Bangalore District Court
C.C.B Bangalore , Gangammanagudi Ps vs Mehdi Masroor Biswas on 31 January, 2024
KABC010132702015
IN THE COURT OF XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE [SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES],
(CCH-50) BENGALURU
DATED : 16th day of January, 2024
PRESENT:
Shri GANGADHARA C.M.,
B.Com., LL.B.,
XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
[Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases],
(CCH-50) Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.272/2015
Complainant : The State of Karnataka
by CCB, Bengaluru.
(By : Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor)
V/s.
Accused : Mr. Mehdi Masroor Biswas
S/o Biswas Mekail, aged about 24 years,
R/at No.14, Sujatha Building, 'A' Block, 2nd Main,
S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru-560 015.
Native of Flat No.18, RGM
(Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality),
Door No.55/42, Biman Nagar, Kaikhali Post,
Kolkata-700052, West Bengal.
(By : Shri S.B., Advocate)
1. Nature of Offence : U/Ss.13(1)(b), 18-B, 39 of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, Sections 121, 124-
A, 125, 153-A, 505 of the IPC
and Section 66F of Information
Technology Act, 2000.
2
Spl.C.No.272/2015
2. Date of Commission of : From 25.01.2013 till
Offence 11/12.12.2014.
3. Date of F.I.R. 13.12.2014
4. Date of Arrest of the : 13.12.2014
Accused
5. Name of the complainant : Shri K.P. Ravi Kumar
6. Date of Commencement : 14.11.2016
of Evidence
7. Date of Closure of : 15.12.2022
Evidence
8. Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2024
of Judgment
Order on sentence : 25.01.2024
pronounced
9. Result of the Case : As per the final order
(GANGADHARA C.M.),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Investigating Officer Shri Thammaiah M.K., the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Enquiries, Central Crime Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'CCB' for short), Bengaluru City has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused - Mehdi Masroor Biswas for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b), 18-B and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.A.(P) Act' for 3 Spl.C.No.272/2015 short), Sections 121, 124-A, 125, 153-A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.T. Act' for short).
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :-
a) On 12.12.2014, at around 11.00 a.m., PW.2 - Shri K.P. Ravikumar, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Bengaluru received information from a reliable source that a person from Bengaluru was the brain behind a twitter handle @shamiwitness, which was sympathetic to the cause of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), which is also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and was working towards motivating and eulogizing the fighters. The goal and objectives of the ISIL/ISIS are to establish the Islamic Caliphate and implement Sharia law by overthrowing legitimate rulers of various countries, particularly the countries of Iraq, Syria and neighbouring countries. He also received an information that the name of the said person operating the twitter handle was Mehdi Masroor Biswas who was working with a technology company in Bengaluru. The said Biswas was instrumental in having more than 17,000 followers on his twitter account and disseminated the victories of the ISIL/ISIS, subjugation of the enemies and spoke highly of the martyrs who waged war against the countries of Iraq, Syria and other countries. He came to know that the accused was using numbers 9972188537 and 8041476668 and he was residing at Sujatha Building, 'A' Block, 2nd Main, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru. Based on the said information, 4 Spl.C.No.272/2015 PW.2 - Shri K.P. Ravikumar and his team of officers namely Shri Balaraj and Shri Prakash, the Police Inspectors, conducted the operation and traced the accused. Since he strongly suspected that the accused is part of ISIL/ISIS terrorist organisation which is listed in the Schedule to the United Nations Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Implementation of Security Council Resolutions) Order, 2007 made under Section 2 of the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947. He apprehended the accused in his house on 13.12.2014, in between 04.00 a.m. and 05.00 a.m. and produced him before PW.1 - Shri Gunashekar, the SHO of Gangammanagudi Police Station on the same day at around 08.00 a.m. He also submitted a written first information statement as per Ex.P.1 and set the criminal law in motion.
Based on the said information, PW.1 registered a case in Crime No.218/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 125 of IPC, sections 3, 13, 18 and 39 of U.A.(P) Act and Section 66F of I.T. Act and took up the case for investigation.
b) In the meanwhile, the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Bengaluru Shri Abhishek Goyal ordered the transfer of Crime No.218/2014 of Gangammanagudi Police Station to the Investigating Officer - Shri Thammaiah M.K. Accordingly, PW.1 - Shri Gunashekhar handed over the accused and the case papers to PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. for further investigation. Accordingly, PW.40 took over the investigation of this case and also took the accused into his custody.
5Spl.C.No.272/2015
c) PW.40 recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. He conducted the search of the house of the accused in the presence of panch witnesses and seized MO.1 to MO.12 and Ex.P.6 under the mahajar - Ex.P.5. He provided a computer with BSNL internet connection to the accused as the accused disclosed to open his twitter account. The accused opened @shamiwitness twitter account by entering his credentials in the presence of panch witnesses and opened the custom lists created by him in the twitter account. PW.40 exercised the 'settings' option of the twitter account @shamiwitness to view the profile of the twitter account and it disclosed the username of the account as 'Shamiwitness' and the email ID associated with the said account is '[email protected]'. PW.40 made efforts to download the tweets made by the accused in the form of an archive by exercising an option in 'settings', but he was unable to download the tweets in archive form. In this regard, PW.40 prepared a mahajar as per Ex.P.10.
d) PW.40 visited M/s. ITC Limited Life Sciences and Technology Center, Peenya Industrial Estate, where the accused was working, along with the accused, collected a CD, which contains all the activities of the accused in the computer provided to him in his office, from the Manager and prepared a mahajar as per Ex.P.18 in the presence of Shri Umesh and Smt. Arathi Sunil.
e) PW.40 sent notices to Twitter Inc., through PW.30 - DCP (Crime), Bengaluru to obtain details of @shamiwitness account, namely 1,30,000 tweets, list of all 18,000 followers and list of all 6 Spl.C.No.272/2015 twitter accounts followed by @shamiwitness, archives of all direct messages of @Shamiwitness, all IP addresses of @Shamiwitness account, list of handler names and email IDs associated with @Shamiwitness twitter account. PW.30 collected all the details from Twitter, Inc. periodically and forwarded the same to PW.40.
f) Twitter, Inc. sent two mails containing attachments "Shamiwitness-dms.txt" (12mb) and "Shamiwitness-tweets.txt"
(22mb) to the email account of the accused associated with @shamiwitness twitter account. The accused opened his email account in the presence of panch witnesses Shri Gangadhara Datanal and Shri S. Rajashekar by entering his credentials.
PW.40 downloaded the said attachments and burnt into three DVDs which are marked as MO.16 and Ex.P.91 and prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.11. Subsequently, PW.40 scrutinized the downloaded data and cross verified the details provided by Twitter Inc. with that of the direct messages, tweets and re- tweets made by the accused on his @shamiwitness twitter account. The accused has also explained about the context in which he posted the direct messages, tweets and re-tweets on his twitter account.
g) PW.40 sent an email to the Facebook Inc. to provide registration details, login IP details, messenger contents, chat history and a complete data backup of the account of the accused and collected some details from Facebook Inc. He also sent mails to google Inc. to provide information about the email accounts of the accused, but he was unable to get any information from google Inc. 7 Spl.C.No.272/2015
h) PW.40 sent notices to the Nodal Officers of Airtel, Vodafone and Tata Tele Services to furnish the CAFs, proof of address and proof of identity, CDRs of mobile Nos.7259520485, 9663871394, 9874996950 and landline No.080-41476668, IP address details etc., and collected the said information from the respective Nodal Officers.
i) PW.40 recorded the voice sample of the accused through M/s. Lahari Recording Company, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. He downloaded the videos pertaining to the interview given by the accused to Channel-4 from YouTube and google. He sent the said downloaded videos and the voice sample collected during the investigation to FSL, Madivala, Bengaluru for comparison of voice and collected the report from FSL, Bengaluru.
j) PW.40 sent the electronic gadgets seized in this case for forensic examination to CFSL, Hyderabad through Shri J. Ashok, Police Inspector and collected the reports from CFSL, Hyderabad. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the evidence against the accused and submitted the charge-sheet before this Court upon conclusion of the investigation.
3. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, this court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 121, 124- A, 125, 153-A and 505 of the IPC, Sections 13(1)(b), 18-B and 39 of U.A.(P) Act and Section 66F of I.T. Act on 12.06.2015 and registered a case against the accused. The presence of the accused was secured before this court from custody, he was provided with a copy of the charge-sheet and its enclosures in 8 Spl.C.No.272/2015 compliance of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C." for short).
4. This court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor before framing the charges. Since there were sufficient materials in the charge sheet and its enclosures to proceed against the accused, this court framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(b), 18-B and 39 of U.A.(P) Act, Sections 121, 124-A, 125 and 153-A of IPC and Section 66F(1)(A)(ii) of I.T. Act on 03.10.2016, read over and explained the same to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Again, this court framed the additional charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 505(1)
(b), 505(1)(c) and 505(2) of the IPC on 24.10.2016, read over and explained the same to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
6. In order to prove the allegations made against the accused, the prosecution has examined 41 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.41, got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.284 and got identified MO.1 to MO.18. After conclusion of the evidence, the incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution evidence were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his statement was recorded on 20.12.2022 and 31.12.2022. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances 9 Spl.C.No.272/2015 appeared in prosecution evidence as false and he has not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf, but he got marked Ex.D.1 during the cross examination of PW.31.
7. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused at length. The learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused have submitted their written arguments in addition to the oral arguments submitted by them. They have also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their respective contentions. The specific points raised during arguments and the decisions relied upon by the rival parties will be considered at the time of discussing those points.
8. The points that arise for court consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused opened a twitter account in the name of @shamiwitness in 2009, tweeted and re-tweeted on his twitter account from 25.01.2013 to 11/12.12.2014 within the jurisdiction of Gangammanagudi police station in Bengaluru in support of the claim of cession of Jammu & Kashmir from Union of India, tweeted/re-tweeted in support of terrorists who were attacking the civilians and the Indian Forces, referring to Kashmir as "Occupied Kashmir", the Indian Forces as "Occupation Forces", encouraging Muslims in India to believe that the Muslims are being attacked relentlessly by the Indian Government and there is no justice for Muslims in India, calling upon Muslims to 10 Spl.C.No.272/2015 support the Caliphate in Jammu & Kashmir, tweeted and re-tweeted with updates with an intention to support the terrorist acts in Jammu & Kashmir, which was intended or supported a claim to bring about cession of a part of the territory of India or secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, which disclaims, questions, disrupts and intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, causing or intending to cause disaffection against India, and to bring into hatred, or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards Government established by law in India and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused recruited the persons intentionally to support the banned terrorist organisation ISIL/ISIS, which was banned under the United Nations Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Implementation of Security Council Resolutions) Order, 2007 made under Section 2 of the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947, for commission of a terrorist act by willfully allowing his twitter account to become a meeting place for pro-ISIS accounts, who wanted to contact other pro-ISIS accounts and helped those Mujahirs (immigrants who came to join the ISIS) to cross the border by helping them with specific input of which border post was open and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.18-B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 within the cognizance of this Court ?11
Spl.C.No.272/2015
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted thousands of messages, posted pictures and videos of war and invites support for the terrorist organisation ISIL/ISIS banned under the United Nations Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Implementation of Security Council Resolutions) Order, 2007 made under Section 2 of the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 with intention to further the activities of the said terrorist organization and also willfully allowing his Twitter account to become a meeting place for pro-ISIS accounts, who wanted to contact other pro-ISIS accounts to support the terrorist organisation ISIL/ISIS with intention to further the activities of the said terrorist organization and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted in support of the claim of cession of Jammu & Kashmir from the Union of India, tweeted/re- tweeted at large in support of terrorists who were attacking the civilians and the Indian Forces, referring to Kashmir as "Occupied Kashmir", the Indian Forces as "Occupation Forces", encouraging Muslims in India to believe that the Muslims are being attacked relentlessly by the Indian Government and there is no justice for Muslims in India, calling upon Muslims to support the Caliphate in Jammu & Kashmir, tweeted and re-tweeted with updates with an with intention to support the terrorist acts in Jammu & Kashmir, 12 Spl.C.No.272/2015 which was intended or supported a claim to bring about cession of a part of the territory of India or secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, which disclaims, questions, disrupts and intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and thereby attempted or abetted to wage war against the Government of India and committed offence punishable under S.121 of the Indian Penal Code ?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted inciting the Muslims in India to believe that the Muslims are being attacked relentlessly by the Indian Government and there is no justice for Muslims in India, calling upon Muslims to support the Caliphate in Jammu & Kashmir with intention to support the terrorist acts in Jammu & Kashmir, which caused or intended to cause disaffection against the Government established by law in India and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.124-A of the Indian Penal Code ?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted, knowing fully well that ISIL/ISIS is a terrorist organization banned under United Nations Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Implementation of Security Council Resolutions) Order, 2007 made under Section 2 of the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 and at war with Syria, Iraq and Iran, the States that are at peace with India, intentionally to support the ISIS in the war, tweeted and re-tweeted thousands of messages, posted pictures and videos of war to 13 Spl.C.No.272/2015 support every terrorist act of ISIS and thereby abetted waging of war against Asiatic power in alliance and the Governments at peace with the Government of India and committed the offence punishable under S.125 of IPC ?
7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted messages displaying deep intolerance towards other religious faiths including individuals and groups of Muslim community who followed paths of Islam other than Sunni, with a view to promote a radical version of Sunni Islam; attacked, condemned and made fun of other sects and thereby promoted or attempted to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions including Muslim communities and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.153-A of IPC ?
8) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted encouraging Muslims in India to believe that the Muslims are being attacked relentlessly by the Indian Government and there is no justice for Muslims in India, with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the Muslims in India, whereby any Muslim may be induced to commit any offence against the State or against the public tranquility and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.505(1)(b) of IPC ?
9) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted messages displaying deep intolerance towards 14 Spl.C.No.272/2015 other religious faiths including individuals and groups of Muslim communities who followed paths of Islam other than Sunni, with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite Sunni Sect Muslims to commit any offence against Shiyas and other religious faiths and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.505(1)(c) of IPC ?
10) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted messages containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on the grounds of religion or community amongst Sunni Sect Muslims, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will towards other religious faiths including individuals and groups of Muslim community who followed paths of Islam other than Sunni and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.505(2) of IPC ?
11) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that in the aforesaid place and period, the accused penetrated or accessed a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access tweeted and re- tweeted on his @shamiwitness twitter account and by such conduct caused or is likely to cause death or injuries to the persons or damage to or destruction of property with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.66F(1)(A)(ii) of Information Technology Act, 2000 ?
12) What order?
15Spl.C.No.272/2015
9. Findings of this Court on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1 : In the affirmative
Point No.2 : In the affirmative
Point No.3 : In the affirmative
Point No.4 : In the negative
Point No.5 : Does not survive for consideration
Point No.6 : In the affirmative
Point No.7 : In the affirmative
Point No.8 : In the affirmative
Point No.9 : In the affirmative
Point No.10 : In the affirmative
Point No.11 : In the negative
Point No.12 : As per final order, for the following :-
REASONS
10. It appears from the records that the investigation officer has conducted the investigation in detail and placed all the materials collected during the investigation before this court. Some of the materials collected during the investigation may not be relevant for discussion to prove the allegations made against the accused since the prosecution has brought all the materials collected during the investigation on record. Therefore, before proceeding to discuss whether or not the accused has committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution, it is proper to take note of the chronological events happened in this case, which are as follows :-
16Spl.C.No.272/2015 Sl. Date Events No.
1. 12.12.2014 PW.2 - Shri K.P. Ravikumar received an information at around 11.00 a.m. that one Mehdi Masroor Biswas was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account and he was a resident of Bengaluru.
2. 13.12.2014 PW.2 - Shri K.P. Ravikumar traced the location of the accused and apprehended him in the house bearing No.A.14, 2nd Floor, Sujatha Building, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli, Bengaluru at around 04.00 to 05.00 a.m.
-do- PW.2 produced the accused before PW.1 -
Shri Gunashekar, the officer in-charge of Gangammanagudi Police Station at 08.00 a.m. and set the criminal law in motion by lodging the first information statement - Ex.P.1. Based on the said information, PW.1 registered a case in Crime No.218/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 125 of IPC, sections 3, 13, 18 and 39 of U.A.(P) Act and Section 66(F) of I.T. Act.
-do- The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bengaluru ordered PW.1 to hand over the investigation to PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 respectively. Accordingly, PW.1 transferred the investigation and handed over the accused to PW.40.
-do- The commissioner of Police held a press conference about the arrest of the accused and PW.30 - Abhishek Goyal, the DCP (Crime), Bengaluru issued a press note at 01.54 p.m. through his twitter account '@goyal_abjei'. A threat message was received at 08.00 p.m. It is mentioned in the said threat message that revenge would be taken in respect of the arrest and efforts would be made to rescue the arrested accused.
17Spl.C.No.272/2015
-do- PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P.115.
-do- PW.40 visited the house of the accused, conducted the search and seized Ex.P.6 and M.O.1 to M.O.12 under the mahajar - Ex.P.5 in the presence of panch witnesses Shri Sanjay Kumar and Shri Harish Suvarna and the son of the owner of the house of the accused PW.3 - Shri Hariprasad between 04.00 p.m. to 07.30 p.m.
3. 14.12.2014 The accused opened his twitter account @shamiwitness by entering his credentials. He opened 23 custom lists created by him. PW.40 took the screenshots of the said lists. PW.40 opened the profile of the accused in the said twitter account and he came to know about the username and email ID associated with @shamiwitness twitter account. The accused disclosed the password of his email account found in the profile of @shamiwitness twitter account. PW.40 placed a request to Twitter by exercising the option in 'settings' to download the tweets made by the accused. The Twitter sent the tweets made by the accused in archive form to the email account of the accused. The accused opened his email account, but PW.40 could not download the tweets made by the accused due to some technical problem. In this regard, he prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.10 in the presence of panch witnesses PW.6 - Shri Ashuthosh Kumar and PW.8 - Shri S. Rajashekar between 03.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m.
-do- PW.40 sent a notice to Twitter, Inc. through PW.30 - Abhishek Goyal, the DCP (Crime), Bengaluru as per Ex.P.73 to obtain the details of tweets made through @shamiwitness account in excel format, list of followers of @shamiwitness account in an excel format, list 18 Spl.C.No.272/2015 of all twitter accounts followed by @shamiwitness, archives of all direct messages of @shamiwitness account, all IP addresses of @shamiwitness account, list of all handle names and email IDs ever associated with @shamiwitness twitter account.
-do- The accused took PW.40 and panch witnesses to his office M/s. ITC Limited, Life Sciences and Technology Center, Peenya Industrial Estate, Bengaluru. The Manager, who was present in the sad company, prepared a CD containing all the activities of the accused on the computer provided to the accused in the office. PW.40 seized the said CD under the mahajar - Ex.P.18 between 11.00 p.m on 14.12.2014 and 01.45 a.m. on 15.12.2014.
4. 15.12.2014 The DCP (Crime), Bengaluru collected 1,20,000+ tweets from twitter and handed over the same in a pen drive in excel sheet form to PW.40.
DCP (Crime), Bengaluru sent a notice to
-do-
Twitter Inc. to provide the details of twitter accounts who sent threatening tweets to him after apprehension of the accused as per Ex.P.75.
DCP (Crime), Bengaluru sent a notice to
-do- Twitter, Inc. to provide the details of 18000 followers of shamiwitness account, 1800 accounts who were followed by @shamiwitness, all images tweeted by @shamiwitness and all images re-tweeted by @shamiwitness as per Ex.P.164.
-do- The accused opened his email account by entering his credentials. Twitter legal sent two mails to the email account of the accused i.e., [email protected] with attachments shamiwitness-dms.txt (12MB) and shamiwitness-tweets.txt (22MB). PW.40 19 Spl.C.No.272/2015 downloaded the said attachments and burnt the contents of shamiwitness-dms.txt and shamiwitness-tweets.txt on to DVDs - article No.19 and 20. DVD kept in Article No.19 is marked as MO.16 and DVD kept in Article 20 is marked as Ex.P.91. In this regard, PW.40 prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.11 in the presence of PW.8 - Shri Gangadhara Datanal and PW.7 - Shri S. Rajashekhar, the panch witnesses between 04.40 p.m. and 07.00 p.m.
5. 16.12.2014 PW.40 deputed his staff PW.24 - Shri Anandkumar J. to carry out online and offline analysis of hashtags used and its frequency, PW.22 - Shri Jayaprakash to carry out online and offline analysis of 'mentions' made and its frequency and Shri S. Narayana Rao to carry out online and offline analysis of 'followers' of twitter account @shamiwitness which were suspended pertaining to the twitter account @shamiwitness under Ex.P.59.
6. 17.12.2014 PW.40 downloaded the shamiwitness-dms (1).xls, which is a Microsoft excel file - Ex.P.140 and Ex.P.141, sent by Twitter Legal to the email account of the accused through email - Ex.P.124 and compared some of the said messages with the messages found in @shamiwitness twitter account in the presence of PW.11 - Shri B.G. Sathish and CW.15 Shri Santhosh. In this regard, Ex.P.28 was drawn from 05.00 p.m. on 17.12.2014 to 04.00 a.m on 18.12.2014.
7. 19.12.2014 PW.40 sent a notice to facebook Inc. to furnish details of registration, login IP details, messenger contents, chat history and a complete data backup of the facebook profile Mehdi Masroor Biswas as per Ex.P.128 and received acknowledgments - Ex.P.129 and Ex.P.130. On the same day, he received certain information in respect of facebook profile "Mehdi Masroor Biswas" from facebook as per Ex.P.131 and Ex.P.131(a).
20Spl.C.No.272/2015
-do- PW.40 collected the report - Ex.P.60 in respect of analysis of followers of @shamiwitness account and suspended followers account from PW.23 - Shri Jayaprakash, collected the report
- Ex.P.61 in respect of the hashtags used and its frequency in @shamiwitness account from PW.24 Shri Anandkumar and collected the report - Ex.P.72 in respect of analysis of mentions made by @shamiwitness account from PW.29 Shri Narayana Rao.
-do- PW.40 sent a notice to the Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel Ltd., to provide CAF documents, CDR, etc., pertaining to mobile Nos.7259520485, 9663871394 and landline No.080-41476668 as per Ex.P.64.
-do-
PW.40 sent a notice to the Nodal Officer, Vodafone Ltd., to provide CAF documents, CDR, etc., pertaining to mobile No.9874996950 as per Ex.P.132.
8. 20.12.2014 PW.40 sent a notice to google Inc. through email to furnish details of registration details, login IP details, inbox contents, draft contents, sent folder contents, deleted contents, chat history in respect of email accounts -
elsaltador@gmailcom, [email protected], [email protected] as per Ex.P.133 and Ex.P.134.
-do- PW.40 also sent notices to yahoo.com asking the same particulars and additional details as per Ex.P.135 and Ex.P.136.
The accused explained the hashtags which he
-do-
repeatedly tweeted on his @shamiwitness twitter account. Those details are in the handwriting of the accused. The said document is marked as Ex.P.137.
9. 21.12.2014 PW.30 - Shri Abhishek Goyal received the email - Ex.P.76 with an attachment 21 Spl.C.No.272/2015 shamiwitness-media (1).xls. from Twitter Legal on 20.12.2014 and forwarded the same to PW.40.
-do- PW.40 issued a notice to the Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel to provide the name, address and registration details of the subscribers allotted with the IP addresses mentioned in the notice as per Ex.P.255.
10. 23.12.2014 PW.40 gave the questionnaire to the accused regarding the status of email and facebook accounts used by him and the accused explained the same as per Ex.P.138.
-do- PW.40 sorted out the tweets made by the accused based on the keywords like jihad, terrorism, border crossing, British fighter, Britani, Caliphate, Martyr, etc. and took print outs of the same as per Ex.P.144, Ex.P.145 and Ex.P.261.
Shri Brijesh Joshi appeared before PW.40 and
-do-
volunteered to give his statement regarding the activities of shamiwitness and produced the screen shots of tweets - Ex.P.37.
11. 24.12.2014 PW.40 gave the questionnaire to the accused to explain the name and particulars of the handle mentioned in his tweets and the accused explained the same as per Ex.P.139.
-do- PW.30 - DCP (Crime), Bengaluru forwarded two attachments - Ex.P.165 received from Twitter Inc. to PW.40. PW.40 took the print out of the said two attachments and they are marked as Ex.P.166. The first attachment is contained the details of shamiwitness account and its twitter unique ID i.e., 57914577 with email address [email protected]. The said account was created on 18.07.2009 and it was operated from India. The last date and time accessed by the user with profile picture.
22Spl.C.No.272/2015
12. 25.12.2014 PW.40 gave the questionnaire to the accused to explain about the direct messages and the accused explained the same as per Ex.P.143.
13. 26.12.2014 PW.40 randomly identified some of the tweets from the text files sent by twitter and the corresponding tweets were searched in Shamiwitness twitter account. The screen shots of the said tweets and retweets were taken and the accused was asked to explain about the context and circumstances in which such tweets/re-tweets were made by him. The explanation offered by the accused was recorded in the presence of PW.12 - Shri Dhanush and CW.17 Shri Manikanta. In this regard, the mahajar was drawn as per Ex.P.30 between 11.00 hours to 20.00 hours.
-do- PW.40 sent a notice to facebook to provide complete data of the profile Mehdi Masroor Biswas along with the Court order and obtained an acknowledgment as per Ex.P.149.
14. 27.12.2014 PW.40 submitted an application to this Court to record 164 statement of Shri Brijesh Joshi. This court directed the learned 15th ACMM, Bengaluru to record the statement of PW.17 under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
15. 28.12.2014 PW.40 randomly identified some of the tweets in the text file sent by twitter and the corresponding tweets are searched in Shamiwitness twitter account. The accused was asked to explain about the context and circumstances in which such tweets/re-tweets were made by him. The explanation offered by the accused was recorded in the presence of PW.13 - Shri Yoga Sai Prakash and CW.19 -
Shri D.N. Prashanth. In this regard, he prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.32 between 12.00 hours to 18.15 hours.
16. 29.12.2014 PW.40 recorded further voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P.153.
23Spl.C.No.272/2015
-do- PW.40 gave the questionnaire to the accused to explain about the direct messages and the accused explained the same as per Ex.P.154.
-do- DCP (Crime), Bengaluru sent an email to Twitter Inc. to provide details of 31 twitter accounts which are importantly associated with shamiwitness as per Ex.P.167.
17. 30.12.2014 The accused was given 1765 following twitter accounts to identify and explain. The accused has identified some of the twitter accounts as pro-ISIS and ISIS fighters. The details of the twitter accounts identified as ISIS fighters are checked in @shamiwitness twitter account, screen shots were taken and the explanation offered by the accused was recorded in the presence of PW.14 - Shri Raj Sunil and CW.21- Shri M. Rajabharathi. In this regard, a mahajar was drawn as per Ex.P.33 from 14.55 hours to 18.40 hours.
-do- PW.30 sent a notice - Ex.P.77 to Twitter Inc. to provide list of 1547 suspended twitter accounts.
18. 31.12.2014 PW.40 served a notice to the accused seeking his consent to record his voice sample as per Ex.P.156.
-do- PW.40 served a notice on the Managing Director of M/s. Lahari Recording Company to record the voice sample of the accused as per Ex.P.157.
-do- The Managing Director appointed his staff to record the voice of the accused as per Ex.P.158.
-do- PW.40 recorded the voice sample of the accused in the presence of PW.16 - Shri Sundarmurthy and Shri Mirza Hussain at Lahari Recording Company. In this regard, the mahajar was drawn as per Ex.P.35 from 10.20 hours to 11.40 hours.
24Spl.C.No.272/2015
-do- PW.30 forwarded the information collected from twitter legal to PW.40 in respect of 1547 suspended twitter accounts as per Ex.P.78.
19. 04.01.2015 PW.40 sent eight articles to CFSL, Hyderabad through PW.22 - Shri Shrinivasa Rao and CW.51 - Shri Ashok along with requisition letters - Ex.P.45 and Ex.P.46 and the same were delivered to CFSL, Hyderabad on 05.01.2015 and collected acknowledgment - Ex.P.48.
20. 05.01.2015 A list of 426 twitter IDs are identified to be of Indian origin who were in touch with shamiwitness twitter account and PW.30 sent the same to Twitter Inc. to find out those account holders and their activities as per Ex.P.79 and Ex.P.169.
21. 07.01.2015 PW.30 forwarded the email - Ex.P.80 with an attachment "twitter notice-12 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.-2015-01-06-PROD 1.zip, 12241k" to PW.40.
22. 08.01.2015 PW.30 forwarded the email - Ex.P.170 with an attachment "2015-01-06 DCP notice 12.
production 2.zip" to PW.40.
-do- PW.40 received reply from twitter - Ex.P.180
with an attachment
'shamiwitness_network_data.xlsx4794k'. The same was downloaded which is marked as Ex.P.181. The network data contains details of all the persons who were following and being followed by shamiwitness account. It also contains the date of activation of accounts and the location of the persons who were operating accounts. PW.40 issued the Certificate as per Ex.P.182.
23. 14.01.2015 PW.40 downloaded list of banned terrorist organization from MHA website - Ex.P.204.
24. 14.01.2015 PW.40 sent a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru to request the Government to provide information regarding official 25 Spl.C.No.272/2015 confirmation of the ban of the terrorist organization ISIS as per Ex.P.206.
-do- PW.40 obtained the copy of the Gazette of India dated 17.02.2015 as per Ex.P.207.
25. 17.01.2015 PW.30 forwarded the email - Ex.P.81 and Ex.P.174 received from twitter legal which contained 36 twitter accounts who are in association with @shamiwitness.
26. 27.01.2015 PW.40 sent two notices to Twitter Inc. requesting to provide printed copies of twitter data, registration details of email IDs, phone numbers associated, registration information, nationality, profile picture and the ID access logs of the twitter handle @shamiwitness, me- muddu and @pcbkr123 from the date of creation as per Ex.P.183 and Twitter Inc. sent acknowledgment as per Ex.P.183(a).
27. 10.02.2015 PW.40 sent one more notice to Twitter Inc. seeking information of 1535 suspended twitter accounts as per Ex.P.184 and Twitter Inc. sent acknowledgment as per Ex.P.184(a).
28. 19.02.2015 PW.40 sent another notice to Twitter, Inc. seeking all the audio, video and images tweeted and re-tweeted by the twitter handle 'shamiwitness' on a CD/DVD and printed copy of media files tweeted or re-tweeted along with tweet text including the date and time of tweet as per Ex.P.185 and also furnished 1157 tweet IDs in the said notice. Twitter Inc. sent acknowledgment as per Ex.P.186.
29. 23.02.2015 PW.40 received a reply from vodafone with regard to the physical address of IP address provided by facebook as per Ex.P.102.
30. 09.03.2015 PW.40 sent a notice to Shri K.S. Umesh Kumar, the corporate head (Human Resources) of ITC to furnish Bio-Data and salary details of the accused as per Ex.P.19.
26Spl.C.No.272/2015
31. 10.03.2015 PW.40 sent a notice to Shri M.S. Hariprasad to produce original rental agreement entered with the accused as per Ex.P.187.
-do- PW.40 downloaded three videos from google and four videos from YouTube in the presence of PW.7 - Shri Rajashekar and Shri Bhaskaran and burnt into four DVDs - Ex.P.83, E.P.84, MO.17 and screen shots were taken. He prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.14 between 12.05 hours and 13.30 hours.
32. 11.03.2015 PW.40 collected certain information provided by Twitter, Inc. in response to the notice dated 27.01.2015 in a CD - Ex.P.93 through PW.38 - Shri Joseph Anthony, the authorized advocate on behalf of M/s. Poovayya and Co., which contain the particulars of account ID, created date, email account, creation IP, etc., of twitter accounts @shamiwitness, @memuddu and other accounts along with hard copies as per Ex.P.107.
-do- PW.40 obtained IP details from Twitter, Inc. and tabulated the details of PW.17, PW.18 and the accused in Microsoft excel sheet as per Ex.P.190. Twitter provided the time stand as per UTC (coordinated universal time) which was previously known as GMT (Greenwich mean time). He converted UTC to IST (Indian Standard Time) by adding 05 hours 30 minutes and also issued certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.191. At the time of preparation of Ex.P.190, he took the assistance of website www.apnic.net and www.dnsstuk.com in order to identify the operators of IP addresses provided by Twitter, Inc.
33. 12.03.2015 PW.40 collected certain information provided by Twitter, Inc. as per Ex.P.108 in response to the notice dated 10.02.2015 in a CD - Ex.P.94 containing some information regarding IP 27 Spl.C.No.272/2015 addresses through PW.38 - Shri Bharadwaj Ramasubramanian, the authorized advocate on behalf of M/s. Poovayya and Co.
-do- PW.40 received the Bio-Data, salary particulars and other information about the accused from Shri K.S. Umesh (Head of corporate Human Resources) ITC as per Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.22.
-do- PW.40 issued a notice to the Manager, HDFC Bank, Chamrajpet Branch to provide the details of account No.27091610001154 belonging to the accused.
-do- PW.40 collected the copy of rent agreement -
Ex.P.192 from Shri Hariprasad, the son of the landlord of the accused.
-do- It was found from the IP addresses provided by Twitter, Inc. that 192 addresses were belonged to Airtel service provider. Therefore, PW.40 sent a notice with IP addresses and its date and time to the Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel to furnish the physical addresses of the said IP addresses as per Ex.P.193 and also sent the same notice through email as per Ex.194. On the same day, the Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel provided the details of physical addresses of IP addresses furnished by PW.40 as per Ex.P.196 and Ex.P.198 along with Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.195. PW.40 has also issued certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.197. The IP addresses shown in Ex.P.196 and Ex.P.198 are shown to be originating from mobile No.7259520485. This mobile number belongs to the accused.
The Nodal Officer has also provided physical details of the aforesaid IP addresses as per Ex.P.199. These IP addresses were traced to physical phone No.080-60765326 belongs to the accused.
28Spl.C.No.272/2015
-do- PW.40 sent a request letter to BSNL to provide the physical address of IP addresses provided by Twitter, Inc. as per Ex.P.200.
34. 13.03.2015 PW.40 sent a notice to the Nodal Officer, Tata Telecom Services to furnish certified copy of the name, address and CAF of the subscriber to whom the IP addresses mentioned in the notice as per Ex.P.41
-do- PW.40 sent a notice to the Nodal Officer, vodafone to furnish certified copy of the name, address and CAF of the subscriber to whom the IP addresses mentioned in the notice as per Ex.P.201.
35. 17.03.2015 PW.40 made a request to IT incharge of Juniper Networks to provide information of IP addresses as per Ex.P.202.
36. 19.03.2015 PW.40 sent three articles i.e., articles Nos.28, 32 and 33 to FSL, Bengaluru through Shri G. Suresh along with the request letter of DCP (Crime), Bengaluru dated 18.03.2015 -
Ex.P.54, a request letter along with form No.152, invoice as per Ex.P.55, schedule - Ex.P.56 and collected the acknowledgment from FSL, Bengaluru as per Ex.P.52.
-do- PW.40 received customer application form in respect of land line No.25705119 - Ex.P.39 from PW.19 - Shri V. Manohar Rao.
37. 20.03.2015 PW.40 received IP address from Shri George Thomas, Manager, Juniper Networks as per Ex.P.203.
38. 21.03.2015 Mr. Bharadwaj Ramasubramanian, the counsel for the Twitter, Inc. in India provided media images tweeted and retweeted by the accused
- Ex.P.208 along with authorisation letter - Ex.P.209 and two CDs - Ex.P.95 and Ex.P.210 in response to the letter dated 19.02.2015.
29Spl.C.No.272/2015
39. 23.03.2015 PW.40 received physical addresses of IP addresses mentioned in Ex.P.41 and the CAF documents pertaining to the said IP addresses as per Ex.P.43 and Ex.P.44 respectively from PW.21 - Shri Ravi Narona.
-do- PW.40 sent the reminder to Google Inc. USA to provide details of registration, login IP, Inbox, Outbox and Draft folders contents, deleted contents, chat history of email accounts namely [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] as per Ex.P.211.
-do- PW.40 sent a notice to the Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel to furnish the certified copies of account statements/payment details of mobile Nos.7259520485, 9663871394 and landline Nos.080-41476668, 080-60765326 through P.C.No.9175 of CCB as per Ex.P.66.
40. 24.03.2015 PW.40 received reply from Juniper Networks as per Ex.P.203.
-do- PW.40 commenced the work of matching the images provided by Twitter under Ex.P.76 and Ex.P.77, which was burnt into CD - Ex.P.95, with tweets made by shamiwitness twitter account. Ex.P177 is cross reference table with the help of the said table, he started matching the tweets made by shamiwitness with media. All 15476 images are matched with corresponding tweets mentioned in the table in ascending order, date and time from the earlier to latest. The image ID and twitter IDs are unique IDs maintained by the twitter. PW.40 took the printout of the said medial as per Ex.P.212 to Ex.P.242.
