Business Standard

Haren Pandya murder case: SC rejects review pleas of 9 convicts

Image

Press Trust of India New Delhi

The Supreme Court has dismissed the pleas filed by nine convicts, who were awarded life term for murdering former Gujarat home minister Haren Pandya in 2003, seeking review of its verdict holding them guilty.

The review petitions did not mention any error apparent on the face of record in its July 5 this year judgement, the apex court said.

"We have perused the review petitions and record of the appeals and are convinced that the order, of which review has been sought, does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed," said a bench of justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran.

 

In its July 5 verdict, the top court had set aside the Gujarat High Court judgement acquitting the nine accused the murder case.

It had restored the trial court's order that had held 12 persons guilty of various offences in the case and had awarded jail term ranging from five years to life imprisonment to them.

Pandya was home minister in the then Narendra Modi-led Gujarat government and was shot dead on March 26, 2003 near Law Garden in Ahmedabad.

According to the CBI, Pandya was killed to avenge the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.

"We restore the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on A1 (Mohmed Asgar Ali), A4 (Kalim Ahmed), A5 (Anas Machiswala), A6 (Mohmed Yunus Sareshwala), A7 (Rehan Puthawala), A8 (Mohmed Riyaz alias Goru), A9 (Mohmed Parvez Sheikh), A10 (Parvez Khan Pathan) and A11 (Mohmed Faruq) under section 3(1) and 3(3) of POTA and 120B (criminal conspiracy) and section 302 (murder) read with section 120B IPC as ordered by the trial court," the apex court had said in its July 5 verdict.

Regarding the three other accused -- Mohmed Abdul Rauf, Mohd Shafiuddin and Shahnawaz Gandhi -- the top court had said since the CBI had not preferred to file any appeal against the lower court's verdict absolving them of murder charges before the high court, "no further interference" was required.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Nov 21 2019 | 6:50 PM IST

Explore News