# MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

- **Citation:** [2022] 10 S.C.R. 827
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-07-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 201-202 of 2018
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohammad-irfan-v-state-of-karnataka-35660
- **Pages:** 76

## Headnote

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, multinational 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.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,989 of 164,804. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39989 for what follows._

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, multinational 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:
Matter was considered by the Office of the Home Minister and the
Chief Minister and consent was accorded to the proposal put up in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
usual course of business, whereafter, the communication was
addressed by the Under Secretary - Thus, it cannot be said that the
sanction was not accorded by the competent authorities - Sanction
in terms of s.196 was valid and proper.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As regards the correctness and validity of the
sanction accorded under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the facts on record as set out in the decision of
the High Court disclose, that the matter was considered by the
Office of the Home Minister and the Chief Minister and consent
was accorded to the proposal put up in usual course of business,
whereafter, the communication was addressed by the Under
Secretary. In the face of these facts, the submission that the
sanction was not accorded by the competent authorities must be
rejected. Consistent with the findings rendered by the courts
below, the sanction in terms of Section 196 of the Code was valid
and proper. The matter regarding sanction accorded in respect
of offences punishable under the Explosives Substances Act and
the Arms Act was also dealt with by the High Court in extenso
and the conclusion arrived at does not call for any interference.
[Para 30][879-E-G]
1.2. The evidence on record can be classified mainly as
oral testimony of prosecution witness Nos. 1 to 8 and 13 and
evidence regarding recoveries. It is true that prosecution witness
Nos. 1 to 8 and 13 turned hostile and did not support the case of
prosecution fully. However, it emerges from their testimony that
some of them were trustees of the trust, minutes book of which
was produced on record. The witnesses accepted the fact that
the meetings of the trust had taken place and that some of the
accused did attend the meetings. PW4 gave details about the
presence and participation in the meetings by various accused
including A-1 and deposed to the fact that said witness had
dropped A-1 at the railway station on his bike. It is thus clear
that though these witnesses did not support the prosecution case
fully, some of the features of the prosecution case were
substantiated through the testimony of these witnesses. The law
on the point is clear that even if a witness is declared hostile, the
MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
evidence of such witness cannot be rejected in toto but the correct
approach is to accept it to the extent his version is found to be
dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. Furthermore, the
recoveries of books and literature were completely supported
by the concerned Panch witnesses and the Panchanamas on
record. The books and literature did carry inflammatory content
and messages. The translations of the original versions in Urdu
were placed on record by the prosecution. The voluntary
statements which led to such recoveries and the recoveries
themselves were also proved by the prosecution. One important
piece of material recovered from A-2 was the Diary. The tenor
and text of the contents were captured quite correctly by the
trial court in its judgment. The signatures of the concerned
accused were proved beyond any doubt through the evidence of
PW67, handwriting expert. It thus stood established that the
accused had assembled together with the intent as disclosed from
the minutes of the meetings of the Trust. The explosive
substances, details of which are given, were recovered from A-2,
A-3, A-4 and A-6. Voluntary statements of said accused and
consequential recoveries effected through Panchas were also duly
proved by the prosecution. [Para 31][879-H; 880-A-G; 881-A]
1.3. From the facts on record, it emerges that on 10.12.2003,
when a meeting was organized at the house of F at place 'C', it
was attended by A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-6 along with other members
including some of the Prosecution witnesses. The minutes of the
meeting disclosed the intent and the objective with which the
materials, such as guns and bombs were to be procured or
collected. The signatures appended below the minutes were
proved by PW-67, Hand Writing Expert. The presence of A-1 in
'C' on the day in question was completely established. His
presence assumes significance as he was not a local person. The
presence of A-1 on the day in question was adverted to by some
of the prosecution witnesses. It is true that apart from these
pieces of evidence, nothing substantial could be pointed against
A-1 but his involvement in the scheme as one of the driving forces
for the entire design, was quite evident. The intent and objective
disclosed from the minutes of the meeting was carried forward in
the subsequent meetings. The recoveries made from and at the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
instance of the other accused show that the very intent and object
as discussed in the first meeting was being carried forward by
these accused with the acquisition and possession of the arms
and ammunition. The kind of material recovered from them by
itself shows the potential danger. Nothing was brought on record
to show the reason or the purpose for acquisition and possession
of such potentially dangerous material. These facts not only show
that the basic elements of the conspiracy stood well established
but also proved the involvement of A-1. Going by the law laid
down by this Court, A-1 cannot escape the liability only on the
ground that no arms and ammunition or any inflammatory material
or literature were actually recovered from him. [Para 34][886-AH]
1.4.The minutes of the first meeting dated 10.12.2003 were
written in Kannada language, at the end of which the signatures
were appended by all the concerned including A-1. As admitted
by the Investigating Officer, A-1 did not understand Kannada
language. A serious objection was, therefore, raised about
reliability of said document to fasten the liability on A-1. The
presence of A-1 in 'C' on the relevant day stood well established.
The fact that all the concerned accused got together on that day
in the house of PW-4 also stood established. The tenor of the
discussion in the meeting and the fact that it was not found
appropriate by some of the witnesses also found mention in the
testimony of the witnesses. The handwriting expert found the
signature to be that of A-1. In the premises, a mere submission
that the signatures of the accused were obtained subsequently,
without any foundation, cannot be entertained. The signatures
were definitely made in the circumstances suggested by the
prosecution. [Para 35(A)][887-A-D]
1.5 The submission as regards the gap between the first
meeting and the recovery of arms and explosives from some of
the accused, it was highlighted that there was about three years'
gap between these two circumstances and it was stressed that
there was nothing on record that during this interregnum, A-1
was in touch with any of the accused or had any role in procuring
the arms and explosives, which were eventually recovered
MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
pursuant to disclosures made by the concerned accused. The
conspiracy, the basic features of which were structured in the
first meeting of 2003, was a continuing one; which is evident from
the minutes of the subsequent meetings and translation of the
intent into procurement of arms and explosives. It can neither
be stated that the thread which was running through subsequent
events and circumstances was broken or that the link between
the first meeting and the subsequent stages was in any way
snapped. [Para 35(B)][887-E-H]
1.6 It was submitted that the case of the prosecution that
A-1 had signed the minutes of the first meeting was not put to
said accused during his examination under Section 313 of the
Code. The record shows that questions about the report of PW67, the handwriting expert, and about the meeting at 'C' and that
A-1 had gone to 'C' were put to the accused in his examination
under Section 313 of the Code. These questions definitely invited
the attention of A-1 to the circumstances against him. The
substantive evidence about the opinion of the handwriting expert
which had found the signature of A-1 below the minutes of the
first meeting and the circumstances about the meeting at 'C' and
that A-1 had gone to 'C' were thus put to the accused. The instant
submission, therefore, does not merit acceptance. [Para
35(C)][888-A-D]
1.7 What constitutes an offence under Section 121 IPC is
the waging of war or attempt to wage war or abetting of waging of
such war against the Government of India. Section 121-A IPC,
however, deals with conspiracy to commit offences punishable
under Section 121 IPC as well as conspiracy to overawe by force,
the Central Government or any State Government. In terms of
its application, the width of Section 121-A is thus not confined to
conspiracy to commit offences punishable under Section 121 of
the IPC alone. [Paras 38, 39][898-C-G]
1.8. As the text of the Section 121A shows, persons who
plan to overawe the Central or the State Government by criminal
force or show of criminal force would be guilty of offence of
entering into conspiracy in terms of Section 121A IPC. The
dictionary meaning of the expression "overawe" is to subdue or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
833
inhibit with a sense of awe. The expression "overawe" would
thus imply creation of apprehension or situation of alarm and as
rightly held by the Division Bench, it would not be necessary
that the danger should be one of assassination of or of bodily
injury to the members of the machinery or apparatus of the
Government but the danger might as well be to public property
or to the safety of members of the general public. [Para 40][900G; 901-A-B]
1.9. The conspiracy in the instant case, 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 thus come well within the latter
part of the conspiracy dealt with in Section 121A IPC. As the
explanation to Section 121A IPC 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
Section 121A IPC. The conviction recorded against the accused
under Section 121A IPC does not therefore call for any
interference. [Para 41][901-B-D]
1.10. As regards the submission based on Section 120-B
read with Section 116 IPC, section 120-B IPC would apply only
when "no express provision is made in this regard for the
punishment of such a conspiracy", since an express provision
for particular kind of conspiracy is dealt with specifically in Section
121A IPC, the provision contained in Section 120-B of the IPC
would have no application. The submission, therefore, merits
rejection. [Para 42][901-E]
1.11 The submission that there was no occasion for the High
Court to enhance the quantum of punishment from seven years
which was awarded by the trial court to that of life imprisonment
for the offence punishable under Section 121-A IPC, the
conspiracy as disclosed in the instant matter, if it had been carried
out, 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
MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
to public property or to the safety of the members of the general
public ought to be dealt with strictly. Considering the acquisition
of substantial quantity of arms and explosives as well as the intent
disclosed by the diary, and other materials on record, the High
Court was right in enhancing the sentence. [Para 43][901-F-H;
902-A]
Kehar Singh and ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1988
SC 1883 : 1988 SCR Suppl (2) 24; Nazir Khan and
others v. State of Delhi AIR 2003 SC 4427 : (2003) 8
SCC 461 : [2003] (2) Suppl. SCR 884; State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC
600 : [2005] (2) Suppl. SCR 79; Yomeshbhai
Pranshankar Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (2011) 6 SCC
312 : [2011] (6) SCR 958; C. Muniappan & Ors. Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 : [2010] (10)
SCR 262; Radha Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
(2006) 2 SCC 450 : [2006] (1) SCR 519; Lal Singh v.
State of Gujarat and Another (2001) 3 SCC 221 : [2001]
(1) SCR 111; Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India and
Others 1993 (3) SCC 609 : [1993] (3) SCR 543; Mir
Hasan Khan vs. State AIR 1951 Patna 60 : 1951 Cr.L.J.
462; Ramanand v. State 1951 Cr.LJ 462 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1988] SCR Suppl (2) 24
referred to
Para 21
[198]8 SCR Suppl (2) 24
referred to
Para 21
[2003] (2) Suppl. SCR 884
referred to
Para 21
[2005] (2) Suppl. SCR 79
referred to
Para 23 (H)
[2011] (6) SCR 958
referred to
Para 27
[2010] (10) SCR 262
referred to
Para 31(i)
[2006] (1) SCR 519
referred to
Para 31(i)
[2001] (1) SCR 111
referred to
Para 32
[1993] (3) SCR 543
referred to
Para 33
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
835
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 201-202 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2016 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal Nos.220 and 530 of 2012.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos.203-204, 205-207 and 208-209 of 2018.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Nikhil Goel, AAG,
Ratnakar Dash, Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advs., Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Aarif
Ali Khan, Rizwan Ahmad, Mujahid Ahmed, Farrukh Rasheed, Abu Bakr
Sabbaq, Ms. Seema Bengani, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Kanu Agrawal, Ms.
Archana Pathak Dave, B. V. Balaram Das, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan,
Shadan Farasat, Bharat Gupta, M. Karthik Murukutla, V. N. Raghupathy,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Criminal Appeal Nos.201-202 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
Nos.7347-7348 of 2016); Criminal Appeal Nos.203-204 of 2018 (arising
out of SLP (Crl) Nos.8246-8247 of 2016); Criminal Appeal Nos.205207 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos.8243-8245 of 2016) and
Criminal Appeal Nos.208-209 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No.138139 of 2017) are filed by original Accused Nos.5, 6, 1 and 4 respectively,
against the common judgment and final order dated 10.05.2016 passed
by the High Court1 in Criminal Appeal Nos.220 of 2012, 530 of 2012,
531 of 2012 and 1123 of 2013.
2. In the instant case, eight persons were arrayed as Accused in
the chargesheet but A-8 was shown to be absconding. A-1 to A-7, namely,
Mohamed Razhur Rehman @ Abdul Rehman, Afsar Pasha @
Basheeruddin, Mehboob Ibrahim Sab Chopdar, Noorullah Khan @
Noorullah, Mohammad Irfan, Nazmuddin @ Munna, Chand Basha and
Ahmed Basha respectively, were tried in Sessions Case No.539 of 2006
arising out of crime registered pursuant to FIR No.3/2006. By its judgment
dated 17.12.2011 the Trial Court2 acquitted A-7 but found A-1 to A-6
1 The High Court of Judicature of Karnataka at Bangalore.
2 The Court of the City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City (FTC II).
MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
guilty and passed order of sentence dated 19.12.2011, the features of
which can be tabulated as under: -
3. Following four appeals were thereafter filed in the High Court.
Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2012 was filed by five Accused i.e.
A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6. Criminal Appeal No.1123 of 2013 was
preferred by A-3. Criminal Appeal Nos.530-531 of 2012 were preferred
by the State against acquittal of the Accused including A-7 under certain
provisions and also against award of lesser sentence in respect of offences
where the conviction was recorded.
4. Said four appeals were heard together by the High Court. By
its judgment and order presently under challenge, the High Court modified
the conviction and sentence of the Accused as under: -
5. Being aggrieved, the instant four appeals before this Court are
by A-5, 6, 1 and 4. The State has not preferred any appeal either against
3 IPC, for short.
4 1908 Act, for short.
5 1959 Act, for short.
6 1967 Act, for short.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
the acquittal of A-7 in respect of all charges or against the other Accused
who were acquitted of some of the charges. Further, no appeals have
been preferred by A-2 and 3.
6. While investigating into Crime No.110 of 2005 relating to an
incident of shootout at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, PW-68 Sri
V.S.D. Souza came to know about a larger conspiracy concerning
Lasker-e-Toiba (LeT), a banned organization in India, which led to
registration of FIR No.3 of 2006 on 14.01.2006. The allegations in said
FIR No.3 of 2006 were as under:
"1. I was directed by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City
vide Memo No.CRM/4/186/2006 dated 29.12.2005 to investigate
the case in Cr.No.110/2005 registered in Sadashivanagar Police
Station. I took up further investigation of the case in Cr.No.110/
2005 U/s 307 Indian Penal Code, 18060 & 25, 27, 28 of Arms Act
& 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 of Sadashivanagar
Police Station, Bangalore City from T. Ajjappa, ACP,
Seshadripuram Sub-Division, Bangalore on 31.12.2005.
2. As per my instructions on 02.01.2006 at 6.30 am Sri Subbanna,
Police Inspector and his team produced the Accused Mohammed
Razur Rehman @ Abdul Rehaman @ Umesh S/o Samsuddin,
aged 35 years, R/o No.5-10-82, BTS, Naigonda, Andhra Pradesh,
before me along with his report seizer mehazar, a pocket diary
containing telephone numbers which were seized during the course
of investigation of the above case.
3. While investigation, the above case I have come to be aware
of the following credible information. That Lasker-e-Toiba (LeT)
which is banned organisation in India is active and trying to spread
its terrorist activities in India and elsewhere.
4. The main aim of LeT is to destabilize India by way of terrorist
activities like attacking vital sensitive installations, assassinating
important public personalities, causing bomb explosions in public
places and carrying shootouts, disrupting *****7 peace and
tranquillity, causing communal disharmony *****7 economic
interests thereby disturbing public order etc.
7 ***** - Illegible.
MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
5. Abu Mohamed @ Mohamed Irshad is the chief of LeT in Saudi
Arabia. Abu Mohamed is a Pakistani national. Abu-Abdulla, Abdul
Manner and Zakria all Pakistani nationals used to assist Abu
Mohammed @ Mohammed Irshad in LeT activities.
6. Abdul Rehman, a native of Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh, a dropout
in Diploma, ventured into different professions, but failed. In 1993
he procured passport at Hyderabad and in 1994 his brother
Habeer-Ur-Rehman helped him in getting a Saudi Visa and Abdul
Rehman went to Saudi Arabia and worked as driver, as a salesman
in a vegetable shop, in laundry, driver of water supply van and at
present he is working as sales representative at Onaiza Under a
cosmetics dealer.
7. He came in contact with Sheik Mehboob Ahamed Moulana an
LeT leader in a Sanaga Masjid.
8. Sheikh Mehboob motivated Abdul Rehman to join LeT in 1998.
The said Abdul Rehman started attending to its religious activities
of LeT an started regularly attending to its religious activities
conducted by LeT which were basically motivating people for
Jehadi activities. Abu-Hanza, Abu-Ummer, Abu-Nidal, Abu-Bukka,
Abdul Rehman Makki, Hafizullah who are senior LeT leaders
used to take active participation and were motivating the people
for Jehadi activities by their provocative speeches during 1999.
Abu Rehman got married and returned to Saudi Arabia.
9. In 2000 Afsar of Bangalore and Mehboob Ibraim of Bagalkot
District during one of its seminar in Islamic Centre of Onaiza
(Saudi Arabia) came in contact with Abdul Rehman and they
became friends and prominent persons in the cadre of LeT.
10. Under the patronage of Abdul Rehman, Afsar Pasha of
Bangalore wanted to go to Pakistan for training in explosives and
arms for Jehadi and terrorist activities. However, the plan did not
materialize.
11. In the year, 2001, Faisal, Abu Haza, Sherif, Altaf, Anwar,
Zakaria, Abdul Rehman and others who are all Indian nationals
and working in Saudi Arabia decided to collect funds and revenue
for Jehadi activities in India.
12. Vali-Ur-Rehman, resident of Bangladesh, who is chief of Jamatul-Mudauddin (JMU in Bangladesh) arranged the visit of Afsar
Pasha to Bangladesh.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
839
13. Afsar Pasha of Bangalore, went to Bangladesh in the early of
2002 where he stayed there for 8 months and also underwent
training in handling weapons and explosives and manufacture of
bombs, etc. Later he entered India illegally via West Bengal. Abdul
Rehman during this period had sent money to Afsar Pasha towards
the purchase of weapons and training expenses.
14. In the year 2002. Irfan Umri of Chennai was made Masood
of Al-Ghasi and Abdul Rehman as his deputy. Both of them have
conducted various religious programme to attract Muslims to the
cadre of LeT.
15. During 2003, Zakaria returned back to India and he was
arrested by Tamil Nadu Police for conspiracy of carrying out
sabotage activities in Chennai. Later Abdul Rehman was made
Masood in place of Irfan Umri in Saudi Arabia.
16. Abdul Rehman was visiting Nalagonda, Andhra Pradesh,
frequently on the pretext of spending holidays, but was contacting
Mehboob Ibrahim and Afsar Pasha and discussing about carrying
out Jehadi and terrorist activities in Karnataka. Abdul Rehman
appointed Mehboob Ibrahim of Bagalkot District for carrying out
terrorist activities in Northern Karnataka and Afsar Pasha of
Bangalore for Southern Karnataka.
17. During such visits in November 2003, Abdul Rehman visited
Chintamani and met his associate Afsar Pasha and decided about
setting up a Mosque of Ahle-Hadis at Chintakani and also promised
for financial assets ****. Afsar Pasha and Afbdul Rehman also
decided to ****** of LeT in Karnataka by recruiting youth from
their community. Afsar Pasha introduced Noor, Irfan, Munna and
others Abdul Rehman, Abdul Rehman as a chief of LeT South
India. ***** all of them to engage themselves in Jehadi and terrorist
activities.
