1. Conspiracy to wage war and overawe government — Recovery of explosives, arms, and inflammatory literature — Charges under IPC Sections 121, 121A, 120B, Explosive Substances Act, and Arms Act. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 16 , 20 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 580
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Mohammad Irfan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 201-202, 203-204, 205-207, 208-209 of 2018
Decided On : 11-07-2022
Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR Mr. Abu Bakr Sabbaq, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Aarif Ali, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar, adv. Mr. Amar Kumar Raizada, Adv. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. Bharat Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vinoothna Vinsam, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Tuhina, Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Ms. Hrishika Jain, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aiswarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
For the Parties : Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR Mr. Abu Bakr Sabbaq, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Aarif Ali, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar, adv. Mr. Amar Kumar Raizada, Adv. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR Mr. Bharat Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vinoothna Vinsam, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Tuhina, Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Ms. Hrishika Jain, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Aiswarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
The Court held that conspiracy to overawe the government by criminal force is specifically punishable under Section 121-A of the IPC, making the general provision of Section 120-B inapplicable. Conviction under Section 121-A is sustainable based on the recovery of explosives and evidence of conspiratorial intent.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 121A, 121 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Arms Act, 1959 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Charges of criminal conspiracy involving terrorist activities orchestrated by an organized group - Court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy and intent to wage war against the state. (Paras 7, 28, 39, 40, 44)
(B) The core issue revolved around the validity of sanctions for prosecution under terrorism-related laws - Proper sanctions were determined to be in place, affirming the legality of the prosecutions. (Paras 34, 35)
(C) The court underscored that the intention behind the conspiratorial meetings aimed at securing arms and ammunition for terrorist purposes was pivotal to establishing guilt under relevant laws. (Paras 121-132)
(D) The court ruled that even the absence of completed acts of terrorism did not absolve conspirators from accountability if the intent and preparedness to execute such acts were evident. (Paras 141-152)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Validity of sanction under Section 196 CrPC — Sufficiency of evidence for Section 121A — Applicability of Section 120B and sentencing limits — Role of accused not knowing Kannada. (Para 28 , 29 )
3. Sanction validly accorded — Hostile witness testimony partially dependable — Minute book and recoveries establish continuing conspiracy — Specificity of Section 121A excludes Section 120B. (Para 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 41 , 42 )
4. Specific conspiracy provisions under Section 121A override general provisions of Section 120B — Conspiracy to overawe government by criminal force is punishable under Section 121A. (Para 39 , 40 , 42 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Convictions under Section 121A and other acts upheld — Enhanced sentences of life imprisonment confirmed. (Para 44 )
6. Is a sanction order communicated by an Under Secretary valid if the decision was taken by competent authorities?
Yes, if the proposal was considered and consent was accorded by competent authorities, such as the Home Minister and Chief Minister, the communication of the decision by an Under Secretary does not invalidate the sanction. (Para 30 )
7. Can the testimony of a witness declared hostile be used to support a prosecution case?
Yes, the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto; the court may accept portions of the testimony that are found to be dependable upon careful scrutiny. (Para 31 )
8. Does Section 120B apply when a conspiracy is specifically punishable under Section 121A?
No, Section 120B applies only when no express provision is made for the punishment of such conspiracy. Since Section 121A specifically punishes conspiracy to wage war or overawe the government, Section 120B is inapplicable. (Para 42 )
9. What constitutes the act of overawing the government under Section 121A of the IPC?
Overawing implies creating a situation of alarm or apprehension where the government feels compelled to yield to force, which may include danger to public property or the safety of the general public. (Para 39 , 40 )
10. What is the required standard of proof in cases involving terrorist conspiracies and recovery of arms?
Absolute certainty is unattainable; the law accepts a high degree of probability. When arms and explosives are recovered, the presumption of innocence shifts, and the accused must explain the possession. (Para 32 )
JUDGMENT :
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. Criminal Appeal Nos.201-202 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.7347-7348 of 2016); Criminal Appeal Nos.203-204 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos.8246-8247 of 2016); Criminal Appeal Nos.205-207 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos.8243-8245 of 2016) and Criminal Appeal Nos.208-209 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No.138-139 of 2017) are filed by original Accused Nos.5, 6, 1 and 4 respectively, against the common judgment and final order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the High Court1[The High Court of Judicature of Karnataka at Bangalore] in Criminal Appeal Nos.220 of 2012, 530 of 2012, 531 of 2012 and 1123 of 2013.
