SC upholds conviction, sentence of 10 under TADA

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of ten people under TADA, involved in the killing of nine others belonging to the rival gang of liquor vendors in Ahmedabad on Aug 3, 1992.

A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal upheld the order of the Ahmedabad TADA court, dated October 21, 2002, that had sentenced appellants Ahmad Hussain Vali Mohammad Saiyed and others.

The TADA court had made it clear that Liyakat Hussain will not be released before completion of his 20-year sentence.

Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh was the gang leader. The victim Hans Raj Trivedi who belonged to the rival gang was shot dead along with eight others at Radhika Gymkhana near Gauri cinema, Odhav, Ahmedabad. Another accused, Sharif Khan, who opened fire on the victims, had been absconding.

In all 24 persons were charge sheeted, out of which the Special Judge had aquitted 17.

The main contention of the appellants was that their confessional statements were not recorded in accordance with the provisions of TADA and not sent to the Magistrate within the reasonable time, which violated Rule 15 (5) of TADA.

Justice Sathasivam, speaking for the bench in a 60-page judgment, laid emphasis on the principle that punishment should be accorded in keeping with the gravity of the offence and unnecessary leniency shown to the offenders would prove counter productive in the long run.

The apex court in its judgment noted "Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be, result wise, counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system." "Justice demands that court should impose punishment befitting the crime so that they reflect public abhorrence of the crime.

The court must keep in view the rights of the victims of the crime and society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment." "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for the crime that has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against society to which both the criminal and the victim belong," he added.