By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist Mohammad Arif alias Ashfaq looking for assessment of its verdict awarding dying penalty to him within the sensational 2000 Red Fort assault case that left three Army jawans useless.
The apex court docket stated there was nothing on report which may be taken to be a mitigating circumstance in Arif’s favour and the truth that there was a “direct attack” on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India fully outweighs the elements which can even remotely be introduced into consideration because the mitigating circumstances.
Dealing with the problem raised by the petitioner that the courts involved had erred in permitting name data to be admitted in proof within the absence of an applicable certificates below part 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, a bench headed by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit stated the opposite circumstances on report do clearly spell out and show past any doubt his involvement within the crime.
The bench, additionally comprising justices S R Bhat and Bela M Trivedi, stated it’s effectively accepted that the cumulative impact of the annoying elements and the mitigating circumstances have to be taken into consideration earlier than the dying sentence is awarded.
“Coming back to the instant case, there is nothing on record which can be taken to be a mitigating circumstance in favour of the review petitioner. The suggestion that there is a possibility of retribution and rehabilitation is not made out from and supported by any material on record,” it stated.
“On the other hand, the aggravating circumstances evident from the record and especially the fact that there was a direct attack on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, completely outweigh the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as mitigating circumstances on record,” the bench stated in its 40-page judgement.
According to the prosecution, on the night time of December 22, 2000, some intruders had entered the world the place the unit of seven Rajputana Rifles of the Indian Army was stationed contained in the Red Fort right here. The police had stated that within the firing that was opened by the intruders, who had thereafter left by scaling the rear facet boundary wall of the Red Fort, three Army jawans had misplaced their lives.
Arif was awarded dying sentence by a trial court docket in October 2005 and the Delhi High Court had affirmed the view of the trial court docket in September 2007. He had then approached the apex court docket difficult the excessive court docket’s verdict. The high court docket had in August 2011 affirmed the dying sentence awarded to Arif.
Later, his assessment petition got here up earlier than a two-judge bench of the apex court docket which dismissed it in August 2012.
The healing petition was additionally rejected in January 2014. Thereafter, he filed a petition submitting that assessment petitions in issues arising out of the award of dying sentence be heard by a bench of three judges and in open court docket.
ALSO READ | Nothing adjustments with dying penalty
A structure bench of the apex court docket had in its September 2014 judgement concluded that in all circumstances through which a dying sentence was awarded by the excessive court docket, such issues be listed earlier than a bench of three judges.
Before the September 2014 verdict, the assessment and healing petitions of dying row convicts weren’t heard in open courts however had been determined in chamber proceedings by circulation.
In January 2016, a structure bench had directed that Arif shall be entitled to hunt a re-opening of the dismissal of the assessment petitions for an open court docket listening to inside one month.
In its verdict delivered on Thursday, the apex court docket famous that the problem has been raised principally on 4 grounds, together with that any chance of retribution and rehabilitation of the assessment petitioner or that he would proceed to be a menace to society, was not thought-about by the courts.
It stated one of many grounds raised by Arif was that his disclosure statements have to be taken to be inadmissible on account of ill-treatment meted out to him throughout the intervening night time between his precise arrest and his formal arrest.
The bench famous that the fundamental submission superior by Arif’s counsel was concerning the admissibility of digital data being known as knowledge data (CDRs).
The high court docket referred to some earlier judgements delivered by the apex court docket together with on the problem of admissibility of name data with out there being an applicable certificates below part 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act.
“In conclusion, it must therefore be observed that even after eschewing circumstances ‘h’ and ‘j’ which were directly attributable to the CDRs relied upon by the prosecution, the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt the involvement of the review petitioner in the crime in question,” it stated.
The bench stated the disclosure assertion was held to have been proved by the courts within the matter and in assessment jurisdiction, it might not be attainable to enter into questions relating to admissibility of such disclosure assertion on problems with reality.
It stated the disclosure assertion had led the police to cover out right here and when the police crew arrived with Arif, there was firing on the police and after one Abu Shamal alias Faisal had died within the encounter, sure fireplace arms and ammunition had been recovered.
“The submission that such recovery of ammunition or the encounter of Abu Shamal could not be associated with the disclosure statement of the review petitioner is not quite correct,” the apex court docket stated.
