Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Special Court In Ahmedabad Awards Death to 38 And 11 To Life Imprisonment

Posted in: Criminal Law
Sun, Feb 27, 22, 19:57, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4804
death penalty to 38 convicts, sentenced 11 others to rigorous life imprisonment in the case, acquitted 28 accused and pardoned one accused named Ayaz Saiyed of Ahmedabad who had turned approver in 2019 pertaining to the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts which had claimed 56 lives and left over 200 injured.

In a very bone chilling verdict, a Special Court in Ahmedabad on February 18, 2022 awarded the death penalty to 38 convicts, sentenced 11 others to rigorous life imprisonment in the case, acquitted 28 accused and pardoned one accused named Ayaz Saiyed of Ahmedabad who had turned approver in 2019 pertaining to the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts which had claimed 56 lives and left over 200 injured.

It must be mentioned here that the pronouncement of the quantum of punishment in this bone chilling verdict delivered by Justice AR Patel came nearly 14 years after the deadly blasts. It also needs to be noted that the court had convicted 49 persons and acquitted 28 others in the case and of the 28 acquitted, 13 were initially expected to be released immediately as they were not required in judicial custody in relation to any other case. But then we saw how two of the 13 were sent to judicial custody by an Ahmedabad magisterial court in relation to a jail misdemeanor case of 2016. We also saw how the Sabarmati Central Jail authorities had moved an application following their acquittal.

In addition, we saw how the Court also imposed a fine of Rs 2.85 lakh on 48 convicts and of Rs 2.88 lakh on another one. The Court also awarded a compensation of Rs one lakh to the families of those who died in the blasts, Rs 50,000 to those who were seriously injured and Rs 25,000 to those who received minor injuries. The Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi announced compensation of Rs 5 lakh for the families of the victims and then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced Rs 1 lakh as compensation. It cannot be denied that no amount of compensation can ever compensate the innumerable woes that the ghastly terror attack wrecked on these affected families who lost their near and dear ones in it.

Among the victims were Dr Prerak Shah and his pregnant wife Kinjal who had come to the hospital for Kinjal’s medical check-up. Prerak’s father Ramesh Shah who is a resident of Modasa town said that:
I welcome this verdict. However, I feel all the 49 guilty persons should have been given the death penalty. Jagdish Kadia who used to sell sandwiches on his cart in Raipur Chakla area of the old city lost his wife Hasumati Kadia in a blast that occurred near his cart said that:
I remember my wife everyday and have been living a lonely life since then. I strongly believe even the 11 who were given life imprisonment must be hanged.

In retrospect, this alone explains why my best friend in life Sageer Khan had also once said way back in 1993 in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh most angrily that, There should be nothing but only and only death penalty and nothing else for all those who are involved in terror attacks in any way whatsoever. No life, no parole, no bail, no jail but only death, death and nothing but only death which means to be hanged till death. The day you become a Judge which I am sure you will become one fine day then pardon a rapist or a dacoit or a robber or a murderer but never ever in life pardon a terrorist. If you will spare I will never talk with you but I am sure that Inshah Allah you will never spare them under any circumstances whatsoever! I say so because a rapist or a dacoit or a robber or a murderer never goes to Pakistan or any other foreign country to get the best possible rigorous training on how to rape or commit dacoity or robbery or murder or any other crime except terrorist who are trained like best commandos fully determined to kill innocents and to destroy India for which they are fully armed to the teeth by all those who are inimical to India. Also, a rapist or a dacoit or a robber or a murderer or any other ordinary criminal adversely affects either one or few persons but the case of terrorists is quite different because their aim is to destroy not just one or few individuals but our entire nation as a whole. Who can carry out nuclear attack on our country? Rapists for whom our MPs keep demanding death penalty every now and then? No, only and only terrorists with whom our politicians enjoy holding talks and dialogues, declaring ceasefire with them, releasing them out of turn, appointing senior IAS officers and ministers to hold talks with them and extending them all such privileges as are accorded to foreign dignitaries. I think they do this under pressure from some rogue countries like US and UK who had engineered the partition of India and who never want India to become peaceful, powerful and prosperous. Always remember that US and UK are the worst enemies of India and abet, aid and arm Pakistan to the teeth for this very sinister purpose to destroy India completely.

