Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
Subahani Haja @ Abu Jasmine, S/o.Haja Moidheen – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant was convicted based on his actions related to isis. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments of the appellant's counsel. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. prosecution's proving charges. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 5. court upheld the conviction emphasizing prosecution's responsibility to prove conspiracy. (Para 76 , 88 , 92 , 102) |
| 6. court's conclusion and modified sentence. (Para 106 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119) |
JUDGMENT :
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No.2/2017/NIA impugning the judgment of the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam dated 25.09.2020. The appellant, Subahani Haja @ Abu Jasmine, was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 122 and 125 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 20 , 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘the UA(P) Act’ for the sake of brevity).
2. The learned Special Judge after a full fledged trial found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default sentence of one month under Section 20 of the U
The conviction for terrorism was upheld based on substantive evidence linking the accused to ISIS activities and intent to procure explosives, with sentencing considerations addressing possible refor....
The court affirmed that association with a terrorist organization with intent to further its activities constitutes a punishable offense under the UA(P) Act.
The court upheld the conviction under UAPA, emphasizing the validity of the sanction for prosecution and the sufficiency of evidence linking the applicant to terrorist activities.
The court emphasized that in terrorism-related cases, the gravity of charges and evidence against the accused necessitate denial of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act.
Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Bail granted - Clause (b) of section 21(4) of MCOC Act it becomes evident that it contains an interdict against grant of bail unless Court sa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a surface analysis of probative value of evidence at the stage of examining the question of granting bail, and the requirement for rea....
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
