Calcutta High Court upholds life sentence awarded to Pakistani national found carrying explosives

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday upheld the life sentence of a Pakistani national who was found to have entered India illegally via Bangladesh, carrying explosives to Jammu and Kashmir. [Shahbaz Ismail vs The State of West Bengal].A bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi observed that the circumstances of the case suggested that the actions of the accused were within the ambit of an attempt to conspire to wage war upon the Government of India.."A person of foreign origin entered Indian Territory without valid travel documents and carrying highly explosive substance and objectionable literature and proceeding to a substantially terror prone zone of the country is surely not expected to be moving for charity. The circumstances of the case do suggest an inference that his action was within the ambit of an attempt and his involvement in a conspiracy to wage war upon the Government of India," the Court said..The accused, Shahbaz Ismail, was arrested in 2009 by the Special Task Force (STF), Kolkata. He was found to be carrying forged identification documents and an explosive substance..In March 2021, he was convicted for the offence of waging war against the Government of India under section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by a Session Judge in Kolkata. He was also found guilty of other offences under the IPC as well as the Foreigners Act and the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to life in jail along with fines..He moved the High Court challenging this order of the Sessions Court..The counsel for the appellant contended that a pre-deliberated First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the appellant and he was falsely implicated and, hence, the order should be set aside..It was also contended that one of the prosecution witnesses admittedly left the premises of the police station without a corresponding endorsement in the GDE book as per rules and therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon..The appellant has also challenged the independence of other witnesses. He claimed that they were pocket witnesses and a conviction on the basis of such partisan witnesses could not be said to be beyond all reasonable doubts. .He also assailed the judgment for the discrepancies in the investigation, claiming that the investigating agency omitted to obtain the call detail records (CDR) of the seized mobile phone. .Certain contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution were also pointed out by the counsel. It was contended that the quantity of the articles for chemical examination was not mentioned and, hence, the report by the chemical examiner stood vitiated..Advocate for the State argued that the appellant was apprehended trying to proceed to Jammu & Kashmir with objectionable articles and fake documents in his possession..He further contended that the accused failed to produce any valid document for his travel into Indian territory. Hence, he said that the sessions court judgment and order was based on unimpeachable evidence deserved to be upheld..The Court noted that the convict during the trial, had not denied the fact that he was from Pakistan Hence, the Court concluded that he was rightly held to be a Pakistani national and convicted under section 14A(b) of Foreigner's Act..Further, it took into consideration the fact the convict was found in possession of a plastic container with what the chemical examiner found to be ammonium nitrate and petroleum hydrocarbon, two highly explosive substances.."No explanation has been put forward by the appellant for the possession of highly explosive substance which is also not permitted. Such possession was, obviously, to endanger human life and property in the Indian Territory and that too, in a suspicious manner being carried in a bag," the Court added..Therefore, it do not find any illegality or irregularity in the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act..Further, the Court said that the circumstances of the case suggested that the accused's actions were within the ambit of an attempt to wage war upon the Government of India. ."Not only that, the appellant was moving in the garb of common Indian citizen having possession of objectionable materials and thereby otherwise preparing for waging war against Government of India. The circumstances points that the appellant was also guilty of concealing the design to wage war upon Indian Government," it said..Therefore, the Court upheld the life sentence awarded to the accused..[Read Judgment]