41. 26.03.2015 PW.40 received CAF and proof of address in respect of mobile No.7259520485 as per Ex.P.65(g) and Ex.P.65(b) respectively, CAF and proof of address in respect of mobile 30 Spl.C.No.272/2015 No.9663871394 as per Ex.P.65(h) and Ex.P.65(c) respectively and CAF and proof of address in respect of landline No.080- 41476668 as per Ex.P.65(i), 65(b) and 65(e) respectively along with covering letter.
-do- PW.40 received a statement of payment details of mobile Nos.7259520485 and 9663871394 and landline Nos.080-41476668 and 080-60765326 from PW.27 - Shri Agnelo Stanley as per Ex.P.243 under the covering letter - Ex.P.67.
-do- PW.40 sent a mail to facebook as per Ex.P.244 and Ex.P.245 through Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru to provide registration, login IP, messenger contents, chat history and other necessary details since facebook did not respond to his request.
42. 28.03.2015 PW.40 made a request to channel-4 on their website using 'contact us' option to provide unedited copy of telephonic interview of the channel with the accused and also sought information regarding a British National Mr. Iftekar Jaman who was in contact with the accused, traveled to Syria and killed while fighting for ISIS and he automatically received an acknowledgment as per Ex.P.246.
43. 03.04.2015 PW.40 issued a notice to Twitter to furnish the details of email IDs and phone numbers associated, registration information, Nationality, profile pictures used and the IP access logs of the twitter handle of @i-jaman and @mrjaman, who were ISIS fighters and were touch with the accused, from the date of creation as per Ex.P.247.
44. 13.04.2015 PW.40 received CAF, proof of identity/proof of address along with covering letter as per Ex.P.87 and CDR for the period from 01.06.2014 to 13.12.2014 as per Ex.P.100 in 31 Spl.C.No.272/2015 respect of mobile No.9874996950 from PW.37
- Shri Abhiram Belavadi.
45. 14.04.2015 PW.40 accessed the twitter website and downloaded the 'terms of service' and printout was taken as per Ex.P.248 and submitted 65B certificate as per Ex.P.249.
46. 16.04.2015 PW.40 collected the CDRs of IP addresses from PW.37 - Shri Abhiram Belavadi as per Ex.P.104 along with covering letter - Ex.P.103.
-do- PW.40 logged into his official twitter account and searched for details of Talab Al Haqu who was facilitating the terrorists to cross Syria boarder from other countries to join ISIS. The accused was in direct touch with the ISIS militants in Syria, he could collect information from such militants and used to pass such information to such person who wanted to enter Syria to join ISIS. He took the printouts of screen shots as per Ex.P.250 and submitted 65B certificate as per Ex.P.250(a).
-do- He sent notice to Atria Convergence Technologies (@ ACT) to provide the physical address of IP address supplied by twitter as per Ex.P.252.
47. 17.04.2015 PW.40 sent a request to BSNL, Karnataka Circle to furnish the details of physical address of IP address which was provided by twitter as per Ex.P.251.
48. 18.04.2015 PW.40 received data from DCP (Crime), Bengaluru in a pen drive. It contains 8 files in respect of twitter account of shamiwitness. The data was downloaded and copied to two CDS. (96) one YouTube video was also downloaded in the same CD. The video is regarding the title 'our brother died a martyr in Syria.' This video is pertaining to one British fighter namely Iftekar Jaman who migrated to Syria, joined ISIS and died while fighting for ISIS. He was in 32 Spl.C.No.272/2015 touch with shamiwitness. On his death shamiwitness tweeted the said video on twitter.
49. 20.04.2015 PW.40 received a report - Ex.P.57 from FSL, Bengaluru in respect of examination of article Nos.28, 32 and 33 along with CD and DVDs -
Ex.P.82 to Ex.P.84
50. 21.04.2015 PW.40 sent a requisition to the Principal Secretary, Home Department through proper channel to accord sanction to prosecute the accused under Sections 121, 124-A, 125, 153- A of IPC and 13, 18 and 39 of U.A.(P) Act.
51. 22.04.2015 PW.40 collected statement of account -
Ex.P.40(a), account opening form - Ex.P.40(b), PAN card - Ex.P.40(c) along with covering letter - Ex.P.40 from the Manager of HDFC Bank PW.20 - Shri Senthil Kumar.
52. 24.04.2015 PW.40 collected details of physical addresses of IP addresses as per Ex.P.86 along with covering letter as per Ex.P.85 from PW.33 - Shri Anil Kumar, the Assistant Manger of Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (ACT)
53. 27.04.2015 PW.40 received mails to his office email account [email protected] from DCP (Crime), Bengaluru from email ID [email protected] and [email protected] which contained data related to shamiwitness. All the mails were first exported to PCD format and then attachment were downloaded and copied to DVD -
Ex.P.96(a) and Ex.P.97.
54. 09.05.2015 PW.40 sent PW.28 - Shri Fhiroz Khan to CFSL, Hyderabad, to collect articles and report. PW.28 collected report as well as the articles from CFSL, Hyderabad on 11.05.2015 and produced articles along with report - Ex.P.112 in respect of MO.1 to MO.5 and MO.7 to MO.9 before PW.40 on 12.05.2015. The CFSL sent analysis report in a CD -
Ex.P.110 and asked PW.40 to take its printout. Accordingly, he took printouts of the contents 33 Spl.C.No.272/2015 of the CD - Ex.P.253 and submitted 65B Certificate as per Ex.P.254.
55. 15.05.2015 PW.40 received the concurrence from Ministry of Home Affairs, the Government of India to prosecute the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b), 18B and 39 of U.A.(P) Act as per Ex.P.62.
56. 25.05.2015 PW.40 received the sanction order dated 23.05.2015 from the State Government to prosecute the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b), 18B and 39 of U.A.(P) Act, Section 66F of I.T. Act and Sections 121, 124-A, 125 and 153-A of IPC as per Ex.P.63.
-do- PW.40 collected FSL report - Ex.P.98 from FSL, Bengaluru.
PW.40 received the physical addresses of IP
-do- address details from Airtel as per Ex.P.256 along with covering letter - Ex.P.258 and 65B Certificate as per Ex.P.257. IP addresses mentioned in Ex.P.255 were supplied by facebook vide Ex.P.131 and 131(a).
57. 27.05.2015 PW.40 prepared timeline analysis of the tweets and re-tweets made by the accused for the period from December, 2010 to December 2014 as per Ex.P.259 and submitted 65B Certificate as per Ex.P.260.
58. 28.05.2015 PW.40 sorted out the tweets and retweets provided based on incriminating keywords and printout was taken for the purpose of analysis to find out the context in which he made the tweet as per Ex.P.261 and submitted 65B Certificate as per Ex.P.262.
59. 01.06.2015 PW.40 submitted charge-sheet to the court and continued further investigation with the permission of the Court.
-do- Collected resolution of the UN against Al-
Qaeda and ISIS i.e., No.11424 dated 34 Spl.C.No.272/2015 02.06.2014, No.11399, dated 14.05.2014, No.11019, dated 30.05.2013, No.10483, dated 13.12.2011. PW.40 downloaded the said resolutions, took the printouts and submitted 65B certificate as per Ex.P.271 to Ex.P.275.
-do- PW.40 tabulated the IP addresses furnished by Twitter service provider wise as per Ex.P.280 and submitted 65B Certificate as per Ex.P.281
60. 07.06.2015 PW.40 submitted additional charge-sheet.
The court issued letter rogatory and PW.40 forwarded the same to the Government with a request to send the same to the concerned authorities.
61. 29.12.2017 PW.36 - Shri P.T. Subramanya collected certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act from PW.16 - Shri Sundaramurthy.
I. THE ORIGIN AND WORKING PLACE OF THE ACCUSED
11. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is from West Bengal and he was working as an Assistant Engineer, LSTC Division, M/s ITC Limited, Peenya Bengaluru. In order to prove the said facts, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K., PW.10 - Shri K.S. Umesh and documentary evidence at Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.24.
12. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that on 09.03.2015, he sent the notice - Ex.P.19 to PW.10 - Shri K.S. Umesh Kumar, the Corporate Head (Human Resources) of ITC requesting him to provide the bio-data and salary details of the accused. He has further deposed that he received the bio-data and the salary particulars of the accused 35 Spl.C.No.272/2015 as per Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 along with a covering letter - Ex.P.20 from K.S. Umesh (Head of Corporate Human Resources) ITC on 12.03.2015 and those documents were subjected to PF No.5/2015.
13. PW.10 - Shri K.S. Umesh, the Chief Manager, M/s. ITC Limited, Bengaluru has deposed in his evidence that the accused was working for M/s. ITC Ltd., as an Assistant Engineer at LSTC Division (Part of ITC's Food's Division) Peenya, Bengaluru. He has further deposed that on 09.03.2015, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. issued a notice - Ex.P.19 to provide the documents such as bio-data, salary certificate and attendance sheet of the accused. Accordingly, he provided the bio-data - Ex.P.21, salary certificates - Ex.P.22, particulars of bank account- Ex.P.23 and the attendance register extract - Ex.P.24 with his covering letter - Ex.P.20.
14. A perusal of Ex.P.20 to 24, they indicate that the accused is from Bimannagar, Kaikhali, Kolkata, West Bengal State and he was working for M/s ITC Limited, Peenya, Bengaluru. A careful perusal of the cross-examination of PW.10 and PW.40, the accused has not disputed any of the said fact. Hence, he has unequivocally admitted that he is from Bimannagar, Kaikhali, Kolkata, West Bengal State and he was working for M/s ITC Limited, Peenya, Bengaluru. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the said facts with cogent and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
36Spl.C.No.272/2015 II. BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS OF THE ACCUSED
15. It is the next contention of the prosecution that the accused was holding a salary account bearing No.27091610001154 at HDFC Bank, Chamarajpet branch, Bengaluru. In order to prove the said fact, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K., PW.20 - Shri T. Senthil Kumar and the documentary evidence at Ex.P.23, Ex.P.40, Ex.P.40(a), Ex.P.40(b) and Ex.P.40(c).
16. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that a notice was sent to the Manager, HDFC Bank, Chamarajpet Branch, Bengaluru on 12.03.2015 requesting him to provide the details of account No.27091610001154 belonging to the accused. He has further deposed that on 22.04.2015, he received the account details of the accused from HDFC Bank, Chamarajapete Branch as per Ex.P.40(a) to Ex.P.40(c) along with covering letter - Ex.P40.
17. PW.20 - Shri T. Senthil Kumar, the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Bengaluru has deposed in his evidence that during his tenure at HDFC branch, Chamrajpet, the Investigating Officer approached him seeking the details of the account of the accused. Accordingly, he provided the bank account statement - Ex.P.40(a), account opening form - Ex.P.40(b), the copy of the PAN card provided by the account holder - Ex.P.40(c) along with his covering letter - Ex.P.40.
37Spl.C.No.272/2015
18. Further, as discusses supra, PW.10 - Shri K.S. Umesh provided the details of the salary account of the accused as per Ex.P.23. A perusal of Ex.P.23, the salary of the accused was being deposited to HDFC Bank account bearing No.27091610001154, Chamarajpet branch, Bengaluru. Further, a perusal of Ex.P.40, Ex.P.40(a) and Ex.P.40(b), the accused was holding an account bearing No.27091610001154 at HDFC Bank, Peenya branch, Bengaluru. It is pertinent to note that PW.20 is not cross-examined by the accused. Hence, the accused has unequivocally admitted that he was holding an account bearing No.27091610001154 at HDFC Bank. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the said fact with cogent and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
III. THE DETAILS OF MOBILE NUMBERS AND LANDLINE NUMBER OF THE ACCUSED
19. It is the next contention of the prosecution that the accused was using mobile Nos.7259520485, 9663871394, 9874996950 and landline No.080-41476668. In order to prove the said facts, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K., PW.20 - Shri T. Senthil Kumar, PW.27 - Shri Agnelo Stanley, PW.37 - Shri Abhiram Belavadi and the documentary evidence at Ex.P.40(a), Ex.P.40(b), Ex.P.65, Ex.P.65(a) to Ex.P.65(i), Ex.P.87, Ex.P.100 and Ex.P.243.
20. As discussed supra, PW.20 - Shri T. Senthil Kumar, the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Bengaluru has deposed in his evidence that he provided the account opening form of the 38 Spl.C.No.272/2015 accused as per Ex.P.40(a) to the investigating officer. A perusal of the said account opening form, the accused has declared his mobile number as 7259520485. This declaration was made at the undisputed point in time. Moreover, PW.20 has not cross- examined by the accused and he admitted the said document in an unequivocal terms. Therefore, this document is sufficient to hold that the accused was using mobile No.7259520485.
21. In addition to the said evidence, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that he sent the request letter - Ex.P.64 to the Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel Limited, Bengaluru to furnish certified copies of CAFs and CDRs pertaining to mobile numbers 7259520485 and 9663871394 and landline number 080-41476668. He has further deposed that on 26.03.2015, he received Call Detail Records (CDR) of the aforesaid mobile numbers and landline number for the period from 01.06.2014 to 13.12.2014 - Ex.P.69, the Customer Application Forms (CAFs) of mobile number 7259520485 - Ex.P.65(g), of mobile number 9663871394 - Ex.P.65(h) and landline No.41476668 - Ex.P.65(i), proof of address and proof of identity from Airtel in respect of the above said mobile numbers and landline number.
22. He has further deposed that on 23.03.2015, he sent a request letter - Ex.P.66 to Airtel to furnish certified copies of account statement/payment details of Mobile Nos.7259520485 and 9663871394 and Landline Nos.080-41476668 and 080- 60765326 through PC No.9175 of CCB. He has further deposed that he received the statement of payment details of mobile 39 Spl.C.No.272/2015 numbers No.7259520485 and 9663871394 and landline Nos.080-41476668 and 080-60765326 from Airtel as per Ex.P243 under a covering letter - Ex.P.67. He has further deposed that Ex.P.40(a) discloses that the accused made payments to Airtel Rs.131/- on 14.04.2013, Rs.1,347.81 on 13.05.2013, Rs.1,348.28 on 31.10.2013, Rs.1,370.06 on 30.11.2013, Rs.100/- on 17.12.2013, Rs.1432.59 on 31.12.2013, Rs.125/- on 28.01.2014, Rs.1432.59 on 30.01.2014, Rs.1432.26 on 14.03.2014 and Rs.50/- on 30.03.2014 and the same transactions are reflected in Ex.P.243.
23. PW.27 - Shri Agnelo Stanley, the Principal Circle Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel Ltd., Bengaluru has deposed in his evidence that on 19.12.2014, the Investigating Officer called upon him to provide information such as (a) Customer Application form, (b) proof of identity, (c) Proof of address submitted by the subscriber, (d) call details records for the period from 01.06.2014 to 13.12.2014 and (e) asked for GPRS details for the same period in respect of Mobile Nos.7259520485 & 9663871394 and Landline No.080-41476668 by issuing the notice - Ex.P.64. Accordingly, he furnished the Customer Application Forms (CAF), Election Voter ID, Passport, PAN card and photo copy of the rental agreement on 26.03.2015 under the covering letter - Ex.P.65.
24. He has further deposed that on 23.03.2015, the investigating officer sought for information regarding payment details of the above mobile numbers as well as Landline connection including landline bearing No.080-60765326 as per 40 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.66. The invoice details of landline No.080-41476668 for a period from 12.04.2013 to 12.03.2015 was amounting to a total sum of Rs.34,742.29/- and the recharge details of Mobile Nos.7259520485 and 9663871394 are furnished to the Investigation Officer. He has further deposed that the call details of the above said two Mobile numbers and those of GPRS were produced/retrieved from the Computer system/server installed at their Office, No.55, Divyashree Towers, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bengaluru by using cannon printers and in that behalf, he issued the certificate as per Ex.P.68.
25. A perusal of Ex.P.65(g) and Ex.P.65(b), the accused submitted the customer application form along with his voter identity card to Bharati Airtel through Ganesh Associates and purchased the prepaid SIM card bearing mobile No.7259520485. It reveals from Ex.P.65(h) and Ex.P.65(c) that the accused submitted the customer application form along with his passport to Bharati Airtel through Shri Ravishankar, Airtel Retailer and purchased the prepaid SIM card bearing mobile No.9663871394. It appears from Ex.P.65(i), Ex.P.65(d) and Ex.P.65(e) that the accused submitted the customer application form along with his PAN card and rental agreement to Bharati Airtel through Galaxy Associates and got the landline connection with No.080- 41476668.
26. It appears from Ex.P.243 and Ex.P.41(i) that the accused made the payments to Airtel through his bank account as well as cash for his landline No.080-41476668 and recharged his mobile Nos.7259520485 and 9663871394 with Airtel. It is 41 Spl.C.No.272/2015 evident from Ex.P.10 that the accused recharged his Airtel mobile No.7259520485 through Paytm and he received emails in this regard to his email account.
27. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. and PW.27 - Sri Agnelo Stanley were testified at length by the accused, but nothing has been elicited contrary to their testimony. PW.40 has testified that he issued notice to provide the details of Mobile Nos.7259520485 and 9663871394 and of Landline No.080- 41476668 to the Nodal Officer, Airtel and PW.27 has testified that he furnished the details of the said mobile number in response to the request made by PW.40. PW.40 has further testified that he requested PW.27 to furnish the payment details in respect of Mobile Nos.7259520485 and 9663871394 and landline No.080-41476668 and PW.27 has testified that he furnished the payment details of the said mobile numbers and landline number to PW.40. Hence, the evidence of PW.40 is in corroboration with the evidence of PW.27 and there is no inconsistency in the evidence of the said witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mobile Nos.7259520485 & 9663871394 and Landline No.080-41476668 were standing in the name of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence.
28. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has further deposed that he sent a request letter dated 19.12.2014 - Ex.P.132 to the Nodal officer, Vodafone Limited, Bengaluru seeking to furnish copies of CAF and CDR pertaining to mobile No.9874996950. He has further deposed that on 13.04.2015, he received 42 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Customer Application Form, proof of identity/proof of address as per Ex.P.87 and CDRs for the period from 01.06.2014 to 13.12.2014 - Ex.P.100 in respect of mobile No.9874996950. The said number was standing in the name of the mother of the accused Smt.Momotaz Biswas.
29. PW.37 - Sri Abhiram Belavadi, the Alternate Nodal Officer of M/s Vodafone has deposed in his evidence that the Investigating Officer requested to provide the Customer Application Form, Proof of Identity and Proof of Address submitted by the Subscriber, Call detail records for the period from 01.06.2014 to 13.12.2014, GPRS included in call detail records for the same period, Call detail record should be provided for PAN India Circles and Call detail record should be mapped with Cell site address in respect of a mobile Number 9874996950 by issuing a notice dated 19.12.2014. He has further deposed that in response to the said request, he submitted the Customer Application Form, proof of Identity and proof of Address belonging to the subscriber as per Ex.P.87 and CDR as per Ex.P.100 and in that behalf, he issued the certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act as per Ex.P.101.
30. It appears from Ex.P.87 that the mother of the accused submitted the customer application form along with her passport and purchased the SIM card bearing mobile No.9874996950 in her name.
31. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. and PW.37 - Shri Abhiram Belavadi were testified at length by the accused, but nothing has been elicited contrary to their testimony. PW.40 has 43 Spl.C.No.272/2015 testified that he issued notice to provide the details in respect of mobile number 9874996950 to the Nodal Officer, Vodafone and PW.37 has testified that he furnished the details of the said mobile number in response to the request made by PW.40. Hence, the evidence of PW.40 and PW.37 is in corroboration with each other and there is no inconsistency in the evidence of the said witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the aforesaid mobile number was standing in the name of the mother of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence.
III(A) - REGARDING RECOVERY OF ARTICLES FROM THE HOUSE OF THE ACCUSED
32. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has further deposed in his evidence that on 13.12.2014, he secured CW4 - Shri Sanjay Kumar and CW5 - Shri Harish Suvarna as panch witnesses by giving them notices as per Ex.P.116 and Ex.P.117 respectively. He has further deposed that the accused took him and his team to the house of the accused, which was situated on the second floor of the building, bearing Flat No.A-14, Sujatha building, A Block, 2nd Main, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M.Road, Jalahalli, Bengaluru. He has further deposed that he secured the presence of the owner of the apartment by name Shri. Hari Prasad to the house of the accused. He has further deposed that he seized the DELL Inspiron N5110 Laptop - M.O.1, one hard disk - M.O.2, one Motorola Mobile phone with dual sim - M.O.3, one Samsung duos Mobile with dual sim - M.O.4, one Airtel sim card No.7259520485, one vodafone sim card bearing No.8991300230771941178, one D-link Wifi router - M.O.5, one 44 Spl.C.No.272/2015 brown colour wallet - M.O.6 which contained cash of Rs.870 - M.O.6(g), one ID card issued by M/s. ITC - M.O.6(c), one PAN card - M.O.6(d), HDFC Bank and Axis bank debit cards (total 3 in numbers) - M.O.6(e), one Electricity bill - M.O.6(f) in the living room and one Micromax Internet Dongal with BSNL sim card - M.O.7, 2 PEN drives - M.O.8 and MO.9, one Passport issued by Calcutta Passport Authority - M.O.10, a cover containing school and college certificates - M.O.11, rental agreement - Ex.P.6, Insurance Policy bond - M.O.11(b), Employment Offer letter - M.O.11(a) and 3 small books printed in Arabic as well as Bengali language - M.O.12 in the room under the Mahajar - Ex.P.5.
33. PW.3 - Shri H.S. Hariprasad, who is the son of the landlord of the accused as well as the panch witness has deposed in his evidence that on 13.12.2014, at around 10.00 a.m., CCB police served a notice on him, CW4 - Shri Sanjay Kumar and CW5 - Shri Harish Suvarna to appear as mahajar witnesses. He has further deposed that at 04.00 p.m., one ACP Shri Thammaiah came to the house of the accused along with his four staffs and the accused. He has further deposed that before entering the house of the accused, the team members were subjected to personal search to ensure that they did not carry any incriminating article. He has further deposed that on entering the house, they found a bed and a table. There was a Dell laptop - MO.1, a Seagate external hard disk - M.O.2, Motorola mobile - M.O.3, Samsung mobile - M.O.4 and the wallet which contained the PAN Card, 4-5 Bank Cards, Minimum currency - M.O.6 on the bed. There was a TV on the table. On the top of the TV, there was a D-Link router - M.O.5. He has 45 Spl.C.No.272/2015 further deposed that they entered the room and found Transcend pen drive - M.O.8 and Cruzer pen drive - M.O.9 in the cupboard. There was an Internet dongle (Micromax) - M.O.7 and a cover which contained original four certificates - M.O.11 and passport of the accused - MO.10. They also found three books - M.O.12 in the cupboard. Out of them, two books were in Arabic Language. He has further deposed that CCB Police put all the aforesaid items in a bag and sealed it with the seal impression 'G'. All these process continued till 07.30 p.m. The CCB Police prepared the mahajar - Ex.P.5 in a nearby Internet parlour and the print out was brought to the house of the accused and then, they affixed their signatures on the said document.
34. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. and PW.3 - Shri H.S. Hariprasad were testified at length by the accused, but nothing has been elicited contrary to their testimony in respect of the search and seizure of Ex.P.6 and M.O.1 to M.O.12 in the house of the accused in the presence of PW.3 and other independent witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW.40 visited the house of the accused along with the accused, secured PW.3 - Shri Hariprasad, CW4 - Shri. Sanjay Kumar and CW5 - Shri. Harish Suvarna as panch witnesses, searched the house of the accused and seized Ex.P.6 and M.O.1 to M.O.12 in the house of the accused in their presence with cogent and convincing evidence.
35. During the cross-examination of PW.27 - Shri Agnelo Stanley, the accused suggested that there are possibilities to remove original photograph and affix other photograph on the 46 Spl.C.No.272/2015 CAF and get the xerox of the same. The accused suggested that Ex.P.65(a) to Ex.P.65(i) are unauthenticated documents and there is no mention about verification of Ex.P.65(a) to Ex.P.65(i) with the originals. Therefore, he disputed the said documents as they were created for the purpose of this case. In the opinion of the court, there is no force or merit in the said contentions. As discussed supra, the accused himself declared his mobile number as 7259520485 before his banker at an undisputed point in time. The accused received an email that he made the payments to Bharati Airtel through Paytm for recharging his mobile No.7259520485. The accused paid the bills to Bharati Airtel through his HDFC bank account bearing No.27091610001154 pertaining to landline No.080-41476668. Further, the original passport and PAN card were seized in the house of the accused and the copies of the same documents were attached by the accused at the time of purchasing the SIM card bearing Mobile No.9663871394 and getting landline connection bearing No. 080-41476668. Two Airtel SIM cards and one Vodafone SIM card were seized in the house of the accused.
36. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the investigating officer has not collected the CAF documents of the year 2009 to 2011 in respect of mobile Nos.7259520485, 9663871394 and landline No.080-4147668 and the investigation officer has not collected any document to show that the accused was residing in Bengaluru from 2009 to 2011. In the opinion of the court, there is no force or merit in the said contention as well. As discussed supra, the accused purchased the SIM card 47 Spl.C.No.272/2015 bearing mobile No.7259520485 on 27.06.2012 as per Ex.P.65(g), purchased SIM card bearing mobile No.9663871394 on 07.05.2013 as per Ex.P.65(h) and got the connection of the landline No.080-4147668 on 03.04.2013 as per Ex.P.65(i). Hence, no such CAF documents of the year 2009 to 2011 in respect of the aforesaid mobile numbers and landline number were available to collect by the investigating officer. Further, as per Ex.P.21, the accused was residing in Kolkata on 03.11.2011 and applied for job in ITC Company. Subsequently, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer at ITC Company, Bengaluru. Therefore, the accused was not residing in Bengaluru from 2009 to 2011 to collect any document as contended by the learned counsel for the accused.
37. A careful analysis of the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has placed abundant materials to show that the accused was using mobile Nos.7259520485, 9663871394 & 9874996950 and landline No.080-41476668 and proved the said facts beyond reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence.
IV - PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED IN BENGALURU
38. It is the next contention of the prosecution that the accused was residing in a house bearing No.A.14, 2 nd Floor, Sujatha Building, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli, Bengaluru. In order to prove the said fact, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.3 - Shri Hariprasad, PW.4 - Shri Srinivasaiah, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K., 48 Spl.C.No.272/2015 PW.27- Shri Agnelo Stanley and documentary evidence at Ex.P.6, Ex.P.65(a) to Ex.P.65(i), Ex.P.194 to Ex.P.196, Ex.P.197, Ex.P.199 and Ex.P.243.
39. As discussed supra, PW.40 has testified that he requested PW.27 to provide CAF, proof of identity and proof of address, CDR and other documents. PW.27 has testified that he furnished the CAF, proof of identity and proof of address, CDR and other documents as requested by PW.40. A perusal of Ex.P.65(h) and Ex.P.65(i), the accused has mentioned his address as Sujatha Building, No.A.29, 'A' block, 2 nd main, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru. This court has already held that the accused has not elicited anything in favour of his defence in respect of the said facts and the prosecution has proved the said facts with cogent and convincing evidence.
40. As discussed supra, PW.3 deposed in his evidence that MO.1 to 12 and Ex.P.6 - rental agreement were seized in the house of the accused under Ex.P.5. A perusal of the said document, the address of the house is mentioned as No.870/A- 29, Sujatha Building, 2nd main, 'A' block, Ayyappa Nagar, Jalahalli West post, Bengaluru.
41. As discussed supra, PW.27 provided payment details to PW.40 on the request made by PW.40 as per Ex.P.243. A perusal of Ex.P.243, the address of the accused is shown as No.A-14, Sujatha Building, 'A' block, 2nd main, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru.
49Spl.C.No.272/2015
42. In addition to the said evidence, PW.3 has deposed in his evidence that he knows the accused. His mother owns a property bearing Old No.891, New No.813 situated at 2 nd Cross, Ayyappanagara, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru - 560057. There is a building in the said property called Sujatha Building, comprising of ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor and 3rd floor. There are 8 portions on the 2nd floor of the said building. Each portion is 1 BHK house. During the year 2012, the accused had taken one portion on the 2nd floor of the building on monthly rent and his father was managing the said property.
43. PW.4 - Sri Srinivasaiah has deposed in his evidence that he knows the accused. He has a building bearing No.870, Sujatha Building situated at 2nd cross, Ayyappa Nagar, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru-560015. The accused was a tenant and executed an agreement at the time of taking the premises on rent. They retained the photo copy of the agreement and handed over the original - Ex.P6 to the accused.
44. A perusal of the cross examination of PW.3 and PW.4, there are some minor discrepancies that no receipt is produced for having received the rent, signature of the owner of the building Smt. Sujatha is not found on Ex.P.6 and PW.4 was not authorised to affix his signature on Ex.P.6 on behalf of Smt. Sujatha. However, PW.3 and PW.4 have strongly denied the suggestion that the accused was not residing at Sujatha Building. Though there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, the accused himself declared his address in the CAFs submitted to Airtel and the same is in corroboration with the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4.
50Spl.C.No.272/2015
45. In addition to the said evidence, PW.40 requested PW.27 to furnish the physical address of IP addresses collected from twitter as per Ex.P.194. Accordingly, PW.27 furnished the details of the IP addresses provided to mobile No.7259520485 and DSL No.08060765326_kk as per Ex.P.195, Ex.P.196 and Ex.P.199 along with the certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act - Ex.P.197. A perusal of the said documents, the address of the accused is mentioned as A-14, Sujatha Building, 'A' block, 2nd main, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru.
46. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the investigation officer has not collected any rental agreement or any receipt for payment of rent to connect the accused to the house bearing No.A-14, Sujatha Building, 'A' block, 2 nd main, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the place of residence of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence.
47. In this regard, a careful analysis of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution, Ex.P.6, Ex.P.65(h), Ex.P.65(i), Ex.P.243, Ex.P.196 and Ex.P.199 indicate the address as Sujatha Building, 'A' block, 2nd main, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru. The accused himself declared the aforesaid address as his address in the CAFs submitted to Airtel at the time of purchasing the mobile number and getting the landline connection. As discussed supra, the prosecution has proved the CAFs provided by PW.27 with cogent and convincing evidence. Further, the investigation 51 Spl.C.No.272/2015 officer has seized the rental agreement Ex.P.6 in the house of the accused which indicates the same address. Moreover, PW.3 and PW.4 have testified that the accused was residing in their house. The aforesaid documents and evidence are sufficient to hold that the accused was residing at Sujatha Building, 'A' block, 2nd main, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru. This court cannot disbelieve the said evidence only on the ground that the investigation officer has not collected rent receipts. Hence, this court has declined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the accused.
48. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that Ex.P.6, Ex.P.65(h) and Ex.P.65(i) indicate the house number as A-29, whereas, Ex.P.243, Ex.P.196 and Ex.P.199 indicate the house number as A-14. Further, Ex.P.5 indicates the house number as A-14. Therefore, it creates doubt that the accused was residing in the house bearing No.A-29 or A-14. It is true that there is discrepancy in the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the house number as argued by the learned counsel for the accused. In this regard, the accused himself clarified the said fact during the cross-examination of PW.4 - Shri Srinivasaiah and it is proper to extract para 7 of the cross-examination of PW.4 which reads as follows;
"7. During December 2014 Accused was residing in the premises bearing No.A14. During that period premises bearing No.A29 was occupied by some other person. It is true that Ex.P6 does not contain mention about Accused having resided in premises No.A14. Witness volunteers that premises No.A29 is a room and that earlier Accused was residing in A29. He has further stated that Accused took premises A14 on rent on the ground that his parents would join him and stay with him. It is true that there is no separate document to show that the accused had taken premises A14 on rent."52
Spl.C.No.272/2015
49. A perusal of the said portion of the cross-examination, PW.4 has testified that the accused was residing in the premises bearing No.A29 earlier and he shifted the said house to the house bearing No.A14 on the ground that his parents would join him. He has further testified that the accused was residing in the premises bearing No.A14 in December 2014. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.6 was executed on 19.04.2013 for 11 months. The validity of the said document was expired in March 2014. Further, the landline No.08060765326_kk is a digital subscriber line. It is used for transmitting digital data over telephone lines. As discussed supra, the accused got the landline connection bearing No.080-41476668. The said landline was fixed in the house of the accused. Therefore, PW.27 provided the address where the landline No.08060765326_kk was given connection. The address furnished by PW.27 is in consonance with the explanation offered by PW.4 - Shri Srinivasaiah. Hence, this court does not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
50. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that PW.3 and PW.4 have testified that the building was standing in the name of Smt. Sujatha. They have admitted that Smt. Sujatha has not affixed her signature on Ex.P.6 and she did not authorise PW.4 to put his signature on Ex.P.6. He further argued that Smt. Sujatha has not been examined by the prosecution. Hence, Ex.5 loses its credence and an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution.
51. In order to appreciate the said contentions, this court has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 53 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Gulam Sarbar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 3 SCC 401. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed at para Nos.17 and 20 as follows :-
"17. We had been taken through the entire deposition of Jagdish Prasad (PW.8), Investigating Officer, however, no such question was put to him as to why those witnesses were not examined. In the absence of putting such an issue to Jagdish Prasad (PW.8), Investigating Officer, the appellants cannot seek any benefit of such omission or error by the prosecution in conducting of trial.
* * * * *
20. If the prosecution had not examined the Panchnama witnesses and witnesses to the arrest memos of the appellants, the appellants could have examined them in their defence."
A perusal of the aforesaid decision, if the prosecution fails to examine any witness, the accused can examine such witness as defence witness to prove his defence. In this case, the accused had every details of Smt. Sujatha during the trial as her husband and son were examined before this court. Even though the prosecution has not examined Smt. Sujatha in support of its case, the accused could have examined the said witness as a defence witness to prove his defence. But he has not made any efforts to examine the said witness during the trial. However, the prosecution has placed sufficient materials to prove that the accused was residing in the aforesaid address. Therefore, this court does not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
52. It is pertinent to note that as discussed supra, the accused is from West Bengal and he was working for ITC Limited, Peenya, Bengaluru. He could not travel from West Bengal to Bengaluru to attend his work daily. Therefore, he had to live in Bengaluru to attend his work. During recording of the 54 Spl.C.No.272/2015 statement of the accused as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has denied the facts that he was residing in the house bearing No.A14, Sujatha Building, 'A' block, 2nd main, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru, he was arrested from the said house and search was conducted in the said house. But he has not offered any explanation where he was residing in Bengaluru to attend his work. He could have explained before this court where he was residing in Bengaluru to attend his work. In the absence of any explanation in this regard, the court can draw an adverse inference against the accused. In this regard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance at para 16 in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Premchand Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0209/2023 in Criminal Appeal No.211/2023 decided on 03.03.2023 which reads as follows;
"16. Bearing the above well-settled principles in mind, every criminal court proceeding under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 313 has to shoulder the onerous responsibility of scanning the evidence after the prosecution closes its case, to trace the incriminating circumstances in the evidence against the accused and to prepare relevant questions to extend opportunity to the accused to explain any such circumstance in the evidence that could be used against him. Prior to the amendment of section 313 in 2009, the courts alone had to perform this task. Instances of interference with convictions by courts of appeal on the ground of failure of the trial court to frame relevant questions and to put the same to the accused were not rare. For toning up the criminal justice system and ensuring a fair and speedy trial, with emphasis on cutting down delays, the Parliament amended section 313 in 2009 and inserted sub-section (5), thereby enabling the court to take the assistance of the Public Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing such questions [the first part of sub- section (5)]. Ideally, with such assistance (which has to be real and not sham to make the effort effective and meaningful), one would tend to believe that the courts probably are now better equipped to diligently prepare the relevant questions, lest there be any infirmity. However, judicial experience has shown that more often than not, the time and effort behind such an exercise put in by the trial court does not achieve the desired result. This is because either the accused 55 Spl.C.No.272/2015 elects to come forward with evasive denials or answers questions with stereotypes like 'false', 'I don't know', 'incorrect', etc. Many a time, this does more harm than good to the cause of the accused. For instance, if facts within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor against the accused. Though such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances. A proper explanation of one's conduct or a version different from the prosecution version, without being obliged to face cross-examination, could provide the necessary hint or clue for the court to have a different perspective and solve the problem before it. The exercise under section 313 instead of being ritualistic ought to be realistic in the sense that it should be the means for securing the ends of justice; instead of an aimless effort, the means towards the end should be purposeful. Indeed, it is optional for the accused to explain the circumstances put to him under section 313, but the safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility."
(emphasis supplied)
53. In this regard, this court has placed reliance on para 31 and 32 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Munish Mubar vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 10 SCC 464 which read as follows;
"31. The issue of non-examination of independent witnesses and reliance upon the deposition of police officials as "Panch witnesses"
was considered at length by this Court in State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein this Court held as under:
"20. ....But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
21. We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. ... At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence 56 Spl.C.No.272/2015 when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross- examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."
It is obligatory on the part of the accused, while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation, even in a case of circumstantial evidence, so to decide, whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. The aforesaid judgment in Sunil has been approved and followed in Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC
748. (See also: The Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. v. S. Sardar Ali & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1225).
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that in spite of the fact that in case there is no independent witness of recoveries and panch witnesses are only police personnel, it may not affect the merits of the case. In the instant case, the defence did not ask this issue in the cross-examination to Inspector Shamsher Singh (PW.21) as why the independent person was not made the panch witness. More so, it was the duty of the appellant to furnish some explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC., as under what circumstances his car had been parked at the Delhi Airport and it remained there for 3 hours on the date of occurrence. More so, the call records of his telephone make it evident that he was present in the vicinity of the place of occurrence and under what circumstances recovery of incriminating material had been made on his voluntary disclosure statement. Merely making a bald statement that he was innocent and recoveries had been planted and the call records were false and fabricated documents, is not enough as none of the said allegations made by the appellant could be established."
(emphasis supplied) 57 Spl.C.No.272/2015
54. This court has also placed reliance on para 28 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harivadan Babubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 7 SCC 45 which reads as follows;
"28. Another facet is required to be addressed to. Though all the incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to him, yet he chose not to give any explanation under Section 313 CrPC except choosing the mode of denial. It is well settled in law that when the attention of the accused is drawn to the said circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link for building the chain of circumstances. (See State of Maharashtra v. Suresh)[21]). In the case at hand, though number of circumstances were put to the accused, yet he has made a bald denial and did not offer any explanation whatsoever. Thus, it is also a circumstance that goes against him."
55. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts in hand, the accused has not explained where he was residing while he was working for ITC Limited Peenya, Bengaluru during recording of his statement as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the same can be used against the accused. The prosecution has placed abundant materials in the form of oral and documentary evidence as discussed supra and proved beyond reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence that the accused was residing at No.A-14, Sujatha Building, 'A' block, 2nd main, Ayyappa Nagar, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru.
V - DETAILS OF THE EMAIL ACCOUNTS USED BY THE ACCUSED
56. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was using the email accounts '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]' and 58 Spl.C.No.272/2015 '[email protected]'. In order to prove the said facts, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K., PW.20 - Shri Senthil Kumar, PW.6 - Shri Ashuthoshkumar, PW.7 - Shri Rajashekhar and documentary evidence at Ex.P.10, Ex.P.40(a), Ex.P.128 to Ex.P.131, Ex.P.131(a) and Ex.P.138.
57. As discussed supra, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has testified that he requested PW.20 - Shri Senthil Kumar to provide the details of the bank account of the accused and PW.20 has testified that he provided the bank details of the accused in response to the notice issued by PW.40. The said facts have been proved by the prosecution with cogent and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the statement of account of the accused is marked as Ex.P.40(a). A perusal of the said document, the accused has given his email address as '[email protected]' at the undisputed point in time. Hence, the said document is sufficient to hold that the accused was using '[email protected]' email account.
58. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that the accused opened his twitter account in the presence of PW.6 - Shri Ashuthosh Kumar and PW.7 - Shri Rajashekar by entering his credentials and opened the custom lists created by him. In this process, the accused disclosed his E-mail ID used for opening Shamiwitness Twitter account as '[email protected]. He has further deposed that he prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.10.
59Spl.C.No.272/2015
59. PW.6 - Shri Ashuthosh Kumar and PW.7 - Shri Rajashekar have deposed that the accused opened his twitter account by entering his username and password. In this regard, PW.40 prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.10 in their presence and obtained their signatures on the said mahajar.
60. A perusal of Ex.P.10, the accused was provided with computer with internet connection. Then the accused opened his twitter account by entering his username and password. The accused opened the custom lists created by him. Further, PW.40 exercised the option in 'settings' to view the profile of the accused in the said twitter account. When PW.40 clicked the said option, the username and the email account used for opening the twitter account were opened. The email ID used for opening the twitter account is '[email protected]'.
61. A perusal of the aforesaid evidence, PW.40 has deposed that the accused disclosed his email ID. In fact, the accused has not disclosed his email ID, but PW.40 opened the profile of the accused by exercising an option in 'settings' and came to know about the email account of the accused i.e., '[email protected]'. During the investigation, the email account of the accused i.e., [email protected] was revealed for the first time.
62. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that on 19.12.2014 he sent an email to Facebook Inc. to provide the IP access details in respect of facebook profile '[email protected]' as per Ex.P128 and received the acknowledgments as per Ex.P129 and Ex.P130 in response to 60 Spl.C.No.272/2015 his notice. On the same day, he received reply from facebook as per Ex.P131 and it contains the registered email address as [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]. All the IP addresses being used from 04.01.2011 to 19.12.2014 were given in Ex.P131.
63. A perusal of Ex.P.131 and Ex.P.131(a), facebook Inc. has provided registered email addresses used by the accused on his facebook account. As per the said document, '[email protected]' and '[email protected]' are registered email addresses of the accused.
64. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that on 24.12.2014, DCP Crime sent the mail - Ex.P.165 containing two attachments. The first attachment contain the details of account of Shamiwitness providing his twitter unique ID i.e., 57914577 with email address [email protected], the date of creation of account as 18.07.2009, the country where the twitter account is operated as India and the last date and time when the account was accessed by the user with profile picture. The other twitter accounts are pertaining to the suspected ISIS accounts with whom the accused had communication. It also provides the details of those accounts. The said attachments are marked as Ex.P166.
65. A perusal of Ex.P.166, Twitter Inc. has provided the details of @shamiwitness twitter handle and some other twitter handles such as twitter ID, twitter handle name, registered email address, date of creation of twitter handle, the name of the 61 Spl.C.No.272/2015 country where the twitter handle was created, last time when the account was accessed by the user, creation IP and the profile picture. As per the said document, the registered email ID of shamiwitness twitter handle is [email protected] and it was created on 18.07.2009.
66. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that the accused was questioned regarding the status of his email and facebook accounts in the form of a questionnaire - Ex.P138. At that time, the accused informed him that he does not remember his password and therefore, he cannot open the email and facebook accounts.
67. A perusal of Ex.P.138, the accused was given the email accounts '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]' and '[email protected]' and questioned regarding the status of the email and facebook accounts used by him. The accused has explained that he activated the email account '[email protected]' in 2006, but he deleted the same on 12.12.2014, he opened the email account '[email protected]' in 2013 and the same was in active, but he does not remember his password, he opened the email account '[email protected]' in 2012 and the same was in active, he opened the email account '[email protected]' in 2012 and the same was in active and he opened the email account 62 Spl.C.No.272/2015 '[email protected]' in 2014 and the same was in active.
68. During the cross-examination of the witnesses, the accused has not elicited anything contrary to the testimony of the above said witnesses.
69. A careful perusal of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution, PW.40 came to know about the registered email address of the accused i.e., [email protected] when he opened the profile of the accused on @shamiwitness twitter account for the first time. Subsequently, Facebook has provided the details of registered email addresses of the accused such as '[email protected]' and '[email protected]' and Twitter Inc. has provided the registered email address of @shamiwitness twitter handle as [email protected]. The accused himself declared his email account '[email protected]' before his banker at the undisputed point in time and the same is reflected in the bank account of the accused.
70. Further, the accused himself explained the status of his email accounts '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]' and '[email protected]' before the investigating officer in his own handwriting. During recording of the statement of the accused as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused nowhere stated that he was threatened or induced to disclose the status of his email accounts. It clearly indicates that the 63 Spl.C.No.272/2015 accused voluntarily disclosed the status of his email accounts before the investigation officer.
71. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the email addresses of the accused is not forthcoming in the voluntary statement of the accused and the accused has not disclosed any email IDs to the investigation officer. Hence, no credence can be given to the alleged email addresses disclosed during the evidence of the investigation officer. It is true that the accused has not disclosed his email addresses to the investigation officer while recording his voluntary statement as argued by the learned counsel for the accused. However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot be brushed aside on the said ground. As discussed supra, PW.40 came to know about the registered email address of @shamiwitness twitter handle when he opened the profile of the accused in @shamiwitness twitter account. PW.40 collected the details of the email addresses of the accused from Twitter Inc., Facebook Inc. and the accused himself has explained the status of his email accounts. The email addresses of the accused are recorded in Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11 and other documents. The prosecution has placed abundant materials to prove the email addresses of the accused by way of oral and documentary evidence and the said evidence is sufficient to hold that the accused was using email addresses '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]', '[email protected]' and '[email protected]'. Hence, the prosecution has proved the said facts with cogent and convincing evidence 64 Spl.C.No.272/2015 beyond reasonable doubt and there is no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused.
VI - APPREHENSION OF THE ACCUSED AND REGISTRATION OF A CASE
72. It is the next contention of the prosecution that PW.2 - Shri K.P. Ravikumar apprehended the accused on 13.12.2014 at around 04.00 to 05.00 a.m. in the house of the accused, produced him before PW.1 - Shri Gunashekar and set the criminal law in motion by lodging the first information statement - Ex.P.1. Based on the said information, PW.1 registered the case at around 08.00 a.m. on 13.12.2014 in Crime No.218/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 125 of IPC, 3, 13, 18 and 39 of U.A.(P) Act and Section 66F of I.T. Act. In order to prove the said facts, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.2 - Shri K.P. Ravikumar, PW.1 - Shri Gunashekar and documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.
73. PW.2 - Shri K.P. Ravikumar has deposed in his evidence that on 12.12.2014 he received an information from reliable source that the accused Mehdi Masroor Biswas was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account and he was from Bengaluru City. Based on the said information, he discussed about the said information with his team members i.e., CW.55 - Shri B. Balaraj and CW.56 - Shri Prakash K. and other Police personnel. They traced the address of the accused near Jalahalli Cross. Accordingly, on 13.12.2014, at around 04.00 to 05.00 a.m., he and his team went near the house of the accused near Ayyappa Nagar, the team visited the house bearing No.A.14 on the 2nd floor of Sujatha building and apprehended the accused.
65Spl.C.No.272/2015 Thereafter, he took the accused to Gangammanagudi Police Station and produced him before the Station House Officer (for short 'SHO') of the said Police Station and lodged the first information Statement - Ex.P.1.
74. PW.1 - Shri Gunashekar has deposed in his evidence that on 13.12.2014, at 08.00 a.m., when he was the SHO of Gangammanagudi Police Station, PW.2 - Shri K.P. Ravikumar and his team brought the accused and lodged the first information statement. Based on the said information - Ex.P.1, he registered the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 125 of IPC, 3, 13, 18 and 39 of U.A.(P) Act and Section 66(F) of I.T. Act and forwarded the First Information Report - Ex.P.2 to the Court through CW.42.
75. Though PW.2 has been testified at length, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.2 in respect of the apprehension of the accused in the house bearing No.A.14, 2 nd Floor, Ayyappa Nagar, Jalahalli, Bengaluru and nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 regarding production of the accused before him and lodging of Ex.P.1 - the first information statement. Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW.2 apprehended the accused in the house bearing No.A.14, 2nd Floor, Ayyappa Nagar, Jalahalli, Bengaluru and produced him before PW.1 - Shri Gunashekar and PW.1 registered the case in Crime No.218/2014 for the aforesaid offences with cogent and convincing evidence.
66Spl.C.No.272/2015 VII - HANDING OVER THE INVESTIGATION TO CCB
76. It is the contention of the prosecution that the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City and PW.30 - Shri Abhishek Goyal, DCP (Crime), Bengaluru ordered the transfer of investigation to PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. Accordingly, PW.1 - Shri Gunashekar transferred the investigation and handed over the case papers to PW.40. PW.40 conducted the investigation of the case. In order to prove the said facts, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.1 - Shri Gunashekara, PW.30 - Shri Abhishek Goyal, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. and the documentary evidence at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.
77. PW.1 has deposed in his evidence that as per the order of the Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City, he handed over the case papers as well as the investigation of the case to PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. PW.30 has deposed in his evidence that he directed PW.1 to hand over the investigation to PW.40. PW.40 has deposed in his evidence that he took up the further investigation of the case in Crime No.218/2014 of Gangammanagudi Police Station from PW.1 as per the memos - Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 issued by the DCP (Crime), Bengaluru and the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City.
78. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.40, the accused has not seriously disputed about handing over of the investigation from PW.1 - Shri Gunashekar to PW.40- Shri Thammaiah M.K. Hence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW.1 handed over further 67 Spl.C.No.272/2015 investigation of the case in Crime No.218/2014 of Gangammanagudi Police Station to PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. as per the order passed by the DCP (Crime), Bengaluru and the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City as per the memos Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 respectively with cogent and convincing evidence.
VIII - HANDLER OF @SHAMIWITNESS TWITTER HANDLE
79. It is the next contention of the prosecution that the accused was operating @shamiwitness twitter handle from 18.07.2009 to 12.12.2014. In order to prove the said fact, The prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K., PW.6 - Shri Ashuthosh Kumar, PW.7 - Shri R. Rajashekar, PW.8 - Sri Gangadhar Datanal, PW.15 - Sri G. Manoharan, PW.27 - Sri Agnelo Stanly, PW.32 - Smt C. Srividya and PW.38 - Sri Joseph Anthony and documentary evidence at Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14, Ex.P.35, Ex.P.52 to Ex.P.57, Ex.P.67, Ex.P.73, Ex.P.74, Ex.P.82 to Ex.P.84, Ex.P.91, Ex.P.99, Ex.P.106, Ex.P.107, Ex.P.109 Ex.P.115, Ex.P.120 to Ex.P.122, Ex.P.188, Ex.P.190, Ex.P.193 to Ex.P.199, Ex.P.280 and M.Os.13, M.O.14, M.O.16, M.O.17, M.O.83. M.O.84 and etc. VIII (A) - VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND OPENING OF @SHAMIWITNESS TWITTER ACCOUNT BY THE ACCUSED
80. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that he interrogated and recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. The accused has stated before him 68 Spl.C.No.272/2015 that "if I am allowed to access the internet, I would cooperate with the Police and provide the details of all the email IDs, facebook profiles, twitter accounts created by me, open them and show the data in those accounts and also explain about the tweets done on "@shamiwitness" twitter account. I would also share the details of persons (jihadis) who are my followers of my @shamiwitness twitter account including those who were motivated to join ISIS seeing my tweets, blogs and social medial postings" as per Ex.P.115.
81. PW.40 has further deposed that the accused asked him to provide a computer system with Internet connection. Accordingly, he provided the Desktop Computer System available at his Office with BSNL Broadband line Internet on 14.12.2014. The accused entered his ID/username as "Shamiwitness" and entered his password as 'tripolitofezzan@67' to open his twitter account. He has further deposed that the moment the accused entered his password, Shamiwitness twitter account was opened. At the home page of Shamiwitness twitter handle, the name Shamiwitness was written in bold letters. The said home page also had a profile picture of a person's painting. The said profile picture was of Khalid Bin Walid, who was the Army Commander of the Army of the Prophet Mohammed and the subsequent Khalifs. He took the screen shots of the home page and pasted the same in the mahajar. During the said process, the accused opened the custom lists and he took the screenshots of 23 custom lists. He downloaded a software called 'BB flashback express recorder' to browse and download the tweets of the followers of 69 Spl.C.No.272/2015 @shamiwitness twitter account. The accused disclosed his email ID used for opening @shamiwitness twitter account as '[email protected]'. The accused also disclosed the password of the said email as 'stormultronwhy@7'. The screen shots of the same were taken and pasted in the mahajar. He made attempts to download archive of tweets and re-tweets of the said account, but he could not download the entire archive of tweets and re-tweets due to some technical problem. In this regard, he prepared the mahajar - Ex.P.10 in the presence of PW.6 - Shri Ashuthosh Kumar and PW.7 - Shri R. Rajashekar.
82. PW.6 - Shri Ashuthosh Kumar has deposed in his evidence that he visited Adugodi Technical Support Center, Bengaluru at 02.30 p.m. on 14.12.2014. At that point in time, Shri Thammaiah, PW.7 - Shri Rajashekar, the accused and one technical assistant were present in the said center. He was served with the notice - Ex.P.7 in the said center. He has further deposed that the accused was called upon by the investigating officer to open his twitter account @shamiwitness. The accused opened @Shamiwitness twitter account by entering his twitter ID and password. There were 23 custom lists in the said twitter account and the accused opened the said 23 custom lists. The screen shots of 23 custom lists were taken. While downloading the custom lists, an error was found. The Investigating Officer and his assistant took the screenshot of the said error. The said 23 custom lists were burnt into 3 separate CDs. Two CDs - M.O.13 and M.O.14 were packed and sealed in his presence and the Investigating Officer retained the remaining one CD. In this regard, the Investigating Officer prepared the mahajar -
70Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.10 and he affixed his signatures on the CDs and the mahajar. The screen shots taken during the extraction process were pasted in the mahajar. The extraction process was not completed due to technical error. Therefore, PW.40 changed the password of shamiwitness twitter account. The changed password was written on a paper - Ex.P.9 and the same was packed and sealed in his presence and he affixed his signature on the said document.
83. PW.7 - Shri R. Rajashekar has deposed in his evidence that PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. called him as a witness in this case. Accordingly, he visited the Technical Center, Adugodi. PW.6 - Shri Ashuthosh Kumar, ACP - Shri Thammaiah M.K. and the accused were present in the said Technical Center. PW.40 called upon the accused to open @Shamiwitness twitter account and the accused opened the said twitter account. Upon examination of the said twitter account, they found 23 different groups and tweets of different persons. PW.40 created a new folder in the said system and took the screenshots of main screen and recorded the different tweets. The same were copied to different CDs. The said proceedings was conducted from 03.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. on 14.12.2014. In the course of examination of the said twitter account, an error occurred and further proceedings was deferred. PW.40 changed the password in their presence and obtained his signatures as well as the signatures of PW.6 - Shri Ashuthosh Kumar on the mahajar and CDs.
71Spl.C.No.272/2015
84. A careful perusal of the aforesaid evidence, PW.40 has testified that the accused voluntarily disclosed to open his twitter handle, email IDs, facebook profile, etc., and therefore, the accused was provided with the desktop computer with BSNL broadband line internet connection. Thereafter, the accused entered his user name as 'Shamiwitness' and entered his password as 'tripolitofezzan@67' to open his twitter account. The moment the accused entered his password, Shamiwitness twitter account was opened. PW.6 and PW.7 have testified that the accused entered his credentials and opened his twitter handle @shamiwitness in their presence.
85. PW.6 and PW.7 have been cross-examined at length, but nothing has been elicited from their mouth contrary to their testimony. PW.6 has reiterated during the cross examination that the user ID of @shamiwitness twitter handle is 'shamiwitness'. PW.7 has answered Q.3 and Q.6 at page No.11 of his cross- examination as follows;
"Q.3 : I put it to you that all the screenshots found in Ex.P.10 were in Internet and the same were downloaded and then screenshots were taken?
Ans : False. Internet was logged in by using "Username" and "Password" then Account was open thereafter screenshots were taken Q.6 : Could you answer the Name of screen, Username pertaining to Ex.P.10?
Ans : I have not understand the Name of screen. But the Username used was Shamiwitness. Witness volunteers that the password was entered by accused."
86. Further, PW.7 has answered Q.2 at page No.12 of his cross-examination as follows;
72Spl.C.No.272/2015 "Q : I put it to you that the 23 groups referred to by you in your chief examination was told to you by Thammaiah? Ans : Thammaiah had shown me the said 23 groups as I was in front of the system."
87. Further, PW.7 has answered Q.1 and Q.2 at page No.16 of his further cross-examination as follows;
"Q.1 : Can you answer on what basis you do say that Shamiwtienss did belong to accused?
Ans : I do say so, basing upon the fact of using Username and password by the accused. The moment the said Username and Password were feeded, account was opened. The said account had displayed the Shamiwitness and its details including email ID and profiles.
Q.2 : You please go through Ex.P.10 and answer as to whether Ex.P.10 does display email ID and profile belonging to accused? Ans : Now, I go through Ex.P.10, the page 3 of Ex.P.10 does display profile."
88. The evidence of PW.7 clearly establishes that he was very much present at the time of opening @shamiwitness twitter account by the accused. PW.6 and PW.7 have also stated the username of @shamiwitness twitter handle as 'shamiwitness' and it belongs to the accused. Even during the cross- examination of PW.40, nothing has been elicited from his mouth contrary to the aforesaid evidence and there is no denial from the accused that PW.6 and PW.7 were not present at Technical center Adugodi and the accused never opened his @shamiwitness twitter handle in their presence. The evidence of the said witnesses clearly goes to show that the accused opened his @shamiwitness twitter account in the presence of panch witnesses by entering his username and password.
89. The learned counsel for the accused argued before the court that the accused has not disclosed the username and 73 Spl.C.No.272/2015 password of the alleged @shamiwitness twitter handle in his voluntary statement. He further argued that PW.6 and PW.7 have not stated about the username and password or passcode of @shamiwitness twitter account in their examination-in-chief.
"Shamiwitness" and 'tripolitofezzan@67' are not password or passcode as deposed by PW.40 in his examination-in-chief. These passwords are not forthcoming in the voluntary statement of the accused. If the prosecution is able to prove the said password or passcode, there is a strong case for the prosecution, but there is no material to connect the accused to the said passwords or passcode. He further argued that PW.40 admitted in his cross-examination that the accused has not disclosed email IDs, passcodes or passwords in his voluntary statement. This admission falsifies the version of the prosecution. PW.40 introduced the username and password for the first time in the witness box. Hence, no credence can be given to the said password or passcode. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Selvi Vs. State of Karnataka reported in MANU/SC/0325/10, Nandini Sathpathy Vs. P.L. Danis reported in MANU/SC/0139/1978, State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad reported in MANU/SC/0134/1961 and Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in MANU/SC/0246/1980 in support of his arguments.
90. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused voluntarily disclosed his username and password to open @shamiwitness twitter account. The accused was provided with 74 Spl.C.No.272/2015 the computer with active internet connection and the accused typed his username and password to open his twitter account. The witnesses were unable to read the password entered by the accused and it is humanly impossible to remember the password and depose during the trial. But they have stated the username of the twitter account of the accused. He further argued that recording voluntary statement of an accused is only a formality, but there is no hard and fast rule to record the voluntary statement of the accused in a particular manner or in a particular format. The investigating officer has recorded the username and password disclosed by the accused in the mahajar. It is more than enough to show that the accused voluntarily disclosed his username and password. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance at para 9 of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Virendra Khanna Vs. State of Karnataka and others, Writ Petition No.11759/2020(GM-RES), decided on 12.03.2021 reported in MANU/KA/0728/2021 which reads as follows;
"9. ANSWER POINT No.1: Can a direction be issued to an accused to furnish the password, passcode or Biometrics in order to open the smartphone and/or email account?
9.1. The Investigating Officer, during the course of an investigation, could always issue any direction and/or make a request to the accused or other persons connected with the matter to furnish information, to provide material objects or the like. These directions are routine in any investigation. Thus, during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer could always request and/or direct the accused to furnish the password, passcode or Biometrics, enabling the opening of the smartphone and/or email account. It is up to the accused to accede to the said request and or directions. If the accused were to provide such a password, passcode or Biometrics, the Investigating Officer could make use of the same and gain an access to the same."75
Spl.C.No.272/2015
91. It is laid down in the said decision that during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer could always request and/or direct the accused to furnish the password, passcode or Biometrics, enabling the opening of the smartphone and/or email account. It is up to the accused to accede to the said request and/or directions. If the accused were to provide such a password, passcode or Biometrics, the Investigating Officer could make use of the same and gain an access to the same. In this case, as discussed supra, the accused disclosed to open his email accounts, facebook, twitter account, etc., if he was provided with a computer with internet connection. Accordingly, PW.40 provided the computer with active internet connection and the accused opened his twitter account @shamiwitness by entering the username and password. A perusal of Ex.P.10, the username and password used by the accused to open his twitter account are recorded. In view of the said decision, the investigating officer could issue direction to the accused to disclose his password, passcode or Biometrics, but in this case, the accused himself voluntarily entered his username and password to open his twitter account @shamiwitness.
92. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Selvi's case, Nandini Sathpathy's case, Kathi Kalu Oghad's case and Ritesh Sinha's case supra are not considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the aforesaid decision. Hence, it is a per incurium judgment and it is not proper to rely upon the said decision.
76Spl.C.No.272/2015
93. This court has gone through the aforesaid decision meticulously. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the said case has brought the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Selvi's case, Nandini Sathpathy's case, Kathi Kalu Oghad's case and Ritesh Sinha's case supra to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka during the arguments. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, after considering the ratio laid down in the said decisions, has laid down the law that the investigating officer could issue direction to the accused to disclose his password, passcode or Biometrics to gain an access to the mobile, computer, email, etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is a per incurium judgment. Since the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has already considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Selvi's case, Nandini Sathpathy's case, Kathi Kalu Oghad's case and Ritesh Sinha's case supra, there is no need to reconsider the said decision and this court has no right to record findings contrary to the findings recorded by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, this court does not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused.
94. The learned counsel for the accused has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Babu Misra reported in MANU/SC/0246/1980 on the similar contention. This court has meticulously gone through the said decision. In the said case, the question before the Hon'ble Apex Court is that the court has power to direct an accused to give his specimen writing or signature for the purpose of comparison with certain disputed 77 Spl.C.No.272/2015 writing under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act when the case was still under investigation and the Hon'ble Apex Court has answered the said question in the negative. The said decision does not relate to the facts involved in this case. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has clearly held that the investigating officer could direct and/or request an accused to disclose his password to gain an access to any mobile, computer, email, etc. which is directly on the point involved in this case. Hence, with great respect to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the law laid down in the said decision is not aptly applicable to the facts involved in this case.
95. Further, Shamiwitness is not the password or passcode as argued by the learned counsel for the accused. It is an username. The accused has clearly stated in his voluntary statement that if he was allowed to access the internet, he would provide the details of all the email IDs, facebook profiles, twitter accounts created by him, open them and show the data in those accounts. As per the voluntary statement of the accused, PW.40 provided the computer with active internet connection and the accused voluntarily opened his @shamiwitness twitter account. There is no hard and fast rule that the voluntary statement of the accused has to be recorded in a particular format. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has rightly pointed out that the username and password disclosed by the accused are recorded in the mahajar -Ex.P.10 and it is more than enough to show that the voluntarily disclosed his username and password. Hence, there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
78Spl.C.No.272/2015
96. A careful perusal of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has produced materials before this court to show that @shamiwitness twitter account belongs to the accused and he was operating the said account. The investigating officer did not keep quite saying that the accused opened his @shamiwitness twitter account by entering his username and password and the said account belongs to him. He continued the investigation to collect other materials to prove that the accused was operating @shamiwitness twitter handle. This court proceeds to examine the other evidence collected by the investigating officer to connect the accused to @shamiwitness twitter handle.
VIII(B) - TWITTER FURNISHED THE OWN ACCOUNT INFORMATION TO THE EMAIL ADDRESS ASSOCIATED WITH @SHAMIWITNESS TWITTER ACCOUNT IN ARCHIVE
97. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that the accused disclosed his e-mail ID used for opening @shamiwitness twitter handle as "[email protected]"
and also disclosed the password of the said e-mail as "stormultronwhy@7". He has further deposed that Twitter has given options to every account holder to download all his tweets. Therefore, the said option was exercised by going to "account settings" and a request was placed for archive. After request being made, the accused opened his e-mail account. He has further deposed that on opening the said e-mail account, they found an e-mail received from Twitter with the subject "your twitter download is ready, shamiwitness". Upon clicking on the e- mail, there was a link. On clicking on the link, the link 79 Spl.C.No.272/2015 automatically led them to @shamiwitness twitter account. In the Shamiwitness twitter account, there is a download option to be followed. They started downloading the archive of tweets and re- tweets, but the download could not be completed due to some technical problem. As it was late and it was difficult to download further, they were constrained to change password. The changed password was noted down in a separate paper - Ex.P.8 and the same was kept in a sealed cover - Ex.P.9.
98. PW.40 has further deposed that he called panchas by name PW.8 - Shri Gangadhara Datanal and PW.7 - Shri S. Rajashekar in order to extract archive of the direct messages of the account Shamiwitness sent by Twitter to the e-mail account of the accused. He has further deposed that he opened article No.13 in which he kept the changed password packed on previous occasion in the presence of panchas. He has further deposed that the accused volunteered to open his e-mail account "[email protected]" and the accused typed his password as "stormultronwhy@7". He has further deposed that after logging into the e-mail account of the accused, the link to download the archive data sent by Twitter on 14.12.2014 was clicked. The said link led them to the Twitter account of Shamiwitness. A download button was seen there. The said download button was clicked and download started. He has further deposed that when he attempted to download, it showed technical error. When e-mails were opened from the e-mail, it was found that Twitter Legal sent two attachments namely "Shamiwitness-dms.txt" (12mb) and "Shamiwitness-tweets.txt"
(22mb). Both those attachments were downloaded and saved on 80 Spl.C.No.272/2015 the desktop of the Computer. He has further deposed that when the downloaded attachments were opened, it was found that the said attachments were consisted of all tweets and direct messages of @shamiwitness twitter account. He has further deposed that the said files were burnt into 3 DVDs separately.
The burnt DVDs were packed and sealed separately and sealed as Articles 19 to 21. Article 19 is marked as M.O.16 and Article 20 is marked as Ex.P.91. He has further deposed that they changed the password of the said e-mail account and twitter account. The changed password was recorded on the plain paper, packed in a sealed cover and marked as Article 18 which is marked as Ex.P.13. He has further deposed that a detail panchanama was drawn in respect of the above said proceeding as per Ex.P.11 and he issued the certificate under Sec.65B as per Ex.P.120. He has further deposed that he took printouts of all the contents of article Nos.19 and 20 - Ex.P.121 and he issued 11 separate certificates as per Ex.P.122 in respect of Ex.P.121. The printing of downloads was completed on 22.12.2014.
99. PW.8 - Shri Gangadhar Datanal has deposed in his evidence that he was asked to be present at Adugodi in Bengaluru by issuing notice - Ex.P.15. In response to the notice, he visited Adugodi at 04.30 p.m. on 15.12.2014. At that relevant place and time, the investigating officer and his personnel, another witness by name Shri Rajashekar and the accused were present there. He has further deposed that the accused was called upon to open his email account. Accordingly, the accused opened his email account. He has further deposed that on 81 Spl.C.No.272/2015 examination of the said mail account, two new mails were found in its Inbox. On further examination of the said mails, one of the mails was the text mail, whereas another was the compressed .rar file. As the size of .rar file being huge, the investigation officer obtained the printout i.e., hard copy and therefore, he was constrained to save the file to DVD. The said two contents were later downloaded and the same were burnt into DVDs in three sets. He has further deposed that the investigating officer changed the password for the security purpose. The changed password was written on a paper. He has further deposed that in the course of proceedings, the investigating officer took screenshots and the sample of seals were also provided to him. In this regard, the mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P.11.
100. PW.7 - Shri Rajashekar has deposed in his evidence that he was summoned and called upon by the investigating officer on 15.12.2014. Accordingly, he visited the Technical Center, Adugodi at 04.00 p.m. on 15.12.2014 and one Shri Gangadhar was also present there. He has further deposed that on 15.12.2014, the said investigating officer Shri Thammaiah opened the twitter account by using changed password. On opening, no error was found as BSNL network was in good condition. In furtherance, the investigating officer called upon the accused to open his mail account. Accordingly, the accused opened his e-mail account. He has further deposed that upon opening the mail account at the instance of the investigating officer, they found two new mails in Inbox. The said two new mails were found to have been sent by Twitter. The said mails 82 Spl.C.No.272/2015 reflected the entire tweets and re-tweets of '@Shamiwitness' in compressed form. The said mails were downloaded and burnt into a DVD - M.O.16. The said DVD was packed and sealed. On 15.12.2014 another mahajar was drawn as per Ex.P.11. He has further deposed that at the conclusion of the proceedings on 15.12.2014, the investigating officer again changed the password. The new password changed on 15.12.2014 was written in a paper - Ex.P.13 and kept in sealed cover.
101. A perusal of the testimony of PW.7, PW.8, PW.40 and documentary evidence at Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, PW.40 exercised the option to view the profile of the twitter account in 'settings' and got the email address associated with @shamiwitness twitter handle i.e. '[email protected]'. Thereafter, the accused voluntarily disclosed the password of the said email account as 'stormultronwhy@7'. The same were recorded in the mahajar - Ex.P.10. PW.40 exercised the option in 'settings' to download the tweets made by the accused in archive form. Accordingly, the twitter sent the archive form of tweets made by the accused to the email address of the accused which was associated with @shamiwitness twitter account. Therefore, the accused voluntarily opened his email account by entering his password. The twitter sent a link to the said email to download the tweets. On clicking the said link, it took back to the twitter web page where a download option was provided to download the archive of tweets made by the accused on @shamiwitness twitter handle. Due to some technical error, PW.40 could not download the tweets. The same was recorded in Ex.P.10 - Mahajar.
83Spl.C.No.272/2015
102. Subsequently, on 15.12.2014, PW.40 secured the presence of PW.7 and PW.8 to download the archive of all tweets made by the accused on @shamiwitness twitter handle. The accused opened his email account in the presence of PW.7 and PW.8. Twitter legal sent two attachments namely "Shamiwitness-dms.txt" (12mb) and "Shamiwitness-tweets.txt"
(22mb) to the email account of the accused. Then PW.40 downloaded the said attachments and burnt into DVDs - MO.16 and Ex.P.91. This process was recorded in writing as per Ex.P.11.
103. During the cross-examination, PW.40, PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8 were testified at length, but nothing has been elicited contrary to their testimony. The testimony of the said witnesses is in corroboration with each other. The learned counsel for the accused raised the same contention during his arguments that the password or passcode is not forthcoming in the voluntary statement of the accused and PW.40 has admitted the said fact in his cross-examination. Hence, no credence can be given to the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. It is pertinent to note that this court has already answered the said contention in the aforesaid paragraphs and there is no need to answer the said contention once again. Hence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence that Twitter legal sent two mails containing all direct messages and tweets/re-tweets made by the accused on his shamiwitness twitter account to the email account [email protected] which was associated with @shamiwitness twitter account and PW.40 downloaded the same and burnt into DVDs. This is one 84 Spl.C.No.272/2015 more strong circumstance to prove that the accused was the operator of @shamiwitness twitter handle.
VIII(C) - SEIZURE OF LAPTOP AND ITS CONTENTS
104. As discussed supra, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. and PW.3 - Shri Hariprasad have testified that the DELL Inspiron N5110 Laptop - M.O.1, one hard disk - M.O.2, one Motorola Mobile phone with dual sim - M.O.3, one Samsung duos Mobile with dual sim - M.O.4, one D-link WiFi router - M.O.5, the brown colour wallet - M.O.6 containing cash of Rs.870 - M.O.6(g), an ID card issued by M/s. ITC - M.O.6(c), a PAN card - M.O.6(d), HDFC Bank and Axis bank debit cards (total 3 in numbers) - M.O.6(e), Electricity bill - M.O.6(f), the Micromax Internet Dongal with BSNL sim card - M.O.7, 2 PEN drives - M.O.8 and M.O.9, Passport issued by Calcutta Passport Authority - M.O.10, a cover containing school and college certificates - M.O.11, rental agreement - Ex.P.6, Insurance Policy bond - M.O.11(b), Employment Offer letter - M.O.11(a) and 3 small books printed in Arabic as well as Bengali language - M.O.12 in the house of the accused under the Mahajar - Ex.P.5 and the said facts have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
105. PW.40 has deposed that he prepared a request letter- Ex.P.45 addressed to FSL, Hyderabad with a request to examine all the digital material objects recovered during the investigation and to give opinion and sent the same to the DCP to endorse a covering letter. The said articles were sent through Shri. J. Ashok, PI with interstate passport - Ex.P47 and he 85 Spl.C.No.272/2015 brought the acknowledgment - Ex.P.48 by submitting the said articles to CFSL, Hyderabad.
106. PW.22 - Shri Srinivasa Rao, Technical Support Center, CCB, Bengaluru has deposed in his evidence that he and the Sub-Inspector by name Shri Ashok were called upon by the investigating officer - ACP Shri Thammaiah to submit 8 articles to CFSL, Hyderabad. Accordingly, he and the said Officer Shri Ashok (CW.51) left for Hyderabad on 04.01.2015 and reached Hyderabad on 05.01.2015. They handed over the said 8 articles to CFSL, Hyderabad and collected acknowledged for having deposited the said 8 articles.
107. PW.39 - Smt. M. Maheshwari, Scientist B(Physics), CFSL, Kolkata has deposed in her evidence that the Director of CFSL, Hyderabad received a requisition on 05.01.2015, along with 8 parcels in sealed cover pertaining to a case in Cr.No.218/14 of Gangammanagudi Police station through DCP Bengaluru for scientific examination of certain Electronic items. She has further deposed that on 05.01.2015, the scientific examination work was allotted to her. Accordingly, she received the above said sealed Articles and commenced the work on 14.01.2015. She has further deposed that when she opened the above said sealed articles, there was one Laptop - M.O.1 with Hard disk - M.O.1(a) (parcel No.1), a Portable Hard disk - M.O.2 (parcel No.2), a Mobile phone with one sim card - M.O.3 (parcel No.3), another Mobile phone with 2 sim cards - M.O.4 (parcel No.4), one WiFi router - M.O.5 (parcel No.5), one Modem - M.O.7 (parcel No.6), one PEN drive - M.O.8 (parcel No.7) and 86 Spl.C.No.272/2015 another PEN drive - M.O.9 (parcel No.8). She has further deposed that the investigating officer asked them to identify pictures/videos/audios/files, if any, in any format pertaining to ISIS, ISIL, Jihad, Al-Qaeda & ISI in the given articles. The given articles/parcels were analyzed by using authorized Software and Hardware as per the Rules of Computer Forensics Working Procedure Manual adopted by CFSL, Hyderabad. She has further deposed that the data relevant to the query was found in the Hard disk, which is marked as MO.1(a). On keyword search conducted, the files related to @Shamiwitness, Mehdi Masroor, Syria, Caliphate, Assad, Al-sham, were found as Twitter tweets. The retrieved data along with the Registry details and the Software programs installed were given. She has further deposed that pursuant to her examination, she supplied softcopy of all data retrieved, i.e., about 523 MB. The CD containing the retrieved data was assigned with number CAH-01-2015-CD, besides her signature. The CD is marked as Ex.P.110 and Sec.65B certificate is marked as Ex.P.111. The report of her examination is marked as Ex.P.112.
108. PW.40 has further deposed that on 09.05.2015, PW.28 Shri Firoj Khan brought the report - Ex.P.112 and articles from CFSL, Hyderabad and produced before him. CFSL sent one analysis report in a CD - Ex.P.110 and asked him to take its print out. Accordingly, he took printouts of the contents of CD sent by CFSL, Hyderabad which is marked as Ex.P.253. He issued the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.254 pertaining to Ex.P253.
87Spl.C.No.272/2015
109. PW.28 - Shri Firoz Khan has deposed in his evidence that on 09.05.2015, he was directed by the investigating officer to bring the report and exhibits from CFSL, Hyderabad. He and the Police Constable by name Shri Srinivasa Rao collected the report as well as exhibits from CFSL, Hyderabad on 11.05.2015 and left for Bengaluru. They reached Bengaluru on 12.05.2015 and submitted the report along with the above said materials to the investigating officer.
110. A perusal of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, PW.40 has testified that he seized laptop - MO.1 and other articles i.e., MO.2 to MO.12 from the house of the accused in the presence of independent witnesses. He sent the laptop and other digital devices to CFSL, Hyderabad for forensic examination through PW.22. PW.22 has testified that he and Shri Ashok submitted 08 articles to CFSL, Hyderabad as per the direction of the Investigating Officer, brought an acknowledgment from CFSL, Hyderabad and produced the same before PW.40. PW.39 has testified that 8 parcels in sealed cover were sent to their laboratory for forensic examination along with a request letter. The Investigating Officer asked them to identify pictures/videos/audios/files, if any, in any format pertaining to ISIS, ISIL, Jihad, Al-Qaeda & ISI in the given articles. The data relevant to the query was found in the Hard disk, which is marked as MO.1(a). On keyword search conducted, the files related to @Shamiwitness, Mehdi Masroor, Syria, Caliphate, Assad, Al-sham, were found as Twitter tweets and she supplied soft copy of all data retrieved, i.e., about 523 MB to the Investigation Officer with a direction to take print out of 88 Spl.C.No.272/2015 the said retrieved data. PW.28 has testified that he collected the report and articles from CFSL, Hyderabad and produced the same before PW.40. PW.40 has testified that PW.28 collected the report and the articles from CFSL, Hyderabad and produced the same before him and he took the print out of the same.
111. Though PW.40, PW.22, PW.39 and PW.28 have been cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited contrary to their testimony. During the cross-examination of PW.39, the accused raised the contention that she was not a Central Government notified Examiner of Electronic Evidence, but she denied the said contention. However, she has testified that the CFSL, Hyderabad was notified as Examiner of Electronic Evidence in 2018.
112. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.39 is not the notified Examiner of Electronic Evidence and the Central Government notified the CFSL, Hyderabad as the Examiner of Electronic Evidence in 2018. He further argued that in this case, the electronic gadgets were sent to CFSL, Hyderabad for examination in 2015 and CFSL, Hyderabad was not notified as Examiner of Electronic Evidence in 2015. Hence, PW.39 or the Director of CFSL, Hyderabad was not competent to conduct the examination of electronic evidence. Therefore, the report submitted by PW.39 has no legal sanctity in the eye of law.
113. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that though the CFSL, Hyderabad was not notified as Examiner of Electronic Evidence in 2015, the evidence of PW.39 89 Spl.C.No.272/2015 cannot be brushed aside only on the said ground. In 2015, the Central Government had not notified any person or any Forensic Science Laboratory as Examiner of Electronic Evidence as per Section 79A of the Information Technology Act. Hence, this court court can rely upon the evidence of PW.39. In support of his arguments, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa Vs. Jayanta Kumar Das, reported in MANU/SCOR/37376/2016.
114. This court has meticulously gone through the said decision. In the aforesaid case, CFSL, Kolkata was not notified as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under section 79A of the Information Technology Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner-State submitted before the Hon'ble Apex Court that though the said laboratory was not notified as Examiner of Electronic Evidence, the report submitted by CFSL, Kolkata is admissible under section 293 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the trial court to examine the plea of the petitioner while carrying out the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, it is just and proper to examine whether the report submitted by PW.39 is admissible under section 293 of Cr.P.C. In order to appreciate the said facts, it is apposite to extract section 293 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows;
293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts :- (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.
90Spl.C.No.272/2015 (3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf. (4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely;
(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;]
(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e) the Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State forensic Science Laboratory;
(f) the Serologist to the Government.
(g) any other Government scientific Expert specified by notification by the Central Government for this purpose."
115. A plain reading of the aforesaid section, any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; or the Chief Inspector of Explosives; or the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; or the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; or the Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State forensic Science Laboratory; or the Serologist to the Government or any other Government scientific Expert specified by notification by the Central Government for this purpose, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. In this case, PW.39 is a Government Scientific expert working at CFSL, Hyderabad. Her duty is to examine and analyse the electronic evidence at CFSL, Hyderabad. PW.40 91 Spl.C.No.272/2015 sent the seized electronic gadgets to CFSL, Hyderabad for scientific examination. Accordingly, PW.39 examined the electronic gadgets, retrieved the data and submitted the same to PW.40. Therefore, in view of section 293 of Cr.P.C., the report submitted by PW.39 may be used as evidence in this case. Hence, this court has declined to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused.
116. Further, a perusal of Ex.P.253, which is the printout of retrieved data from the hard disc - M.O.1(a), shows the name of the owner of the laptop as Masroor which is the mid name of the accused. It reveals the homepage of @shamiwitness twitter account and other tweets made by the accused. As discussed supra, the accused himself opened @shamiwitness twitter handle in the presence of independent witnesses by entering his credentials and Twitter sent the direct messages and tweets/re- tweets made by the accused to his registered email address which was associated with @shamiwitness twitter account. The data pertaining to @shamiwitness twitter account is found in the laptop seized from the possession of the accused and it corroborates the case of the prosecution that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account. Hence, the same can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence to prove that the accused is the operator of @shamiwitness twitter handle.
VIII(D) - COMPARISON OF VOICE OF THE ACCUSED
117. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.40 -Shri Thammaiah M.K. downloaded the videos pertaining to the interview given by the accused to UK News channel, channel4 92 Spl.C.No.272/2015 from YouTube and google, recorded the voice sample of the accused with his consent, sent the disputed voice and admitted voice to FSL, Bengaluru for comparison and collected the report from FSL, Bengaluru. As per the said report, the disputed voice found in the videos downloaded from google and YouTube matches with the sample voice of the accused.
VIII(D)(i) - REGARDING THE INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY UK NEWS CHANNEL, CHANNEL 4.
118. As discussed supra, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has testified that he sent the request letter - Ex.P.64 to the Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel Limited, Bengaluru to furnish the certified copies of CAFs and CDRs pertaining to mobile numbers 7259520485, 9663871394 and landline number 080-41476668 and PW.27 - Shri Agnelo Stanley has testified that on 26.03.2015, he furnished Call Detail Records (CDRs) for the period from 01.06.2014 to 13.12.2014 - Ex.P.69, the Customer Application Forms (CAFs) of mobile number 7259520485 - Ex.P.65(g), mobile number 9663871394 - Ex.P.65(h) and landline No.41476668 - Ex.P.65(i), Proof of Address (POA) and Proof of Identity (POI) under the covering letter - Ex.P.65 to PW.40.
119. In the aforesaid paragraphs, while discussing about the ownership of the mobile numbers, this Court has already held that mobile No.7259520485 belongs to the accused and the prosecution has proved the said fact beyond reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence.
93Spl.C.No.272/2015
120. A perusal of Ex.P.69, the accused received a call from a number 4044 to his mobile No.7259520485 on 11.12.2014 at 20.16.26 hours and the duration of the said call is 1495 seconds i.e., approximately 25 minutes. Further, the accused received a call from the same number to his mobile No.7259520485 on 12.12.2014 at 16.09.58 hours and the said call duration is 62 seconds. Further, the accused received one more call from the same number to his mobile No.7259520485 on 12.12.2014 itself at 16.34.00 hours and the said call duration is 1320 seconds i.e., 22 minutes. The said calls are not from India, but they are from a foreign country.
121. A perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it is manifest that the accused received the calls from a foreign country. It is the case of the prosecution that the said calls were received by the accused from channel-4 UK.
122. As discussed supra, PW.40 sent notice to Twitter Inc. through PW.30 to provide archive of direct messages. Therefore, Twitter Legal sent the direct messages of @shamiwitness twitter account to the email address associated with the said twitter account and PW.40 downloaded and took the print out of the same.
123. Further, on 17.12.2014, PW.40 secured the panch witnesses and compared the direct messages shared by Twitter Legal with the direct messages found in @shamiwitness twitter account. It appears from the direct messages shared with twitter handle, the accused admitted about the receipt of calls from a channel. The said conversation reads as follows;
94
Spl.C.No.272/2015
Page Exhibit Direct messages sent by Tweets made by twitter
Nos. Nos. the accused handle
77 28 I think they haven't told One brotom twitter who is in
UK or other authorities UK but veru trustworthy and yet: will communicate securely which one or two people? tell me what they told u word for word yes or no 77 28 Their main threat is to release my public profile, they have a convincing case.
They know my personal email ID, my fb, my office, my colleague, my home city as part of trying to convince them to not release public info, I have wait given them my number they know everything 78 28 they knows everything Ok, so yes or no on the help yes, yes obviously thing just keep it secrete reply, fast just keep it secrete 78 28 just keep it secrete Keep the updated wat are their dembds exactly just to understand why u do what u do?
Thats it yo reply 79 28 they want answers to They need account order to questions like whether I release support goals of IS, If I supports suicide attacks. wats he name Okay, dispatch?
yeah for a program tonight Ask em name of prog to understand what I do, why do 95 Spl.C.No.272/2015 79 28 Why will they need court or uk they dint' need account order for a non-UK isder but for non they do citizen? apparently Program name is channel- just wait getting it double 4 news tonight 6pm checked uktime wats the prog name program name is Channel-
4 news tonite 6pm uk time.
80 28 hmm. Ok that waa lame u need a court order to stop then @ Apparently, they will do a big isis thing if it u may her asmal part about his isis using social media assumption guy saying 6pm news is veru brief 80 28 hmm U suud chll they will tell in next hour. They won't expose ur name he says atleast publicly wat are they saying 81 28 They will call in next hour And interview?
yeah, for interview and then
bro, do you know anybody
in India who can help me?
81 28 I have more friends than here
thing is us
say they release ur name
its legal
no one in India can stop it
lawyer can help u from
criminal stuff which I highku
doubt will go down
but when name is out
u will loos job
het blacklisted
124. A perusal of the said conversation, the accused admitted that he received calls from a Channel. This evidence 96 Spl.C.No.272/2015 adduced by the prosecution corroborates with the CDR collected by PW.40 from PW.27. During the cross-examination of the said witnesses, the accused has not elicited anything contrary to their testimony. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the accused received the calls for channel 4 with cogent and convincing evidence.
VIII(D)(ii) - DOWNLOADED VIDEOS FROM GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE
125. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that on 10.03.2015, he secured PW.9 - Shri S. Bhaskaran and PW.7 - Shri S. Rajashekar as panch witnesses to download the interview given by the accused with Channel-4 of UK. He has further deposed that seven videos and audio clippings were downloaded in the presence of the said witnesses and burnt into DVDs - MO.17, MO.83 and MO.84. In this regard, he prepared the mahazar - Ex.P14 in the presence of the said witnesses. During the mahazar, the screenshots were taken and annexed to the said mahazar. He has further deposed that the transcript of interview between the accused and Channel-4, UK was also printed as per Ex.P14(c). In this regard, he issued the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act - Ex.P188.
126. PW.7 - Shri Rajashekar has deposed in his evidence that PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. called him to Technical Center, Adugodi on 10.03.2015. Accordingly, he visited Technical Center Adugodi at 11.30 a.m. The investigating officer searched for videos on Google and downloaded three videos of UK channel. He has further deposed that PW.40 downloaded 97 Spl.C.No.272/2015 four videos of Channel-4 from YouTube. The said downloaded videos were burnt into single DVD in 3 sets - M.O.18. After completion of the same, the Mahazar - Ex.P.14 was prepared.
127. PW.9 - Shri S. Bhaskaran has deposed in his evidence that on 10.03.2015, the investigating officer called him to Technical Support Center, South CAR ground, Adugodi, Bengaluru by issuing the notice as per Ex.P.16 and he visited the said place on the same day at 11.05 a.m. ACP - Shri Thammaiah, his personnel and another witness by name Shri Rajashekar were present in the said center. He was informed that the accused was the handler of '@shamiwitness' twitter account and he was interviewed by UK channel 4. He has further deposed that the investigating officer downloaded videos from Google and YouTube in respect of the interviews given by the accused to UK channel 4 and the said videos were burnt into DVD in 4 sets - M.O.18. The investigating officer took the hard copies of the same as per Ex.P.14(c).
128. A perusal of the evidence of PW.40, PW.7 and PW.9, they have consistently deposed before this Court that PW.40 secured PW.7 and PW.9 to Technical Center, Adugodi and downloaded videos from google and YouTube in respect of the interviews given by the accused to Channel-4, UK. During the cross-examination of the said witnesses, the accused has not elicited anything contrary to their testimony and he himself suggested PW.9 in page No.7 at Q.No.1 that this witness was visited Technical Center, Adugodi. Moreover, there is no specific denial of the said facts during the cross-examination. Hence, the 98 Spl.C.No.272/2015 prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW.40 downloaded seven videos in respect of the interviews given by the accused to Channel-4, UK in the presence of PW.7 and PW.9 with cogent and convincing evidence.
VIII(D)(iii) - RECORDING VOICE SAMPLE OF THE ACCUSED
129. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that on 31.12.2014, he issued a notice - Ex.P.156 to the accused seeking his consent to record his voice sample for the purpose of investigation and the accused consented for the same. He has further deposed that on 31.12.2014, he addressed a letter - Ex.P.157 to the Managing Director M/s. Lahari Recording Company, Yashawanthapura, Bengaluru to arrange for recording the voice sample of the accused. On the same day, he received a letter - Ex.P.158 from the Managing Partner, Lahari Recording Company agreeing to make arrangements for recording the voice sample of the accused. The Managing Director suggested names of two experts viz., Shri. Mirja Hussain and Shri. Sundaramurthy to assist him in recording the voice sample of the accused. He has further deposed that on the same day, he and his staff took the accused to the Lahari Recording Studio for recording his voice sample. With the assistance of the aforesaid experts, he recorded the voice sample of the accused in the studio. The voice sample of the accused was recorded thrice. The same was burnt into three CDs - Ex.P.159, Ex.P.82 and Ex.P.160. The CDs were subjected to PF No.16/2014.
99Spl.C.No.272/2015
130. PW.15 - Shri G. Manoharan, the Managing Director, M/s. Lahari Recording Company, Bengaluru has deposed in his evidence that the Officer Shri Thammaiah approached him and requested to record the voice sample of the accused as it was necessary for the purpose of comparison of recorded voice of the accused with that of the voice found in the videos downloaded from internet. He conceded the said request and instructed his staff by name Shri Mirza Hussain and Shri Sundaramurthy to assist the Officer in recording the voice sample of the accused.
131. PW.16 - Shri Sundaramurthy, the Assistant Engineer, M/s Lahari Recording Company, Bengaluru has deposed in his evidence that he was working as the Assistant Engineer for M/s. Lahari Recording Company. Shri Manoharan was the Managing Director of the said Company. A person by name Shri Mirja Hussain was also working for their Company as Chief Engineer and he is no more. He has further deposed that the Officer Shri Thammaiah brought the accused to their company for the purpose of recording of his voice. He and Shri Mirza Hussain were asked by their Director Manoharan to record the voice sample of the accused. He made arrangements of Mike and other instruments as he was the Assistant Engineer. The written version given by the investigating officer was read over by the accused and the same was recorded by Shri Mirja Hussain. He has further deposed that the recorded voice was burnt into a CD and the same was handed over to the investigation officer. The CD was kept in a sealed cover and he put his signature upon the sealed cover. The Mahajar was drawn in that regard as per 100 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.35 and the same was signed by him and Shri Mirja Hussain. He has further deposed that he issued the certificate as per Ex.P.99 under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the said CD.
132. A perusal of the evidence of PW.40, PW.15 and PW.16, they have testified that PW.40 obtained the consent of the accused to record his voice sample, he took the accused to M/s. Lahari Recording Company, PW.15 - Shri Manoharan directed PW.16 and one Shri Mirja Hussain to assist the investigating officer in recording the voice sample of the accused. Accordingly, PW.16 and Shri Mirja Hussain recorded the voice sample of the accused.
133. During the examination of the accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he nowhere stated that his consent was obtained forcibly to record his voice sample or his voice sample was recorded without his consent. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW.15, it is the defence of the accused that the voice of the accused was imitated with the help of imitators. The same question was put to PW.15 and he has strongly denied the said suggestion. PW.16 reaffirmed during his cross-examination that he was present at the time of recording of voice sample of the accused and he affixed his signature on Ex.P.35. He has strongly denied that he did not record the voice sample of the accused. The accused has not elicited anything contrary to the testimony of PW.40, PW.15 and PW.16 during their cross-examination.
101Spl.C.No.272/2015
134. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses were not present at the time of recording the voice sample of the accused. PW.15 has not testified regarding the presence of the witnesses at the time of recording the voice sample. The investigation officer has to record the voice of the witnesses as per the guidelines, but PW.16 has not stated that he complied the procedure at the time of recording the voice sample of the accused. Hence, the voice sample recorded by the investigation officer cannot be relied upon.
135. It is pertinent to note that PW.15 was the Managing Director of M/s Lahari Recording company. He was not present at the time of recording the voice sample of the accused. He deputed PW.16 and Shri Mirja Hussain to assist the investigation officer at the time of recording the voice sample of the accused. Therefore, he has not stated about the presence of the witnesses at the time of recording the voice sample of the accused. PW.16 and Shri Mirja Hussain are the independent witnesses present at the time of recording the voice sample of the accused. In the opinion of the court, there was no need to secure any other independent witnesses at the time of recording the voice sample of the accused. Further, the learned counsel for the accused has not pointed out the guideline which was not followed by the investigating officer at the time of recording the voice sample of the accused. He did not point out the guideline which mandates the investigation officer to record the voice of the witnesses at the time of recording the voice sample of the accused. Hence, this court does not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused.
102Spl.C.No.272/2015
136. As discussed supra, the prosecution has adduced evidence to show that PW.40 recorded the voice sample of the accused in the presence of PW.16 and Shri Mirja Hussain with the consent of the accused at M/s. Lahari Recording Company for the purpose of sending it to FSL for comparison of speeches downloaded from YouTube and Google. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the aforesaid facts beyond reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence.
VIII(D)(iv) - COMPARISON OF VOICE SAMPLES BY THE EXPERT
137. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that on 17.03.2015, he prepared a letter requesting FSL, Bengaluru to compare the voice sample of the accused with that of the voice found in the interview given by the accused to UK Channel-4. He has further deposed that on 19.03.2015, he sent article Nos.28, 32 and 33 to FSL, Bengaluru for examination through PC No.3377 - Shri G. Suresh with a covering letter - Ex.P55 and Shri G. Suresh brought the acknowledgment - Ex.P.52 for submitting the said articles to FSL, Bengaluru.
138. PW.32 - Smt. C. Srividya, the In-charge Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Madiwala, Bengaluru has deposed in her evidence that on 19.03.2015, a request letter was received in their office from DCP (Crime), Bengaluru City pertaining to Cr.No.218/14. The said request letter was accompanied with three sealed cloth packets. On the same day, the said request letter and three sealed cloth packets were sent to her for comparison of speech samples and the seals found on the cloth 103 Spl.C.No.272/2015 packets were intact and tallied with that of the sample seal sent by the investigating officer. When she opened the sealed cloth packets, she found (1) One CD which is said to contain sample speeches of the accused, which was marked as Article No.28 by the investigating officer, (2) One DVD which is said to contain the downloaded videos from Channel-4 and YouTube having the conversational speeches of the accused, which was marked as Article No.32 by the investigating officer and (3) One DVD which is said to contain the downloaded videos from Channel-4 and YouTube having the conversational speeches of the accused, which was marked as Article No.33 by the investigating officer. She has further deposed that the Audio records made in CD and DVDs were physically and scientifically examined by using the methods of analysis i.e., Method of Auditory and Method of Voice Feature Extraction. The analysis revealed that the respective speeches said to be of the accused found recorded in DVDs marked as Article Nos.32 & 33 are similar to the sample speeches found recorded in CD marked as Article No.28. In that behalf, she gave a detailed report as per Ex.P.57.
139. A perusal of the aforesaid evidence, PW.40 has testified that he sent the videos downloaded from google and YouTube and voice sample recorded at Lahari recording company to FSL, Bengaluru for comparison of the voice. PW.32 has deposed that she examined the disputed and admitted voice sent by PW.40 and she gave the opinion that the respective speeches said to be of the accused found recorded in DVDs marked as Article Nos.32 & 33 are similar to the sample speeches found recorded in CD marked as Article No.28.
104Spl.C.No.272/2015 Though PW.40 and PW.32 have been cross-examined at length, the accused has not elicited anything contrary to their testimony or in support of his defence.
140. The learned counsel for the accused argued that article No.28, 32 and 33 were not subjected for hashing process using appropriate software by the investigation officer. The investigation officer has not mentioned the hash value of each digital file. Even PW.32 has not verified the hash value of each digital file sent for examination. He further argued that original device which contained the voice of the suspect, the devices used to record the questioned and sample voices of the accused and the desktop or laptop used to transfer the questioned and sample voices of the accused were not sent for analysis and PW.32 has not examined those devices. Therefore, the report submitted by PW.32 without hashing or authentication process has no legal value.
141. It is pertinent to note that PW.32 is an expert. She has testified that there was no guidelines for calculating hash value during recording voice collection by the Investigating Officer in 2015. Since there was no such guideline, the investigating office did not subject article No.28, 32 and 33 for hashing process. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has not brought any such guidelines to the notice of the court during arguments.
142. Further, PW.32 has testified during the cross- examination at para 16, page 16 that she examined during her analysis whether the voice found in article No.28, 32 and 33 was 105 Spl.C.No.272/2015 a mimicked voice or not and she denied the suggestion that the voice found in article No.28, 32 and 33 is a mimicked voice. She has further testified at page No.20, para 21 that it is not mandatory that recording of sample voice should be performed in the presence of two independent witnesses who should speak about their particulars like name, father's name, address, occupation etc. The accused has not elicited anytihng from the mouth of PW.32 in support of his contention.
143. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the investigation officer sent a notice to Channel-4 to furnish unedited copy of the interview file, but the said channel has not provided the unedited file. The investigating officer has downloaded the edited interview file from YouTube and google. YouTube and google are video sharing websites where anyone can share, morph, manipulate and upload audios and videos. This casts serious doubts on the veracity, provenance, authenticity of the interview file downloaded by the investigation officer. He further argued that the CDs and DVDs marked as MO.14, MO.15 and MO.17 were downloaded on 10.03.215 and the same was kept in the custody of the investigation officer till19.03.2015. There are chances of manipulation because of the chain of custody is not proved. Hence, it is very much possible that obviously edited interview file downloaded from YouTube and google was uploaded by police themselves to connect this case against the accused.
144. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor demonstrated before the court during his arguments that the 106 Spl.C.No.272/2015 videos downloaded from YouTube and google are very much available on internet till today and the same were uploaded by Channel-4 but not anyone else. Therefore, there is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused.
145. This court has cross verified the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor on internet and the videos downloaded by PW.40 are very much available on YouTube and google and the same were uploaded by channel-4. Further, as discussed supra, the prosecution has placed materials to show that the accused received calls from a foreign country as per the CDR and the accused himself admitted in his conversation with other twitter account handler that he received calls from a channel.
146. A careful analysis of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has placed materials to show that the accused received a call from Channel-4 and he gave interview to the said channel. The prosecution has placed materials to show that PW.40 downloaded the interview version of the accused with Channel-4 from google and YouTube in the presence of independent witnesses. The prosecution has placed materials to prove that PW.40 recorded the voice sample of the accused at M/s. Lahari recording company. The prosecution has placed materials to prove that PW.40 sent the downloaded videos and voice sample of the accused recorded at M/s. Lahari recording company to FSL, Bengaluru for the purpose of comparison of the speech. The prosecution has placed materials to prove that PW.32 examined the said articles and gave the opinion that the 107 Spl.C.No.272/2015 respective speeches said to be of the accused found recorded in DVDs marked as Article Nos.32 & 33 are similar to the sample speeches found recorded in CD marked as Article No.28. The prosecution has proved the said facts beyond reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. further, the accused has admitted in the interview given to Channel-4 that he was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account. This is one more corroborative piece of evidence to show that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account.
VIII(E) - IP ADDRESSES ALLOTTED TO THE ACCUSED
147. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that on 27.01.2015, he sent two notices - Ex.P.183 along with 723 suspended twitter accounts identified as ISIS accounts to Twitter Inc. requesting to provide printed copies of twitter data, registration details of email IDs, phone number associated, registration information, Nationality, profile picture and IP access logs of the twitter handle @Shamiwitness, @MeMuddu and @pcbkr123 from the date of creation. He has further deposed that on 11.03.2015, he received reply - Ex.P.106 from Twitter Inc. in respect of notice No.1 dated 27.01.2015 and received one more reply - Ex.P.189 from the Twitter Inc. dated 24.02.2015 along with two CDs - Ex.P.93 and the same are subjected to PF No.3/2015. The CD contain IP addresses of the twitter accounts @Shamiwitness, @MeMuddu and other accounts and the hard copy of the said CD is marked as Ex.P107.
148. PW.38 - Shri Joseph Antony, Advocate has deposed in his evidence that M/s. Twitter authorized M/s. Poovayya & 108 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Co., Advocates and Solicitors to represent M/s. Twitter and to handover the documents sought for by the investigation officer. As he was the then Senior Associate of M/s. Poovayya & Co., he was instructed to furnish the documents to the investigating officer. The documents were given to them in the form of Soft copy through e-mail. They got them printed in 2 compilations and the hard copies i.e., Ex.P.107 was submitted to the investigating officer along with the Compact Disc, containing the same information i.e., Ex.P.93. In this regard, he issued the certificate as per Ex.P.109.
149. PW.40 has deposed in his evidence that after obtaining IP details of the accused, PW17 and PW18 from Twitter Inc. he tabulated the details in Microsoft Excel sheet as per Ex.P.190 and Ex.P.280 (both are similar documents). At the time of preparation of Ex.P190, he took the assistance of website www.apnic.net and www.dnsstuff.com in order to identify the operators of the above referred IP addresses provided by Twitter Inc. Twitter provided the time stand as per UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) which was previously known as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). He converted UTC to IST (Indian Standard Time) by adding 5 hours 30 minutes. In this regard, he issued the corresponding certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act - Ex.P191.
150. He has further deposed that from the IP addresses provided by Twitter Inc., it was found that 192 addresses belonging to Airtel service provider. Therefore, he sent the notice- Ex.P.193 to Airtel company on 12.03.2015 requesting 109 Spl.C.No.272/2015 them to provide the physical address of the IP addresses. In order to expedite the process, an email - Ex.P.194 was also sent to the service provider. He has further deposed that on the same day night, Airtel provided the details of physical address of IP addresses - Ex.P.196 under the covering letter along with details- Ex.P.195 and the certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act - Ex.P.197. Airtel provided the details of physical address of IP addresses originated from mobile No.7259520485 which belongs to the accused - Ex.P198 and physical addresses originated from landline No.080-60765326 which belongs to the accused - Ex.P.199 as well.
151. PW.27 - Shri Agnelo Stanley has deposed in his evidence that on 12.03.2015, the Investigating Officer asked him to furnish information regarding IP address, against the date and time mentioned in the request letter i.e., Ex.P.193. On the same day, he provided all the details of the IP addresses allotted with respect to landline and mobile number under a covering letter as per Ex.P.195 and the certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.197. The IP addresses mentioned in Ex.P.196 are pertaining to Airtel. He has further deposed that the call details and IP address of mobile number 7259520485 are mentioned in Ex.P.198 and the call details and IP address of landline number 080-60765326 are mentioned in Ex.P.199. The said numbers belong to the accused.
152. A perusal of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, PW.40 has testified that he requested the Twitter Inc. to provide the IP logs accessed by the accused. In response to the said 110 Spl.C.No.272/2015 request, Twitter Inc. provided the IP logs details of @shamiwitness twitter account through its advocate Poovayya and Co. Further, PW.40 has ascertained the service providers of IP logs accessed by @shamiwitness account by using website www.apnic.net and www.dnsstuff.com. Then PW.40 sent the notice to PW.27 to provide the details of IP address provided by the Twitter Inc. Accordingly, PW.27 provided the details of IP logs provided by the Twitter Inc. As per the said details, IP logs provided by the Twitter Inc. were allotted to mobile No.7259520485 and landline No.080-60765326 which belong to the accused. Though PW.40, PW.27 and PW.38 were cross- examined at length, nothing has been elicited contrary to their testimony.
153. The learned counsel for the accused argued that shamiwitness twitter account and the accused Mehdi Masroor Biswas are not the same. He further argued that the same dynamic IP addresses are allotted and re-allotted to different users over time and the said fact is admitted by PW.40 during his cross-examination. He further argued that the key here to confidently deduce the physical address is not commonality, but commonality in the exact 'date' and 'time duration' for both IP addresses of Shamiwitness shared by Twitter Inc. with the IP addresses of the accused provided by Airtel. No 'exact date and time duration' column is seen in the IP address tabular documents submitted by the investigating officer like Ex.P.280, that could have theoretically showed the 'exact date and time duration' in which the IP addresses of shamiwitness and the IP addresses of the accused match. No such matching data is 111 Spl.C.No.272/2015 shared, which is crucial. Without such exact date and time duration data, there is no way to even make the hypothesis that shamiwitness and the accused are the same.
154. A perusal of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the accused is referring to Ex.P.280 and submitting that the exact date and time duration of the IP addresses of shamiwitness provided by Twitter Inc. is not matching with the IP addresses of the accused provided by Airtel. It is pertinent to note that the investigating officer is not only collected IP logs accessed by the accused from Twitter Inc., but also collected the IP logs accessed by the accused from Airtel as discussed supra in detail. Twitter Inc. provided the IP addresses in GMT time format. Therefore, the investigating officer used the website www.apnic.net and www.dnsstuff.com to find out the service provider and prepared the list in IST format as per Ex.P.280 (the same document is marked as Ex.P.190). Thereafter, PW.40 sent the said list to Airtel to provide the physical addresses of the said IP addresses. Accordingly, PW.27 has provided the details of the subscriber who was allotted the IP addresses provided by the Twitter Inc. as per Ex.P.198 and Ex.P.199. It is true that the exact date and time duration of IP address is not furnished by Twitter Inc. as contended by the learned counsel for the accused. However, PW.27 has provided the exact date and time duration of IP addresses allotted to the mobile number and landline number of the accused. A perusal of Ex.P.198 and Ex.P.199 which are provided by Airtel and Ex.P.107 which is provided by Twitter Inc., the same IP addresses of Shamiwitness provided by Twitter Inc. was allotted by Airtel to the mobile 112 Spl.C.No.272/2015 number of the accused on the relevant date and time duration. The prosecution is not relying only the IP address provided by Twitter Inc. and the subscriber details provided by Airtel to prove that the accused is the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account. There are other materials to show that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account. Therefore, the aforesaid documents are only corroborative piece of evidence to prove the said facts. The IP addresses provided by Twitter Inc. match with the subscriber details provided by Airtel. Hence, the same can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence and this court does not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused.
155. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused was arrested by the police on 13.12.2014 as per the case of the prosecution. As per the IP address details provided by the Twitter Inc., @shamiwitness twitter account was accessed on 19.01.2015 and 27.01.2015 when the accused was in the custody of this court. This clearly goes to show that the accused is not the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account. Hence, there is no material to connect the accused to @shamiwitness twitter account.
156. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that PW.40 collected the physical addresses of the IP addresses furnished by the Twitter Inc. from various service providers such as Airtel, BSNL and ACT. The physical addresses of IP addresses furnished by Twitter Inc. until 12.12.2014 belong to Airtel and the same were allotted by Airtel 113 Spl.C.No.272/2015 to the accused. Subsequently, PW.40 opened @shamiwitness twitter account in the presence of the accused with BSNL and ACT internet connection. He further argued that the username and password were with the investigating officer and he might have accessed @shamiwitness twitter account for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, mere @shamiwitness twitter account was opened on 27.01.2015 when the accused was in the custody of this court is not a ground to come to the conclusion that the accused was not the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account.
157. In this regard, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has further deposed that on 16.04.2015, he issued a notice - Ex.P.252 to Atria Convergence Technologies (ACT) to provide physical addresses of IP addresses supplied by Twitter Inc. with respect to shamiwitness account. They furnished the information as per Ex.P85 and Ex.P86.
158. PW.33 - Shri Anilkumar C., the Assistant Manager, Atria Technologies, Bengaluru has deposed in his evidence that his then colleague by name Shri Shashi Kiran Rai received a notice from CCB seeking for customer details of specific IP addresses. The said notice was replied by providing the then available records with them to the CCB. The said records i.e., Ex.P.86 were supplied by his then senior by name C.N. Suresh Babu under a covering letter as per Ex.P.85.
159. A perusal of Ex.P.252, PW.40 sought the information in respect of the name, address, CAF and available details of the mobile number / landline number who were allotted with IP 114 Spl.C.No.272/2015 addresses mentioned in the notice against the date and time mentioned. Accordingly, PW.33 provided the aforesaid details to PW.40 as per Ex.P.86. It appears from Ex.P.86 that PW.33 provided details only up to 20.12.2014. As per the said details, the IP addresses were allotted to Shri Thammaiah M.K. CCB, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Koramangala, Bengaluru. As per the case of prosecution, PW.40 was conducting investigation during the said period and PW.40 accessed @shamiwitness twitter account for the purpose of investigation. Since PW.40 was in the possession of username and password of @shamiwitness twitter account, he might have accessed the said account for the purpose of investigation as argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Therefore, this court cannot disbelieve the evidence adduced by the prosecution only on the ground that @shamiwitness twitter account was accessed on 19.01.2015 and 27.01.2015 when the accused was in the custody of this court. There are other corroborative materials to show that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account as discussed supra. This is one more circumstance to prove that the accused is the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account. Hence, this court does not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and the prosecution has proved the aforesaid facts with cogent and convincing evidence.
VIII(F) - DEVELOPMENTS SOON AFTER THE ARREST OF THE ACCUSED
160. It is the case of the prosecution that after arrest of the accused, his followers sent threatening messages to the DCP 115 Spl.C.No.272/2015 (Crime), Bengaluru as well as the Commissioner of Police. In order to prove the said fact, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.30 and Ex.P.75.
161. PW.30 - Shri Abhishek Goyal has deposed in his evidence that the Commissioner of Police held a Press Conference on 13.12.2014 on the date of the arrest of the accused. He too issued a Press note at 01.54 p.m. on the very same day through his Twitter account "@goyal_abhei". In response to his Twitter press note, he received threatening messages on the same day at about 08.00 p.m. by mentioning that revenge would be taken in respect of the arrest. It was also mentioned in the said message that efforts would be made to rescue the arrested person. This response had created panic in the Media as well as in the local police.
162. A perusal of the Ex.P.75, PW.30 sent a notice to Twitter Inc. seeking information about the twitter handles who sent threatening messages on his official twitter account warning about the attempts to rescue the accused and revenge. The said notice depicts the threat messages received by the DCP (Crime), Bengaluru to his official twitter account.
163. A perusal of the aforesaid testimony, PW.30 has clearly deposed before this Court that he received threat messages on his official twitter account from a twitter account warning to rescue the accused and to take revenge. The said messages are reflected in Ex.P.75. During the cross- examination of PW.30, nothing has been elicited contrary to the testimony of PW.30. Even the accused has not denied the said 116 Spl.C.No.272/2015 fact during cross-examination of PW.30. The aforesaid circumstance corroborates the case of the prosecution that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account. VIII(G) - VOLUNTARY EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ACCUSED
164. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that on 16.12.2014, he deputed Shri Anand Kumar to carryout online and offline analysis of data available offline and to submit a report in respect of hashtags used in the tweets made by the accused. He has further deposed that on 19.12.2014, he deputed Shri S. Narayana Rao to carryout online and offline data available on offline and on internet in respect of mentions made in the tweets by the accused and its frequencies. Accordingly, he submitted the analysis report as per Ex.P.72. He has further deposed that Shri C. Jayaprakash submitted a report in respect of followers of @shamiwitness twitter account on 19.12.2014.
165. PW.23 - Shri Jayaprakash C. has deposed in his evidence that on 16.12.2014, he was called upon by the Investigating Officer to identify the suspended accounts from the followers' list of Twitter account Shamiwitness. Accordingly, he made a thorough check of list of followers. During the said thorough check, he found that 1535 followers were either suspended by Twitter or the screen names of accounts were changed or the account does not exist. In that behalf he submitted a report as per Ex.P.60.
117Spl.C.No.272/2015
166. PW.24 - Shri Anand Kumar J. has deposed in his evidence that on 16.12.2014, he was assigned with a job of verification of frequency of hashtags pertaining to Shamiwitness Twitter account. Accordingly, he verified 1,22,204 tweets and re- tweets of Shamiwitness. There were 1,370 hashtags out of the said 1,22,204 tweets and re-tweets. In furtherance of his verification, he also verified the frequency of each hashtag and thereafter, he prepared a report as per Ex.P61 and submitted the same to the Investigating Officer.
167. PW.29 - Shri Narayana Rao S. has deposed in his evidence that he was given a CSV (Comma separated volume, a kind of Excel file) file on 16.12.2014 along with a memo and he was called upon to find out the number and frequency of 'mentions'. Accordingly, he verified it and the results were put by him in tabular column and obtained print of the same. Thereafter, he submitted a report along with tabular column as per Ex.P72 on 19.12.2014.
168. A perusal of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, it is manifest that PW.40 deputed his staff to carryout online and offline analysis of data available offline in respect of identification of followers of @shamiwitness twitter account, in respect of hashtags used by the accused and its frequency on @shamiwitness twitter account and in respect of mentions made and its frequency on the twitter account @shamiwitness and PW.23, PW.24 and PW.29 carried out the analysis and submitted the reports as per Ex.P.60, Ex.P.61 and Ex.P.72 respectively. During the course of cross-examination of PW.23, 118 Spl.C.No.272/2015 PW.24, PW.29 and PW.40, nothing has been elicited contrary to their testimony. Hence, the prosecution has proved the said facts with cogent and convincing evidence.
169. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has testified that on 29.12.2014, the accused gave his voluntary statement explaining the hashtags which he repeatedly tweeted on his shamiwitness twitter account as per Ex.P.137.
170. A perusal of Ex.P.137, the questionnaire dated 20.12.2014 and 22.12.2014 were given to the accused to explain the hashtags which he repeatedly tweeted on his twitter account and the accused explained the same in his own handwriting.
171. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that top 1000 twitter handles in Ex.P.72 were given to the accused to explain them. Accordingly, the accused explained the details of those twitter handles as per Ex.P139.
172. A perusal of Ex.P.139, the questionnaire dated 24.12.2014 was given to the accused to explain the 'mentions' which he repeatedly tweeted/re-tweeted on his twitter account and the accused explained the same in his own handwriting. He has specifically explained that "@shamiwitness" - "myself, Bangalore, Indian". He has clearly admitted that @shamiwitness twitter account belongs to him. The accused nowhere stated during recording his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. that his statement was obtained under inducement, threat or promise. Therefore, this is one more circumstance to show that the accused is the handler of @shamiwitness twitter handle.
119Spl.C.No.272/2015
173. In conclusion, the accused disclosed in his voluntary statement to provide the details of all the email IDs, facebook profiles, twitter accounts created by him, open them and show the data in those accounts and also explain about the tweets made on "@shamiwitness" twitter account. Therefore, PW.40 provided a computer with active internet connection to the accused. The accused opened his @shamiwitness twitter account in the presence of PW.6 - Shri Ashuthosh Kumar and PW.8 - Shri S. Rajashekar by entering username as 'shamiwitness' and password as '[email protected]'. The moment the accused entered his password, shamiwitness twitter account was opened. This evidence is sufficient to hold that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account.
174. Further, PW.40 exercised an option in 'settings' to view the profile of the twitter account @shamiwitness and it disclosed the username of the account as 'Shamiwitness' and the email address associated with the said account is '[email protected]'. Twitter Inc. sent the direct messages and tweets/re-tweets made by the accused on his @shamiwitness twitter account to the registered email address of the said account i.e., '[email protected]'. the accused opened his email account by entering his credentials and PW.40 downloaded the direct messages and tweets/re- tweets made by the accused. This is one more strong circumstance to prove that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account.
120Spl.C.No.272/2015
175. Further, the laptop - MO.1 seized from the house of the accused contain tweets and re-tweets pertaining to @shamiwitness twitter account. The accused gave interview to UK news channel, Channel-4 which unmasked the identity of the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account and the accused admitted in the said interview that he was the handler of @shamiwitness witness twitter account. The IP access logs of @shamiwitness twitter account collected by PW.40 from Twitter Inc. were allotted to the mobile number and landline number belong to the accused. Soon after arrest of the accused, his supporters sent threatening messages to PW.30 stating that revenge would be taken and efforts would be made to rescue the arrested person. Further, the accused voluntarily admitted in his own handwriting that @shamiwitness twitter handle belongs to him. The aforesaid circumstances corroborate that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account with cogent and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
IX - DETAILS OF THE @SHAMIWITNESS TWITTER HANDLE COLLECTED FROM TWITTER INC.
176. As discussed supra, the accused opened @shamiwitness twitter account by entering his username and password. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. placed the request to Twitter to provide archive of tweets made by the accused by exercising the option 'settings'. Accordingly, Twitter sent a link to the registered email address associated with @shamiwitness twitter account i.e., [email protected] to download the 121 Spl.C.No.272/2015 soft copy of the tweets made by the accused in the form of archive. Thereafter, the accused opened his email account and PW.40 made efforts to download the data sent by the Twitter, but he could not download the data due to some technical problem. The said facts have been proved by the prosecution with cogent and convincing evidence. This is the first effort made by PW.40 to collect the tweets and re-tweets made by the accused on his @shamiwitness twitter account.
177. It is the contention of the prosecution that on 14.12.2014, PW.40 requested the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) to obtain the details of Shamiwitness twitter account from Twitter Inc. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bengaluru sent notice to Twitter Inc. to provide certain details and he collected certain details from Twitter Inc. In order to prove the said facts, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.30, PW.40 and documentary evidence at Ex.P.73 and Ex.P.74.
178. In this regard, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that he requested the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bengaluru to obtain the details of Shamiwitness account, namely 1,30,000 tweets, list of all 18,000 followers and list of all twitter accounts followed by Shamiwitness, archives of all direct messages of Shamiwitness, all IP addresses of Shamiwitness account, list of handlers names and email IDs associated with Shamiwitness twitter account. He has further deposed that on 15.12.2014, the DCP (Crime), Bengaluru provided all 1,20,000+ tweets collected from the 122 Spl.C.No.272/2015 twitter in a pen drive in Excel sheet form. As regards the direct messages, Twitter informed the DCP (Crime), Bengaluru over email that they would send the direct messages to the email account of Shamiwitness Twitter account.
179. PW.30 - Shri Abhishek Goyal has deposed in his evidence that on 14.12.2014, after having discussion with PW.40- Shri Thammaiah M.K., he issued a notice - Ex.P.73 to Twitter Inc. under Sec.91 Cr.P.C. requesting for the details viz., email attached to the twitter handle Shamiwitness, IP access logs, details of followers of the said twitter handle, details of direct messages (DM) of the said twitter handle, the information of all the tweets pertaining to the said twitter handle and the details of other accounts which were followed by @shamiwitness twitter account. He has further deposed that on 15.12.2014, he received certain information from Twitter Inc., but Twitter Inc. expressed its constrains in providing the information sought by him on account of huge size of the file. He was informed by the Twitter Inc. that some of the information sought for would be provided to them through their Counsels by name M/s. Poovayya and Co. He has further deposed that on 15.12.2014, the said Counsels provided information to him in person. He handed over the information received in person as well as the information received through email sent by Twitter Inc. to PW.40.
180. A perusal of Ex.P.73, PW.30 has sent a notice to Twitter Inc. to provide information in respect of all tweets archive viz., tweets made by shamiwitness account, list of followers of shamiwitness account, list of all twitter accounts followed by 123 Spl.C.No.272/2015 shamiwitness, archives of all direct messages of shamiwitness account, all IP addresses of shamiwitness account, list of handler names and email IDs associated with shamiwitness twitter account. In response to the said notice, Twitter Inc. replied that it has already submitted the information non-public subscriber identification regarding @Shamiwitness twitter handle, sent Shamiwitness-followers.csv files containing followers of @shamiwitness account and Shamiwitness- following.csv, the accounts followed by @shamiwitness. It is also stated in the said reply that they have prepared an additional excel file for all tweets from @shamiwitness account (Shamiwitness-tweets.csv) and the said file was 22 MB in size and they would send the said file if the email server of PW.30 will accept an attachment of the said size and/or if they should break the said file into multiple files and they would submit the said file upon confirmation. It is further stated that since United States Law prohibits the direct production of the direct message archive except to the account holder himself. They have prepared a direct message archive which pending confirmation from the team of TCP, they can send directly to the email address on record for @shamiwitness account holder. The said reply is marked as Ex.P.74.
181. A perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, PW.40 has testified that he requested the DCP (Crime), Bengaluru to collect the details from Twitter Inc. in respect of @shamiwitness twitter account. Accordingly, PW.30 sent notice to Twitter Inc., collected certain details and handed over the same to PW.40. During the course of cross-examination of 124 Spl.C.No.272/2015 PW.40 and PW.30, the accused has not elicited anything contrary to their testimony. Hence, the prosecution has proved that PW.40 requested PW.30 to collect information regarding @shamiwitness twitter account from the Twitter Inc. and PW.30 sent notice to Twitter Inc., collected the information and handed over the same to PW.40 with cogent and convincing evidence.
IX(A) - COLLECTED DIRECT MESSAGES AND TWEETS OF @SHAMIWITNESS IN TEXT FORMAT
182. As discussed supra, on 15.12.2014, two mails were received from Twitter Legal to the email account of the accused i.e., [email protected] along with two attachments namely shamiwitness-dms.txt (12MB) and shamiwitness- tweets.txt (22MB) which is referred in Ex.P.74. PW.40 downloaded the said attachments and burnt the contents of shamiwitness-dms.txt and shamiwitness-tweets.txt into DVDs - MO.16 and Ex.P.91. Accordingly, PW.40 collected entire direct messages and tweets/re-tweets made by the accused on his @shamiwitness twitter account.
183. A perusal of M.O.16 and Ex.P.91, all direct messages and all 1,22,210 tweets and re-tweets made by the accused on his @shamiwitness twitter account are available in text format.
IX(B) - COLLECTED DIRECT MESSAGES OF @SHAMIWITNESS TWITTER ACCOUNT IN EXCEL FORMAT
184. It is the next contention of the prosecution that on 17.12.2014. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. downloaded the direct messages of @shamiwitness twitter account sent by the 125 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Twitter Legal in excel format and compared the same with the direct messages found on @shamiwitness twitter account in the presence of PW.11 - Shri B.G. Sathish and Shri Santhosh. In order to prove the said facts, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral evidence of PW.40, PW.11 and documentary evidence at Ex.P.28.
185. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that on 17.12.2014, he secured Shri B.G. Sathish - PW.11 and Shri Santhosh by issuing notices to them as per Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.123 to cross verify the data downloaded from articles 19 and 20 with Shamiwitness Twitter account. He explained the details of the case and the contents downloaded from article Nos.19 and 20 to the panchas. He has further deposed that DCP (Crimes) received a mail on 17.12.2014 at 07.32 a.m. on his official e-mail ID sent by Twitter stating that direct messages in excel format was sent to the e-mail address associated with @Shamiwitness twitter account namely "[email protected]". He has further deposed that in the presence of the said panchas, article No.18 which contained the changed password was opened. At that time, the accused was also present and volunteered to explain about the direct messages. He has further deposed that the e-mail account of the accused i.e., "[email protected]" was opened by entering the changed password. They found a mail sent by Twitter Legal at 06.28 hours with a subject "twitter request for own account information" with an attachment of 3.6mb. The said e-mail was opened and printout was taken. The hard copy of the e-mail is marked as Ex.P.124. He has further deposed that the 126 Spl.C.No.272/2015 e-mail attachment "shamiwitness-dms(1).xls", which is a Microsoft excel file, was downloaded. The said attachment contained 11,485 direct messages of @Shamiwitness twitter account in excel format. The accused asked him to map the data as per the sender ID and recipient ID, so that he could explain with whom he was communicating. In this regard, he prepared the mahajar - Ex.P28 at the conference Hall of the Technical support center, CCB office between 05.00 p.m. on 17.12.2014 and 04.00 a.m. on 18.12.2014 and issued the certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act - Ex.P125.
186. He has further deposed that the tweets provided by Twitter through e-mail were downloaded and burnt into 3 CDs - Ex.P27. The new password was printed and put in a sealed cover - Ex.P.26. He has further deposed that Ex.P27 and Ex.P92 contain direct messages sent by Twitter. He sorted out the said direct messages user wise and the same is marked as Ex.P126. The certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act appended to Ex.P126 is marked as Ex.P127.
187. PW.11 - Shri B.G. Sathish has deposed in his evidence that the Investigating Officer Shri Thammaiah called him as a witness for extraction of data from '@Shamiwitness' twitter account by issuing a notice as per Ex.P.25. Accordingly, he visited the Technical Center at around 04.30 p.m. to 05.00 p.m. on 17.12.2014. At that relevant time, the accused, the Officer Shri Thammaiah and another person by name Shri Santhosh were present there. He has further deposed that he and the said Shri Santhosh were briefed by the officer Shri 127 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Thammaiah that the accused was the handler of '@Shamiwitness' twitter handle and having direct contact with ISIS people. They were further informed that the accused communicated with different people who came in contact with ISIS through "@Shamiwitness'. He has further deposed that the officer Shri Thammaiah opened a sealed cover in which the changed password was recorded. The seal of the said cover was intact before its opening. He has further deposed that in their presence, the officer Shri Thammaiah opened the details of 51 account holders by using the changed password. The said details of 51 account holders were more than 1000 pages. The said Officer took printouts of all details of 51 account holders and the said details were also burnt into 3 CDs - Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.92. After taking printouts, the Officer Shri Thammaiah changed the password of Shamiwitness twitter account. The password changed was packed and sealed in their presence as per Ex.P.26 and the investigation officer prepared the Mahazar as per Ex.P.28. He has further deposed that the relevant interaction in the tweets as per Ex.P.27 is related to "ISIS" and "Situation in Kashmir".
188. A perusal of the testimony of the said witnesses, PW.40 has testified that he downloaded the direct messages of @shamiwitness twitter account sent by Twitter Inc. in Microsoft Excel format, compared the same with the direct messages found in @shamiwitness twitter account and prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.28. PW.11 has testified that PW.40 opened the details of 51 account holders, took printouts of all details of 51 account holders and the said details were also burnt into 3 128 Spl.C.No.272/2015 CDs - Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.92 and prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.28. The aforesaid evidence clearly goes to show that PW.40 collected the direct messages of @shamiwitness twitter account from Twitter Inc. in excel format. This process is nothing but further analysis of the direct messages of @shamiwitness twitter account. PW.40 had already collected the direct messages from Twitter Legal by exercising the option 'settings' to get the own account information. This court has cross verified those direct messages with the direct messages sent by Twitter Inc. in Microsoft Excel format and both are the same. During the cross-examination of PW.40 and PW.11, the accused has not pointed out any discrepancies in both the documents. Hence, the prosecution has proved the aforesaid facts with cogent and convincing evidence.
IX(C) - COLLECTED TWEETS AND RE-TWEETS MADE BY THE ACCUSED IN EXCEL FORMAT
189. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that on 18.04.2015, he received data, which was collected during the investigation from Twitter Inc., from DCP, Crime in a pendrive. It contains 8 files in respect of twitter account of Shamiwitness. He downloaded the said data and burnt into two CDs. The same are marked as Ex.P96 and Ex.P96(a). One YouTube video was also downloaded in the same CD. The title of the said video is "Our brother died a martyr in Syria". This video is about one British fighter namely Iftekar Jaman, who migrated to Syria, joined ISIS and died fighting there, and he was in touch with Shamiwitness. After the death of the said Iftekar Jaman, Shamiwitness tweeted the said video on Twitter.
129Spl.C.No.272/2015
190. During the cross-examination of PW.40, nothing has been elicited contrary to the aforesaid testimony. The said details were collected in furtherance of the tweets sent by Twitter Legal to the registered email address of @shamiwitness twitter account. This court has cross verified some of the tweet IDs in the said details with the tweet IDs sent by Twitter Legal to the registered email address of @shamiwitness twitter account. They tally with each other. The hard copy of Ex.P.96 is marked as Ex.P.121. The accused has not pointed out any discrepancies in the said documents during the cross examination. Hence, the prosecution has proved the aforesaid facts with cogent and convincing evidence.
IX(D) - COLLECTED MEDIA FILES OF @SHAMIWITNESS TWITTER ACCOUNT
191. PW.30 - Shri Abhishek Goyal has deposed that he discussed with the investigating officer and the said discussion revealed that the accused posted Pro-ISIS and Anti-India photographs on his Twitter handle since 2011. That many of such posters were missing in the information provided by the Twitter till then. Hence, he was constrained to issue another Notice through e-mail by invoking Sec.91 of Cr.P.C. and he requested for details of all the images posted by the accused and its metadata. He has further deposed that Twitter replied to the said notice on 21.12.2014 as per Ex.P.76 and he forwarded the said e-mail to the investigating officer.
192. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that PW.30 - Shri Abhishek Goyal issued the notice - Ex.P.164 to 130 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Twitter Inc. seeking details of @shamiwitness twitter account and also its followers including images tweeted and re-tweeted by the accused. He has further deposed that Twitter Inc. sent email on 20.12.2014 along with three attachments containing media files, which were forwarded to him by DCP (crimes) on 21.12.2014 as per Ex.P.76. With Ex.P.76, the Twitter Inc. sent a cross reference table which allows for mapping of the media file name to the Tweet ID and time/date stamp. He took the print out of the same as per Ex.P177. In this regard, he issued the certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act - Ex.P178. The said data given by Twitter Inc. was burnt into two DVDs and those DVDs were subjected to PF No.9/2015. The article No.44 i.e., DVD is marked as Ex.P97.
193. It appears from Ex.P.164 that PW.30 - DCP (Crime), Bengaluru sent a notice to Twitter Inc. to provide the details of 18000 followers of shamiwitness account, 1800 accounts who were followed by @shamiwitness, all images tweeted by @shamiwitness and all images re-tweeted by @shamiwitness. It appears from Ex.P.76 that Twitter Legal sent an email with an attachment 'ShamiWitness-media (1).xls' on 20.12.2014 and PW.30 forwarded the same to PW.40 on 21.12.2014. PW.40 downloaded the said attachment and burnt into the CD - Ex.P.97 and he took print out of the same as per Ex.P.177. In this way, PW.40 collected the shamiwitness medial files in excel format. This court has cross verified some of the contents of Ex.P.177 and Ex.P.97 with the tweets sent by Twitter Legal to the email address associated with @shamiwitness twitter account and they tally with each other. The accused has not pointed out any 131 Spl.C.No.272/2015 discrepancies in the said documents during the cross examination. Hence, the prosecution has proved the aforesaid facts with cogent and convincing evidence.
IX(E) - COLLECTED IMAGES TWEETED AND RE-TWEETED BY THE ACCUSED
194. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that on 19.02.2015, he sent the notice - Ex.P.185 to Twitter Inc. seeking all the audio, video and images tweeted and re-tweeted by Shamiwitness and Twitter Inc. issued an acknowledgment - Ex.P186 for having received the same. He has further deposed that on 21.03.2015, Shri. Bharadwaj Ramsubramanyam, who was the Counsel for Twitter in India submitted media images tweeted and re-tweeted by the accused as per Ex.P.208 along with the authorisation letter sent by Twitter Inc. - Ex.P.209 and also produced two CDs - Ex.P.95 and Ex.P.210 which containing the Images tweeted and re-tweeted by the accused. He has further deposed that on examination of the CD - Ex.P.95, it contained 15,446 images in one folder and it was named as 'Shamiwitness Account Media'. He copied the said CD to his computer system for further analysis and for matching with the tweets made by the accused.
195. It appears from Ex.P.185 that PW.40 sent a notice to Twitter Inc. to provide all medial files including audios, videos and images tweeted/re-tweeted by the twitter handle shamiwitness and printed copy of media files tweeted/re-tweeted along with tweet text including the date and time of the tweet for the tweet IDs mentioned in the said notice. It appears from 132 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.209 that Twitter Inc. authorised Poovayya and Co., Advocates and Solicitors to furnish the details sought in the said notice. Accordingly, Shri Bharadwaj Ramsubramanyam submitted two CDs - Ex.P.95 and Ex.P.210 to PW.40 along with covering letter - Ex.P.208. During the cross-examination of PW.40, nothing has been elicited contrary to the aforesaid testimony. The said details were collected in furtherance of the tweets sent by Twitter to the registered email address of @shamiwitness twitter account. This court has cross verified some of the tweet IDs in both the documents and they tally with each other. The accused has not pointed out any discrepancies in the said documents during the cross-examination. Hence, the prosecution has proved the aforesaid facts with cogent and convincing evidence.
IX(F) - COLLECTED THE DETAILS OF THE SUSPENDED TWITTER HANDLES WHICH WERE ASSOCIATED WITH @SHAMIWITNESS TWITTER HANDLE
196. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that on 30.12.2014, a list of 1547 twitter accounts, which were suspended, was prepared and the notice - Ex.P.77 was sent to Twitter, Inc. to provide details of those suspended accounts. In response to Ex.P.77, Twitter Inc. sent the details of 1547 suspended accounts - Ex.P179. It appears from Ex.P.179 that the Twitter Inc. provided the list of non-existing users who were in association with @shamiwitness twitter account.
IX(G) - COLLECTED THE DETAILS OF FOLLOWERS OF SHAMIWITNESS TWITTER ACCOUNT AND THE DETAILS OF THE TWITTER ACCOUNTS FOLLOWED BY SHAMIWITNESS 133 Spl.C.No.272/2015
197. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that on 08.01.2015, he received a reply from Twitter to notice No.12 issued under section 91 of Cr.P.C. They also sent an attachment regarding Network Data. The same has been downloaded and printed as per Ex.P181. This Network Data contains details of all the persons who were following and being followed by Shamiwitness, the date of activation of accounts and the location of the persons who were operating the accounts. For having downloaded the contents from the system, he issued the certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act - Ex.P182.
IX(H) - COLLECTED FURTHER INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF @SHAMIWITNESS TWITTER ACCOUNT
198. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that on 24.12.2014, the DCP (Crime) sent an email with two attachments to him. The said two attachments were marked as Ex.P.166. The first attachment contain the details of account of Shamiwitness and its twitter unique ID i.e., 57914577 with email address [email protected]. As per the said document, @shamiwitness twitter account was created on 18.07.2009 and the said twitter account was operated from India. The last date and time when the account was accessed by the user with profile picture was also provided in the said document. It also contains the twitter accounts pertaining to suspected ISIS account with whom the accused had communication.
199. A perusal of Ex.P.165, PW.30 sent an email with two attachments namely 'Notice 7 23 12 2014.xlsx' and 'Reply by 134 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Twitter 23.12.14.xlsx' to PW.40 and PW.40 took the print out of the said attachments as per Ex.P.166.
RANDOMLY IDENTIFIED THE TWEETS/RETWEETS MADE BY THE ACCUSED AND THE ACCUSED EXPLAINED THE CONTEXT/CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH HE TWEETED OR RETWEETED
200. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed in his evidence that on 26.12.2014, he called two witnesses namely PW.12 - Shri Dhanush and CW.17 - Shri Manikanta by giving notices to them as per Ex.P146 and Ex.P147 respectively. He briefed the facts of this case to the panchas. The tweets made by the accused, which were already downloaded from article No.19 and 20, were checked in the twitter account of shamiwitness. The user ID of shamiwitness twitter account is 57914577 as informed by Twitter. The tweets and images posted by the accused were opened and took the screen shots of the same. The explanation of the accused was also taken for those tweets in the presence of panchas. In this regard, he prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.30 and issued the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.148. Thereafter, he changed the password of @shamiwitness twitter account and new password was recorded on white paper and the same was kept in an envelop and sealed the same.
201. PW.12 - Shri Dhanush has deposed in his evidence that he and his friend Shri Manikanta were called to Technical Center, Adugodi on 26.12.2014 by PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. They reached the said Center at 10.15 a.m. on the same day. The accused, PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. and other 135 Spl.C.No.272/2015 police personnel were present at the said Technical Center. They were briefed by PW.40 about the facts of the case. PW.40 also stated that the accused tweeted messages on his twitter account and the process of opening and downloading the tweets was in continuous process. In their presence, tweeted images depicting of beheading and other images and retweets made by the accused were opened in their presence. During the process of opening and downloading the tweets and retweets, the accused explained the purpose and intention of tweeting and retweeting of such messages to the questions asked by PW.40. The said process was taken place until 8.00 p.m. on 26.12.2014. Thereafter, PW.40 changed the password and recorded the same and the changed password was packed and sealed and obtained their signatures on the changed password and sealed cover. During the said process, PW.40 took the screen shots. The said process was reduced into writing as per Ex.P.30 and pasted the screen shots in the said document. He affixed his signature on the said document.
202. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has further deposed that on 28.12.2014, he called the witnesses namely CW.19 - Shri Prashanth and PW.13 - Shri Yoga Sai Prakash as panchas to cross check the tweets supplied by the Twitter with the tweets found in the twitter account of shamiwitness by issuing notices as per Ex.P.150 and 151 respectively. He explained about the facts of the case to the said witnesses. Shamiwitness twitter account was logged in by using the changed password. In this regard, he prepared the mahajar as per Ex.P.32 and issued the 136 Spl.C.No.272/2015 certificate as per Ex.P.152 as he prepared Ex.P.32 - mahajar on a computer.
203. PW.13 - Shri Yoga Sai Prakash has deposed in his evidence that on 28.12.2014, he was called by PW.40 to Adugodi. He reached the said place at 12.00 noon on the same day and one more witness by name Shri Prashanth and the accused were also present there. They were briefed about the facts of the case. Shamiwitness account was opened in their presence and started downloading the tweets and re-tweets pertaining to the said account. During the said process, PW.40 asked the questions to the accused and the accused gave answers to the said questions. The said process was concluded at 06.15 p.m. and the twitter account was closed and the password of the said twitter account was changed. The changed password was kept in a sealed cover and he signed on the said sealed cover - Ex.P.31.
204. A perusal of the evidence of PW.12, PW.13 and PW.40, they have deposed in corroboration with each other. They have testified that in the presence of the accused, PW.40 compared some of the tweets and retweets made by the accused on his shamiwitness twitter account with the tweets and re-tweets sent by Twitter to the email address associated with @shamiwitness twitter account and prepared mahajars as per Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.32. They have further testified that the accused offered explanation to the tweets identified by PW.40 and the same was recorded in the mahajars.
137Spl.C.No.272/2015
205. During the cross-examination, the accused has not elicited anything contrary to the evidence of PW.12, PW.13 and PW.40. Hence, the prosecution has proved the aforesaid facts with cogent and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubts.
THE ACCUSED IDENTIFIED SOME OF ISIS FIGHTERS IN THE 'FOLLOWING' LIST AND OFFERED EXPLANATION
206. PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. has deposed that on 30.12.2014, he summoned the witnesses namely Shri Raja Sunil and Shri M. Raja Bharathi to conduct the tweets extract panchanama. Shamiwitness twitter account was opened in their presence by using the password kept in article No.25. The screenshots of the twitter account were taken in the presence of above witnesses. The copy of article Nos.19 and 20 were opened in the presence of the witnesses. The accused identified some of the twitter accounts as ISIS fighters, with whom he had contact. The accused listed the names of the said ISIS fighters. He has further deposed that all 48 twitter accounts were opened and their screen shots were taken and pasted in Ex.P33 - Panchanama. He noticed that, most of the twitter accounts were suspended by Twitter. New accounts were created whenever Twitter had suspended the twitter accounts. Shamiwitness re- tweeted the matters pertaining to ISIS to new accounts. All the front pages of the accounts were contained photographs of the persons who were using the accounts. They also contained videos which were posted by ISIS fighters. He has further deposed that the mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P33. The password of shamiwitness twitter account was changed and new password was kept in a sealed cover - Ex.P34. He subjected the 138 Spl.C.No.272/2015 sealed cover to PF No.15/2014. He has further deposed that he furnished the certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P.155 regarding digital evidence referred to above. The names of different ISIS fighters referred to above and meaning of the foreign words used in tweets are available in public domain.
207. PW.14 - Shri Raj Sunil has deposed in his evidence that on 30.12.2014, he and his cousin Rajabharathi were called by the Officer Shri Thammaiah to Police Technical Office at CAR, Adugodi. Accordingly, they reached over there at 02.30 p.m. When they reached the said place, the accused, the Officer Shri Thammaiah and his personnel with other Technical Staff were present there. He has further deposed that the said Officer opened a sealed cover which contained login ID as well as password and then opened the twitter account of the accused. He has further deposed that they were shown the details of the followers of the accused and the details of the accounts followed by the accused on Twitter. The Officer took the Screen shots of the tweets made by the accused. During each Screenshot, questions were posed to the accused by the said Officer and the accused answered the said questions. He has further deposed that the Officer questioned the accused about the purpose and intention of the tweet and also the fighters associated with the accused. They were also shown the particulars of recipients having close proximity with the accused and the accused identified about 47 to 48 recipients/ISIS fighters while answering the questions. He has further deposed that the Officer posed detailed questions in respect of the tweets made by the accused 139 Spl.C.No.272/2015 and received by the said 47 to 48 ISIS fighters. While posing such questions, questions were asked about the context of Tweet, about the interactions, if any, made by the said 47 to 48 ISIS fighters with others. The consequential answers given by the accused were reduced into writing by the said Officer then and there through his personnel. He has further deposed that all the downloaded versions and the explanation given by the accused were got printed as per Ex.P.33. Each printed page was signed by him and his cousin. He has further deposed that PW.40 changed the password of the said account and the changed password was kept in a sealed cover - Ex.P.34. They signed on the sealed cover.
208. A perusal of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, PW.40 has testified that the accused identified 48 ISIS fighters' twitter accounts with whom he had contact and offered explanation about the said ISIS fighters. PW.14 has testified that the accused was questioned about the purpose and intention of the tweet and also the fighters associated with the accused. The accused identified about 47 to 48 recipients/ISIS fighters while answering the questions. PW.40 posed detailed questions in respect of the tweets made by the accused and received by the said 47 to 48 ISIS fighters and the accused offered explanation to the question posed by PW.40. During the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.14 and PW.40 contrary to the aforesaid testimony. Hence, the prosecution has proved the aforesaid facts with cogent and convincing evidence.
140Spl.C.No.272/2015
209. In summary, the prosecution has proved the following material facts beyond reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence.
a) The accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter account and he tweeted and retweeted on his @shamiwitness twitter account from 18.07.2009 to 11/12.12.2014.
b) PW.40 collected direct messages and tweets/re-tweets of @shamiwitness twitter account from Twitter Inc. in text format.
c) PW.40 collected direct messages of @shamiwitness twitter account from Twitter Inc. in excel format.
d) PW.40 collected tweets/retweets of @shamiwitness twitter account from Twitter Inc. in excel format.
e) PW.40 collected media files of @shamiwitness twitter account from Twitter Inc. in text format.
f) PW.40 collected images tweeted/retweeted by the accused on his @shamiwitness twitter account from Twitter Inc.
g) PW.40 collected the details of the suspended accounts which were associated with @shamiwitness twitter account, collected the details of followers and followings of @shamiwitness twitter account and other details, which are not much important for discussion, from Twitter Inc. Keeping in mind the aforesaid proved facts, this Court proceeds to examine whether the accused has committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution.
210. Point No.5 :- The allegations of the prosecution are that the accused tweeted and re-tweeted exciting Muslims in 141 Spl.C.No.272/2015 India to believe that the Muslims are being attacked relentlessly by the Indian Government and there is no justice for Muslims in India, calling upon Muslims to support the Caliphate in Jammu & Kashmir with an intention to support the terrorist acts in Jammu & Kashmir, which caused or intended to cause disaffection against the Government established by law in India and thereby committed the offence of Sedition punishable under Section 124- A of IPC. Before proceeding to take the facts of the case for discussion, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India, in W.P.(C) No.682/2021 decided on 11.05.2022. In this decision, the constitutional validity of Section 124-A of IPC was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. While dealing with the constitutional validity of Section 124-A of IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para No.8 as follows :-
"8. In view of the clear stand taken by the Union of India, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order in the interest of justice:
a. The interim stay granted in W.P.(Crl.)No.217/2021 along with W.P.(Crl.)No.216/2021 vide order dated 31.05.2021 shall continue to operate till further orders.
b. We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration.
c. If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief. The Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India.
d. All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused.142
Spl.C.No.272/2015 e. In addition to the above, the Union of India shall be at liberty to issue the Directive as proposed and placed before us, to the State Governments/Union Territories to prevent any misuse of Section 124A of IPC.
f. The above directions may continue till further orders are passed.
211. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, the Hon'ble Apex Court has stayed the operation of Section 124-A of IPC and directed the courts in India to keep all the pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to charge framed under Section 124-A of IPC in abeyance and adjudication with respect to other sections if any, could proceed if the courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused. In this case, this court had examined all the witnesses except further cross examination of PW.40 - Shri Thammaiah M.K. before issuing such direction by the Hon'ble Apex Court. There are other charges against the accused persons in addition to the charge under section 124-A of IPC. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, no prejudice would be caused to the accused if this court proceeds to pass judgment on the charges leveled against the accused other than the charge under section 124-A of IPC. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the courts in India to keep the trial pending in respect of the charge framed under Section 124-A of the IPC in abeyance, this court has no power to pronounce judgment in respect of the said offence and the same is kept in abeyance till final verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, this court has not considered the aforesaid offence on merits and no finding is given on the aforesaid allegations. Hence, no more discussion is necessary in this regard and this 143 Spl.C.No.272/2015 point does not survive for consideration. Therefore, this Court has answered point No.5 accordingly.
212. Point No.1 :- It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 13(1)(b) of the U.A.(P) Act. For better appreciation of the facts, it is proper to extract Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act, which reads as follows :-
"13. Punishment for unlawful activities.--
(1) Whoever--
(a) takes part in or commits, or
(b) advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of, any unlawful activity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever, in any way, assists any unlawful activity of any association declared unlawful under section 3, after the notification by which it has been so declared has become effective under sub-
section (3) of that section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to any treaty, agreement or convention entered into between the Government of India and the Government of any other country or to any negotiations therefor carried on by any person authorised in this behalf by the Government of India"
213. A bare reading of the aforesaid section, the prosecution has to prove before this court that a person takes part in or commits, or advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of, any unlawful activity or in any way, assists any unlawful activity of any association, declared unlawful under section 3 of the U.A.(P) Act to convict such person under section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act. Though the word unlawful activity is used in the said section, it does not explain the meaning of unlawful activity.
144Spl.C.No.272/2015 In order to know the meaning of unlawful activity, it is apposite to extract section 2(o) of the U.A.(P) Act which reads as follows;
"2(o) "unlawful activity", in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise),--
(i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or
(ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or
(iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India"
214. A perusal of the definition of unlawful activity, the prosecution has to prove that any individual or association has committed acts which are intended, or supported any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India. As per section 13, even an individual can be convicted if the prosecution is able to prove that he is involved in commission of unlawful activity.
