Magnifying the Law:

Case Comment –

MOHAMMAD IRFAN
V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
2022 SCC 856
1. Shootout at Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, in 2005. Initial investigation led to 6. Subsequently, appeals were filed before the Hon’ble
a broader conspiracy involving Laskar-e-Toiba High Court of Karnataka by A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, and A-6
(LeT). A separate appeal was filed by A-3, and the state lodged
2. LeT aimed to destabilize India. Modus an appeal against the acquittal of A-7.
operandi included attacks on vital installations, 7. The High Court, in its judgment, upheld the
assassinations, bombings, shootouts, and imprisonment sentences under Section 121A for A-1, A-
disruption of peace and economic interests. 3, A-4, A-5, and A-6. A-2 received an 8-year
imprisonment term under Section 5 of the Explosive
3. Eight individuals charged; A-8 absconding. A-
Substances Act, while the acquittal of A-7 was
1 to A-7 faced trial.
maintained.
4. Trial Court acquitted A-7, found A-1 to A-6
8. Displeased with the High Court's decision, a special
guilty under various acts. leave petition was filed by A-1, A-4, A-5, and A-6.
5. A-7 acquitted; A-1 to A-6 convicted under Notably, A-2 and A-3 did not file any appeals, and the
multiple acts. state refrained from initiating an appeal.
 ISSUES ?

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE HORRENDOUS ACTS PERPETRATED BY THE

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE CONSPIRATORS ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED

ISSUE 3-WHETHER THE APPEALS BY SPECIAL LEAVE PREFERRED BY

• Prosecution failed to prove appellant's intent to wage war against the • Respondent asserted that the prosecution had a robust case against the
government. Insufficient evidence presented regarding appellant's intention or appellant. Strong reliance on witness testimonies, forensic reports, and
overt acts supporting the alleged intent. incriminating materials. Claimed that the evidence unequivocally
demonstrated the appellant's role in planning and executing the attacks.
• Appellant emphasized that prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence.
Argued that circumstantial evidence was ambiguous and inconclusive, allowing
for alternate interpretations that did not implicate the appellant.
• Respondent defended the use of circumstantial evidence, deeming it valid
• Appellant challenged trial court's acquittal of other suspects. Suggested that in criminal trials. Argued that circumstantial evidence, consistent with guilt
the acquittals indicated a weak prosecution case with insufficient evidence and excluding reasonable hypotheses of innocence, was sufficient for
against any accused. conviction. Maintained that the circumstantial evidence in this case met
the required standard.
• Contention that High Court overstepped by overturning trial court's acquittal
without adequate justification. Accused argued that High Court's decision
• State contended that recovered material (diary, books, meeting minutes,
lacked a thorough consideration of evidence and relied on speculation rather
explosives) was compelling evidence. Documents signed by all accused,
than concrete proof.
verified by a handwriting expert. Mentioned that the diary and books
• Asserted that charges under Sections 121 and 153A of the IPC were not explicitly stated the accused's intent.
established. Questioned the merit of the charge under Section 121A, stating
recovery of books and explosive substances was insufficient to sustain it. • Sanction for prosecution under Section 196 obtained from a competent
authority. Argued that the number of explosives warranted an
enhancement of punishment.
• Argued that the sentence did not meet Section 196 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure requirements. Emphasized the need for sanction from the
• Witness Testimony: Acknowledged hostility of Prosecution witnesses, but highlighted the law's stance that even
hostile witnesses' evidence must be accepted to the extent found dependable.

• Recoveries and Inflammatory Content: Robustly supported recoveries of books and literature. Significance of Diary
Exh.P-92 recovered from A-2 highlighted. Court emphasized correct evaluation of contents and conclusive proof of
accused signatures by handwriting expert.

• Explosive Substances and Lal Singh Precedent: Explosive substances linked to voluntary statements and recoveries,
as observed in Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat. Emphasized that absolute certainty is not required in proving links in
cases involving terrorism and conspiracy; a degree of probability suffices.

• Challenges in Terrorism Cases: Acknowledged challenges in proving secretive cases and stressed the need for a
probability-based assessment of evidence. Upheld trial court's findings and applied Lal Singh observations.
• Conspiracy and Liability: Delved into conspiracy intricacies using Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India and Others.
Highlighted completion upon the meeting of minds, unity of purpose, and distinct nature of conspiracy from the
offense it is formed for.

• Accused Persons and Conspiracy Details: Detailed Abdul Rehman's journey, LeT involvement, and instructions for
terrorist activities in Karnataka. Described activities under LeT auspices, implicating Abdul Rehman in coordinating
and financing operations.

• Section 121 and 121-A Interpretation: Provided interpretation of Section 121 (waging war) and cited Navjot Sandhu
and Nazir Khan as precedents. Distinguished between the two limbs of conspiracies under Section 121-A,
referencing Mir Hasan Khan v. State.

• Conviction under Section 121A: Affirmed conviction under Section 121A, stating that the disclosed intent of the
conspiracy, even if not executed, falls within its scope. No grounds found to interfere with the conviction; appeals
dismissed, endorsing High Court's punishment enhancement decision.
 RATIO OBITER
• Emphasis on Effective Investigation: Court stressed the importance
• Circumstantial Evidence: Court emphasized its significance in
criminal trials. Stated it can be adequate for conviction if of effective investigation and prosecution in terrorism cases.
consistent with guilt and excludes reasonable hypotheses of Highlighted the need for gathering sufficient evidence to convict
innocence. those responsible for terrorist plots.

• Intent and Overt Acts: Reiterated prosecution's obligation to • Balance between National Security and Rights: Recognized the
prove both intent and commission of overt acts in furtherance necessity for balancing national security protection with the rights
of the crime. of individuals accused of serious crimes. Emphasized the
government's legitimate interest in national security while
• Interpretation of Section 121A: Provided a nuanced safeguarding fundamental rights.
interpretation of Section 121A of the IPC (conspiracy to wage
war). Clarified that the offense of conspiracy is complete upon • Encouragement of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Court
agreement, regardless of committing overt acts. encouraged the use of ADR mechanisms in criminal cases when
appropriate. Acknowledged ADR's value in reducing the burden on
• Standard of Proof: Reaffirmed the high standard of proof for
the court system and providing efficient and cost-effective
convicting conspiracy to wage war. Emphasized the need for
resolutions.
overwhelming evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Due Process Protections: Court upheld fair trial and due • Presumption of Innocence and Recovery of Arms: Clarified that
process principles. Ensured accused received necessary while the presumption of innocence is fundamental, it must be
safeguards and protection of fundamental rights throughout judged based on the reasonable prudent man's conceptions.
legal proceedings. Highlighted that in cases involving terrorist activities, recovery of
arms can impact the presumption of innocence, placing the onus on
the accused to explain possession.
 SIGNIFICANCE & CONCLUSION
• Standard of Proof: Court's clarification sets a benchmark for convicting conspiracy to wage war against
the government. Establishes a clear standard of proof for future cases involving this offense.

• Circumstantial Evidence: Emphasis on admissibility of circumstantial evidence. Provides flexibility for

• Balance between Security and Rights: Acknowledges the delicate balance between national security
and rights of individuals accused of serious crimes. Serves as a reminder of the nuanced approach
needed in such cases.

• Protection of National Security: Underscores the importance of safeguarding national security from
terrorism threats. Sends a clear message that those attempting to wage war against the government
will be held accountable.

• Effective Investigation and Prosecution: Highlights the necessity for rigorous investigation and
prosecution in terrorism cases. Guides law enforcement agencies and the judiciary in evaluating
evidence and protecting due process rights.

• Fair Trial and Due Process: Reaffirms principles of fair trial and due process. Ensures accused individuals
receive necessary protections, upholding their fundamental rights.

• Sentencing and Punishment: Provides guidance on sentencing for conspiracy to wage war against the
government. Emphasizes severity of the offense and the need for deterrent punishments to discourage
future acts of terrorism.