According to some legal experts, this could be a ploy to tell the court that he is mentally unbalanced and escape the death penalty.
H S Chandramouli, a former public prosecutor in Karnataka, asked why Kasab was permitted to make such a statement when there is no provision available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue such a statement before the commencement of summary proceedings.
Kasab, Chandramouli felt, had been well-tutored and was not alien to the manner in which Indian jurisprudence works.
A man who pleads not guilty at first and then pleads guilty could be viewed as inconsistent before the court, which may lead it to conclude that the accused is not sane.
Under Indian law, a person who is not sane cannot be given the death penalty.
K Madhavan, a senior advocate in Bengaluru specialising in criminal matters, pointed out that Kasab had not made a confession, but issued a statement. A confession can be made only under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He felt the higher courts should settle this issue so that the court's time is not lost. In this case, there is a confession made before the magistrate prior to commencement of the trial. So there was no need for another statement, Madhavan felt. The only time Kasab could have made such a statement was after the examination and summary proceedings when the charges are placed before him.
Madhavan pointed out that the courts cannot take such a statement into consideration. However, during the course of evidence, Kasab's statements can be analysed. But it is not good enough to go ahead and convict him.
Moreover, in this case, the prosecution is not sure whether the statement has been made voluntarily or under the influence of some external pressure. The court has done the right thing by setting the confession aside, Madhavan felt, since during appeal, Kasab can always deny making such a statement or claim that it was made under duress.
Even his confession before the magistrate made earlier can be contested on the same lines and hence a complete trial is the best option. Also, there is a Supreme Court ruling that clearly states that all such statements and documents made by an accused can be placed on record only after the evidence is presented by the prosecution.
