High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates Appeal Against Conviction for Offences Under IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, and UAPA. Appellant Challenges Trial Court Findings Alleging Inconsistent Evidence and Procedural Lapses.

Criminal appeal against conviction for terrorist-related offences under various penal statutes.

Setting aside judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.10.2016 and 05.10.2016 passed by the trial court.

The appellant/accused was convicted under Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and challenged the conviction on multiple grounds including lack of reliable evidence, procedural lapses, and non-compliance with statutory requirements.

Trial court (55th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) in S.C. No.1031/2008 convicted the appellant on 04.10.2016 for the offences charged.

Whether the trial court erred in relying on inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence of prosecution witnesses. Whether the prosecution proved the conspiracy and membership in a terrorist organization beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the arrest and recovery were vitiated by contradictions among police witnesses and independent witnesses turning hostile. Whether the electronic records were admissible without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Whether the sanction orders under various Acts were validly granted after due application of mind. Whether the investigation was unfair and compromised because the complainant himself conducted further recovery and investigation. Whether the charges under the Arms Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act were sustainable without proof of source of arms or terrorist links.

Appellant argued that the prosecution's evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated; independent witnesses turned hostile or contradicted police witnesses; there was no proof of accused's membership in LeT or any financial transactions; the recoveries were doubtful and not supported by independent witnesses; no passenger or ticket was produced to prove the bus journey; the electronic records were not accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act; the sanction orders were granted without proper consideration of material; and the investigation was flawed as the complainant himself conducted subsequent recoveries.

The complainant Sri K.N. Jithendranath, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru, having received credible information that one terrorist aged about 35 years wearing pant, a black coloured leather jacket and a woolen cap, who is a native of Jammu and Kashmir State and presently residing at Hospet was coming from Hospet to Bengaluru in a VRL bus bearing No.KA 25/B-6085 which was going to arrive at Bengaluru in the early morning hours on 5.1.2007 and he was carrying two bags of which one is maroon colour containing assault rifles, ammunition and hand grenades. The mahazar was drawn and a written complaint was lodged at about 9.30 a.m., which came to be registered as Crime No.6/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 25, 26 and 28 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 120B, 121, 121A and 122 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Court below after hearing the accused, framed the charges and read over to the accused No.1 and after haring both the sides, charges were altered and after alteration of the charges, accused No.1 was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 5(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 20 and 23(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The learned counsel for the appellant in his argument vehemently contended that the Court below has committed an error in convicting accused No.1. It is also his contention that accused Nos.2 to 6 are split up and only proceeded against accused No.1. The main argument is that the SIM card is not in the name of accused No.1 and no investigation was done to connect the accused for the offences charged against him. There are no material to connect with satellite phone. The other contention is that there are no material placed by the prosecution to show that the accused travelled from Hospet to Bengaluru and none of the passenger is examined, no ticket is collected and the very apprehension itself is doubtful. The prosecution also did not produce any material to prove that accused No.1 is a member of terrorist organization. The Investigating Officer has not collected any material to show that he is a member of terrorist association to invoke Sections 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

On 05.01.2007, the appellant was apprehended and a complaint was registered as Crime No.6/2007. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet filed against six accused, with accused Nos.2 to 6 absconding. Sanctions for prosecution were obtained on 26.03.2007 and 30.03.2007. The trial in S.C. No.1031/2008 commenced, and charges were framed and later altered against accused No.1. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 32 and marked Exs.P.1 to 112 and M.Os.1 to 42. The accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and no defence evidence was led. On 04.10.2016, the trial court convicted accused No.1 for the offences. The judgment of conviction and sentence was pronounced on 04.10.2016 and 05.10.2016. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.2066/2016 before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 19.09.2019, and judgment was pronounced on 29.11.2019.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313, 196
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 121, 121A, 122, 120B
• Explosive Substances Act, 1908: 5(b), 6, 7
• Arms Act, 1959: 25(1-A), 26(2), 25, 26, 28, 39
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: 20, 23(1), 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 65B