2006 Mumbai train blasts case: Prosecution seeks death penalty for 8 out of 12 convicted

Mumbai: The prosecution on Wednesday demanded capital punishment for eight persons of the 12 convicted in the 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts, while it sought life imprisonment for the remaining four even as the special MCOCA court hearing the case reserved its order on sentencing for 30 September. Dubbing all the 12 convicts in the case as “merchants of death”, Special Public Prosecutor Raja Thakare pressed for death to eight of them. “Considering their role, eight convicts deserve death penalty,” he told the court. Earlier this month, Judge Yatin Shinde convicted 12 accused while acquitting one person in the case. Serial blasts on the suburban local trains on 11 July, 2006, killed at least 188 people and left over 800 injured. The convicts for whom death was sought are Kamal Ahamed Ansari, Dr Tanvir Ahmed Ansari, Mohammed Faisal Shaikh, Ehtesham Siddiqui, Shaikh Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Ansari, Naved Hussain Khan and Asif Khan. [caption id=“attachment_2443624” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Representational image. AFP[/caption] For the remaining four convicts - Mohamid Majid Shafi, Muzzammil Shaikh, Soheil Shaikh and Zamir Ahmed Shaikh - Thakre told the court that it may consider punishment slightly on a different footing than the other eight. “In the event the court finds that these four convicts deserve some leniency then my submission is that, they are found guilty for offences which attract multiple life imprisonments, they should be sentenced to life till their end of their lives or for not less than 60 years,” the prosecutor told the court. “Some of the thinkers pose a question that if they are merchants of death then why people’s money should be used for upkeep of these convicts. It’s a public cry… Why the honest taxpayers money is burdened,” Thakare told the court. The prosecutor also said that the target and the timing chosen for carrying out the blasts are other aggravating circumstances. “It is common knowledge that suburban train from Churchgate to Virar is always fully crowded and during peak hours they are jam-packed. And a bomb blast in a running train or stationary train are bound to cause maximum casualities because of the rush,” argued the prosecutor. Therefore, choosing of time and targets also shows the “extreme mentality” of the convicts. Thakare said there were some misconceptions that the convicts were held guilty on the basis of confession. “We pointed that direct evidence and circumstantial evidence matched with the confession.There was a debate about death as 70 percent countries have abolished it,” he said. “In India, capital punishment is retained. In recent report of Law Commission, it is mentioned that the death sentence may be continued in cases of terrorism and crime against the state,” he told the court. The prosecutor told the court that the extent and reach of terrorists travels beyond effective reach of ordinary crime (which is capable of punishment by ordinary law). “The main objective of terrorist(s) is to disturb harmony, peace and tranquillity. It aims at creation of insecurity among people,” Thakare argued. He said terrorism in itself is an abnormal phenomenon. “The extent of terror wave was such that it creates feeling of insecurity and the atmosphere is polluted that one would lose faith against another”, the prosecutor argued. Thakare also told the court that age and ill health is not universally accepted as ‘mitigating circumstances’. Drawing parallel with Yakub Memon, (executed convict of 199 Mumbai serial blasts), the prosecutor said Memon was a Chartered Accountant and was from a respectable background. “He had no antecedents and was suffering from depression from 1996 but the Supreme Court did not consider it as the mitigating circumstances,” he argued. Thakare also contended that the submission by the defense lawyers that confession given by the convicts in police custody should be considered as a sign of reformation, should be outrightly rejected. He told the court that no accused showed any remorse of repentance. “Just by saying to the court that they are reformed or read many books of Mahatma Gandhiji is not enough. “If you (the convicts) claim that you have repented and hence gave confession, then where was the question of retracting?” Thakare asked. He also argued that all the accused, during the trial, were claiming that Indian Mujahideen co-founder Sadik Sheikh carried out the train blasts but when he was called as a witness it (the claim) fell flat. The prosecutor also said that when the investigating officer confronted the convicts with many things during the investigation they felt there is no escape now (hence the convicts confessed). “Contending that accused confessed out of repentance is false and has to be rejected at threshold,” Thakare argued. He also told the court that the accused said illness they suffered is another mitigating circumstances but a person outside may also suffer from illness hence it is not proper to say that the convicts contracted the disease in jail. On the defense’s contention that economic hardships and socio-economic background is a mitigating circumstance, the prosecutor told the court that it was not the case that any accused was living in poor condition and was tempted by money or quick money to take to this crime. He said there is no point in saying that now the family is poor and it is a mitigating circumstance. The prosecutor also argued that educational qualification of the convicts is not mitigating circumstances. “Yakub was a Chartered Accountant but it (the fact) never went with the SC,” Thakare argued. He said that a witness called from IGNOU said that the inmates in the jail take education as they have ample time. “Another reason why they take up education is that under the guise of examination they get an opportunity to mix with others,” Thakare told the court and argued that taking education is not reformation. Speaking about the defense’s contention that the accused had good conduct in jail as well as the court, Thakare said the court record shows that there are many adverse reports from jail about the misconduct of the convicts. He said there are records about misconduct also during trial. “This material(s) are enough to show that accused have not reformed and there is no scope. They even showed scant regard for judicial officers,” Thakare said. The prosecution also sought to negate the defense’s arguments that families of the convicts have not abandoned them. “Family is dear and in their eyes the convicts are innocent. Even hardest criminals get visitors from family,” Thakare contended. Thakare also told the court that the convicts never thought about the victims and their families and now are asking what will happen to their families after they die. He told the court that the hardships faced in the jail and the solitary confinement cannot be the mitigating circumstances and records show that some of the accused themselves made applications praying that they be kept in high security Anda cell. “Lone terrorist caught in the 26/11 attack Ajmal Kasab was kept in solitary confinement and was hanged and his death penalty was upheld by Supreme Court,” the prosecutor argued. Thakare said that all the miscellaneous circumstances cannot outweigh the gravity of offence and therefore the facts of this case and aggravating circumstances shows that even if mitigating circumstances, given its full weightage, should not tilt the balance in favour of the accused. Thakare also said that many of the convicts were very well educated and in the course of trial made many applications and some in their own handwriting. This shows, the prosecutor argued, that the convicts were mature enough and knew what is right and wrong. “It cannot be proper to call them victim of circumstances or they were dragged into this activity,” the prosecutor. He also said that the dastardly act was not in the spur of the moment but an outcome of a long planning. “There is a long gap between the time they underwent training in Pakistan and the blasts were executed, they had ample opportunity to retreat and reform but on the contrary they continued it with utmost secrecy”, Thakare argued. Considering these aspects they cannot plead for leniency, he said. In the trial that lasted for eight years, the prosecution examined 192 witnesses, including eight Indian Police Service (IPS) and five Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers as well as 18 doctors. The defence lawyers examined 51 witnesses and one person was called as a court witness. The deposition made by witnesses runs into around 5,500 pages. Seven RDX bombs had exploded in the first class coaches of Mumbai’s suburban trains within a span of 10 minutes between Khar Road-Santacruz, Bandra-Khar Road, Jogeshwari-Mahim Junction, Mira Road- Bhayander, Matunga-Mahim Junction and Borivali. The MCOCA judge had concluded the trial on 19 August last year. The examination of witnesses resumed after two years since the Supreme Court had stayed the trial in 2008. Before the stay, the prosecution had already examined a police officer. The Supreme Court vacated the stay on 23 April, 2010. PTI