ASIM SHARIFF vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 949  OF 2019     (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 1253 of 2019) ASIM SHARIFF   ….Appellant(s) VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The   present   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the   accused appellant against whom a criminal case bearing no. RC 04/16­ NIA­HYD came to be registered along with four other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120­B, 109, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2019.07.01 16:29:26 IST Reason: 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC; Sections 3 and 27   of   the   Arms   Act   and   Sections   15,16,17,18   &   20   of   the 1 Unlawful   Activities(Prevention)   Act,   1967(hereinafter   being referred to as “UAP Act”). 3. After   completion   of   the   investigation,   final   report   was submitted   before   the   trial  Court   against   the   accused   persons including   appellant.     The   appellant   claims   that   there   was   no material for registering the criminal case neither investigating nor submitting   the   final   report   against   him.     At   this   stage,   the appellant filed application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as “CrPC”) seeking his   discharge   from   the   case   for   the   aforesaid   offences.     The application was dismissed by the trial Judge/Special Judge who ordered   for   framing   of   charges   against   him   for   the   aforesaid nd offences   under   Order   dated   2   January,   2018   came   to   be challenged by the appellant in a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC nd which was dismissed by a lucid impugned judgment dated 22 November, 2018 which is a subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. 2 4. The background facts giving rise to this appeal which needs to be noted are that a criminal case came to be registered as th Crime   No.   124/2016   on   16   October,   2016   for   the   offences punishable   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   IPC   by Commercial   Street   Police   after   a   complaint   was   filed   by   one th Jayaram(CW­1), who stated that on 16  October, 2016 at around 12.40   p.m.   when   he   along   with   his   friends   namely   Rudresh, Harikrishna and Kumar assembled near Srinivas Medical Stores, Shivajinagar, one person(accused) being the pillion rider of the motorcycle   hacked   Rudresh   with   a   sharp   edged   and   lethal machete on the right side of his neck and fled.   Rudresh was taken to a hospital wherein he was declared brought dead. 5. Initially, four accused persons (Accused nos. 1 to 4) were th arrested on 27  October, 2016.  Accused no. 5(appellant herein) nd was arrested on 2  November, 2016.  Subsequently, the task of investigation was entrusted to National Investigating Agency(NIA) th by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 7 December, 2016.  NIA registered FIR in RC No. 24/2016 against all   five   accused   persons   including   the   appellant.     After 3 investigation,   the   charge   sheet   was   submitted   against   all  five st accused persons on 21   April, 2017 which stated that accused nos. 1 to 4 conspired with the accused appellant(accused no. 5) to   kill   RSS   members   and   in   furtherance   of   their   acts,   they committed offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section   34   IPC.     The   accused   persons   were   said   to   be   in possession of weapons without license, thereby it attracted the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act. Further, the acts of the accused persons including the accused appellant amounted to offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 16(1)(a), 18 and 20 of the UAP Act. 6. The   appellant  sought  discharge   under  Section  227   CrPC along with other accused persons which came to be rejected vide nd order dated 2   January, 2018 and framed charges against the accused persons including accused appellant.  Special NIA Court nd under   its   Order   dated   2   January,   2018   while   deciding   the application   of   appellant   seeking   discharge   under   Section   227 CrPC observed that it was admitted by the defence counsel that the appellant is the President of Bengaluru unit of Popular Front 4 of India(PFI) and the other accused persons nos. 1 to 4 are also the members of PFI.  It was also admitted by the defence counsel that there was frequent telephonic/mobile phone conversation among the accused persons nos. 1 to 5 prior and subsequent to th 16  October, 2016(the date of the incident) which gave rise to the Special NIA Court to arrive at a conclusion that the material placed   in   the   charge­sheet   on   record   gives   rise   to   sufficient grounds of subjective satisfaction of prima facie case of alleged offence of conspiracy being hatched among the accused persons. It further observed that the accused appellant has failed to justify the necessary ingredients of Section 227 CrPC and finally held that the matter deserved to be proceeded with framing of charge. The   said   order   came   to   be   affirmed   by   the   High   Court   on dismissal   of   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the   unsuccessful nd appellant   vide   its   impugned   judgment   dated   22   November, 2018.  7. Ms.   Kamini   Jaiswal,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant submits   that   the   impugned   judgment   has   resulted   in   grave miscarriage   of   justice   and   is   based   on   an   erroneous interpretation of the factual circumstances of the case and the 5 High   Court   has   not   taken   into   consideration   the   oral   and documentary evidence on record in the proper perspective which has vitiated the entire proceedings and led to gross injustice. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the bare reading of the extract of charge sheet reveals that the prosecution has failed to adduce evidence which was against the appellant. That CW 1 to 53, 55 to 76, 78 to 86, 86­92, 94 to 96 and 98 to 112 did not whisper anything against the appellant and the other witnesses relied by the prosecution to make out a case against him are the witnesses   of   the   Mahzar   proceedings   who   provided   some information   like   bank   account   details   and   call   data   records, which in no way discloses any incriminating material against the appellant. 9.   According to the learned counsel, the charge against the appellant is without any basis and merely on suspicion as there is nothing to reveal that the appellant was the main conspirator behind   the   alleged   murder   termed   as   a   terror   attack.     The allegation that he planned the conspiracy along with other PFI members to kill RSS members and arranged conspiracy meetings 6 and executed the plan of striking terror among a section of people belonging to RSS is concocted and without any substance as nothing incriminating has been recovered from the appellant or to support the prosecution story and in the given circumstances, rejecting his application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC by the trial Judge and affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in law. 10. Learned counsel further submits that though the alleged incident as per the case of prosecution has been planned and executed on the last day of Navaratri being Vijayadashmi whereas it is a matter of record that the Navaratri was already over on the th said date and the Vijayadashmi was on 11  October, 2016 and th the   alleged   incident   was   on   16   October,   2016.     Such   a statement was made just to prejudice the mind of the Court to frame charge against the appellant which is unreasonable and unjustified and this has not been looked into and appreciated by the High Court in its impugned judgment. 11. Learned counsel further submits that none of the accused in this case are the member of any terrorist organisation which 7 are banned under the schedule of UAP Act and, therefore, the question   of   invocation   of   UAP   Act,   after   completion   of investigation, was not attracted and at least the charge framed against   him   for   the   offences   under   UAP   Act   was   not   legally sustainable in law. 12. Per contra, Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned ASG appearing for the respondent with his usual vehemence submits that Section 15 of UAP Act  covers  both  the   act of   an  individual and  a  terrorist gang/association and as per Section 20 of the UAP Act, it is not necessary for an association/organisation to be included in the schedule, for punishing a terrorist act carried out by them.   13. Learned counsel further submits that the incident occurred on a day when the RSS workers had organised a path sanchalan, and the deceased, who was dressed in uniform, was brutually attacked by the accused persons whereby his throat was slit in a single blow, resulting in his immediate death.  Admittedly, there is no animosity between the appellant and deceased.  The nature of   the   act   including   the   recoveries   made   shows   that   the consequences were intended to be beyond the physical act itself 8 and was to create fear in the minds of the people at large and to create insecurity and foster disharmony. 14. Learned counsel further submits that the series of evidence reveals the appellant’s involvement in the commission of crime:­ i) Appellant is the District President of the Popular Front   of   India(PFI)   which   has   been   involved   in killings of several RSS members/Hindu leaders in Karnataka in the past three years. th ii) Seizure   of   banner   dated   12   December,   2016 which bore the names and photograph of all the accused including the accused appellant. iii) Several telephone exchanges between accused no. 1 to 4 and the accused appellant. th iv) Disclosure report dated 4  November, 2016 which reveals   that   a  leather   purse   containing   a  letter written by accused no. 4 was discovered at the office of the appellant, wherein accused no. 4 list out 17 murders committed by PFI in near past with a note as to why the murder of deceased Rudresh   had   attracted   so   much   attention   as compared to other murders. v) Investigation revealed that about 8­9 months prior to   the   incident,   all   the   accused   had   attended indoctrination   classes   organised   by   accused appellant   and   other   members   where   accused persons were recruited and brainwashed by the appellant to kill RSS members. vi) Accused no. 4 confesses that accused appellant was   the   mastermind   behind   the   killing   of   RSS members. 9 15. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   there   is   a   strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that the appellant has committed an offence which clearly borne out from the charge­ sheet placed on record and the trial Court rightly held that the prima facie case was made out against the appellant and after the matter has been elaborately considered by the High Court in revisiting the factual matrix taken note by the trial Court under nd its Order dated 2   January, 2018, no interference at least is called for in the appeal preferred at the instance of the appellant. 16. Before we proceed to examine the facts of the present case, it may be apposite to take note of the ambit and scope of the powers of  the  Court at  the time of  considering the  discharge application.  This Court in  Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar 1  had an occasion to consider the scope of Section   Samal & Ors.   227 CrPC and it held in paragraph 7 as under:­ “7.  Section 227 of the Code runs thus: “If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and   after   hearing   the   submissions   of   the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge   considers   that   there   is   not   sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he 1 1979(3) SCC 4 10 shall   discharge   the   accused   and   record   his reasons for so doing.” The words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose   that   there   are   suspicious   circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.” 17. In   Sajjan   Kumar  Vs.  Central   Bureau   of 2 , this Court had an occasion to consider the   Investigation   scope of Section 227 and 228 CrPC.   The principles which emerged   therefrom  have   been  taken  note   of   in para 21  as under:­

2 2010(9) SCC 368 11 determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. ( ii ) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. ( iii ) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. ( iv ) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. ( v ) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. ( vi ) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. ( vii ) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from 12 grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 18. The   exposition   of   law   on   the   subject   has   been   further 3 considered by this Court in   followed State Vs. S. Selvi and Ors.     4 in  Vikram Johar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.     19. Taking  note   of  the  exposition of  law on the  subject  laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the   question   of   framing   charge   under   Section   227   CrPC   in sessions cases(which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, 3 2018(13) SCC 455 4 2019(6) SCALE 794 13 the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him.   It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not.   It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record. 20. If   we   advert   to   the   facts   of   the   instant   case,   initially   a criminal case came to be registered in Crime No. 124/2016 on th 16   October,  2016  for  the   offences  punishable  under  Section 302, 34 of IPC by Commercial Street Police over the murder of one Rudresh.   Initially, four accused persons were arrested in connection with the crime.  Subsequently, National Investigation Agency(NIA)   registered   first   information   in   R.C.   No.   24/2016 including the appellant­Asim Shariff (accused no. 5) in the list of the accused.  The task of investigation was entrusted to NIA by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs(Internal Security­1 th Division), North Block, New Delhi through its orders dated 7 December, 2016 as per Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Act.   In obedience to the said order, the 14 NIA, Hyderabad Branch, registered the case in RC 04/16­NIA­ HYD for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC; Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 & 20 of the UAP Act. 21. After   completion   of   the   investigation,   final   report   was submitted before the trial Court against the accused persons 1 to st 5 on 21  April, 2017.  At this stage, the application filed by the accused appellant under Section 227 CrPC seeking his discharge from the charge for the aforesaid offences came to be dismissed by the trial Court, after recording cogent reasons and order of framing charge against him and other accused persons (accused th nos. 1 to 4) under its Order dated 12   January, 2018.   The extract of the order is as follows:­ “22. It is needless to mention herein that this Court has already taken the cognizance of offences alleged and it is needless to mention herein that obtaining of sanction is condition precedent as on the date of taking cognizance of the offences alleged. That the Sanction having been obtained by the NIA at the time of cognizance of alleged offences and the cognizance having been already taken by this Court, this court is of the firm view that it is not good to pass any orders in respect of sanction for the simplest reason   that   passing   of   any   orders   with   regard   to genuineness or otherwise of sanction, the same would amounts to an act of usurping of appellate or revisional jurisdiction. That the order of taking cognizance is intact 15 even on this day. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in these paragraphs and in the preceding paragraphs of this order, NIA has established that material adduced by it are sufficient enough to proceed with the case and that the same do give subjective satisfaction of existence of prima­facie   case   of   alleged   offences.   Therefore,   the subject matter of Point No.2 deserves to be answered in the Negative, that of Point No.3 deserves to be answered in the affirmative and that of point No.4 in the Negative and   the   said   points   are   hereby   answered   accordingly. This court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. by the accused No.5 is hereby dismissed. That the case on hand deserves to be proceeded with framing of charge in respect of alleged offences as mentioned in the charge sheet as against all the accused persons.” 22. The unsuccessful appellant filed writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC.   The High Court after analysing the entire material on record confirmed the view expressed by the trial Judge and held as under:­ “ No   doubt   the   present   petition   is   invoking   writ jurisdiction   under   the   Constitution   of   India   and inherent powers of this Court, regard being had to the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, the stand of the petitioner was specifically negatived by the orders of this Court. The matter has been urged, assessed and adjudicated in the proceedings and again the petitioner has come for the next round. On facts or in law there is no   material   worth   to   suggest   fallibility   of   the proceedings in Spl. C.C. No.181/2017 pending on the file of XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court   of   trial   of   NIA   cases)   at   Bengaluru   for   the offences punishable u/S 302, 201 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 27 of Arms Act and under Section 16 15,   16,   17,   18   and   20   of   Unlawful   Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.” 23. That apart, we have also gone through the relevant record and extract of the charge­sheet placed on record for perusal, the fact   reveals   that   the   accused   appellant   is   the   President   of Bengaluru   unit   of   Popular   Front   of   India(PFI)   and   the   other accused nos. 1 to 4 are also the members of PFI.  It reveals from the   charge­sheet   that   there   was   frequent   telephonic/mobile conversation   between   appellant(accused   no.   5)   with   other accused persons(accused nos. 1 to 4) prior and subsequent to th 16  October, 2016 (the alleged date of incident) which persuaded the Court to arrive to a conclusion that there is a prima facie material of conspiracy among the accused persons giving rise to sufficient grounds of subjective satisfaction of prima facie case of alleged offences of conspiracy being hatched among the accused persons   and   truth   &   veracity   of   such   conspiracy   is   to   be examined during the course of trial.     24. After going through the records and the judgment impugned before us, in the present facts and circumstances, we find no error in the judgment passed by the trial Court and confirmed by 17 nd the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 22  November, 2018 which calls for our interference. 25. We make it clear that what has been observed by this Court is only for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal and any observations made shall either way not prejudice the rights of the parties during the course of trial and the trial Court may also not to be influenced/inhibited by the observations made by us and proceed with the trial independently in accordance with law. 26. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. 27. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ………………………..J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR) ………………………..J. (AJAY RASTOGI) New Delhi July 01, 2019 18