MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

FACTS

 166 people killed and 238 injured

Sections applicable

IPC

 ss. 302 – murder

 302 read with s.34 - acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
 s.302 read with ss.109
 120-B,121, 121-A and 122 IPC

UAPA

 s.16

JUDGEMENT

 appellant guilty of the offences charged and awarding him five death sentences
 On the basis of ocular evidence alone, the appellant personally and jointly with deceased
accused-1 (DA-1) is directly responsible for killing 72 persons and causing injuries of various
kinds to 130 persons
 He was also found guilty along with other dead accused as a co-conspirator
 Accused 2 &3 were acquitted due to lack of evidence
 They also kinda robbed a scoda
 Trial court judgment upheld by SC –
- (i) u/s 120B IPC read with s.302 IPC for conspiracy to commit murder;
- (ii) u/s 121 IPC for waging war against the Government of India;
- (iii) u/s 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967;
- (iv) u/s 302 IPC for committing murder of 7 persons;
- (v) u/s 302 read with s.34 and s.302 IPC read with s.109 and 120-B of IPC

ANALYSIS

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGEMENT

 prosecution has gathered a very large amount of evidence: ocular, forensic and of other kinds,
e.g., CCTV recordings.
 653 witnesses, including 30 eye witnesses
  . The prosecution has documented the episodes at Leopld Café, Hotel Taj, Hotel Oberoi,
and Nariman House, as well as Mazgaon Taxi Blast as exhaustively as it has documented
the incidents at "CST", "Cama Hospital", snatching of SKODA car and incident at Vinoli
Chowpaty relating to the appellant and D-A 1
 Walkie talkie recordings of prosecution witness 49, Assistant Inspector of Police
attached to the CST Railway Police Station, and his statements which are the basis of the
FIR in regard to CST episode.
 Considerable ocular evidence
- Railways employees, public servants, passengers and other eye witnesses identified the
appellant as the attacker
- The pictures taken by these two witnesses, professional photographers working with a
national newspaper.
- CCTV camera footage
 Arguments to support conspiracy
 other 8 terrorists with whom they jointly made the sea journey to Mumbai's shore
 all were members of let
 the nine dead accused could only be known by their respective names after the
appellant identified them through photographs of their dead bodies
 constant contact with collaborators through phone calls
 (i) the confessional statement by the appellant;
 (ii) the objective findings in the vessel 'Kuber', the inflatable rubber dinghy, the different
places of attack by the other groups of terrorists and the locations of bomb explosions in
the two taxis; and
 (iii) the transcripts of the phone conversations between the terrorists and their
collaborators and handlers from across the border
 Arguments in support of waging war

POSSIBLE ISSUES

 Whether the crime warrented or satisfied the conditions of death penalty - Machhi Singh v.
State of Punjab 1983 ( 3 ) SCR 413 = (1983) 3 SCC 470; and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 1980)
2 SCC 684 - relied on
 Whether conspiracy charges can be levied
 Is this waging of war

CONCLUSION

 First case where SC has granted dead sentence for terrorist act – landmark
 There was exemplary record keeping - the evidence, oral and documentary, it can be said that
"absolute certainty"- could be established.
India's financial capital, witnessed one of the most devastating terrorist attacks in its history.
Commonly referred to as "26/11," this coordinated series of shooting and bombing attacks were
carried out by ten members of the Pakistan-based terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba. Over
the course of three days, these attackers targeted multiple locations across the city, including the
iconic Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Oberoi Trident Hotel, Nariman House Jewish community center,
Leopold Cafe, Cama Hospital, and the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus railway station.

On November 26, 2008, Mumbai, the bustling financial hub of India, came under an
unprecedented terrorist assault. The coordinated attacks, carried out by ten operatives of the
Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, targeted key locations including the Taj Mahal
Palace Hotel, Oberoi Trident Hotel, Nariman House, Leopold Cafe, Cama Hospital, and the
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus railway station. Over the span of three harrowing days,
the attackers claimed 166 lives and injured over 300 individuals, leaving the nation in shock and
mourning.

Among the attackers, Ajmal Kasab was the sole operative captured alive, leading to a landmark
legal case that would become a pivotal moment in India's judicial and counter-terrorism history.
The case of Md. Ajmal Md. Amir Kasab @ Abu Majahid vs State Of Maharashtra attracted
widespread attention, highlighting critical aspects of the Indian legal system, from the
investigation and prosecution of terrorism-related offenses to the protection of due process
rights.

Kasab's trial was a complex and exhaustive legal process, marked by meticulous examination of
evidence, witness testimonies, and rigorous legal arguments. The prosecution presented
overwhelming evidence of Kasab's involvement, including CCTV footage, eyewitness accounts,
and Kasab's own confession. The defense, on the other hand, raised concerns about the fairness
of the trial and the treatment of the accused.

The trial culminated in Kasab's conviction and death sentence, which was subsequently upheld
by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court of India. This case not only reinforced India's
commitment to countering terrorism through legal means but also underscored the challenges of
balancing national security with the principles of justice and human rights.

This case comment aims to delve into the judicial reasoning, the legal principles applied, and the
broader implications of the Supreme Court's verdict in Md. Ajmal Md. Amir Kasab @ Abu
Majahid vs State Of Maharashtra, offering a comprehensive analysis of one of the most
significant legal battles in India's fight against terrorism.

Terror on Trial: A Critical Examination of the Kasab Case Verdict"

Other possible cases

- Joseph shine v UOI

- navtej singh johar vs union of india
-