GLOSARIO DE TÉRMINOS-DISEDE

conspirators tow in line with him and executed the inferno

(Scene of Horror) successfully to the detriment of the State.

Therefore, while the involvement of Appellants Aftab and Nasir in respect of the offences for which they were charged and found proved are devilish, diabolic, horrendous, vicious, wicked and its magnitude cannot be lessoned on any account in our considered opinion, the role of Appellant Nasir was always a shade lesser than what can be attributed to Appellant Aftab.

157. Having regard to our above conclusion while at the same time in our view the nature of crime namely, the attack on the police force

posted at the American Centre on 22.01.2002 at 6.30 a.m. in which five police personnel were killed and around 13 number of police personnel and other civilians were grievously injured apart from causing damage to the public property which definitely constituted the offences falling under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 302, 307, 333 read with 120B as well as other provisions of IPC and of Arms Act, it must be stated that this case cannot be equated with the case in Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (supra) or the one dealt with by this Court relating to Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab (supra). Similarly, in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. State

(NCT of Delhi) – (2011) 13 SCC 621, the facts relating to attack on Red Fort were different from the present case and hence cannot be used for the purpose of deciding the sentence to be imposed on the accused. Therefore, even while holding that the charges found proved against the Appellant are of grave in nature, when it comes to the question of sentence we wish to hold that the imposition of death penalty is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case though it calls for other deterrent punishment.

158. In this context, we wish to follow our earlier decision wherein we have referred to the decision reported in Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. The State of Maharashtra and others – AIR 1961 SC 600

and applying Section 45 IPC which defines life to mean the life of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context, the Appellant Aftab deserves to be imprisoned for life for the entirety of his life while in the case of Appellant Nasir he can be imposed with a life imprisonment for a minimum period of 30 years. For reaching our above conclusions, we can refer to the line of cases on this aspect which we have noted in detail in the decisions reported in Sandeep vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2012) 6 SCC 107, paragraph 72, and Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab - (2013) 3 SCC 294, paragraph 40, which reads as under:

Paragraph 72 of Sandeep (supra)

“72. It is, therefore, well settled that awarding of life sentence is the rule, death is an exception. The application of “the rarest of the rare case” principle is dependent upon and differs from case to case. However, the principles laid down earlier and restated in the various decisions of this Court referred to

above can be broadly stated that a deliberately planned crime, executed meticulously in a diabolic manner, exhibiting

inhuman conduct in a ghastly manner, touching the conscience of everyone and thereby disturbing the moral fibre of society would call for imposition of capital punishment in order to ensure that it acts as a deterrent.”

Paragraph 40 of Mohinder Singh (supra)

40. Be that as it may. When we come to the question of applying the various principles culled out from the decisions right from the Constitution Bench decision in

Bachan Singh

right up to the case of

Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab

as held by my learned Brother P. Sathasivam, J. for the various reasons referred to therein, we find that the case still does not fall within the category of the “rarest of the rare case” though it calls for a stringent punishment. Therefore, while modifying the sentence from one of death penalty to that of life

imprisonment till the end of his life we apply the earliest decision of this Court in

Gopal Vinayak Godse

v.

State of

Maharashtra

wherein this Court held in para 5 as under:

(

Gopal Vinayak case

, AIR p. 603)

“

5.

… It does not say that transportation for life shall be deemed to be transportation for twenty years for all purposes; nor does the amended section which

substitutes the words ‘imprisonment for life’ for ‘transportation for life’ enable the drawing of any such all-embracing fiction. A sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life.” The said principle was followed subsequently in

Mohd. Munna

159. In the light of our above conclusions, while we do not find any merits in these appeals and while dismissing the appeals and confirming the guilt of all the charges found proved against both the Appellants by the trial Court, as confirmed by the High Court, except the charge under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act which alone is set aside. For the offences which have been found proved and confirmed in these appeals against the Appellants, while for the Appellant Nasir in

Criminal Appeal No.1240-41 of 2010 the punishment of death for the offence under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with 120B IPC is

modified as one of life and we hold that he should undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a minimum period of 30 years without any

remission. In so far as Appellant Aftab in Criminal Appeal No.1242-43 of 2010 is concerned for the offences found proved under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with 120B IPC, the punishment of death shall stand modified and he shall undergo imprisonment of life till the end of his life. All the other sentences imposed on the Appellants are maintained which as held by the Courts below shall run concurrently.

160. Before parting with the case, we must place on record and

appreciate the work of the Investigation Team headed by PW-123- Anil Kar. On the very date of the incident when he was entrusted with the task of investigation, he swung into action and from then

onwards, we found that he relentlessly carried on the investigation with the wholehearted assistance of each one of his team members and they deserve appropriate encouragement in their services.

161. These appeals are, therefore, partly allowed to the extent that the imposition of death penalty for offence under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is set aside and imposition of death penalty for offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with 120B IPC is modified into one of life and in the case of the Appellant Aftab such life

imprisonment should be suffered by him till the end of his life and in the case of Appellant Nasir life imprisonment should be for a

minimum period of 30 years without any remission. Appeals stand disposed of on the above terms.

..……….……….………..J. [A.K. Patnaik]

...……….…….………J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

New Delhi; May 21, 2014.

In document PLAN DE PROTECCION Y SEGURIDAD (página 31-35)