Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1
Bench: Justice Aftab Alam and Justice C.K. Prasad
Date of Judgment: August 29, 2012

Facts of the Case

The case concerns the horrendous 26/11 lone terrorist attacks in Mumbai on 26 November 2008, which were orchestrated over a 4-days-long period and had a ghastly cost of 166 lives lost and over 300 people wounded. One of the attackers was Ajmal Kasab, the only terrorist to survive, who proved a boon to investigators by recounting every minute detail of the attacks and their evil planning.

The attack was carried out by Kasab, a member of the Pakistan-based extremist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The attackers picked high-profile targets near the Arabian Sea including two hotels (the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and (Oberoi-Trident Hotel) and a train station (Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus), and caused mayhem and panic throughout. But this is not the only place where Kasab is actively engaged in crimes, he has been directly involved in the process of the slaughter of innocent citizens, And the brutal murder of the brave CSMT policemen Hemant Karkare, Vijay Salaskar, and Ashok Kamte.

Kasab was arrested on the night of Nov 26-27, 2008, after a tense face-off at Girgaum Chowpatty. His capture proved to be key in revealing fundamental information about the attackers’ elaborate training and their handlers in Pakistan. But piecing together those secrets exposed a dark tangle of scheming, and opened up the origins of one of the most horrific episodes in the recent memory of Mumbai. Kasab was captured the night of November 26-27 2008, after a face-off at Girgaum Chowpatty. His arrest led to revealing details about the training and preparations of the attackers and the involvement of the Pakistani handlers.

Questions

1. Was accused Kasab guilty of the crimes for which he stood accused namely waging war against the Government of India (Section 121 IPC)/(Section 52 BNS)?
2. Did Kasab, for all his heinous offenses, have a right to a fair trial?
3. PhD in a history that needed the death penalty to apply in this case?
4. Were Kasab’s confessions voluntary and admissible under the Indian law?

Procedural History

During the procedural history, important legal actions were taken against Kasab, a perpetrator in the Mumbai attack of 2008. On February 19, 2010, the verdict was sent to court, Kassab was convicted of multiple serious offenses — he had been charged with 86 counts of murder, waging war against the country and terrorism — be handed the death sentence, on May 6, 2010. The Bombay High Court then examined the Trial Court’s judgment and on 21 February 2011, confirmed it, thus sealing Kasab’s fate. After this, Kasab chose to challenge the verdict and moved to the Supreme Court, hoping his death sentence will be alleviated by Supreme court. It was the Supreme Court that eventually had to hear the matter, examining in detail the complexities of the legal processes leading to Kasab’s conviction and death sentence. At last, the Court rendered its decision and rejected the petition filed to challenge Kasab’s conviction, even though some efforts were made during the appeal to gain a degree of leniency. This landscape of different levels of the system revealed the nature of Kasab’s grave charges as well as the entrenched mechanisms in place to deal with these unforgiving crimes, eventually leading to the irrevocable death sentence.

Arguments for the Appellant ( Kasab)

As the trial went on, Kasab consistently argued that he was the victim of a process that denied him the most basic right to a fair hearing, which was the effective principle of the state of law that had been violated against him. He vigorously maintained that all admissions or confessions offered in evidence against him had been obtained by intimidation and coercion so as to vitiate the fairness of his trial.”

Ed: Some Procedural Irregularities, Defense counsel raised serious issues about what it saw as egregious failures in the investigative steps that were taken. In particular, they highlighted instances of direct tampering with evidence and coercive methods of detention employed during Kasab’s police custody. Such irregularities, the defence maintained, cast a pall over the whole legal process and the credibility of the evidence led against the Appellant.

In the Mitigating Circumstances, Kasab’s lawyers pleaded for mercy, requesting consideration to reduce his culpability due to several mitigating factors. They made a well-founded case that Kasab, being young, was very vulnerable to extremist indoctrination which had had its surety on his actions. They also noted that there was no apparent direct evidence connecting him to some of the gravest allegations against him, appealing to the judicial process to take these key factors into consideration in the pursuit of justice.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State of Maharashtra)

For Respondent (State of Maharashtra), it may not be out of place to highlight the plethora of evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial of Kasab. The evidence in the case, which comprised CCTV of the killings, witness statements and Kasab’s own confession, painted a damning picture of the events that night. These pieces of evidence corroborated one another and offered a complete picture of the role of Kasab in the heinous crime that shocked the country.

It is, however, more important to expose the threat to national security posed by Kasab’s activities. The severity of the issue was further underscored when he was found while being part of a well-planned operation to wage war against India and cause widespread destruction and loss of life. These are not trivial arrangements designed for eroding the country and frightening its populace.

