The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Coimbatore News : Defence counsel demands copy of judgment Coimbatore Serial blasts

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Sep 07, 2007
ePaper

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore

Defence counsel demands copy of judgment Coimbatore Serial blasts

Staff Reporter

COIMBATORE: The defence counsel in the Coimbatore serial blasts case on Thursday wanted the prosecution to pin-point the provision of law that prevented the defence from perusing the judgment copy to know the reason behind the court’s findings. Only then can the defence place its plea on sentences. Ten more accused of the 70 found guilty of the charge of conspiracy in the serial blasts case placed their plea on sentences before the Judge of the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases K. Uthirapathy on Thursday.

Ten accused had already submitted their plea on sentences in the last two days. Most of the accused said that they were innocent and said they were implicated using interested witnesses, forged evidences and documents.

Ninth accused in the case, Oom Babu, requested the judge to expedite delivery of sentences at least in a staggered manner as was done in the Mumbai serial blasts case.

It would enable a few accused to get remission and exemption when the prison authorities would be releasing the other accused on September 15 to mark the former Chief Minister late C.N. Annadurai’s birth anniversary.

Mr. Uthirapathy said that it was not possible to either speed up the process or to deliver the sentences in a staggered manner without the judgment copy getting ready since the Supreme Court found fault with the Mumbai serial blasts court for not handing over a judgment text after convicting and sentencing an accused.

Defence counsel P. Thirumalairajan wanted the court to enable the counsel on either side to peruse the judgment (excluding the sentences) for knowing the reasoning behind the findings of the court in respect of the charges. In the absence of the same, he said that the defence would not be able to place its plea on the mitigating circumstances of the accused. He wanted the prosecution to explain what provision of law prevented the perusal of judgment.

The judgment and conviction was already over and what was pending was only the awarding of sentences, which continued to remain a secret, he said. The court in any would not change its decision based on the plea on sentences by the accused and counsel.

The Special Public Prosecutors, T. Balasundaram and T.A. Selvaraj, said there was no legal provision for allowing the counsel to peruse the judgment copy. Mr. Uthirapathy said the court was keen to ensure that no technical mistake was committed while enabling a fair deal. Prosecution wanted the defence to cite if there were any such precedents, another defence counsel, S.K. Raghavan said when sections 353, 354 and 235 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code was clear on the process of delivering the judgement including the sentence, there was no necessity for providing precedents.

However, Mr. Raghavan told the court that he would place the rulings of the apex court had that had thrown light on the grey areas in the legal provisions especially in respect of defence being enabled to know the reasoning behind the findings of the court. Judge Mr. Uthirapathy posted the case to Monday.

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