THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus JASPAL SINGH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 08-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 
V. 
)ASPAL SINGH 
AUGUST 8, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Official Secrets Act, 1923-Sections 3, 5 and 9/Penal Code, 1860-
Section 120B/Punjab Excise Act-Section 61/Arms Act-Section 25/Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 313: 
A 
B 
c 
Charges against four accused under the Official Secrets Act/Other Acts-
Conviction by the trial Court-Acquittal of two of the accused by the High 
Court-Confession of co-accused-Evidentiary value-Criminal conspiracy-
Proof of-Held: Confession of an accused not a substantive evidence to convict 
other t~an its maker-Court may accept other evidence but not relying upon · D 
them-However, confession of co-accused could fortify its belief to act upon 
the other evidence-When common object of the conspiracy was to do an 
unlawful act, specification of such act would suffice to prove the charges and 
it would be unnecessary to substantiate the means to achieve it-Since all the 
accused operated as a we/I-knit group aimed at collecting vital secret 
information/documents and passing them to foreign intelligence A4 as a member E 
of such group become a party to the common design of other accused 
members-Moreover, mode of consideration/method of proof for offence 
committed under the Official Secrets Act cannot be on the line of crime under 
the Penal Code-Presumption has to be drawn from facts-Hence, accused 
rightly convicted by the trial Court-Held, Order of acquittal of A4 set aside- F 
However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence modified 
to the one already undergone by him-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections J 0 and 
30. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Appeal-Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-Held: When 
findings of the High Court are erroneous, perverse and results in miscarriage 
of justice/reversal of verdict under a total misconception of the principles of 
law/facts proved, it is appropriate for the .Supreme Court to interfere with the 
decision of the High Court. 
335 
G 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Four persons, including respondent (A4), were tried for collecting 
secret information/documents relating to military and defence matters and 
allegedly passing on the same to a foreign country. They were found guilty 
of committing offences under Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets 
Act, Section 120B IPC, Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act and Section 
B 25 of the Arms Act; convicted and sentenced by the trial ~ourt 
accordingly. On appeal, High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence 
against accused Nos. 1 and 2 but acquitted accused Nos. 3 and 4. Hence, 
the present appeal by the State against the order of acquittal of accused 
Nos. 3 and 4. In the meanwhile, A3 was reported dead, resulting in 
abatement of appeal against him. 
c 
It was contended for the State that misconstruing the scope of 
Sections 10 and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, the High Court reversed 
the order of conviction; and that the High Court overlooked the material 
evidence supporting conviction of A4 with other accused conspirators. 
D 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that since the findings 
of acquittal by the High Court was based upon sound reasoning/correct 
appreciation of law, it warranted no interference by the Supreme Court 
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India; that since the confession 
of a co-accused is not admissible as substantive evidence against the others 
and on raising doubts about the manner of recovery of the secret 
E documents from the possession of the accused, acquittal of the respondent 
was fully justified. 
Allowing the appeal with modification of the sentence, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no such general rule t~at Supreme Court in an 
F appeal cannot interfere with the opinion of the High Court, though the 
scope and reasons for such interference may vary from cases otherwise 
coming by way of a regular appeal. Though this Court does not convert 
itself into a Court to review the evidence for a third time by grant of special 
leave, where the High Court is shown to have completely failed in 
G appreciating the true effect of the materials brought on record and its 
findings are erroneous, perverse and result in miscarriage of justice, the 
Supreme Court will have no hesitation to interfere, all the more so when 
the High Court has chosen to reverse a verdict of conviction recorded by 
the trial Judge, under a total misconception of the principle

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