Back
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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal arising from multiple criminal cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of accused and trial court judgment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. details of investigations related to conspiracy. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. details of recoveries and accused involvement. (Para 11 , 12 , 16 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. reflection on conspiracy law and waging war. (Para 30 , 38 , 40) |
| 6. distinction between conspiracy and specific statutory provisions. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 7. final verdict on appeals and adjustments. (Para 44) |
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 121 A | Section 121 | Section 25 | Section 26 | ||||||
| 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:
| IPC | 1908 Act | 1959 Act | 1967 Act | ||||||
| Section 120(b) | Section 121 A | Section 121 | Section 25 | Section 26 | |||||
| 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
Point of Law : Conviction on circumstantial evidence it must be shown to be conclusive of guilt of accused and must also be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis consistent with innocence of acc....
The judgment establishes that serious allegations of conspiracy to wage war against the state, supported by substantial evidence, warrant the denial of bail, particularly when there is a risk of evid....
The court affirmed that association with a terrorist organization with intent to further its activities constitutes a punishable offense under the UA(P) Act.
Bail cannot be granted to terror activists.
The court considered the petitioner's entitlement to bail based on the intermediate quantity of the contraband, the petitioner's judicial custody, and lack of criminal antecedents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
