Braving pandemonium and abusive words being hurled at him by advocates, a special judge for TADA cases delivered a verdict on Friday, convicting a Naxal leader accused of involvement in a 1992 rail track blast case and awarding him life imprisonment.
As soon as special judge K Dakshinamoorthy started reading out the judgment in the open court and it became clear that Naxal leader V Sundaramoorthy was to be awarded life imprisonment, the latter's counsel Sankarasubbu sprang up and started protesting.
Hurling a volley of filthy and abusive words at the judge, counsel questioned as to how the judge could proceed to deliver the verdict without affording an opportunity to the accused to plead for minimum sentence. Sankarasubbu also said it was unfair to award the life imprisonment to Sundaramoorthy as the main accused in the case, Sisubalan, was given only five-year rigorous imprisonment in October 2003. Citing Supreme Court rulings, he said courts could not award different sentences to different people facing the same set of charges in the same case.
The judge rushed back to his chambers and locked himself in, even as the abuses continued. After some time, a police team led by an assistant commissioner arrived and escorted him away.
The matter relates to the October 5, 1992, crude bomb blast on the rail track between Dharmapuri and Palakkod railway stations. A major tragedy was averted as the public alerted railway officials, who stopped oncoming trains at Palakkod railway station.
Special public prosecutor V Manokaran said the Q Branch police had registered cases against three persons Velu, Sisubalan and Sundaramoorthy. While Velu is absconding, Sisubalan was arrested, tried and convicted for the offence. He completed his term and was released. Sundaramoorthy was arrested on July 10, 2007, nearly 15 years after the blast.
On Friday, the special judge found Sundaramoorthy guilty on six counts for offences punishable under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987, the Explosive Substances Act and the Indian Penal Code. The sentences included life term on five counts, and seven-year imprisonment on one count.
Taking a stern view of the offence, the judge said in his order that imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. "Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely due to lapse of time in respect of such offences would be counter-productive in the long run and against societal interest, which needs to be cared for," he said, adding that the court would be failing in its duty if the appropriate punishment was not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victims but also against society to which the criminal as well as the victim belong.
No comments:
Post a Comment