A special court conducting the 26/11 terror attack trial today took on record the plea of guilt made by arrested Pakistani gunman Mohammad Ajmal Kasab and ordered the case to continue.
Special Judge M L Tahilyani in his speaking order said the court has come to a conclusion that Kasab's statement should be taken on record and considered at an appropriate stage as evidence.
The court instructed the prosecution to continue with the trial and produce witnesses in the afternoon session.
In a dramatic development, Kasab had pleaded guilty on July 20 and admitted his guilt regarding his involvement in terror strikes at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and other locations.
The judge, explaining his decision to Kasab said, "Aap ke khilaaf 86 charges frame kiye the. Apne sab nahin kabule hain, lekin gunaah kabool kiya hai. Isiliye court ne decision liya hai ki yeh case chalega. (There were 86 charges framed against you. You have not pleaded guilty to all of them and only to the basic offence. That is why the court has taken the decision to continue with the trial)."
Kasab did not react to the court's order and said, "Theek hai. (All right)."
More From This Section
"The prosecution's stance is totally vindicated by the order of the court," special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam told reporters outside the court. "The court has accepted that he did not accept guilt for the entire incident and did not admit to all the charges. The court has said that his admission of the guilt can be taken on record and will be considered at a later stage," Nikam said.
The prosecution had argued yesterday that Kasab's admission of guilt be taken on record but the trial should be allowed to continue since the gunman had not admitted to his guilt in all the offences in which he was involved.
Nikam had sought that the trial be allowed to continue and the prosecution be allowed to use the confession made in open court when it wanted to do so.
However, defence lawyer Abbas Kazmi had argued that Kasab should be sentenced if his plea was accepted. Else, the court should reject it and not take the statement on record at all.