Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Jagtar Singh Hawara, Others In 1998 Attempt To Jail Break Case

Update: 2024-10-29 06:30 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the acquittal of Jagtar Singh Hawara and nine others booked in an alleged attempt to break Chandigarh's Burail jail in 1998. Hawara is currently serving life imprisonment at Tihar Jail. He was convicted as a conspirator in the 1995 assassination of Chief Minister of Punjab, Beant Singh.Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma while...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the acquittal of Jagtar Singh Hawara and nine others booked in an alleged attempt to break Chandigarh's Burail jail in 1998. Hawara is currently serving life imprisonment at Tihar Jail. He was convicted as a conspirator in the 1995 assassination of Chief Minister of Punjab, Beant Singh.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma while noting dent on prosecution's case found that the date of one accused persons who was found in possession of RDX could not be proved.

The Court also noted that the the overheard conversations by the jail official regarding the alleged conspiracy with Jagtar Singh Hawara, and accused Balwinder Singh, Jaswant Singh, and Sheetla Prasad do not hold any evidential value when the mobile phones allegedly used by the accused in Model Jail, Burail, were not recovered.

Therefore, the prosecution case of their involvement in the conspiracy remains unproven due to a lack of cogent evidence, the Court opined.

It also noted that the prosecution witness Labh Singh, who allegedly heard the conversation of the conspiracy denied in the Court of making any such statement before the police.

"When the investigating officer concerned, stepped into the witness box, thus in his examination-in-chief, he openly spoke that thought he did record the statement of Labh Singh. However, when he became cross- examined, the said speakings become attempted to be shred of their evidentiary efficacy, through the defence counsel making suggestions to him that the said previously made statement before the police rather was fabricated and doctored," noted the bench.

The Court was hearing the appeal against acquittal of ten accused persons in the alleged attempt to break Chandigarh prison case. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons under Sections 419, 420, 225-B, 468, 120-B of the IPC, and for offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

As per the prosecution, the accused conspired with each other to break free the accused persons arrested in CM Beant Singh assassination case in 1995. It was alleged that under the guidance of Hawara, they had conspired to blast the Model Jail, Burail, so that Hawara, may escape from the prison.

The police had allegedly arrested one Satnam Singh along with RDX in sweet box, involved in the conspiracy.

However the Court noted that the date of arrest and recovery of the RDX is not duly proved.

The division also bench noted that, "no credible evidence exists on record to support the charge against the accused concerned, that a conspiracy occurred for blowing up the Model Jail, Burail whereins the accused concerned, became lodged."

It added further that the allegation of providing mobile phones inside the prison cannot be proved because the alleged mobile phones along with SIM could not be recovered.

In the light of the above, the Court upheld the acquittal of the eight accused persons.

Mr. Rajiv Vij, Addl. PP for U.T. Chandigarh

Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellant (in CRA-S-179-SB-2003) and for respondents No.1, 4 and 6 (in CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003)

Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate with Mr. Shubhkarnan Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10.

Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 and 9 (in CRA-S-2294-SBA-2003).

Click here to read/download the order

Tags:    

Similar News