Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

While warning against adjournments, the Supreme Court of India has made it clear that it would hear the plea of the convicts regarding the 2002 Godhra Carnage, in which 59 Hindu pilgrims were killed, on 13 February.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar passed these orders in criminal appeals moved by the convicts challenging the orders of the trial court and the Gujarat High Court, which had upheld their conviction.

During the hearing, the court clarified that it would not adjourn the matter and said, "The hearing has to start. We have already adjourned this matter five times over six years—for more than one year, I have been adjourning this matter."

While citing the judgment of Mohd. Arif, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the convicts, argued that a review in a death penalty case must be heard by a bench of three judges. He further submitted that if two judges are hearing an appeal and believe a death penalty should be awarded, they must refer it to a three-judge bench.

In view of the submissions made, the court said "You give a date, we will not listen. Sentencing may be looked into, but first, we have to examine the findings of conviction. This requires a thorough review against the individual accused, the prosecution’s case, the evidence presented, and the connecting evidence. Otherwise, we cannot decide the case." 

In February 2023, while arguing on behalf of State of Gujarat in a plea by convicts in the Godhra Carnage of 2002 wherein 59 Hindu pilgrims were killed, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the Supreme Court that the state would be vehemently opposing the release of the convicts who had been awarded death sentence by the trial court.

"We will be seriously pressing against those 11 convicts, this is the rarest of rare case..59 people were killed", SG Mehta had submitted.

This submission was made by SG Mehta after Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde submitted before the bench that if it could take up issue of death sentence given to the 11 convicts and pass orders on the same being warranted, the other cases could be dealt more leniently.

A CJI Chandrachud led bench has thus ordered the parties to submit a consolidated chart of all the applicants and has listed the case after three weeks.

Earlier, SG Mehta had told court that locking a train bogey with passengers inside and pelting stones would not just be considered stone pelting. "They say it is stone pelting. But when you lock a bogey with 59 passengers inside and pelt stones, then it is not just stone pelting...", SG Mehta told a CJI led bench. Court was then requested to hear the matter finally, to which the bench agreed. 

In December 2022, the Supreme Court had granted bail to Farook, a life convict in the Godhra train burning case of 2002 in which 59 Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were burnt alive. Earlier, the Gujarat Government represented by SG Mehta had opposed the grant of bail to some life convicts serving life sentences stating that they were not mere stone pelters but their actions had prevented persons who were trapped inside the burning train from escaping.

The Top Court had then sought the individual roles to be stipulated of each other convicts, adding that they had already spent 17-18 years in jail. In November 2022, the Top Court had extended bail to Abdul Raheman Abdul Majid, a convicted co-conspirator who carried out the Godhra Carnage in 2002 and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hima Kohli & JB Pardiwala had then said that the bail shall be extended on earlier ground vide an order dated May 13, 2022, of his wife being terminally ill and child being specially abled. Accordingly, the bail order was extended till March 31, 2023.

Farook’s appeal against the Gujarat High Court order of October 9, 2017 upholding his conviction had been challenged before Supreme Court and is pending adjudication.

While sentencing Farook along with other accused persons who were stone pelters, the Gujarat High Court took note of the fact that the obstruction was carried out so that the fire in which Kar Sevaks were conspired to be killed continued.

Case Title: Abdul Dhantiya vs. State of Gujarat