93 Bomb Blast Case: Yakub Memon Death Sentence Appeal Supreme Court Judgement: Part 045

Mitigating Circumstances:

504) Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel submitted the following as the mitigating circumstances to reduce the severity of the sentence of A-1.

• He is a Chartered Accountant by profession and a respectable person in the society before the occurrence of this incident.

• Learned senior counsel emphasized more on the point that this is a fabricated case and A-1 was merely inflicted in this trial on the sole ground of being the brother of Tiger Memon, who is the absconding accused in this case. As a consequence, there is no overt act committed by the accused himself. In fact, the act of A-1 returning to India unlike other absconders is in itself a mitigating circumstance in his favour.

• No criminal antecedent.

• He suffers from depression since 1996.

• Lastly, he had served more than 19 years in jail.

505) In our considered opinion, the argument of learned senior counsel that A-1 was inflicted in this trial only on the sole ground of being the brother of Tiger Memon does not impress us, as the evidence shows the contrary. We accept the contention of learned senior counsel and treat the lack of prior criminal record as a mitigating factor; other ascertained mitigating circumstances are not at the higher pedestal to bargain for reduction of sentence.

506) Now, the task is vested upon us to determine appropriate sentence for an accused who was in the commanding position and was involved in crimes of the utmost gravity. Under the established jurisprudence, these two factors- a commanding position and a crime of ‘utmost gravity’ ordinarily merit the extreme penalty even accounting for the guilty plea and mitigating factors. This is the special reason, which warrants death penalty to the accused.

507) For the foregoing reasons, having taking into account and weighed the totality of A-1’s culpability and all the particular circumstances of the case, we concur with the decision of the Designated Court and confirm the sentence of capital punishment to A-1 and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

508) We shall now discuss the appeals filed by rest of the appellants sentenced to capital punishment by the Designated Court.

509) The above said appellants have traded the freedom of choice for the freedom to commit atrocities. The discussion relating to Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1) amply differentiates the role played by these 10 appellants with A-1. Though the incident of bomb blasts is not a brainchild of these 10 appellants yet they turned the conspirators’ orders into action by executing the blasts for which they are indisputably liable for the consequence of their acts. Every person is responsible for his or her actions and they can’t evade the accountability by placing the responsibility to another person. At the same time, our legal system mandates that the sentence shall reflect the relative significance of the accused’s role.

510) The following are the aggravating circumstances with regard to the above said appellants:-

Aggravating circumstances

1. They underwent special training in Pakistan for the purpose of executing the blasts in India.

2. These accused persons/individuals parked the vehicles with explosives at different spots as directed by their masterminds for the explosion of bombs.

3. Crime of terrorism is in itself an aggravating circumstance as it carries a “special stigmatization” due to the deliberate form of inhuman treatment it represents and the severity of the pain and suffering inflicted.

4. The “vulnerability of the victims” and “the depravity of the crimes” constitute additional aggravating circumstances.

5. The manner of its execution and its design is at a level of extreme atrocity and cruelty.

Though the aggravating circumstances remains the same for all the 10 appellants, but their mitigating circumstance differ from individual to individual. Therefore, we shall catalog the mitigating circumstances independently for each accused.

511) The following factors may be relevant while ascertaining the mitigating circumstances:-

Criminal Appeal Nos. 609-610 of 2008 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the three appellants (A-32, A-36 and A-39) have been in custody since their arrest except A-39, who was granted interim bail on medical grounds to look after his mother who was seriously ill. As on date, the appellants have served more than 19 years each in jail. According to learned counsel, during the above said entire period, there is no complaint against the appellants either by the jail authorities or by the escort party as and when they were granted permission to go for medical treatment and to their respective homes in order to attend marriage, sickness, other functions and death of their near and dear ones. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants being the first time offenders have already incarcerated more than 19 years in custody and they must be considered and be given a chance of reformation to be in society. It was further pointed out that A-32 has completed his Graduation (Bachelor of Commerce) from Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik while in jail which itself indicates the prospect of his reformation and rehabilitation. As far as A-36 is concerned, he belongs to the lower strata of the society. He used to make and sell brooms to eke out his livelihood and is suffering from a cardiac ailment. Insofar as A-39 is concerned, learned counsel submitted that he is the one, who was granted interim bail by the Designated Court in order to look after his ailing mother. After considering his application being Bail Application No. 5 of 2005, learned Judge granted him bail and he was on interim bail for about 4 ½ months. In a nutshell, their mitigating circumstances can be summarized as under:-

Mitigating Circumstances (A-32):

1. At the time of arrest, he was 21 years of age.

2. He shows remorse for his role in the blast.

3. Lack of prior criminal record.

4. He cooperated in the investigation.

5. He suffers from Bone Tb, Arthritis, which severely affected his right shoulder and arm bone; he further suffers from paralysis, which has affected right side of his face. He has developed glands in his testicles and developed ailment at cervical vertebrata. He has been suffering from cervical vertebrata. On the whole he has been suffering from illness for the past 8 years and has been operated twice during the said period.

