Ajmal Kasab is now a proven adult and can now be tried in a normal court of justice.
A little background:
Ajmal Kasab’s defence lawyer claimed he is a minor and was just 17 year old at the time of 26/11 attacks. If proven to be true, the claim would have had a direct bearing on the punishment meted out to him. As a minor, he can be jailed for a maximum of 3 years.
Extremists recruiting minors is no news. Hence, the question is still relevant.
If Ajmal was indeed a minor, how comfortable would you have been to see a juvenile court sentence him to just 3 years in prison? Juvenile criminals find sympathy with most but does someone like Kasab deserve it? On the other hand, does the gravity of his crime call for an over-looking of the fact that he indeed was as minor? The rule book says – try him in a juvenile court. Would that be unpopular with a people hungry for justice?
It is a dangerous territory to tread.
Now that the Lanka war is heading towards a closure, the chatter about his extradition to India is gaining decibels. Rajapaksa says he is ready to extradite him but only after he faces trial in Sri Lanka.
Mr. President, why on earth would you do that? Do you know nothing of our track record?
Prabhakaran’s trail will be hopeless in India.
We will take excruciatingly long to find him guilty.
“But he got your Prime Minister killed”, did you say?
Oh yeah, we almost forgot. Surely we can’t let him go.
One fine day our courts will finally find him guilty, but we will not have the guts to carry out the sentence.
There will be some fringe elements with sympathy for him and we will be spineless enough to buckle under their pressure.
You would be well advised to finish off the matter in your country sir.