Triple Riding On Motorcycle Not Automatic Proof Of Contributory Negligence; High Court Can Enhance Award Even Without Cross-Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Statutory Power To Lay Electricity Lines Prevails Over Private Land Claims; Landowners Entitled To Compensation, Not Obstruction: Bombay High Court Beer & Whisky Are Allied/Cognate Goods; Use Of Identical Mark For Spirits Infringes 'Godfather' Beer Trademark: Delhi High Court Minimum Percentile Fixed By Indian Nursing Council For B.Sc. Nursing Admissions Must Be Strictly Adhered To; Cannot Be Diluted Without Approval: Calcutta High Court Bride Not Expected To Keep All Gold In Personal Custody In Matrimonial Home; Entrustment To Husband Presumed: Kerala High Court Default Imprisonment Not Additional Punishment But Coercive Measure To Secure Fine; Cannot Become 'De Facto' Debtors' Prison: Karnataka High Court Mahant Is Only A Custodian Of Deity’s Property, Assets Gifted For Temple Maintenance Belong To Public Trust: Gujarat High Court Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Alone Not A Ground To Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In Abduction Case After 3-Year Delay In FIR Beer Falls Under ‘IMFL’ Category; No Obligation To Collect TCS On Sales Prior To June 2003: Telangana High Court Dismissal From Service For Negligence Without Proved Misappropriation Is Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Merit In A Case Does Not Justify Disregarding Statutory Delay: NCDRC Upholds Dismissal Of Star Health's Appeal Filed With 442-Day Delay Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) Arbitration Act Commences Only From Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Award: Madhya Pradesh High Court Government Employee Not Eligible For Regular Promotion During Pendency Of Vigilance Proceeding: Orissa High Court Arrest Warrants Against Directors Under Section 72 CP Act Should Be Last Resort; Proper Procedure Must Be Followed: NCDRC

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