26 NOVEMEBER CASE
Guest
(Querist) 26 October 2010
This query is : Resolved
I M PREPARING FOR CLAT DIS YEAR. I WANT TO KNOW IN KASAB'S CASE THAT HERE IT WAS VERY MANIFESTED ON THAT DAY (26/11) DAT HE OPENLY FIRED ON MUMBAI POLICE AND CAUSED DESTRUCTION. AND NOW WHEN HE IS UNDER TRIAL N THEN WHY INDIAN GOVT. HAS GIVEN HIM A DEFENCE LAWYER. ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 22 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND DP'S PROVIDE FOR LEGAL AID BUT HERE IT IS CLEAR CASE OF HUGE MASSACRE THEN Y DEFENCE LAWYER IS AVAILABLE TO HIM INSTEAD OF PUNISHING HIM DIRECTLY BY COURT.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 26 October 2010
Dear Anonymous,
Mr. Kasab should be punished directly by court.
Do you mean to say that Kasab should not be given opportunity to defend himself before the Court?
In any civilised society, a person cannot be covicted unless he is properly heard.
Proper hearing before the court means that he should also be assisted by a competent lawyer, especially when the other side i.e. Prosecution would be represented by a lawyer.
It is the sign of mature democracies and civilised nation that even if some one is seen to have massacred in open day light where there were many eye witnesses, still there should be proper trial of that person, he should be given adequate opportunity to defend himself. If he is unable to afford a lawyer, then the Government must make available a lawyer to him.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 26 October 2010
Yes. Even the medical professional do not hesitate to treat the terrorists if they are on death bed.
Khaleel Ahmed
(Expert) 26 October 2010
I totally agreed with Mr.Ramachandran's views. Unless untill the crime has not been proved in the court, no body can recommend or punish the accused at his own. We are a democratic country and we are respectable in the whole world regarding our established system of Judicary.
Deepak Shenoy
(Expert) 26 October 2010
Yes agree with you all with respect to following the principles of natural justice with respect to giving opportunity of being heard.
I have a query on validity of Narco Analysis test of Qasab.... law says no one should be compelled to self incriminate, in that case by doing Narco analysis of Qasab i.e by making him confess the crime in his unconscious state of mind is it not against the law and against article 20(3) of the Constutution of India ???
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 26 October 2010
Every Indian have seen what he did on 26th. But our judicial system is proved that inspite of having the knowledge, it was an opportunity given to him to defend, We shown that we have got fair judicial system to the world.
But in my opinion he should be killed in public.
Because of him we lost brave soldiers. Instead of soldiers we could have lost the politicians.
Deepak Shenoy
(Expert) 26 October 2010
Can anybody respond to my query stated above ... reproduced again below.
I have a query on validity of Narco Analysis test of Qasab.... law says no one should be compelled to self incriminate, in that case by doing Narco analysis of Qasab i.e by making him confess the crime in his unconscious state of mind is it not against the law and against article 20(3) of the Constutution of India ???
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 27 October 2010
There are conflicting views of the courts on it.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 30 October 2010
You have raised very good points of law that would keep nagging the minds of genuine lawyers and honest judges always.
Parthasarathi Loganathan
(Expert) 30 October 2010
I would like to quote, Dr. R.E. House’s address to the First Annual Meeting of the Eastern Society of Anaesthetists in 1925 about the role of his scopolamine tests:
" ... Society has the right to be protected against the criminal, and all of society's rights are manifestly superior to those of the criminal. There can be no gainsaying the fact that a suspect is either innocent or guilty, and no one knows the truth better than does the suspect himself. It, therefore, stands to reason, that where there is a safe and humane measure existing to evoke the truth from the consciousness of the suspect, that society is entitled to have the truth........... If society has the right to take property, liberty, and life for its protection, then society has the right to make, by trained men, the use of truth serum legal. The framers of the Bill of Rights believed the rights of society were paramount to the rights of the criminal. It was an instrument for the protection of the innocent and not intended for the acquittal of the guilty".
Hence Criminals like Ajmal Kasab do not deserve the protection of Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution.
