D.Raju, J. - (1.) JUDGMENT
(2.) FOUR persons, including the respondent Jaspal Singh, were proceeded against pursuant to an FIR bearing No. 237/ 83 registered on 10.11.83 and after concluding the investigation, the following four persons stood charged for facing trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions case No 33 of 1984: 1. Maj. Genl. (retd.) F.D. Larkins, New Delhi, s/o Late H.D. Larkins 2. A.V.M. (retd.) K.M. Larkins, Lucknow (U.P.), S/o Late H.D. Larkins 3. Lt. Co. (retd.) Jasbir Singh, New Delhi, s/o Shri Ranbir Singh 4. Jaspal Singh Gill @ Jassi Gill, New Delhi, s/o Late Kartar Singh All of them stood charged for offences under Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (for short "the Act") and also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). That apart, in sessions case No. 31 of 1984 the accused No. 1 above stood further charged under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, as extended to Delhi, and in Sessions case No. 32 of 1984 he was also charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Since, the evidence in all the above cases were considered to be common they were tried together for recording evidence, too, though it was said to have been recorded in S.C. No. 33 of 1984. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 60 seem to have been examined besides, marking various documents as exhibits. On the side of the defence, six persons, in all seem to have been examined by the different accused. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After considering all the materials on record, the learned Trial Judge in an elaborate judgment dated 24.7.1985 convicted them and imposed sentence as hereunder JUDGEMENT_589_SUPREME5_2003Html1.htm
(3.) THE above accused filed appeals against the same in Crl. Appeal Nos. 185 of 1985. Crl. Appeal No. 214 of 1985, Crl. Appeal No 202 of 1985 and Crl. Appeal No. 175 of 1985, respectively. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of New Delhi, by his judgment dated 30- 4-2001, while affirming the conviction and sentence imposed on accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, dismissed Crl. Appeal Nos. 185 and 214 of 1985 respectively filed by them. So far as accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 are concerned, the learned single Judge, did not choose to agree with the decision of the learned Trial Judge and while allowing their appeal set aside their conviction and sentence imposed therefor and acquitted them. Not satisfied, the Government of National Capital Territory filed SLP Nos. 3928-3929 of 2002 and after leave was granted the appeals were entertained as Crl Appeal Nos. 247 and 248 of 2003. THE respondent in Crl. Appeal No. 247 of 2003 (accused No. 3) was reported dead on 26-2- 2003 resulting in the abatement of the said appeal, leaving only the appeal filed in Crl.Appeal No. 248 of 2003 in respect of the acquittal of accused No. 4 by the High Court for consideration. On behalf of the appellant-State, it was contended that the reversal of the conviction of the respondent was under a gross misdirection on the part of the learned Single Judge in the High Court and misconstruction of the scope of Sections 10 and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was also urged that the High Court in acquitting the respondent overlooked vital material firmly connecting the respondent with the other conspirators resulting in grave and manifest error and injustice and, therefore, this court must restore the judgment of the learned trial Judge, by setting aside the decision of the High Court. It was further contended that the materials on record, so far as the respondent (accused No. 4) is concerned, themselves sufficiently substantiated the case against him and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the well merited conviction of the respondent. In support thereof, our attention has been invited to the judgments of the courts below in great detail and to the relevant materials on record.;