Abdul Mateen vs State of Rajasthan - 2009 Supreme(Raj) 173

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Raj) 173

[Citation : 2010(1) RLW 449 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Abdul Mateen Vs. State of Raj. (Jain, J.)
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J.
HON'BLE GUMAN SINGH, J.
Abdul Mateen
Versus
State of Rajasthan
D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal Nos. 318, 189, 258 & 369 of 2000,
decided on 03.02.2009

Advocates Appeared
S.R. Surana, for Accused-Appellant Abdul Mateen;
A.K. Gupta with Vijayant Nirwan, for Accused-Appellant Chandra Prakash;
Ashvin Garg with Desh Raj Kalwania, for Accused-Appellant Abdul Hamid;
A.N. Khan, for Accused-Appellant Raies Beg;
Ms. Anupama Parashar, Amicus Curiae;
Ashwani Kumar Sharma, P.P., and B.K. Sharma, P.P., for State

Headnote:Foreigners Act, 1946, Sec. 14; P.D.P.P. Act, Sec. 4; Explosives Act, 1884, Sec. 9-B; Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sec. 3, 4, 5, 3/6, 4/6, 5/6; Penal Code, Sec. 456, 307/120-B, 435/120-B, 118/120-B — Hatching conspiracy of makign bomb-blast in S.M.S. Stadium during State level programme of Republic Day celebration — Convicted on the basis of evidence of approvers statement and recovery made on the informations given u/Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act — Members of terrorists organisation belonging to Pakistani nationality — Justification — Held — As per Sec. 133 of the Evidence Act, there is no need of any corroboration of the evidence of approvers statement — Here ample evidence available for its corroboration also — In view of recovery of high explosives, dynamites, electronic detonators and live time bomb from their conscious possesion and their identification, conviction is just.
       Appeal dismissed. (Paras 50 to 62)
        fonskh vf/kfu;e] 1946] /kkjk 14( ih-Mh-ih-ih- vf/kfu;e] /kkjk 4( foLQksVd vf/kfu;e] 1884] /kkjk 9[k( foLQksVd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1908] /kkjk 3] 4] 5] 3@6] 4@6] 5@6( n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 456] 307@120[k] 435@120[k] 118@120[k & x.krU= fnol lekjksg ds jkT; Lrjh; dk;ZØe ds nkSjku ,l-,e-,l- LVsfM;e] t;iqj esa cl foLQksV djus dk "kM;U= jpuk & ljdkjh xokg ds lk{; ,oa lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds rgr nh xbZ lwpuk ij dh xbZ cjkenxh ds vk/kkj ij nks"kfl) fd;k & vihykFkhZx.k vkradoknh laxBu ds lnL; gS tks ikfdLrkuh jk"Vªh;rk ds gS & vkSfpR; & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 133 ds vuqlkj ljdkjh xokg ds dFku ds lk{; dh lEiqf"V dh drbZ vko;drk ugha gS & ;g izpqj ek=k esa lk{; Hkh bldh lEiqf"V gsrq miyC/k gS & mPp foLQksVd] Mk;usekbZV] bysDVªksfud MsVksusVj vkSj thfor VkbZe ce dh cjkenxh ,oa mudh kuk[r dh n`f"V ls nks"kflf) U;k;ksfpr gSA ¼in la- 50 ls 62½

       vihys [kkfjt dhA

Hon'ble JAIN, J.—There four criminal appeals, on behalf of accused-appellants, and one criminal leave to appeal, on behalf of the State, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2000, passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Man Singh Death Case), Jaipur, in Sessions Case no.8/98, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The trial Court, vide its impugned order, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:-

Accused Under Section Imprisonment

1. Abdul Mateen 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 To undergo 5 years RI and a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 year's SI

4 of PDPP Act To undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs.20,000/-; in default, to further undergo 2 years SI

456 IPC To undergo 3 years RI and a fine of Rs.3000/-; in default, to further undergo 6 months SI

307/120-B IPC To undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default, to further undergo 2 years SI

435/120-B IPC To undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.7000/-; in default, to further undergo 1-1/2 years SI

118/120-B IPC To undergo 5 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 year's SI

9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884 To undergo 2 years RI and a fine of Rs.2000/-; in default, to further undergo 3 months SI

3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 To undergo Imprisonment for Life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-; in default, to further undergo 3 years SI

4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 To undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.7000/-; in default, to further undergo 1-1/2 years SI

5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 To undergo 5 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 year's SI

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

Accused Under Section Imprisonment

2. Chandra Prakash 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884 To undergo 2 years RI and a fine of Rs.2000/-; in default, to further undergo 3 months SI

3/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 To undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default, to further undergo 2 years SI

4/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 To undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.7000/-; in default, to further undergo 1-1/2 years SI

5/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 To undergo 5 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 year's SI

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

Accused Under Section Imprisonment

3. Abdul Hamid and 4. Raies Beg 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884 Each of the accused to undergo 2 years RI and a fine of Rs.2000/-; in default, to further undergo 3 months SI

307/120-B IPC Each of the accused to undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default, to further undergo 2 years SI

435/120-B IPC Each of the accused to undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.7000/-; in default, to further undergo 1-1/2 years SI

118/120-B IPC Each of the accused to undergo 5 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 year's SI

3/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Each of the accused to undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default, to further undergo 2 years SI

4/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Each of the accused to undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.7000/-; in default, to further undergo 1-1/2 years SI

5/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Each of the accused to undergo 5 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default, to further undergo 1 year's SI

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

3. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence, the four accused-appellants have separately preferred their respective appeals; and the State of Rajasthan has filed criminal leave to appeal against three accused-appellants, namely, Chandra Prakash, Raies Beg and Abdul Hameed, after a delay of 2823 days i.e. about 7 years 9 months, along-with an application u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the leave to appeal, to enhance their sentence of imprisonment under Section 3 of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2009 Supreme(Raj) 173

[Citation : 2010(1) RLW 449 (Raj.)](Rajasthan High Court)Jaipur BenchAbdul Mateen Vs. State of Raj. (Jain, J.)HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J.HON'BLE GUMAN SINGH, J.Abdul MateenVersusState of RajasthanD.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal Nos. 318, 189, 258 & 369 of 2000,decided on 03.02.2009

Cases Referred (10)

Judicial Analysis

[Citation : 2010(1) RLW 449 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Abdul Mateen Vs. State of Raj. (Jain, J.)
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J.
HON'BLE GUMAN SINGH, J.
Abdul Mateen
Versus
State of Rajasthan
D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal Nos. 318, 189, 258 & 369 of 2000,
decided on 03.02.2009