 He's a special public prosecutor and while we relate back to the 26th November, we all, the broad ideas which come in the mind are martyrs, victims, terrorists, and what are the takes for a lawyer, students of law, judicial officers, are various perspectives which one would understand when we go through this entire trial of the 26th November 2008. When we had requested Mr. Ujwal to share his insights, the most fascinating part was it was not just what we'll go with the storytelling, but how we correlate and learn the nuances of the, as a lawyer or a judicial officer. That would be a facet which we all with the flux of time when we hear him, which I'm quite sure and quite sacrosanct that all of us. Not only have read about him, but we've also heard his webinars, coupled with on various news channels whenever the high profile cases are there, he's the man of the moment today. And without taking much time, I can say that keep on wearing your mask, maintain social distancing and kindly get yourself vaccinated. And we all have seen that the way things are improving while we are maintaining social distancing, wearing masks. The figures have gone down, but the fear is still there and we have, it's all together. They all, they have to say, I is illness and we is wellness. So the joint effort is required. And today our knowledge partner is Daksha Legal, as well as the college from Bangalore, Mr. Mohan is there. And I would request Mr. Ujwal to take things forward, over to you sir. Thank you Mr. Vikas. Indeed, it's my pleasure to present the niceties of the trial of 26th November, that is the terror attack on Mumbai. The terror attack of 26th November on Mumbai was not an ordinary terror attack. But I would say that it's a classic case of sponsored terrorism. It was not an act of only 10 indoctrinated terrorists. But this was a well-orchestrated, meticulously planned attack against India. These attacks have shown us the new present face of terrorism. These attacks are meticulously planned and ruthlessly executed. I would say it was an urban guerilla warfare. Due to these attacks, billion Indians were mentally and emotionally assaulted. This terror attack has physically shocked Mumbai and mentally the entire India and the globe. Now, when I was appointed as a special public professor in this case, the main task was before me that how to complete this memo trial within the shortest possible time. I had an opportunity to conduct the serial Bombay bomb blast case of 1993. That is on 12th March, 1993. Mumbai was attacked by a series of powerful bomb blasts. And for the first time in our country, RDX was used a highly explosive, military explosive material in the said Bombay bomb blast case. But unfortunately, I would say that the serial Bombay bomb blast case had taken about 13 to 14 years for completion of the trial or I would say to book the offends. And therefore, there was a strong feeling because in the terror attack on 26th November, 12 places were targeted by the attackers. We all know what were those places and 12 offends were registered with different police stations from Mumbai city. And therefore, it was not only, I would say it's a legal battle, but in fact it was a big challenge before me how to complete this trial within the shortest possible time. And their friends, I have used for the first time, I have recourse the legal provisions and perhaps that would be for our interest. How to complete such a trial having the enormity of crime, seriousness of crime, magnitude of the crime. But we lawyers are very interesting persons. We write 10,000 word document, but still we call it in the brief. But we know the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is to know that tomato is a fruit, but we never include in the fruit salad. Why? Because wisdom is to know not to include in a fruit salad. And therefore, keeping in mind basic this principle, I was thinking, because I have single-handedly conducted this case. Ajmal Kassab was given the legal aid of two eminent lawyers of Mumbai city at the cost of public exchequer. In fact, Ajmal Kassab had asked for a lawyer from Pakistan, but Pakistan government did not exceed his request, did not acknowledge his letter, though we have sent it later to the government of Pakistan. So we have provided two eminent lawyer. They fought for Ajmal Kassab. And very interesting, before turning to the legal aspect of the matter, we had to consider. What is meant by terrorism? There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. However, by and large, we can say that those acts which are intended to create fear or those acts which are perpetrated for an ideological goal or those acts which deliberately target the safety of non-combatants is called a terrorism. If I had to explain terrorism in a simple language, then I would say that terrorism is like a pyramid. At the top of the pyramid, there are terrorists, then there is a layer of active conspirators. And below that there are the passive supporters. This construction explains the support base of the terrorism. Therefore, unless such supporters are not brought in the net of the legal action, terrorism cannot be eradicated. Unfortunately, quite often we have seen in number of cases that one country's terrorists are regarded as rather countries' heroes. In modern times, war is an expensive and risky direct war, I would say. It may lead to a nuclear confrontation. It may also escalate a full-fledged pervasive war. Therefore, instead of direct war, some nations, some countries are interested in indirect war, which I would like to call it as a proxy war. So, terrorism is a war waged by proxy. The object of such war, proxy war, to destabilize and weaken the government, it breaks up the social, political and economical order of the victim nation. So, terrorism is an international problem. Most of the countries are now facing this problem of terrorism. But unfortunately, I would say, for many reasons, there is no consensus among different countries for bringing terrorists to justice. Our country, India, has successfully brought a number of terrorists to justice. I have conducted a number of cases in Maharashtra pertaining to the terror attack or fantasies. Now, the question that first cropped up in my mind, why did they attack Mumbai? Why so much killing? Why so much pain to so many innocent people? And what will happen next? These were the four questions which were daunting. And in my mind, and which were asked by every Indian after the terror attack on 26th November. When I spilled the charge sheet, I found that Mumbai Police had cited 3,500 witnesses. Finally remember, the figure was 3,500. I have examined out of these witnesses, 659. Through video conferencing, I have examined four witnesses. And Mumbai Police had filed the charge sheet. On 25th February 2009, the trial judge had framed the charge against the accused Ajwal Kasab because he was the only surviving terrorist. On 6th May 2009, court had framed the charge on 6th May 2009. I have commenced the evidence by examining the first witness on 8th May 2009 and completed a trial on 16th December 2009. So on 8th May, it was on day to day basis. On 8th May 2009, I put the first witness and thereafter I have examined about 659 and completed the evidence. On 16th December 2009, that is within the span of 6 months on 8 to 9 months, I have completed the entire evidence. And the court delivered the judgment. Holding Ajwal Amir Kasab of Pakistan as a guilty of all the offenses. And court has awarded death penalty on 6th May 2010. Thereafter I appeared in the High Court, I conducted a matter. Now a legitimate query may arise in our mind. How I had examined speedily this trial. Kindly remember friends that there is a very one provision in the CRPC that is section 296 of CRPC. Now section 296 of CRPC permits prosecution to lead evidence by way of affidavit if evidence is of formal character. Again a query may arise in our mind. What is meant by a formal character? Criminal procedure code does not define as to what is meant by the evidence of a formal character. Normally such facts are to be formal character about which the accused will have no chance. Now before leading the evidence on affidavit in Kasab trial, I submitted a detailed chart before the court saying that I am dividing some witnesses or a formal character into three groups. The first group which I have met out in the terror attack of 26th November, 166 people have lost their lives. Therefore I have filed the affidavit of the punch witnesses in whose presence the inquest Panchanama went wrong. That was the first category. That is the inquest punch. Then second category I have made that in this attack 234 witnesses where people were injured. I produced the evidence of doctor who had treated those injured persons. Evidence of doctor I have filed their affidavits. Then third category the property worth of rupees 41 crore 72 lakhs was damaged or destroyed on account of the terror attack. I produced the evidence of such servers on affidavit who had assessed the whole damages. Naturally when I filed the affidavit of such people in all I have already given the figure that the evidence of that is the affidavit total witnesses 3659 I have examined about 350 witnesses. Evidence I have taken on affidavit. Of course though I have filed the affidavit I have summoned the copy of all those affidavits to the other side that did to the learned defense council. And I called upon the defense council that if at all they would like to cross examine the evidence of these witnesses who have tender their affidavits we are ready to recall that. We are ready to call them for the cross examination. Defense had also perused those affidavits and they have given about the 50, the affidavit of 50% to whom they would like to cross examine. And accordingly 50 witnesses were recalled. The exemption chief in lieu of the affidavit was dispensed with and only they were the cross examine. So this is a very very unusual provision in CRPC which I have used. Then the next question was to prove the charge of the criminal conspiracy. But before turning to the criminal conspiracy. I would like to tell you the brief facts of the case. The Ajmal Amir Kassab who was a lone surviving terrorist had given the judicial confession before the Metropolitan United States Mumbai. Disclosing as to how criminal conspiracy was hatched amongst themselves. How they started from Karachi. Then when they did reach near Mumbai and how they mercilessly executed the plan. So according to the investigation and according to the evidence of judicial confession of Ajmal Amir Kassab. We found that on 21st November 2008. Ajmal Kassab and nine deceased terrorists and some wanted accused. Left Karachi Pope in one Pakistani ship that is Al Husaini. On 23rd November they started from Karachi on 21st. On 23rd November at about 3pm. When Kassab and nine deceased terrorists. Enter Indian waters. Then came across one Indian fishing traveller MV Kuber. They intercepted MV Kuber. They forcibly entered the Indian fishing trawler Kuber. There were five sailors on board of Kuber. They were from Urbandar Gujarat. Out of those five sailors. Four sailors were forcibly taken into Pakistani ship that is Al Husaini. While the navigator of MV Kuber, Amar Singh Solanki. Was forcibly kept on the board of Kuber. And he was compelled to navigate Kuber towards Mumbai. Then after Pakistani ship Al Husaini left towards Pakistan. Along with the four Indian sailors. Ultimately we found that those four Indian sailors. Were done to death by the Pakistani terrorists. When those ten terrorists. Were about three to four nautical miles away from Mumbai. Accused Ajmal Kassab. Beheaded Solanki with a sharp knife. He concealed the dead body in the Kuber itself. Then thereafter we all know. They sat in inflected boat. Rubber speed boat with arms ammunition. And they landed at Badwar park. At 9 p.m. And they attacked and they divided into various groups. Each group was consisting of two persons. One group rushed over the CST railway station. One group consisting of two members attack hotel large. Hotel Taj. Hotel Oberoi, Nariman house. And some at some other places also. So in this way. They carried out the terror attack. They started the terror attack on the night of 26th November. And on 28th all terrorists except. Ajmal Kassab who was caught red handed. The others were done to death. In a counter fire. Now dear friends it is very pertinent to note. That. When the attack was made. They were interacting. With their handlers. Our secret agencies. Had intercepted the conversation of those terrorists. And we found. That. These 10 attackers. Were receiving instruction from. Phone number. Starting from a code. 001. That is US USA code. So with the help of a bi. Immediately we found that. A call from a center was open. In USA. By