Case Note & Summary
The appellant was arraigned as an accused in FIR Crime No. 1 of 2015 registered at Q Branch Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu, for offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act), Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919, Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Passport Act, 1967. He was subjected to trial before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in Sessions Case No. 02/2018. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th July, 2024, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine for each of the offences under Section 120B IPC and Section 120B IPC read with Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the UAP Act, and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 6 of the Poisons Act, 1919, with default sentences. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the matter and perused the record. The Court noted that the appellant was convicted based on evidence and the concurrent findings of the courts below. The Court found no perversity or miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 120B IPC - Unlawful Activities - Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), 38(1) UAP Act - The appellant was convicted for being part of a criminal conspiracy to commit unlawful activities. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court. Held that the conviction was based on credible evidence and the appeal lacked merit. (Paras 1-3) B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Scope of Interference - Article 136 of the Constitution - The Supreme Court reiterated that it does not ordinarily re-appreciate evidence in appeals under Article 136 unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or perversity. Held that no such ground was made out. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 120B IPC and Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv), 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and other allied offences, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Criminal conspiracy
- Unlawful activities
- Standard of proof in criminal appeals
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of interference under Article 136
