JAVED IQBAL vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1437 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

JAVED IQBAL VS State Ss. 6(1), 7(a), 7(b) & 7(h)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Kidnapping for ransom---Reappraisal of evidence---Murder of police officials who were part of a raiding party---Not an act of terrorism---Admittedly, the incident occurred on account of a raid upon a house which at the relevant time was in possession of the petitioners---Purpose of the raiding party was to recover an abductee from the clutches of the petitioners---Facts and circumstances of the case did not establish the intent, object, design or purpose of the petitioners to do an act of terrorism---Reaction shown by the petitioners was to avoid their arrest, hence, in retaliation, they started firing---Though, such act of firing was illegal, but there was no intention or preparation to commit murder, in order to overawe or intimidate the police officials, who were the members of the raiding party---Besides, the occurrence took place in a house and there was no evidence to prove the presence of general public, therefore, the element of sense of fear or insecurity in the society was also lacking---Thus, the action of the petitioners by committing murder of the police officials, in the given circumstances, did not fall within the ambit of provision of section 6(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('ATA of 1997')---In absence of any ingredient of terrorism, the petitioners could not have been convicted and sentenced under the provisions of the ATA of 1997---Since the prosecution had succeeded in proving the commission of qatl-i-amd against the petitioners, therefore, their action fell within the provisions of section 302, P.P.C.---Jail petitions were dismissed with the modification that the convictions and sentences awarded to the three petitioners by the High Court and the Trial Court under sections 7(a), 7(b) & 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge to that extent---However convictions and sentences of two of the petitioners under sections 302(b), 34 and 324, P.P.C., awarded by the fora below were maintained. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1437 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case JAVED IQBAL VS State Ss. 6(1), 6(2)(e) & 7(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-A---Kidnapping for ransom---Whether an act of terrorism---Action involving kidnapping for ransom, hostage-taking or hijacking is an offence under clause (e) of subsection (2) of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('ATA of 1997'), if it is established that such action falls within the meaning of subsection (1) of section (6) of the ATA of 1997---If kidnapping for ransom, hostage-taking or hijacking is done with intent, design, purpose, or object of terrorism, the same shall fall within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 6 and is an offence under subsection (2)(e) of section 6 of the ATA of 1997, triable exclusively by the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) and punishable under section 7(e) of the ATA of 1997---If there is no intent, object, purpose or design of terrorism in committing an act of abduction or kidnapping for ransom, it shall not be an act of a terrorism within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 6 of the ATA of 1997---Thus, in absence of an element of a terrorism, an act of abduction or kidnapping for ransom for personal vendetta shall constitute an offence under section 365-A, P.P.C.---However, in view of heinousness of such act, it is exclusively triable by the ATC, only for the purpose of its speedy trial, but the accused shall be charged under the relevant provision of law, instead of charging him under any of the provisions of the ATA of 1997. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1437 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case JAVED IQBAL VS State Ss. 6(1), 6(2)(e) & 7(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-A---Kidnapping for ransom---Reappraisal of evidence---Offence committed for personal vendetta---Not an act of terrorism---In the case in hand, the complainant in the FIR and in his statement recorded on oath before the Trial Court, had simply alleged that his son was abducted for ransom---Record reflected that there was merely a demand of a ransom---Neither the complainant nor the prosecution witnesses had taken a stance that the action of the petitioners was with the intent, object, purpose or design of a terrorism---There was nothing on the record, connecting the petitioners in any manner with terrorist activities or having any link or nexus with any terrorist organization in order to bring such act of the petitioners within the ambit of terrorism, as defined in section 6(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('ATA of 1997')---Record made it clear that the act of the petitioners was for their personal vendetta, hence, it was an ordinary case of abduction or kidnapping for ransom, which fell within the ambit of section 365-A, P.P.C.---However, because of its heinousness and after its inclusion in the Third Schedule to the ATA of 1997, it was triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC), to the exclusion of any other court---Fora below were wrong in convicting and sentencing the petitioners under section 7(e) of the ATA of 1997, instead of convicting and sentencing them under section 365-A, P.P.C.---Since, punishment for both the offences was same, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the charge was altered---Jail petitions were dismissed with the modification that the charge framed against the petitioners under the provisions of the ATA of 1997 was altered to that of section 365-A, P.P.C.---As the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the petitioners for committing an ordinary offence of kidnapping for ransom, therefore, their convictions under section 7(e) of the ATA of 1997 were converted into section 365-A, P.P.C., and they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life each with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1437 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case JAVED IQBAL VS State S. 6---Terrorism---Scope---To constitute an offence of a terrorism, it is necessary that; firstly, the action must fall within the ambit of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('ATA of 1997'); and secondly, the intent, motivation, object, design and purpose behind the said act has any nexus with the ingredients of clauses (b) and (c) of section 6(1) of the ATA of 1997---To formulate an opinion whether or not such offence is an act of terrorism, the allegations made in the FIR, material collected during the investigation and the evidence available on the record have to be considered on the touchstone of section 6 of the ATA of 1997, as a whole---In the absence of any of the ingredients of section 6 of the ATA of 1997, any action, irrespective of its heinousness, causing terror or creating sense of fear and insecurity in the society, does not fall within the ambit of terrorism. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1437 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case JAVED IQBAL VS State S. 13 & Third Sched.---anti-Terrorism Court (aTC), jurisdiction of---Scope---Heinous offences---Section 13 of the anti-Terrorism act, 1997 ('aTa of 1997')provides dual power to the aTC i.e., to try the offences falling under the aTa of 1997 and try heinous offences, which otherwise do not fall within the definition of a terrorism, but are included in the Third Schedule to the aTa of 1997 by the government.

JAVED IQBAL vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1437 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR