HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

SHIMLA

DISCIPLINE: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

TITLE: - CASE COMMENT: MOHAMMAD IRFAN V. STATE

OF KARNATAKA 2022 SCC 856

SUBMITTED BY- SUBMITTED TO

ROHIT DHAMIJA Dr. CHANDRESHWARI MINHAS
1020202105 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW,
BA.LLB, 7TH SEMESTER HPNLU SHIMLA

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I Rohit Dhamija a FOURTH-year law student would like to express my sincere gratitude
towards Dr. Chandreshwari Minhas, Associate Professor of Law, who always stand for us and
helped me at every possible step of my assignment. And without whose guidance I would not
have completed my assignment successfully. I would also like to sincerely thank Himachal
Pradesh National Law University, Shimla and its faculty for guiding and encouraging me at
every step of my assignment.

I would also like to extend gratitude to my seniors and friends who played an important role
and assisted me with the insights they had. Last but not the least I bestow my heartfelt gratitude
towards my parents and family members whose instant motivations kept me going throughout
the assignment.

ROHIT DHAMIJA
B.A. L.L.B (Hons)
7th SEMESTER

2
 DECLARATION BY THE STUDENT

I, the undersigned solemnly declare that the present assignment on the topic “CASE
COMMENT: MOHAMMAD IRFAN V. STATE OF KARNATAKA 2022 SCC Online
856” is purely based on my own work as it have been carried out during my study under the
esteemed guidance and supervision of Dr. Chandreshwari Minhas, Associate Professor of Law,
at the Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla and also from the help of various
online websites and research papers. I would like to make clear that the whole assignment is
typed by me on my own words after taking the help from the mentioned sources. It is important
to note that plagiarism may be found as I haven’t done the assignment paraphrase. I further
certify that:

1. The work contained in the assignment is not purely original but has been done by myefforts
and hard work.

2. The work is not submitted to any other organizations, journals, websites, etc.

3. I’ve followed the guidelines provided by the university in writing the assignment.

ROHIT DHAMIJA
B.A. L.L.B (Hons)
7th SEMESTER

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another

Art Article

Bom Bombay

Civ. Civil

Co. Company

Const. Constitution

Del Delhi

Ed. Edition

Ltd. Limited

Ors Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec Section

UOI Union of India

V. Versus

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 LIST OF CASES REFERRED …………………………………………………5

 FACTS OF THE CASE …………………………………………………………6

 ISSUES FRAMED……………………………………………………………….7

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………………………………………..…...8

 OBSERVATIONS/DECISION OF THE COURT …………………..………10

 SIGNIFICANCE & CONTRIBUTION OF THE CASE…………………….17

LIST OF CASES REFERRED

 Kehar Singh and ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1988 SC 1883
 Nazir Khan and others v. State of Delhi AIR 2003 SC 4427
 State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600.
 Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India 1993 (3) SCC 609
 Mohammad Irfan versus State of Karnataka 2022 SCC Online 856

5
 FACTS AND BACKGROUND

1. The case stems from a shootout at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, in 2005, which
initially led to an investigation.

2. However, as the inquiry progressed, it unraveled a broader conspiracy involving Laskar-e-

Toiba (LeT), a banned organization in India, engaged in terrorist activities with the objective
of destabilizing India. The organization's modus operandi included attacking vital installations,
assassinating key public figures, causing bomb explosions in public places, conducting
shootouts, and disrupting peace and economic interests.

3. Following a comprehensive investigation, eight individuals were charged as accused. A-8 was
identified as absconding, while A-1 to A-7, namely, Mohamed Razhur Rehman @ Abdul
Rehman, Afsar Pasha @ Basheeruddin, Mehboob Ibrahim Sab Chopdar, Noorullah Khan @
Noorullah, Mohammad Irfan, Nazmuddin @ Munna, Chand Basha, and Ahmed Basha, faced
trial in Sessions Case No.539 of 2006 arising from FIR No.3/2006.

4. The Trial Court, through its judgment dated 17.12.2011, acquitted A-7 but found A-1 to A-6
guilty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act,
and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The sentencing order was passed on 19.12.2011.

5. Subsequently, appeals were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by A-1, A-2, A-
4, A-5, and A-6. A separate appeal was filed by A-3, and the state lodged an appeal against the
acquittal of A-7. The High Court, in its judgment, upheld the imprisonment sentences under
Section 121A for A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-6. A-2 received an 8-year imprisonment term
under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, while the acquittal of A-7 was maintained.

6. Displeased with the High Court's decision, a special leave petition was filed by A-1, A-4, A-
5, and A-6. Notably, A-2 and A-3 did not file any appeals, and the state refrained from initiating
an appeal.

6
 ISSUES

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE HORRENDOUS ACTS PERPETRATED BY

THE SLAIN TERRORISTS PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY,
AMOUNT TO WAGING OR ATTEMPTING TO WAGE WAR
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 121 IPC?

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE CONSPIRATORS ARE LIABLE TO BE

PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 121 OR 121-A OR BOTH?

ISSUE 3-WHETHER THE APPEALS BY SPECIAL LEAVE PREFERRED

BY ACCUSED NOS. 5, 6, 1 AND 4 WERE MAINTAINABLE?

7
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CONTENTIONS

Arguments Advanced by Appellant’s counsel : -

7. The learned counsel for the appellant laid Appellant's Arguments and appealed his
conviction to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that:

8. The prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's intent to wage war against the
government of India: The appellant contended that the prosecution had not presented
sufficient evidence to prove that he had the intention to wage war against the government
or that he had taken any overt acts in furtherance of that intention.

9. The evidence presented by the prosecution was circumstantial and inconclusive: The
appellant argued that the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was insufficient
to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He maintained that the evidence was
ambiguous and could be interpreted in a way that did not implicate him in the conspiracy.

10. The trial court had erred in acquitting the other suspects: The appellant argued that the trial
court's decision to acquit the other suspects indicated that the prosecution's case was weak
and that there was not enough evidence to convict any of the accused.

11. The High Court had committed an error of law in overturning the trial court's verdict: The
appellant contended that the High Court had overstepped its bounds by reversing the trial
court's acquittal without sufficient justification. He argued that the High Court had not
adequately considered the evidence and had based its decision on speculation rather than
concrete evidence.

12. It was contended that the charges under Sections 1211 and 153A2 of the IPC had not been
established, leaving only the charge under Section 121A3 of the IPC, which was also
without merit. There was no justification for the High Court to extend the sentence to life
imprisonment in a charge where 7 years of imprisonment were sufficient. According to the
accused, the circumstances in the record did not support such an exercise. Further, it was

1
Indian Penal Code, § 121 (India, Act No. XLV of 1860)
2
Indian Penal Code, § 153A (India, Act No. XLV of 1860)
3
Indian Penal Code, § 121A (India, Act No. XLV of 1860)

8
 stated that the recovery of the books and explosive substances is insufficient for sustaining
a charge under section 121A of the IPC.

13. It was contended that the sentence entered into the record did not meet the requirements of
Section 1964 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which asked for a sanction from the
competent authority for the prosecution of an accused for an offense punishable, among
other things, under Chapter VI of the IPC.

Arguments Advanced by the Respondent’s Counsel:-

14. The respondent, the State of Karnataka, countered the appellant's arguments with the
following contentions:

15. The prosecution had presented overwhelming evidence of the appellant's guilt: The
respondent argued that the prosecution had presented a strong case against the appellant,
relying on a combination of witness testimonies, forensic reports, and incriminating
materials. The respondent maintained that the evidence clearly established the appellant's
involvement in planning and carrying out the attacks.

16. Circumstantial evidence was admissible and sufficient to establish guilt: The respondent
argued that circumstantial evidence was a valid and acceptable form of evidence in criminal
trials and could be sufficient to convict a defendant if it was consistent with the defendant's
guilt and excluded all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. The respondent maintained that
the circumstantial evidence in this case met this standard.

17. The trial court's acquittal was based on an erroneous assessment of the evidence: The
respondent argued that the trial court had erred in acquitting the appellant and the other
suspects due to an inadequate understanding of the evidence and its implications. The
respondent maintained that the evidence clearly pointed to the appellant's guilt.

18. The High Court had correctly overturned the trial court's verdict: The respondent argued
that the High Court had properly exercised its appellate authority in reviewing the evidence
and overturning the trial court's acquittal. The respondent maintained that the High Court's

4
Code of Criminal Procedure, § 196 (India, Act No. II of 1974)

9
 decision was based on a sound legal analysis of the evidence and the applicable law.

19. The state contended that the material on record which was recovered during the
investigation such as a diary, books, minutes of meetings attended by the accused, and the
explosives are enough to put the matter against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The documents are signed by all the accused and have been verified by a handwriting
expert. The diary and the books clearly mention their intent. The sanction had been
obtained for the prosecution of the accused under section 196 by a competent authority and
considering the number of explosives recovered, the enhancement of punishment was
required.

OSERVATIONS AND DECISION (inc. RATIO DECIDENDI)

Observation & Decision by Trial & High Court

20. The Trial Court, drawing on precedent, notably the decisions in Kehar Singh and ors. vs.
State (Delhi Admn.)5 and Nazir Khan and others v. State of Delhi6, emphasized the
significance of conspiracy in the commission of offences. It underscored that the essence
of conspiracy lies in the agreement between two or more persons to undertake an illegal
act, irrespective of whether the act is eventually executed. The very act of entering into an
agreement to commit an illegal act constitutes an offence, and such an agreement is
punishable under Section 120-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

21. Following the aforementioned legal principles, the Trial Court, in its judgment dated
17.12.2011, acquitted the Accused of charges under the provisions of the 1967 Act due to
the absence of requisite sanction. Additionally, it acquitted A-7 of all charges. However,
A-1 to A-6 were found guilty and convicted under various sections, including Sections
120-B, 121A, 121 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances
Act7, and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act 8. The Court employed the provisions of
Section 235(1) and Section 235(2)9 of the Criminal Procedure Code to deliver distinct

5
Kehar Singh and ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1988 SC 1883
6
Nazir Khan and others v. State of Delhi AIR 2003 SC 4427
7
Explosive Substances Act, §§ 5 and 6 (India, Act No. IV of 1908).
8
Arms Act, §§ 25 and 26 (India, Act No. LII of 1959).
9
Code of Criminal Procedure, §§ 235(1) and 235(2) (India, Act No. II of 1974)

10
 decisions for each accused based on the charges levied against them.

22. The High Court, drawing from State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu10 @ Afsan Guru and
Nazir Khan & Ors., concluded that while the ingredients of Section 121 of the IPC were
not met, the provisions of Section 121-A were applicable. The court observed that the
accused, in their discussions, deliberated on funding for 'Jihad,' resolved to prepare with
weapons, and expressed a clear intention to take action against the government. The court
highlighted that certain seized book contained anti-national content, advocating the
destruction of India and urging Muslims to take up arms against the country. The court,
considering the overall material on record, inferred the accused's intention to cause
significant harm to the nation, even though the actual execution of the conspiracy had not
occurred at the time of their apprehension.

23. In its operative order, the High Court partly allowed the appeals filed by A1, A2, and A4
to A6, as well as the State, while dismissing the appeal filed by Accused No. 3. The
convictions and sentences passed by the trial court were modified. A1, A2, and A4 to A6
were convicted under Section 121-A of IPC, and their sentences were enhanced to rigorous
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, one year of simple imprisonment.
However, A1 to A6 were acquitted of the charges under Section 121 and 120B of IPC.
Accused No. 3 was acquitted of the charges under Section 121-A of IPC. A2, A3, A4, and
A6 were sentenced to seven years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under
Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, with A1 and A5 acquitted of charges
under Section 6 of the same Act. Accused No. 6 was convicted under sections 25 and 26
of the Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment for five years, with a fine of Rs.5000/- for
Section 25 and three years of simple imprisonment for Section 26. A2, A3, and A4 were
acquitted of charges under Section 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. The judgment of acquittal
passed by the trial court in relation to Accused No. 7 was confirmed.

Supreme Court Observations & Decision

24. Turning to the merits of the matter, the evidence on record can be classified into two main
segments: a) Oral Testimony: b) Evidence Regarding Recoveries:

10
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600.

11
 25. It is acknowledged that Prosecution witness Nos. 1 to 8 and 13 turned hostile, not fully
supporting the Prosecution case. However, their testimony revealed certain features
substantiating the Prosecution's claims. The law dictates that even if a witness is declared
hostile, their evidence cannot be rejected entirely, and the correct approach is to accept it
to the extent found dependable after careful scrutiny.

26. The recoveries of books and literature were robustly supported by the concerned Panch
witnesses and documented in Panchanamas. The recovered materials contained
inflammatory content and messages, and their translations were presented by the
Prosecution. Notably, Diary Exh.P-92 recovered from A-2 played a crucial role. The trial
court correctly highlighted its contents, and the signatures of the accused were conclusively
proven by the handwriting expert.

27. Explosive substances recovered from A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 were linked to voluntary
statements and recoveries duly established by the Prosecution. Referring to the
observations in Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another15, the Court emphasized that in
cases involving terrorist activities and conspiracies, the prosecution doesn't need to prove
every link with absolute certainty. The confessional statement gets corroboration from
proved links, and the law requires establishing a degree of probability.

28. In conclusion, the Supreme Court acknowledged the challenges in proving such cases due
to their secretive nature and stressed the need for assessing evidence with a degree of
probability. The trial court's findings were upheld, and the observations in Lal Singh were
deemed applicable, emphasizing that the prosecution need not establish each link with
absolute certainty in cases involving conspiracy and terrorism.

29. Relying on Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India11 and Others, the court delved into the
intricacies of conspiracy and the extent of liability on co-conspirators for acts committed
by others in successive stages of the conspiracy. Noteworthy observations include:

30. The court emphasized that criminal conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more
persons to perform an illegal act or legal acts by illegal means. The offense is complete
upon the meeting of minds and unity of purpose between conspirators to engage in that

11
Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India 1993 (3) SCC 609

12
 illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Conspiracy, as a substantive offense, is distinct
from the offense for which the conspiracy is formed.

31. The court elucidated the concept of a chain model in conspiracy, where each party plays a
role that aids succeeding parties in achieving the criminal objectives. Using the example of
procuring and distributing narcotics globally, the court illustrated that conspirators at
different stages of the chain are privy to a single conspiracy. The success of each part is
interdependent on the success of the entire venture, and each participant is both a
participant and an abettor. The court emphasized that it is not essential for each participant
to be aware of the existence of others, but all must promote a single illegal objective.

32. Court made out following important facts that in summary, Abdul Rehman, a native of
Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh, initially worked in various professions in Saudi Arabia. In
1998, he came in contact with LeT leader Sheikh Mehboob Ahamed Moulana and was
motivated to join LeT. Abdul Rehman attended LeT's religious activities, and under his
patronage, individuals from India, including Afsar Pasha and Mehboob Ibrahim, got
involved in LeT. In 2002, Afsar Pasha went to Bangladesh for training, supported by Abdul
Rehman. Abdul Rehman later became the Masood in Saudi Arabia. He frequently visited
India, contacting associates and discussing terrorist activities in Karnataka. Abdul Rehman
instructed Afsar Pasha and Mehboob Ibrahim to undertake terrorist activities in Karnataka,
including causing blasts and damaging vital installations. Afsar Pasha and Mehboob
Ibrahim recruited individuals, held secret conspiracy meetings, and prepared for bomb
blasts in Bangalore, aiming to create fear and terrorize the citizens in the state. The
activities were conducted under the auspices of LeT, with Abdul Rehman playing a central
role in coordinating and financing the operations.

33. The above Accused persons viz. (1) Mohamed Razhur Rehman @ Abdul Rehman (2) Afsar
Pasha of Bangalore (3) Ibrahim of Bagalkot District (4) Noor (5) Irfan (6) Munna and
others of Karnataka who are the active members of banned militant organization LeT
entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause large scale destruction of public property, multi-
national companies etc. by causing bomb explosions, attacks on innocent people, large
scale destruction of places of worships and promote enmity between different groups on
the grounds of religion, race and perpetrated acts, prejudicial to the maintenance of

13
 communal harmony besides causing disaffection with overall object of attempt to being
hatred, contempt and incite disaffection towards the Government by law established by
desertion of places of worship, knowingly that such acts will result in breakdown of public
order and the Accused have reported to have acquired and collected explosive substances
and other necessary arms and ammunitions and conspired to wage war against the Union
Government of India. These facts not only show that the basic elements of the conspiracy
stood well established but also proved the involvement of A-1. Going by the law laid down
by this Court, A-1 cannot escape the liability only on the ground that no arms and
ammunition or any inflammatory material or literature were actually recovered from him.

34. The court addressed the objection raised about the reliability of the minutes of the first
meeting, dated 10.12.2003, which were written in Kannada, a language A-1 did not
understand. The court emphasized that the presence of A-1 in Chintamani Town on the
relevant day was well-established, and objections to the signatures' authenticity were
rejected. The court highlighted that the submission suggesting signatures were obtained
subsequently lacked foundation.

35. The court dismissed the submission regarding the three years' gap between the first meeting
and the recovery of arms and explosives, emphasizing that the conspiracy was a continuing
one. The court highlighted that the basic features structured in the first meeting evolved
into subsequent stages, and the thread linking the first meeting to subsequent events was
unbroken.

36. The submission that A-1 was not confronted with the Prosecution's case during
examination under Section 313 of the Code was rejected. The court clarified that questions
about the report of the handwriting expert and A-1's presence at the meeting in Chintamani
were indeed posed during examination under Section 313, and relevant circumstances were
brought to A-1's attention.

37. The court provided an interpretation of Section 121 of the IPC, emphasizing that the
waging of war involves a planned operation with the intention to overwhelm and defeat
government troops. The court cited precedent (Navjot Sandhu and Nazir Khan) to support
this interpretation.

14
 38. Regarding Section 121-A of the IPC, the court highlighted its broader application, covering
conspiracy not only to commit offenses under Section 121 but also conspiracy to overawe
by force the Central or State Government. The court referenced Mir Hasan Khan v. State
to distinguish between the two limbs of conspiracies under Section 121A.

39. The court affirmed the conviction under Section 121A, stating that the intent disclosed by
the conspiracy, even if not carried out, fell within the scope of the section. The court found
no grounds to interfere with the conviction and dismissed the appeals, endorsing the High
Court's decision to enhance the quantum of punishment.

Reasoning -

40. The Supreme Court's decision was based on several key factors:

 Circumstantial Evidence: The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial

evidence in criminal trials and held that it can be sufficient to convict a defendant if it
is consistent with the defendant's guilt and excludes all reasonable hypotheses of
innocence.

 Intent and Overt Acts: The court reiterated the requirement for the prosecution to prove
both the intent of the accused to commit the crime and the commission of some overt
act in furtherance of that intent.

 Interpretation of Section 121A: The court provided a nuanced interpretation of Section

121A of the IPC, which deals with conspiracy to wage war against the government of
India. The court held that the offense of conspiracy is complete when the agreement to
wage war is made, even if no overt act is committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 Standard of Proof: The court reaffirmed the high standard of proof required to convict
someone of conspiracy to wage war against the government of India, emphasizing the
need for the prosecution to present overwhelming evidence to establish the defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Due Process Protections: The court upheld the principles of fair trial and due process,
ensuring that the accused were afforded all necessary safeguards and that their
fundamental rights were protected throughout the legal proceedings.

15
OBITER DICTA

41. The court also made several obiter dicta observations in the case, which are not part of the
ratio decidendi but may still be considered relevant to future cases:

42. The court emphasized the importance of effective investigation and prosecution of
terrorism cases.

43. The court noted that law enforcement agencies must carefully investigate terrorist plots
and gather sufficient evidence to convict those who are responsible for these heinous
crimes.

44. The court recognized the need for a balance between the protection of national security and
the rights of individuals accused of serious crimes.

45. The court acknowledged that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting national
security, but it also emphasized the importance of ensuring that individuals are not denied
their fundamental rights.

46. The court encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms in
criminal cases, where appropriate.

47. The court noted that ADR can be a valuable tool for resolving disputes outside of the
traditional court system, which can be helpful in reducing the burden on the court system
and providing more efficient and cost-effective resolutions.

48. It is true that under our existing jurisprudence in criminal matter, we have to proceed with
presumption of innocence, but at the same time, that presumption is to be judged on the
basis of conceptions of a reasonable prudent man. Smelling doubts for the sake of giving
benefit of doubt is not the law of the land. In such type of terrorist activities if arms and
ammunitions are recovered at the instance of or on disclosure by the accused, it can be
stated that presumption of innocence would not thereafter exist and it would be for the
accused to explain its possession or discovery or recovery and would depend upon facts of
each case which are to be appreciated on the scales of common sense of a prudent man

16
 possessing capacity to “separate the chaff from grain”.

49. A conspiracy thus, is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed
wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance
continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice
or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of
the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as
there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design.

CONTRIBUTION & SIGNIFICANCE

50. The case of Mohammad Irfan versus State of Karnataka12 is a landmark decision in Indian
criminal law, particularly in the context of terrorism cases. The decision has far-reaching
implications for the following areas:

 Standard of Proof: The court's clarification of the standard of proof required to convict
someone of conspiracy to wage war against the government of India has established a clear
benchmark for future cases involving this offense.

 Circumstantial Evidence: The court's emphasis on the admissibility of circumstantial

evidence has provided greater flexibility for the prosecution in presenting its case,
particularly in terrorism cases where direct evidence may be limited.

 Balance between National Security and Individual Rights: The court's recognition of the
need for a balance between the protection of national security and the rights of individuals
accused of serious crimes serves as a reminder of the delicate balance that must be
maintained in such cases.

51. The case of Mohammad Irfan versus State of Karnataka has far-reaching implications for
Indian criminal law and national security:

 Protection of National Security: The case underscores the importance of protecting national
security from the threat of terrorism. The court's decision sends a clear message that those

12
Mohammad Irfan versus State of Karnataka 2022 SCC Online 856

17
 who seek to wage war against the government of India will be held accountable for their
actions.

 Effective Investigation and Prosecution: The case highlights the need for effective
investigation and prosecution of terrorism cases. The court's emphasis on rigorous
evaluation of evidence and the protection of due process rights serves as a guideline for
law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.

 Fair Trial and Due Process: The case reaffirms the principles of fair trial and due process,
ensuring that individuals accused of serious crimes are afforded all necessary protections
and that their fundamental rights are upheld.

 Sentencing and Punishment: The case also provides guidance on sentencing and
punishment for those convicted of conspiracy to wage war against the government of India.
The court emphasizes the severity of the offense and the need for appropriate punishments
to deter future acts of terrorism.

52. The case of Mohammad Irfan versus State of Karnataka stands as a significant example of
the challenges faced in investigating and prosecuting terrorism cases, often relying heavily
on circumstantial evidence. The court's decision has established important precedents
regarding the standard of proof, the admissibility of circumstantial evidence, and the
balance between national security and individual rights in such cases.

18