‘Aim to harm and disrupt communal harmony in the country’: Delhi HC dismisses petition seeking concurrent running of sentences of ISIS convict who planned assassination of Hindu Mahasabha leader
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [07-06-2024]

Read Order: MOHSIN IBRAHIM SAYYED v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [DEL HC- W.P.(CRL) 463/2023]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, June 11, 2024: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of a convicted member of the terror group ISIS, Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed, seeking concurrent running of sentences imposed upon him by the Trial Courts at Greater Bombay and Delhi. The High Court opined that the petitioner had already been awarded lesser sentence by both the Trial Courts, and thus, consecutive running of sentences of eight years and seven years, would not cause prejudice to the petitioner as far as total period of sentence vis-a-vis the offence committed by him was concerned.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “In this case¸ the petitioner had himself pleaded guilty to charges framed under UAPA, for his acts of planning to carry out terrorist attacks in Haridwar during Kumbh Mela and plotting to kill a leader of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily with an aim to harm and disrupt communal harmony in the country, and since lenient view had already been taken by the Trial Courts at the stage of sentencing, no further leniency could be granted to the petitioner by allowing concurrent running of sentences awarded to him by the Trial Courts in Greater Bombay and in Delhi.”

Two cases were registered against the petitioner. In one case, the petitioner had been convicted for conspiring to carry out attack in the city of Haridwar during the Ardh Kumbh Mela, and raising funds for the same. Whereas in the other case, the petitioner has been convicted for promoting the activities of ISIS, including recruitment of youths for the purpose of enticing them to become 'Fidayeen', as well as for planning assassination of a leader of Hindu Mahasabha. The petitioner was convicted in two different cases registered by NIA, one registered in Mumbai, and another in Delhi, for which separate trials were conducted in the Courts of Greater Bombay and Delhi

The case set out by the petitioner herein was that the Court of NIA Special Judge at Greater Bombay had convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 18/20/38/39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).The maximum actual sentence awarded by the Trial Court (Greater Bombay) in this case was eight years. Thereafter, the Trial Court (Delhi) held the petitioner guilty and convicted him under Sections 17/18/20 of UAPA and Section 120B of IPC. Pursuant thereto, the Trial Court (Delhi) had directed that these sentences would run concurrently. Thus, the maximum actual sentence in this case was seven years.

It was stated that the factum of petitioner's conviction and sentencing by the Trial Court (Greater Bombay) was not brought to the attention of the Trial Court (Delhi) as a result of which, the Court in Delhi could not exercise its statutory discretion under Section 427(1) of CrPC to determine the manner of execution of the sentence, considering that the petitioner was already serving the sentence awarded by the Trial Court (Greater Bombay).

The petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court seeking a prayer that the sentence imposed upon him in NIA Case by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi be directed to run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon him in NIA Special Case by the Additional Principal Judge and Special Judge.

Section 427 of Cr.P.C. deals with the cases, where a convict who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life. Section 427 firstly presupposes two separate sentences awarded to a person in two different cases, secondly, the person must be undergoing the sentence in the first case, and thirdly, the person must be subsequently sentenced to imprisonment in the second case. Considering the facts of the case, the Bench observed that the offences committed in the two cases, for which petitioner had been convicted, couldn’t be termed to be a part of a "same transaction".

The Bench further held, “Thus, merely because the petitioner has been convicted under similar provisions of IPC and UAPA in both the cases, the same cannot entitle him to seek concurrent running of sentence, as the facts of both the cases do not form part of a same transaction.”

Next relevant factor to be considered, for the purpose of exercising discretion under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C., was the total period of sentence awarded to the petitioner in the two cases. In this matter, the Courts had not awarded maximum sentence to the petitioner herein. For offences punishable under Sections 17, 18 and 20 of UAPA, a person can be sentenced to imprisonment for life. Therefore, in both the cases i.e. the one tried in Greater Bombay and the other in Delhi, the petitioner could have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

The Bench was of the view that both the Trial Courts had already extended benefit of pleading guilty to the present petitioner by not awarding maximum sentence i.e. life imprisonment, which could have been awarded to him under the provisions he had been convicted. Thus, the Bench opined that the petitioner had already been awarded lesser sentence by both the Trial Courts, and thus, consecutive running of sentences of eight years and seven years, would not cause prejudice to the petitioner as far as total period of sentence vis-a-vis offence committed by him is concerned.

“There is no gainsaying that terrorism not only threatens the national security of the country but also the very fabric of society by targeting innocent civilians and institutions indiscriminately, with an aim to instill fear among the common and innocent citizens of a country…Thus, the gravity of such crimes lies in their potential to cause widespread harm, both physically and psychologically, and their challenge to fundamental values of peace, tolerance, and coexistence in a nation”, the Bench said.

The Bench found no reason to exercise discretion u/s 427 of the CrPC as the offences committed by the present petitioner, for which he had been convicted upon conclusion of trial in two different cases, couldn’t be termed as part of a "same transaction". The petitioner was not awarded maximum sentence i.e. imprisonment for life in either of the case by the Trial Courts, rather a lenient approach was adopted by the Courts while awarding sentence to him.

The offence committed by the petitioner under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were grave and serious in nature, which had an impact on the society at large as well as the national security and communal harmony of the nation.

Dismissing the petition, the Bench said, “…the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in case arising out of RC09/2016/NIA/DLI by the Trial Court (Delhi) shall commence upon expiration of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in case arising out of RC-02/2016/NIA/MUM by the learned Trial Court (Greater Bombay).”