Abdul Rehman Seth, A45 vs The State, Rep. By P.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3502 Tel

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.23, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 340, 795,

     985, 997 and 1900 of 2005 & Crl.A.No.1105 of 2006


COMMON JUDGMENT:
1.

The appellants in all the appeals aggrieved by the

judgment of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for

trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional

Family Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the learned Sessions

Judge') in S.C.No.95 of 2001 dated 22.11.2004, convicting

the appellants for the offences under Section 120B IPC and

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six

months, present appeals filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the

appellants herein and also the charge sheeted accused A1 to

A7, who are residents of Pakistan were all part of Jamat-E-

Hizbul Mujahideen. A1 is the chief namely Deendaar

Anjuman and head of Jamat-E-Hizbul Mujahideen. He along

with other accused/appellants who are members of the said

organization entered into criminal conspiracy with the

cause to carryout several terrorist acts for the purpose of

desecration of places of worship and disrupting religious

assemblies and other terror related activities. In the said

process, the appellants herein have planted Improvised

Explosive Devises (for short 'IEDs') at various religious

places, which resulted in communal disharmony and

disaffection towards the Government, for which reason they

are liable for the offences under Sections 120B, 124A,

153A,295, 295A, 296, 307, 324, 325, 326,395, 436 IPC and

Sections 3 to 6 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections

25(i)(a) and 27 of Arms Act.

3. Accordingly, all the appellants/accused were charged

for the said offences under 30 different counts/charges. The

details of the charges framed are not relevant for the

purpose of adjudication of these appeals.

4. Further, the prosecution has also marked Exs.P1 to

P558 and also material objects MOs.1 to 142. The

description of said exhibits and material objects is also not

required to be written in detail as the same is not necessary

for adjudication of the present appeals.

5. During the course of trial, the points which were

considered by the learned Sessions Judge are as follows:

1. Whether there is criminal conspiracy among the accused to foment communal disharmony and in that connection whether they have committed any specific overt acts?

2. Whether the accused maliciously insulted the religious belief, caused disturbance to the religious assemblies?

3.Whether the accused committed deliberate and malicious acts with intend to insult the religion or intending to outrage the religious feelings of any class?

6. The provisions of Section 120A IPC are as follows:

When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:-

(1) an illegal act or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

7. Having recorded the oral evidence and also on the

basis of the documentary evidence and material objects

marked during the course of trial, the learned Sessions

Judge came to conclusion that the appellants are guilty for

the offence of criminal conspiracy.

8. The evidence recorded disclosed that these appellants

were part of the said organization/ Deendar Anjuman(A-1)

organization along with A1 to A7 who were not tried along

with the accused herein as they are residents of Pakistan.

9. Learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence

recorded came to conclusion that the prosecution was able

to prove that there were meetings amongst the accused for

committing criminal acts. Arrests and seizures effected

from the accused would go to show that they were also

complicit in preparation and manufacturing of IEDs.

Further, the seizures of letters, which were written to

threaten Christian Missionaries, posters depicting about

world Islamisation, data of telephone calls collected from the

accused and the involvement of all the accused in different

crimes was discussed by the learned Sessions Judge.

10. Learned Sessions Judge further found that though all

the accused were not involved in all the cases, however the

appellants/accused were involved in different cases as part

of Deendar Anjuman group, which were listed as follows: i)

Cr.No.171/2000, Pig Blast; ii) Tiruvur Bank Dacoity/ SC

No.426 of 2001 in Cr.No.8/2000; iii) Blast in Ladies Club,

Machilipatnam SC No.422/2001 in Cr.No.94/2000; iv) Blast

in Kodanda Ramaswamy Temple, SC No.423 of 2001; v)

Vain attempt to Blast the St.Jude's Church, Vikarabad (SC

93/2001, Cr.NO.207/2000); vi) Attempt to blast the CSI

Church, Medak, SC 446/2001 Cr.No.38/2000; vii) Blast in

Juwett Memorial Baptist Church, Ongole, SC No.563/2001

Cr.No.80/2000; viii) Blast in Mother Vennani Catholic

Church Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem; ix) Warning letter

addressed to K.A.Paul International Training Centre; x)

Blast in St.Anns Church, Cr.No.77/2000 P.S.Wadi; xi)