Pakistani national. They were giving instruction from Karachi. And that call for X. Therefore we are getting the information. That these calls were originated. From Pakistan. I have examined the expert. No. I divided this case into two parts. The first part. That incident disclosing the direct involvement. Of accused. And this is. A big smile. This is the first part. Then second part. That incident disclosing. The involvement of nine terrorist accused. Now in this manner. I have marshal the evidence of each incident. Now after filing of the charge sheet. I still remember that the first day. Was about to open the case. We all know. That under section 226 of CRPC. The public prosecutor has to open his case. By describing. The charge brought. Against the accused. The nature of the offense. And nature of evidence. Which public prosecutor proposes. To lead before the court for proving the guilt of the accused. The address contemplated under section 226 of CRPC. Is not a mere rereading or reproduction. Or explanation of the charge. What is the legislature intention in enacting the provision of section 226 of CRPC. The intention of the legislature. Is very obvious very clear. That. It is a preliminary given to the court. To the judge. So that the court should know. In what manner. The prosecution proposes to unfolded case. Also. To give a notice. To the accused. That this is the prosecution case. And this is the evidence in our hand. Which we would like to marshal against the accused. The principle of natural justice. In a way. Are also followed in this way. Of course. Under section 226 of CRPC. Marrieds and demerits of the case. Are not to be argued. Or debated. With propriety. I may reproduce. The words of Mr. Justice Crompton. Who had said. That the public prosecutor. Has a prior and the perpetual retainer. On behalf of the truth. And justice. This is the duty cast upon the public prosecutor. Public prosecutor. Should not be a prosecutor. Though he represents state. It is his onerous duty. And legal duty. Pious duty. To assist the court in the albist of justice. And if the public prosecutor found that. That there is no evidence they accuse. He must come forward. And must address the court. About the insufficiency of the evidence. So public prosecutor. Has to play. A very fair role. Is a minister of law and justice. In the whole system of the administration. Of justice. I am reminded. The words of Mr. Churchill. Who had once said. When questioned by somebody. About the future of his nation. And how. He was going to. And how. He was going to brighten the same. Mr. Churchill has said. In one epigrammatic sentence. By peace. If I can. By war. If I must. So. What was the challenge before me. In the whole trial. To establish the guilt of the accused. The first thing. Secondly. Deliberately. With the approval from the court. Prosecution has decided to hold a proceeding. In an open court. Dear friends. I must remind. I must tell you. That the entire proceeding of 26. November trial. Was in the open court. It was not in camera processing. Media processing. Media people were allowed to remain in the prison. Public. Only the lawyers who are concerned with the case. And the senior councils were permitted to sit in the court. To watch the processing. Why we have done. Taken the state. Because we would like to play very fair game fair justice. To a foreigner. Accused. I'm proud to say. That. That our legal system is based on such high enriched principle. That innocence. Is to be presumed until guilt is proved. With this basic current principle. Our court. Has allowed the prosecution prayer. To hold the proceedings. In an open court. Of course. In the orthodox jail. With certain regulation. The court. Passes and this. The security checks were also compulsory. So that the first day came. When I open the case and the section 226. Before I start my opening address. I requested a trial church. That. Here now I would like to open the case. And the section 226. Of the sea apis. The moment I said. I would like to open the case. Ajmal Kasab. Who was in the accused dog. He got up. And told the church. Sir. My nabali. And. Your. You. Can't. What he said. Sir I'm a minor. And according to your Indian law. You cannot. Try this case against me. Say. Why I'm putting this incident. See. This terrorist are also well trained. Not only in handling sophisticated weapons. Arms and memory. Amination. But they were also trained. To some extent. In the laws where they had to. Target. Or attack. So they were knowing. Ajmal Kasab was knowing. Our Indian. Juvenile law. And therefore he made a forward appeal to the judge. And we all know. According to juvenile justice act. If. Accused text such a plea. Then the court has to hold the inquiry. And the juvenile justice act. The movement. The movement. To display. Of course we were knowing. That. Was 21 years old. He himself told to the. The Metropolitan. When his confession was recorded. And then he was apprehended. He told the jail authority. Yes. So accordingly. The matter was adjourned on that day. Doctors team was called upon. Government hospital doctors. Had taken the exchange. Of his bones. Osification test. Were carried out. And after three days. The report came. That his age must be. In between. 21 to 25 years old. So. This once it's clear that he's the major. Then of course. I started. Examining the witnesses. Indeed. Has retracted his judicial confession. Making an election. Making an making allegation. That he was forced to give such. Confession. He was ill treated by the police. And therefore he had given the. And they remember. So retracted. Can he retracted the confession though. Of course it may be on the advice of his. Lawyers. But he retracted the judicial. When I was examining 141. Witness. Again got up. And he said that. He would like to. Plead the guilty. The judge said. Are you pretty guilty? Voluntarily. He said yes. I would like to play guilty. Again asking. Yeah. That. Pressurized. Police torture. Yeah. He said no. May marry. Willingly. May. Admit. The court. What do you have to say. Sir. He has retracted his judicial. Confession. Voluntarily. And if his court is satisfied. That he's. He didn't guilty. Voluntarily without any extended. His constitution or force or ill treatment. The court may record it. Good had started the report. He started giving his gay. The whole crying. For about one and a half. Take. After recording. His