Back
2006 Supreme(Guj) 834
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.P.DHOLAKIA, M.D.SHAH
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant
Versus
JAMAN HAJI MAMAD JAT - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 643 Of 2004
Decided On : 12/28/2006
Headnote:
Criminal law - Arms Act - Amendment Act- Sections 3 and 6 - Foreigners Act - Section 13 (2) - Indian Wireless and Telegraphic Act - Section 14 and Section 6 (1-A) - Explosive Substances Act,1908 - Sections 4 (b), 5 and 6 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 25 (d), 25 (1) (AA), 25 (1) (B) (C) (F) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 366 (1) – Accused 1,3,4,5 guilty - Order of Conviction - Criminal Law Amendment Act as well as for offence of Indian Wireless and Telegraphic Act - All sentences were ordered to run concurrently - Being aggrieved by aforesaid judgment and order of conviction original accused have filed Criminal Appeals for confirmation of death of original accused original accused - Police personnel along with panchas went to place of foot prints and prepared panchnama to that effect – Held, In this case if the substances which were seized had used it would have created horrible situation in this country and thousands of people would have lost their lives - It can be said that when accused are involved in such activities and offences against them are proved this case becomes a rarest of rare case in view of aforesaid decision by Honorable Delhi High Court - Therefore it is improper to impose less than death sentence upon these accused - Thus in view of entire aforesaid do not agree with argument of advocate for accused that they should be acquitted by granting set off for period they have remained in Jail - Considering the aforesaid argument of Special PP and as this case against four accused is rarest of rare case following order of sentence is passed upon them - Appeal allowed(Para 149)
( 1 ) THE appellants, original accused No. 1-Jaman Haji Mahmad Jat, original accused No. 3-Sachu Haji Ibrahim Jat, original accused No. 4-Osman Ali Mahmad Jat and original accused No. 5-Navaj Ali Jat of Sessions Case No. 85 of 1999 (original accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively of Sessions Case No. 1 of 2002), were tried along with other accused by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhuj-Kutch, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 121, 121 (A), 122, 123 and 124 (A), 489-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 (d), 25 (1) (AA), 25 (1) (B) (C) (F) of Arms Act, Sections 4 (b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Sections 3 and 6 of Indian Passport Rules (Entry Into India), Section 13 (2) of Foreigners Act amended Section 14 and Section 6 (1-A) of Indian Wireless and Telegraphic Act.
( 2 ) THE accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were held guilty by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Bhuj-Kutch, vide judgment and order dated 25-3-2004 for the offence under Sections 120 (B), 121, 121 (A), 122, 123 and 124 (A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 (d), 25 (1) (AA), 25 (1) (B) (C) (F) of Arms Act, Sections 4 (b), 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Sections 3 and 6 of Indian Passport Rules (Entry Into India), Section 13 (2) of Foreigners Act amended Section 14 and Section 6 (1-A) of Indian Wireless and Telegraphic Act. However, they were acquitted for the offence under Section 489 (A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 3 ) THEY were sentenced to death and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer for six months RI for the offence under Sec. 121 of IPC. They were also sentenced to suffer for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer RI for six months for the offence under Secs. 120 (B) read with Sec. 121 (A), 122, 124 (A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code; 10 years RI and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer for six months RI for the offence under Sec. 123 of the Indian Penal Code; 20 years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer 2 years RI, for the offence under Sections 4 (b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; 5 years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer RI for one month for the offence under Sections 25 (D), 25 (1) (AA), 25 (1) (B) (C) (F) of Indian Arms Act; 2 months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer RI for one month for the offence under Sections 3 and 6 of Indian Passport Rules (Entry Into India) and six months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer RI for six months for the offence under Section 13 (2) of Foreigners Act amended Section 14. No separate sentences were awarded for the offence under Section 3 of Criminal Law Amendment Act as well as for the offence under Section 6 (1-A) of Indian Wireless and Telegraphic Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, original accused Nos. 1,3, 4 and 5 have filed Criminal Appeals Nos. 567 of 2004 and 643 of 2004.
( 4 ) THE Registry on receiving the record and proceedings of judgment and order of conviction dated 25-3-2004 in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1999 from learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhuj-Kutch, for confirmation of death of original accused No. 1-Jaman Haji Mahmad Jat, original accused No. 3-Sachu Haji Ibrahim Jat, original accused No. 4-Osman Ali Mahmad Jat and original accused No. 5-Navaj Ali Jat as required by Sec. 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for short) has numbered them as Confirmation Cases Nos. 3 of 2004 and 4 of 2004.
( 5 ) AS Confirmation Cases Nos. 3 of 2004 and 4 of 2004 as well as Criminal Appeals Nos. 567 of 2004 and 643 of 2004 arose from the same judgment and order, these matters which were listed before oth