Maruthi Van Blast in Bangalore Cr.NO.87/2000 P.S.Hubli;

xii) Blast in Markaz Mosque, Guntur, S.C.No.564/2001,

Cr.No.190/2000; xiii) Destruction of public and private

properties after the blast of Markaz Mosque in Guntur,

cr.Nos.191/2000 to 193/2000; xiv) recoveries explosives

from A15 Syed Mastan S.C.No.91/2001 Cr.No.176/2000;

xv) Recovery of Explosives from Sk.Iqbal Ahmed (A8),

Mohd.Nazeemuddin (A9), Shaik Khaja (A.11) & Humayun

(A.10) SC No.94 of 2001; xvi) Recovery of Mohd.Haneef (A14)

SC No.92/2001 Cr.NO.98/2000 of PS Nuiveedu; xvii)

Recoveries from S.M.Ibrahim (A17), Cr.No.113/2000, PS

J.J.Nagar, Bangalore; xviii) Recoveries from Mullah Sab

(A.43) & A.R.Seth (A.45) cr.No.290/2000, Magadi Road P.S.

11. All the above narrated cases are subject matters of

different crimes and sessions cases were pending before

different Sessions Courts in the entire districts of erstwhile

State of Andhra Pradesh at the time of the Judgement in the

present case. Since the accused, who are complicit in those

cases were being tried for the said offences in those cases,

the narration and details of all the cases would not be

necessary for adjudication of these appeals.

12. Learned Sessions Judge has found that since the

accused were being tried individually, who are all accused in

those particular cases, the learned Sessions Judge did not

give any finding regarding involvement in those cases as any

finding would amount to double jeopardy and such findings

are barred under Section 300 of Cr.P.C and Article 20 of the

Constitution of India.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused

submits that A41, 43, 47, 44 and 50 have already expired.

14. Further, learned counsel for the appellants would

submit that all the accused are already facing life

sentence/death sentences in different cases in Bangalore

and other parts of India. He further submits that since all

the accused are separately tried and there was no necessity

of conducting any trial in the present case since their

complicity of criminal conspiracy would be decided in the

said cases. For the said reason conviction for criminal

conspiracy has to be set aside.

15. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that

learned Sessions Judge has convicted on the basis of their

membership in Deendar Anjuman organization. They have

committed different terrorist acts, which are subject matters

of session's case pending against them in different Courts.

However, all these appellants are part of Deendar Anjuman

organization carrying out those terrorist acts, they were in

fact tried by the Special Court and rightly convicted under

Section 120-B of IPC for criminal conspiracy.

16. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also relied upon

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases; i)

R.Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State, rep. by Inspector of Police

[Criminal Appeal No.454 of 2015]; and ii) State (N.C.T of

Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu [AIR 2005 SC 3820] to support his

contention that the appellants can be convicted for criminal

conspiracy, irrespective of their individual involvement in

several cases. However, the application filed to enhance the

sentence was not pressed for the reason of the appellants

who are surviving are undergoing life sentence in different

jails.

17. Learned Sessions Judge had in fact not discussed

about any cases individually as they are being tried before

different courts, however concluded that all the appellants

herein have executed those acts. The learned Sessions

Judge has rightly confined to discussing whether an offence

under Section 120-B of IPC is made out or not.

18. The criminal conspiracy of these appellants are

apparent from their criminal acts in several cases and all of

them belonging to Deendar Anjuman organization of which

A1 was the head. The accused have indulged in acquiring

explosive devises, fabricating and manufacturing Improvised

Explosive Devices and placing them at several places of

worship. The evidence also concludes their inter se

communication amongst these members to execute the

criminal acts. Several seizures, explosive materials which

occurred were all considered by the Sessions Judge to arrive

at a conclusion. These appellants had in fact carried out

those acts in criminal conspiracy to commit such acts.

19. For the aforesaid reasons, since the learned Sessions

Judge has not given any finding in individual cases which

are subject matters before the concerned Courts and

confined its finding to the aspect of criminal conspiracy to

commit such criminal acts, I see no reason to interfere with

the well reasoned judgment of the Sessions Judge

convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 120B

of IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for a

period of six months.

20. The Criminal Appeal No.1105 of 2006 is filed by the

State aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused persons for

the offences charged other than Section 120-B IPC. The

learned Sessions Judge, as stated above, did not give any

finding with regard to the other offences apart from Section

120-B of IPC, since they are subject matters of cases in

different appeals. For the said reason, when there is no

finding regarding the other offences, the question of appeal

against acquittal does not arise, as there is no acquittal

recorded. For the said reasons, Criminal Appeal No.1105 of

2006 filed by the State fails and accordingly dismissed.

20. Accordingly, all the criminal appeals are dismissed. As

a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 07.07.2022 kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.23, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 340, 795,

985, 997, 1900 of 2005 & 1105 of 2006

Date:07.07.2022

kvs