entire admission. In the open court. Good asked me. Still do you want to proceed further. Or you would like to close the evidence. Kindly remember. This was a very. Very. I would say. That. The moment. As well. Has completed his entire national. Narration. Disclosing where from he came. How they mercilessly and all this carried out the attack. And all these things. The court asked me this. Very. Pinpoint question. Well, Mr. Prosecutor. Has pleaded guilty. He has admitted his guilt. In the open court. Do you want to proceed further. Or you'd like to close the evidence. If you're closing the evidence. I will fix the matter for the judgment. Dear friends. I was hearing what he was telling the court. And what he was pleading. The court. Within a fraction of a second. I told the judge. Sir. No. I'm not admitting his plea. I would like to marshal. The evidence. Against. Immediately the movement I said. Electronic media. Has carried this news. There was a debate. On channel. Why the prosecutor is. Not accepting the guilt. Why the prosecutor wants to proceed further. Without knowing the panelist. Were talking. But dear friends. What has been admitted. Though he had admitted. That he came from Pakistan. He was not accepting. His role. That he fired bullets. On innocent person at railway station. What he admitted. That his deceased colleague. Abu Ismail. Who was accompanying him. He fired bullets. He killed our senior police cop. Mr. Karkare and the other. Salaskar. But he was also with him. So this is very very ticklish style. He was taken. He had accepting his role. As not in the primary. Of the conspirator. That he came from Pakistan. Because. I was interested to watch. Mumbai Bollywood movies. He was going. Bollywood city. And therefore he was fascinated. By Mumbai. And therefore he came to Mumbai. Along with the other people. But he was not knowing. Their exact plans. And he did not open the fire. Though actually. At CST station. Which captured the whole incident. We had produced all those. Evidence technical evidence in the court. He was laughing. He was smiling at the time of the opening. The fire with AK-47 rifle. So. Why I did. Why I did not accept. I did not accept it. Because. At the time of the sentence. Death penalty. And given. Who has played a major part in the crime. This is a death penalty. The rarest of rare crime. Rare of rare punishment. And it is just to be awarded to such a person. Who has played a major role in the crime. Ajmal Amir Kassab. Celebrately taking a secondary role in the whole incident. Showing some easy. No sir. And I accepted. His plea. I would not have the position to ask for the death penalty. But those poor panellists. Who came on the channel. Various eminent lawyers also came on the panelist. And they were raising the question. Why. Public procedure did not accept his plea. So what I would like to emphasize. That public procedure. Has to take certain decision. He can't say. And he can't say that you have to take instruction from my police commissioner. I had to think over. No. Public procedure has to be very alert. While conducting. Such important trial. And every criminal trial. Why this trial I would say. So friends. The main challenge before me. To establish criminal conspiracy. So how it was very clear to us. That's. These 10 terrorists came from Pakistan. The main criminal. Conspiracy was hatched outside India. That is. That is. Happy. And those are the people. So. It was very clear. That the terror attack on 26. November. Was an over tax. In persons of the criminal conspiracy. Hatch outside India. Their friends. How to prove the criminal conspiracy. That was again. Very important issue. Now. I would say. Of the Indian penal code. Defines criminal conspiracy. When two or more person agreed to do. Or cost to be done an illegal act. Or legal act in the illegal manner. They are said to constant criminal cost. This is the statutory definition of criminal. Conspiracy. If I had to define in a simple language. I would say. That conspiracy means. Breathing together. Two persons cannot breathe together. Unless. They put their heads together. This is a simple language. Of a criminal conspiracy. So. Just to the criminal conspiracy. Is that there must be an agreement. And such agreement. Must be before. Before the act is done. Now. How conspiracy. Is to prove. That is a very important question. The criminal case. It is very seldom. To have a direct evidence on criminal conspiracy. However. Conspiracy. Can be proved. By two ways. The first ways. It is proved by inferences. Logical. Irresistible inferences. And not. By direct evidence. Therefore. The evidence. In respect of the conspiracy. Is always indirect. Or inferential. If there is a corroboration. For some earlier events. Thereafter. If we find that. Corroboration to some latter events. And the events in between the two are left. Uncorroborated. Then we have to go by method. Of logical influences. Inference and conjectures. Are two different things. Friends. What is permitted under law. Is only the irresistible inferences. Or conclusion. From certain facts. For which. Seelogism. In logic. Has to be applied. Let us take a famous. Of quoted. Seelogism. In logic. Seelogism in logic. I would like to give a simple illustration. All men are mortal. All kings are men. Now. These first two equations. Are universally true. All men are mortal. All kings are men. Therefore from these first two equations. Third irresistible inferences. Third irresistible inferences. All kings are mortal. All men are. Mortal. All kings are men. And therefore all kings are mortal. This is the third statement. All kings are mortal. Is a necessary consequence. Of the first two statements. There cannot be any other. Inference. Whatever. This is what is called as a logical consequence. This is what is called. Inference. And that is what is known as a reliable. Circumstance. In evidence. This is the one way of proving the criminal. Second way. Conspiracy. Is always to be inferred. Or gathered. From the facts of past. As well as. Present. What we find today. We can easily understand. As to what was yesterday. So. This is the way. I would say. That present. Is the child of the past. Past is to be inferred from the present. Past is to be inferred from the present. Past is to be inferred from the present. And future is to be anticipated. From the present. Whatever we do later on. Is always the confirmation. Is