NAME: MAGIZHINI M

YEAR: III

UNIVERSITY NAME: The Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, School of Excellence in Law

CITATION: AIRONLINE 2013 SC 661

INTRODUCTION 

The case of Yakub Abdul Rajak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra was an appeal case before the Supreme Court of India in the year 2013. This was the appeal by a death sentence convict who was charged the same for the commission of being responsible for funding and providing financial support to the Bombay executions in the year 1993, which killed around 257 people, with 713 injured and leading to the destruction of properties worth 27 crores. The issues around the case were the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the questioning role-play of the natural justice system. The legal provisions concerned were the Code of Criminal Procedure, The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, and The Constitution of India. The due process of Law and the Fair trial were also taken under and considered. The convict was hanged to death on 30^th July 2015. Some found it to be a great relief while some considered it to be a great injustice to other humans around.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

The Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished at violations broke throughout the country. As revenge for the demolition, Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim planned to commit a terrorist attack at various places in Greater Bombay. On the 12^th day of March 1993, a humongous attack was thrown against the city of Greater Bombay, where 12 explosions were set up against the city killing 257 lives, injuring 713 people, and destroying properties worth 27 crores. This was the first time after World War II an RDX had been used in a terrorist attack. 

Out of those 189 who were accused, the appellant was sentenced to death as a result of the trial. He admitted that he surrendered himself on 28^th July 1994 but the police reported that they had arrested him on 5^th August 1994. The trial was conducted by a Special Court for allegations under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, of 1987. He was held to be responsible for financially supporting the bombing executions and for preparing and funding 15 young people sent to Pakistan for training in handling arms and ammunition. He was further charged as he was responsible for the transportation and the illegal possession of weapons which could surely be an endangerment to life. He was punished with severe imprisonment for 14 years followed by a death sentence.

LEGAL ISSUES AND QUESTIONS RAISED

1. Whether the judgment questioned deserve to be implemented as a judgment?
2. Whether is there a violation relating to Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
3. Can the appellant be hanged to death while the mercy petition before the Governor of Maharashtra was pending?
4. Should the appellant be entitled to challenge the refusal of the mercy petition?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS

1. The learned senior counsel who appeared for the appellant stated that the impugned judgment is never a judgment, because according to Sections 353, 354, 363, and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872, a judgment must provide the reasons for conviction, and sentence along with the sentence and conviction order.
2. He further contended that the statement of an approver was mainly concerned with the witness, conviction solely based on this is highly unsustainable as no provision about it is provided expressly in The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
3. There was no implied proof that the attacks were the result of the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
4. He stated that as the mercy petition was pending before the Governor of Maharashtra, the warrant against the appellant could not be executed. Citing the case of Shatrughan Chauhan Vs. Union of India, the counsel contended that the appellant was entitled to challenge the refusal of the mercy petition by the President at least for the period of 14 days, but the appellant was not provided with the same.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

1. As with regards to the impugned judgment contention of the appellant counsel, they responded that the judgment is curable unless it pertained to the failure of justice, and that the appellant was provided enough chance for proper hearing before the pronounced judgment was provided.
2. The Indian Penal Code provided the power to the other acts to be conferred with the powers to deal in the same manner as it was acted on by the respective court in the sentence. The Confessional statements of the accused or the approver can be taken as evidence against the appellant. The confessions are admissible.
3. As with about the time to be granted for the appellant, there was enough time provided to the appellant to challenge the mercy petition when it was previously rejected when applied out by his brother.

JUDGEMENT

The appeal was disposed accordingly and held that the accused persons shall be imprisoned for life until their death and also added that the judicial reasoning should be considered before the remission power is exercised. In another appeal by the respondents of this case, the death sentence for the appellant of this case was confirmed, while the rest of them, had been commuted with life imprisonment.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS 

The case of Yakub Abdul Rajak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra was a case that presented the complex intersection of Law, Justice and the sub-aligning societal values in the judicial framework of India. The case observed widely the facets of the application of capital punishment and the relation to fundamental rights, in addition to addressing the issue of terrorism.

Validity of Judgment

The counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant raised the issue of insufficiency of adequate reasoning which remains one mandate under the Indian Penal Code. However, the reasoning for not providing the reasons for conviction and sentence, being only the operative part read out to the appellant, as the entire copy of the judgment would take more quantified time because of the huge number of accused involved in the case and also due to huge evidence involved. But, due to the sensitivity of the case, no external disturbance was sought to be allowed that could vitally affect the judgment of the case.  Judicial accountability and transparency were an issue in question. As this was a case involving high stakes and involved the death penalty, meticulous reasoning is provoked to be essential to uphold the values of judicial accountability.

Viability of the Confessional Statements

According to the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Nalini, the substantive shreds of evidence of a co-accused turned approver have been sought to have nothing against the admissibility of Section 15 of The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The appellant has been proven to be part of all meetings with those accused of bombing the city. However, the statements made by the co-accused who turned approver vitiates the questions of integrity as it would have also been an outcome of duress or coercion.

The Question of Violation of Fundamental Rights

Execution of the accused, while his mercy petition was still pending, was contended to be a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. But, at least 14 days were provided to challenge the refusal of the mercy petition by the President when the first mercy petition by his brother was rejected. This ensured that sufficient opportunity had been provided to the accused, without any arbitrary or unreasonable decision on the part of the authorities. In addition to the sufficient opportunity provided to challenge the refusal, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the need to provide sound legal reasoning when remission powers were exercised by the authorities. 

Is Capital Punishment a deterrent?

Legal scholars and critics vitally argued that providing capital punishment would not serve as a deterrent that would help in the elimination of the offence in society, rather it has the possibility of increasing the rates by fueling the violence and making it turn into a cycle of irreversible phenomenon. Rehabilitation had been sought as the primary objective in modern criminal jurisprudence, but capital punishment would forever be an inviolable tool to achieve the same. Restoration could not be affected by capital punishment. Further, this case raised the question of equitable justice to be rendered and administered towards different communities. 

CONCLUSION

The case proved to be one of the cases in the Indian Judiciary where the critical handling of terrorism-related offences was vitiated. Capital punishment has forever been a question of debate in legal academia, so it was in this question of this case. This case addressed the issues of judicial accountability, violation of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Indian Constitution and also the common issue in the criminal administration system, the admissibility of the evidence and the validity of the statements confessed, especially when they are by co-accused who had turned approved. The mitigation of issues addressed in the case is indeed so important to create a society with an equitable legal system with a balance between law, justice and societal values.