 | « Back to article | Print this article |
For Lashkar-e-Taiba, Ajmal Kasab's conviction is nothing, but good news. At least that is what lawyers in Pakistan -- who defend the likes of Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi feel.
"Kasab's conviction at Indian court means I have won the case of Lakhvi and other accused," a lawyer told rediff.com.
Shahbaz Rajpoot, lawyer for Lakhvi and other accused said, "The verdict against Kasab has eased down my case, now there is no difficulty to prove my clients' innocence in the Mumbai terror attack case. Soon the key charges will be dropped and they will be freed."
Rajpoot says that he could defend Lakhvi and other accused not only in accordance to Pakistani constitution, but also under Indian constitution.
"Not only Article 13 of Pakistani constitution and Section 403 of the code of Criminal Procedure say that a person could not be tried twice for the same offence, but also Article 20 of the Indian Constitution says that a person could not be convicted twice for the same case."
He said, "Instead of getting convicted in India, if Kasab was handed over to Pakistan for trial, then his statements could prove healthy against the accused on our side, but now his statement or accusations are of no use as he is already a proved criminal."
Appreciating the Indian court's decision to convict a terrorist, international law expert Ahmer Bilal Sufi said it has complicated the trial of the accused in Pakistan.
He said, "It is certainly a historic decision especially to counter terror in the region, but problem with decision is that it has complicated the trial of the other accused in Pakistan. Kasab could not be investigated in Pakistan now as his judgment has been given in India; accused at both countries are related to the same case."
Strongly disputing his Pakistani counterparts, Gohar Khan, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, says the Pakistani accused could not get anything out of Ajmal Kasab verdict -- whether he is acquitted or convicted.
He said, "The cases are not the same; different are the countries and different are the court systems."
Talking about the decision, Gohar Khan says, "According to the Pakistani law, an accused should be allowed to read the chargesheet levelled against him. Kasab's charge-sheet was running into over 11,000 thousand pages.He would not have read those."
"Another thing that I see is not fair is that Kasab was provided with only one lawyer so when the judge needed at least one month to write the decision, how it is possible for a single lawyer to present such a complicated case single-handedly; I would never call it a fair decision."