Criminal Conspiracy and UAPA Charges: Asim Shariff vs. National Investigation Agency

The case of Asim Shariff vs. National Investigation Agency revolves around allegations of conspiracy, murder, and terrorism under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The Supreme Court examined whether there was sufficient evidence against the appellant, Asim Shariff, to frame charges against him and whether his discharge application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was rightly rejected.

Asim Shariff, accused along with four others, faced charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act, and UAPA, following the murder of an RSS member, Rudresh, in Bengaluru in 2016. The prosecution alleged that the murder was a premeditated act aimed at instilling fear and communal discord.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The appellant, represented by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, argued that the High Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence. The defense contended:

“The prosecution has failed to adduce evidence against the appellant. There is nothing to reveal that the appellant was the main conspirator behind the alleged murder termed as a terror attack.”

It was further argued that:

• None of the witnesses mentioned anything incriminating against the appellant.
• The case against him was based on circumstantial evidence, such as telephonic conversations with co-accused.
• There was no direct link between him and the crime scene.
• The UAPA Act was wrongly invoked as the accused were not members of any banned organization.

Arguments of the Respondent

The National Investigation Agency (NIA), represented by Additional Solicitor General Mr. Aman Lekhi, opposed the plea for discharge, arguing:

“The nature of the act, including the recoveries made, shows that the consequences were intended to be beyond the physical act itself and were aimed at creating fear in the minds of the people at large and fostering disharmony.”

The NIA cited several points of evidence:

• The appellant was the district president of the Popular Front of India (PFI), which had been involved in similar crimes.
• There were multiple calls between the accused before and after the crime.
• Documents recovered from the appellant’s office listed previous murders committed by PFI.
• Confessions from co-accused indicated that the appellant played a key role in orchestrating the murder.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court, with Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi presiding, dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision to frame charges. The Court observed:

“The trial judge, while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC, has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.”

The Court ruled that there was enough material to proceed with the trial, noting that:

• There was a prima facie case of conspiracy.
• The appellant’s connection to the crime was not merely circumstantial but based on substantial evidence.
• The trial court had rightfully dismissed the discharge plea.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Courts have the power to sift through evidence at the pre-trial stage to determine whether charges should be framed.
• Circumstantial evidence, when supported by corroborative material, can justify proceeding with trial.
• Once a prima facie case is established, the accused must stand trial and cannot be discharged prematurely.

This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in counter-terrorism cases, ensuring that procedural safeguards do not obstruct due process.

Petitioner Name: Asim Shariff.
Respondent Name: National Investigation Agency.
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Bengaluru, Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 01-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Asim Shariff vs National Investigati Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-07-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category