“Consequently, we do not find any merit in the instant review petitions, which are accordingly dismissed,” it stated.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist Mohammad Arif alias Ashfaq looking for assessment of its verdict awarding dying penalty to him within the sensational 2000 Red Fort assault case that left three Army jawans useless.
The apex court docket stated there was nothing on report which may be taken to be a mitigating circumstance in Arif’s favour and the truth that there was a “direct attack” on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India fully outweighs the elements which can even remotely be introduced into consideration because the mitigating circumstances.
Dealing with the problem raised by the petitioner that the courts involved had erred in permitting name data to be admitted in proof within the absence of an applicable certificates below part 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, a bench headed by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit stated the opposite circumstances on report do clearly spell out and show past any doubt his involvement within the crime.
The bench, additionally comprising justices S R Bhat and Bela M Trivedi, stated it’s effectively accepted that the cumulative impact of the annoying elements and the mitigating circumstances have to be taken into consideration earlier than the dying sentence is awarded.
“Coming back to the instant case, there is nothing on record which can be taken to be a mitigating circumstance in favour of the review petitioner. The suggestion that there is a possibility of retribution and rehabilitation is not made out from and supported by any material on record,” it stated.
“On the other hand, the aggravating circumstances evident from the record and especially the fact that there was a direct attack on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, completely outweigh the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as mitigating circumstances on record,” the bench stated in its 40-page judgement.
According to the prosecution, on the night time of December 22, 2000, some intruders had entered the world the place the unit of seven Rajputana Rifles of the Indian Army was stationed contained in the Red Fort right here. The police had stated that within the firing that was opened by the intruders, who had thereafter left by scaling the rear facet boundary wall of the Red Fort, three Army jawans had misplaced their lives.
Arif was awarded dying sentence by a trial court docket in October 2005 and the Delhi High Court had affirmed the view of the trial court docket in September 2007. He had then approached the apex court docket difficult the excessive court docket’s verdict. The high court docket had in August 2011 affirmed the dying sentence awarded to Arif.
Later, his assessment petition got here up earlier than a two-judge bench of the apex court docket which dismissed it in August 2012.
The healing petition was additionally rejected in January 2014. Thereafter, he filed a petition submitting that assessment petitions in issues arising out of the award of dying sentence be heard by a bench of three judges and in open court docket.
ALSO READ | Nothing adjustments with dying penalty
A structure bench of the apex court docket had in its September 2014 judgement concluded that in all circumstances through which a dying sentence was awarded by the excessive court docket, such issues be listed earlier than a bench of three judges.
Before the September 2014 verdict, the assessment and healing petitions of dying row convicts weren’t heard in open courts however had been determined in chamber proceedings by circulation.
In January 2016, a structure bench had directed that Arif shall be entitled to hunt a re-opening of the dismissal of the assessment petitions for an open court docket listening to inside one month.
In its verdict delivered on Thursday, the apex court docket famous that the problem has been raised principally on 4 grounds, together with that any chance of retribution and rehabilitation of the assessment petitioner or that he would proceed to be a menace to society, was not thought-about by the courts.
It stated one of many grounds raised by Arif was that his disclosure statements have to be taken to be inadmissible on account of ill-treatment meted out to him throughout the intervening night time between his precise arrest and his formal arrest.
The bench famous that the fundamental submission superior by Arif’s counsel was concerning the admissibility of digital data being known as knowledge data (CDRs).
The high court docket referred to some earlier judgements delivered by the apex court docket together with on the problem of admissibility of name data with out there being an applicable certificates below part 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act.
“In conclusion, it must therefore be observed that even after eschewing circumstances ‘h’ and ‘j’ which were directly attributable to the CDRs relied upon by the prosecution, the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt the involvement of the review petitioner in the crime in question,” it stated.
The bench stated the disclosure assertion was held to have been proved by the courts within the matter and in assessment jurisdiction, it might not be attainable to enter into questions relating to admissibility of such disclosure assertion on problems with reality.
It stated the disclosure assertion had led the police to cover out right here and when the police crew arrived with Arif, there was firing on the police and after one Abu Shamal alias Faisal had died within the encounter, sure fireplace arms and ammunition had been recovered.
“The submission that such recovery of ammunition or the encounter of Abu Shamal could not be associated with the disclosure statement of the review petitioner is not quite correct,” the apex court docket stated.
“Consequently, we do not find any merit in the instant review petitions, which are accordingly dismissed,” it stated.