always the confirmation. With whatever we decide earlier. With whatever we decide earlier. Future confers the past. Future confers the past. This is called an internal proof. This is called an internal proof. It is said in English. That if winter comes. Can spring be far behind. Can spring be far behind. On the same analogy I would like to say. On the same analogy I would like to say. That if conspiracy is hatched. That if conspiracy is hatched. Then the execution of crime. Is far behind certainly not. Therefore. Execution of crime. Was itself a confirmation of the fact. Was itself a confirmation of the fact. That there was conspiracy also. That there was conspiracy also. Now. Coming evening. Cast their shadow. Before. So conspiracy is the shadow. While the murder. So. Whether there was any criminal conspiracy or not. Well he will be decided. With reference to what happened subsequently. That is acts committed. In furthest of the criminal conspiracy. Now. So criminal conspiracy what we had to prove. In the. In the present case of 26th November. Not only on the basis. Of the judicial confession. Of Azmal Amir Kassab. But also on certain. Forensic evidence. Like. The investigating agency. Has this certain. Material. From. The possession of this 10 terrorists. This material. I don't want to describe the whole material. These materials. Unethically. Irresistibly. Showing that. They were made in Pakistan. They were made in Pakistan. This is number one. Number two. They were interacting with their handlers. They were interacting with their handlers. In an ongoing terror attack. In an ongoing terror attack. And that. The whole conversation was intercepted. And. The third point is. The third point is. That. Why did it kill people. Without any object. Whether they were mad. No. See. They kept certain hostages. In Hotel Taj. And of course. Those hostages. Were ran away. The moment they got an opportunity. Ran away from the place. And thereafter. They disclose the whole thing to the Mumbai police. Now this is one aspect. That was before me. Was to establish the case of. Waging war. Against the government. One may wonder. As to why and how. I say that. The terror attack on 26 November in Mumbai. Constituted. Waging war against government of India. Their friends. The term waging war. Contemplated. In Indian penal code. Is not confined to the term war. As we understand it in the normal course. Section 121 of the Indian penal code. Defines the term waging war. As. Whoever wages war. Against government of India. Or attempts to waste such war. Shall be punished with death. Or imprison for life. The next section. 121. A of IPC. Makes a conspiracy. To commit the offense of waging war. Punishable intersection. 122. Of IPC. Makes the collection of arms. With the intention of waging war. It was argued. In the trial code. On behalf of. That. How prosecution. Saying and alleging. That attacks. On the hotel over. Hotel Taj. Nariman house. CST station. Then Kama hospital. We're not the sovereign authority of the government of India. All these places. We're not the places. Directly. Concerning any installation. Of the. Government of India. And therefore. It is. And therefore. It was argued on behalf of. America. That the said attacks. Or said acts of terror attack. Is accepted as a. Waging war. Then every terrorist act. Amount to a waging of war. Now the question is. What is meant by. Waging war. The initial idea of the war was that. It can be. It can be only between two nations. During earlier days. The rival troops. Have to face each other. There must be a combat. Between them. This is called as a conventional war. But. Now. The technique of warfare. Has undergone a vital change. An. Account of. Intercontinental. Intercontinental ballistic missiles. One. Can. By remote control. Cause any destruction. To any other nation. By sitting in your own nation. In short. The concept of. Waging war. Has undergone a vital change. There cannot be a common. Warground nowadays. There cannot be now. Two troops. Facing each other. And the fighting war. Waging of war. In modern times. Is an expensive. And risky. It may lead to a nuclear. Confrontation. It may escalate in a full place. Pervasive war. Therefore nowadays. Instead of direct war. Some countries may involve in indirect war. In direct war. Which we can justify called as a proxy war. Which I already said. So. Supreme code has described. Such terrorist attack. Such terrorist attack. As a proxy war. Because they started. On their country. By attacking some foreign land. This is the war in absence here. Justice Rama Swami. Of honorable supreme court. Has observed in Karthar Singh versus state of Punjab. Has observed in Karthar Singh versus state of Punjab. Than the world terrorism. Than the world terrorism. Has become now associated with ideology of overthrowing. A gomen. By resorting to a violent. Fear. Inspiring method. Justice Rama Swami. Has coined two terms. Namely. Firstly proxy war. Namely unconventional war. The object of. Unconventional war. Is to destabilize. And weaken the government. Break up social, political and economic order. Break up social, political and economic order. In parliament attack. The honorable supreme court. Has. In state forces. Has said that. In waging of war. There need not be. Any idea substituting. A 13th comment. In short. I would like to say. Than the term waging war. Waging of war. Is not to be used in the narrow sense of the term. Because. The very concept of war. Has undergone a wide change. In the present case. That is of terror attack. Of 26th November. The attacks of Mumbai. On 26th November. Never effected. Out of any personal animus. Out of any personal animus. Ajwala Amir Kassab. And his nine deceased colleagues. Were not the enemy of any person who were killed. Were not the enemy of any person who were killed. They simply could not have been any personal animus. Yet. All they did various atrocities. Why. Why. Was not a soloist and terrorist. Were given very drastic military training. In Pakistan. For days together. Why is that they were equipped with the GPS and mobile. Why did they come to Mumbai. Why did they attack Mumbai. The only. Irresistible and logical. Answer. We can give is that. They wanted to do something against India as a. Nation. They did not have any personal. They did not have any personal reason to do the same. But why Mumbai only? This question has been answered by Ajmal