STATE THROUGH CBI, DELHI versus GIAN SINGH

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 382 · Decided: 14-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST ATE THROUGH CBI, DELHI 
v. 
GIAN SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 14,1999 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.P. KURDUKARAND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985-Ss.3 (1) & 
.._ 
(2) and 1 (3). 
C 
Assassination of Sikh Sant-Operation Blue Star-Signing of accord 
by the then Prime Minister and a Sikh Sant-Rival extremist group opposing 
the accord, conspiring to kill the Sant-Firing and injuring the Sant in a 
public meeting-Accused and a co-assailant overpowered and caught-
Testimony of eye-witnesses-Conviction and sentence by Designated Court 
D -On appeal, Held,· the act of assailants was a "terrorist act" Within the 
ambit of S.3(1)-Designated Court rightly held that accused was one of the 
assailants who fired at Sant-Conviction confirmed-Penal Code, 1860-
S. 302 read with S.34. 
Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985-Ss.3(2)(1) 
E & 25-Sentence-Alteration of -Offence committed under 1985 Act-
Conviction and death sentence-Subsequent 1987 Act providing lesser 
punishment for the same offence-Overriding effect over any other enactment 
including enactment expired by efflux of time-Effect of-Held, exclusivity of 
the extreme sentence contained in 1985 Act stands superseded by the 
corresponding provisions in 1987 Act-Article 20(1) of the Constitution not 
F a bar in extending the benefit of 1987 Act-Conviction of accused altered 
to imprisonment for life-Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 20(1). 
Words and Phrases. 
G 
"terrosist act"-Scope and ambit of in the context bfS.3(1) of Terrorists 
H 
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for offences under S.3(2)(1) of 
Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 and under S.302 
read with S.34 IPC. After the 'Operation Blue Star' in Golden Temple, an 
382 
I 
\ 
STATE THROUGH CBI v. GIAN SINGH 
383 
accord was signed between the then Prime Minister and a Sikh Sant Another A 
extremist group opposed the pact considering the truce a virtual surrender 
of Sikh pride and conspired to eliminate the Sikh Sant for betrayal. Appellant-
accused and his co-assailants were engaged for murdering the Sant. When 
the Sant was addressing a meeting, appellant and others opened fire and 
injured the Sant Appellant and a co-assailant were overpowered and caught B 
on the spot by the body guards and police. On the same night the Sant 
succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Trial Court relying upon the 
evidence of eye witnesses convicted and sentenced the appellant to death for 
offence under S. 3(2)(1) of TADA Act, 1985 as no other alternative sentence 
was provided thereunder. However, lesser sentences were awarded for the 
remaining offences. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, appellant C 
preferred the present appeal. State has preferred the Death Reference. 
Disposing of the matter, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Designated Court was justified in holding that the 
appellant was one of the assailants in concert with other assailants who fired D 
at the Sikh Sant and his associates at the public meeting. Conviction of 
appellant for offences under S. 3(1) of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1985 and S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC by Designated Court 
is confirmed. [388-F; 393-F) 
E 
2. The act of assailants would fall within the ambit of "terrorists act" 
in S. 3 (1) of the TADA Act, 1985. In the instant case there is overwhelming 
evidence to show that the main intention of the persons who fired the revolvers 
towards the podium wherefrom the deceased Sant spoke, was to administer 
a terror or shock wave to the people at large that the fate of all those who 
did not fall in line with extremists would be the same as inflicted on the F 
victims of the shoot out. Deceased Sant was not the only target of the 
shooters, though perhaps he was one of the principal targets. [390-A-B] 
State v. Nalini, [1999] 5 SCC 253, referred to. 
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, [1994]4 SCC 602, 
relied on. 
3. Under S.3 (2) of TADA Act, 1985, the only sentence which was 
permitted for awarding is death sentence in case of terrorist act resulting 
G 
in death of any person. But in the succeeding legislation i.e. TADA Act, H 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 1987, the harshness of the sentence has been diluted by providing an 
alternative punishment for imprisonment for life. Thus, there is inconsistency 
between the sentencing scope in S.3(2) of TADA

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.