'When Terror Bombings Strike At Innocent Civilians, Death Penalty Emerges As Only Sanction': Telangana HC In Dilsukhnagar Twin Blast Case
"When terror bombings strike with calculated ferocity at innocent civilians, the death penalty emerges as the only sanction capable of matching the crime's existential threat," said the Telangana High Court while upholding death penalty imposed on five Indian Mujahideen operatives convicted for orchestrating the 2013 Dilsukhnagar twin bomb blasts which killed 18 and injured 131 persons.In...
"When terror bombings strike with calculated ferocity at innocent civilians, the death penalty emerges as the only sanction capable of matching the crime's existential threat," said the Telangana High Court while upholding death penalty imposed on five Indian Mujahideen operatives convicted for orchestrating the 2013 Dilsukhnagar twin bomb blasts which killed 18 and injured 131 persons.
In doing so the court also underscored that the act was a "cold blooded conspiracy", with a "strategic selection of targets to maximize carnage and despair", where lives were extinguished, families were irreparably broken and a pervasive sense of insecurity was etched into the national consciousness.
A division bench of Justice K Lakshman and Justice P Sree Sudha passed the order in a reference made by the trial court to confirm the 2016 death penalty as well as on an appeal appeal filed by the convicts– Asadullah Akhter Haddi Tabrez Danial Asad, Zia Ur Rehman, Mohd Tahseen Akhtar Hassan, Mohd Ahmed Siddibapa and Ajaz Shaikh Samar Armaan, operatives of the Indian Mujahideen.
Attack on Hyderabad targeting civilians transcends ordinary criminality
The bench, in its 357 page order pronounced on Wednesday, while upholding the capital punishment observed that the case falls into the category of rarest of rare cases. It said that the apex court had underscored that death is permissible only in the "rarest of rare" cases, where the alternative of life imprisonment is "unquestionably foreclosed." Examining various Supreme Court judgments on the subject the court thereafter referred to the present case and said:
"The factual matrix before us is stark, unyielding, and demands our unflinching attention. The accused, propelled by a calculated design to destabilize the social order, executed a meticulously planned attack upon a bustling urban locale, a place of confluence for innocent civilians-men, women, and children untainted by any conflict. This was no spontaneous outburst; it was a cold-blooded conspiracy, marked by the deployment of sophisticated explosives, synchronized detonations, and a strategic selection of targets to maximize carnage and despair. The toll is staggering: lives extinguished, families irreparably broken, and a pervasive sense of insecurity etched into the national consciousness. The scale of destruction, both immediate and enduring, elevates this offense beyond conventional criminality, placing it in a realm where ordinary punishment falters. With unassailable certainty we believe that such an act of terror so deliberate, so devastating transcends the pale of routine adjudication, compels the "rarest of rare" doctrine's most stringent and uncompromising application to restore justice's equilibrium".
It thereafter observed, "When an offence is not merely a crime against individuals but an assault on civil order itself, the weight of justice must correspond unflinchingly to the enormity of the transgression. This attack at Hyderabad, deliberately targeting civilians in busy streets with a series of coordinated bombings, represents an act that transcends ordinary criminality".
Not an impulsive act, supported by network of external actors
The bench further said that the destruction left behind by the blast, the lives it claimed, "and the terror it instilled place it in a category beyond conventional crime", necessitating an assessment under the strictest application of Supreme Court's decisions in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh.
It underscored that the attack was not an "impulsive act but the product of an extensive conspiracy" executed with precision and supported by a "network of external actors".
It emphasized that every stage–from training to execution–was marked by calculated intent. It further said:
"The accused, acting in concert with others, embarked upon a meticulously planned operation designed to inflict maximum casualties. The strategic selection of targets—densely populated areas ensuring the highest number of deaths and injuries—underscores the deliberate nature of the offence. Such cases demand an analysis not merely of individual culpability but of the systemic and premeditated manner in which terror was unleashed upon unsuspecting civilians. Such acts of terror, aimed at annihilating the very foundations of societal stability, necessitate death penalty as the sole bulwark of justice and order".
Victims were defenceless, rarest of rare threshold obliterated
The court observed that the victims were- defenseless men, women, and children–who were chosen not for who they were as individuals but for what they represented—a "society targeted in its entirety". The court thereafter said that the act fell into the categories formulated in Machhi Singh and Yakub Menon–which are depraved intent, extreme brutality, anti-social nature–a war against the State, magnitude of lives lost/enduring trauma, victim vulnerability.
The court thereafter said that the law does not mandate the imposition of capital punishment in every case of murder, but where the crime is so brutal, grotesque, diabolical, or revolting that it shocks the collective conscience of society, the imposition of the death penalty may become imperative.
"The 'rarest of rare' doctrine stands as a testament to this balance, providing a structured yet flexible standard that allows courts to weigh the enormity of an offence against mitigating factors, if any. It is not merely a threshold for determining eligibility for the death penalty but an examination of the circumstances where justice, in its fullest sense, necessitates the gravest sentence," the court said.
However with respect to the present case the high court said that the "rarest of rare" threshold was not merely crossed but had been "obliterated". It said that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances tilts favourably towards the former, rendering life imprisonment as insufficient penalty for a crime of such monstrous proportions.
Referring to various Supreme Court judgments on the doctrine the court held, "...the death penalty emerges as the just and proportionate response—a bulwark against terror and a testament to the rule of law. When terror strikes the innocent with such calculated savagery, the law shall rise with equal and unrelenting force to protect justice's sanctity and the nation's soul".
Kept mitigating circumstances in mind, no chance of reformation
It also said that keeping in view the gravity of offences committed by the accused, the mitigating circumstances in the present case are not significant enough warranting the remission of the sentences of the accused.
The high court also held that the trial court had properly appreciated the testimonies of witnesses and has recorded sound and tenable reasons for awarding the sentences against the appellants. It further said that it had given a liberal scope with respect to mitigating circumstances and found that it is fit case for death penalty.
"We have given a liberal and expansive scope to the mitigating circumstances. We have also meticulously considered the reports of the State as regards the psychological and Psychiatrist evaluation. The report of the Probationary Officer, the report of the concerned persons and having taken a holistic view of all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances as well as the probability of reformation of the convict, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case to confirm the death penalty awarded by the trial Court...A corollary of the entire discussion made herein above is that there is absolutely no chance of reformation or rehabilitation of the convict. Life imprisonment would be completely futile since the sentencing aim of reformation is completely unachievable. Having given due consideration to all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are of the firm view that this is a fit case wherein the death penalty awarded by the learned Sessions Court needs to be confirmed," the court said.
Confirming the death penalty the court dismissed the accused persons' criminal appeal and also informed them about their right to prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court within thirty days.
Case title: Asadullah Akhter , Haddi , Tabrez , Danial ,Asad and Others v/s State of Telangana
Criminal Appeal 1299 OF 2016 & Referred Trial No. 1 OF 2016