Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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