While arguing on the quantum of punishment for the convicts in the 2006 Aurangabad arms haul case, the defence lawyers on Friday requested the court not to punish convicts more than what they have already undergone, considering that they are only “arrows” and not the “archer” of the conspiracy.
“The court should take into consideration, while deciding the punishment, that the accused did not fire at police or use explosives while the police was chasing them,” said the defence lawyers.
Special public prosecutor Vaibhav Bagade requested the court for an adjournment after the defence concluded its arguments on Friday. Following this, special judge Shrikant Anekar deferred hearing till Saturday for the prosecution’s arguments on the quantum of punishment.
Key plotter behind the 26/11 attacks, Abu Jundal and 11 others were on Thursday convicted by a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court in the Aurangabad arms haul case.
On Friday, senior lawyer Yug Mohit Choudhary on behalf of Jamiat-e-Ulema Maharashtra argued for the convicts that the prosecution’s case is that the conspiracy was to assassinate public figures. But when the police was chasing the accused, they did not attack the police and hence the court should shift its focus from the crime to the offender while deciding punishment, he argued.
Advocate Choudhary along with other defence lawyers Khan Abdul Wahab, Sharif Shaikh, Asif Naqvi and Adil Biyabani argued that while deciding the sentence in cases where maximum punishment is death sentence as per the Supreme Court order, awarding the life sentence is usually the rule and awarding the death sentence is “exceptional, in matters of rarest of rare cases.” The defence pointed out that though in this case convicts were not facing the death penalty the same rule would still apply that minimum sentence should be awarded to convicts if there is no extreme situation.
The defence cited the example of Mumbai’s 1993 serial bomb blasts case in which the trial court had awarded the death sentence to 13 convicts but the Supreme Court commuted 12 out of 13 to life sentence and even the death sentence of planters of the bombs were commuted, considering that they were merely foot soldiers. According to the defence, in the arms haul case too the convicts were foot soldiers and two masterminds behind the crime are still at large.
The lawyer also gave the example of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt’s case and said in the 1993 blasts case there were different stages of conspiracy and Dutt was not part of the core group and, hence, was granted bail. Similarly, in this case, the accused were not part of the main conspiracy and hence should not be awarded maximum punishment, he argued.
Giving the example of provisions for punishment of dacoity, the defence said that there is a maximum punishment of life sentence for dacoity but maximum 10 years of imprisonment for preparation of dacoity. However in the Explosive Substances Act, though there are different sections available for crime and preparation of crime, the maximum sentence of both are the same and in the Aurangabad arms haul case the accused were arrested at the stage of preparation so the court should award them minimum punishment, he said.
Requesting a minimum sentence, the lawyer said the court should also consider who are these accused. Mr Choudhary said they are not suppliers or end users. Even if they were in conscious possession of weapons, they were only transporting it and, hence, they cannot be given punishment at par with the owner, conspirators or end users, he argued.
