Tenancy Law | Residence for Convenience Does Not Make You a Tenant: Bombay High Court Void Marriages Confer No Pension Rights: Bombay High Court Rules Nomination Cannot Override Legal Heirship Single Blow Doesn't Prove Intent to Kill: Madhya Pradesh High Court—Reduces Attempted Murder Conviction in Amputation Case Arbitrators Can Order Discovery on Unsold Plots for Fair Dispute Resolution: Delhi High Court Vague Dowry Allegations Can't Lead to Criminal Trial," Rules Allahabad High Court—Quashes Case Against Husband and In-Laws NDPS | Heroin: A Severe Public Health Threat, Not Just a Drug: Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Foreign National No Inheritance Beyond Immediate Family: Himachal High Court Upholds Eviction, Imposes ₹500 Daily Charges for Illegal Occupation No Jail for Guntur Municipal Commissioner: AP High Court Allows Rent-Tax Adjustment in Contempt Case POCSO | Modesty of a Child is Her Right: Madhya Pradesh High Cour Uphold Conviction for Molestation of 11-Year-Old Fraud Nullifies All Rights: Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Dismissal of Teachers with Fake Degrees Adoption Without Legal Process Does Not Constitute Kidnapping: Jharkhand High Court Meetings Alone Do Not Prove Conspiracy: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Terror Conspiracy Case Kerala High Court Rejects Fraud Allegation in Property Dispute, Upholds Return of ₹45 Lakhs Advance Payment Courts Must Prioritize Merits Over Technicalities: Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Additional Evidence in Property Dispute Non-Executant in Possession Need Not Pay Ad Valorem Court Fee for Declaration of Fraudulent Deeds: P&H HC Three-Month Imprisonment or Fine for Touting: Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023 Sets New Penalties for Legal Misconduct

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

Similar News