18. Abdul Rehman went to Chennai and met Irfan and decided to
set up a trust "Al-Fetah" for LeT activities and promised funds
for the same.
19. During 2004, Abdul Rehman sent money to Afsar Pasha of
Bangalore and Mehboob Ibrahim of Bagalkot through hawala
transaction through one Chand Pasha of Bangalore.
MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
20. The said Afsar Pasha of Bangalore and Mehboob Ibrahim of
Bagalkot District were in constant touch with Abdul Rehman who
was based in Saudi Arabia and vice-versa and further was
reporting to him about the progress of the LeT activities.
21. Abdul Rehman instructed Afsar Pasha and Mehboob Ibrahim
to undertake Jehadi and terrorists activities through sabotage in
Karnataka. Abdul Rehman came to Nalagonda during October
2005 and instructed Afsar Pasha and Ibrahim to cause blast and
damage to vital installations, Multi-national companies, etc. in
Bangalore and other places of Karnataka.
22. Between 2003 to 2005 December, Abdul Rehman has recruited
Afsar Pasha of Bangalore and Mehboob Ibrahim of Bagalkot into
LeT cadre. Afsar Pasha was made incharge of LeT to look after
South Karnataka and Ibrahim of Bagalkot District was made
incharge of LeT to look after North Karnataka for causing sabotage
activities. Afsar Pasha has recruited 4-5 persons, trained them in
LeT activities and also taught them about the concept of Jehad,
(so called holy war against non-muslims). For this purpose during
2nd and 3rd week of December, 2005 they held secret conspiracy
meeting in Tamil Sangam, Cubbon Park and Afsar Pasha's house
in Bangalore and other places in Karnataka and decided to cause
bomb blasts in Bangalore. For this purpose they procured explosive
materials, bomb, etc. and prepared themselves to use them to
terrorize the citizen and create fear psyenosis in the State by their
terrorist activities.
23. In view of the above facts, it is evident that the above Accused
persons viz. (1) Mohamed Razhur Rehman @ Abdul Rehman (2)
Afsar Pasha of Bangalore (3) Ibrahim of Bagalkot District (4)
Noor (5) Irfan (6) Munna and others of Karnataka who are the
active members of banned militant organization LeT entered into
a criminal conspiracy to cause large scale destruction of public
property, multi-national companies etc. by causing bomb
explosions, attacks on innocent people, large scale destruction of
places of worships and promote enmity between different groups
on the grounds of religion, race and perpetrated acts, prejudicial
to the maintenance of communal harmony besides causing
disaffection with overall object of attempt to being hatred,
contempt and incite disaffection towards the Government by law
established by desertion of places of worship, knowingly that such
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
acts will result in breakdown of public order 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 Union Government of India.
24. The information received by me constitutes cognizable offence
U/s 120(b), 121, 121(A),1 122, 124(A), 153(a) and (b) of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 and 6 of Explosive Substance
Act, 1908 and Sections 25, 26 and 28 of Arms Act, 1959 and
Sections 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act, 1967."
7. The investigation into the crime was conducted by the team
headed by PW72 (Pradeep Singh, Asstt. Commissioner of Police) and
the salient features of the matter including the steps undertaken during
investigation can be tabulated as follows:
MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
8. During trial, the Prosecution examined 73 witnesses and relied
upon 278 exhibits and 38 material objects in support of its case. Exhibits
D1 to D7 were also marked at the instance of the Accused in the cross
examination of the Prosecution witnesses. The evidence led by the
Prosecution could be categorised under three segments as noted by the
High Court8:
8 Paragraph 44 of the judgment under appeal
MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
"(1) The recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the
accused persons;
(2) Connectivity of those articles to the conspiracy between the
accused persons;
(3) The conduct of the accused persons with reference to such
conspiracy to constitute the offence alleged against them."
9. In the first segment, the important recoveries from the Accused,
which were relied upon by the Prosecution, were as under:
(a)
From A-1: A pocket notebook, some paper chits containing
phone numbers, passport and passport sized photos.
(b)
From A-2: 17 Detonators, 20 Gelatine sticks, 114 Iron pallets,
3 Hand grenades, certain inflammatory literature, minutes
of meeting of a trust created under the tutelage of A-1
(Ex.P.92) and some video cassettes.
(c)
From A-3: Passports, Telephone diary, Telephone chits,
Photographs, 10 Gelatine sticks, 2 Detonators and
inflammatory literature.
(d)
From A-4: Tin type bomb in a box, wires and tapes;
documents and books.
(e)
From A-5: Letterheads and inflammatory literature.
(f)
From A-6: Tin type bomb in a box, wires and tapes; Revolver
and live ammunition.
(g)
From A-7: Mobile phone, slip with phone number, visiting
card, diary and a note book.
10. Certain explosive substances, arms and ammunition which
were recovered pursuant to statements made by A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-6
as dealt with at serial numbers 7, 8 and 12 of the chart in paragraph 7
hereinabove, were also relied upon.
11. The Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and 13, who according
to the Prosecution, were sought to be drawn and indoctrinated into the
design and scheme of the Accused. All these witnesses did not support
the Prosecution and were declared hostile. However, according to the
Prosecution, their testimonies could still be relied upon to establish the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
845
fact that all the Accused were working together with a sense of purpose
and had been in touch with the witnesses. By way of example, the
following portions from the depositions of PWs 1 and 4 may be noted:-
(A) PW-1 (Javeel Raza)
"I am acquainted with, Accused-2, Afzal Pasha and Accused-6
Nazamuddin. Both of them are present in this court on this day.
Witness identified the Accused-2 and 6 who are sitting at the 4th
and 6th position respectively.
One day when I was there in my shop along with Parveed, 4
years ago, Accused-2 and 6 came to my shop and said that they
have come from Kolar, presuming that they might be friends of
my friend Mukthiyar who lives Kolar, I called Mukthiyar over
phone. The said Mukthiyar is originally from Kolar and was residing
in Bangalore. I had called his Bangalore number. Mukthiyar came
to my shop. Accused-2 and 6 told us about Islam religion, told us
to do Namaz and told us to help the poor people. Told us to establish
one Madarasa. We offered both of them cup of tea and sent them
off.
After six-seven days, both of them came to my shop once again.
Me, Parveez, Mukthiyar and Zaheed were there in the shop. They
told us, we will not talk in shop, lets go to park and talk. All four of
us went to park along with them. Both of them told about Quran
and said that, we have to establish an organisation of people, and
told us that it is not possible for the people to go to the mosques or
Dargah and pray, hence they are to be demolished. For this work,
15-20 persons are to be organised and the expenses for the same
shall be borne by the same organisation. As the matters that they
were saying were not appropriate, I told them that I am getting a
phone call and I returned to the shop. Behind me, my friends also
came back. Accused-2 and 6 went back from the park only. All
four of us had talk amongst ourselves, and we decided that the
conduct of Accused-2 and 6 are not good, if they come back
again, we will not entertain them. After few days, Javid had
received a call from the said persons, Javid informed that he has
told them not to come and we will not be available.
After the witness was declared hostile, he was cross examined
by the Special Public Prosecutor, when the witness stated:-
MOHAMMAD IRFAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
It is correct if stated that, in my statement I had stated that the
accused persons had informed me that Madarasas are to be
opened, Muslims are to be trained, for that finance needs to be
arranged. It is not correct if stated that, I had stated that Jihad to
be declared against the killings of Muslims by Hindus in Gujarat.
The said statement was flagged as EP-1. It is correct if stated
that, they had told me that, people are to be stopped from going to
Dargahs and we should make Dargahs non-existent. It is not
correct if stated that, by making Dargahs impure, communal
harmony to be disturbed and law and order situation should be
created and government should be weakened, they had informed.
The said statement was flagged as EP-2. It is not correct if stated
that, the accused Afzal Pasha was trained in Dhaka regarding
Jihad and acquainted with the Chief of Lashkar-e-Toiba of Saudi
Arabia, Abu Hamja, Wali Ur Rahman and Abdul Rahman of
Nelagonda, that he needs to establish Lashkar-e-Toiba in
Karnataka secretly, and had stated that, you all have to co-operate.
The said statement was flagged as EP-3.
Accordingly, it is not correct if stated that, I had stated while we
were sitting in the park, the said accused said that, we will all
together, we will organise LeT in Bangalore, Hindus are killing
Muslims in Kashmir and at all parts of India, we will declare Jihad
as said in Quran, we will destroy India through revolution, we will
collect money for LeT, we will bring the interested persons for
training, all the expenses will be borne by Abdul Rahman, I will
also train the joining persons temporarily. The said portion of the
statement was flagged as EP-4."
PW-4 (Firoz @ Firoz Pasha)
Accused-6, Munna was introduced to me by Chintamani watch
shop, Abdul Rahman. The said Munna is present in the court today
and he was identified. I used to go to tea stall to read news paper.
Then, I got acquainted with the Accused-4, Noorulla. He is also
sitting in the Court today. When I went to Mulabagilu for Islam
religious canvassing, I got acquainted with Accused - 5, Irfan.
He is sitting in the court today and the witness have identified
him. I know the Accused-2, he is also present in the court today.
... ...In Chintamani there are two Masjids, in those Masjids when
we went for Namaz, the management there threw us out saying
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
847
that, there is a different custom in those Masjids. Therefore, we
took a room and we used to Namaz there only. We made a trust
and had purchased land for the trust. Abdul Rehman was the
Chairman for that trust, 2nd Accused Afzal Pasha was the ViceChairman, Accused-6 Munna was the Secretary for that trust,
Accused-4 Noorulla was the Joint Secretary, I was treasurer for
the trust. Accused Abdul Pasha had a fracture of bone of hand,
then Accused-1 Razu Rahman came to see him, then Abdul Pasha
introduced him to me that he was his friend in Saudi.
Abdul Rehman had organised a tea party in our house, one day.
On that day, Accused-1 Rahman told us that we all should be
united and should be co-operative with our neighbours. ... ...
..... Evening at 7 pm he left after the Namaz. After that, I
had dropped Abdul Rahman to the Bangarpet Railway Station on
my Bike."
After the witness was declared hostile, in response to the questions
put by the Special Public Prosecutor, the witness stated:-
"It is not correct if stated that, in the statement that I had given to
the police, I had stated that, the Accused Afzal Pasha is the major
man in Lashkar-e-Toiba, he speaks about Jihad, he had informed
me that we will conduct a meeting at 5 PM in our house and as
per his request when we gathered in my home, after introducing
that Afzal Pasha is the commander of Lashkar-e-Toiba of South
India, after that Abdul Rahman spoke and said that, the country
of India should be made into pieces, we will conduct a training
about Jihad, I will supply the gun, bomb and other required items,
you all organise yourselves declare Jihad and said that demolish
Dargahs create communal clashes and create instability of
government. Listening to all this matter, we said it is not possible
to do all that here, we did not cooperate. Me, Jameer and Ameer
came back from the meeting without signing, and I had stated
that, we were present at the meeting, Munna, Noorulla Khan and
Abdul Pasha signed. The said statement was flagged as EP-11."
The witness was recalled and cross examined further by the Special
Public Prosecutor when the witness stated:-
"The trust that we have registered is Masjid O Mohammed Ya
Ahle Adees Trust.