Case Summary: Md. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1

1. CASE NAME: Md. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1
2. COURT NAME: Supreme Court of India
3. BENCH: Justice Aftab Alam and Justice C.K. Prasad
4. DATE OF JUDGEMENT: August 29, 2012
5. PARTIES:
   • Appellant – Md. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab (sole surviving terrorist)
   • Respondent – State of Maharashtra
6. RELEVANT PROVISIONS/STATUTES: 

• Indian Penal Code: Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 121 & 121A (waging war/conspiracy to wage war), 324, 427.
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: especially Section 16 (terrorist act) and related provisions.
• Constitution of India: Articles 20(3), 21 and 22(1) relating to fair trial, right to legal representation and protection against self-incrimination.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 164 (recording of confession), Section 304 (legal aid to accused)

FACTS:

• On November 26, 2008, ten heavily armed, Pakistan-trained Lashkar e Taiba terrorists infiltrated Mumbai by sea and carried out coordinated attacks at multiple locations (Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Cama Hospital area, Leopold Café, Taj Mahal Hotel, Oberoi Trident, Nariman House, and others), killing over 160 people and injuring many more.
• Kasab and an associate (Abu Ismail) carried out the CST and Cama hospital attacks; Ismail was killed in an encounter, but Kasab was apprehended alive with weapons and ammunition.
• During the investigation, Kasab made a detailed confession under Section 164 CrPC before a magistrate, recounting his recruitment by Lashkar e Taiba, training in Pakistan, and role in the Mumbai operations; he later attempted to retract it at trial.
• Following a special fast track trial, the trial court convicted Kasab on numerous counts, including waging war against India, murder, conspiracy, and terrorist offences, and imposed multiple sentences, including death, while acquitting co-accused Fahim Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed.
• Under Section 366 CrPC, the death sentence was referred to the Bombay High Court, which confirmed Kasab’s conviction and death sentence while upholding the acquittal of the two co-accused.

ISSUES:

• Whether Kasab’s constitutional right to legal aid and representation (Articles 21, 22(1); Section 304 CrPC) was violated, particularly at the pre-trial and investigation/remand stages.
• Whether the confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC was voluntary, free from coercion, and admissible, or hit by Article 20(3) and Sections 24–26 of the Evidence Act.
• Whether the large corpus of ocular, forensic, electronic (CCTV, call intercepts), ballistic and other evidence was sufficient to prove Kasab’s participation in the attacks and the broader conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether the facts satisfied the ingredients of “waging war against the Government of India” under Sections 121 and 121A IPC.
• Whether the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category warranting confirmation of the death penalty.

ARGUMENTS:

Prosecution (State of Maharashtra)

Fair trial and legal representation ensured:

• Submitted that Kasab was informed of his rights and that the State made serious efforts to secure competent defence; when Indian lawyers were first unwilling and he also refused them, the court eventually appointed experienced counsel, satisfying Articles 21, 22 and Section 304 CrPC.
• Argued that insistence on a Pakistani lawyer, when Pakistan itself disowned him, could not invalidate the trial.

Voluntary confession corroborated by strong evidence:

• Contended that the magistrate scrupulously followed Section 164 safeguards: explaining that Kasab was not bound to confess, giving reflection time, recording in question answer form and ensuring absence of police, showing voluntariness.
• Pointed out extensive corroboration from CCTV footage, eyewitnesses, recovery of weapons, ballistic reports, intercepts of conversations with handlers and other material, making the confession reliable even if retracted.

Proof of conspiracy and waging war; rarest of rare:

• Argued that the attacks were planned and executed as a war like operation against India’s sovereignty and security, squarely attracting Sections 121, 121A IPC and UAPA provisions.
• Submitted that the enormity, brutality, targeting of civilians and national institutions, and absence of remorse placed the case firmly in the “rarest of rare” category justifying the death penalty.

Defence (Kasab)

Violation of right to counsel and legal aid:

• Argued that he had no effective legal assistance during crucial stages such as police interrogation, confession and remand; hence Article 21 and 22(1) and Section 304 CrPC were breached.
• Claimed that refusal to provide a Pakistani lawyer of his choice meant denial of a fair trial.

Involuntary / inadmissible confession:

• Contended that the Section 164 CrPC confession was obtained under duress, inducement or police pressure, and without proper legal advice, offending Article 20(3) and Sections 24–26 of the Evidence Act.
• Emphasised later retraction of the confession and sought exclusion of that statement from consideration.

