Professor TJ Joseph hand chopping: 3 convicts get life term; Kerala court says act was attempt to set up parallel religious judicial system

A National Investigation Agency court (NIA court) in Kerala on Thursday sentenced three of the convicts in the infamous 2010 hand chopping case of professor TJ Joseph to life imprisonment and three others to three years rigorous imprisonment [Union of India v Savad & Ors.]..The case pertains to a gruesome attack on Joseph, then a professor of Malayalam at Newman College in Thodupuzha, by a group of men who chopped his hand off at the wrist. This was done in response to an exam question set by the professor that was construed to be blasphemous and insulting to Prophet Mohammed..The NIA Court described the incident as follows:"Here is a case wherein a Professor's hand was chopped off and thrown out in broad daylight in the presence of his relatives and neighbours, striking terror in the mind of a section of people. The situation was really horrible. As prescribed in their religious text, the accused were delivering sentences on Prof. Joseph for the alleged blasphemy of Prophet Mohammed and Islam in the question paper set by the said Professor. The mental trauma and physical pain suffered by the Professor is terrific. His wife, who had witnessed this incident, could not withhold the trauma for long and committed suicide".Judge Anil K Bhaskar termed it a terrorist act that threatened the secular fabric of the nation."What has been committed is a terrorist act. The Nation and its citizenry also suffered a lot. Terrorism has been recognised as one of the six most severe threats to civilisation, security and humanity. The act of the accused is a challenge to the secular fabric of our Nation. It attempts to establish a parallel religious judicial system which is absolutely illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional. It has no place in independent India under our constitutional scheme. A country governed by the rule of law cannot fathom it," the judgment stated.Noting that the convicts took law into their own hands, the judge opined that it was an attempt to set up an alternate religious judicial system that is unconstitutional."Needless to say, faith cannot be used as a dehumanising force, and more importantly, a country governed by the rule of law cannot fathom it,' the Court added..It also said that imposing stringent punishment on the convicts is called for so as to prevent such threats to the citizenry at large."The citizenry has a 'fundamental' and 'human right' from any kind of psycho-fear, threat, danger or insecurity at the hands of anti-social elements. Otherwise, they cannot strive towards excellence in all spheres of their individual and collective activity. The accused, by their violent terrorist activity, had really struck terror in the people's minds," the Court explained..The trial in this case was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, thitrteen out of thirty-one persons arrayed as accused were found guilty in 2015.The current trial was the second phase in which eleven persons were tried of whom six were convicted and five acquitted..The judgment of the NIA Court noted that the examination question had kicked up controversy alarmingly quickly with protests being called by various Muslim organisations with the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI), and the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) at the forefront.Before the incident, the State government had actually registered a suo motu case against the professor for disrupting religious harmony. In fact, he was arrested and spent 6 days behind bars until he was released on bail. The professor continued to receive threats but it was a few months after his release that he was assaulted by a group of men while returning home after Sunday mass at church with his sister and mother. The group pulled him out of the car, chopped off the right hand, the one used by the Professor to pen the controversial question and threw it away. Fortunately, the hand was recovered and the professor survived the incident and his hand was reattached after long medical procedures.The Kerala Police carried out the first part of the investigation, and thereafter, the NIA took over.The prosecution case was that the accused who were the then leaders/active members of the PFI and SDPI, motivated with the specific intention of taking revenge on Professor Joseph, hatched a criminal conspiracy, agreed to form a terrorist gang to physically attack and commit the murder, so as to strike terror in the minds of the people and to promote enmity and hatred between different religious groups and also made a detailed plan for the post-incident stage..The first accused, Savad has been absconding since the incident and is yet to be apprehended..The Court noted that the group of "religious fanatics" could have waited for a court of law to decide whether the professor had committed any crime by setting the particular question. However, they chose not to wait, a fact that the Court termed as an "uncivilised act"..After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court turned its focus towards determining whether the incident can be characterised as a terrorist act as per the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The defence claimed that the attack was only on the professor and not done with any intent to strike terror in society and, therefore, the offences under UAPA would not be attracted.This was vehemently opposed by the prosecution which pointed out that the accused had chosen to attack the professor on his way back from church and that too in a public space in the presence of others returning from Sunday mass.The Court noted that the High Court had previously dismissed a plea moved by some of the accused contending that UAPA does not apply.It concurred with the High Court's observations and the contentions of the prosecution that the incident would attract the offences under Sections 15, 18 and 20 of the UAPA. "What is important is the intention not the consequence of the crime...Here is a case wherein the victim was in no manner directly connected to any of the accused...The organisation to which the accused belongs to never took it as an individual issue but addressed it as a communal issue. It addressed its cadres to wake up and to take up a fight against the rival section of the society. The victim was referred as a Christian terrorist.... All these will make it clear that Prof. Joseph was attacked with a clear intention to strike terror, panic and fear among the section of the people," the Court explained. Similarly, it also found that there was an intention to murder the professor and therefore, Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code would also be applicable..The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the facts against the offences alleged and found 6 out of 11 persons guilty of committing various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Explosive Substance Act.Of those convicted, Sajil, MK Nasar and Najeeb KA were also found guilty of committing offences punishable under the UAPA. These three were, therefore, sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay various amounts as fines.The other three, namely MK Noushad, PP Moideen Kunhu and PM Ayoob were sentenced to undergo imprisonemnt for three years for criminal conspiracy and harbouring offenders..[Read Judgment]