ESSA@ ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant, who was the minor at that time, and many other accused were charged of entering in the criminal conspiracy to commit terrorist and illegal acts in India, from the period of December 1992 to April 1993. By the means of bombs, dynamite, hand grenades, and other explosives, it was done with the intention of intimidating the government as required by law, terrorising the populace, alienating certain groups of people, and negatively affecting the harmony between Hindus and Muslims. They were used in a manner to cause death, serious injury and to cause disruption and loss in the concerned areas. They also agreed to smuggle such stuff into India in order to further the conspiracy’s goals and agreed to distribute these items among yourselves and your men of confidence in order to carry out terrorist acts, and to conceal and store all of these items in such secure locations. Additionally, they set up training facilities in Pakistan and India where they import weapons and receive instruction on how to use them in order to carry out violent crimes. 

They were successful in setting off bomb blasts on March 12, 1993, at the Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock in Bandra, Hotel Centaur in Juhu, Hotel Centaur in Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar and numerous other locations throughout Mumbai which lead to around 257 persons death, 713 injured and property worth 27 crores was destroyed. And as a result, they committed offences covered by Sections 3(3) of the TADA (P) Act of 1987, Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), Sections 3(3)(4), Sections 5, and Sections 6 of the TADA (P) Act of 1987, as well as Sections 302, 307, Sections 9B (1)(a)(b)(c), Sections 3, 4(a)(b), Sections 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act of 1984, Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act of 1908.

The appellant of our case was also charged for allowing terrorists to use garage No. C-3 and flat No. 25 on the sixth floor of Al-Hussaini Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mahim, for storing weapons, ammunition, and explosives and planning terrorist attacks, thereby making it easier for the terrorist acts to be carried out. The Supreme Court in this case has sentenced life sentence to the appellant.

Now an appeal has been by the appellant for reconsidering the quantum of the sentence on 14.09.2006.

ISSUES:

1. Should Provisions of TADA will apply to the present case over Juvenile Justice Act, as the appellant was minor (a round 17) at the time of commission of offences?
2. Is the quantum of the sentence that is challenged is reasonable and is in propotion to the offences committed?

ARGUMENTS:

1. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that since he was 17 years and 3 months old when the offence was committed, his case should have been handled in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (commonly referred to as the “JJ Act”). As a result, the provisions of TADA are inapplicable to his situation, and the learned Designated Court erred by rejecting the claim.

2. About the flat which the appellant has been accused of allowing terrorists to use, it was contended from his side that when he was a B. Com. student in 1993, his father (who is now deceased) bought the flat, and he was merely residing there and not its owner.

3. He also contented that he had a brain tumour and diabetes, among other major medical conditions, and had been imprisoned for 12 years as a response to which his quantum of sentence should be reduced.

JUDGEMENT AND IT’S REASONING:

The courts considered various factors and reasoning to come to a conclusion of this case which can be seen below.

The flats where Tiger Memon, Yakub Memon , and their colleagues devised the criminal scheme to carry out several bombs in Bombay were shared by Appellant and other accused. It is further established that the Al-Hussaini building’s Flat Nos. 22, 25, and 26, where members of the Memons family shared housing, served as the centre of the criminal conspiracy because that is where Tiger Memon and Yakub Memon met with a number of other co-accused individuals during the conspiracy. Finally, RDX was put in the vehicles inside and outside the garages assigned to the Memons at the Al-Hussaini building, where weapons and explosives that were brought into India for the conspiracy’s purposes were also kept.

The actions of the appellants in failing to report any of these acts to the police, as well as the fact that appellant with other accused left India on March 11, 1993, constitute evidence that can be utilised against the appellants. Anjum Abdul, the appellant, and other Memons fled from Dubai to Pakistan after the explosions, and there is evidence that they acquired Pakistani passports and national identity cards there under false names.

So as the appellant  had eluded capture and remained undetected until he was apprehended by the police. We totally concur with the Designated Court’s conclusion; hence no leniency can be demonstrated in this case. By adding various reasons and referring to various cases, the court concluded that the appeal of the appellant stands dismissed.

The court also said that due to the seriousness of the offence, a juvenile(appellant) who was tried and found guilty alongside adults under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) was denied the protection of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It was stated that the intent and consequences of Section 1(4)26 of the Act (Amendment 2006) must be interpreted in a specific context.

Written by Ridhima Mittal an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin