The death sentence awarded to Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving gunman of the Mumbai terrorist attack, is a result of a fair and transparent judicial process of India, the US has said.
“This (trial of Kasab) was part of an Indian legal proceeding. Obviously, we have encouraged India and at times, in the aftermath, we have assisted India with the investigation, but this was the result of an Indian fair and transparent legal process,” said Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley.
“We have extensive cooperation with India on counterterrorism and that will certainly continue,” Mr. Crowley said in response to a question at his daily press briefing yesterday.
Kasab, a Pakistani national, was awarded capital punishment on May 6 by a Mumbai special court. The court held him guilty of mass murder and waging war against India, by carrying out the terror strikes in November 2008.
Kasab’s death sentence has to be confirmed by the Mumbai High Court, where the matter would come up automatically. However, this is not the end of road of Kasab as he still has the option to appeal against the judgement before the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court. He can also file a mercy petition before the President of India.
Showing posts with label Ajmal Kasab. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ajmal Kasab. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Kasab’s papers to come up before HC after three months
The exercise of forwarding case papers and judgement of 26/11 special court to the Bombay High Court for confirmation of death penalty imposed on terrorist Ajmal Kasab would take at least three months, special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said.
The 1522-page judgement, proceedings of the year-long- trial, evidence tendered by witnesses and their statements on affidavits as well as the original copies of exhibits and documents tabled by prosecution would be compiled in a ‘paper book’ and sent to the High Court.
The ‘paper book’ in typed format would be forwarded by this month end and thereafter the High Court staff would get involved in printing its contents.
The entire exercise would take at least three months, Mr. Nikam told PTI.
Only after the ‘paper book’ is ready, the High Court would hear the matter and decide on confirmation of death sentence imposed on Kasab for killing 166 persons in Mumbai.
Kasab can also file an appeal in the High Court within 30 days of being held guilty by the court.
The government too can appeal against the acquittal of two co-accused Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed. In that event, the High Court would hear all matters simultaneously.
If the High Court confirms the death penalty then Kasab has a right to appeal in the Supreme Court. He can also approach the President with a mercy petition if the Apex court upholds the capital punishment.
The 1522-page judgement, proceedings of the year-long- trial, evidence tendered by witnesses and their statements on affidavits as well as the original copies of exhibits and documents tabled by prosecution would be compiled in a ‘paper book’ and sent to the High Court.
The ‘paper book’ in typed format would be forwarded by this month end and thereafter the High Court staff would get involved in printing its contents.
The entire exercise would take at least three months, Mr. Nikam told PTI.
Only after the ‘paper book’ is ready, the High Court would hear the matter and decide on confirmation of death sentence imposed on Kasab for killing 166 persons in Mumbai.
Kasab can also file an appeal in the High Court within 30 days of being held guilty by the court.
The government too can appeal against the acquittal of two co-accused Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed. In that event, the High Court would hear all matters simultaneously.
If the High Court confirms the death penalty then Kasab has a right to appeal in the Supreme Court. He can also approach the President with a mercy petition if the Apex court upholds the capital punishment.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Pakistan will examine providing help to Kasab if sought
Pakistan will examine the issue of providing assistance to Ajmal Kasab, convicted for involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks, only if he seeks such aid, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said on Monday.
Mr. Malik told reporters outside parliament that the Pakistan government will react to the conviction of Kasab only after the detailed judgment is made public.
He made the remarks hours after a special court in Mumbai found Kasab, the lone terrorist arrested during the attacks, guilty of murder and waging war against India.
Kasab was convicted on most of the 86 charges against him and faces the death penalty.
Asked by reporters if the Pakistan government will provide aid to Kasab, Mr. Malik said authorities would act within the provisions of law.
“If someone wants or applies (for assistance), we will examine it. If he doesn’t apply, then we will not examine it,” he said.
“Help is given to those who ask for it. If you ask (me), a terrorist is a terrorist,” Mr. Malik added.
Referring to the trial of seven suspects arrested by Pakistani authorities for alleged involvement in the Mumbai attacks, Mr. Malik said the First Information Report against these persons was filed on the basis of Kasab’s statement.
“Our court will want that the person who recorded Kasab’s statement should come (to Pakistan) to testify,” he said.
The Pakistan government recently sought formal access to Kasab to facilitate the trial of the seven suspects, including Lashker-e-Taiba commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi.
Mr. Malik also there was credible information about the death of Hakimullah Mehsud, the chief of the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan.
However, the government cannot conduct a DNA test to prove the death of Hakimullah Mehsud as it did not possess his body, he said.
Hakimullah Mehsud claimed in new video posted on the internet today that he was alive and well.
He also warned that his fighters would carry out attacks on major cities in the U.S. within a month to avenge the killing of top Taliban leaders like Baithullah Mehsud.
Reports earlier this year had said that Hakimullah Mehsud was killed in a U.S. drone attack in Pakistan’s tribal belt in January.
Mr. Malik further said: “Terrorists are not Muslims. They are rather infidels. The operation against militants will continue till the last militant is killed or captured.”
Mr. Malik told reporters outside parliament that the Pakistan government will react to the conviction of Kasab only after the detailed judgment is made public.
He made the remarks hours after a special court in Mumbai found Kasab, the lone terrorist arrested during the attacks, guilty of murder and waging war against India.
Kasab was convicted on most of the 86 charges against him and faces the death penalty.
Asked by reporters if the Pakistan government will provide aid to Kasab, Mr. Malik said authorities would act within the provisions of law.
“If someone wants or applies (for assistance), we will examine it. If he doesn’t apply, then we will not examine it,” he said.
“Help is given to those who ask for it. If you ask (me), a terrorist is a terrorist,” Mr. Malik added.
Referring to the trial of seven suspects arrested by Pakistani authorities for alleged involvement in the Mumbai attacks, Mr. Malik said the First Information Report against these persons was filed on the basis of Kasab’s statement.
“Our court will want that the person who recorded Kasab’s statement should come (to Pakistan) to testify,” he said.
The Pakistan government recently sought formal access to Kasab to facilitate the trial of the seven suspects, including Lashker-e-Taiba commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi.
Mr. Malik also there was credible information about the death of Hakimullah Mehsud, the chief of the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan.
However, the government cannot conduct a DNA test to prove the death of Hakimullah Mehsud as it did not possess his body, he said.
Hakimullah Mehsud claimed in new video posted on the internet today that he was alive and well.
He also warned that his fighters would carry out attacks on major cities in the U.S. within a month to avenge the killing of top Taliban leaders like Baithullah Mehsud.
Reports earlier this year had said that Hakimullah Mehsud was killed in a U.S. drone attack in Pakistan’s tribal belt in January.
Mr. Malik further said: “Terrorists are not Muslims. They are rather infidels. The operation against militants will continue till the last militant is killed or captured.”
Monday, May 3, 2010
‘We had to protect Kasab from within the police dept.’
Mumbai police authorities had to protect Pakistani gunman Ajmal Kasab not only from an angry public, but also from within the police department, Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Rakesh Maria said on Monday.
Mr. Maria, who was Joint Commissioner (Crime) at the time of the Mumbai terror attacks, supervised the investigation, as well as security measures for the 26/11 trial.
“There was a lot of public anger... the department had lost some of the best officers (during the attack), so we had to protect Kasab from within the department because there was anger in department also,” Mr. Maria said.
The special court here is expected to declare the verdict in the 26/11 trial on Monday.
Mr. Maria, who was Joint Commissioner (Crime) at the time of the Mumbai terror attacks, supervised the investigation, as well as security measures for the 26/11 trial.
“There was a lot of public anger... the department had lost some of the best officers (during the attack), so we had to protect Kasab from within the department because there was anger in department also,” Mr. Maria said.
The special court here is expected to declare the verdict in the 26/11 trial on Monday.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Lakhvi wants use of Kasab’s confession barred
Lashker-e-Taiba ‘commander’ Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, facing trial with six others for his alleged involvement in the Mumbai attacks, has filed a petition in Pakistan’s Supreme Court asking it to bar the prosecution from using Ajmal Amir Kasab’s confessional statement against him.
The petition was filed by Lakhvi’s counsel in the Lahore Registry of the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It asked the Supreme Court to bar the prosecution from using Kasab’s confession to Indian authorities against Lakhvi in the trial in the Rawalpindi-based anti-terror court.
It could not immediately be ascertained when and if the petition would be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Lakhvi’s counsel Khwaja Sultan claimed the prosecution had not levelled “any allegation” against his client about his “connection or interaction” with any of the co-accused and persons allegedly involved in the Mumbai attacks of November 2008.
“The investigation of the case is based on the alleged confession of Kasab, who is in Indian custody,” Mr. Sultan said.
Though three charge sheets were filed by the prosecution, no witness had supported Kasab’s statement and Lakhvi was not “accused of giving training to the terrorists involved in the attack,” he added.
“The prosecution, in its challan (charge sheet), maintained that the petitioner was commander of the Lashkar-e-Taiba but could not establish his link with the Mumbai attacks’ accused. Under article 43 of Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order (Pakistan’s law of testimony), a confessional statement of an accused can only be used against his co-accused if they are being tried jointly,” Mr. Sultan said.
Mr. Sultan further claimed that Kasab’s name was never mentioned in the ‘challans’ submitted against Lakhvi.
“Therefore the statement of Kasab cannot be used against Lakhvi,” he said.
Lakhvi and six others — Zarar Shah, Abu al-Qama, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jamil Riaz, Jamil Ahmed and Younas Anjum — are being tried for planning and facilitating the Mumbai attacks.
The prosecution has said that Lakhvi’s lawyers are causing “unnecessary hindrances” in the trial by filing petitions in higher courts. The hearings in the anti-terror court have often been affected by these petitions.
The petition was filed by Lakhvi’s counsel in the Lahore Registry of the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It asked the Supreme Court to bar the prosecution from using Kasab’s confession to Indian authorities against Lakhvi in the trial in the Rawalpindi-based anti-terror court.
It could not immediately be ascertained when and if the petition would be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Lakhvi’s counsel Khwaja Sultan claimed the prosecution had not levelled “any allegation” against his client about his “connection or interaction” with any of the co-accused and persons allegedly involved in the Mumbai attacks of November 2008.
“The investigation of the case is based on the alleged confession of Kasab, who is in Indian custody,” Mr. Sultan said.
Though three charge sheets were filed by the prosecution, no witness had supported Kasab’s statement and Lakhvi was not “accused of giving training to the terrorists involved in the attack,” he added.
“The prosecution, in its challan (charge sheet), maintained that the petitioner was commander of the Lashkar-e-Taiba but could not establish his link with the Mumbai attacks’ accused. Under article 43 of Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order (Pakistan’s law of testimony), a confessional statement of an accused can only be used against his co-accused if they are being tried jointly,” Mr. Sultan said.
Mr. Sultan further claimed that Kasab’s name was never mentioned in the ‘challans’ submitted against Lakhvi.
“Therefore the statement of Kasab cannot be used against Lakhvi,” he said.
Lakhvi and six others — Zarar Shah, Abu al-Qama, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jamil Riaz, Jamil Ahmed and Younas Anjum — are being tried for planning and facilitating the Mumbai attacks.
The prosecution has said that Lakhvi’s lawyers are causing “unnecessary hindrances” in the trial by filing petitions in higher courts. The hearings in the anti-terror court have often been affected by these petitions.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
26/11 trial ends, verdict on May 3
Marking an end to the year-long 26/11 trial, the special sessions court here on Wednesday announced May 3, 2010, as “the day of judgment.” Judge M.L. Tahaliyani announced the date after the defence lawyer for the third and last accused, Sabahuddin Ahmed, concluded his final arguments.
On May 3, the court will give its verdict on the various charges against Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab, and co-accused Fahim Ansari and Sabahuddin. The recording of the judgment will be done in April.
“May 3 ko faisla hoga aapka [Verdict will be pronounced for you on May 3],” Mr. Tahaliyani informed Kasab, who appeared unmoved by the announcement. He did not interact with his lawyer K.P. Pawar on Wednesday and has not done so in a long time.
