MOHAMMAD IRFAN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
827
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 827
827
MOHAMMAD IRFAN
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 201-202 of 2018)
JULY 11, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, HEMANT GUPTA AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.121 and 121 A – Conspiracy to commit
offences punishable by s.121 – Prosecution case that the
Investigating Officer, while investigating incident of shoot-out
occurred at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, came to know
about a larger conspiracy concerning Lasker-e-Toiba (LeT), banned
militant organization in India – Registration of FIR that accused
persons A-1 to A-6, active members of LeT entered into a criminal
conspiracy to cause large scale destruction of public property, multi-
national companies, places of worships, by causing bomb
explosions, attacks on innocent people; and the accused have
reported to have acquired and collected explosive substances and
other necessary arms and ammunitions and conspired to wage war
against the Government of India– Trial court convicted and
sentenced A1 to A6 u/s 120 B, 121, and 121 A, ss. 5 and 6 of the
Explosive Substances Act,1908 and ss. 25, 26 of the Arms Act, 1959
however acquitted them for offences punishable u/ss. 10 and 13 of
the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, and ss. 153A, 153-B
IPC ,whereas A-7 was acquitted of all the charges – High Court
modified the conviction and sentence of the accused – In appeal
before this Court as regards, A-1 and A-4 to A-6, held: There was no
infirmity in the sanction obtained u/s. 196 CrPC – Though the
prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case fully, some
of the features of the prosecution case were substantiated through
their testimonies– Recoveries of books and literature carrying
inflammatory content and messages supported by the Panch witnesses
and the Panchanamas – Diary recovered from A-2 clearly established
the intent of the accused who had assembled, who held meetings and
had appended their signatures which were identified by handwriting
expert – Large quantity of explosive substances recovered from
accused shows the potential danger – Presence of A-1 on the fateful
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
day completely established and his presence assumes significance
as he was not a local person – Conspiracy, the intent of which was
clear from the minutes of the meetings and the consequential
acquisition of arms and explosives to effectuate the purpose and
intent of said conspiracy, would come well within the latter part of
the conspiracy dealt with in s. 121A – As the explanation to s. 121A
discloses, for an offence of conspiracy, it would not be necessary
that any act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance thereof
– Thus, even though no untoward incident had actually happened
as a result of the conspiracy, the matter would still come within the
four corners of s. 121A – Conviction against the accused u/s. 121A
does not call for any interference – On facts, the High Court rightly
enhanced the sentence from seven years to life imprisonment –
Explosive Substances Act,1908 – s. 5 – Arms Act,1959 – ss. 25 and
26 – Unlawful activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss. 10 and 13 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.196.
Sentence/Sentencing: Enhancement of quantum of punishment
by the High Court from seven years to that of life imprisonment for
offence punishable u/s. 121 A IPC – Justification of – Held: If
conspiracy as entered into by the accused-members of LeT, to cause
large scale destruction of public property, multi-national companies,
places of worships, by causing bomb explosions, attacks on innocent
people, had been carried out, it would have resulted in great damage
and prejudice to the life and well-being of the members of the general
public as well as loss to the public property – Such conspiracies to
cause danger to public property or to the safety of the members of
the general public ought to be dealt with strictly – Thus, the High
Court justified in enhancing the sentence – Penal Code, 1860 – s.
121A.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.196 – Prosecution for
offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit
such offence – Sanction u/s. 196 – Plea that in terms of s. 196, the
sanction to prosecute the accused for having committed offence
punishable inter alia under Chapter VI of the IPC was mandatory
and the sanction placed on record did not satisfy the requirements
– Correctness and validity of the sanction accorded u/s.196 – Held:
Mat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.