Bengaluru Court sentences student to five years in prison for celebrating Pulwama Attack on Facebook

A Special Court in Bengaluru recently sentenced a 20-year-old student to five years in prison for posting derogatory remarks on Facebook regarding the 2019 Pulwama terrorist attack. [The State of Karnataka v. Faiz Rashid].Special Judge Gangadhara CM observed that the accused made derogatory comments intentionally on multiple occasions and that he celebrated the deaths, as he was not an Indian. Therefore, it held that it was a heinous offence was against the nation."The accused has not made derogatory comments one or two times. He made the comments to all the posts made by all the news channels on facebook. Moreover, he was not an illiterate or ordinary man. He was a engineering student at the time of commission of the offence and he made the posts and comments intentionally on his facebook account. He felt happy about killing of the great souls and celebrated the death of the great souls as he was not an Indian. Therefore, the offence committed by the accused is against this great nation and heinous in nature," the Court recorded..The accused was arrested in 2019 following a First Information Report (FIR) that alleged that he had a Facebook account in the name of Faiz Rasheed, through which he posted comments supporting the Pulwama attack. This was done with an intention to disrupt the sovereignty and integrity of India and to promote enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, it was alleged.After his phone was seized and examined, a chargesheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race etc), 124-A (Sedition) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)..However, following the Supreme Court's decision in SG Vombatkere v. Union of India, through which the offence of Sedition was kept in abeyance, the Court decided not to conduct trial in respect of the charge framed under Section 124-A of IPC..Advocate Tahir Ahamed, appearing for the accused, argued that the witnesses in the case were not reliable as they were stock witnesses. Further, he argued that the ownership of the device and the Facebook account by the accused was not proven.The Court ruled that the evidence of the witnesss could not be discarded unless it was untrustworthy or unreliable, which the counsel failed to demonstrate. It also pointed out that the accused never disputed that the phone belonged to him, and therefore, ruled that he was liable to be punished for the offences alleged against him.In this backdrop, the Court examined whether the evidence satisfied the ingredients of the offences alleged.Counsel for the accused argued that there must be two groups to attract the offence under Section 153A of IPC and that since the accused had not commented against any religion, the ingredients were not proved by the prosecution.However, the Court ruled that the submission was devoid of merit, as the accused had mentioned the issue of Ram Mandir in his comments and instigated feelings of the Hindu community. "As discussed supra, the accused has taken the issue of Rama Mandir in his comments which instigates the religious feelings of Hindu community. He has also commented as one Muslim is equal to 40 persons and Muslim boys are always funny. Further there is evidence to show that the Hindu community people made derogatory comments by enraging the comments made by the accused," the Court added.Therefore, it held that the comments clearly attracted the ingredients of the offence under section 153A IPC..With respect to the offence under Section 201 of IPC, the Court, based on witness statements, concluded that the accused deleted the derogatory posts with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence of the offence and to screen himself from legal punishment.Stating that the comments by the accused clearly showed that he supported the act of terrorism against the Indian Army with an intention to disrupt the sovereignty and integrity of India and with an intention to cause disaffection against India, the Court ruled that the evidence proved the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 13 of UAPA as well..On the point of quantum of sentence, the accused told the Court that he intended to continue his education and to take care of his aged parents. Having been in jail for three and a half years, he showed repentance for his mistakes and undertook to mend his future behaviour. Hence, he prayed for a lenient view while awarding the sentence.His counsel stated that the accused did nothing except posting derogatory comments on his Facebook account, that too at the age of 19. He further argued that he had no criminal antecedents and prayed for release on probation for good conduct.The Court awarded him a sentence of five years in prison, along with a fine of ₹25,000..[Read Judgment]