Speaking to The Hindu over phone, Mr. Pawar said, “I have tried to put my case successfully. I have submitted my arguments in writing. So, there is no fear of leaving anything out. My work was to show the improbability of evidence, which I have done. I am satisfied with my arguments on all accounts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on my expectations at this point.”
A total of 86 charges have been framed in the case. The three accused face charges of waging war, criminal conspiracy and those under sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act among others.
The trial which began on April 15 last year had 191 hearings during which 653 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The final arguments began on March 9 and lasted through the month with the prosecution laying out its case over a span of 11 days.
Sabahuddin's lawyer Ejaz Naqvi said his client was “innocent” and should be given the benefit of doubt. He said the prosecution had not brought anything on record to prove that Nuruddin Mehboob Shaikh, the only eyewitness against his client, had ever been to Kathmandu, in Nepal. He termed the witness “bogus.”
He blamed the prosecution for remaining silent on the role of American terror operative David Coleman Headley. “The prosecution spoke about the historic depositions by the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigations], but there is nothing on what the FBI has investigated about Headley.”
The court said that since Headley was in the FBI custody, he was not its lookout. “At present we can't discuss these things. The Home Ministry is doing what it wants to do,” Mr. Tahaliyani said.
As for the map, which Sabahuddin allegedly conveyed to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Mr. Naqvi said Kasab and his partner Abu Ismail's movements in the city are not as per the directions of the handmade sketch. Referring to Kasab's confession where he names Sabahuddin, Mr. Naqvi said since all the trainees were assigned different aliases, Sabahuddin could be anybody, other than his client.
The court expressed its displeasure over Mr. Naqvi's seemingly tenuous arguments, which had the courtroom in splits on certain occasions. When they were concluded, Mr. Tahaliyani told Mr. Naqvi, “I thought you would present serious arguments. I am disappointed.”
Mr. Tahaliyani posed four queries to the prosecution. It emerged from Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam's replies to them that the investigators had not taken any steps to verify Nuruddin Shaikh's visit to Kathmandu. The map which was recovered from Ismail's pocket was not examined for bloodstains and for traces of Ismail's DNA.
Asked if the handmade sketch would have served the purpose of navigation better than what was already available, Mr. Nikam answered it was difficult to establish what went on in the minds of the Lashkar handlers.
On May 3, the court will give its verdict on the various charges against Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab, and co-accused Fahim Ansari and Sabahuddin. The recording of the judgment will be done in April.
“May 3 ko faisla hoga aapka [Verdict will be pronounced for you on May 3],” Mr. Tahaliyani informed Kasab, who appeared unmoved by the announcement. He did not interact with his lawyer K.P. Pawar on Wednesday and has not done so in a long time.
Speaking to The Hindu over phone, Mr. Pawar said, “I have tried to put my case successfully. I have submitted my arguments in writing. So, there is no fear of leaving anything out. My work was to show the improbability of evidence, which I have done. I am satisfied with my arguments on all accounts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on my expectations at this point.”
A total of 86 charges have been framed in the case. The three accused face charges of waging war, criminal conspiracy and those under sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act among others.
The trial which began on April 15 last year had 191 hearings during which 653 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The final arguments began on March 9 and lasted through the month with the prosecution laying out its case over a span of 11 days.
Sabahuddin's lawyer Ejaz Naqvi said his client was “innocent” and should be given the benefit of doubt. He said the prosecution had not brought anything on record to prove that Nuruddin Mehboob Shaikh, the only eyewitness against his client, had ever been to Kathmandu, in Nepal. He termed the witness “bogus.”
He blamed the prosecution for remaining silent on the role of American terror operative David Coleman Headley. “The prosecution spoke about the historic depositions by the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigations], but there is nothing on what the FBI has investigated about Headley.”
The court said that since Headley was in the FBI custody, he was not its lookout. “At present we can't discuss these things. The Home Ministry is doing what it wants to do,” Mr. Tahaliyani said.