6. Family circumstances: He has sick parents and mentally retarded brother to look after.

7. He was a mechanic by profession.

8. He is in custody since 18.04.1993.

A 36’s Mitigating Circumstances:

1. At the time of arrest, he was 32 years of age.

2. He shows remorse for his role in the blast.

3. Lack of prior criminal record.

4. He co-operated in the investigation.

5. He suffers from cardiac ailment.

6. Family circumstances: He has old mother, wife and three children to look after.

7. Before the blasts, he was earning his livelihood by making and selling broom in the market.

8. He is in custody since 18.04.1993.

A 39’s Mitigating Circumstances:

1. He shows remorse for his role in the blast.

2. Lack of prior criminal record.

3. He co-operated in the investigation.

4. He suffers from psychiatry problem and was treated for the same while in custody.

5. Family circumstances: He is unmarried and has old mother to look after.

6. He used to work for the relief camps setup for helping persons affected by riots.

7. He is in custody since 1993 Criminal Appeal Nos. 628-629 of 2008 Learned counsel for the appellant (A-44) submitted that the sentence awarded by the Designated Court is very harsh and he is in custody for more than 19 years, hence, he deserves to be released for the period already undergone. It was also submitted that there is neither any complaint against the appellant nor misuse of any facilities granted to him by the Designated Court. According to the counsel, the period already undergone must be considered and he be released from jail as he intends to lead a life of a good and reformed person. It was further submitted that he has to look after his family especially his two daughters who are yet to be married and one son whom he intends to pursue for higher studies. It was also brought to our notice that before the incident, he was earning his livelihood by selling readymade garments. The abovesaid submission can be summarized as under:-

A 44’s Mitigating Circumstances:

1. At the time of arrest, he was 37 years of age.

2. He shows remorse for his role in the blasts.

3. Lack of prior criminal record.

4. He co-operated in the investigation.

5. He used to sell readymade garments in the streets.

6. He is in custody since 19.05.1993.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 637-638 of 2008 With regard to sentence, Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellants (A-10 and A-29) submitted that both of them are in judicial custody for more than 19 years. She also pointed out that the sentence awarded to them is very harsh and they should be given a chance to be in society as reformation is more important than being a deterrent and also that they deserve to be released for the period already undergone.

She further pointed out that Asgar Yousuf Mukadam (A-10) has completed his Graduation while in custody which shows that he should be given a chance of reformation which he would lose in case he is incarcerated in prison. It was further submitted that the accused persons are not hardened habitual criminals and they deserve to get a chance for reformation and rehabilitation. It was also pointed out that even during the entire period of judicial custody there is neither any report of misuse of the permissions/facilities granted to them nor there is any adverse report from the jail authorities. In a nutshell, their mitigating circumstances can be summarized as under:-

A 10’s Mitigating Circumstances:

1. At the time of arrest, he was aged about 31 years.

2. He shows remorse for his role in the blasts.

3. Lack of prior criminal record.

4. He co-operated in the investigation.

5. Family circumstances: He is unmarried and has old parents to look after.

6. He used to work as an Accountant of Tiger Memon (AA).

7. He acted under extreme duress because he was under substantial domination of the main conspirator.

8. He is in custody since 12.03.1993.

A 29’s Mitigating Circumstances:

1. He is an illiterate person.

2. He shows remorse for his role in the blasts.

3. Lack of prior criminal record.

4. He co-operated in the investigation.

5. Family circumstances: He has a young child and wife to look after.

6. He is in custody since 1993 Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 2008 Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellant (A-9) submitted that the appellant has been in custody since his arrest on 17.03.1993. According to her, during his entire period of custody for more than 19 years, there is not even a single complaint against him neither any misuse of the permissions granted nor any attempt to flee away from justice. She further pointed out that the appellant was granted permission to visit home on number of occasions in order to meet his ailing mother and to attend the marriage of his brother but he never misused the same at any point of time.