This is also an unusual case for these reasons. The facts and circumstances of the case established that the case is of the rarest of rare category as it is of gruesome nature, the crime committed was premeditated, it clearly demonstrate that the present is the case of the rarest of rare. If there was ever a case demanding the most severe sentence, this is it. The combined nature of the crime, as well as the gross destruction it appears to have caused, easily concludes that justice must run its course in the strictest manner possible.

It is safe to say that the arguments in the Respondent’s favour make a prima facie compelling argument that the severity of the circumstances in this case are significant. The evidence, the implications for national security, as well as the typical features of the case all point to a need for justice to be dispensed in a mode commensurate with the gravity of the crime committed by Kasab.

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling in rejecting Kasab’s appeal, upholding his conviction and confirming the death penalty, has serious implications. Kasab has been found guilty beyond the slightest shadow of doubt, and that is the undisputable message from this landmark ruling.

All the charges framed against him including the one for murder under Section 302 IPC, waging war against nation under Section 121 IPC, etc, and the sections of UAPA, were meticulously proved before the court. The prosecution had a compelling suite of evidence across the board to lay out its case, be it Kasab’s own confession statements, incriminating CCTV footage, compelling eyewitness accounts and the damaging forensic evidence.

Also, the Court had an eye on the fairness of the trial process conducted against Kasab. Despite the public outrage it had generated and the brutality of his crimes, the Court noted that Kasab received sufficient legal representation and the procedural safeguards of due process during the trial process and had therefore, in some sense, received due process.

One landmark issue in this case was regarding admissibility of Kasab’s confession, as a sensitive matter, which was disposed of briefly, by the Court. The Court upheld Kasab’s confession as voluntary and backed by other corroborative evidence, rejecting all allegations of intimidation or coercion in the making of the confession.

The Court justified the use of death penalty noting the enormity of the crime committed by Kasab and the irreparable loss of innocent lives caused by him. This designation the “worst of the worst” crimes is an important statement about the Court’s commitment to ensure justice, and to deterrence against such violations of human rights.

The court decisions in this case also illuminate key legal standards relevant in these cases. This essentially means that when it comes to crimes that shock society with the extreme brutality employed core to the crime, the “rarest of rare” doctrine’s limited scope, as laid down by the Supreme Court, comes into play.

Moreover, the ripple effects of prioritizing the protection of fair trial rights even for individuals facing the indictments of world’s most horrendous crimes demonstrate the Court’s dedication to the rule of law and due process. 505072)These safeguards, the Court insisted, the voluntariness of confessions, as defined, and the existence of corroborating evidence, meant that justice is done, and that justice is done openly and according to law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Kasab case is a testament to an independent judiciary’s resolution to do justice as part of upholding rule of law and giving closure to victims, as well as laying the legal foundations for similar cases in the future.

Conclusion

The State of Maharashtra fought a long and arduous battle in the court rooms with Ajmal Kasab and in the process, proved the country’s resolve to uphold its essential constructs, especially in the wake of heinous acts of terrorism. The Supreme court’s clear and consistent verdict in this matter is indicative of our country’s unwavering dedication towards giving due process and fair trial which is a solid precedent for future legal processes against the perpetrators of terrorism. The passage of this judicial milestone through judicious and meticulous processes, demanding justice, also constituted a remarkable advance towards the fact that India had a comprehensive plan about the kind of society it was striving for.

There cannot be a better ending of one of the biggest scourge of the nation by sealing the fate of Kasab with his hanging on November 21, 2012 — last chapter of one of the most horrific cases of terrorism faced by India — which also demonstrated that sensitive issues can be dealt with political acumen mixed with justice, national security and human rights sensitivity. In this historic case, India, through its actions, was able to show the world its strength in tackling terrorism, by sending out a strong message that no matter what the situation is, violence will be responded to with serious legal scrutiny as well as a stern commitment to the supremacy of law.

The historical ramifications of the Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra case will be felt for a long time; for it is a wonderful trial, a beacon of hope in a broken system and testimony to the unwavering commitment of our nation to uphold the core principles of justice and equality. The long reverberations of this case are profound, going well beyond its immediate outcome and offering telling lessons for how nations can navigate the challenging path of combatting terror while safeguarding essential rights and freedoms for all people.

 

References

• (ajmal md.Amir Kasab @Abu Majahid vs state of maharashtra on 29 August, 2012) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193792759/> accessed 26 January 2025
• Hangal L, ‘Judicial Analysis on the Case of Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra Air 2012 SC 3565’ (lawyersclubindia, 23 March 2017) <https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/judicial-analysis-on-the-case-of-mohd-ajmal-amir-kasab-vs-state-of-maharashtra-air-2012-sc-3565-8013.asp> accessed 26 January 2025
• (Amir Kasab.pdf) <https://ijtr.nic.in/Amir%20Kasab.pdf> accessed 26 January 2025