SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Kar) 320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
ANAND BYRAREDDY, L.NARAYANA SWAMY, JJ.
Abdul Raheman @ Shami Ahmed Sha @ Babu @ Abdulla @ Ajmal Katak @ Abu Mahimood – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3645/2010
Decided On : 20-07-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri. Pathan Thaiwar Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri. Prakash Yeli, Additional Sate Public Prosecutor

Headnote:ARMS ACT, 1959 - Section 25 & Explosive Substances Act (6 of 1908), Sections 4, 5: [Anand Byrareddy & L. Narayana Swamy, JJ] Possession of arms etc. - Accused found in possession of pistol, live bullets, a magazine and two hand grenades - Said items were seized from his possession - This established through evidence of police and panch witnesses - Accused had no licence or authority to carry the said articles and no explanation given by him for possession of the same - Conviction of accused under Section 25, Arms Act and Sections 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, held, proper.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 121, 122, 124-A: [Anand Byrareddy & L. Narayana Swamy, JJ] Sedition / waging war against Government - Evidence of witnesses were not sufficient to establish that appellant-accused incited others to wage war against India and to overthrow the Government - No evidence to show that appellant was member of terrorist organization and he was being funded by any such organization - Literature seized from him was for awakening Muslims to problems faced by them in India and threat that Muslims constantly facing from right wing forces - Thus it was not established that appellant was seeking to wage war against India and intended to overthrow the establishment - Appellant therefore held not guilty of any offence punishable under Sections 121, 122 or 124-A.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

2. The appellant was the accused before the Trial Court. The case as alleged against the appellant by the prosecution is that on 30.03.2006, at about 3.50 p.m., the accused is said to have alighted from the Chennai-Mumbai train, at the Gulbarga Railway Station. It is stated that the Police Inspector, one D.C. Nandakumar, of the Station Bazaar Police Station was said to be on special duty along with a squad of officers and he had spotted the accused and on suspicion, had accosted him and on a search of his luggage, it is claimed that the accused was found in possession of a pistol, two hand grenades, books in Urdu and audio and video cassettes. It is claimed that the accused was further questioned as to his identity and background and the accused is said to have stated that he was originally a resident of Mumbai and that he was now residing in Goa and was visiting Gulbarga. And that he was dealing in children’s toys.

Not being satisfied with his explanation and on further interrogation and investigation, a case had been registered against the accused-appellant for offences punishable under Sections 121, 122, 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity) and Sections 10, 13, 18, 20, 21 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘UAP Act’, for brevity), and under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘ES Act’, for brevity) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

It was alleged by the prosecution that the appellant had after completing the Pre-University course at Mumbai, he had also learnt typing and undergone computer training and he had traveled to Oman in May 2001 and returned to Goa in November 2001 and again went to Daman on 5.2.2002, where he had been indoctrinated about Jihad by Islamic leaders at centers there. And claiming to be a citizen of Pakistan, is said to have visited Pakistan. He had been trained at a Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) Training Centre at Rawalpindi which is said to be an outlawed terrorist outfit. Thereafter, he had studied the Kuran, Adis and had received training in handling sophisticated fire arms of all types. He had also been trained in disseminating information, inciting hatred against India via the internet and he had been trained in cartography and wireless radio transmission operation. Thereafter, in the year 2004, he had illegally entered Mumbai and had traveled to several cities including Hyderabad, Zahirabad and Gulbarga and had several financial transactions involving money transfers from outside the country, which was used as funding to recruit members for the LeT and was actively planning to cause destruction to dams, thermal power stations and other facilities in India. He was also traveling and visiting Mosques where he would deliver provocative speeches professing Jihad to the congregations. In December 2005, he is said to have attempted to influence youth belonging to the Ahule Hadis Muslim community of Gulbarga inciting them to fight against India in the name of Jihad and to join the LeT organization. He is even said to have met leaders of the said organization at Bangladesh, apart from traveling to Ahmedabad in March 2006 to bring explosives and grenades with a plan to carry out terrorist attacks and he was returning to Gulbarga, when he was apprehended.

After further proceedings and upon committal to the Court of Sessions, the court had framed charges against the accused, who had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution which had named 60 witnesses, had examined 36 of them, as the other witnesses could not be secured as they were said to be unavailable as some of them had left the addresses furnished. The prosecution had marked
































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top