In addition to the same, learned counsel pointed out that though he was convicted and sentenced to death, he completed his Graduation from Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik while in jail which shows that there is chance of reformation in him and the appellant is not a hardened criminal, hence, he deserves to lead a normal life to serve his aged sick mother who is bed-ridden and waiting for his return.

A 9’s Mitigating Circumstances:

1. He shows remorse for his role in the blasts.

2. Lack of prior criminal record.

3. He co-operated in the investigation.

4. Family circumstances: He is unmarried and has old parents and siblings to look after.

5. He was a salesman in a shopping center.

6. He is in custody since 17.03.1993.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 864-865 of 2008 With regard to sentence, Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellant (A-11) has submitted that the appellant has served more than 19 years in jail since his arrest on 18.03.1993. She further pointed out that during the entire period of 19 years, there is neither any complaint against him nor misuse of any permissions granted nor any attempt to abscond/flee away from justice. It is further pointed out that the appellant has been sent home on a number of occasions for attending the marriage of his children, last rites, visit his ailing wife, etc. but he never misused the same, hence, he may be given a chance to lead a normal life along with his family members. Before the date of incident, he was earning his livelihood by driving a taxi.

A 11’s Mitigating Circumstances:

1. At the time of arrest, he was aged about 44 years.

2. He shows remorse for his role in the blast.

3. Lack of prior criminal record.

4. He co-operated in the investigation.

5. Family circumstances: He has aged parents and two unmarried daughters to look after.

6. He used to be a taxi driver.

7. He is in custody since 18.03.1993.

Criminal Appeal No. 897 of 2008 With regard to sentence, Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant (A-12) has undergone more than 19 years in custody since his arrest on 20.03.1993. She also pointed out that there is neither any complaint against him nor misuse of any facility granted to him and he has never made any attempt to flee away from justice. She also pointed out that even during the pendency of this appeal, this Court granted him permission on two occasions to visit his home and graveyard at the time of death of his father and mother.

In addition to the same, learned counsel also pointed out that though he was convicted and sentenced to death, he has completed his Graduation from Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik which shows that reformation theory can be applied in his case. Further, it was pointed out that he is not a hardened criminal, hence, he deserves to get a chance to lead a normal life. With these materials, learned counsel prayed for leniency in his sentence.

A 12’s Mitigating Circumstances:

1. At the time of arrest, he was aged about 25 years.

2. He completed his graduation in jail.

3. He shows remorse for his role in the blasts.

4. Lack of prior criminal record.

5. He co-operated in the investigation.

6. Family circumstances: He has old parents, wife and a son to look after.

7. He used to be a mechanic.

8. He is in custody since 20.03.1993.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 941-942 of 2008 Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellant (A-16) submitted that the appellant is in custody for more than 19 years and he deserves to be released for the period already undergone. She also pointed out that there is neither any complaint against him nor misuse of any facility granted by the Designated Court. She further pointed out that the appellant is suffering from mental disorder and he was under treatment of J.J. Hospital and Thane Mental Hospital during the entire period of trial. He is still under treatment and, as advised by the doctors, is surviving on medicines. His mental condition is not stable. In support of the above claim, learned counsel has submitted his medical reports for perusal of this Court.

A-16’s Mitigating Circumstances:

1. He shows remorse for his role in the blasts.

2. Lack of prior criminal record.

3. He co-operated in the investigation.

4. He is undergoing psychiatric treatment for the last 9 years and was admitted to the prison hospital for 15 months.

5. Family circumstances: He has old mother, wife and three children to look after.

6. He was earning his livelihood by making and selling brooms in the market.

7. He is in custody since 24.03.1993.

512) At the outset, we can classify these mitigating circumstances into seven heads, namely, age, act of remorse, no prior criminal antecedents, co- operation with the investigation, family circumstances, ill health and delay in execution. The first five aspects have been accepted as mitigating circumstances by the established practices of this Court. As far as ‘ill health’ is concerned, it is not a mitigating but a special circumstance which may aid in reduction of sentence. The vital distinction between the ‘special circumstance’ and ‘mitigating circumstance appears to lie in the fact that the reduction in penalty is given not owing to any merit earned on the part of the accused, but because of compelling ‘reasons of humanity’, illustrating a humane approach to sentencing in this context.