As for the map, which Sabahuddin allegedly conveyed to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Mr. Naqvi said Kasab and his partner Abu Ismail's movements in the city are not as per the directions of the handmade sketch. Referring to Kasab's confession where he names Sabahuddin, Mr. Naqvi said since all the trainees were assigned different aliases, Sabahuddin could be anybody, other than his client.
The court expressed its displeasure over Mr. Naqvi's seemingly tenuous arguments, which had the courtroom in splits on certain occasions. When they were concluded, Mr. Tahaliyani told Mr. Naqvi, “I thought you would present serious arguments. I am disappointed.”
Mr. Tahaliyani posed four queries to the prosecution. It emerged from Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam's replies to them that the investigators had not taken any steps to verify Nuruddin Shaikh's visit to Kathmandu. The map which was recovered from Ismail's pocket was not examined for bloodstains and for traces of Ismail's DNA.
Asked if the handmade sketch would have served the purpose of navigation better than what was already available, Mr. Nikam answered it was difficult to establish what went on in the minds of the Lashkar handlers.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
26/11 final arguments today
The final arguments in the trial of 26/11 terror attack case accused Ajmal Kasab will begin on Tuesday in a special court here with the prosecution expected to focus on countering the stand taken by him that he is not a terrorist and was being framed by police.
With Kasab's lawyer K.P. Pawar is likely to stress on his statement in the court that he had come from Pakistan by Samjhauta Express as a tourist to Delhi and from there arrived in Mumbai a few days before the attacks, the prosecution led by Ujjwal Nikam would be putting forward arguments to disapprove the claims.
Special Public Prosecutor Nikam would also have to demolish Kasab's stand that he was not injured in police encounter and that the injury sustained by him in his hand was inflicted by police to implicate him in the crime.
The prosecution's case is that Kasab had sailed from Karachi along with nine terrorists in a boat and midway they hijacked Indian fishing trawler Kuber by which they arrived near Mumbai coast. They were carrying a dingy (rubber boat) with the help of which they landed on the shores of the city.
After landing in Mumbai the terrorists, in pairs of two and four, fanned out to different areas and shot at people in Hotel Taj, Hotel Trident, Leopold Cafe, Nariman House, CST and Cama hospital, killing 166 persons and injuring many others.
Kasab has disputed prosecution's charge that he and other terrorists had opened fire with AK-47 rifles and told the court that he had never seen such a weapon.
With Kasab's lawyer K.P. Pawar is likely to stress on his statement in the court that he had come from Pakistan by Samjhauta Express as a tourist to Delhi and from there arrived in Mumbai a few days before the attacks, the prosecution led by Ujjwal Nikam would be putting forward arguments to disapprove the claims.
Special Public Prosecutor Nikam would also have to demolish Kasab's stand that he was not injured in police encounter and that the injury sustained by him in his hand was inflicted by police to implicate him in the crime.
The prosecution's case is that Kasab had sailed from Karachi along with nine terrorists in a boat and midway they hijacked Indian fishing trawler Kuber by which they arrived near Mumbai coast. They were carrying a dingy (rubber boat) with the help of which they landed on the shores of the city.
After landing in Mumbai the terrorists, in pairs of two and four, fanned out to different areas and shot at people in Hotel Taj, Hotel Trident, Leopold Cafe, Nariman House, CST and Cama hospital, killing 166 persons and injuring many others.
Kasab has disputed prosecution's charge that he and other terrorists had opened fire with AK-47 rifles and told the court that he had never seen such a weapon.
Monday, February 22, 2010
26/11 accused asks to examine NIA chief, Rahul Bhatt as witnesses
Sabauddin Ahmed, an accused in the 26/11 terror attack case today sought permission from the trial court to examine NIA Chief S. C. Sinha, Gujarat DGP S. S. Khandwawala, Rahul Bhatt - son of film maker Mahesh Bhatt, and Fitness Instructor Vilas Warak as defence witnesses.
Ahmed’s lawyer Ejaz Naqvi told the court that he wants to examine these four witness to establish that terror suspect David Headley had conducted the recce of Mumbai before the 26/11 attack and not Sabahuddin as alleged by the prosecution.
