26/11: Bombay High Court confirms death to Kasab
- India's naval might on full display off Visakhapatnam coast
- Kerala solar scam: Had freedom to enter Chandy’s house anytime, says Saritha Nair
- Australian national suspected to be IS supporter deported from Delhi airport
- At least 39 dead as Gujarat state transport bus plunges into river
- Cops have a case for new juvenile law: boy who ‘killed 2’
The Bombay High Court on Monday confirmed the death penalty to 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab, terming the case as rarest of rare and holding there was "no scope of reform" of the convict.
"There is no scope of reform or rehabilitation of the convicted accused. It is a rarest of rare case and the court cannot be more confident than it is today that death penalty must be given," a division Bench of Justices Ranjana Desai and R V More observed, upholding the death sentence to 24-year-old Kasab.
"Aapko saza-e-maut yeh adalat barkarar karti hai. Aap Supreme Court mein appeal zari kar sakte hain (Your death sentence is upheld. You can appeal before the Supreme Court," Justice Desai told a bearded Kasab, clad in a white kurta and sporting a grin, through video conferencing.
The court upheld Kasab's conviction on all charges including multiple murders, conspiracy and waging war against the nation.
The confirmation comes nine months after the lone 26/11 terrorist captured alive was ordered to be sent to the gallows by the trial court on May 6, last year.
The court, however, dismissed the Maharashtra government's petition against the acquittal of two Indians Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed, accused of aiding the commission of the crime.
"We are with the trial court's observation that there is no corroboration of evidence to prove involvement of Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed in the case," the judgement said.
"Kasab has never shown any remorse after his arrest and we have observed that even on video conference he has not shown any signs of regret," Justice Desai said reading out the judgement for the bench.
"Harsh penalty of death is required in some cases, especially this one, and the court would be sending a wrong signal to society if any penalty less than death is given," the court said.