| 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 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 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. |