Anil Bakshi who is a very senior and a very eminent criminal advocate who is the former President of Meerut Bar and former Member of UP Bar Council said when Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab was sentenced to death that:
Law is for those who believe in the law of the nation. Not for those who don't believe in law. Such people should be shot as soon as they are met. There should be no involvement in any legal procedure as it results in loss of time and money of nation. I would even say that all such terrorists who have been awarded death penalty must be immediately hanged.

In hindsight, it may be recalled that as many as 22 explosions had ripped through the various spots in Ahmedabad city including at the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation-run LG Hospital in buses, on parked bicycles and in cars on July 26, 2008 within a span of 70 minutes killing 56 and injuring 200. The bombs planed at Kalol and Naroda did not go off. It deserves mentioning here that the Public Prosecutor Arvind Patel told the reporters that:
In the over 7,000-page judgment, the Court had termed the case as the ‘rarest of rare’ and ordered that the 38 convicts in the case be hanged till death, while 11 others were awarded life imprisonment till death. To read a judgment of 7000 pages is certainly a very tough ordeal!

According to Gujarat DGP Ashish Bhatia, the then Joint Commissioner of Police in Ahmedabad’s Crime Branch, the bombs were improvised placed, along with gas cylinders, in cars stolen from Pune and Mumbai. It is worth noting that the bombs that went off had a cocktail of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO). In emails sent to some media houses, the Indian Mujahideen (IM) claimed responsibility for the Ahmedabad blasts and previous serial bombings in Jaipur (May 2008) and Bengaluru (July 2008). The mails had claimed that the bombings were carried out in revenge for the 2002 Gujarat riots and the Babri Masjid demolition. In the police investigation that was done it was found that the IM was nothing but just a regrouping of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).

In its investigation, Gujarat Police unearthed a nationwide network of radical elements involved in the blasts. The State Government had transferred the investigation to the Ahmedabad crime branch under the supervision of the then Joint Commissioner of Police Ashish Bhatia who is now serving as the Gujarat Director General of Police. Ashish called it a landmark judgment. CR Paatil who is Gujarat BJP Chief said that:
The court has set a strict precedent with this judgment.

Be it noted, the trial in this leading case began in December 2009 and concluded in September 2021. The Court merged 20 First Information Reports (FIR) in Ahmedabad and 15 in Surat. The prosecution examined at least 1100 witnesses and marked 26 as star witnesses whose identities were concealed for their safety. A total of nine different Judges presided over the case. AR Patel who has delivered this notable judgment started hearing the case on June 14, 2017.

It certainly cannot be dismissed lightly that the defence lawyers said that this is the highest number of death sentences in a single trial in India after independence. It may be recalled that it was way back in 1998 that a TADA trial court had sentenced 26 to death for former PM Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. It cannot be glossed over that it was in 1999 that the Supreme Court had acquitted 19 of them and upheld the death sentence for four of the others.

It must be also mentioned here that those awarded the death sentence had been convicted under IPC Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) and provisions of the UAPA. They include Safdar Nagori who is leader of the SIMI and who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a CBI court in Indore in 2017 for sedition, possession of illegal arms and explosives and for plotting terror activities; Saif-ur-Rehman and Mohammad Saif are already facing the death penalty in the Jaipur serial blasts case of May 2008; Mohammad Sadik alias Yaseer from Mumbai is also facing trial in the 2008 Delhi blast case and for firing at the American Center in Kolkata in January 2002 that killed four police constables and a private security guard and Qayamuddin Kapadiya from Vadodara who is considered as one of the key conspirators in the Delhi blast case. All the convicts were present for the hearing via video conference from eight different jails.

The court said that as per Section 368 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the entire record of the proceedings will be now sent to the Gujarat High Court for confirmation of the death sentences. Till the High Court decides on the case, all the accused will remain in jail. Let us wait and watch what the High Court will rule on this high profile case. We just can’t speculate and must keep our fingers crossed till the case is decided finally!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top