513) Another vital factor stated as mitigating circumstance in all these petitions is that they have all been imprisoned for around 20 years and they continue to be in jail; hence the defence counsel submitted that on humanitarian grounds, sentence of all the death convicts must be reduced to imprisonment for life. Nevertheless, it is settled law by a Constitution Bench in Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678 that sentence can’t be commuted merely on the ground of delay alone. It was further observed that no absolute or unqualified rule can be laid down that in every case in which there is a long delay in the execution of death sentence, the sentence must be substituted by the sentence of life imprisonment. Thus no accused can claim as a matter of right to commute his/her death sentence on the ground of delay in the judicial process. However, noting the lengthy incarceration suffered by the accused over a period of two decades, as an exceptional scenario, we are inclined to consider the long delay as a mitigating circumstance but less significance will be attached to them in comparison with other six circumstances.

514) Furthermore, as we have already narrated, all the above said 10 appellants belong to the lower strata of society, most of whom don’t even have any regular job for their livelihood. In brief, their personal life was relatively moderate before this incident. Subsequently, these appellants have fallen prey to the ulterior motive of the conspirators for accomplishing their hidden motives, which was to spread terror among the people. Such evidence can in no way exonerate or excuse them for their participation in the commission of crime. However, it provides a somewhat nuanced picture and may imply that their participation in the massacres resulted from misguided notions rather than extremism.

515) Recalling that the sentence should directly reflect the role of the accused in the crime, we made an attempt to evaluate the significance of these mitigating circumstances respectively and their repercussions on the quantum of sentence on these 10 appellants.

516) Technically, it is these 10 appellants who parked the explosive filled vehicles in the respective destinations, however, if we do lift the veil it is actually the masterminds strategy, which was executed by the subservient minions i.e these 10 appellants. This may not help in complete exoneration of the liability of these 10 appellants but the degree of punishment must necessarily reflect this difference. It is vital to remember that ‘but for’ the masterminds, this blast should have never seen the daylight.

517) Accordingly, to differentiate the degree of punishment to A-1 and other 10 appellants, we contemplate that the ends of justice would be served if the death sentence of these ten appellants be commuted to imprisonment for life.

518) With a note of caution, we reiterate that it is ordinarily expected that two accused convicted of similar crimes in similar circumstances should not in practice receive very different sentences, often the differences are more significant than the similarities, and the mitigating and aggravating factors dictate different results. Therefore, the lesser sentence imposed on these 10 appellants cannot be a precedent in other cases and every case must be decided according to their facts and circumstances.

519) In view of the above, it is apt to quote a decision of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Sanjay Kumar (2012) 8 SCC 537, to understand the sentencing policy having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. The following paragraphs are relevant:-

“21. Sentencing policy is a way to guide judicial discretion in accomplishing particular sentencing. Generally, two criteria, that is, the seriousness of the crime and the criminal history of the accused, are used to [pic]prescribe punishment. By introducing more uniformity and consistency into the sentencing process, the objective of the policy, is to make it easier to predict sentencing outcomes. Sentencing policies are needed to address concerns in relation to unfettered judicial discretion and lack of uniform and equal treatment of similarly situated convicts. The principle of proportionality, as followed in various judgments of this Court, prescribes that, the punishments should reflect the gravity of the offence and also the criminal background of the convict. Thus, the graver the offence and the longer the criminal record, the more severe is the punishment to be awarded. By laying emphasis on individualised justice, and shaping the result of the crime to the circumstances of the offender and the needs of the victim and community, restorative justice eschews uniformity of sentencing. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the public system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats.

22. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to award proper sentence, having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. The courts should impose a punishment befitting the crime so that the courts are able to accurately reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It is the nature and gravity of the crime, and not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on social order in many cases may be in reality, a futile exercise.