Evidence and benefit of doubt:

• Challenged reliability of eyewitnesses, identification, CCTV, call data and forensic links, arguing gaps in chain of custody and possibility of fabrication.
• Submitted that given alleged investigative lapses and the extreme penalty, any reasonable doubt must enure to his benefit.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed Kasab’s appeals, confirmed his conviction on all major charges, and upheld the death sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Bombay High Court. The Court also upheld the acquittals of co-accused Fahim Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed, stating that the prosecution failed to prove their involvement in the conspiracy. Kasab was eventually executed on November 21, 2012, following the dismissal of review and curative petitions and the rejection of a mercy petition.

(PARTS OF THE OFFICIAL JUDGEMENT)

“We are unable to accept the submission that the appellant was a mere tool in the hands of the Lashkar-e-Toiba. He joined the Lashkar-e-Toiba around December 2007 and continued as its member till the end, despite a number of opportunities to leave it. This shows his clear and unmistakable intention to be a part of the organization and participate in its designs. Even after his arrest he regarded himself as a “watan parast”, a patriotic Pakistani at war with this country. Where is the question of his being brain-washed or acting under remote control? We completely disagree that the appellant was acting like an automaton. During the past months while we lived through this case we have been able to make a fair assessment of the appellant’s personality. It is true that he is not educated but he is a very good and quick learner, has a tough mind and strong determination. He is also quite clever and shrewd.[104] Unfortunately, he is wholly remorseless and any feeling of pity is unknown to him. He kills without the slightest twinge of conscience. Leaving aside all the massacre, we may here refer only to the casualness with which the appellant and his associate Abu Ismail shot down Gupta Bhelwala and the shanty dwellers Thakur Waghela and Bhagan Shinde at Badruddin Tayabji Marg; the attempt to break into the wards of Cama Hospital to kill the women and children who were crying and wailing inside; and the nonchalance with which he and Abu Ismail gunned down the police officer Durgude on coming out of Cama Hospital.

The saddest and the most disturbing part of the case is that the appellant never showed any remorse for the terrible things he did. As seen earlier, in the initial weeks after his arrest he continued to regard himself as a “watan parast”, a patriotic Pakistani who considered himself to be at war with this country, who had no use for an Indian lawyer but needed a Pakistani lawyer to defend him in the court. He made the confessional statement before the magistrate on February 17, 2009, not out of any sense of guilt or sorrow or grief but to present himself as a hero. He told the magistrate that he had absolutely no regret for whatever he had done and he wanted to make the confession to set an example for others to become Fidayeen like him and follow him in his deeds. Even in the course of the trial he was never repentant and did not show any sign of contrition. The judge trying him had occasion to watch him closely and has repeatedly observed about the lack of any remorse on the part of the appellant. The High Court, too, has noticed that the appellant never showed any remorse for the large-scale murder committed by him. This, to our mind, forecloses the possibility of any reform or rehabilitation of the appellant. The alternative option of life sentence is thus unquestionably excluded in the case of the appellant and death remains the only punishment that can be given to him.”

RATIO DECIDENDI

Confessions under TADA Section 15 are admissible if procedural safeguards are followed, even while in custody; terror attacks resulting in mass civilian deaths qualify as the “rarest of rare” requiring the death penalty when reformation is impossible and deterrence is required. The “balance sheet” approach to sentencing holds that aggravating factors (premeditation, brutality, lack of remorse) outweigh mitigators (age, no priors).

FINAL DECISION

The Supreme Court upheld Kasab’s death sentence on all 86 charges, classifying the case as “rarest of rare” under CrPC section 354(3). Kasab was executed by hanging on November 21, 2012, at Yerwada Central Jail in Pune, after the President rejected his mercy petition.

REFERENCES

•  Madhvi, Mohammed Ajmal Kasab v State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1, LAWBHOOMI (Jan. 31, 2025)
• Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra (2012): Case Summary, TESTBOOK
• Sonu Choudhary, Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012), NIYAMSKANOON (May 2024)
• Aunnesha Dey, Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab vs State of Maharashtra (Aug. 24, 2015)
• Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 S.C.C. 1 (India), ID Para 563 &  564
•  Aunnesha Dey, Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab vs State of Maharashtra (Aug. 24, 2015), ID PG 11