Jurisence
Home AI Legal Hub Advocacy Lab Study Skills About Podcast Academy soon Opportunities soon

LANDMARK CASE

Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra

(2012) 9 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · Criminal law

At a glance

  • Citation: (2012) 9 SCC 1
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Area of law: Criminal law
  • In one line: Yes. The death sentence was upheld, and the Court held he received a fair trial with legal aid.

1 Facts

Kasab was convicted for the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.

2 Issue

Was the conviction and death sentence justified, and was the trial fair?

3 What the court decided

Yes. The death sentence was upheld, and the Court held he received a fair trial with legal aid.

4 Why it matters

A key case on fair trial even in terrorism.

5 Think about it

Why did the Court stress legal aid?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

How to analyse a judgmentHow to cite this case

7 More cases on Criminal law

  • Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1698
  • Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1
  • Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
  • Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214
  • Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1
  • Basdev v. State of PEPSU AIR 1956 SC 488

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano BegumMohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.

Jurisence

The Algorithm for Next-Gen Legal Minds

Explore

Home AI Legal Hub Advocacy Lab Study Materials Word of the Day Case of the Day Weekly Quiz My Jurisence Podcast Skill Roadmaps About

Legal

Privacy Policy Terms of Service Disclaimer

Connect

Contact Instagram Threads Facebook LinkedIn

© Jurisence. All rights reserved.

Educational content only — not legal advice.