PeterGriffin
Elite
The National Investigation Agency will interrogate Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab in a case unrelated to 26/11, public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam told the Bombay High Court on Thursday.
He was replying to a defence application, based on a news report which said the NIA was set to interrogate the lone surviving gunman, that the agency had registered an independent case against him and the State had given its nod for the interrogation.
Denying the report, Mr. Nikam told The Hindu over telephone: “I made an oral submission before the court that the news is distorted. The State has not given any permission. Kasab will not be probed in this [26/11] case, but in connection with a different case, which is yet undecided.” He said the court held that Kasab could be interrogated by the agency, provided “the due process of law” was followed.
Government officials presented some documents to the court on Thursday in connection with the proposed interrogation. Mr. Nikam said he did not know in which case the NIA wanted to question Kasab.
In their application, defence had sought a clarification on the NIA's move, stating that interrogation of Kasab for 26/11 would imply that the Mumbai Crime Branch probe was “incomplete.”
On Thursday, Mr. Nikam dealt with evidence pertaining to the training imparted to the Mumbai attackers. He also argued that the trial court had erred in partly accepting Kasab's confession. He contended that if the confession was found to be voluntary it should have been accepted in entirety or rejected wholly, if found to be otherwise.
“The discretion which is available to a judge has to be exercised in accordance to law. If the judge concludes the confession is voluntary, it should be accepted,” he said.
Mr. Nikam also dealt with Kasab's admission of guilt before the lower court in July 2009. He said Kasab, while pleading guilty, had “deliberately and intentionally taken a minimum role [in the attacks] to evade strict punishment.”
He was replying to a defence application, based on a news report which said the NIA was set to interrogate the lone surviving gunman, that the agency had registered an independent case against him and the State had given its nod for the interrogation.
Denying the report, Mr. Nikam told The Hindu over telephone: “I made an oral submission before the court that the news is distorted. The State has not given any permission. Kasab will not be probed in this [26/11] case, but in connection with a different case, which is yet undecided.” He said the court held that Kasab could be interrogated by the agency, provided “the due process of law” was followed.
Government officials presented some documents to the court on Thursday in connection with the proposed interrogation. Mr. Nikam said he did not know in which case the NIA wanted to question Kasab.
In their application, defence had sought a clarification on the NIA's move, stating that interrogation of Kasab for 26/11 would imply that the Mumbai Crime Branch probe was “incomplete.”
On Thursday, Mr. Nikam dealt with evidence pertaining to the training imparted to the Mumbai attackers. He also argued that the trial court had erred in partly accepting Kasab's confession. He contended that if the confession was found to be voluntary it should have been accepted in entirety or rejected wholly, if found to be otherwise.
“The discretion which is available to a judge has to be exercised in accordance to law. If the judge concludes the confession is voluntary, it should be accepted,” he said.
Mr. Nikam also dealt with Kasab's admission of guilt before the lower court in July 2009. He said Kasab, while pleading guilty, had “deliberately and intentionally taken a minimum role [in the attacks] to evade strict punishment.”
