Prosecution Of Terrorist Acts And Planning
π 1. Understanding Prosecution of Terrorist Acts and Planning
Definition
Terrorism involves acts intended to:
Instill fear among the public or a section of society.
Coerce the government or any organization to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.
Cause mass destruction, killing, or damage to property.
Prosecution refers to the legal process of charging, investigating, and trying individuals involved in terrorist acts or their planning.
1.1 Legal Framework in India
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
Governs unlawful activities and terrorist acts.
Sections 15β18 define terrorist acts.
Section 18B: Punishment for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.
Section 18A: Punishment for raising funds for terrorist purposes.
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 121β130: Waging war against the government, sedition, and conspiracy.
Section 307 IPC: Attempt to murder.
Section 120B IPC: Criminal conspiracy.
Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Governs illegal possession, use, and transportation of explosives.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Provides powers for investigation, arrest, and trial.
1.2 Elements of Prosecution
To prosecute terrorist acts or planning, authorities must prove:
Intent β Intention to commit terror or instill fear.
Action β Actual act or preparation for an act.
Connection β Link to a terrorist organization or unlawful activity.
Conspiracy or funding β Participation in planning, recruiting, or funding terrorism.
βοΈ 2. Major Case Laws on Terrorist Acts and Planning
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (1993β2007)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Yakub Memon was involved in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts that killed 257 people and injured over 700.
Charges included conspiracy, murder, and illegal possession of explosives under IPC and UAPA.
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld his death sentence for conspiracy and execution of terrorist acts.
Recognized that planning and execution of terrorist acts amount to the gravest offense.
Significance:
Established that conspirators can be punished equally as executors.
Reinforced deterrence against organized terrorism.
Case 2: National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2010)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts:
Accused of terrorist funding and planning attacks against security forces in Jammu & Kashmir.
Arrested under UAPA Sections 15, 18, and 18A for planning terror attacks and funding militant groups.
Judgment:
Court held that funding terrorism and planning attacks are independent offenses under UAPA.
Emphasized the importance of linking funds, communication, and conspiracy to terrorist acts.
Significance:
Clarified that supportive acts like funding, recruitment, or communication are punishable.
Strengthened prosecution of indirect terrorism support.
Case 3: Abdul Subhan Qureshi v. State (2008)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts:
Abdul Subhan, known as a key member of Indian Mujahideen, was involved in planning and logistics for multiple bomb blasts in India.
Charged under UAPA, Explosive Substances Act, and IPC Sections 120B, 307.
Judgment:
Court recognized planning, coordination, and logistic support as sufficient to prosecute, even if the accused did not plant explosives personally.
Significance:
Highlighted that terrorist planning alone is a punishable offense.
Underlined the role of intelligence and evidence gathering in terrorism cases.
Case 4: Afzal Guru v. State (2001)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Afzal Guru was involved in the Parliament attack (2001) in New Delhi.
Accused of conspiring and aiding the attack, which was aimed at intimidating the government.
Judgment:
Convicted under UAPA, IPC Sections 121, 120B, 302, and Explosive Substances Act.
Supreme Court emphasized that planning and conspiracy leading to mass casualties attract the maximum punishment.
Significance:
Reinforced that conspiracy, even without direct execution, constitutes terrorism.
Showed how judicial reasoning links planning and execution for accountability.
Case 5: National Investigation Agency v. Abu Salem (2002β2016)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts:
Abu Salem involved in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, managing logistics, procuring explosives, and coordinating with other terrorists.
Arrested and extradited from Portugal in 2005.
Judgment:
Court held him guilty under IPC Sections 120B, 302, 307, and UAPA Sections 15 and 18.
Highlighted cross-border coordination in terrorism planning.
Significance:
Demonstrated that international aspects of terrorist planning are prosecutable.
Reinforced the role of inter-agency coordination in evidence collection.
Case 6: National Investigation Agency v. Riyaz Bhatkal (2013)
Court: Special NIA Court
Facts:
Accused of planning multiple Indian Mujahideen attacks and recruitment of operatives.
Charged under UAPA, IPC Sections 120B, 302, and Explosive Substances Act.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that recruitment, training, and planning attacks fall within UAPA provisions, even without direct execution.
Sentenced multiple accomplices for conspiracy and funding.
Significance:
Reiterated that terrorist planning and coordination are independently punishable.
Strengthened prosecution strategy for dismantling terrorist networks.
π§Ύ 3. Key Takeaways
Planning, funding, and recruitment are punishable even without direct involvement in the act.
UAPA is the principal legislation for prosecuting terrorism in India, supplemented by IPC and Explosives Act.
Courts have emphasized conspirators and coordinators are as culpable as executors.
Intelligence gathering, electronic evidence, and forensic proof are critical for prosecution.
Landmark cases like Yakub Memon, Afzal Guru, and Abu Salem highlight the severity of punishment for terrorism.
RELATED Blog
0 comments