- With regard to the Satyam-Liberty Cinema Blast Case (2005), which involved two blasts at two different Cinema Houses in Delhi, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmender Rana, cleared Trilochan Singh of all charges under Sections 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) of Atrocities Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The reasoning behind this judgment was that the Hon'ble Court was dissatisfied with the prosecution's attempt to prove Trilochan Singh was a member of Babbar Khalsa International (a banned terrorist organization led by Paramjeet Singh Bheora and Jagtar Singh Hawara). The Court further observed that just because the co-accused persons were convicted, that is not a reason enough to sentence Singh for the same.
- In this case, following the bombings in Paharganj, Sarojini Nagar, and Govind Puri, the international mobile numbers discovered through the investigation of Jagtar Singh Hawara's (prime accused of bomb blasts) phone were found to belong to Cheema/Jeeta and H. S. Gill, the absconders in the assassination of Punjab's former Chief Minister, Beant Singh. Two of those numbers also belonged to Gurpreet Singh and Paramjeet Singh Bheora, who were also said to be involved in the assassination of Beant Singh and had fled from Burail Jail with one Jagtar Singh. Simultaneously, it was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that the monitoring of the phone number used in Nabha Jail disclosed that it was utilized by suspects Daya Singh Lahoria and Baljeet Singh to contact Cheema in the US in coded and protected languages. Sukhvinder Singh also used the same number to run a narcotics and weaponry network via foreign connections.
- Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) of Atrocities Act, as observed in State vs. Umar Khalid (2020), penalizes anyone who advocates or strives to commit a terrorist act, advises, directs, or knowingly facilitates a terrorist act, or does any act preliminary to the commission of a terrorist act.
- Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) of Atrocities Act penalizes anybody who is a member of a terrorist group or organization. The National Investigation Agency vs. Areeb Ejaz (2021) demonstrated this statute's application.
- Section 25 of the Arms Act penalizes anyone involved in illegal guns and ammunition trafficking for at least ten years.
- The prosecution's evidence alleged that Baljeet Singh recruited and trained Jaswant, Surender Singh, Bikkar Singh, and Trilochan Singh, and they were plotting terrorist attacks. On being arrested by Special Cell in 2007, Baljeet Singh revealed that he was an active member of BKI, was involved in anti-national actions, and was in charge of four handguns and some ammo for Baba Pyara Singh Panigarola’s assassination. He further confessed that he gave accused Kulwinderjeet Singh three handguns and some ammo and Trilochan Singh one pistol and ammunition, obtained through the Daya Singh Lahoria and Sukhvinder Singh networks. Preceding which, accused Daya Singh Lahoria, Sukhvinder Singh, Baljeet Singh, and Trilochan Singh were charged under Sections 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
- The prosecution had alleged that accused Trilochan Singh was part of a bigger plot to rekindle militancy in Punjab, and to achieve this goal, he planned and was engaged in preparatory activities to assassinate Baba Pyara Singh Paniharewala. It was further contended that direct evidence in a conspiracy prosecution was rarely available due to the nature of the crime. Therefore, the accused's crime was based on circumstantial evidence.
- The Hon'ble Court observed that the intercepted conversation was insufficient to prove the guilt of accused Trilochan Singh because the allegation of interpreted code language could only be taken into consideration if it was absolutely unambiguous and supported by concrete evidence, rather than simply based on any enthusiastic police officer misinterpreting plain and simple words out of suspicion. The Court further observed that the allegation that Singh had gathered weapons and ammunition to assassinate Baba Pyara Singh Paniharewala was based on mere speculation and lacked a solid rationale supported by reliable evidence.
- It was also contended by the Hon'ble Court that the accused could not be held guilty under section 18 of UAPA merely because the co-conspirators have been convicted.
- Therefore, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the prosecution's attempt to demonstrate that Trilochan Singh had participated in a terrorist plot due to the prosecution's incompetency to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt by failing to provide adequate evidence.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
