The court had on June 2 convicted 11 persons for murder and other offences, while 13 others, were charged with lesser offences.
Ahmedabad: A Special Investigation Team (SIT) court on June 13 said that it would pronounce the quantum of sentence on June 17 for 24 convicts of the Gulberg society massacre in which 69 people, including former Congress member of parliament, Ehsan Jafri, were killed.
The court of Special Judge P. B. Desai said that the quantum of sentence would be declared after the prosecution submitted a list of jail terms spent by all 24 convicts, as asked by the court.
Earlier, the court had on June 2 convicted 11 persons for murder and other offences, while 13 others, including the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Atul Vaidya, were charged with lesser offences. It had also acquitted 36 others in the case.
The court had concluded the arguments on the quantum of sentence on June 10, after taking into consideration submissions made by both the prosecution and defence lawyers as well as the lawyer of the victims.
During the arguments, special public prosecutor and counsel for the Supreme Court-appointed SIT, R. C. Kodekar, had asked the court for death sentences or jail terms till death for all the 24 convicts. He said all the 24 convicts were found guilty of offence under section 149 of the IPC, and therefore, required to be treated at par when the sentence is pronounced.
Section 149 states that “every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” “The manner of crime was cruel, barbaric and inhuman. Victims’ bodies were roasted alive, in the crime for which there was no provocation, much less in case of women and children who were defenceless,” Kodekar had told the court.
He also informed the court during the course of hearing that those involved in the ghastly act of killing the residents of Gulberg were either known to them or their neighbours, and not terrorists from other country.
Lawyer for the victims, S. M. Vora, also sought maximum punishment for the accused and argued that sentence for each offence should not run concurrently so that they spend their entire life in jail.
However, lawyer of the accused, Abhay Bhardwaj, refuted the demand for capital punishment or maximum punishment in his arguments, saying that the incident was spontaneous and there were enough provocations for it.
“Since the conspiracy has not been established, asking the court for capital punishment on partially relied evidence is not appropriate,” Bhardwaj had earlier told the court.