The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step in the long-standing legal battle surrounding the 2000 Red Fort attack case. On Thursday, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J K Maheshwari issued notice on a curative petition filed by Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) terrorist Mohammed Arif, also known as Ashfaq. Arif was sentenced to death for his involvement in the December 12, 2000, attack on the Red Fort in Delhi, which resulted in the tragic deaths of three Rajputana Rifles jawans.
Background of the Case and Legal Proceedings
Mohammed Arif was convicted in the Red Fort attack case and received the death penalty on October 31, 2005. This conviction was subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court in September 2007 and later by the Supreme Court in August 2011. Following these confirmations, Arif filed a review petition, which was dismissed by a two-judge bench. Undeterred, he then pursued a curative petition, challenging the rejection of his review petition, but this too was dismissed by the top court.
Key Legal Developments and Constitutional Bench Ruling
In a notable turn of events, Arif filed a fresh writ petition arguing that his review petitions should have been heard by a three-judge bench in open court. This plea led to a landmark decision by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in September 2014. The bench ruled that henceforth, all death sentence cases would be heard by a three-judge bench in open court. Consequently, Arif's review petition was reheard by a three-judge bench, marking a pivotal moment in India's judicial process for capital punishment cases.
Arguments and Court's Reasoning in the Review Petition
In his review petition, Arif challenged the trial court's reliance on call data records as evidence. He contended that these records were not accompanied by an appropriate certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which governs the admissibility of electronic records in court. However, on November 3, 2022, the Supreme Court's three-judge bench dismissed this argument. The bench emphasized that even if the findings based on call data records were disregarded, other evidence on record unequivocally proved Arif's involvement in the crime.
The court highlighted that Arif's disclosure statement was proven and had led the police to a hideout at G-73, Batla House in New Delhi. Upon arrival, the police team was fired upon, resulting in the death of Abu Shamal alias Faisal in an encounter, during which firearms and ammunition were recovered. The bench rejected the submission that this recovery could not be linked to Arif's disclosure statement, reinforcing the strength of the evidence against him.
Mitigating Circumstances and Aggravating Factors
On the issue of mitigating circumstances and the possibility of rehabilitation, the court provided a detailed analysis. It stated that the cumulative effect of aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances must be considered before awarding the death sentence. In this case, the bench found no mitigating circumstances in Arif's favor. It noted that suggestions of retribution and rehabilitation were unsupported by any material on record.
Conversely, the court pointed to significant aggravating circumstances, particularly the direct attack on India's unity, integrity, and sovereignty. These factors, the bench concluded, completely outweighed any remotely considered mitigating circumstances, justifying the imposition of the death penalty.
Current Status and Implications
With the Supreme Court now issuing notice on Arif's curative petition, the case enters a new phase of judicial scrutiny. This development underscores the ongoing legal efforts to address terrorism-related offenses in India and highlights the judiciary's commitment to thorough review in capital punishment matters. The outcome of this curative plea could have broader implications for similar cases involving national security and terrorist activities.
