| CITATION | (2012) 9 SCC 1 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 29 AUGUST, 2009 |
| COURT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| APPELLANT | MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMADAMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID |
| RESPONDENT | STATE OF MAHARASHTRA |
| BENCH | Aftab Alam, J. |
INTRODUCTION
The 26–29 November 2008 will always be remembered as the dark days in Indian history when a group of 10 terrorists trained in Pakistan infiltrated the country and mercilessly murdered innocent civilians. India has been a target of terrorist attacks since its inception. The actions on November 26, 2008, were seen by the whole globe as having rocked every Indian citizen’s very conscience. Ajmal Kasab and his associates broke the law when they entered India, bringing with them guns and ammunition with the goal of terrorizing the population. This action is viewed as a fight to free Kashmir against the Indian government. 166 people were slain and 238 wounded in the horrifying crimes.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasab, a Pakistani native, received five death sentences and an equal number of life sentences in this country for numerous offences. Warfare and abetting war against the Government of India; commission of terrorist act; criminal conspiracy to commit murder committing murder of a number of persons; attempt to murder with common intention; criminal conspiracy and abetment; abduction for murder; robbery/dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt; and causing explosions were some of the major crimes committed on Indian soil by and his associates.
2. Ajmal Kasab and his companions illegally entered India, purchased rifles and ammunition, shot indiscriminately, and murdered hundreds.
3. The Pakistan-based militant organization Laskhar-e-Toiba not only planned the entire attack, but also managed the terrorists, instructing and guiding them throughout.
4. Kasab and his companions attempted to wage war against the Government of India in order to free Kashmir, killing 166 people and injuring 238 more.
ISSUE RAISED
1. Was Kasab given a free and fair trial before being convicted?
2. Whether Kasab’s death sentence was justifiable.
CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT
First off, the appellant’s unwillingness to accept an Indian counsel’s services and his desire for a lawyer from his nation can only be seen as his own autonomous choice. In those circumstances, and particularly when Pakistan denied that the appellant was even a citizen of Pakistan, the demand for a Pakistani lawyer may have been unfeasible or even foolish, but the man did not require any guidance from an Indian court or authority regarding his rights under the Indian Constitution. His actions were highly autonomous, and he saw himself to be a “patriotic” Pakistani at war with this nation.
Finally requesting legal counsel on March 23, 2009, the appellant seems to have arrived to the conclusion that neither Pakistan nor any other country would be able to assist. He was then given a pair of solicitors right away.
According to Mr. Raju Ramachandran, the appellant’s confession was coerced and was made to support the prosecution’s case rather than being made voluntarily. The confession’s phrasing, tone, and tenor alone indicated that it was not of a voluntary character. Numerous clues in the confession itself demonstrated that it was given at the investigatory agency’s request. According to Mr. Ramachandran, the confession was excessively extensive and full of facts that were utterly unneeded and out of place because they had no bearing on the charges for which the confession was being given.
According to Mr. Ramachandran, there was no justification for naming every one of them in a confession relating to the terrorist assault on Mumbai. He continued by pointing out that the appellant appears to have a remarkable memory in the confessional statement, naming a large number of people along with their aliases, home towns, street names, and names given to them by the Jihadi group as well as names given to them by Hindu groups in preparation for the attack on Mumbai. The appellant would indicate not only the kind of transportation used but also the amount of time it took to get from one location to the next while speaking about his visits to the many Lashkar-e-Toiba headquarters located in various locations. He would first mention the name of the person he met at the office’s entrance before mentioning the name of the person he met inside. When one office sent him to the other office or training camp, he would speak what was written on the slips of paper. Mr. Ramachandran claimed that all of those specifics were unneeded in a confession and that a person confessing to the Mumbai assault would typically not go into all of those details on his own unless prodded by a third party.
According to Mr. Ramachandran, this Court should fully disregard the appellant’s confessional statement for the grounds he raised. Furthermore, if the confessional testimony is disregarded, his conviction cannot stand, at least for the murder committed on the Kuber and the fatalities from the Vile Parle cab bomb.
The death penalty was deemed excessive for Kasab’s conduct, according to his attorneys, and it also went against his constitutional rights. Additionally, they claimed that Kasab had not received a fair trial.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
The goal of the criminal justice system is to ascertain the truth, not to protect the accused from the repercussions of his action. The trial must be conducted by a defence attorney using evidence that was legitimately gathered over the course of the inquiry.
Respondent Contention
The respondent’s contentions were as follows:
Kasab committed the crime of waging war on the state. Armed with bombs and guns, he had illegally entered India and taken part in a terrorist attack that left 166 people dead and 308 wounded.
Kasab had committed murder. During the attack, he had killed numerous individuals, including a police officer and a doctor.
Kasab committed the crime of attempted murder. During the assault, he had made many additional murderous attempts.
The only just retribution for Kasab’s actions was the death penalty. Kasab had displayed no regret for his conduct, despite the fact that the assaults had resulted in significant loss of life and property.
Respondent Arguments
In support of its contentions, the respondent presented the following arguments:
- • Declaring war on the state: According to the responder, Kasab’s conduct amounted to declaring war on the state. Armed with bombs and weapons, he had illegally entered India and committed a terrorist act that resulted in the deaths and injuries of innocent people. According to the reply, Kasab’s acts were intended to destabilise the government and terrify the populace.
- • Murder: The respondent claimed Kasab committed murder in connection with the attack’s several fatalities. He had slain many civilians, a doctor, and a police officer. The reply contended that Kasab was accountable for these individuals’ deaths since Kasab’s acts had led to their demise.
- • Attempt to murder: According to the respondent, Kasab attempted to kill a number of other persons during the attack, making him guilty of this crime. He had shot at a number of them in an effort to kill them. The respondent contended that Kasab was accountable for these people’s attempted murders since his conduct had the intent to kill them.
- • Death sentence: The respondent contended that Kasab’s crimes only warranted the death penalty. Kasab had displayed no regret for his conduct, despite the fact that the assaults had resulted in significant loss of life and property. The respondent maintained that the death penalty was required to protect the public from Kasab and to discourage other terrorist acts.
Reactions
The verdict was received with conflicting responses. Some people applauded the choice, claiming that Kasab deserved to be punished for his actions. Others criticised the choice, saying it violated people’s rights.
Implications
The ruling represents a significant development in Indian law. The Supreme Court has never before affirmed the death penalty for a terrorist attack. The verdict is probably going to have a big influence on how future terrorism cases are prosecuted in India.
JUDGEMENT
The appellant, Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’ or as ‘Kasab’), who is a Pakistani national, has earned for himself five death penalties and an equal number of life terms in prison for committing multiple crimes of a horrendous kind in this country. Some of the major charges against him were: conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India; collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India; waging and abetting the waging of war against the Government of India; commission of terrorist acts; criminal conspiracy to commit murder; criminal conspiracy, common intention and abetment to commit murder; committing murder of a number of persons; attempt to murder with common intention; criminal conspiracy and abetment; abduction for murder; robbery/dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt; and causing explosions punishable under the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. He was found guilty of all these charges besides many others and was awarded the death sentence on five counts, life-sentence on five other counts, as well as a number of relatively lighter sentences of imprisonment for the other offences.
The judgment relied on the following provisions of law:
The crime of waging war against the state is defined under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code. The court decided that because Kasab had entered India illegally, was carrying weapons and explosives, and had carried out a terrorist assault that resulted in the deaths and injuries of innocent people, his acts constituted waging war against the state.
The crime of murder is defined under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The judge ruled that Kasab was guilty of murder for the attack’s several fatalities.
The crime of attempted murder is defined under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result of the attack’s attempted kills of numerous more victims, the court found Kasab guilty of attempted murder.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 Section 16 The act of belonging to a terrorist organisation is prohibited in this provision. The court ruled that Kasab belonged to the Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 Section 30 The crime of conspiring to conduct a terrorist act is described in this section. The court decided that Kasab had planned the Mumbai attacks with other Lashkar-e-Taiba members.
The court also considered the following provisions of law in its judgment:
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects everyone’s right to life and individual freedom. The court determined that Kasab’s case qualified as one of the extremely few instances in which the death sentence should be applied.
The right to equality before the law is guaranteed by Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The death sentence cannot be applied in a discriminatory manner, the court said.
The right to protection of life and individual freedom is guaranteed under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that the accused’s basic rights cannot be violated in the execution of a death sentence.
Kasab was found guilty of all accusations brought against him, and the Supreme Court determined that the only just punishment was the death penalty. The court determined that Kasab had perpetrated horrific acts and had no remorse for his deeds. The court also determined that Kasab’s execution was required to protect the public from him and to discourage such terrorist acts.
A significant development in Indian law is the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kasab case. The Supreme Court has never before affirmed the death penalty for a terrorist attack. The verdict is probably going to have a big influence on how future terrorism cases are prosecuted in India.
Conclusion
The respondent’s arguments were supported by the Supreme Court, and Kasab was given the death penalty. The court determined that Kasab was guilty of all accusations brought against him and that the only fitting punishment was the death penalty.
REFERENCE
- http://indiankanoon.org
- https://m.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021205/edit.htm
- https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-appellant-mohammed-ajmal-mohammad.html/
- https://www.casemine.com/search/in/waging%20war%20against%20india/
- https://nia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/LawReference/32_1_Ajmal_Kasab_-_Supreme_Court_Judgment.pdf/
- https://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/the-appellant-mohammed-ajmal-mohammad-amir-kasab-abu-mujahid-hereinafter-referred-to-as-the-appellant-or-as-kasab-who-is-a-pakistani-national-has-earned-for/
Written by Lavkesh gour an intern under legal vidhiya.