“David Headley was staying at Malabar Hill in Mumbai and had conducted recce of the entire city and had passed on information to the 26/11 perpetrators. Then what is the need for Sabahuddin to prepare the sketches?” Mr. Naqvi asked.
He further argued that according to the investigation agencies, Headley had also conducted recce of the Osho ashram in Pune near which a blast took place on February 13.
Asked by special judge M. L. Tahiliyani as to what evidence Mr. Rahul Bhatt and Mr. Vilas Warak can give, Mr. Naqvi said the duo were close friends of Headley and had visited several places in the city with him.
However, special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam opposed the application of Sabahuddin stating that the evidence of these witness was not relevant in the trial and also that Mr. Naqvi was going on hypothesis that the whole 26/11 attack took place because of Headley.
“According to the prosecution, Sabahuddin and Faheem Ansari had prepared the maps of the terror sites and supplied them to the perpetrators. However, the possibility of Headley also supplying pictures of the terror sites cannot be ruled out,” Mr. Nikam told the court.
The court will pass its order on the application tomorrow.
Besides Sabahuddin, Ansari and Ajmal Kasab are facing trial. While Kasab is charged with killing 166 persons in the attack, Sabahuddin and Ansari are facing charges of drawing maps of targets and passing them on militant outfit LeT for executing the terror strikes.
Ahmed’s lawyer Ejaz Naqvi told the court that he wants to examine these four witness to establish that terror suspect David Headley had conducted the recce of Mumbai before the 26/11 attack and not Sabahuddin as alleged by the prosecution.
“David Headley was staying at Malabar Hill in Mumbai and had conducted recce of the entire city and had passed on information to the 26/11 perpetrators. Then what is the need for Sabahuddin to prepare the sketches?” Mr. Naqvi asked.
He further argued that according to the investigation agencies, Headley had also conducted recce of the Osho ashram in Pune near which a blast took place on February 13.
Asked by special judge M. L. Tahiliyani as to what evidence Mr. Rahul Bhatt and Mr. Vilas Warak can give, Mr. Naqvi said the duo were close friends of Headley and had visited several places in the city with him.
However, special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam opposed the application of Sabahuddin stating that the evidence of these witness was not relevant in the trial and also that Mr. Naqvi was going on hypothesis that the whole 26/11 attack took place because of Headley.
“According to the prosecution, Sabahuddin and Faheem Ansari had prepared the maps of the terror sites and supplied them to the perpetrators. However, the possibility of Headley also supplying pictures of the terror sites cannot be ruled out,” Mr. Nikam told the court.
The court will pass its order on the application tomorrow.
Besides Sabahuddin, Ansari and Ajmal Kasab are facing trial. While Kasab is charged with killing 166 persons in the attack, Sabahuddin and Ansari are facing charges of drawing maps of targets and passing them on militant outfit LeT for executing the terror strikes.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Kasab wants Rane as witness, 26/11 court rejects plea
Seeking to delay the 26/11 trial, Pakistani gunman Ajmal Kasab on Wednesday sought to call Maharashtra minister Narayan Rane as a defence witness but the special court rejected the plea terming his request as “irrelevant” and concluded the recording of evidence.
Special court judge M L Tahaliyani adjourned the case to February 20 for arguments.
Kasab made the request through his lawyer K P Pawar, who pleaded that Revenue Minister Rane be examined as defence witness as he had made a public statement that some local elements had helped the 26/11 terrorists. Soon after the carnage, Mr. Rane said he knew some politicians who had provided monetary and logistical support to terrorists.
However, when Solapur-based Purushottam Barde filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court seeking an inquiry into his statement, M. Rane, in an affidavit said that he had simply referred to N.N. Vohra committee’s report on criminalisation of politics and not talked about individuals.
Pawar contended that since Kasab was charged with participating in the conspiracy, Mr. Rane’s evidence would throw light on people involved in planning and executing the attacks.
Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam opposed Kasab’s plea saying Rane’s deposition was not relevant to the case.
The judge felt that Mr. Rane’s deposition would not help Kasab in any way and would be a waste of time.
