Despite being heard by special courts with fast-track procedures, cases relating to terrorist crimes have generally proceeded at an achingly slow pace. It took 13 seemingly interminable years for a TADA designated court in Mumbai to convict 100 people in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case, even though the primary charge sheet was filed about eight months after the outrage. In comparison, the trial in the 2003 Mumbai twin blasts case in which a special POTA court handed out convictions earlier this week was much shorter. Even so, six years is a very long time, given the nature of the case. All the six accused (of whom two were acquitted and one turned approver) were arrested within two months of the outrage. Although allegedly hatched in Dubai, there was no Byzantine conspiracy to unravel. The prosecution’s evidence relied heavily on the testimony of a taxi driver, who ferried two of the convicted in his vehicle before the bombs were triggered. It is believed that the statement of the approver, a Lashkar-e-Taibaoperative who was pardoned by the POTA court, further bolstered the prosecution’s case.
The Mumbai twin blasts case, which killed 52 people and injured 184, was one of the worst terrorist attacks on the city, exceeded in its dreadfulness only by such tragedies as the multiple explosions in 1993 and last year’s 26/11 outrage. The bombs, which were placed in the boots of two vehicles parked at Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazar, were aimed at causing random deaths and creating panic. If the 26/11 conspiracy was unravelled quickly owing to the capture of Mohammed Ajmal Amir ‘Kasab’, the one behind the 2003 blasts was speedily exposed when the taxi driver, who survived due to a stroke of luck, was able to, provide enough leads for the police to track down his passengers on that fateful day- the convicted couple Haneef Sayeed and his wife Fahmeeda. There will be an appeal against the POTA court verdict, which must be decided-irrespective of the outcome-expeditiously. Prosecuting terrorist crimes need not be a painful protracted affair and the judiciary has shown it is capable of disposing matters quickly when there is an overall sense of urgency. It look only a little more than a year from the date of the attack on Parliament in 2001 for a POTA court to arrive at a judgment – a case that involved many witnesses and a mass of documents. And it is unlikely that the 26/11 attack case, which is being heard now, will be allowed to drag on for many years. The 2003 twin blasts case is a reminder that the commitment to speeding up the delivery of justice should apply to all cases and not merely those considered high profile and in which there is a grater degree of official interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment