New Delhi: A legal tussle over who should sentence Kashmiri separatist leader Asia Andrabi and two of his associates was finally resolved, with a Delhi court on Monday sending back the judge who found guilty to hear sentencing arguments.
Patiala House Court Special Judge (NIA) Prashant Sharma ordered that the matter be placed before his predecessor Chandrajit Singh, who is now posted as District Judge (Family Court) in Karkarduma. (Representative photo)Patiala House Court Special Judge (NIA) Prashant Sharma ruled that the legal precedent of his predecessor Chandrajit Singh, who is now serving as District Judge (Family Court) in Karkarduma, prevented him from hearing sentencing arguments in the case.
The order ends an unusual procedural impasse that emerged a week after the January 14 conviction of Andrabi, the founder of the banned women’s separatist organization Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DEM) — and her associates Sophie Fehmida and Nahida Nasreen (UNLAUPA) under the Act.
HT had reported on January 21 how the case had reached a legal deadlock, not on its merits, but on whether a judge was legally competent to decide the punishment. Uncertainty arose on January 16, when the matter came up before Justice Sharma, who had recently taken charge as the NIA judge at the Patiala House Court, while Singh, who heard the trial and pleaded guilty, was transferred from the special court. Sharma then flagged the issue of jurisdiction and gave time to the NIA prosecutors to say who should hear the sentencing arguments.
In his order on Monday, Sharma said that since his court’s trial, defense evidence or closing arguments were not seized, it would not be legally appropriate for him to decide on the question of sentence. He pointed out that Singh was fully acquainted with the facts of the case, examined the evidence and wrote the verdict of conviction. Both the NIA and the defense, represented by senior advocate Satish Tamta, agreed that the predecessor judge should hear arguments on the sentence in accordance with settled law.
More Read
Sharma relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (1995), which held that conviction and sentence are consequential and integral parts of a judgment. “A judgment cannot be said to be complete unless the punishment to be awarded to the accused is prescribed therein,” the court observed, adding that even an appeal against a conviction under the CrPC lies against the entire judgment including the sentence.
The matter is now listed for sentencing arguments before Singh on February 11 in Karkaduma court.