Kasab in the judicial conflict. He gave two, he gave two replies. Firstly, he says, to bring pressure upon the government of India, liberating Kashmir from India. And secondly, to destroy Mumbai being a rich and economically powerful city so that foreigners should be desisted from coming to Mumbai and making investment in Mumbai. We prove five facts in the case. Firstly, the terror attack of 26th November was aimed at India and Indians. Secondly, they killed foreigners because the killing of foreigners on Indian soil would deter foreign countries to make any investment in India. Thirdly, attackers were foreign national. Fourthly, attackers were armed with prohibited weapons and use RDX-laden bombs. Lastly, the accused persons had conspired to topple the whole administration with a view to capturing Kashmir by spreading the reign of terror not in the city of Mumbai, but in the big cities of India. So in this manner, we marshal the whole evidence. I need not go to the other technical evidence. But after establishing the entire guilt against Ajmal Amir Kasad when the court has sent in the gallows, we found that the trial is not being completed. There is not full justice because the main key conspirator who had planned the whole attack, that is Hafiz Sahil, the founder of Lashkarat Toiba or nowadays they are calling it the Jamaat Udawa or then his other colleagues, Lakfi, they are free. And after the execution of Kasad, the government of India sent one of our official commission to Pakistan. I was one of the members of its commission. We went to Islamabad. We stayed there for seven days. We interacted with the Pakistani Home Ministry. We told them, look, this is the evidence against the perpetrators who had discriminated of conspiracy there in your soil. You have to prosecute. That trial is still pending. It is in camera. We don't know what is happening in Pakistan. Their people, their prosecutor came to Mumbai. We have given our witnesses, their judicial commission came. They examined our some witness. Again, they went back. India has shown that yes, we'll cooperate. During our interaction with their authorities, they said that we want an evidence. It's a very funny thing that criminal conspiracy was hatched on their soil. Still they were asking the evidence from us. We said that we have given the evidence about the over attack. You had to find out the evidence and a criminal conspiracy. But they said, no, that you had to find out. Their friends, after coming back from Pakistan, I found that David Hiddley, before the terror attack of Mumbai, he visited Mumbai. He took out the pictures, various pictures, photos of the targeted places and send it to Lashkaratoyba for finalizing the terror attack. So he was no conspirator. But David Hiddley had given a plea bargain in Chicago court and he admitted his guilt. Chicago's court session court has awarded him 35 years sentence and it was agreed between US and David Hiddley that he would give evidence in India as well in the Pakistan. We have taken the advantage. I have taken the copy of the plea bargain agreement. And we have decided to examine David Hiddley as a vividness by tendering a pardon to him as an approver. And dear friends, I'm glad to say that we have examined David Hiddley and we have taken out all the details about the criminal conspiracy. We have sent the whole evidence to the Pakistani authority, but they did not act upon it. But David Hiddley had given a certain sensitive revelation with the mobile numbers of certain army officers, their connection with the Lashkaratoyba and how the terror attack of 26th number war or just by Lashkaratoyba with the connivance of the Pakistani army officers. This is a pleasant face. So dear friends, what I would like to submit and what I would like to say finally that while pleading the case in any criminal either as a prosecutor or the defense lawyer, one has to consider well in advance what are the merits and demerits in our case? Whether legally speaking, we can overcome all the demerits of the case or not. What are the leculage in the investigation? How to recall? Say while conducting many cases, not only of the terror case, while conducting other similar criminal crimes, I found a number of times that police officer making an investigation while recording the statement of a witness under section 160 of CRPC. Certain things are not to be stated by the witness. And when the public prosecutor takes out certain things from the witness, then the defense says, no, this is an omission amounting contradiction. He did not disclose this fact before the police while when the police had interrogated him and while taking down his statement. Maybe an omission, but public prosecutor, when the when public prosecutor examine the witness, it is called an interrogation by the public prosecutor. When police officer interrogates the witness and record his statement. So in a way, when the public prosecutor examine the witness in the court of law, I would say that the interrogation of a witness by the public prosecutor. So the public prosecutor can ask many questions. And it's my practice. I can tell my junior friends that if you examine the witness, either as a prosecution witness or a defense witness, if you find that or if you find out the certain things which are not been taken down and recorded by the police, you can certainly ask and request the judge to record this question and so forth. So that you can argue. Whether this question was inconsistent with the story or not. Suppose, for example, I would like to give a simple illustration, then I will close my also patients. Suppose witness gives a statement saying that in the midnight, the assailant came and he attacked with the help of sword on the deceased person and he ran away and I have seen that accused. His name is so phala phala or his description is like this. This is the statement in the square 161. Now, when the incident, admittedly when the incident had occurred in the midnight, the police statement is totally silent as to how he could see in the midnight. There is no reference of any electric light or pole light, street light, nothing, nothing. So source of light is totally absent in the police. Therefore, the public prosecutor can make a request to the judge saying that, sir, my further part of the evidence may be recorded in the question and so forth. Dear friends, section 276 of the CRPP permits, allows the