The Hindu : Front Page : Five more found guilty in serial blasts case

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Aug 07, 2007
ePaper

Front Page

Front Page

Five more found guilty in serial blasts case

Staff Reporter

— PHOTO: S. SIVA SARAVANAN

OUT ON BAIL: Satheesan of Kerala (left) and Abdul Rahman of Vijayawada (centre), accused in the Coimbatore serial blasts case, at the Coimbatore Central Prison on Monday.

COIMBATORE: Concluding the pronouncement of findings in respect of charges, Judge of the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases K. Uthirapathy on Monday held five more accused guilty of offences.

Sarfudeen (Accused 111) and Sikkander Basha (Accused 112) were found guilty under section 148 of Indian Penal Code, while Ayyappan (Accused 138) was found guilty under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. The charge under the Explosive Substances Act had been proved against Ubaithul Rehman (Accused 146) while Mir Shafi Ahmed (Accused 132) was found guilty of promoting communal hatred.

The prosecution was asked to file a memo on the previous convictions in other cases awarded to these accused.

After enabling the defence to know the quantum of punishment likely for the charges proved against each accused on August 13, the court is expected to finalise the date for the hearing on sentences and then the date for the commencement of pronouncement of sentences.

As many as 105 accused moved bail applications on Monday, of whom Satheesan of Kerala (with the condition that he appear for the sentence pronouncement) and Abdul Rahman of Vijayawada (with the condition that he appear and sign at the Race Course Police Station in Coimbatore City everyday) were granted bail.

Seeking the opinion of the prosecution on the remaining bail applications, the Judge reserved the orders on seven applications for Tuesday, 23 for Wednesday, 13 for Thursday, 16 for Friday and 44 for next Monday.

Defence counsel’s stand

Defence counsel P. Thirumalairajan and Bhavani B. Mohan contended that non-compliance with Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in spelling out the verdict would result in “miscarriage of justice.” By finding an accused guilty of an offence (not found in the framed charges), the court had denied the accused and the defence an opportunity to counter the charges.

The defence should have been given a chance to bring in its witnesses or recall prosecution witnesses.

Those found guilty could only urge the court to set off the trial period against conviction and questioned the need for bail applications under such circumstances. Defence counsel also asked why persons not found guilty should seek bail. Their continued detention would amount to violation of fundamental rights.

Mr. Uthirapathy said that even if not found guilty, till the recording of acquittal proceedings the liberty of the accused could be ensured only through bail. The process of pronouncement was in progress and not completed, he added.

Special Public Prosecutor D. Balasundaram said that the set-off of the trial period against conviction could be sought only after the pronouncement of sentence.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page