23. The survival of an orderly society demands the extinction of the life of a person who is proved to be a menace to social order and security. Thus, the courts for the purpose of deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, have to delicately balance the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed, in a dispassionate manner. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide a basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane for the consideration of the gravity of the crime, discretionary judgment, in relation to the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished. The Court has primarily dissected the principles into two different compartments—one being the “aggravating circumstances” and, the other being the “mitigating circumstance”. To balance the two is the primary duty of the court. The principle of proportionality between the crime and the punishment is the principle of “just deserts” that serves as the foundation of every criminal sentence that is justifiable. In other words, the “doctrine of proportionality” has valuable application to the sentencing policy under the Indian criminal jurisprudence. While determining the quantum of punishment the court always records sufficient reasons. (Vide Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. AIR 1991 SC 1463 [pic]Ravji v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 787, State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh AIR 2003 SC 3191, Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. AIR 2004 SC 3454, Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 1377 and Brajendrasingh v. State of M.P. AIR 2012 SC 1552) 24…..The aforesaid judgments make it crystal clear that this Court has merely found out the via media, where considering the facts and circumstances of a particular case, by way of which it has come to the conclusion that it was not the “rarest of rare cases”, warranting death penalty, but a sentence of 14 years or 20 years, as referred to in the guidelines laid down by the States would be totally inadequate. The life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years, rather it always meant as the whole natural life. This Court has always clarified that the punishment so awarded would be subject to any order passed in exercise of the clemency powers of the President of India or the Governor of the State, as the case may be. Pardons, reprieves and remissions are granted in exercise of prerogative power. There is no scope of judicial review of such orders except on very limited grounds, for example, non-application of mind while passing the order; non- consideration of relevant material; or if the order suffers from arbitrariness. The power to grant pardons and to commute sentences is coupled with a duty to exercise the same fairly and reasonably. Administration of justice cannot be perverted by executive or political pressure. Of course, adoption of uniform standards may not be possible while exercising the power of pardon. Thus, such orders do not interfere with the sovereign power of the State. More so, not being in contravention of any statutory or constitutional provision, the orders, even if treated to have been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution do not deserve to be labelled as unwarranted. The aforesaid orders have been passed considering the gravity of the offences in those cases that the accused would not be entitled to be considered for premature release under the guidelines issued for that purpose i.e. under the Jail Manual, etc. or even under Section 433-A CrPC.” Life Imprisonment Means Rigorous Imprisonment:

520) There was a misperception that life imprisonment is distinct from the punishment of rigorous or simple imprisonment shown in clause (4) of Section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This issue was clarified in Md. Munna vs. UOI and Ors./Kartick Biswas vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 417, it was held:

“10…..Imprisonment for life is a class of punishment different from ordinary imprisonment which could be of two descriptions, namely, “rigorous” or “simple”. It was unnecessary for the Legislature to specifically mention that the imprisonment for life would be rigorous imprisonment for life as it is imposed as punishment for grave offences.” Therefore, “imprisonment for life” is to be treated as “rigorous imprisonment for life”.

Meaning of Life Imprisonment:

521) Life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years or even 30 years, rather it always means the whole natural life. This Court has always clarified that the punishment of a fixed term of imprisonment so awarded would be subject to any order passed in exercise of clemency powers of the President of India or the Governor of the State, or remission and commutation guaranteed under Section 432 of the Code as the case may be.

522) As observed in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar, (2012) 8 SCC 537, there is no scope of judicial review of such orders except on very limited grounds such as the non-application of mind while passing the order, non-consideration of relevant material, or if the order suffers from arbitrariness. The power to grant remissions and to commute sentences is coupled with a duty to exercise the same fairly, reasonably and in terms of restrictions imposed in several provisions of the Code.

523) In order to check all arbitrary remissions, the Code itself provides several conditions. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 432 of the Code lay down basic procedure for making an application to the appropriate Government for suspension or remission of sentence either by the convict or someone on his behalf. We are of the view that exercise of power by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Code cannot be automatic or claimed as a right for the simple reason, that this is only an enabling provision and the same would be possible subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Those conditions are mentioned either in the Jail Manual or in statutory rules. This Court, in various decisions, has held that the power of remission cannot be exercised arbitrarily. In other words, the decision to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned. The statutory procedure laid down in Section 432 of the Code itself provides this check on the possible misuse of power by the appropriate Government.

524) As rightly observed by this Court in Sangeet and Anr. vs. State of Haryana, 2012 (11) Scale 140, there is misconception that a prisoner serving life sentence has an indefeasible right to release on completion of either 14 years or 20 years imprisonment. A convict undergoing life imprisonment is expected to remain in custody till the end of his life, subject to any remission granted by the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the Code, which in turn is subject to the procedural checks mentioned in the said provision and to further substantive check in Section 433-A of the Code.

525) Therefore, pursuant to Sections 432 and 433 of the Code and clemency powers of President and Governor, as vested by the Constitution under Articles 72 and 161 respectively, the accused persons, viz., A-32, A-36, A- 39, A-44, A-10, A-29, A-9, A-11, A-12 and A-16 shall be imprisoned for life until their death and the appeals are disposed off on the above terms. We may add a footnote to the above conviction that the executive should take due consideration of judicial reasoning before excising the remission power.

