AFTAB ALAM, CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD
MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
Freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to reasonable restrictions; actions violating Article 21 rights or national security cannot be justified by free speech claims. (!)
Right to counsel in India is not based on Miranda principles but on protections against self-incrimination embedded in Indian statutes. (!)
Criminal justice aims to uncover truth, not shield the accused from consequences. (!)
Courts must provide counsel at trial commencement unless accused clearly waives it; failure vitiates trial. (!)
Magistrate has mandatory duty under CrPC Section 164(2)-(4) to protect against self-incrimination. (!)
Voluntary statements do not violate Article 20(3); statutory framework fully protects constitutional rights. (!)
CrPC and Evidence Act provisions embody constitutional guarantees for liberty and dignity. (!)
Phone transcripts of co-conspirators qualify under Evidence Act Section 10 as non-confessional evidence. (!)
Appellant convicted of conspiracy to wage war (IPC Section 120B r/w 302, 121, 34, 109), terrorist acts (UAPA Section 16), and murders; death on five counts, life on five others upheld. (!) [judgement_act_referred]
No Article 22(1) violation; appellant offered counsel at arrest, declined, demanded Pakistani lawyer; no prejudice shown. (!)
Article 20(3) fully safeguarded by CrPC Sections 161-164; Miranda irrelevant. (!)
Confession under CrPC Section 164 voluntary if proven; test is voluntariness, not lawyer's hypothetical advice. (!)
Legal aid right arises on first production before magistrate; magistrate must inform accused of right to counsel at state expense if indigent. (!)
Absolute duty to provide trial counsel unless clear waiver; pre-trial failure may not vitiate unless prejudice shown. (!)
Transcripts admissible under Evidence Act Section 10 against appellant as co-conspirator evidence. (!)
Death sentence justified: appellant unrepentant Lashkar-e-Toiba member; no reform possible; youth offset by lack of remorse. (!)
Conspiracy involved waging war via Mumbai attacks to kill, hostage-take, incite strife; meticulous planning from Pakistan. (!)
Facts: 10 terrorists from Pakistan attacked Mumbai 26-29 Nov 2008; 166 dead (18 police, 26 foreigners), 238 injured; appellant killed 7 personally, 72 with accomplice. (!)
Trial court convicted appellant on all counts (death x5, life x5); acquitted Ansari/Ahmed; High Court upheld. (!)
Prosecution based on police investigation and appellant's voluntary Section 164 confession detailing conspiracy/preparation/execution. [1000516030007]
Magistrate insulated appellant from police, gave reflection time (24+48 hrs), ensured voluntariness; confession detailed family, Lashkar joining, training, sea journey, Mumbai attacks. [1000516030009]-[1000516030015]
Appellant detailed Lashkar induction (Dec 2007), trainings (Daura-e-Suffa, Amma, Khassa, Ribat, marine), selection for fidayeen attack, targets (CST/VTS, hotels, Nariman House), fake IDs, arms distribution. [1000516030023]-[1000516030073]
Sea journey: Karachi to Mumbai via Al-Hussaini, hijacked Kuber, killed navigator Solanki, landed Badhwar Park 26 Nov ~9PM. [1000516030071]-[1000516030083]
CST attack: planted bomb (failed), fired AK-47s/grenades, killed 52, injured 109; identified by multiple eyewitnesses/police. [1000516030102]-[1000516030157]
Cama Hospital: entered, fired/grenades, killed/injured several; terrace encounter. [1000516030158]-[1000516030185]
Killed police in Qualis (Karkare, Kamte, Salaskar), snatched Skoda, caught Vinoli Chowpaty; Ombale killed by appellant. [1000516030186]-[1000516030253]
Vile Parle taxi blast: appellant/Ismail's taxi bomb killed 2, injured 3. [1000516030254]-[1000516030260]
Other sites: Leopold (11 dead), Taj (36 dead), Oberoi (35 dead), Nariman (9 dead); total 166 dead. [1000516030272]-[1000516030290]
Arms: AK-47s, pistols, grenades, RDX from Pakistan; pink foam links sites. [1000516030291]-[1000516030358]
Intercepted calls: handlers guided attacks, exhorted jihad, deceived as Indian Muslims, celebrated kills. [1000516030359]-[1000516030400]
Kuber: hijacked Indian boat, Solanki killed; GPS/satellite phone recovered per appellant's disclosure. [1000516030315]-[1000516030344]
No due process violation; voluntary confession; lawyer offered at arrest/trial. [1000516030407]-[1000516030488]
Waging war: attack as foreign enemy action against Indian sovereignty. [1000516030534]-[1000516030552]
Death penalty: rarest of rare; no reform possible; upheld. [1000516030553]-[1000516030586]
Ansari/Ahmed acquitted: unreliable evidence. [1000516030587]-[1000516030596]
JUDGMENT
Aftab Alam, J.
1. 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 sente
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The list contains numerous references to the case of Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab, which appears to be a frequently cited and relied upon precedent, especially in contexts involving electronic evidence, confessions, and procedural rights. There are no clear signals (such as "overruled," "reversed," or "criticized") in the provided descriptions that any case law has been invalidated or discredited in subsequent judgments. Therefore, based on the available information, no cases are definitively identified as bad law.
**Followed / Cited Favorably:**
Multiple references indicate that the case of Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab (supra) has been relied upon in subsequent decisions, including detailed discussions on electronic evidence, rights of the accused, and procedural safeguards. For example:
"MOHINDER SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2013 1 Supreme 452: ... The said principle was followed subsequently in Mohd. Munna Vs. Union of India..."
"State of Rajasthan VS Jamil Khan - 2013 7 Supreme 161: ... Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab alias Abu Mujahid vs. ... The Court in Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab (supra)..."
"Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri VS State of Gujarat - Crimes (2014): ... Moreover, it has been held by this Court in the case of Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. ..."
"ALDANISH REIN VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 3061: Ajmal Kasab v. State Of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1..."
"Gajabeersab S/o Rajesab Nadaf VS State of Karnataka - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1651: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu Mujahid v. ... State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1..."
"Leela D/o Ghevar Ram VS State Of Rajasthan - 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 138: A bare perusal of the precedent law of Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab & Ors. Vs. ... State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 1..."
"Barkat VS State Of U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2303: Finally, in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. ... State of Maharashtra which was a case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987..."
"In Re : An Application For Bail Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure In Connection With Ndps Case No. 198 Of 2021 Arising Out Of Lalgola P. S. Case No. 698 Of 2021 Dated 17. 09. 2021 Under Sections 21©/29 Of The N. d. p. s. Act. VS . - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 631: State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 54; Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. ... In Shafhi Mohammad Vs. ..."
"Satheesh Kumar VS Inspector of Police - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2868: State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178, Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab vs. ..."
These references suggest that the case is a leading authority and has been consistently followed or cited with approval.
**Referred to in the Context of Electronic Evidence and Procedural Rights:**
Several entries highlight reliance on the Kasab case regarding electronic evidence, confession rights, and reflection time, e.g.:
"K. Sangkhuma VS State of Mizoram - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 1030: Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab Alias Abu Mujahid..."
"K. Sangkhuma VS State of Mizoram - 2014 0 Supreme(Gau) 1029: Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab Alias Abu Mujahid v. ... In the case of Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab (supra)..."
"Tomaso Bruno VS State of U. P. - Crimes (2015): The relevance of electronic evidence is also evident in the light of Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab vs. ..."
"Chandrasekar VS State - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 2754: Stae of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178; (4) Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. ..."
"Surendra Koli VS State through Central Bureau of Investigation - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1378: In Mohd Ajmal Amir Kasab v. ... Supreme Court in Mohd Ajmal Amir Kasab v. ..."
"Jayram Salam, S/o Late Chandal Singh Salam VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 448: In the matter of Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab v. ..."
**Other Treatment Patterns:**
The case of Kasab appears to be frequently cited as a key authority in criminal procedure, evidence, and constitutional rights contexts, with no indication of it being questioned or criticized.
Several references to the Kasab case involve reliance on or mention of the judgment without explicit commentary on its current validity or treatment status. For example:
"Indira Vishnoi W/o Shri Mohan Lal Vishnoi VS Director, Central Bureau of Investigation - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 436: In Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab (supra), Supreme Court, while examining right of an accused under Article 21 & 22(1) of the ...", which suggests citation but not treatment status.
"K. C. Saritha, W/o. A. N. Vijayakumar VS A. N. Vijayakumar, S/o. Late Nagabhushanam - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1828: The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in the case of Shafi Mohammad (supra)...", indicating approval but not explicitly confirming ongoing validity.
Some references to the Kasab case are in the context of reaffirming principles or discussing procedural safeguards, but treatment as overruled or criticized is not evident.
The absence of explicit negative language or mention of overruling suggests that the treatment of Kasab in these references remains favorable or at least unchallenged.
**Summary:**
No cases are explicitly overruled or treated as bad law based on the provided descriptions.
The case of Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab is a frequently cited and influential precedent, especially in matters related to electronic evidence, confessions, procedural rights, and terrorism-related cases.
The treatment appears to be generally favorable, with multiple references indicating it as a foundational or guiding decision.
Cases where the treatment is ambiguous or only cited without explicit commentary include:
"Indira Vishnoi W/o Shri Mohan Lal Vishnoi VS Director, Central Bureau of Investigation - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 436" and "K. C. Saritha, W/o. A. N. Vijayakumar VS A. N. Vijayakumar, S/o. Late Nagabhushanam - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1828" where references are made to the Kasab case without clear indication of whether it is upheld or criticized.
Several references are in the context of reaffirmation or reliance, but without explicit statements about the case's current standing or treatment, leaving some ambiguity.
Due to the lack of explicit negative treatment or mention of overruling, these are categorized as uncertain rather than negative.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.