Akil Kureshi, J.

1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 12.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Sessions Case Nos. 45/2008, 77/2009 and 78/2009.

2. In Such Judgment, Learned Judge Was Pleased To Convict 18 accused for offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 read with sections 120B and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as also for offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 153A, 435, 436 427 and 440 of the IPC read with section 149 thereof. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment for offence punishable under section 302.

For the remaining offences, lesser sentences have been awarded.

3. Learned Judge also convicted four more accused for offence under section 307 read with sections 120B and 149 of the IPC, besides the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 153A, 435, 436, 427, 440 read with section 149 of the IPC. For offence punishable under section 307, they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years. Fines have also been imposed. For the remaining offences, lesser sentences have been awarded.

4. The Trial Court Also Convicted One More Accused Atulbhai Dahyabhai Patel for offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 153A, 435, 436, 427, read with section 149 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years for offence under section 436 of the IPC. Lesser sentences have been awarded for the remaining offences. Remaining accused have been acquitted.

Brief introduction :-

5. The convicted accused have filed Criminal Appeals No.749/2012, 890/2012, 964/2012 and 1240/2012. The State has preferred two Criminal Appeals. Criminal Appeal No.961/2012 is the acquittal appeal. This includes those accused who have been acquitted of all the charges as well as some of the accused who have been convicted for lesser offences but acquitted for offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. Criminal Appeal No.965/2012 filed by the State pertains to enhancement of sentences. This has principally two elements. The State contends that the accused who are convicted or ought to have been convicted for offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC should be awarded capital punishment. The State also argues that the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment for offences punishable under sections 307 and 436 awarded to the respective accused is too lenient. Such sentence should also be enhanced.

6. The Trial Pertains To One Of The Post Godhra Train Burning riot cases. The incidents happened in the village Oad which is situated in Anand District of the State. As is well-known on 27th February, 2002, the ugly incident of train burning took place in Muslim dominated area of Godhra during which large number of people mostly Karsevaks returning from Ayodhya died. This had serious repercussions in the State which witnessed large scale communal riots, spread of which was unprecedented. Many incidents of arson, looting, burning of properties, violence and heavy loss of human lives were reported from various parts of the State.

The administration, particularly, the police department came under severe criticism in the process of handling such riots, riots cases and in investigation of such incidents. Complaints of inefficiency, apathy and at times outright bias reached the Supreme Court. Further trials in some of the riot cases were stayed pending consideration of such allegations. The Supreme Court by an order dated 26.3.2008 in case of National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat and others, (2009) 6 SCC 342, directed constitution of Special Investigation Team ("SIT" for short) for which notifications were issued by the State Government comprising of Shri P.K. Raghavan-retired Director of CBI, Shri C.B. Satpathy-retired Director General, Uttar Pradesh Police College, Moradabad and three IPS officers Ms. Geeta Johri, Shri Shivanand Jha and Shri Ashish Bhatia. Shri Raghavan would be the chairman of SIT. SIT wo