Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court’s death penalty judgment is a landmark verdict, sentencing five people to capital punishment in the 2013 Dilsukhnagar twin blasts case. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), represented by special prosecutor P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, played a crucial role in securing the convictions after a comprehensive investigation.The gravity of the crime — which left 18 people dead and 131 injured — required the bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sudha to proceed with utmost caution. In its 357-page judgment, the court was informed that the accused were members of the banned terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen, indoctrinated, trained, and assigned roles in a broader plan to wage war against the Indian government. The Dilsukhnagar blasts were found to be part of a series of coordinated terror attacks, including the 2010 Chinnaswamy Stadium blast in Bengaluru and the 2013 Hyderabad twin blasts.The accused reportedly attended training camps organised by Pakistan-based terror handlers, assembled improvised explosive devices (IEDs), conducted reconnaissance of target sites, and played critical roles in executing the blasts. Justice Lakshman, who authored the judgment, addressed the forensic and circumstantial evidence in detail. He cited the accused’s shared intent “to commit terrorist attacks to kill innocent people, disrupt the security of India, and instill fear and insecurity among the public.”The court examined the accused’s backgrounds and the steps leading up to the bombing, including online chats, the purchase of a pressure cooker, a test blast conducted at Abdullapurmet, the purchase of bicycles used in the attack, and the recovery of explosives from a rented house in Mangalore. The investigation also documented hawala transactions and the seizure of jihadi material.Referring to the 1980 Supreme Court judgment that mandated the death penalty only in the “rarest of rare” cases, Justice Lakshman applied the prescribed tests — motive, the socially abhorrent nature of the crime, its magnitude, and the identity of the victims. Quoting the 45-year-old ruling, he noted that the death penalty can be imposed “when the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner.”“The factual matrix before us is stark, unyielding, and demands our unflinching attention. The accused, propelled by a calculated design to destabilise social order, executed a meticulously planned attack upon a bustling urban locale filled with innocent civilians — men, women, and children. This was no spontaneous act, but a cold-blooded conspiracy marked by sophisticated explosives, synchronised detonations, and strategic targeting to maximise carnage and despair,” the bench stated.It added that the principle of capital punishment being an exceptional penalty applies to crimes that challenge the very fabric of law and governance. “Given the scale of destruction, economic loss, and fear generated, life imprisonment would be inadequate and incompatible with the principles governing sentencing in such grave cases.”The bench further stated, “The background of the criminal, his psychology, social conditions, and the effect of imposing an alternative punishment on society must be considered. While crimes committed due to personal enmity may not warrant the death penalty, organised crimes aimed at mass destruction must be viewed differently. These crimes eliminate any scope for leniency and warrant the highest penalty as a necessary deterrent.”The verdict stands as a detailed judicial commentary on capital punishment, addressing both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court had even appointed mitigators to assess the psychological state of the accused. “We have given liberal and expansive consideration to mitigating factors. After reviewing psychological and psychiatric reports, the Probation Officer’s assessment, and taking a holistic view of all circumstances, including the possibility of reformation, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case to confirm the death penalty awarded by the trial court,” the judgment concluded.
Source link