judge to record some narration in the question and so forth. So you can request the judge to replying question path. The public prosecutor has to put the simple question. Then admittedly when the incident had occurred in midnight and it is your contention that you had seen the assailant, may I know how you could see the assailant when there was a midnight, then admittedly, immediately, read his reply. Yes, I saw his face because they're on the street light. So defense naturally is going to the number. Defense is bound to say. Then defense, you did not mention this fact to the police. When he interrogated, police did not ask me the simple explanation. Therefore, while asking and putting an omission or contradiction, dear friends, it is always common mistake of many lawyers that while asking and bringing an omission on the record, they never ask the witness. They never give them an opportunity to witness as to why you did not state this fact before the police. Opportunity is to be given while proven contradiction under section 145 of the evidence act when witness attention is to be invited to the police statement. Similarly, one should not be happy that witness admits that I did not state police. But why you did not state me from the police? That is bound to be us. So principle of natural justice are required to be followed. Dear friends, I think this is more than sufficient for us. And I'm very kind of you to all to have the patience sharing. Thank you very much. After marathon session speaking, I think that 200 ml water will not be suffice. But the way you got water, we all got the session, which was quite fascinating. And I will ask Mr. Professor Dr. Mohan to share his knowledge because he's our knowledge partner. Yes, sir. Very kind of you. Thank you very much. Padmasri, Ujwalnikam, we in fact applied from Krista Jayanti College of Law during the pandemic one. And we could not make it possible and hearty congratulations to Vikas sir and very kind of you for exceeding to our request to deliberate on the very, very, very apt subject of Ajmal Kasapur, the child of a terrorist attack. And my small query to you is to explain the significance of the substantial variation in dealing with the terrorist cases that is shifting of the owners of proof to the accused. And will it in any way reduce the burden of the prosecution in dealing with this kind of cases? Frankly speaking, under certain special laws, the burden was in some cases at certain contingency was on the shoulder of the accused. But all these special acts are being abolished for one of the reasons. Like example, terrorist act also, and the other acts also, proto act also is concerned prevention of terrorism and so on. But then we had to follow up on the regular provisions that is burden of proof section 101 to 106 and 107 to 8. Now, if any fact is within the special knowledge of the accused, then only the burden shifts on the accused. Now, therefore, you see, ultimately, our legal system is an advisable system. So, everything is to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Though I am working as a public process since number of years, I still maintain and I will still say that it should be on the prosecution to prove the guilt. You see, ultimately, the police machinery, investigating agency agency is interested only in booking the offender and to send the charge in challenge in the court of law. But public procedure has to play a fair game. And therefore, I would say that it's good that the prosecution has to establish. But in terrorist cases also, at some time, we find many problems to prove particular case beyond reasonable doubt against the terrorists. Because especially in Qasab's matter, we found though, of course, we have collect, there were the eyewitnesses. But you see, there was a move. There was some people were contending senior cops also. They filed separate, separate charges, 10 charges. So that for each incident for Hotel Oberoi, Hotel Taaz, there are eyewitnesses. So, we will hang the Qasab immediately. But no, it's not a question of hanging Qasab. It's a question of establishing the criminal constancy. Where from they came? What was their objective behind the terror attack? What was their object behind the terror attack? So, we had to point out not only we should not be satisfied that Qasab should be hanged. But we had to prove the whole world, how the India being the victim of this terrorism. That is the reason. So, so, so great. And now there's one more small observation in the query. Media takes advantage of the situation. Nowadays, it's in a way, you dropping advantage and conducting trial even without having proper know-how and putting some somebody who is not not at all consent and service also stating that there was some discussion conducted or trial conducted in any encodations. And how far is it tenable for the media to do that when actually the proceedings are going on before the courts. And yeah, yeah, unfortunately, we don't have any such law which would prevent this which would prevent this media from reporting the court cases. So, even the Supreme Court on the number of occasion this issue cropped up before the Supreme Court also give whether media is to be restrained or not to be restrained. Say, if trial is in the cameras to be held in the camera, then certainly media is to be demand from reporting. But another question because we had a strong discussion so far as while conducting a trial whether media has to be banned or whether media has to be controlled or whether media should be advised to have a self-restraint. I'm very happy to say that in Mumbai, the media had a self-restraint. They did not report any such fishy thing which would have been detrimental to the prosecution or detrimental to the interest of the state government or the government of India. So, no doubt if media is properly handled, then I think they are very responsible people. They won't go by any such mischief. And another small query, our criminals jurisprudence of the system apparently it allows the accused to lead a comfortable life in the jail delaying and taking every such advantage of the system finding out the loopholes or such issues as Sir was rightly pointing out at the very first instance, he was raising a plea that though it is proven to be false, he was raising that he was a minor and the court does not have under starting from the preliminary objection down the line up to