The Bombay high court on Monday finally gave its much-awaited judgement in the 26/11 terror attacks case, nailing Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, the only terrorist captured alive that night, on several counts. Some of the salient features of the judgement include:
Kasab waged a war
Kasab waged a war against the government of India, pursuant to a conspiracy which was hatched in Pakistan. The objective was to destabilise the government of India, whose stability is most essential for the existence of a democratic India, and to weaken India’s economic might.
He indulged in mindless killings of innocent people with a view to overawe the government and achieve cessation of a part of Indian territory [Kashmir]. There was an attempt to create ill-will and disaffection between different religions of India.
He killed innocent citizens
Kasab mercilessly killed innocent people with AK-47 rifles and explosives. Those killed include women, children, aged people and policemen. The attack unleashed such a wave of terror that several victims were not even ready to come forward and depose in the court. Kasab, in his confessional statement, has said that he and his associate decided to go to hospital rooms [at Cama Hospital] and kill women and children. He had no qualms about killing patients.
He was not forced to join LeT
Kasab was not compelled by the Lashkar-e-Taiba to fall in line with its ideology. His statement shows that he voluntarily joined the LeT. He willingly underwent extensive training for jehad. It is impossible to say that he was misguided by LeT or that he was merely used by the handlers as a tool. He knew the consequences of his actions, and he wanted to be part of the conspiracy.
His age of no consideration:
Extreme brutality and diabolic nature of the crime that arouses public indignation can override the consideration of age. Kasab’s conduct shows that his mental age overrides his physical age.
He is not mentally unstable:
Kasab did not appear to be repentant at all. He was in a proper frame of mind. All his actions — the manner in which he committed the crime, his cleverly trying to change his stand in court and other attendant circumstances — portray a scheming mind and not a mind of a mentally unstable person.
He will not become a martyr:
The argument that he will become a martyr and so death sentence should not be awarded to him does not deter us from confirming his death sentence. We want those who are desirous of emulating him to know that courts do not take a kindly view of such people. We are of the confirmed opinion that any misplaced or unwarranted sympathy would be counterproductive.
