Assassination Or Bodily Injury Not Necessary For Offence Under Sec 121A IPC : Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence In IISc Terror Attack Case

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction and life sentence of four persons for causing the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru in December, 2005. While doing so, a three judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat observed that under section 121 A of the Indian Penal Code [Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 121-waging war against India], the expression "overawe" would imply creation of an apprehension or situation of alarm and it would not be necessary that the danger should be one of assassination or bodily injury. In this regard the judgment reads as follows, "As the text of the relevant Section 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 of the IPC. The dictionary meaning of the expression "overawe" is to subdue or 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 (in the case of Mir Hasan Khan v. State (or Ramanand v. State), 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."The Court held that 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 of the IPC. "As the explanation to Section 121A of the 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 of the IPC, the matter would still come within the four corners of Section 121A of the IPC", the bench said.These pertinent observations came in an appeal plea filed by Mohammad Irfan and three others against the Karnataka High Court's decision to enhance their sentence from seven years to life term. On December 28, 2005, two armed persons had entered the IISc campus in Bengaluru in a car and fired indiscriminately at the students and delegates who had come to attend a conference. Out of the seven accused, one was acquitted of all the charges while one was awarded an eight year sentence and the other five were awarded a life sentence by the High Court. On December 17, 2011, the trial court had awarded the accused a punishment of seven years. Arguments of parties Seeking to set aside the High Court order, the counsel appearing for the accused (appellants) contended that 8 prosecution witnesses failed to support the prosecution's case and that there was no substantial evidence on the basis of which allegations against the accused could be substantiated. It was then argued that the basic charges, under Sections 121 (Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration) of the IPC were not established and the only subsisting charge was one under Section 121A of the IPC, which was also devoid of any substance. Further, the recovery of explosive substances, diary and other material, by themselves were insufficient to sustain the charge under Section 121A of the IPC. As per Section 120B(1) and Section 115 of the IPC, where the basic offence under Section 121 was not committed, therefore, the sentence could not be greater than seven years. Moreover, the trial court had awarded a substantive sentence of imprisonment for seven years under Section 121A of the IPC. Under the circumstances, there was no reason for the High Court to enhance the quantum of punishment to life imprisonment. The facts on record did not justify such exercise, claimed the accused. The counsel for Accused one (A-1) also argued that he wasn't involved in the said conspiracy. The only involvement of A-1 was the fact that he had attended the first meeting of the Trust, but since A1 did not understand Kannada language, signature below the text in Kannada would not make A-1 liable in any manner in the absence of any other substantial evidence or material, it was argued. Finally, it was argued that under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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...

Assassination Or Bodily Injury Not Necessary For Offence Under Sec 121A IPC : Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence In IISc Terror Attack Case

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Assassination Or Bodily Injury Not Necessary For Offence Under Sec 121A IPC : Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence In IISc Terror Attack Case

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers