close
close
  • February 18, 2025
The Kerala High Court upholds Riyas Aboobakkar’s conviction for propagating ISIS ideologies and awards rigorous imprisonment of eight years

The Kerala High Court upholds Riyas Aboobakkar’s conviction for propagating ISIS ideologies and awards rigorous imprisonment of eight years

The High Court of Kerala has upheld the conviction imposed on Riyas Aboobakkar by the Special Court constituted under the NIA Act. His conviction under Sections 38 (offense in relation to membership of a terrorist organisation) and 39 (offence in relation to support given to a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA read with Section 120B of the IPC was recorded by the High Court affirmed.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V And Justice Jobin Sebastian found that Riyas Aboobakkar was propagating ISIS ideology and advocating war against non-Muslims. The Court modified the sentence imposed on the appellant and reduced his prison term to 8 years rigorous imprisonment instead of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Articles 38 and 39 of the UAPA by taking into consideration various factors.

“It has also been established that the suspect was party to the criminal conspiracy to further the activities of the terrorist organization and gain support by migrating to ISIS-controlled areas. It has also been established that the suspect joined and claimed to have ties with ISIS, with the intention of promoting its activities. Material also clearly shows that the accused, with the intention of furthering the activities of the banned organization, had solicited support and thereby committed the offense punishable under Section 120B of the IPC r/w. Sections 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act and Sections 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act.”

As per the facts, the 2016 police investigation into several missing cases revealed that missing persons left India to join ISIS, a terrorist organization under the UAPA. The Special Investigation Team found that two people were involved with ISIS to transport people to Afghanistan.

During the investigation into the main case, it emerged that the appellant maintained contact with the main suspect and others who had joined ISIS. It is also alleged that the appellant was strongly influenced by the violent extremist ideology of ISIS and motivated others to join ISIS. It was found that the appellant organized conspiracy meetings to carry out suicide attacks in Kerala to further the terrorist activities of ISIS.

The NIA court framed a chargesheet and the Special Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 38 and Section 39. Imprisonment for five years was also imposed under Section 120B of the IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction, an appeal was preferred.

The Supreme Court noted that the NIA court convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence given by two other accused persons who had obtained clearance and pardon from the NIA court.

Relying on various judgments of the Apex Court, the Court stated that the evidence of the approver could be subjected to two tests to assess its credibility: the first test is to show that the approver is a reliable witness and the second test is whether his evidence should be sufficiently received. confirmation. Considering the evidence presented by the approvers, the Court found that there was evidence that the appellant was attempting to radicalize and that this was credible.

It said: “After evaluating the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, we find that both were young men, who were convinced by the inflammatory messages, voice clips and videos forwarded to them by the appellant. Their version in court is sufficiently corroborated by the Call Data Records and digital evidence. We are of the view that the contentions of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant are that they are unreliable and cannot be relied upon and cannot be accepted.”

With regard to the digital evidence, the Court observed that the mere delay in production of the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has caused prejudice to the appellant.

The Court further stated that there is sufficient evidence including call records etc. to prove that the appellant organized conspiracy meetings to plan terrorist attacks and suicide bombings.

The Court notes that there is digital evidence and witness statements showing that the appellant supported ISIS and looked down on Muslims who accepted democratic principles.

The Court further states that data in Gmail, Facebook, YouTube, Google and his mobile data also prove that the appellant supported ISIS and persuaded others to join ISIS to commit terrorist activities. It noted that there was evidence that the appellant talked to other ISIS leaders who carry out suicide bombings. It noted that there is evidence that the suspect liked and shared images, videos and content in support of ISIS.

The Court therefore concluded: “He posted ISIS-related content on Facebook, shared videos of Abdul Rashid Abdulla and Abdul Khayoom, and distributed links to ISIS Telegram channels. Organized and addressed conspiracy meetings with PW1 and PW2 near Lulu Mall and Marine Drive on 26.10.2018. Discussed Hijra (migration) to ISIS controlled regions and promotion of ISIS activities with PW1 and PW2. Intended to perform Hijra to wage war against countries allied with India. Planned and encouraged suicide attacks in India and for that purpose he set up PW1 and PW2….”

Examining Article 38 of the UAPA, the Court stated that a person who joins a terrorist organization, or claims or professes to be associated with such an organization, may be held liable. It noted that mere membership without an intention to promote the organization was not sufficient to attract liability.

The Court stated that a person who supports a terrorist organization with the intention of furthering its activities can be held liable under Article 39 of the UAPA. It noted that the provision was issued to prevent terrorism by criminalizing even indirect participation such as organizing rallies or addressing rallies in support of terrorist activities.

Court added, “In that view of the matter, going by the principles laid down hereinabove by the Apex Court in the light of the proven facts, mere proof of an agreement between the accused for committing the objectionable acts under Articles 38 and 39 are sufficient. to secure a conviction under Section 120B of the IPC r/w. Sections 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act and proof of any overt act by the accused or by any of them would not be necessary.

The Court noted that the Special Court imposed the maximum sentence on the appellant finding that he was highly radicalized and spread ISIS ideology through social media platforms.

The Court referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sadiya Anwar Shaikh v. National Investigation Agency (2024) which stated that no policy-level guidelines have been established in India regarding the sentencing of suspects found guilty of terrorism-related cases . violations.

The Court reduced the prison sentence, taking into account the fact that the appellant was only 29 years old at the time he committed the offenses and that he was not involved in any other crimes. It was noted that his actions were motivated by religious ideologies and that his activities were limited and extended to a large number of persons. It also noted that similar defendants received a lesser sentence than the appellant and also noted his prospects for rehabilitation, motive and conduct at trial, while reducing the sentence.

Case number: CRL.A NO. 783 OF 2024

Case Title: Riyas A @ Riyas Aboobakkar @ Abu Dujana v Union of India

Visa: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 790