2. In the instant case, eight persons were arrayed as Accused in the chargesheet but A-8 was shown to be absconding. A-1 to A-7, namely, Mohamed Razhur Rehman @ Abdul Rehman, Afsar Pasha @ Basheeruddin, Mehboob Ibrahim Sab Chopdar, Noorullah Khan @ Noorullah, Mohammad Irfan, Nazmuddin @ Munna, Chand Basha and Ahmed Basha respectively, were tried in Sessions Case No.539 of 2006 arising out of crime registered pursuant to FIR No.3/2006. By its judgment dated 17.12.2011 the Trial Court2[The Court of the City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City (FTC II)] acquitted A-7 but found A-1 to A-6 guilty and passed order of sentence dated 19.12.2011, the features of which can be tabulated as under :
| INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860[3. IPC, for short] | Explosive Substances Act, 1908[4. 1908 Act, for short] | ARMS ACT , 1959[5. 1959 Act, for short] | Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967[6. 1967 Act, for short] | |||||||
| Section 120(b) | Section 5 | Section 6 | Section 26 | Section 10 | Section 13 | |||||
| A-1 | Life | 7+1 | Life | 7+1 | ||||||
| A-2 | Life | 7+1 | Life | 7+1 | 5+1 | 3 | ||||
| A-3 | Life | 7+1 | Life | 7+1 | 5+1 | 3 | ||||
| A-4 | Life | 7+1 | Life | 7+1 | 5+1 | 3 | ||||
| A-5 | Life | 7+1 | Life | 7+1 | ||||||
| A-6 | Life | 7+1 | Life | 7+1 | 5+1 | 3 | ||||
| A-7 | Acquitted of all the charges | |||||||||
3. Following four appeals were thereafter filed in the High Court.
Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2012 was filed by five Accused i.e. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6. Criminal Appeal No.1123 of 2013 was preferred by A-3. Criminal Appeal Nos.530-531 of 2012 were preferred by the State against acquittal of the Accused including A-7 under certain provisions and also against award of lesser sentence in respect of offences where the conviction was recorded.
4. Said four appeals were heard together by the High Court. By its judgment and order presently under challenge, the High Court modified the conviction and sentence of the Accused as under:
| 1908 Act | 1959 Act | 1967 Act | |||||||
| Section 120(b) | Section 5 | Section 6 | Section 26 | Section 10 | Section 13 | ||||
| A-1 | Life | ||||||||
| A-2 | Life | 7+1 | |||||||
| A-3 | 7+1 | ||||||||
| A-4 | Life | 7+1 | |||||||
| A-5 | Life | ||||||||
| A-6 | Life | 7+1 | 5+1 | 3 | |||||
| A-7 | Order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was affirmed. | ||||||||
5. Being aggrieved, the instant four appeals before this Court are by A-5, 6, 1 and 4. The State has not preferred any appeal either against the acquittal of A-7 in respect of all charges or against the other Accused who were acquitted of some of the charges. Further, no appeals have been preferred by A-2 and 3.
6. While investigating into Crime No.110 of 2005 relating to an incident of shootout at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, PW-68 Sri V.S.D. Souza came to know about a larger conspiracy concerning Lasker-e-Toiba (LeT), a banned organization in India, which led to registration of FIR No.3 of 2006 on 14.01.2006. The allegations in said FIR No.3 of 2006 were as under:
“1. I was directed by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City vide Memo No.CRM/4/186/2006 dated 29.12.2005 to investigate the case in Cr.No.110/2005 registered in Sadashivanag
