A Patiala House Court has sentenced two Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) members to 12 years imprisonment and 10-year terms to other members convicted for terror funding and waging war against the Government of India.
A single-judge bench of Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh observed, “The convicts who have primarily been convicted for terror financing have provided funds for the activities of HM and said funds have been used for the destruction of property and taking human lives. Thus, merely because, in the present case, the convicts were not directly responsible for loss of life and property, it cannot be accepted that they were not responsible for loss of life and destruction of property because of the terrorist activities of HM.”
The Court observed, “On the contrary, I find that the funding network run by these convicts on the instructions of their handlers sitting in Pakistan had a greater responsibility for the terror acts committed by HM as in absence of such funding, which financed the cadres of HM and provided logistic support, it would not have been possible to commit those terror activities.”
The bench noted further, “I find that the terror funding has to be kept in the same category as that of actual terror acts if not in a higher category. Thus, the crimes for which the convicts have been convicted are of very serious nature as they had hatched a conspiracy to strike at the core of this nation and actions were taken to execute that conspiracy. This being said, the principles of sentencing as detailed above are to be applied to each convict in order to award a just and adequate punishment.”
The bench observed the following principles of sentencing that emerged during the arguments:-
(a) The punishment inflicted for the crime should be proportional to the crime committed;
(b) What is the proportional punishment is to be decided on the basis of consequences of the criminal action and that what those consequences were intended or not;
(c) While sentencing the punishment, especially in heinous cases, which have larger effect on the society such as terrorism, should also serve as deterrent;
(d) The convicts should be given an opportunity to reform and while awarding the punishment, chances of reformation of the convicts are also be considered;
(e) Aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be balanced to reach at a conclusion that what should be the just punishment in an individual case based on the facts and circumstances of the case;
(f) For the crimes which have greater social impact and which are against larger public interest, the punishment awarded has to be exemplary in nature so as to serve as a deterrent. 10. The convicts have been convicted for conspiring to commit terror activities in India and of conspiracy of waging war against the Government of India. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the convicts had engaged in the activities of terror financing.
The Senior Public Prosecutor, appearing for the National Investigation Authority (NIA), has contended that the offence is of very serious in nature. All the convicts had facilitated in transfer of funds and arms and ammunition for carrying out terrorist activities in India and the role of convict Mohd. Shafi Shah and Muzaffar Ahmad Dar is large. He has thus contended that all the convicts should be given maximum punishment.
Per contra, the counsel for convict Mohd. Shafi Shah contended that the convict has voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charges. This shows his intention to reformation. It is further submitted that the convict was merely involved in distribution of funds and he was never involved in any bomb blast or killings. The convict has been running in custody since the year 2011. He has further contended that the convict may be given a chance to reform. He therefore prays that the convict may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.
The counsel for convict Muzaffar Ahmad Dar contended that the long years of imprisonment have badly shattered his family life and economic life and has also affected the psychological health of his old aged and ailing parents. He further submits that during his jail period, he remained engaged in academic activities for most of the time. He was in final semester of his LL.B 3-year course. He has completed his Masters in Political Science while being lodged at Tihar Jail.
In view of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Vishal Yadav v. State of Govt of UP in Crl. A. 910/2008, socio economic reports of the convicts were called for. Reports regarding the conduct of the convicts and their inclination towards reformation were also called from the concerned jail authorities.
Convicts Mohammad Shafi Shah @Doctor @Dawood @Nisar, Talib Lali @Talib Hussain Lali @Waseem @Abu Umer, Muzaffar Ahmad Dar @ 19 @ Gaznavi @ Mohd. Ali and Mushtaq Ahmad Lone @Mushtaq.Aalam stand convicted for various offences.
This case was lodged with allegations that Hizbul Mujahideen, one of the most active terrorist outfits in Jammu & Kashmir, had been regularly receiving funds from neighbouring countries for carrying out terrorist activities in India and that in the garb of an organization namely, Jammu Kashmir Affectees Relief Trust (JKART), the said terrorist outfit is actively involved in furthering terrorist activities in India.