STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAMAN HAJI MAMAD JAT

JUDGEMENT

(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.