215. It is the allegation of the prosecution against the accused that he advocated, abetted and incited the people in Kashmir to bring about the cession and secession of a part of 145 Spl.C.No.272/2015 the territory of India from the Union and thereby committed unlawful activity. In the aforesaid paragraphs, this court has discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution in detail and has held that the accused was the handler of @shamiwitness twitter handle and he tweeted/retweeted on his twitter handle. A perusal of Ex.P.121 and Ex.P.212 to Ex.P.242, the accused has tweeted on his @shamiwitness twitter account as follows;
Page Date Time Exhibit Tweets made and Images posted Nos. Nos. by the accused 4971 21.02.2014 04:30:36 121 The accused has tweeted as "RT @KashmirRebel: "The Indian army has tortured one out of every six people living in the occupied province of Kashmir" India's way of preaE;"
3425 11.02.2014 18:23:03 218 The accused has posted the image with different subject and tweeted as "RT @BeingMoslem:
#FreeKashmir is the top trend in India right now. Well done brethren.
http://t.co/mHdWWzrRON"
9362 11.07.2014 12:00:07 230 The accused has posted the images of protest in Jammu and Kashmir and tweeted as "RT @Abidfarooqwarsi: 'Down with Israel', ##IndianOccuipiedKashmir protest against Israeli offensive.
@ShamiWitness @truthsMaster
http://t.coaE;"
10546 29.07.2014 18:29:14 233 The accused has posted the
images of supporting Islamic States
in Kashmir and tweeted as "RT
@AasimMohammadis:
@ShamiWitness Support for
Dawlah from #OccupiedKashmir's
central grand mosque
http://t.cohxrMT9cK5D
10575 30.07.2014 06:48:00 233 The accused has posted the
images of supporting Islamic States
in Kashmir and tweeted as "RT
@Gazi_Ya_Shaheed: @
ShamiWitness @LifeoMujahid
146
Spl.C.No.272/2015
@IS_Conquests @operationbyia
see black flags in #srinagar #indian
#occupied #kashmir htaE;
12294 30.09.2014 19:44:10 236 The accused has posted the image of a dead terrorist and tweeted as "RT @Tweet_pelter: We have a martyr today.
Achieved martyrdom few hours ago fighting India. #Occupied @Kashmir http://t.co/PjqP0RsJrr"
6629 09.05.2014 14:12:03 121 The accused has posted the web links of dead bodies of Muslims women killed in a massacre in India and tweeted as "RT @_faysal:
Documentary| How pellet guns used by Indian forces in #Kashmir destroy lives http://t.co/GHAQUOIP3s #mustwatch 8754 30.06.2014 08:22:50 229 The accused has posted the images from Kashmir, showing support for ISIS in Srinagar, Kashmir and tweeted as "RT @ali_waqa: Support To ISIS, Al Qaida, TTP from Srinagar Kashmir.
First day of Ramadhan &
Khilafah Restored. Such a great news http://taE;"
8828 02.07.2014 06:46:48 229 The accused has posted an image 'Kashmir is calling' along with ISIS flag and tweeted as "RT @aalaw_:
Support for #IslamicState | #Khilafah #Kashmir chapter #ISIS #ISIL #WeSuportISIS #AllEyesOnISIS http://t.co/4FfgN9Q0TF"
9362 11.07.2014 12:00:07 230 The accused has posted the images of protest in Jammu and Kashmir and and tweeted as "RT @Abidfarooqwarsi: 'Down with Israel', ##IndianOccuipiedKashmir protest against Israeli offensive.
@ShamiWitness @truthsMaster
http://t.coaE;"
10512 29.07.2014 07:33:20 233 The accused has posted the images of supporting Islamic States in Kashmir and tweeted as "RT 147 Spl.C.No.272/2015 @irshadnabi52: @ghazishami @Abuloo:22 #SupportfromKashmir http://t.com/Mx8KrvFhZ5 10546 29.07.2014 18:29:14 233 The accused has posted the images of supporting Islamic States in Kashmir and tweeted as "RT @AasimMohammadis:
@ShamiWitness Support for Dawlah from #OccupiedKashmir's central grand mosque http://t.cohxrMT9cK5D 10575 30.07.2014 06:48:00 233 The accused has posted the images of supporting Islamic States in Kashmir and tweeted as "RT @Gazi_Ya_Shaheed: @ ShamiWitness @LifeoMujahid @IS_Conquests @operationbyia see black flags in #srinagar #indian #occupied #kashmir htaE;
10576 30.07.2014 06:48:00 233 The accused has posted the images of supporting Islamic States in Kashmir and tweeted as "RT @Gazi_Ya_Shaheed: @ ShamiWitness @LifeoMujahid @IS_Conquests @operationbyia see black flags in #srinagar #indian #occupied #kashmir htaE;
216. It appears from the aforesaid tweets/retweets, the accused advocated and supported the claim of cession and secession of Kashmir from Union of India, incited people of Kashmir to bring about such cession and secession by tweeting that Indian Army tortured one out of every six people living in occupied province of Kashmir and also caused disaffection against India. The accused questioned the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and supported the establishment of Islamic State in Kashmir. He supported the terrorist activities in Kashmir and praised the person who died in a fight against Indian Army as he achieved martyrdom. The accused called 148 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Kashmir as "Occupied Kashmir" and the Indian Forces as "Occupation Forces". Hence, the prosecution has proved with cogent and convincing evidence that the accused supported the claim to bring cession and secession of Kashmir from the Union of India, he questioned the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, caused disaffection against India, and to bring into hatred towards Government established by law in India.
217. The learned counsel for the accused argued that no offence is not committed in India and the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 13 of U.A.(P) Act and no one testified regarding the said offence. As discussed supra, the prosecution has placed abundant materials to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 13 of U.A.(P) Act. Hence, this court has declined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and has answered point No.1 in the affirmative.
218. Point No.2:- It is the allegations of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 18-B of U.A.(P) Act. Before taking the facts for discussion, it is apposite to extract Section 18-B of U.A(P) Act, which reads as follows :-
"18-B. Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act. -- Whoever recruits or causes to be recruited any person or persons for commission of a terrorist act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
219. A bare reading of the aforesaid section, the prosecution has to prove that a person recruits or causes to be 149 Spl.C.No.272/2015 recruited the persons for commission of a terrorist act to convict such person under the said section. The prosecution has alleged that the accused opened a twitter account in the name of @shamiwitness in 2009, he recruited the persons for commission of a terrorist act by willfully allowing his twitter account to become a meeting place for pro-ISIS accounts, who wanted to contact other pro-ISIS accounts and helped those Mujahirs (immigrants who came to join the ISIS) to cross the border by helping them with specific input of which border post was open through his twitter account.
220. A perusal of Ex.P.121, Ex.126 and Ex.P.212 to Ex.242, which are proved documents, the accused has tweeted as follows;
Page Date Time Exhibit Tweets made and Images posted Nos. Nos. by the accused 2548 30.09.2013 17:13:13 121 The accused has retweeted the message of @I_jaman "any brother hoping to come, then come. Alone or with group. Both are good. No money is required when you come."
2214 08.09.2013 09:24:32 121 The accused has posted a web link and tweeted as "Obligations to join the Islamic State of Iraq &:
Sham, by Sheikh Abu Hassan"
https://t.co/qDlCpiNtDg 10571 23.11.2014 18:14:20 121 The accused has posted retweets of ISIS propaganda seeking recruitment to the Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @BaniHillal: aEoe The Islamic state is like a magnet that attracts large numbers of MuslimsaE #IS http://t.co/risq6kVrFW 10571 23.11.2014 18:15:17 121 The accused has posted retweets of ISIS propaganda seeking recruitment to the Islamic State and 150 Spl.C.No.272/2015 tweeted as "RT @BaniHillal:
AEoeAll those who were cursing us and attacking us for joining ISIS came to pledge their loyalty to ISISaE http://t.co/9j375AjPaE;
10571 23.11.2014 18:15:54 121 The accused has posted retweets of ISIS propaganda seeking recruitment to the Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @BaniHillal: aEoe More than 1000 Al Nusra front fighters in the area joined force with ISIS a in a single week end in August. aE http://t.coaE;
10571 23.11.2014 18:16:12 121 The accused has posted retweets of ISIS propaganda seeking recruitment to the Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @BaniHillal: aEoe We opened 57 free public restaurants in Raqqa city, which provides three meals a day for any resident...aE http://t.co/yvslaE;
10571 23.11.2014 18:26:47 121 The accused has posted retweets of ISIS propaganda seeking recruitment to the Islamic State and tweeted as "AeoeLarge brigades in Idlib, Aleppo, Derra, Qalamoun and south Damascus have pledged loyalty to Isis in secret. Many senior leaders of (1) 10571 23.11.2014 18:27:29 121 The accused has posted retweets of ISIS propaganda seeking recruitment to the Islamic State and tweeted as "Brigades in Syria are in talks with us": ex-FSA ldr now with #IS (2) 528 27.11.2013 03.25.46 126 The accused suggested the other 03:26:41 person who wanted to join ISIS as 03:27:06 "regarding going to jihad? .... bro 03:29:27 you can't tell your family ......unless 03:31:31 you have fully joined..... u have to lie to them..... hmm....but shouldn't it be easier to join Ansar al Sharia in Yemen itself?"
7193 28.05.2014 13:02:03 226 The accused has posted the images of extract from religious book and tweeted as "RT @BlackFlagWorld: It is obligatory 151 Spl.C.No.272/2015 to give Bayah to a Khalifah that fulfils the conditions as soon as he declares it. http://t.co/FcfVhMjaE;"
8282 19.07.2014 16:54:34 228 The accused has posted an image and web link of a documentary and tweeted as "RT @alhayaten:
Presenting: There is No Life Without Jihad http://t.co/RL8ivpNqVZ http://t.co/YEtTtyB57S"
12971 11.10.2014 17:00:02 237 The accused has posted the images of new recruits being trained in Islamic States and tweeted as "RT @Murabiteen: New Islamic State recruits from Nineveh training camp May Allah give them victory or Shahada #IS #QSU,, xxxx http:aE;"
6356 08.05.2014 19:45:29 224 The accused has posted the image containing writings of some religious book, calling upon the Muslims to join jihad and tweeted as "RT @AbuBakrAljanabi:
Subhanallah many want to join #ISIS it's just amazing, it reminds me of this hadith http://t.co/jXcrtbJchi.
15216 06.12.2014 14:35:31 242 The accused has posted the images and tweets propagating the people to come and join the ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Alifrikani: The great Indonesian Alim Abu Bakr Bashir gives Bayah to Abu Bakr al Bagdadi http://t.co/350GwZb5Xu 14532 26.11.2014 03:34:04 241 The accused has posted the images and tweets as "RT @AbuHussain104: Accept islam & give bayah to abu bakr al baghdadi & then we will send u soldiers that dont sleep ! - #IS #Ferguson httaE;"
221. The aforesaid tweets/retweets indicate that the accused recruited and also caused to be recruited the young 152 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Muslim youths for commission of a terrorist act by suggesting them that it is the obligation of a Muslim to join ISIS, it is obligatory to give bayah to a Khalifah and there is no life without jihad. The accused has also suggested a Muslim youth not to tell his family until he joins ISIS and he has to lie his family members. The accused has also invited the Muslim youths to come alone or with group to join Islamic State. Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused recruited and caused to be recruited the persons to commit a terrorist act with cogent and convincing evidence.
222. The learned counsel for the accused argued that none is recruited throughout India or foreign country to commit a terrorist act. No incident occurred anywhere in India as per the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove the said facts. He further argued that section 15 and 16 of U.A.(P) Act are not invoked in this case. Hence, invocation of section 18-B against the accused is not proper. It is pertinent to note that the offence under section 18-B of U.A.(P) Act is an independent offence and there is no need to invoke section 15 and 16 of U.A.(P) Act for invoking section 18-B of U.A.(P) Act as argued by the learned counsel for the accused.
223. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that no terrorist act is committed in India and therefore, invocation of section 18-B is not proper. In order to appreciate the said contention in a better manner, it is apposite to extract section 15 of U.A.(P) Act which reads as follows;153
Spl.C.No.272/2015
15. Terrorist act.-- [(1)] Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security [, economic security,] or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,--
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause--
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or [(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material; or]
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign country or 5[an international or inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act; or commits a terrorist act.
[Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section,
(a) "public functionary" means the constitutional authorities or any other functionary notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government as public functionary;
(b) "high quality counterfeit Indian currency" means the counterfeit currency as may be declared after examination by an authorised or notified forensic authority that such currency imitates or compromises with the key security features as specified in the Third Schedule.
[(2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.] 154 Spl.C.No.272/2015
224. A plain reading of the said section, any person does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or section of the people in India or in any foreign country by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances, etc., to cause or likely to cause death of, or injuries, to any person or persons; or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of property, etc., commits a terrorist act. In this case, the prosecution has placed evidence to show that the ISIS fighters used explosive substances and caused the death of persons and also caused destruction of properties with intention to strike terror in the people of Syria, Iran and Iraq and thereby committed terrorist act in a foreign country. The accused recruited and caused to be recruited the persons to ISIS with intention to commit a terrorist act in a foreign country. Hence, this court does not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and has answered point No.2 in the affirmative.
225. Point No.3:- It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 39 of U.A.(P) Act. It is apposite to refer to section 39 of U.A.(P) Act for better appreciation of the facts. Section 39 of U.A.(P) Act reads as follows;
"39. Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation.
(1) A person commits the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation,--
(a) who, with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation,
--
(i) invites support for the terrorist organization; and
(ii) the support is not or is not restricted to provide money or other property within the meaning of section 40; or 155 Spl.C.No.272/2015
(b) who, with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is--
(i) to support the terrorist organization; or
(ii) to further the activity of the terrorist organization; or
(iii) to be addressed by a person who associates or professes to be associated with the terrorist organisation; or
(c) who, with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, addresses a meeting for the purpose of encouraging support for the terrorist organisation or to further its activity. (2) A person, who commits the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or with fine, or with both.
226. A bare reading of the aforesaid section, the prosecution has to prove that a person with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, invites support for the said terrorist organization or with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is to support the terrorist organization or to further the activity of the terrorist organization or to be addressed by a person who associates or professes to be associated with the terrorist organisation or with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, addresses a meeting for the purpose of encouraging support for the terrorist organisation or to further its activity. In this case, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused invited the support for the terrorist organisation ISIL/ISIS/ISI and made tweets and retweets on his @shamiwitness twitter account for the purpose of encouraging support to the said terrorist organisation with intention to further the activity of the said terrorist organisation.
156Spl.C.No.272/2015
227. A perusal of Ex.P.212 to Ex.P.242, which are proved documents, the accused has tweeted/retweeted on his twitter account as follows;
Page Date Time Exhibit Tweets made and Images posted Nos. Nos. by the accused 1405 26.07.2013 05:31:51 121 The accused has posted the full form of Jn and ISIS and tweeted as "@swnatso JN = Jabhat an Nusra ISIS = Islamic State of Iraq &:Sham"
14532 26.11.2014 03:34:04 241 The accused has posted the images and tweeted as "RT @AbuHussain104: Accept islam & give bayah to abu bakr al baghdadi & then we will send u soldiers that dont sleep ! - #IS #Ferguson httaE;"
652 22.07.2013 13:17:15 213 The accused has posted the image of a play card and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: Placard in Saudi Arabia : 'We congratulate/bless Abu Bakr (al-
Baghdadi) for liberation of Abu Gharaib & amp; Taji prisons':
https:aE;"
808 04.08.2013 08:04:06 213 The accused has posted the image of the dead body of ISIS fighter and tweeted as "Abu Maaz, one of the rebel martyr in the battles to free the coast http://t.co/4yCbqdvEYt"
821 04.08.2013 13:51:28 213 The accused has posted the image of an ISIS fighter and tweeted as "Abu Rahma at Libbi, one of the foreign fighters who died in today's Battles on the Coast http?//t.co/NXX0KS5BtD"
866 09.08.2013 06:43:25 213 The accused has posted the image of an ISIS fighter and tweeted as "RT @Charles_Lister:
AbuYaqub (a Saudi) who carried out a suicide car bombing for Jaish al-Muhjirin wa Ansar in Kafr Hamra, #Aleppo:http:aE;"
157Spl.C.No.272/2015 1317 13.09.2013 20:12:26 214 The accused has posted the image of ISIS fighter and tweeted as "RT @AbuSiqr: Uthman al nazeh arrived in Hama to aide the take overs led by Isis there http://t.co/KqJCY2sfZE"
1381 17.09.2013 04:00:04 214 The accused has posted the image of an ISIS fighter and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi:
BREAKING: 1st ISIS martyr in #Syria from those who escaped @Baghdad prisons in July:Kuwaiti fighter Ziyad al-Saqabi http://taE;"
1390 18.09.2013 08:08:42 214 The accused has posted the image of the ISIS fighters and tweeted as "RT @GreenBirds111:
@SaveSunnishInIran TWO BROTHERS IN PIC ALREADY EXECUTED YOUR SILENCE WILL LET MORE DIE! http://5.co/QBs74aGpYC .httpaE;"
1570 10.10.2013 08:47:08 215 The accused has posted the image of the ISIS fighters and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi:
#Syria: Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham fighters show their support for jihadi ideolgue Sheikh Khalid Rashid http://t.caE;"
1610 15.10.2013 04:25:03 215 The accused has posted the image of a meeting place of ISIS fighters and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: #Syria: Scene from an Islamic State of Iraq and ash-
Sham da"wah meeting in Azaz this evening: http://t.co/vk4QLlHlmy"
1622 15.10.2013 20:07:53 215 The accused has posted the image of a child and tweeted as "RT @ajltamimi: @Syria: A young girl in chador shows her support for the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham:
http://t.co/gknB9QcaFW"
1674 22.10.2013 02:58:58 215 The accused has posted the image of an ISIS fighter and tweeted as "RT @ajltamimi:
#Syria: new martyr for the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham in 158 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Sakhna, Homes area: Abu Dhir the #Libyan: http://t.co/VDCtYaE ;"
1688 26.10.2013 15:30:44 215 The accused has posted the image of an ISIS fighter and tweeted as "RT @ajltamimi:
#Syria: new local Hama martyr for Islamic State of Iraq and ash- Sham: Abu Abd alRazzaq al-
Ansari http://t.co/kCi4NUbqjx"
1698 28.10.2013 04:03:57 215 The accused has posted the image of ISIS fighters, provided names and twitter ID and tweeted as "RT @khorasani_: @l_jaman_ and the rest of the team on a casual stroll the local village to give dawah to the people haha.
http://t.co/aSZlaE"
1736 02.11.2013 16:00:54 215 The accused has posted the image of a text, which says that profit was quoted to be asked as "there is something by means of which a person will be raised one hundred levels in paradise, and the distance between each two levels is like the distance between heaven and earth for that the prophet has replied that "Jihad in the cause of Allah, Jihad in the cause of Allah" and tweeted as "RT @Cjohnson_gta: Check Out Daily Hadith! http://t.co/YpcSLxyoox"
1742 04.11.2013 14:15:11 215 The accused has posted the image of an ISIS fighter who carried out suicide bombing and tweeted as "RT @troublejee:
Martyrdom attack was carried out by Abu Moussab from ISIS in al-
Thabitia Shiite villge in @Homs @Syria http://t.co/KoZOEbCaE ;"
1753 07.11.2013 04:08:57 215 The accused has posted the image of an ISIS fighter who carried out suicide bombing and tweeted as "RT @jaltamimi: The latest native @Syrian martyr for the Islamic State of Iraq and ash- Sham: Ibrahim Othman, from city of Tabqa: http://t.caE;"159
Spl.C.No.272/2015 1770 09.11.2013 07:19:11 215 The accused has posted the image of a dead body of the terrorist and tweeted as "RT @RadicalIslmist:
#SmileOfAShaheed ISISMujahid Raheemahulla! 'The Martyr sees his place in Paradise'-Prophet Muhammad http://t.coUae"
1814 16.11.2013 12:47:44 215 The accused has posted the image of the ISIS fighters and tweeted as "RT @troublejee: Two Jihadi Khurdish from Iraq martyred in #Syria, 1 of them famous footballer, during battles against PYD two weeks ago"
1823 17.11.2013 17:28:53 215 The accused has posted the image of flags of two terrorist organizations ISIS and Jabhat Al-
Nusra and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: new Jihadi graphic being circulated: "ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra: brothers in blood and creed" #Syria #Iraq http://t.co/JU2aUaE ;"
1892 24.11.2013 20:22:12 215 The accused has posted the image of beheaded heads of Shiya fighters and tweeted as "RT @Ayaassin: @ShamiWitness @troublejee @Khalid_Maghrebi @PhilipSmyth 2 Shia militants beheaded in East Ghouta http://t.co/dLai3niLHS"
1974 02.12.2013 16:43:20 215 The accused has posted the image of a suicide bomber Abdullah Al-Shammary and tweeted as "RT@Ajaltamimi: #Iraq:
Islamic State of Iraq and ash- Sham suicide bomber Abdullah Al- Shammary, who blew up Sahwa funeral in Diyala" http://aE"
2230 21.12.2013 19:06:16 216 The accused has posted the image of a terrorist and tweeted as "RT @troublejee: This guy did the 2nd martyrdom attack in Adraa, after the one in Tameco outpost.
(This time it will be his last) http://t.caE;"
160Spl.C.No.272/2015 2575 04.01.2014 00:57:35 217 The accused has retweeted the image and tweet of Khorasani and tweeted as "RT @khorasani_:
Wallahi the Somalia jihaad is one that is underrated. May Allah make our brothers victorious over the kuffar! http://t.co/5aE;"
2805 14.01.2014 17:29:19 217 The accused has retweeted the images of Canadian ISIS fighters and tweeted as "RT @abu_muhjir1: My Bro....Abu Talha al-Canadi Executed by #FSA! InshAllah we will meet in Jannah! May Allah accept your Shahada! http://aE;"
2886 17.01.2014 12:06:19 217 The accused has posted the image of European Islamic Fighter and tweeted as "Martydom of Abu Usman Dokka Khamatovich Umarov, first Emir of the Caucasus Emirate http://t.co/7Zhvqtv2ur #Caucasus"
2945 19.01.2014 13:12:03 217 The accused has posted the image of British fighter and there is a quote on the image "I would rather fight in the path of Allah than be with my wife. I have unlimited time to spend with my wife after I die. The name of the person is also mentioned in the said image as Shaheed Ibrahim Al-Mazwagi (Syria, 1991 - February 2013 and tweeted as "RT @abu_muhajir1:
Abul Fidaa! Rahimuhullah
#LionsOfBritain
http://t.co/xdBVByCJAY
1210 13.07.2013 23:29:02 121 The accused has posted the tweets about happening /infighting in Syria between ISIS groups and tweeted as "Just to give you an idea of how large ISIS is: at least 10,000 fighters in Aleppo province itself. JN lost A LOT to ISIS here."
1246 16.07.2014 03:30:18 121 The accused has posted the short biography of abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi and also web link and tweeted as "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - a short 161 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Bioagraphy of the ISIS Sheikh #Syria #Iraq http://t.co/pL18Lp0c5X p2QG01- 1c1 via @p_vanostaeyen"
1340 21.07.2013 21:30:16 121 The accused has tweeted that "ISIS declares Abu Ghraib operation successful "
1574 05.08.2013 04:01:39 121 The accused has posted a warning message to his followers and tweeted as "Warning: TOR has been compromised by FBL. U r not as anonymous as u think while using it. IP traceable back to feds."
2081 31.08.2013 04:06:22 121 The accused has posted the images of Abu Mohammed Al-
Adnani, who is an UN listed terrorist and tweeted as "Word from Abu Muhammad al Adnani al Shami, official spokesman of Islamic State of Iraq & Sham http://t.co/VywwdRKWaj #Syria #Iraq"
2153 03.09.2013 21:28:14 121 The accused has retweeted an ISIS Song, calling on unity and support to Al-Bagdadi and tweeted as "RT @Mondoweiss: AIPAC comes out for strike on Syria- and mentions Iran more often than Syria http://t.co/YwEfdyLl08"
2406 19.09.2013 19:35:16 121 The accused has tweeted about Abu Mariya Al-Qahtani who is an UN listed terrorist who personally carried out execution of person responsible for killing Sunnis and tweeted as "Abu Mariya al Qahtani Jabhat an Nusra emir of Eastern Region, personally executed a Shabbih responsible for killing dozens of Sunnis #Syria"
2445 23.09.2013 11:02:35 121 The accused tweeted arguing that ISIS cannot be defeated and tweeted as "A few days back, they released pics of ISIS fighters in Ghouta training with silenced pistols. Now THAT's their real anti- Sahwa training...162
Spl.C.No.272/2015 2862 28.10.2013 03:48:17 121 The accused has given two Twitter handles of two ISIS terrorist namely @khorasani_ and @I_jaman and stated as "@khorasani_@i_jaman_alhamud ulillah. You bros talked the talk, walked the walk. May Allah accept your life and death."
3107 19.11.2013 06:54:52 121 The accused was calling upon Muslims to attend the prayer of Abdel Qader Saleh in Istanbul and tweeted as "Bros in #Istanbul, there's going to be a salat al ghaib for the martyr AbdelQader Saleh in the Fatih mosque today. Plz attend & pray for him"
3209 26.11.2013 16:27:17 121 The accused calling upon the Sunni Muslmis outside Syria to send help to defeat the Government and tweeted as "@AhmadKozba @abyasun instead of whining, Sunnis outside Syria (at least those who identify as Sunni Muslims) should send help to defeat regime."
3489 17.12.2013 07:51:08 121 The accused has retweeted the messages related to I_jaman and tweeted as "@mrjaman_May Allaah accept him. Talked the talk, walked the walk."
3638 25.12.2013 17:20:54 121 The accused has tweeted thrice glorifying Iftekhar Jaman and gave his Twitter ID and his British origin and his assume name and has retweeted his messages and tweeted as "Iftekhar Jaman (@I_jaman_), Abu Abdurrahman al Brittani, British martyr of ISIS, in action http://t.co/fD9AmkS9w4 #Syria."
3638 25.12.2013 17:21:24 121 The accused has tweeted thrice glorifying Iftekhar Jaman and gave his Twitter ID and his British origin and his assume name and has retweeted his messages and tweeted as "RT @ZAHRANI_KAZ:
QEU.... One of the bravest when 163 Spl.C.No.272/2015 we attack @I_Jaman_ He was like storm near me in battle..http:/aE; 3638 25.12.2013 17:23:10 121 The accused has tweeted thrice glorifying Iftekhar Jaman and gave his Twitter ID and his British origin and his assume name and has retweeted his messages and tweeted as "RT @I_Jaman_: This life is short. I remind myself this a lot. I will see my family soon, but be-iznillah, in a much better place. 3935 05.01.2014 22:07:21 121 The accused has announced the martyr of the second highest official of ISIS and tweeted as "Martyrdom of 2nd highest ranked official in Islamic State of Iraq & Sham, Hajji Bakr. Unlike Aloush, men of ISIS fight on frontline. #Syria."
3994 07.01.2014 18:28:14 121 The accused has re-tweeted the message of ISIS terrorist informing the death of one Abubdur Rahman and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaBrtany:
AbuAbdurrahman died fighting an entire battallion by himself, he refused to retreat with the others, thats the truth, naE;"
4055 10.01.2014 16:17:34 121 The accused has posted a web link of 63 ISIS terrorist who died trying to capture the city of Homs in Syria and tweeted as "63 young martyrs, those who pledged to break the siege on #Homs, or die trying http://t.co/M9fnb8vB5n #NeverForget #Syria"
4127 14.01.2014 04:16:53 121 The accused has retweeted all the messages emerging from ISIS account @Doula_news and tweeted as "RT @Doula_News:
@Doula_News http://t.co/rRxX7sjFCy 4135 14.01.2014 17:29:19 121 The accused has retweeted from one ISIS terrorist account @abu_muhjir1 regarding the death of his brother as "RT @abu_muhjir1: My Bro..Abu Talha 164 Spl.C.No.272/2015 al-Canadi Executed by #FSA! InshAllah we will meet in Jannah! May Allah accept your Shahada http://aE;"
6704 11.05.2014 19:45:05 121 The accused has posted the messages of Abu Mohammed Al-
Adnani as "#Breaking Latest message from Sh Abu Muhamad al Adnani, spokesman of the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham http://t.co/AU8Zx8aeF2 #Iraq #Syria 6847 17.05.2014 17:26:58 121 The accused is suggesting to ISIS terrorists to go to Twitter settings and deselect notifications with an intention to hide the identity and tweeted as "@Abu_Maghrebi go to twitter settings and deselect notifications bro. It's for your own benefit.
6848 17.05.2014 17:40:46 121 The accused gave further information how to protect oneself from identification by using certain applications like TOR and ORBOT which are concerned hiding the identification from being tracked by Law Enforcement and tweeted as "@MuawiyalAsufian bro its a security issue, push notifications r not protected by TOR.assuming he uses TOR in the first place @Abu_Maghrebi 6848 17.05.2014 17:50:10 121 The accused guided the other twitter handlers how to tweet anonymously and tweeted as "@Abu_Maghrebi Orbot works in background, TORifying every app on the device, not 2 or 3 @MuawiyalASufian 7016 24.05.2014 09:29:28 121 The accused has tweeted that "RT @Muhammad_Miski: Todayis the day of Revenge. Today is the day of Slaughter. Allahu Akbar."
7077 26.05.2014 06:19:24 121 The accused has posted five
tweets of an ISIS fighters who
were undergoing training and
tweeted as "RT
165
Spl.C.No.272/2015
@AbuDujanaMuhajr : Bumped into
new muhajireen waiting for
training, the training will begin
soon with 150 muhajireen
inshaallah. Many froaE;
7524 11.06.2014 09:18:59 121 The accused has tweeted as "InshaAllah we are witnessing the birth of the Caliphate. Please Allah, make it true."
7588 13.06.2014 06:20:02 121 The accused tweeted that '1700 Shia soldiers are executed' and tweeted as "Reliable ISIS sources claiming 2500 Sunni soldiers from ISF were pardoned by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, and rest 1700 Shia soldiers were executed!"
7948 29.06.2014 15:41:36 121 The accused is celebrating the formation of Islamic State and tweeted as "HERE IS THE NEWBORN KHILAFA ! THE ISLAMIC STATE! #KhilafaRestored 7948 29.06.2014 15:47:49 121 The accused follows with a tweet that "Ya Allah, I can't hold back my tears... ya Allaah, guide, protect, strengthen, and expand this Khilafa, #CaliphateRestored #KhailafaRestored."
8308 13.07.2014 22:39:47 121 The accused has made four tweets of ISIS terrorist Abu_Dujana_. and tweeted as "RT @Abu_Dujana_: He gave me the news that one of the two British brothrts, Abul Baraa had been martyred in Ramadi, Iraq whilst fighting IraaE;
8327 14.07.2014 15:57:09 121 The accused has posted two articles written by him in support of Islamic State and tweeted as "My latest article: "Evolution of AQ attempts to counter the Islamic State" http://t.co/JM4S3DUvWW #QSU... #AQ #Islam 8683 26.07.2014 06:43:46 121 The accused has posted 17 tweets justifying the information of Islamic State quoting from Religious text and tweeted as "That He will certainly grant them succession (Khalifa) to (the present rulers) in 166 Spl.C.No.272/2015 the earth, as He granted it to those before them, (15) 9012 07.08.2014 08:53:07 121 The accused has posted three tweets celebrating the capture of Masul Dam by Islamic State and tweeted as "Allaahu Akbar Allaahu Akbar Allahu Akbar #AIIVictoryisfromAllaahAlone" 9012 07.08.2014 08:55:24 121 The accused has posted three tweets celebrating the capture of Masul Dam by Islamic State and tweeted as "First reports that Mosul Dam has also fallen in Is hands. Make it true O Allah.
#AllVictoryisFrom AllahAlone Allaahu Akbar walillahil hamd" 10082 17.10.2014 13:43:01 121 The accused is tweeting to an ISIS terrorist Abu Dujana and tweeted as "@abudujana_may Allaah give you brothers decisive victory there soon."
10414 12.11.2014 05:43:29 121 The accused has posted five tweets openly threatening the Kurds to surrender to Islamic State and tweeted as "You don't know the endgame, Muslims do.
Muslims are already victorious. (5)" 10526 21.11.2014 07:22:04 121 The accused has posted the tweets with regard to progress in war made by the Islamic State and tweeted as "Shia militias and Sahwa fled from Azizia area in #Ramadi few hours back. #Iraq" 10526 21.11.2014 08:08:48 121 The accused has posted the tweets with regard to progress in war made by the Islamic State and tweeted as "Ranking officer in the Shia army along with all his soldiers killed after trying to escape from al Madiq area in Khalidiya. #Anbar"
10526 21.11.2014 08:54:43 121 The accused has posted the tweets with regard to progress in war made by the Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @YaazeedM:
#Ramadi is on fire! #IslamicState burning all the safavid surveillance 167 Spl.C.No.272/2015 towers in #Mu'arradh District #Anbar #Iraq"
10526 21.11.2014 09:35:50 121 The accused has posted the tweets with regard to progress in war made by the Islamic State and tweeted as "#IS assaults al Mahatta area in Balad (Salahuddin province), Shia army and militia convoys fleeing. #Iraq"
10666 28.11.2014 17:19:32 121 The accused has posted the tweets giving out tips how to make propaganda and tweeted as "Most of the enemy's spinmasterrs work for money. They work for the clock, they have weekly holidays. You don't work for money. (2)"
10666 28.11.2014 17:20:27 121 The accused has posted the tweets giving out tips how to make propaganda and tweeted as "You have no holidays. Make yours unpredictable. Surprise with new media offensives when they least expect it (3)"
10779 04.12.2014 16:19:13 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: Why Do We Wage Jihad? #IS"
10779 04.12.2014 16:19:17 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 1 To make the word of Allah supreme in this world. #IS http://t.co/xCdNMNYnJN"
10780 04.12.2014 16:19:25 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 2. To repel the aggression of those who attack the Muslims. #IS http://t.co/DuzKrhJKZE"
10780 04.12.2014 16:19:31 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 3. To frighten the disbelievers, humiliate them 168 Spl.C.No.272/2015 and put them to shame. #IS http://t.co/Mshm8X8fxo 10780 04.12.2014 16:19:40 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 4. To remove Shirk and Bidda' from the Ummah. #IS http://t.co/xHxOLeZjt7 10780 04.12.2014 16:19:47 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 5. To expose the hypocrites. #IS http://t.co/u3vl8cxVnA 10780 04.12.2014 16:19:54 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 6. To purify ourselves from sins. #IS http://t.co/ikpOp8BWw5 10780 04.12.2014 16:20:05 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 7. To be martyrs for the sake of Allah. #IS http://t.co/oLXKgKDu4d 10780 04.12.2014 16:20:13 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 8. To unite the Ummah under shade of Tawheed. #IS http://t.co/wja5hMMEd6"
10780 04.12.2014 16:20:19 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 9. To provide services and products that Muslims need. #IS http://t.co/xT2fKqr0Cq 10780 04.12.2014 16:20:25 121 The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage Jihad #Islamic State' and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfIS: 10. To call to the path of Allah with wisdom and good advice. #IS http://t.co/ik4vCNpX2x 169 Spl.C.No.272/2015 10830 08.12.2014 18:01:58 121 The accused has tweeted that 'may Allah guide, protect, strengthen, expand the Islamic State... and also make prayer for your Khilafa' and tweeted as "#PT May Allah guide, protect, strengthen &: expand the Islamic State. Don't forget to make dua for your Khilafa.
