The savage attack on Mumbai by ten members
of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) Fidayeen squad in November 2008, has been
vividly recorded for posterity by the electronic and print media. Known as India's
9/11, it resulted in the deaths of 166 innocent people, including 28
foreigners. For the first time, a terrorist who was seen executing people
mercilessly at the Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus along with his partner in
crime, was captured alive. 58 innocent passengers, women and children
included, were killed in this horrendous crime.
The lone captured terrorist, Ajmal Amir Kasab, was also seen on TV channels
the world over, giving details of his training in Pakistan, and the
directions given to them by LeT’s bosses to kill as many Indians, Americans
and Israelis as possible. The conversations between the terrorists and
their handlers in Pakistan
were also monitored by Indian and other Intelligence agencies in real time.
What is the significance of capturing Kasab alive? The whole world has seen
Kasab wielding the AK47 at the Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, and heard his
confession on TV. Should it have taken 18 months for his trial? Let us try
and answer these questions.
The Fidayeen attack on the Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001, was also
captured on the TV, live. All the 9 terrorists, suspected to be Pakistanis
from the LeT and the Jaish-e-Mohammad, who took part in the attack were
killed in the confrontation with the Indian security forces deployed at the
Parliament House. We could not establish the identity of these 9
terrorists. Pakistan
refused to accept that they were Pakistani citizens. In the case of Ajmal
Kasab also, Pakistan
initially denied that he was their citizen. It was only after the international
media established the parentage and village
of Kasab that, a month later Pakistan reluctantly acknowledged that Kasab
was indeed its citizen and that some part of the conspiracy to attack
Mumbai was hatched in Pakistan.
This is the significance of capturing the terrorist alive in the Mumbai
case. The other important aspect of getting Kasab alive was that details of
the conspiracy to attack Mumbai and terrorize its people could be collected
from him during his sustained interrogation by the investigators. The type
of training they received, the details of the trainers and motivators, the
various camps where training was conducted, the description of the safe
houses, the details of the ten terrorists who were sent from Karachi to
attack Mumbai, the details of their travel from Karachi to Mumbai during
which they hijacked an Indian vessel Kuber and killed its occupants, their
arrival at the Mumbai coast etc were collected after detailed interrogation
of Kasab. This confessional statement of Kasab, which was later recorded
under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code of India by a Magistrate,
will form an important piece of evidence in the trial against the planners
of the Mumbai attack currently on way in a Pakistani court. The Indian
stand that the chief patron of LeT, Hafiz Sayed, was involved in the Mumbai
terror attack is based on Kasab's statement. This then is the significance
of capturing Kasab alive.
The criminal justice system as it operates in India, consists of the
investigating agency, the prosecuting agency, the judiciary and the jail
administration. We believe that until proved guilty by due process of law,
the accused is presumed to be innocent. We may have seen Kasab on TV
killing innocent people in the railway terminus, and seen and heard him
making his confession on TV. But that is not due process of law. The
process under the Criminal Justice System commences after a case is
registered under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Police
Station. After due investigation, the case is charge sheeted in the
jurisdictional court by the investigating officer, citing the various
evidence, oral, documentary and scientific collected in the course of
investigation, on which the charge sheet is based. The judge then conducts
the trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code, by summoning
witnesses and recording their evidence, after giving opportunity to the
defence lawyer to cross-examine the witness. If for some reason the accused
is not in a position to engage a lawyer, then the State engages one on his
behalf. Kasab's lawyer was engaged by the State. Witnesses who have seen
Kasab firing with the AK47 have to depose, and the weapon seized from Kasab
has to be proved to have been used in the killing. That apart, to establish
the conspiracy, the communication used by the terrorists and their
handlers, including Voice Over Internet Protocol, had to be established
through scientific means. The trial was useful in that, because for the
first time in India,
officers of the FBI gave evidence, mostly scientific. The significance of
this is the cooperation in tackling international terrorism that the trial
has brought about.
The trial further established that the court is not a rubber stamp in India,
whatever be the terrorist provocation. Two others charge sheeted along with
Kasab, were acquitted by the court. The investigation had alleged that
these two accused, Sabauddin Ahmed and Fahim Ansari, had given the
terrorists maps of the various places that had been attacked. The court found
the evidence produced by the prosecution unreliable. In the light of the
disclosures of David Coleman Headley, indeed the accusations against the
two acquitted accused had begun to sound hollow. Thus, though the
trial took some time, the end result has more than justified the due
process that it had to go through.
|
