Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Meetings Alone Do Not Prove Conspiracy: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Terror Conspiracy Case

05 October 2024 8:54 PM

By: sayum


Karnataka High Court acquitted Apsarpasha (Accused No.3) and Mohammed Fahad (Accused No.2) of all charges in the high-profile terror conspiracy case, while reducing the sentence of Syed Abdul Rehman (Accused No.1). Although the court upheld Abdul Rehman’s conviction for illegal possession of firearms and explosives, it dismissed the charges of conspiracy to wage war against India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case began in May 2012 when Syed Abdul Rehman was arrested in Bengaluru after police received intelligence suggesting that he was in possession of a firearm supplied by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operatives from Pakistan. Rehman was found carrying a 0.32 caliber revolver and was linked to explosive materials hidden at Jnana Bharati campus. Investigations led to the arrest of Mohammed Fahad, a Pakistani national, and Apsarpasha, with accusations that the trio conspired in prison to carry out terror attacks in India.

The trial court convicted all three individuals under various provisions of the UAPA, IPC, and Explosive Substances Act, sentencing them to lengthy imprisonment. The accused appealed the convictions to the High Court.

Terror Conspiracy Charges: The prosecution’s case centered on meetings in jail between the accused and their telephonic conversations. However, the court concluded that these meetings and phone calls alone were not enough to prove a conspiracy to commit terrorism. The court stressed that “mere suspicion cannot replace proof,” acquitting all three from the charges under Sections 120B and 122 IPC and Sections 13, 17, and 18 of UAPA.

Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives: The court upheld Syed Abdul Rehman’s conviction for possessing a firearm and explosives without legal authorization. His conviction under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act was maintained, though the court reduced his sentence from seven years to three years in light of the applicable legal provisions at the time of the offense.

The High Court acquitted Apsarpasha and Mohammed Fahad of all charges, ordering their immediate release. Syed Abdul Rehman will serve a reduced sentence for arms and explosives possession but was acquitted of all terrorism-related charges. The decision underscores the need for solid evidence when prosecuting conspiracy charges under anti-terror laws.

Date of Decision: 25th September 2024

Syed Abdul Rehman vs. State

Latest Legal News