the award of death penalty and the hanging of that. Till then, he's comfortably fed and there is an attempt to delay the process and that is permitted and can there be a remedy for getting the justice it should not be hurried and worried, but it should not be inordinately delayed. See, we have a specific provision section 309 of the CRPC and it says very clear that trial must go on day two basis. But this is not in principle, it is followed for number of reasons. Maybe the prosecutor lawyer prosecutor may not be ready with the case or many time witnesses were not present or number of occasioned defense is interested and in a serial bomb by bomb blast case, I was very unhappy because the trial was lingering for more than the 13, 12 years. See, in an argument in the open court, I said that Pakistan is carrying the K2 operation for K for Kashmir, Liberia and K for Kallistan, whereas the accused in this case are D2 operation, D and delay and derail the trial, delay and derail the trial, D2 operation. So, this is the problem that is cropped up. Unfortunately, in our this legal stain system, the ultimate, of course, in number of cases in the stations court, I have I got the debt penalty, but you see, the president award, a president confirm it, but thereafter even also it was not executed for number of reasons. And that is the reason as to why then High Court admits the appeal of the criminal fugitive and then the debt penalty being state. So, one question is, what is the significance of substantial variation while dealing a terrorist case and the other words, especially in respect of the shifting of owners of proof? There is no, there is no nothing, law is now very common to all the cases, even while conducting a case against the terrorist or even an ordinary criminal, the burden of proof is always same on the shoulder of the prosecution. It is shifted only and when, when the accused takes a specific defense like Alibi, if accused takes the defense of Alibi, then it is for the accused to prove it, beyond doubt. So, the burden of proof normally in the Porta Act, in the terrorist Tata Act, the burden was on the shoulder, it goes on in certain cases, contingency on the shoulder of the accused, but now that provision is not there, that law is not there. So, it is always on the prosecution to prove beyond doubt. Sir, we have Mr. Basuraj, the another legal partner of Daksha Legal, he's also Member Bar Council of Karnataka. Okay. He wants to share his knowledge. Okay. Yeah, Mr. Basuraj. There's no question of sharing knowledge. Sir, let me tell you this, in my 33 years of practice, I consider you as a role model. Thank you. Now, the junior advocates ask the question and also they would ask the question, why this criminal is treated with such royalty giving protection and all that? And the two things have taken the Indian judicial system to the global level, that we are believed in rule of law and the absolute followings of the criminal justice system. This is where the India has reached the pinnacle, the one is the trial of President and second one is the midnight trial, midnight hearing it by the horrible Supreme Court of India. Therefore, I always consider you as my role model. Thank you. Village, that I am being a part of a knowledge sharing group which has arranged this. So, thank you very much, sir. I am deeply honored by you today. Thank you. Mr. Basuraj, before we part for the day, kindly update the tomorrow's webinar title. Thank you Vikas. So, we are just parting for the day, just we are uprising the people for the tomorrow's session. Okay. Yeah, Mr. Basuraj. Yeah, for the students of constitutional law, the recent judgment of the Kenyan Supreme Court on the basic structure, doctrine has opened a new debate and new discussions all over the country. In this regard, a seminar tomorrow, Mr. Gautam Bhatia and Sijoria, Mr. Sijoria, both advocates of the Animal Supreme Court of India, will be discussing as the panelists and also lecturers. The seminar is at 6 p.m. tomorrow, Sunday evening, 6 p.m. So, I request all of you to again join the seminars as you have joined today with absolute majority and absolute, you know, the attention which you have restored. So kindly join tomorrow evening, 6 p.m., the seminar on Kenyan High Court judgment on basic structure with the speakers Mr. Gautam Bhatia and Mr. Sijoria, Adokates, Supreme Court of India. So, one thing a lot of people do want to ask, once they find, like Mr. Basuraj said, that you are one of the institution which every young lawyer models and looks upon you, what tip would you give someone to become a good lawyer? What are the key five takeaways, what he should take number one, to become a good student of law because as a lawyer also you have to be student of law. Number two, how to sustain the media pressure, how to dissipate facts and dissect in the right way, like what you said. You have to also look to the future vision, what could arise and how you build up that procedure. What are your five takes for that, how to make a mark within the society by doing well? Mr. Vikas, I think we have done a long marathon session today and these five key points, it's very, I can't say, only there will be a five key points, but only in one epigrammatic sentence, I would say that we should treat always as a student of law. So even at this age, I am learning so many things from my junior friends. So you must keep your mind in such a mood or you have to turn it into such a fashion that you must acquire knowledge, I would say, and this not acquiring the knowledge from the various sources. So what I would like to tell my junior friends that if you are to conduct one case, then you go from one point to a point A to point Z, you have to study every aspect and then you have to anticipate in what way the other side is going to attack. When I hold the extension chief, I always not only concentrate on the statement of the police, but I also text in mind that as to how the defense is going to attack this man. So what are the loopholes in my quotes? So we have to consider from the other angle also. If you'll cultivate your mind in that fashion, then perhaps you will have the good mastery of the law. That's all. Thank you very much, Mr. Vikas. Thank you, sir. I understand it was a marathon session, but as they say that you have succeeded in the marathon and the gold medal is yours. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.