1060 19.08.2013 09:42:56 214 The accused has posted the image of German Pop star who converted to Islam and joined the ISIS and migrated to Syria and tweeted as "The accused posted the image of the and tweeted as "RT @p_vanostaeyen: A pic of the German hip hop star BesoDogg before and after he turned into a JihaAA< in #Syria http://t.co/ZiwuQpksB6"
3088 25.01.2014 16:19:01 218 The accused has posted the propaganda image in favour of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: #Syria: buffet meals provided by Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham in #Raqqa city:
http://.co/A3fGot0Zto"
3096 25.01.2014 17:17:48 218 The accused has posted the image of ISIS leader who was martyred and tweeted as "RT @TahriSy:
#Syria:Lebanese footballer Ahmad Diyab (Abu Bakr Alriyady) Carried out a suicide attack for #Alnusra in #homs today. http://taE;"
3097 25.01.2014 18:49:46 218 The accused has posted the image of ISIS leader who was martyred and tweeted as "RT @AbuSiqr:
More images of Abu Bakr Al Iraqi, martyred ISIS mikitary leader http://t.co/mxXboqueE9b http://t.co/7bMjskWdMg http://5.co/pjeaE;"
3157 27.01.2014 16:35:52 218 The accused has posted the image of Kuwati ISIS terrorist and tweeted as RT @ajaltamimi: #Iraq: Abd al-Rahman al-Kuwaiti with Abu Waheeb in #Anbar province 170 Spl.C.No.272/2015 (Islamic State of Iraq and ash- Sham) http://t.co/LilzGXhaE;"
3158 27.01.2014 17:01:32 218 The accused has posted the image of ISIS fighter just before he was carryout suicide bombing and tweeted as "Sheik Turki al Ashari (@aboalzobeer) on way to carry out the last mission in his life! http://t.co/62zT6RowZy xxx #Syria"
3165 28.01.2014 08:27:45 218 The accused has retweeted the statement of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi who is a banned terrorist and leader of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @fursanalbalaagh: [Statement] of Shaikh Abi Bakr AlBaghdadi || Titled [Allah knows and you know not] http://t.co/QWOejdRueU #Syria #ISIS aE;"
3258 02.02.2014 13:59:06 218 The accused has posted the image of rival group militants surrendered to ISIS and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: #Syria: rival rebel remnants in Jarabulus surrender themselves to the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham:
http://t.co/FMnPMaE;"
3272 03.02.2014 14:05:50 218 The accused has retweeted the image of Ifthekar Jaman and tweeted as "RT @MrJaman_: One moment they're walking this dunya, next flying in the hearts of green birds bi-iznillah Allah accept our brothers http://AE;"
3299 06.02.2014 14:23:39 218 The accused has posted the image and tweeted as "Saifullah al Shishani, ldr of many Caucasus fighters in #Syria, martyred in battle to liberate Aleppo Central Prison http://t.co/RbD6mpYzmr"
3330 08.02.2014 06:52:42 218 The accused has posted the image and tweets of foreign ISIS fighter who have been killed and glorified them as martyr "RT @AbeMoussa:
xxxxxxxxxxxxx Abu Faris from Belgium is martyred xxxx http://t.co/DVC4xaE;"171
Spl.C.No.272/2015 3342 08.02.2014 15:56:23 218 The accused has posted the image and tweets of foreign ISIS fighters who have been killed and glorified them as martyrs "RT @ajaltamimi:
#Iraq: Abu al-Zubayr ash-Shami, a Syrian suicide bomber for ISIS who targeted security forces in #Anbar http://t.co/2uT9FSlaE;"
3694 19.02.2014 20:10:15 219 The accused has posted the image of Finland terrorist and mentioned his name and has glorified his death and tweeted as "RT @Doula_news2: Abu Anas finlandi killed by the fsa, may Allah swt accept them.
http://t.co/CmsyQDZuJU"
3804 25.02.2014 06:46:44 219 The accused has posted the images propagating ISIS and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi:
#Syria: a local man fighting for ISIS dies from wounds after clashes w/rival forces attempting to take Jarabulus http://t.aE;"
3882 27.02.2014 04:00:29 219 The accused has posted the image and tweet, glorifying the death of ISIS terrorist and tweeted as "Martyr Saifullah al Shishani with his kid. These pics really make me sad. http://to.c//8VLCplVTb7 #Syria #Chechnya #Caucasus"
3984 01.03.2014 17:00:47 219 The accused has posted the image of ISIS fighters of Pakistan and the image also contains the logo of ISIS of and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: #Pakistani support for the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham; http://t.co/Tg9fWFJ871"
4077 04.03.2014 21:03:05 220 The accused has posted the images of founder of ISIS - Shaik Musal Al Zarqawi and ISIS is also known as Zarqawi network and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam1:
Rare picture of Sheikh Abu Musab Ali Zarqawi http://t.co/KoWswTLn8n"
4129 07.03.2014 13:29:38 220 The accused has posted the image of an ISIS terrorist and tweeted as 172 Spl.C.No.272/2015 "RT @KhaledSigsauer: We invite the Muslim nation to the blessed city of Raqqah the city of true shariaa http://t.co/EhkQxP0xXE"
4153 08.03.2014 18:22:55 220 The accused has posted the image of an Arabic poster claiming that Zahawiri (head of Al-Qaeda) himself declared all groups must give bayah (allegiance) to ISIS and tweeted as "RT @hajjjiOmar:
@ShamiWitness @IraqiWitness Zahawiri himself declared all groups must give bayah to ISI http://t.co/pnco1q9MVK"
4233 10.03.2014 16:18:13 220 The accused has posted the images of ISIS fighters undergoing training, the images contain logo of ISIS, the details of Islamic State and also English subtitles and tweeted as "RT @w_homs1: #ISIS #Cycle_training, #UNITED_HOMS @Wonderful_image 8 #Hunters_Nusayris http://t.co/V2w58Ecs2W"
4260 11.03.2014 20:51:06 220 The accused has posted the image of two persons who carried out suicide bombs and tweeted as "RT @vvanwilgenburg Alleged ISIL suicide bombers that carried out the attack in Qamishli via @kadaroza #syria http://t.co/zhS8C5C68j"
4623 21.03.2014 09:40:26 221 The accused has posted the images of foreign terrorists killed in Syria and has glorified them and tweeted as "RT @alCanadi313:
Abu Muslim al-Timmini (Ontario Canada) May Allah(swt) Have Mercy Upon you http://t.co/x2J08x159l"
5051 06.04.2014 14:19:27 222 The accused has posted the images of terrorists and tweeted as "RT @rz_raz38: U+ xxxxxxxxxxxx May allah accept you and give you firdous #shaheed http:t.co/AUAXumQHL5"
5284 12.04.2014 14:08:03 222 The accused has posted the 173 Spl.C.No.272/2015 tweets and images of Iraqi Soldiers killed and policeman who surrendered and tweeted as "RT @AbuBakAljanabi: #ISIS soldier posing with two dead Maliki's #Anbar #Iraq http:/t.co/4c4vtVbT12"
5310 13.04.2014 08:37:48 222 The accused has posted the images of foreign fighters who joined ISIS and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: #Iraq: The caravan of #Tunisian fighters for ISIS never stops : two more who died in #Diyala province :
http:/t.co/Sq4Nic3XRb"
5412 16.04.2014 06:21:33 222 The accused has posted the image of two ISIS fighters of Denmark and glorified their death and tweeted as "RT @AbuHamzaDK:
@dawlal_islam1 Abu Khattab and Abu Musa may Allah accept them as shuhada From Denmark http://t.co/3tSKg8X7NP"
5564 20.04.2014 07:46:47 223 The accused has posted the image of French Army soldier who joined ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Charles_Lister: aEoeAbu QatadaaaEa former French paratrooper turned ISIS militant.
#Syria #Iraq #France http://t.co/l8HpiHQbiH"
5617 20.04.2014 23:51:44 223 The accused has posted the images of attack by ISIS on Syrian forces and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: #Syria: ISIS assaulting a regime checkpoint in Homs province:
http://t.co/xlOu1lZDsq"
5819 27.04.2014 09:46:48 223 The accused has posted the image of a terrorist of Australian origin and tweeted as "RT @Dawla_Photos: Abu Ali Australlian - May Allah protect him
- http://t.co/UesTbZ4ygr"
5875 29.04.2014 13:13:11 223 The accused has posted the image of ISIS detonating carbon and tweeted as "RT @AbuBakAljanabi:
174Spl.C.No.272/2015 The Islamic State (#ISIS) detonate a huge car bomb amongst the Asaib Shia militia in Al-Nahda area of #Baghdad, #Iraq httpaE;"
5923 30.04.2014 04:15:17 223 The accused has posted the image of execution of the opponents of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Arab_Fury: 10 men from Ahrar al Sham set off a bomb in Raqqa. All were executed by ISIS and their leader was crucified. #Syria http://taE;"
6082 03.05.2014 17:00:12 224 The accused has posted the image of ISIS persons who carried out suicide bombs and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: #Syria: Abu Aisha al-
Hamawi, native ISIS suicide bomber who struck Alawite village of Jadrin in #Homs province http://t.co/aE;"
6194 05.05.2014 11:12:44 224 The accused has retweeted the image and message of an ISIS terrorist namely - Abu_Muhajir and tweeted as "RT @abu_muhajir1:
Abu Abudullah alKhorasani, A Canadian brother who did a fida'i operation in Iraq! May Allah swt Accept! http://t.co/jKFlOaE;"
6386 09.05.2014 16:33:23 224 The accused has posted the image of Abu Al Qaqa and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi: #Iraq: Abu al-
Qa'qa' the #Tunisian: an ISIS fighter who carried out suicide operation in HA<<t, #Anbar province. http://t.co/aE;"
6618 15.05.2014 10:59:21 225 The accused has posted the images of ISIS terrorists glorifying them as Lions and tweeted as "RT @Qawlu_Sawarim: Com Abu Waheeb and another #ISIS lions.
#Anbar #Iraq http://t.co/hSixB1gJnK"
6708 18.05.2014 08:27:13 225 The accused has posted the live images of fighting being carried out by Islamic States and the images containing flag and logo of Islamic State and tweeted as "RT 175 Spl.C.No.272/2015 @AbuUmar8246: The Islamic State repel the Iraqi #army in the Jallam area of #Samarra, Salah ad-Din, #Iraq (#ISIS, #Iraqwar):
http://t.coaE;"
6710 18.05.2014 08:27:35 225 The accused has posted the live images of fighting being carried out by Islamic States and the images containing flag and logo of Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @AbuUmar8246: The Islamic State repel the Iraqi #army in the Jallam area of #Samarra, Salah ad-Din, #Iraq (#ISIS, #Iraqwar):
http://t.coaE;"
7552 04.06.2014 15:48:48 227 The accused has posted the images of a Leader of Anti ISIS, who was killed by ISIS and tweeted as "RT @AbuBakrAl_Janab: BREAKING : #ISIS kills the sahwa leader Muhammed Khamis Abu Risha in a martyrdom operation! #Iraq #Anbar http://t.co/lwaE;"
7871 11.07.2014 03:02:20 227 The accused has posted the images of ISIS celebrating victories in Raqqah of Iraq and tweeted as "RT @AbuUmar8246:
The people of #Raqqah celebrate the victories of the mujahideen in Salah ad-Din and Ninawah:
http://t.co/gJ4Xba4iTh http:/aE; 8031 14.07.2014 17:44:25 228 The accused has posted an image of ISIS terrorist and tweeted as "RT @Telegraph: The bare faced ISIS executioner who spreads terror with his open killing http:/t.co/MmlJY58A29 http:/t.co/D99Xfxt1o6"
8308 20.07.2014 04:19:12 228 The accused has posted an image of ISIS terrorist handling anti-air craft gun and tweeted as "RT @Islam4Sham: Abu Hamza Azeri-
may allah protect him # http://t.co/GuyePm6dk0"
8721 29.06.2014 16:55:03 229 The accused has posted the images of celebration of ISIS 176 Spl.C.No.272/2015 declaring itself as caliphate and tweeted as "RT @Marwouantounsi: Citizens of the Islamic State in the street partying after the proclamation of the Caliphate http://t.co/IOUpUwdz87"
8739 29.06.2014 20:16:17 229 The accused has posted an image of flag introducing it as a new flag of Caliphate and tweeted as "RT @Ghazishami: The new flag of the Caliphate. "dawlat al Khilafatual islamiya" The Islamic Caliphate State http://t.co/LnNqRsEul6" 8841 02.07.2014 16:43:33 229 The accused has posted an image of a Shia fighter who is killed and his body being dragged and tweeted as "RT @AbuBakrAl_janab: #Iraq: Leader in Badr shia Militia, being dragged by IS near #Kirkuk http://t.co/gLsCwK9ZOQ"
9019 05.07.2014 16:01:49 230 The accused has posted the images of Abu Bakr Al-Bgdadi, the ISIS leader and tweeted as "RT @hxhassan: A side shot of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in his first video appearance http://t.co/dpElhGtuQE"
9021 05.07.2014 16:17:54 230 The accused has posted the images of Abu Bakr Al-Bgdadi, the ISIS leader and tweeted as "Imam, Khalifa, Commander, Breaker of Boundaries, Defeater of Rafidha, Liberator of Ahl Sunnah -Abu Bakr al Baghdadi(ha) http://t.co/Ryf1MAk8SB 9054 06.07.2014 08:28:10 230 The accused has posted an image of a religious text and in the 1st para 2nd last line and last line written like 'what is required of each individual is to submit to him (Khalifa) and not go against him or rebel against him and tweeted as "RT @truthsMaster: Imam Nawawi on Baya'ah #IS #KhilafaRestored http://t.co/dFx224DHlu 177 Spl.C.No.272/2015 9132 07.07.2014 07:43:46 230 The accused has posted the images of Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi and tweeted as "RT @living4firdaws:
@ShamiWitness @EnterTheTruthCo #KhilafaRestored http://t.co/SJnOB3QEt2 9226 08.07.2014 23:15:13 230 The accused has posted an image of an ISIS terrorist Abu Hafs Al Tunisi and tweeted as "RT @AbuBakrAlansari. #Syria: Abu Hafs Al-Tunisi carried out martyrdom operation against the disbelievers of PKK in Ay Al-Arab #IS #Raqqa haE;
9250 09.07.2014 09:30:53 230 The accused has posted an image of Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi and calling him as a scholar and tweeted as "RT @_ayoub82_: @Walzohaili @ShamiWitness well, we have few scholars in the ranks of IS, such as this one. http://t.co/gyYc767faa 10097 21.07.2014 20:49:48 232 The accused has posted the images of ISIS fighters and named one of them Abu Talha and tweeted as "RT @AlTuraab:
Brother Abu Talha in Raqqah, returning from Homs after taking part in the slaughtering of~ 300 Nusariyyah http://t.co/ox4hKjlaE;
10911 06.08.2014 20:31:10 233 The accused has posted the images of a person who carried suicide bombing. The image contains the photo of the bomber and also explosion including the place of explosion and tweeted as "RT @AbuUmarAlAnsari: Moment Abu Hajr Al-Jazrawi drove a truck bomb into the entrance of Syrian Brigade 93, destroying tanks and soldiers htaE;
10962 08.08.2014 06:16:19 233 The accused has posted the images of the anti-air craft gun shooting the helicopter of the Iraqi Army and tweeted as "RT @RekkaKroenen: Maliki helicopter 178 Spl.C.No.272/2015 shot down in Nahiyat Yathrib. #Iraq #IS http://t.co/LhXeWmqrXk 12005 21.09.2014 22:18:51 236 The accused has posted the images of the message of Al-
Adnani, who is an UN listed terrorist of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @abuaminah_: #BREAKING #IS releases new speech by Shaykh Muhammad al-Adnani! #Syria #Iraq http://t.co/x0yTnjlHu1 http:/t.co/QHVy3zaE;"
12171 26.09.2014 10:50:57 236 The accused has posted the image Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi and tweeted as "RT @abuaminah_:
Commander of the Faithful, Caliph of Islam, The words of your sellout scholars is dirt under this Muwahids feet http://t.aE;"
12969 11.10.2014 17:00:02 237 The accused has posted the images of new recruits being trained in Islamic States and tweeted as "RT @Murabiteen:
New Islamic State recruits from Nineveh training camp May Allah give them victory or Shahada #IS #QSU,, xxxx http:aE;"
13507 27.10.2014 07:46:57 239 The accused has posted the images of ISIS terrorist and glorifying their martyrdom and tweeted as "RT @Jozelhind: What one IS sniper does. May allah accept him Allahu Akbar!! http://t.co/T2glLsB2BH"
13628 30.10.2014 21:13:27 239 The accused has posted the images of ISIS terrorist and tweeted as "RT @anbaari_9: #IS #ISIS Dhulfiqar Al-Ansari Carries Out a Martyrdom Operation on the Enemies of Allah in 'Ayn Al-Islam http://t.co/p9B2AFGaE;"
13655 01.11.2014 09:41:25 239 The accused has posted the images of ISIS terrorist and tweeted as "RT @Khilafaahnews: Abu Hussein al-Ansari, who carried out a martyrdom operation 179 Spl.C.No.272/2015 in Ayn al-Islam last week. #IS #Kobane http://t.co/cA6FZB2AaE;" 14160 16.11.2014 12:39:39 240 The accused has posted the images of ISIS terrorists who were famous for executing prisoners and tweeted as "RT @RamiAlLolah: #ISIS tells the West: We have tons of 'Jihadi John' and not only one #Syria #Iraq http://t.co/LZDKKcMAAb" 14221 18.11.2014 19:05:11 240 The accused has posted the images of a religious quote justifying beheading of enemies and tweeted as "RT @AbuUmar_8246:
@AbuUmar_8246 The ayat in the Quran which call to striking off the heads of the enemy:
http://t.co/mRfghHkDpK"
14241 19.11.2014 13:10:34 240 The accused has spread new accounts of ISIS terrorist which have been blocked by Twitter and tweeted as "RT @YaazeedM:
Please follow and spread my 6th account. May AllAh reward all of you my brother and sister with a goodness. Syukrn. http://t.aE; 14306 21.11.2014 13:38:41 240 The accused has spread new accounts of ISIS terrorist which have been blocked by Twitter and tweeted as "RT @ShamBreaking10: My account is a thorn in the necks of the kuffar, spread my account brothers & sisters to enrage them! RT + Follow! HtaE;
14327 21.11.2014 17:43:06 240 The accused has posted the images of captured soldiers of Syria who were being slaughtered and executed and tweeted as "RT @BaniHilal: @BaniHilal Two days later ISIS executed four regime soldiers in front of the building where the girl was wounded http://taE;
14537 26.11.2014 03:46:33 241 The accused has posted an image of a terrorist and also re-tweeted 180 Spl.C.No.272/2015 the tweet of terrorist and tweeted as "RT @Abu_Butayan: AbA<<, DujAah (Qq0 - back when we were injured together. May Allah accept him.
http://t.co/rSiVuKpNXh"
14979 01.12.2014 19:28:48 241 The accused has posted the images and tweets of the progress made by ISIS and tweeted as "RT @ISPost1: #IS takes control of new positions southern Ayn al-
Islam. #Kobane http://t.co/fL1trSrepl"
14655 26.11.2014 18:44:19 241 The accused has posted the images of propaganda in favour of ISIS currency and tweeted as "RT @anbaari_10: #IS Announcement Concerning Minting of a Currency Specific to the Islamic State ENGLISH http://t.co/xk6dBLPWHy 1-4 http://taE;
14666 26.11.2014 19:13:11 241 The accused has posted an image and tweeted as "RT @abduallahiB4: "The secular laws are under my foot"
A billboard in Nineveh, #IslamiccState Aeoe@Flames_Of_War1:
http://t.co/lWGoML0I6BaE" 14839 29.11.2014 14:10:09 241 The accused has posted the image of Bagdadi who is a banned terrorist and tweeted the new releases of web link of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @abunaseha: All the Islamic State releases from this week!!! >>:>
http://t.co/AROMeBGoxZ <:<< http:/t.co/tuH69TDhhC 15138 04.12.2014 16:12:34 242 The accused has posted the images and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfiS: Abu'Asim al-Qurashi, from al-Ta'if, martyred yesterday in Ayn al-Islam. #IS http://t.co/t7epHbczwj 181 Spl.C.No.272/2015 15147 04.12.2014 16:20:05 242 The accused has posted the images and tweeted as "RT @TimesOfls: 7. To be martyrs for the sake of Allah. #IS http://t.co/oLXKgKDu4d"
15142 04.12.2014 16:19:31 242 The accused has posted the images of beheading of the captured prisoners and civilians by the ISIS and tweeted as "RT @TimesOflS: 3. To frighten the disbelievers, humiliate them and put them to shame. #IS http://t.co/Mshm8X8fxo 15221 06.12.2014 16:26:55 242 The accused has posted the images of beheading of the captured prisoners and civilians by the ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Muftimilk: #Syria | The Islamic State captured and beheaded Alawaite colonel of Assad army in Deir Ezzor http://t.co/lxpqLURcVQ 15222 06.12.2014 16:27:19 242 The accused has posted the images of children of ISIS men, being given military training and tweeted as "RT @ Muftimilk:
#Syria | Military training camp of the Cubs of Khilafa http://t.co/jaq4Yfr8MD http://t.co/Zy8aylgJUy 4468 27.01.2014 05:45:47 121 The accused has posted the images of ISIS and tweeted as "1. ISIS pics from yesterday's fierce clashes in #Fallujah http://t.co/ODoJuCr0JN http://t.co/XEo7PZMjgG http://t.co/tzn2bSwRrg"
4469 27.01.2014 05.51:14 121 The accused has posted the images of ISIS and tweeted as "2. ISIS pics from yesterday's fierce clashes in #Fallujah http://t.co/SS8X7JS0cd http://t.co/6Ac8DKzb8I http://t.co/O0pAerXhsr"
4469 27.01.2014 05.53:52 121 The accused has posted the images of ISIS and tweeted as "3. ISIS pics from yesterday's fierce clashes in #Fallujah 182 Spl.C.No.272/2015 http://t.co/3v45zqZb6S http://t./kctcH5lLjm http://t.co/awse0F765r"
4469 27.01.2014 05.55:57 121 The accused has posted the images of ISIS and tweeted as "4.
ISIS pics from yesterday's fierce clashes in #Fallujah http://t.co/GR6sUCVvbn http://t.co/iJFr07EkUP"
4520 29.01.2014 14:58:07 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Khorasani_: Allahu akbar the turkish army has dipped its hands in the war in Shaam! Yesterday whilst we were whacking some FSA in al raaE;
4520 29.01.2014 14:58:12 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Khorasani_: Borders they sent a small kind of remote controlled plane over our heads, minutes later we were bombarded with explosives faE;
4520 29.01.2014 14:58:15 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Khorasani_: What kind of weaponry. The explosions were bigger than jet fighters, similar to that from the huge barrel bombs helicopteraE;
4520 29.01.2014 14:58:23 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Khorasani_: Drop. We had to retreat from the so far successful attack and took place behind some rocks for like an hour, night had comeaE;
4520 29.01.2014 14:58:43 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Khorasani_: Thunderclap noise of the bombs would come again, they would send 2 at a time 183 Spl.C.No.272/2015 wallahi it was like a storm, the flash from thaE;
4521 29.01.2014 14:59:14 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Khorasani_: Was martyred, he was attacking the FSA from behind a cover as we all were and the border was to our side, we weren't coveraE;
4521 29.01.2014 14:59:33 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Khorasani_: Holding up the spot may Allah protect them, that's all I can reveal in terms of what's going on since the battle is not oveaE;
4521 29.01.2014 15:01:57 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Khorasani_: Absolutely no intention to attack Turkey in any way, shape or form. Based on the hadith of the prophet peace be upon him whaE;
4522 29.01.2014 15:09:04 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and asked for the details of boundaries of ISIS tweeted as "@Abu_Qaqa_@khorasani_Bros, can you give me a clear idea of what exactly are the boundaries of Wilaya Badia? I am entirely confused.
4522 29.01.2014 15:10:25 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and asked for the details of boundaries of ISIS tweeted as "@Abu_Qaqa_@khorasani_I see the Wilaya Badia account talking about Maskanah. But it's in east reef Aleppo. What exactly are its boundaries."184
Spl.C.No.272/2015 4531 29.01.2014 19:53:44 121 The accused has tweeted the web link of the map of the Islamic State and tweeted as "And finally, the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham http://t.co/N2El0eFtse"
4587 02.02.2014 08:08:00 121 The accused has retweeted in set backs that ISIS is suffering at the hands of FSA (Free Syrian Army) and IF (Islamic Front in Syria and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam: He had only two demands - 1.
Sharia is The only law 2. The groups cut ties with the tawageet and declare bara from them"
4694 09.02.2014 08:14:20 121 The accused has retweeted the messages of ISIS terrorist Abu Dujana Brtany and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaBrtany: We are muslims and we pray that we will be united with the other mujahideen of sham"
4694 09.02.2014 08:14:25 121 The accused has retweeted the messages of ISIS terrorist Abu Dujana Brtany and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaBrtany: Even if we have ikhtilaaf this is irrelevant. May allah bring us together and forgive us for our mistakes.
4695 09.02.2014 08:14:55 121 The accused has retweeted the messages of ISIS terrorist Abu Dujana Brtany and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaBrtany: One of the commanders in my area is a veteran from Iraq. He said the fighting in syria is harder than Iraq for 2 reasoaE;
4730 09.02.2014 21:22:24 121 The accused has retweeted the messages of ISIS terrorists namely @AbuDujanaBrtany and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaBrtany: We were stationed there because assad soldiers nearby at an oil company and suqoor sham wanted to join the fight to haaE;
4817 13.02.2014 20:41:39 121 The accused has again retweeted the messages of same ISIS fighters and tweeted as "RT 185 Spl.C.No.272/2015 @AbuDujanaBrtany: Many bullets from rifles, light machine gun and the daushka, killed some soldiers and then retreated back to base and aE;
4817 13.02.2014 20:41:49 121 The accused has again retweeted the messages of same ISIS fighters and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaBrtany: At the checkpoint they had many men, heavy weapons and at least one tank. Alhamdulillah. Teh brothes struck fear intoaE;
4845 15.02.2014 14:51:09 121 The accused has tweeted about an ISIS terrorist by name Abu Hafs Jazrawi and tweeted as "Abu Hafs Jazrawi, fought in Afghanistan, then in #Iraq, then in #Syria and finally again Iraq, martyred in Anbar http://t.co.//3cXgbaoneO 4866 16.02.2014 14:52:51 121 The accused has tweeted about two ISIS terrorists i.e., @Abu_Muhajir1 and @Daulah_Islamia and also tweeted as "@bluespearz mashaAllah good...you witnessing victories and shuhada akhi?
4904 18.02.2014 04:29:36 121 The accused has tweeted the list of 20 Jihadi scholars who have given support to Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam1: Breakign: Over 20 Jihadi Scholars Sign a statement of support for the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham http://t.co/hxP5F1EaE;
4904 18.02.2014 04:30:17 121 The accused has tweeted the list of 20 Jihadi scholars who have given support to Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam1: The 20 Scholars have no organizationl links to ISIS except the link of Islamic Brotherhood. Here are the names of the saE;" 4904 18.02.2014 04:30:35 121 The accused has tweeted the list of 20 Jihadi scholars who have given support to Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam1:186
Spl.C.No.272/2015
1. Sh. Abu Al Munthir Al Shinqiti 2.
Sh. Abu Hamam Bakr bin AbdelAziz Al Athari 3.Sh. Mamun AbdelHameed Hatim 4904 18.02.2014 04:30:51 121 The accused has tweeted the list of 20 Jihadi scholars who have given support to Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam1:
4. Sh. Abu Huthayfah bin AbdelRahman Al Harabi Al Libi 5.
Sh. Nassir Al Thaqeel 6. Sh.
AbdelMajeed Bin Mahoud Al HataraE;
4904 18.02.2014 04:31:03 121 The accused has tweeted the list of 20 Jihadi scholars who have given support to Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam1:
7. Sh. Abu Al Munthir Umar Mehdi Al Zaydan
8. Sh. Abu AbdelRahman Amad bin Hussein Al Masri Al Filistini 9.
Sh. AbdelRazaE;
4905 18.02.2014 04:33:37 121 The accused has tweeted the list of 20 Jihadi scholars who have given support to Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam1:
10. Sh. AbdAllah bin Abdelrahman Al Shinqiti, 11. Sh. Abu Sa'd Al Amili, 12. Sh. Abu Usamah Al Ghareeb, 13. Abu Al Qassim aE;
4905 18.02.2014 04:33:49 121 The accused has tweeted the list of 20 Jihadi scholars who have given support to Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam1:
14. Sh. Abdulrahman Ubaidah AlAthbaji, 15. Sh. Zakari BuQararah Abu SayfAllslam Al Maghrebi, 16. Sh. Abu Ubaidah Al Tunisi.
4905 18.02.2014 04:35:44 121 The accused has tweeted the list of 20 Jihadi scholars who have given support to Islamic State and tweeted as "RT @dawlat_islam1:
17. Sh. Abu AbdelQahar Al Husseini Al Quraishi, 18. Sh Abu AbdAllah Anais, 19. Sh. Abu Ubaidah Al Shinqiti, 20. Sh. Abu UsaaE;187
Spl.C.No.272/2015 5007 23.02.2014 08:11:26 121 The accused has tweeted regarding using of encrypted messaging apps like @ChatSecure, Telegram in order to hide identity and tweeted as "I understand there's now a plethora of encrypted messaging apps around, but sound advice is to trust open source-based ones,like @ChatSecure 5007 23.02.2014 08:18:11 121 The accused has tweeted regarding using of encrypted messaging apps like @ChatSecure, Telegram in order to hide identity and tweeted as "@Abutawbah not at all. My advice, switch to Telegram. Even better will be Chatsecure, thus completely do away with phone numbers.
5007 23.02.2014 08:25:30 121 The accused has tweeted regarding using of encrypted messaging apps like @ChatSecure, Telegram in order to hide identity and tweeted as "@hydaralhindi yes, ChatSecure is encrypted, end to end @Abutawbah"
5212 04.03.2014 18:22:02 121 The accused has retweeted 13 tweets of ISIS terrorists of the happenings in the battle field in Iraq and Syria and tweeted as "RT @KhaledSigsauer: Injured brothers longing to go back to the battlefilds. May Allah give them fast recovery http://t.co/FE12IIqONm 5212 04.03.2014 18:23:11 121 The accused has retweeted 13 tweets of ISIS terrorists of the happenings in the battle field in Iraq and Syria and tweeted as "RT @abu_muhajir1: muhajiree leaving to go to Iraq...Amazing how Allah has opened the land for us to make jihad ya Allah open Bghdad for usaE;
5425 16.03.2014 18:12:21 121 The accused has described the ISIS terrorist Abdurrahman who is 188 Spl.C.No.272/2015 UN listed terrorist and tweeted as "@3bduu92 then this ISIS fighter Abdurrahman and others caught them, and beheaded them."
5690 02.04.2014 16:34:40 121 The accused has given out the name of an ISIS terrorist and tweeted as "Akhi Abu al Abbas al Libi (@abo_al3bbas) martyred.
Talked with him few times. Last I checked he was in ribat against PKK in Hasakah province.
5707 03.04.2014 17:18:58 121 The accused has tweeted about a new tape released by the ISIS terrorist Abu Mohammed Al-Adnani and tweeted as "RT @AbuBakAlijanabi: #ISIS official media source Al Furqan release new tape for Sh. Abu-Muhammed Al-Adnani, http://t.co/apACta2SWn"
5711 04.04.2014 04:00:16 121 The accused again tweeted the messages of Adnani and tweeted as "To the Secularists, we promised that we would come back to the areas we withdrew from, and here we are - Adnani.
#Iraq #ISIS 5711 04.04.2014 04:15:15 121 The accused again tweeted the messages of Adnani and tweeted as "So O lions of Anbar, Ninawa, salahudin, Diyala, Kirkuk, Baghdad. March forward. - Adnani #Iraq #ISIS 5792 08.04.2014 17:00:36 121 The accused has tweeted directly to ISIS terrorists with the Twitter handle @abuhafsak and tweeted as "@abuhafsak where was this akhi?reply plz"
5919 14.04.2014 10:47:52 121 The accused is speaking to ISIS terrorist and tweeted as "@abu_qaqa_you recovered from your injury?"
6051 20.04.2014 07:05:47 121 The accused has tweeted the web link of an article written by himself and tweeted as "@abandoning the Jihad in Iraq and the Ahl Sunnah of 189 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Baghdad ar Rasheed? "by @ShamiWitness http://t.co/BSuek5d952 #ISIS #Iraq @Syria"
6199 24.04.2014 21:26:02 121 The accused has posted several tweets persuading fighters not to fight against ISIS and tweeted as "We will fight until the last drop of our blood. A message to tribes, to stop its sons from fighting ISIS, by Allah we will not fight them (56)"
6353 01.05.2014 05:56:17 121 The accused has retweeted the messages of ISIS terrorist @abu DujanaMuhjar and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaMuhajr: We lost some of our best brothers fighting against the gov last winter-
Ghazwatul Khayr."
6353 01.05.2014 05:56:31 121 The accused has retweeted the messages of ISIS terrorist @abu DujanaMuhjar and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaMuhajr: They asked for this war and they began it, now I hope they dont complain when Dawlah finishes it."
6353 01.05.2014 05:56:39 121 The accused has retweeted the messages of ISIS terrorist @abu DujanaMuhjar and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaMuhajr: We wont let the scarifies of our brothers go in vain."
6353 01.05.2014 05:57:40 121 The accused has retweeted the messages of ISIS terrorist @abu DujanaMuhjar and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaMuhajr:IF like to boast of their numbers, 70,000 strong army... You should have conquered All of Syria and beyond by now..."
6354 01.05.2014 06:01:02 121 The accused has retweeted the messages of ISIS terrorist @abu DujanaMuhjar and tweeted as "RT @AbuDujanaMuhajr: We didnt sacrifice our livelihoods and leave our families for a AE20 note, we came to live in the dirt for Jihad feesabaE;
190Spl.C.No.272/2015 6363 01.05.2014 10:25:58 121 The accused describing an ISIS terrorist who tied explosive belt to his body before carrying out suicide bombing and tweeted as "Saddam Jamal now attaches explosive belt to his body http://t.co./fFbbl7LAEE"
6402 02.05.2014 09:44:04 121 The accused has posted 21 tweets justifying why old terrorist organization should make way for ISIS and tweeted as "Wars are not won by unambitious, willy nilly orgs, wars are won by armies of States led by Idrs who are great at war-making.(8)"
6402 02.05.2014 09:45:36 121 The accused has posted 21 tweets justifying why old terrorist organization should make way for ISIS and tweeted as "Wars are won by singularity of purpose, by Idrs who canadapt their warfighting, statesmanship whenever it's needed.(9)"
6403 02.05.2014 10:09:45 121 The accused has posted 21 tweets justifying why old terrorist organization should make way for ISIS and tweeted as "The era of organizations, of fakeless jamaats with no sensible plans, subservient to taghout generosity and manipulation, is over (20)"
228. A perusal of the aforesaid tweets and re-tweets, the accused has explained the full form of 'JN' which means Jabhat Al-Nusra and ISIS which meas Islamic State of Iraq. The accused has used Jabhat Al-Nusra, Islamic State of Iraq, Sham and other names of terrorist organisations frequently in his tweets and retweets. The accused has posted the tweets inviting support the said terrorist organisations calling upon Muslims to accept Islam and give Bayah to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi that we will send you soldiers who do not sleep. The accused has 191 Spl.C.No.272/2015 tweeted circulating news emerging from ISIS account and tweeted the articles written by him in support of Islamic State to invite support with intention to further the activity of terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and Jabhat Al-Nusra. The accused has posted 11 tweets on the topic 'why do we wage jihad' to invite support with intention to further the activity of terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and Jabhat Al-Nusra. The accused has posted the images of Shaik Musal Al Zarqawi, the founder of ISIS to invite support with intention to further the activity of terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and Jabhat Al-Nusra. The accused has posted religious text stating that each individual is to submit to Khalifa and not go against him or rebel against him. It is nothing but to invite support with intention to further the activity of terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and Jabhat Al-Nusra. The accused has posted the images of children of ISIS men being given military training to invite support with intention to further the activity of terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and Jabhat Al-Nusra. The accused the list of 20 jihadi scholars who have given support to IS to invite support with intention to further the activity of terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and Jabhat Al-Nusra.
229. The accused had 18,000 followers and his twitter account was the meeting place to the followers of his account. He used his twitter account to post the tweets pertaining to the terrorist organisations Islamic State of Iraq and Jabhat Al-Nusra for the purpose of encouraging support for the said terrorist organisations and to further the activities of the said terrorist organisations. The accused has posted the tweets 192 Spl.C.No.272/2015 congratulating the ISIS fighters including Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi for victory against the opponents, glorified the death of ISIS fighters as martyrs, glorified the terrorist fighters who carried out suicide bombing, tweeted the meeting places of ISI and training places of ISIS, posted the images of flags of Islamic State of Iraq and Jabhal Al-Nusra, posted the images of foreign fighters who were killed during the war field and glorified them as martyrs, spread the biography of Baghdadi, posted the speeches of UN listed terrorists, spread new accounts of ISIS terrorists which were blocked by Twitter, posted tweets supporting beheading and posted what was happening in battle field. The accused posted thousands and thousands tweets on his twitter account to further the activities of terrorist organisations ISIS/ISIL, but this court has picked only few tweets/retweets for the purpose of appreciation. Hence, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of section 39 of U.A.(P) Act beyond reasonable doubt.
230. The learned counsel for the accused argued that ISIS was not a terrorist organisation at the time of arresting the accused. It was not included in the schedule of the U.A.(P) Act. The said organisation was included in the schedule in February 2015. Therefore, the accused has not supported any banned organisation and the ingredients of the offence under section 39 of U.A.(P) Act are not attracted.