526) For convenience, we have reproduced the conclusion arrived at in respect of all the appeals dealt with under this part in Annexure ‘A’ appended hereto.

Death Ref. Case (Crl.) No. 1 of 2011

State of Maharashtra

through CBI …. Appellant (s)

vs.

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon & Ors. …. Respondent(s)

527) In view of the conclusion arrived at in respect of the above said appeals filed by the appellants herein, we confirm the death reference with regard to Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1) and commute the death sentence into life imprisonment for rest of the appellants convicted under this part. The Death Reference is disposed of accordingly.

(P. SATHASIVAM) ………………………..…J.

(DR. B.S.CHAUHAN) .…………………………J.

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 21, 2013.

Annexure ‘A’

> SN> Criminal > Accused Name and > Sentence by > Award by > > o > Appeal > Number.> Designated > Supreme Court > > > > > Court > >

> 1 > 1728/2007 > Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1) > Death Sentence> Confirmed > >

2 > 609-610/2008 > Zakir Hussain Noor Mohd. Shaikh> Death Sentence> > > > > (A-32) > > > > > > Abdul Khan @ Yakub Khan Akhtar > > > > > > Khan (A-36) > > > > > > Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik > > > > > > (A-39) > > > > > > > > Commuted to > > > > > > Life > > > > > > Imprisonment >

> 3 > 628-629/2008 > Mohammed Mushtaq Moosa Tarani > Death Sentence> > > > > (A-44) > > >

> 4 > 637-638/2008 > Asgar Yusuf Mukadam (A-10) and > Death Sentence> > > > > Shahnawaz Abdul Kadar Qureshi > > > > > > (A-29) > > >

> 5 > 365/2008 > Mohammed Shoeb Mohammed > Death Sentence> > > > > Kasam Ghansar (A-9) > > >

> 6 > 864-865/2008 > Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11) > Death Sentence> >

> 7 > 897/2008 > Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh > Death Sentence> > > > > (A-12) > > >

> 8 > 941-942/2008 > Mohd. Farooq Mohammed Yusuf > Death Sentence> > > > > Pawale (A-16) > > >

———————–

FOR FULL JUDGEMENT, PLEASE CHECK THE LINKS BELOW:

93 Bomb Blast Case: Yakub Memon Death Sentence Appeal Supreme Court Judgement:

Part 001 / Part 002 / Part 003 / Part 004 / Part 005 / Part 006 / Part 007 / Part 008 / Part 009 / Part 010 / Part 011 / Part 012 / Part 013 / Part 014 / Part 015 / Part 016 / Part 017 / Part 018 / Part 019 / Part 020 / Part 021 / Part 022 / Part 023 / Part 024 / Part 025 / Part 026 / Part 027 / Part 028 / Part 029 / Part 030 / Part 031 / Part 032 / Part 033 / Part 034 / Part 035 / Part 036 / Part 037 / Part 038 / Part 039 / Part 040 / Part 041 / Part 042 / Part 043 / Part 044 / Part 045

++++
TAGS:
Supreme Court Of India, Yakub Abdul Razak Memon, Death Sentence, Confirmed, Sentence, Appeal, Dawood Ibrahim, Tiger Momon, 93 Bomb Blast, Mumbai Bomb Blast, Don, Gangster, Mafia, Sanjay Dutt, Death Penalty, Serial Blast, Mumbai, maharashtra, India, State Of Maharashtra, CBI, Prosecution, Babri Masjid, Ayodhya, demolition, violence, terrorist, Bombay, arms, ammunitions, conspiracy, Dubai, Pakistan, training, Bombay Stock Exchange, Katha Bazaar, Sena Bhavan, Century Bazaar, Mahim Causeway, Air India Building, Zaveri Bazaar, Hotel Sea Rock, Plaza Theatre, Juhu Centaur Hotel, AirPort Bay-54, AirPort Centaur Hotel, terrorist attack, terror, RDX, Research Department Explosive, Md. Ahmed Dosa, Md. Salim Mira Moiddin Shaikh @ Salim Kutta, Md. Kasam Lajpuria, Ranjitkumar Singh Baleshwar Prasad, Md. Sultan Sayyed, Dighi Jetty, Raigad, Uttan,
++++

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this:
Web Design BangladeshBangladesh Online Market