statements in the applications for discharge of accused persons, can be considered only for an information to the court that accused persons have already been convicted for certain offences by a competent court at Pakistan. Statements or terminology which may amount to any confessional statement cannot be acted upon as neither the same was necessary to be State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 74 of 79 mentioned nor there was any informed consent of the accused for mentioning the same. Accused persons were not aware of the consequences thereof. This point is accordingly decided in favour of accused persons.
WHETHER PROSECUTION HAS BEEN ABLE TO SATISFY THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 121 OR 121A IPC AGAINST THE EITHER OF ACCUSED:
93. Even if the facts stated in the application of accused are taken on their face value and even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that accused persons have admitted the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight No. IC 423, to Lahore, Pakistan, it is rightly submitted by learned Sh. Maninder Singh that prosecution has failed to satisfy the ingredients of section 121/121A IPC beyond reasonable doubt against either of accused.
94. Accused persons have already been convicted for the alleged hijacking of the Indian Airplane by the competent court at Pakistan. Neither any chargesheet has been filed for those offences against them nor any charge was State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 75 of 79 framed. No sanction for prosecution of those offences was granted by the competent government.
95. Learned Sh. Maninder Singh has rightly submitted that specific role and identification of accused persons was required from the witnesses qua any act, which could have been considered as waging war or attempting or abetment to wage war against the Government of India. In the case in hand accused persons were not identified by any witness produced by the prosecution to have done any such act of waging or attempting or abetting to wage war against Government of India. PW5 Shewak Nishchaldas Demble and PW6 Ms. A.Rajni, denied the identity of accused persons. During testimony of these witnesses learned Addl. PP specifically pointed out towards the accused persons alleging that they had committed the acts of abducting the passengers of the plane, to Pakistan. Learned Addl. PP also suggested that accused persons shouted slogans in the plane. Both the witnesses denied the suggestions of learned Addl.PP.
96. No official document, letter or communication was collected by the IO to verify the names of the crew State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 76 of 79 members of flight IC423. IO, in his crossexamination specifically stated "I got the names of the crew members from the court file after reading the copy of the judgment of Special Court, Lahore, Pakistan. No communication or information pertaining to the names of crew members of flight IC423 was received from any other source including Indian Airlines prior to sending notice Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW3/A". Through letters Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW8/A, IO did not ask the Indian Airlines to supply the names of crew members of flight IC423. Through Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW8/A, IO had directly asked for the addresses of PW5 and PW6 and some other persons. Without verifying that PW5 and PW6 were present in flight IC423, there was no purpose of seeking their addresses. There is not even single communication through which IO had requested the authorities to verify the crew members. There is no duty roaster, there is no log book or any other data suggesting that PW5 and PW 6 were crew members at flight IC423. IO PW8 categorically stated "No manifest of the flight IC 423 disclosing the boarding card details and seat number of State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 77 of 79 the passengers was obtained from Indian Airlines. No log book of the captain or duty roaster of crew members was obtained to establish their duty on IC 423 on 29.09.1981. I did not obtain any record of the said flight from Air Traffic Control (ATC) on 29.09.1981. I did not obtain any employment details of the crew members from Indian Airlines".
97. In the facts and circumstances, learned Sh.
Maninder Singh has rightly submitted that possibility of some specific witnesses being chosen by IO to support his case cannot be ruled out and their testimony cannot be said to be beyond reasonable doubt.
98. Hence, in the absence of identification and description of specific role of each accused by witnesses, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove charge u/s 121 or 121A IPC against either of accused.
99. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 78 of 79
100. The accused persons are thus granted benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
101. Bail bonds of accused persons furnished during trial stand cancelled and sureties are discharged. Endorsement on the documents of sureties, if any, be cancelled. Original documents of sureties, if any, be returned against acknowledgment. Articles seized vide seizure memos and personal search memos of accused persons be released to them against acknowledgment.
102. File be consigned to record room, be revived as and when absconding accused persons are apprehended.
Announced in the open court
on the 27th day of August, 2018
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY PANDEY
PANDEY Date:
2018.08.27
16:31:22 +0530
( Ajay Pandey )
Addl. Sessions Judge 04,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts New Delhi State VS Tajender Singh and Ors.
FIR no. 105/81PS - Palam Airport Page no. 79 of 79