scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Tuesday, August 09, 2022

Court refuses to review conviction of juvenile in Godhra carnage case

‘No objection was raised when order was passed or when charges were framed’

Written by Express News Service | Ahmedabad |
March 6, 2011 11:40:02 pm

The special trial court,which convicted 31 people in the 2002 Sabarmati Express burning case last month,has refused to review its order awarding life sentence to one of the accused who,according to a defence lawyer,was a juvenile at the time of the incident.

The defence had contended that his trial should have been conducted by a juvenile court. But the judge rejected the prayer,observing that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code under which he could review his own order.

On February 22,the special trial court of Sessions Judge P R Patel had pronounced its judgment in the case,convicting 31 people and acquitting 63.

Among the convicted was Ibrahim Abdul Razzak Abdul Sattar Samol alias Bhano from Godhra. He was awarded life imprisonment.

Subscriber Only Stories
Delhi Confidential: Raghav Chadha strikes a lyrical note as he bids farew...Premium
PM’s Office declares assets of Ministers, Modi donates share in only prop...Premium
9 FIRs, many notices: Shrikant Tyagi’s long record of notorietyPremium
Post pandemic, employees reluctant to return, firms take offices to small...Premium

At the next hearing for deciding the quantum of punishment for the convicted persons,Ibrahim’s lawyer,A A Hasan,made oral submissions and told the court that his client was a ‘juvenile’ on February 27,2002,the day of the incident,so his trial should have been conducted by a juvenile court.

Hasan said that when Ibrahim was arrested on September 1,2004,the investigating officers had recorded his age as 20 years old.

So,the lawyer argued,at the time of the offence for which he was convicted was committed — on February 27,2002 — he must have been below 18 years. Hasan then demanded an inquiry into the issue by the court and necessary action.

Advertisement

Rejecting the argument,the court observed,“… it will suffice to say that no such ground was raised either at the time of passing the order with regard to other juvenile accused,or at the time of framing charge,or during the course of recording evidence,or at the time of recording further statements or even at the time of hearing regular arguments,despite the fact that he is represented by a senior,well-experienced lawyer practicing mainly on criminal side.”

“Further,in the Criminal Procedure Code,there is no power to review its own decision by the trial court and that too after holding guilty the accused in such serious crime,” the court observed.

Not satisfied with the court’s order,Hasan said,“We are going to challenge this order in the High Court. The trial court has ample power to review its own order.”

TWO IS ALWAYS BETTER | Our two-year subscription package offers you more at less

📣 Join our Telegram channel (The Indian Express) for the latest news and updates

For all the latest News Archive News, download Indian Express App.

  • Newsguard
  • The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
  • Newsguard
First published on: 06-03-2011 at 11:40:02 pm

Featured Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement