In a major setback to Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik, we saw how the Patiala House Courts in New Delhi in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled State (National Investigation Agency) vs Mohd Yasin Malik @ Aslam in Case No. RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI convicted Malik in a terror funding case on May 19, 2022 after he pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him. The Court found him guilty of the offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and for offences of conspiracy and sedition under the Indian Penal Code. The hearing on quantum of sentence will take place on May 25. The Court also directed Malik to furnish an affidavit pertaining to his financial assets by the next date of hearing.
To start with, this cogent, composed and convincing judgment authored by the Court of Sh. Parveen Singh who is Additional Sessions Judge – 03 (New Delhi) in Patiala House Court in New Delhi first and foremost sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The brief facts of the case of the NIA are that NIA registered the present case no. RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI under sections 120B, 121, 121A, 124A IPC and sections 13, 16, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 of UAP Act, 1967.”
To put things in perspective, the Court then while elaborating on the brief facts expounds in para 2 that, “As per the chargesheet, the brief facts were that, present case pertains to the terrorist and secessionist activities that disturbed the State of J&K. It was alleged that various terrorist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Toiba(LeT). Hizb-ul-Mujahiddin (HM), Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLE) Jaish-e-Mohd. (JeM) etc., with the support of ISI of Pakistan, perpetrated violence in the valley by attacking civilians and security forces. It was further alleged that in the year 1993, All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was formed to give political front to the secessionist activities.”
While further dwelling on the background of the case, the Court then envisages in para 3 that, “It was further submitted that the Central Government had received a credible information that Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Amir of Jammat-ud-Dawah and the secessionist and separatist leaders including the members of Hurriyat Conference had been acting in connivance with active militants of proscribed terrorist organizations like HM, LeT etc. for raising, receiving and collecting funds domestically and abroad through various illegal channels including hawala. This had been done for funding separatist and terrorist activities in J&K and as such they had entered into a larger conspiracy for causing disruption in the valley by way of pelting stones on security forces, systematically burning of schools, damage to public property and waging war against India. On this information, the Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 30.05.2017 directed the NIA to register a case. Accordingly, the present case was registered by NIA.”
While continuing in a similar vein, the Court then enunciates in para 4 that, “In the year 2008, APHC had split into three fractions. One was APHC(M) which was headed by Mirwaiz. Other was APHC(G) which was headed by Syed Ali Shah Geelani and the third was JKLF which was headed by Yasin Malik. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq and Yasin Malik together formed the Joint Resistance Leadership (JRL) which supported the cause of secession of Jammu & Kashmir from the Union of India. It had been revealed that APHC entered into a criminal conspiracy and adopted the strategy of instigating the general public to resort violence and to create a surcharged atmosphere. People were repeatedly asked to observe strikes on various non-existent issues and were instigated to get involved in unlawful activities especially stone pelting. Investigation also revealed that APHC and other secessionists instigated general public especially youth to observe strikes and to resort violence especially stone pelting on the security forces and it was done to create disaffection amongst the people of J&K towards the Government of India. It was alleged that Jahoor Ahmad Shah Watali(A-10) was receiving money from Hafiz Mohd. Saeed(A-1) and Pakistani establishment etc. and was remitting the same to Hurriyat leaders and stone pelters of J&K. Investigation also revealed that the secessionists were mobilizing funds from all possible sources including hawala network to fuel unrest and support the terrorist and secessionist activities in J&K.”
As an aside, the Court then states in para 5 that, “Thereafter, two supplementary charge-sheets were filed in this case.”
Furthermore, the Court then specifies in para 6 that, “The first supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Naval Kishor Kapoor( A-13) wherein it was alleged A-13 was a part of larger conspiracy whereby he aided, assisted and provided cover to hold proceeds of terrorism.”
In addition, the Court then also added in para 7 that, “Second supplementary charge-sheet was filed against A14 to A-17. Yasin Malik is arrayed as A-14.”
As we see, the Court then mentions in para 8 that, “It was alleged against accused Yasin Malik (A-14) that that he was the head of Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), an organization involved in terrorist and subversive activities in Jammu & Kashmir. During investigation, on 26.02.2019, his house was searched and incriminating material including documents and electronic items were seized. It was further alleged that in 1993, JKLF became a part of AHPC. In 2016, accused Yasin Malik alongwith SAS Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq formed a self-styled group called Joint Resistance Leadership (JRL) and they started issuing directions to the masses to hold protests, demonstrations, hartaals, shutdowns, road blocks and other disruptive activities to push the entire society into chaos and lawlessness.”
Still more, the Court then unfolds in para 9 stating that, “It was further alleged that accused Yasin Malik had played a key role in orchestrating the protests and demonstrations. Apart from a protest calendar for the period from 06.08.2016 to 16.08.2016 which was signed by Chairman AHPC, an yearly calendar was also recovered from the house of accused Yasin Malik. During the period from 06.08.2016 to 16.08.201l6, the protests were very violent and 89 cases of stone pelting and other unlawful activities were registered during this period.”
Going ahead, the Court then points out in para 10 that, “It was further submitted that from the premises of accused Yasin Malik, copy of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen’s letter head was seized. In that letterhead, the terrorist organizations i.e. IIM, LeT and JeM had jointly warned the people who supported the football tournament in the valley to disengage themselves from the organizers of this game and to show loyalty to the freedom struggle. Facebook chat between accused Yasin Malik and Shahid-ul-1slam revealed that the stone pelting incidents in Kashmir Valley were orchestrated as a part of well-planned conspiracy hatched by accused persons.”
What’s more, the Court then reveals in para 11 that, “It was further submitted that during the investigation, emails from the e-mail account of Yasin Malik were downloaded. These e-mails revealed that accused Yasin Malik had set up an elaborate structure and mechanism across the world to raise funds for carrying out terrorist and other unlawful activities in J&K in the name of “freedom struggle”.”
Not stopping here, the Court then notes in para 12 that, “It was further submitted that the mail which was sent by one Mohammad Hussain Khan to one Arif Shafi Wani and copy of which was sent to Yasin Malik revealed that the accused had a close rev association with banned terrorist organization LeT. This e-mail had the transcript of an interview given by accused Yasin Malik to Rajat Sharma in a program titled Aan ki Adalat wherein Yasin Malik stated that he had visited LeT camp in Muree where Hafiz Saeed had organized a felicitation event for him.”
Needless to say, the Court then observes in para 13 that, “Thereafter, vide a detailed order dated 16.03.2022, the court had passed an order on charge and accused no. 1, 12 and 17 were discharged. For the sake of brevity, the details of order on charge are not being reproduced here.”
Be it noted, the Court then states in para 14 that, “Against the remaining accused including accused Yasin Malik, charges were ordered to be framed under various sections. With regard to accused Yasin Malik, following charges were ordered to be framed:Accused no. 14 120B IPC, 121 IPC, 121A IPC 13 UAPA r/w 120B IPC, 15 UAPA r/w 120B IPC, 17 UAPA, 18 UAPA, 20 UAPA, 38 UAPA, 39 UAPA.”
Most remarkably, the Court then points out in para 15 that, “On 18.04.2022, all the accused were physically produced for framing of charges. On that day while charges were being read over, accused Yasin Malik submitted that he did not want to face trial and left it to the wisdom and discretion of this court to take whatever decision it wanted. It was inquired whether he intended to plead guilty and he submitted that he did not want to face any trial. Accused was explained that he can either plead guilty to the charges or plead not guilty to the charges. Accused Yasin Malik submitted that he did not want any trial and therefore, he was ready to plead guilty. On being inquired whether the decision was taken after full consideration and legal advice, he submitted that he had taken this decision after thinking about it for a very long time. On further being inquired whether he was aware about the maximum punishment which could be inflicted upon him, accused submitted that he was not aware about the maximum punishment which could be inflicted upon him.”
Quite fittingly, the Court then specifies in para 16 that, “Considering the gravity of offences and the fact that accused Yasin Malik had no legal assistance (as even during the course of arguments on charge, accused had argued his case himself), court found it appropriate that accused Yasin Malik should be given time to re-think over his options and that proper legal assistance should be provided to him. Therefore, Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae for accused Yasin Malik and Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh was requested to have a legal meeting with accused Yasin Malik in jail and explain to him the consequences of entering into a plea.”
It is worth noting that the Court then discloses in para 17 that, “On l0.05.2022, accused were produced physically for framing of charges against them On that day, accused Yasin Malik again submitted that he wanted to plead guilty to the charges. Thereafter, separate charges for separate offences were framed against accused persons. All the accused except accused Yasin Malik pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them.”
To be sure, the Court then states in para 18 that, “Accused Yasin Malik pleaded guilty to the charges us 120B IPC, 121 IPC, 121A IPC, 13 UAPA r/w 120B IPC, 15 UAPA r/w 120B IPC, 17 UAPA, 18 UAPA, 20 UAPA, 38 UAPA and 39 UAPA.”
Most significantly, the Court then after considering the plea of accused Yasin Malik clearly states in para 20 that, “From the procedure adopted by the court, it is clear that sufficient time was provided to the accused to consider his plea. Further to ensure that the accused was making an informed choice, he was granted an opportunity to have legal advice. For this purpose, as the accused had no counsel, an Amicus Curiae was appointed for him. The Amicus Curiae was directed to visit the accused in jail to have legal consultation with him so that accused could be made aware of the maximum punishment which could be awarded to him if he entered into the plea of guilt and that he could be made aware of the pros and cons of his plea. Thereafter also, accused Yasin Malik pleaded pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him.”
To be sure, the Court then notes in para 21 that, “Today, again the court has inquired from the accused whether he wants to re-think over his plea and he has stated that he had taken a well thought decision and that twice, the amicus curiae had met in jail and explained to him the consequences of his decision and still, he stands by his decision to plead guilty.”
As a corollary, the Court then holds in para 22 that, “Thus, I find that accused Yasin Malik has voluntarily and after due legal consultation, meaning thereby after fully, knowing the consequences of his plea, has pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him. His plea is accordingly accepted.”
Quite ostensibly, the Bench then directs in para 23 that, “In view of the plea of the guilt, accused Mohd. Yasin Malik @ Aslam is hereby convicted for the offences punishable /s 120B IPC, 121 IPC, 121A IPC, 13 UAPA r/w 120B IPC, 15 UAPA r/w 120B IPC, 17 UAPA, 18 UAPA, 20 UAPA, 38 UAPA and 39 UAPA.”
Finally, the Court then concludes by observing in para 24 that, “Be heard separately on the point of sentence.”
In a nutshell, the Court of Parveen Singh who is Special Judge, NIA, ASJ-03 in Patiala House Court in New Delhi District has very rightly convicted Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik for his deep involvement in terror funding cases for which he has been charged for serious offences under UAPA and IPC as already mentioned above. Yasin Malik himself also conceded that he was involved in terror funding cases and pleaded guilty. So no wonder that he stood convicted. On the quantum of sentence, we have to wait and watch what unfolds on May 25 which is the next date of final hearing in this leading case to decide on the quantum of sentence! No doubt, till then we have to just keep our fingers crossed on the quantum of sentence to be imposed by the Court because that is the exclusive domain of the Court to decide!