A special MCOCA court situated inside the high-security Arthur Road jail on Saturday fixed August 2 for pronouncement of the quantum of punishment for 12 convicts in the Aurangabad arms haul case. The court fixed this date after the prosecution closed its arguments demanding maximum punishment for each and every convict in the case.
Special public prosecutor Vaibhav Bagade on Saturday requested the court to award maximum punishment, i.e. life imprisonment in this case, to alleged LeT operative and an accused in 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks case Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, and 11 other convicts. He said that the accused willingly took part in the conspiracy and there was no pressure on them.
He argued that considering the gravity of the crime, the court should not show any leniency to any of the convicts. “The request of the convicts and their lawyer to take the reformative approach should be avoided because one of the vehicles used to transport the weapons is still missing and a few accused are still at large, so there is a possibility that, if released, the accused could cause harm to society.”
Some of the convicts, while requesting the court for leniency, had said that they are on the path of reformation, are pursuing further education and have also appeared for the Gandhi peace exam while in prison. However, Mr Bagade told the court that reformation and education are far removed from the gravity of this case and if they had any respect for the law and were law-abiding citizens, then the accused would not have committed this crime.
The prosecutor also argued that while the sentence is being decided upon, only the crime committed by the convicts should be taken into account and not the background of the individuals who committed it.
According to Mr Bagade, there was no reason for the police to pick these people up randomly in a false case and the Anti-Terrorism Squad recovered 40 kg of RDX from the accused. He said that RDX is highly explosive and only 10 gm of it is used in a hand grenade, and thus the court could assess the destruction the accused had planned.
Mr Bagade said that in today’s day and age, the whole world is facing a threat from terror and since the accused are facing charges of terrorism, the court would be failing in its duty if undue sympathy is shown to these convicts. He also argued that stringent punishment to these convicts would give a sense of safety and security to the citizens.
Mr Bagade alleged that the defence had misguided the court while referring to Yakub Memon’s case in the 1993 serial blasts case judgment. He told the court that Yakub was not the mastermind of the blasts but was part of the conspiracy but had still been awarded the death sentence.
He said that the defence’s claim that the Supreme Court commuted death sentences for those who were the “arrows” and not the “archers” of the blasts is wrong. According to him, the convicts are part of the conspiracy in this case and hence should also be given maximum punishment.
