๐ˆ๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐๐ข๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐’๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ”(๐Ÿ) ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐€๐ง๐ญ๐ข ๐“๐ž๐ซ๐ซ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐€๐œ๐ญ, ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ• โ€”๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ง๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐œ๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐žโ€” ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ: ๐‰๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐‰๐š๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ ๐Š๐ก๐š๐ง ๐Œ๐š๐ง๐๐จ๐ค๐ก๐š๐ข๐ฅ

Share

๐ˆ๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐๐ข๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐’๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ”(๐Ÿ) ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐€๐ง๐ญ๐ข ๐“๐ž๐ซ๐ซ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐€๐œ๐ญ, ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ• โ€”๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ง๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐œ๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐žโ€” ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ: ๐‰๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐‰๐š๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ ๐Š๐ก๐š๐ง ๐Œ๐š๐ง๐๐จ๐ค๐ก๐š๐ข๐ฅ

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment has reemphasised that in order to bring a crime within the purview of terrorism as defined in section 6 (1) of the ATA, 1997, it is not enough to show that the crime is so heinous, rather the prosecution has to prove that the crime attracts any of the ingredients of the definition of terrorism.ย  In short, the Court held that heinousness of a crime per se does not make the crime an act of terrorism, rather it is to be proved that the crime attracts any of the ingredients of terrorismย  as defined in the Act.

In the case in hand, the Petitionerย  was accused of abduction for ransom. The prosecution had proved his case beyond any doubt, but they had charged the accused under 7 ATA in addition to section 365-A of the PPC. The Court held that mere kidnapping for ransom is not an act of terrorism. It must be coupled with the intention of causing terror in the society in order to bring it within the ambit of 7 ATA.

The Court further clarified that the Government has power to include any offence within the Third Schedule of the Act to make it triableย  by the Anti Terrorism Courts for the purpose of speedy trial. It implies that the ATCsย  have dual powers: to adjudicate cases of terrorism andย  those which are mentioned in the Third Schedule of the Act. The Court held that inclusion of an act within the Third Schedule does not make it act of terrorism. It is to be shown that there is any nexus of the act with the ingredients of terrorism in order to make it an act of terrorism.

The Court at the end concluded that the kidnapping by the accused did not involve an element of terrorism neither the accused did so with the intent to cause terror within the society. Thus, being so the case, the Courtย  altered the charge of the accused from 7 ATA to that of simple offence under section 365-A PPC.

Click to Downloadย 

j.p._233_2015

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top