SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 876

P.P. NAOLEKAR, J:
Shaukat Hussain Guru - Petitioner
Vs
State (NCT) Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 106 OF 2007
DECIDED ON : 14-05-2008

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code , 1860 – Sections 300 , 130 , 313 , 121 , 302 , 120 , 307 , 122 , 121A and 123 – Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 – Sections 222 and 39 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Article 32 - Explosive Substances Act - Section 3 - Section 4 - Designated Judge submitted record of case to High Court of Delhi for confirmation of death sentence imposed on three accused - Each of four accused filed appeals against verdict of Designated Judge - State also filed an appeal - High Court dismissed appeals and confirmed death sentence imposed on them, and allowed appeal of State in regard to sentence and awarded them death sentence under that Section also - High Court allowed appeals and acquitted them of all charges - Judgment of High Court gave rise to seven appeals – Held , Review petition of petitioner raising ground as mentioned hereinabove was dismissed by Court by its order - Thus, contention raised by petitioner that his conviction without there being any charge framed tantamounts to grave miscarriage of justice and is contrary to principles of natural justice, has been rejected by Court - Thereafter, a curative petition was filed by petitioner as provided and under procedure laid down - Curative petition was placed in chambers by circulation before three seniormost Judges and one Judge who was a member of Bench which initially delivered judgment and after due consideration curative petition was also rejected by this Court - In curative petition also, a specific ground had been raised by petitioner that there was violation of principles of natural justice and manifest injustice was caused to him because he had not been given opportunity to defend himself for an offence for which charge had not been framed - By rejection of his curative petition, contention so raised by petitioner has been rejected - Facts and circumstances of case, Court do not find any ground to entertain petition - Moreover, for granting relief prayed for by petitioner for entertaining present writ petition it is necessary to set aside judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court confirmed by dismissal of review petition as also of curative petition, which cannot be granted as not being permissible in exercise of powers - Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed

JUDGMENT

1. Close to noon on 13.12.2001, five heavily armed persons entered the Parliament House Complex and inflicted heavy casualties on the security men on duty. In the gun battle which took place in the Parliament House Complex, the five terrorists who stormed the Complex were killed. Nine persons including eight security personnel and one gardener succumbed to the bullets of the terrorists and 16 persons including 13 security men received injuries. The Investigating Agency took up investigation which revealed possible involvement of the four accused persons, namely, Mohd. Afzal, Shaukat Hussain Guru, S.A.R. Gilani and Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru along with some other proclaimed offenders said to be the leaders of the banned organization known as Jaish-e-Mohammed. The four accused persons were charged of different offences.

2. The petitioner was charged under the following sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Explosive Substances Act: i) Section 3(2) of POTA ii) Section 3(3) of POTA iii) Section 3(4) of POTA iv) Section 3(5) of POTA v) Section 4(b) of POTA vi) Section 121 of IPC vii) Section 121A of IPC viii) Section 122 of IPC ix) Section 302 read with 120B of IPC x) Section 307 read with 120B of IPC xi) Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act.

3. The accused persons were tried by the Designated Special Court on the charges framed. After the conclusion of the trial, the Designated Court convicted three accused, namely, Mohd. Afzal, Shaukat Hussain Guru and S.A.R. Gilani for the offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122, Section 120B read with Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 120B, IPC, sub-sections (2), (3) and (5) of Section 3 and Section 4(b), POTA and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also convicted under Sections 3(4), POTA. The other accused Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru was acquitted of all the charges except the one under Section 123, IPC. The other three accused were awarded the death sentence under Section 302 read with Section 120B, IPC and Section 3(2), POTA. They were also sentenced to life imprisonment on as many as eight counts under the provisions of IPC, POTA and the Explosive Substances Act in addition to varying amounts of fine.

4. The Designated Judge submitted the record of the case to the High Court of Delhi for confirmation of death sentence imposed on the three accused. Each of the four accused filed appeals against the verdict of the Designated Judge. The State also filed an appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeals of Mohd. Afzal and Shaukat Hussain Guru and confirmed the death sentence imposed on them, and allowed the appeal of the State in regard to sentence under Section 121, IPC and awarded them death sentence under that Section also. The High Court allowed the appeals of S.A.R. Gilani and Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru and acquitted them of all the charges.

5. The judgment of the High Court gave rise to seven appeals - two appeals preferred by Shaukat Hussain Guru and one appeal by Mohd. Afzal and four appeals preferred by the State/Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi against the acquittal of S.A.R.

Gilani and Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru. The matter was heard by this Court and by its judgment dated 4th August, 2005 this Court dismissed the appeal filed by Mohd. Afzal and death sentence imposed upon him was confirmed. Appeal of the petitioner Shaukat Hussain Guru was partly allowed. He was convicted under Section 123, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous im











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top