–Report by Ishika Sehgal
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and life sentences of four people in the case of MOHAMMAD IRFAN VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA for conspiring a terrorist attack in Bengaluru’s Indian Institute of Science in December 2005.
FACTS OF THE CASE
There was a shootout at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 2005, which was being investigated. During this investigation, a larger conspiracy concerning Lasker-e-Toiba(LeT), a banned organization in India was revealed. After carrying out the full investigation, eight persons were arrayed as accused. Accused no.8 or A-8 was shown to be absconding. A trial was held for A-1 to A-7. In 2011, the trial court acquitted A-7 but found A-1 to A-6 guilty and passed an order under the Indian Penal Code,1860; Explosive Substances Act,1908; Arms Act, 1959 and Unlawful activities prevention Act, 1967.
Four appeals were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6. A separate appeal was filed by A-3. The state also filed an appeal against the acquittal of A-7. The High Court upheld the imprisonment under section 121A for A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6. A-2 was given 8 years of imprisonment under section 5 of the explosives arms act while the order of acquittal of A-7 was upheld.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, a special leave petition was filed by A-1, A-4, A-5 and A-6. No appeals had been preferred by A-2 and A-3. The state had also not filed any appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
It was contended that the charges under Sections 121 and 153A of the IPC had not been established, leaving only the charge under Section 121A of the IPC, which was also without merit. There was no justification for the High Court to extend the sentence to life imprisonment in a charge where 7 years of imprisonment were sufficient. According to the accused, the circumstances in the record did not support such an exercise. Further, it was stated that the recovery of the books and explosive substances is insufficient for sustaining a charge under section 121A of the IPC. It was contended that the sentence entered into the record did not meet the requirements of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which asked for a sanction from the competent authority for the prosecution of an accused for an offense punishable, among other things, under Chapter VI of the IPC.
CONTENTION OF THE STATE/ RESPONDENTS
The state contended that the material on record which was recovered during the investigation such as a diary, books, minutes of meetings attended by the accused, and the explosives are enough to put the matter against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The documents are signed by all the accused and have been verified by a handwriting expert. The diary and the books clearly mention their intent. The sanction had been obtained for the prosecution of the accused under section 196 by a competent authority and considering the number of explosives recovered, the enhancement of punishment was required.
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION
The court read the judgments delivered by the lower courts in detail and also considered the evidence of record and held that the accused are guilty. It held that the question of obtaining sanction under section 196 does not arise as it had been obtained by Undersecretary after discussion with the Home Minister and the Chief Minister.
The court further observed that though the witnesses turned hostile, some evidence can be deduced from the testimony which cannot be rejected like some of the accused being members of the trust and going for meetings. Further, the court observed:
“……The recoveries of books and literature were completely supported by the concerned Panch witnesses and the Panchanamas on record. The books and literature did carry inflammatory content and messages. The translations of the original versions in Urdu were placed on record by the Prosecution. The voluntary statements which led to such recoveries and the recoveries themselves were also proved by the Prosecution. One important piece of material recovered from A-2 was Diary Exh.P-92. The tenor and text of the contents were captured quite correctly by the trial court in its judgment as referred to hereinabove. The signatures of the concerned accused were proved beyond any doubt through the evidence of PW67, handwriting expert. It thus stood established that the Accused had assembled together with the intent as disclosed from the minutes of the meetings of the Trust. The explosive substances, details of which are given hereinabove were recovered from A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-6. Voluntary statements of said Accused and consequential recoveries effected through Panchas were also duly proved by the Prosecution.
The court relied on a number of judgments to reach the decision. Relying on the observations of Navjot Sandhu, Mir Hasan Khan vs State, Nazir Khan, etc, the court held that from the language of section 121A, persons who plan to “overawe” the central or state government by use of criminal force will be guilty. From all the evidence the intent of conspiracy was clear and it is not necessary that an illegal commission or omission must take place to be punished under section 121A.
The court emphasized that, if the conspiracy, in this case, had been carried out, it would have caused significant harm to public safety and the lives and safety of the people, therefore enhancement of the sentence to life imprisonment was necessary. Such conspiracies shall be dealt with strictly. All the appeals were dismissed as they were devoid of any merit.