231. Per contra the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the terrorist organisation listed in the schedule to the U.N. Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Implementation of Security Council Resolutions) Order, 2007 made under 193 Spl.C.No.272/2015 section 2 of the United Nations (Security Council) Act 1997 which comes under item No.33 of the first Schedule appended to U.A.(P) Act. The accused has raised the similar contention in the bail application filed by him and urged the same ground before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. But the Hon'ble High Court has not appreciated the said contention in favour of the accused. The findings of the Hon'ble High Court is not challenged and the same has attained finality. In support of his contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Mehdi Masroor Biswas V. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No.4039/2016, decided on 05.01.2017. In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has observed at para No.10 as follows;
"10. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor and gone through the materials made available by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Public Prosecutor. Now the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed and the petitioner is in judicial custody for the almost a year. For consideration of the petition for bail, I have gone through the materials made available along with the charge sheet. The technical ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the 9 admissibility of computer print out, it is for the prosecution to consider the produced certificates under Section 65B and Section 45A of the Evidence Act. These are the materials that are to be considered by the Court below and this is not the right time to go into the matter for the purpose of examining the case. With regard to the ground urged by the petitioner that as on the date of the arrest of the petitioner, the ISIS was not banned by Government of India also cannot be accepted since the United Nations Organisation itself has banned it in the year 2007 thereby the organization is a terrorist organization falling at Sl.No.28 and 33 of the Schedule to Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The entire materials and the investigation papers and the statement recorded on behalf of the prosecution reveals that there are materials, which convince the Court about involvement of the accused."194
Spl.C.No.272/2015
232. A perusal of the aforesaid observation, the accused contended before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that ISIS was not banned by the Government of India when the accused was arrested in this case. After considering the materials on record, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the United Nations Organisation itself banned the said organisation in 2007 and ISIS is a terrorist organisation falling at Sl.No.28 and 33 of the Schedule to U.A.(P) Act. This findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not challenged and it attains finality. Hence, this court cannot record findings contrary to the findings recorded by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, this court does not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused. Accordingly, this court has answered point No.3 in the affirmative.
233. Point No.4 :- It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 121 of the IPC. Before proceeding to take the facts for discussion, it is apposite to refer to section 121 of IPC. Section 121 reads as follows :-
"121. Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India.
Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Illustration ***A joins an insurrection against the Government of India. A has committed the offence defined in this section."
234. A bare reading of the said section, the prosecution has to prove that the accused waged war or attempted to wage war or abetted the waging of war against the Government of 195 Spl.C.No.272/2015 India to convict him under sections 121 of IPC. This section does not say which ingredients are sufficient to hold that a person waged war, attempted to wage war or abetted the waging of war against the Government of India. Hence, it is proper to take note of the interpretation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the aforesaid section. In this regard, this court has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down at para 273 to 284 as follows;
"273. The expression 'Government of India' was substituted for the expression 'Queen' by the Adaptation of Laws Order of 1950. Section 121 now reads "121. Whoever wages war against the Government of India or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine".
274. The conspiracy to commit offences punishable under Section 121 attracts punishment under Section 121A and the maximum sentence could be imprisonment for life. The other limb of Section 121A is the conspiracy to overawe by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government. The explanation to Section 121-A clarifies that it is not necessary that any act or illegal omission should take place pursuant to the conspiracy, in order to constitute the said offence.
275. War, terrorism and violent acts to overawe the established Government have many things in common. It is not too easy to distinguish them, but one thing is certain, the concept of war imbedded in Section 121 is not to be understood in international law sense of inter-country war involving military operations by and between two or more hostile countries. Section 121 is not meant to punish prisoners of war of a belligerent nation. Apart from the legislative history of the provision and the understanding of the expression by various High Courts during the pre-independence days, the Illustration to Section 121 itself makes it clear that 'war' contemplated by Section 121 is not conventional warfare between two nations. Organizing or joining an insurrection against the Government of India is also a form of war. 'Insurrection' as defined in dictionaries and as commonly understood connotes a violent uprising by a group directed against the Government in power or the civil authorities. "Rebellion, revolution and civil war are progressive stages in the development of civil unrest the 196 Spl.C.No.272/2015 most rudimentary form of which is 'insurrection' vide Pan American World Air Inc. Vs. Actna Cas & Sur Co. [505, F.R. 2d, 989 at P. 1017]. An act of insurgency is different from belligerency. It needs to be clarified that insurrection is only illustrative of the expression 'war' and it is seen from the old English authorities referred to supra that it would cover situations analogous to insurrection if they tend to undermine the authority of the Ruler or Government.
276. It has been aptly said by Sir J.F. Stephen "unlawful assemblies, riots, insurrections, rebellions, levying of war are offences which run into each other and not capable of being marked off by perfectly definite boundaries. All of them have in common one feature, namely, that the normal tranquility of a civilized society is, in each of the cases mentioned, disturbed either by actual force or at least by the show and threat of it".
277. To this list has to be added 'terrorist acts' which are so conspicuous now-a-days. Though every terrorist act does not amount to waging war, certain terrorist acts can also constitute the offence of waging war and there is no dichotomy between the two. Terrorist acts can manifest themselves into acts of war. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the State, terrorist acts prompted by an intention to strike at the sovereign authority of the State/Government, tantamount to waging war irrespective of the number involved or the force employed.
278. It is seen that the first limb of Section 3(1) of POTA -
"with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means whatsoever"
and the act of waging war have overlapping features. However, the degree of animus or intent and the magnitude of the acts done or attempted to be done would assume some relevance in order to consider whether the terrorist acts give rise to a state of war. Yet, the demarcating line is by no means clear, much less transparent. It is often a difference in degree. The distinction gets thinner if a comparison is made of terrorist acts with the acts aimed at overawing the Government by means of criminal force. Conspiracy to commit the latter offence is covered by Section, 121A.
279. It needs to be noticed that even in international law sphere, there is no standard definition of war. Prof. L. Oppenheim in his well-known treatise on International Law has given a definition marked by brevity and choice of words. The learned author said: "war is a contention between two or more States through their armed forces, for the 197 Spl.C.No.272/2015 purpose of overpowering each other and imposing such conditions of peace as the victor pleases". Yoram Dinsteinan expert in international law field analyzed the said definition in the following words:
"There are four major constituent elements in Oppenheim's view of War: (i) there has to be a contention between at least two States (ii) the use of the armed forces of those States is required,
(iii) the purpose must be overpowering the enemy ( as well as the imposition of peace on the victor's terms); and it may be implied, particularly from the words 'each other' and (iv) both parties are expected to have symmetrical, although diametrically opposed, goals."
The learned author commented that Oppenheim was entirely right in excluding civil wars from his definition. Mr. Dinstein attempted the definition of 'war' in the following terms:
"War is a hostile interaction between two or more States, either in a technical or in a material sense. War in the technical sense is a formal status produced by a declaration of war. War in the material sense is generated by actual use of armed force, which must be comprehensive on the part of at least one party to the conflict."
280. In international law, we have the allied concepts of undeclared war, limited war, war-like situation - the nuances of which it is not necessary to unravel.
281. There is no doubt that the offence of waging war was inserted in the Indian Penal Code to accord with the concept of levying war in the English Statutes of treason, the first of which dates back to 1351 A.D. It has been said so in almost all the Indian High Courts' decisions of the pre-independence days starting with AIR 1931 Rangoon 235. In Nazir Khan's case [2003 (8) SCC 461] this Court said so in specific terms in paragraph 35 and extensively quoted from the passages in old English cases. Sir Michael Foster's discourses on treason and the passages from the decisions of the High courts referred to therein are also found in Ratanlal's Law of Crimes. We should, therefore, understand the expression "wages war" occurring in Section 121 broadly in the same sense in which it was understood in England while dealing with the corresponding expression in the Treason Statute. However, we have to view the expression with the eyes of the people of free India and we must modulate and restrict the scope of observations too broadly made in the vintage decisions so as to be in keeping with the democratic spirit and the contemporary conditions associated with the working of our democracy. The oft-repeated phrase 'to attain the object of general public nature' coined by Mansfield, LCJ and reiterated in various English and Indian decisions should not be unduly elongated in the present day context.
282. On the analysis of the various passages found in the cases and commentaries referred to above, what are the high-lights we come across? The most important is the intention or purpose behind the 198 Spl.C.No.272/2015 defiance or rising against the Government. As said by Foster, "The true criterion is quo animo did the parties assemble"? In other words the intention and purpose of the war-like operations directed against the Governmental machinery is an important criterion. If the object and purpose is to strike at the sovereign authority of the Ruler or the Government to achieve a public and general purpose in contra- distinction to a private and a particular purpose, that is an important indicia of waging war. Of course, the purpose must be intended to be achieved by use of force and arms and by defiance of Government troops or armed personnel deployed to maintain public tranquility. Though the modus operandi of preparing for the offensive against the Government may be quite akin to the preparation in a regular war, it is often said that the number of force, the manner in which they are arrayed, armed or equipped is immaterial. Even a limited number of persons who carry powerful explosives and missiles without regard to their own safety can cause more devastating damage than a large group of persons armed with ordinary weapons or fire arms. Then, the other settled proposition is that there need not be the pomp and pageantry usually associated with war such as the offenders forming themselves in battle-line and arraying in a war like manner. Even a stealthy operation to overwhelm the armed or other personnel deployed by the Government and to attain a commanding position by which terms could be dictated to the Government might very well be an act of waging war.
283. While these are the acceptable criteria of waging war, we must dissociate ourselves from the old English and Indian authorities to the extent that they lay down a too general test of attainment of an object of general public nature or a political object. We have already expressed reservations in adopting this test in its literal sense and construing it in a manner out of tune with the present day. The Court must be cautious in adopting an approach which has the effect of bringing within the fold of Section 121 all acts of lawless and violent acts resulting in destruction of public properties etc., and all acts of violent resistance to the armed personnel to achieve certain political objectives. The moment it is found that the object sought to be attained is of general public nature or has a political hue, the offensive violent acts targeted against armed forces and public officials should not be branded as acts of waging war. The expression 'waging war' should not be stretched too far to hold that all the acts of disrupting public order and peace irrespective of their magnitude and repercussions could be reckoned as acts of waging war against the Government. A balanced and realistic approach is called for in construing the expression 'waging war' irrespective of how it was viewed in the long long past. An organized movement attended with violence and attacks against the public officials and armed forces while agitating for the repeal of an unpopular law or for preventing burdensome taxes were viewed as acts of treason in the form of levying war. We doubt whether such construction is in tune with the modern day perspectives and standards. Another aspect on which a clarification is called for is in regard to the observation made in the old decisions that "neither the 199 Spl.C.No.272/2015 number engaged nor the force employed, nor the species of weapons with which they may be armed" is really material to prove the offence of levying/waging war. This was said by Lord President Hope in R Vs. Hardie in 1820 and the same statement finds its echo in many other English cases and in the case of Maganlal Radha Krishan Vs. Emperor [AIR 1946 Nagpur 173 at page 186]. But, in our view, these are not irrelevant factors. They will certainly help the Court in forming an idea whether the intention and design to wage war against the established Government exists or the offence falls short of it. For instance, the fire power or the devastating potential of the arms and explosives that may be carried by a group of persons may be large or small, as in the present case, and the scale of violence that follows may at times become useful indicators of the nature and dimension of the action resorted to. These, coupled with the other factors, may give rise to an inference of waging war.
284. The single most important factor which impels us to think that this is a case of waging or attempting to wage war against the Government of India is the target of attack chosen by the slain terrorists and conspirators and the immediate objective sought to be achieved thereby. The battle-front selected was the Parliament House Complex. The target chosen was the Parliament - a symbol of sovereignty of the Indian republic. Comprised of peoples' representatives, this supreme law-making body steers the destinies of vast multitude of Indian people. It is a constitutional repository of sovereign power that collectively belongs to the people of India. The executive Government through the Council of Ministers is accountable to Parliament. Parliamentary democracy is a basic and inalienable feature of the Constitution. Entering the Parliament House with sophisticated arms and powerful explosives with a view to lay a siege of that building at a time when members of Parliament, members of Council of Ministers, high officials and dignitaries of the Government of India gathered to transact Parliamentary business, with the obvious idea of imperilling their safety and destabilizing the functioning of Government and in that process, venturing to engage the security forces guarding the Parliament in armed combat, amounts by all reasonable perceptions of law and common sense, to waging war against the Government. The whole of this well planned operation is to strike directly at the sovereign authority and integrity of our Republic of which the Government of India is an integral component. The attempted attack on the Parliament is an undoubted invasion of the sovereign attribute of the State including the Government of India which is its alter ego. The attack of this nature cannot be viewed on the same footing as a terrorist attack on some public office building or an incident resulting in the breach of public tranquility. The deceased terrorists were roused and impelled to action by a strong anti-Indian feeling as the writings on the fake Home Ministry sticker found on the car (Ext. PW 1/8) reveals. The huge and powerful explosives, sophisticated arms and ammunition carried by the slain terrorists who were to indulge in 'Fidayeen' operations with a definite purpose in view, is a clear indicator of the grave danger in store for the inmates of the House. The 200 Spl.C.No.272/2015 planned operations if executed, would have spelt disaster to the whole nation. A war-like situation lingering for days or weeks would have prevailed. Such offensive acts of unimaginable description and devastation would have posed a challenge to the Government and the democratic institutions for the protection of which the Government of the day stands. To underestimate it as a mere desperate act of a small group of persons who were sure to meet death, is to ignore the obvious realities and to stultify the wider connotation of the expression of 'war' chosen by the drafters of IPC. The target, the obvious objective which has political and public dimensions and the modus operandi adopted by the hard-core 'Fidayeens' are all demonstrative of the intention of launching a war against the Government of India. We need not assess the chances of success of such an operation to judge the nature of criminality. We are not impressed by the argument that the five slain terrorists ought not to be 'exalted' to the status of warriors participating in a war. Nor do we endorse the argument of the learned senior counsel Mr. Sushil Kumar that in order to give rise to the offence of waging war, the avowed purpose and design of the offence should be to substitute another authority for the Government of India. According to learned counsel, the deprivation of sovereignty should be the pervading aim of the accused in order to bring the offence under Section 121 and that is lacking in the present case. We find no force in this contention. The undoubted objective and determination of the deceased terrorists was to impinge on the sovereign authority of the nation and its Government. Even if the conspired purpose and objective falls short of installing some other authority or entity in the place of an established Government, it does not in our view detract from the offence of waging war. There is no warrant for such truncated interpretation." (emphasis supplied)
235. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that organizing or joining an insurrection against the Government of India is also a form of war. 'Insurrection' as defined in dictionaries and as commonly understood connotes a violent uprising by a group directed against the Government in power or the civil authorities. The most important is the intention or purpose behind the defiance or rising against the Government. In other words the intention and purpose of the war-like operations directed against the Governmental machinery is an important criterion. If the object and purpose is to strike at the sovereign authority of the Ruler or the 201 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Government to achieve a public and general purpose in contra- distinction to a private and a particular purpose, that is an important indicia of waging war. Of course, the purpose must be intended to be achieved by use of force and arms and by defiance of Government troops or armed personnel deployed to maintain public tranquility. Though the modus operandi of preparing for the offensive against the Government may be quite akin to the preparation in a regular war, it is often said that the number of force, the manner in which they are arrayed, armed or equipped is immaterial. Even a limited number of persons who carry powerful explosives and missiles without regard to their own safety can cause more devastating damage than a large group of persons armed with ordinary weapons or fire arms. Then, the other settled proposition is that there need not be the pomp and pageantry usually associated with war such as the offenders forming themselves in battle-line and arraying in a war like manner. Even a stealthy operation to overwhelm the armed or other personnel deployed by the Government and to attain a commanding position by which terms could be dictated to the Government might very well be an act of waging war. The Court must be cautious in adopting an approach which has the effect of bringing within the fold of Section 121 all acts of lawless and violent acts resulting in destruction of public properties etc., and all acts of violent resistance to the armed personnel to achieve certain political objectives. The moment it is found that the object sought to be attained is of general public nature or has a political hue, the offensive violent acts targeted against armed forces and public officials should not be branded as acts of waging war. The 202 Spl.C.No.272/2015 expression 'waging war' should not be stretched too far to hold that all the acts of disrupting public order and peace irrespective of their magnitude and repercussions could be reckoned as acts of waging war against the Government. A balanced and realistic approach is called for in construing the expression 'waging war' irrespective of how it was viewed in the long long past. Keeping in mind the aforesaid statutory provision and the interpretation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court proceeds to examine whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence under section 121 of IPC.
236. In this case, the prosecution has adduced evidence to show that the accused tweeted and re-tweeted on his @shamiwitness twitter account from 2009 to 11/12.12.2014 in support of the cession of Jammu and Kashmir from Union of India, in support of the terrorists who are attacking the civilians, referring to Kashmir as occupied Kashmir, the Indian forces as occupation forces, encouraging Muslims in India to believe that the Muslims are being attacked relentlessly by the Indian Government and there is no justice for Muslims in India, calling upon Muslims to support the caliphate in Jammu and Kashmir. But the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the accused used force or arms or attacked on government troops or armed personnel deployed to maintain public tranquility or the accused has conducted a stealthy operation to overwhelm the armed or other personnel deployed by the government and to attain a commanding position by which terms could be dictated to the government. Even the learned Special Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted during his arguments that the 203 Spl.C.No.272/2015 prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 121 of IPC. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused committed any overt acts with an intention to wage war or attempting to wage war or abetting of waging war against the Government of India. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, this Court has answered Point No.4 in the negative.
237. Point No.6 :- It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence punishable under S.125 of IPC. Before proceeding to take the evidence for discussion, it is apposite to refer to section 125 of IPC which reads as follows;
"125. Waging war against any Asiatic Power in alliance with the Government of India.--Whoever wages war against the Government of any Asiatic Power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, to which fine may be added, or with fine."
238. A bare reading of the said Section, the prosecution has to prove that a person wages war or attempts to wage such war or abets the waging of such war against the Government of any Asiatic Power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India to convict such person under the said section. In this case, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused tweeted and re-tweeted, knowing fully well that ISIS was at war with Syria, Iraq and Iran, the States that are at peace with India, intentionally to support the ISIS in the war, tweeted and re- tweeted thousands of messages, posted pictures and videos of war to support every terrorist act of ISIS, and thereby abetted 204 Spl.C.No.272/2015 waging of war against Asiatic power in alliance and at peace with the Government of India.
239. A perusal of Ex.P.121, Ex.P.212 to Ex.P.242, which are proved documents, the accused has tweeted/retweeted as follows;
Page Date Time Exhibit Tweets made and Images posted Nos. Nos. by the accused 116 03.05.2013 21:04:09 212(f) The accused has posted the images of the dead bodies and tweeted as "RT @RevolutionSyria:#Syria in summary. #AssadCrimes http://t.co/wil8ZvlQvO"
121 05.05.2013 08:04:47 212(i) The accused has posted the image of the dead body of a person and tweeted as "RT @tweets4peace:Sheikh Omar Bayasi, the sheikh of Albayada village mosque. Exeucted by regime forces for being Sunni.
@Syria #Banyas http:aE;"
128 06.05.2013 16:03:09 212(g) The accused has posted the images of the dead bodies of children and tweeted as "RT @farGar: This is Khamenel, Nasrallah, Putin, and Assad's #Syria. The Axis of Evil's @Syira.
RIP martyrs. #FreeSyria http://t.co/NhRDw4FSaE:"
143 13.05.2013 17:19:55 212(h) The accused has posted the images of the dead bodies of children and youths and tweeted as "RT @tintin1957: Photo taken by the Syrian Arab Red Crescent from Banyas today .... families executed in the street. #Syria http://t.co/jCVB2aE;"
187 28.05.2013 18:30:37 212(j) The accused has posted the image of the Sunni Mosque being burnt and tweeted as "RT @samersniper: #FSA targeted, with 3 Grad missiles, Akrama & amp; Nuzha neighborhoods from 205 Spl.C.No.272/2015 which Shabbiha shell the Sunni areas in #Homs! HttpaE;"
344 30.06.2013 15:45:02 212(k) The accused has posted the image of the Sunni City is being burnt and tweeted as "RT @markantony_sy: It's not an image coming from a war zone. It's a Sunni city under bombardment.
#Homs #Syria http://t.co/GuFUOKVGcD"
12036 22.09.2014 19:27:43 236 The accused has posted the images of children killed and tweeted as "RT @Syria2112:
aEce@i_magpie: 40 countries want to fight the #ISIS while not one wants to stop Assad slaughtering kids! #Syria http://t.co/ro5aE;"
392 04.05.2013 14:17:14 121 The accused has made 8 tweets, saying that Sunni Muslims are being massacred by Syrian Government and tweeted as "@TaziMorocco @FSAHQ @Racanarchy @Rafifj @ ALCazanova @SyrianSmurf @Syrian_Scenes women and children slaughtered https://t.co/k87SAgcjLp"
392 04.05.2013 14:19:23 121 The accused has made 8 tweets and tweeted as "@HassanSari7 @ hhassan140 new massacre in Baniyas today http://t.co/k87SAgcjLp"
392 04.05.2013 14.21.25 121 The accused has made 8 tweets, saying that Sunni Muslims are being massacred by Syrian Government and tweeted as "@michaledweiss new massacre in Ras al Nabaa, Baniyas today women n children massacred http://t.co/beTcXMzR1S"
395 04.05.2013 15:58:06 121 The accused has tweeted that "@HamudiMD Iraqi Shia fighters are involved in killing Sunnis in Syria. R u even seeing the news?"
395 04.05.2013 16:47:16 121 The accused has tweeted that "62 Sunni civilians confirmed killed in 206 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ras al Nabaa massacre, including at least 14 children. Nos. likely to rise. #Syria @michaeldweiss.
517 20.05.2013 17:22:54 121 The accused has tweeted that 'it is a sectarian war, and I don't see why the Sunni majority of Syria should be ashamed of dat. They didn't start it, but sure gonna finish it.
612 31.05.2013 08:08:14 121 The accused has tweeted that "the next stage of the Sunni-Shia war would include attacks inside Iran, as demanded by Egyptian Jihadists in d new statement."
674 06.06.2013 18:15:14 121 The accused has tweeted that "If you really want to defeat Iran, u have to fight a conventional war, albeit using Non-state actors. Ur car bombs will only do half the job."
675 06.06.2013 18:56:40 121 The accused has posted the message as "Honestly all of you fuckheads in the Gulf governments, get ur head out of the sand. Iran is going to rape u in broad daylight if u don't wake up."
782 18.06.2013 09:05:46 121 The accused has tweeted thrice stating that "Toppling Asad sis not the end, it is the means and breaking military back of Shia and marching to Al-Aqsa and tweeted as "@cfklebergtt if that is taken as an axiom, then we r ignoring jihadist rationale for this war"
782 18.06.2013 09:09:28 121 The accused has tweeted thrice stating that "Toppling Asad sis not the end, it is the means and breaking military back of Shia and marching to Al-Aqsa and tweeted as "@cfklebergtt means to not just an Islamic state, but breaking military back of Shia, and of course, marching to Al Aqsa."
859 25.06.213 20:13:39 121 The accused by tweet calling upon the Sunnis to wake up and that Hezbullah is massacring Syrians and tweeted as "@sanleb what I 207 Spl.C.No.272/2015 want is Sunnis to wake the fuckup, and confront the hezbollah enemy, come whatever may shit has dragged on for way too long."
859 25.06.2013 20:16:11 121 The accused by tweet calling upon the Sunnis to wake up and that Hezbullah is massacring Syrians and tweeted as "@sanleb yeah, when Hezbollah is massacring Syrians and pro-rebel Lebanese right and left, I have to think about them."
935 01.07.2013 14:55:54 121 The accused has tweeted that "Advice to Islamists everywhere: u r never going to win d democracy game, the game is rigged baby.unless u have an army like Hezbollah"
1248 16.07.2013 04:21:20 121 The accused has posted the details of Abu Bakr Al-Qahtani and tweeted as "RT @ajaltamimi:
#Syria: Abu Bakr al-Qahtani- Mujahid for Islamic State of Iraq &: ash-Sham-calls the people of Aleppo to fight jihad: http:aE;"
1422 27.07.2013 08:18:45 121 The accused has tweeted as "There is just no point in being cool, level headed right now.
Damn you if this is not enough for u. God gave u the faculty of rage for a reason"
1566 04.08.2013 18:01:26 121 The accused has tweeted against the Government of Syria as "Soon there won't be enough males of reproductive age left to impregnate Alawite females. What Assad is doing to Alawites is absolute madness."
1657 09.08.2013 16:58:30 121 The accused is justifying killings of civilians and tweeted as "#PT That's exactly what jihadis are now claiming in Syria, they might kill all military age male Alawites if they have a chance"
1657 09.08.2013 16:59:30 121 The accused is justifying killings of civilians and tweeted as "#PT so next time u see pics of dead 208 Spl.C.No.272/2015 military-age male Alawites without guns nearby, don't go whining u allow that shit when it's by drones."
1769 14.08.2013 16:01:55 121 The has posted the tweets stating that Muslims are victimized in the world and calling for upraising and tweeted as "#PT Religious Muslims can be massacred willfully without any condemnation ↦ when they decide enough is enough, shoot back? They are terrorists."
1769 14.08.2013 16:03:32 121 The accused has posted the tweets stating that Muslims are victimized in the world and calling for upraising and tweeted as "#PT forget z talking heads, z twitter, social media pundits, forget all those who call for selmiya. Die.
With. Dignity. That means
#Resistance"
2075 30.08.2013 17:50:54 121 The accused has tweeted calling upon Muslims to fund fighters inside Iran and tweeted as "You kill Asad. And the rest of the clowns surrounding him. That way you can prevent all massacres in Syria, not just #CWMassacres.
2308 13.09.2013 17:31:47 121 The accused has tweeted justifying beheading and tweeted as "A serious question, to Muslims, who are disgusted by rebels in Syria or elsewhere executing, beheading enemy troops. (part 1)"
2309 13.09.2013 17:45:57 121 The accused has tweeted justifying beheading and tweeted as "Khalid Ibn Walid turned the river red after beheading thousands of enemy soldiers in Iraq.battlefield executions, no qadi and stuff.
2311 13.09.2013 18:25:26 121 The accused has tweeted justifying beheading and tweeted as "@iyad_elbaghdadi @AnasA_ again, I didn't say war criminal. I was talking clearly about mass execution of enemy troops.209
Spl.C.No.272/2015 3033 13.11.2013 14:08:55 121 The accused has tweeted asking for unity between the different groups of ISIS and tweeted as "Time to spark the alarm.
Successes in this war are not irreversible, as has been proved.
(part 1)"
3033 13.11.2013 14:09:50 121 The accused has tweeted asking for unity between the different groups of ISIS and tweeted as "If we can't move past groups, we would be betraying the entire Islamic project. (part 2)"
3034 13.11.2013 15:56:23 121 The accused has tweeted eight times stating that "Remember this:
1- currently, Assad - Iran forces are at their very zenith of commitment in this war. They are not holding back anything."
3034 13.11.2013 15:57:58 121 The accused has tweeted eight times stating that "2 - Most of their MIG ancient versions have run out of their engine life or shot down.
NOW MIG 29s are being used.
That's their max air power"
3034 13.11.2013 15:58:55 121 The accused has tweeted eight times stating that "3 - Assad's helicopters are also running shot of bombs to drop. They are using explosive barrels like never before. This is desperation."
3034 13.11.2013 16:00:23 121 The accused has tweeted eight times stating that "4 - Assad's air power is so much destroyed, he is using ballistic missiles in operations that are clearly for strikes via fighter jets"
3034 13.11.2013 16:01:23 121 The accused has tweeted eight times stating that "5 - Even with all this, rebels are striking back hard in Damascus and Aleppo. There's not much room for battle innovation that Iran has now."
3034 13.11.2013 16:05:02 121 The accused has tweeted eight times stating that "@AbdoZehn yes, this is their last gamble in air 210 Spl.C.No.272/2015 power. Rebels just have to hold on and not kill each other."
3168 23.11.2013 21:46:17 121 The accused was celebrating the execution of 70 people of Iranian origin and tweeted as "Today was a full execution-fest of Assad's foreign militiamen in Ghouta, going by reporting from all sources."
3168 23.11.2013 21:48:47 121 The accused was celebrating the execution of 70 people of Iranian origin and tweeted as "@ShamiWitness claims of at least 70 militiamen slaughtered today, more 20 being investigated (can't confirm though) allegedly all Iranian)"
3186 24.11.2013 14:39:16 121 The accused has informed the death of British fighters of ISIS namely Abu Naseebh Al-Brittani and tweeted as "British fighter of ISIS, Abu Naseebh al Brittani, martyred in storming operation of Deir Attiya hospital, to free it from Assad regime control."
4521 29.01.2014 15:02:28 121 The accused has retweeted about the battle field happenings and strategies of ISIS and tweeted as "RT @Khorasani_: @AbuMuadh0 desire to start such a war anyway.
Besides the prophet alayhi salaatu wa salaam said the muslims will take over aE;
4243 18.01.2014 16:16:14 121 The accused has retweeted 18 tweets of one @khorasani regarding happenings at battle field and and tweeted as "RT @khorasani_: ANOTHER huge ammunition storage this time for more important general ammunition for RPGs, PKC bullets, and your average AK aE;"
240. The aforesaid tweets indicate that the accused tweeted/re-tweeted on his twitter account waging war and abetting the waging of war against the Government of Syria and 211 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Iraq, the power in alliance and at peace with the Government of India. The accused has posted the images of dead bodies of children and women and tweeted that it was Asad's crime and thereby abetted the waging of war against the Government of Syria. The accused has posted the tweets saying that 'if you really want to defeat Iran, you have to fight a conventional war and your car bombs will only do half the job'. He has posted the tweet saying that 'Iran is going to rape you in broad daylight if you don't wake up'. The accused instructed to form an army to fight against democracy and for storage of RPGs, PKC bullets, AK47 rifles, etc. The accused abetted to kill Asad and the rest of the clowns surrounding him and abetted for mass execution of enemy troops. This court has picked only few tweets for appreciation. There are many tweets/re-tweets in respect of waging war or abetting of waging war against the Government of Syria and Iraq, the power in alliance and at peace with the Government of India. Hence, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of section 125 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
241. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove the offence under section 125 of IPC and no one testified regarding waging war against the Asiatic Power in alliance with the Government of India. This court has extracted the tweets and re-tweets made by the accused in the aforesaid paragraphs and PW.40 has deposed about the said facts in his evidence. As discussed supra, the prosecution has placed abundant materials to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 125 of IPC. Hence, this court has declined to accept the submissions of the learned 212 Spl.C.No.272/2015 counsel for the accused and has answered point No.6 in the affirmative.
242. Point No.7 to 10 :- Since these points are interlinked and interrelated with each other, this court has taken these points together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
243. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offences under Sections 153-A, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c) and 505(2) of IPC. Before proceeding to take the evidence for discussion, it is apposite to extract Sections 153-A and 505 of IPC, which read as follows;
"153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.- (1) Whoever-
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or
(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, 213 Spl.C.No.272/2015 shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Offence committed in place of worship, etc.- Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
"505. Statements conducing to Public Mischief.- Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,--
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.--
Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
244. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused tweeted and re-tweeted messages displaying deep intolerance towards other religious faiths including individuals and groups of Muslim communities who followed paths of Islam other than Sunni and thereby promoted disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted encouraging Muslims in India to believe that the Muslims are being attacked relentlessly by the Indian Government and there is no justice for Muslims in India, with 214 Spl.C.No.272/2015 intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the Muslims in India, whereby any Muslim may be induced to commit any offence against the State or against the public tranquility, the accused tweeted and re-tweeted messages displaying deep intolerance towards other religious faiths including individuals and groups of Muslim communities who followed paths of Islam other than Sunni, with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite Sunni Sect Muslims to commit any offence against Shiyas and other religious faiths and the accused tweeted and re-tweeted messages containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on the grounds of religion, race, caste or community amongst Sunni Sect Muslims, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will towards other religious faiths including individuals and groups of Muslim community who followed paths of Islam other than Sunni.
245. A perusal of Ex.P.121 and Ex.P.212 to Ex.P.242, which are proved documents, the accused has tweeted and re- tweeted as follows;
Page Date Time Exhibit Tweets made and Images posted Nos. Nos. by the accused 7587 05.06.2014 07:44:56 227 The accused has posted an image of Pune, India and tweeted as "RT @BeingMoslem:
A policeman assisting hindu terrorists while they attack a Mosque in #Pune. This is HINDUTVA. #RipMohsin http://t.co/0XA8daE;"
6256 07.05.2014 07:59:04 224 The accused has posted the images of Assam in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew:
Ramzan Ali lost his wife, 3 215 Spl.C.No.272/2015 children + his mother in attack on his village. 4mnth old son's body found today #Assam http://aE;
6257 07.05.2014 07:59:57 224 The accused has posted the images of Assam in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew:
Khargrabari village #Assam
where 22 Bengali-speaking
Muslims killed, incl many
children. 16 still missing
http://5.co/qdKQvaE;"
6258 07.05.2014 08:01:02 224 The accused has posted the images of Assam in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew:
3yr old Amina Khatun injured, her mother shot dead in #Assam violence. Full report on @BBCWorld http://t.co/aEfZxaE;"
6259 07.05.2014 08:01:18 224 The accused has posted the images of Assam in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew: Sajida's mother was shot and she ran with her younger sister. More in our report on BBCWorld #IndiaElections http://t.co/aE;"
6296 08.05.2014 09:21:00 224 The accused has posted an image of a child and tweeted as "RT @khorasan313: #Assamis Calling you Ya Ummat al-Islam Will we respond? Or betray them just like we etrayed #Burma & @Syria http://t.coaE;
6568 07.05.2014 07:53:31 121 The accused has posted several tweets that Muslims are being killed in India and tweeted as "RT @daqeqa: #PRT's reports of #Muslims being killed in #India, the Ummah hardly takes any notice, one body? Really?
[ 6568 07.05.2014 07:57:30 121 The accused has posted several tweets that Muslims are being killed in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew: Why now, many are asking here in Assam abt ethnic violence. The answer, they 216 Spl.C.No.272/2015 say, likes in UP + Bihar where many Muslims yeaE;
6568 07.05.2014 07:58:15 121 The accused has posted several tweets that Muslims are being killed in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew: The crucial role of the RSS in Narendra Modi's campaign + concerns about its agenda. Our TV take http://t.co/v40yARH8Yl 6568 07.05.2014 07:58:49 121 The accused has posted several tweets that Muslims are being killed in India and mostly in Assam and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew: Shocking stories from victims of anti-Muslim election violence in Assam. A 4 mnth old baby boy thrown in the river - his boaE;
6568 07.05.2014 07:59:57 121 The accused has posted several tweets that Muslims are being killed in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew: Khagrabari Village #Assam where 22 Bengali-speaking Muslims killed incl many children. 16 still missing http://t.co/qdKQvaE;
6569 07.05.2014 08:00:22 121 The accused has posted several tweets that Muslims are being killed in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew: All those killed in #Assam violence were Muslims, who 'voted for the wrong candidate'. Our report on @BBCWorld tommorrow 6569 07.05.2014 08:01:02 121 The accused has posted several tweets that Muslims are being killed in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew: 3yr old Amina Khatun injured, her mother shot dead in #Assam election violence. Full report on @BBCWorld http://t.co/aEfZxaE;
6569 07.05.2014 08:01:18 121 The accused has posted several tweets that Muslims are being killed in India and tweeted as "RT @NorthAndrew: Sajida's mother 217 Spl.C.No.272/2015 was shot and she ran with her younger sister. More in our report on @BBCWorld #IndiaElections http://t.co/Ae;
6629 09.05.2014 13:57:11 121 The accused has posted the web links of dead bodies of Muslims women killed in a massacre in India and tweeted as "@syrianpernews you prefer bitches, dimwit?
@abufresh_@jabz_26
246. The aforesaid tweets and re-tweets clearly indicate that the accused promoted the feelings of enmity or disharmony between two religions, induced the Muslims to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility and incited the Muslims to commit the offence against the other religion. The accused has posted several tweets that the Muslims were being killed in Assam. The accused has taken the name of RSS and Shri Narendra Modi in his tweets to show that they are the cause for the killings of the Muslims in Assam. The accused has posted that a policeman assisted Hindu terrorists while attacking a masque and also criticized Hinduthva. All the tweets made by the accused prove the ingredients of the offences under section 153A, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c) and 505(2) of IPC. Hence, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the said offences beyond reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence.
247. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove the said offences and no one testified regarding the said offences. As discussed supra, the prosecution has placed abundant materials 218 Spl.C.No.272/2015 to prove the ingredients of the offences under sections 153A, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c) and 505(2) of IPC. Hence, this court has declined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and has answered Point Nos.7 to 10 in the affirmative.
248. Point No.11:- The allegation of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offence under section 66F of the I.T. Act. Before proceeding to take the evidence for discussion, it is proper to take note of section 66F of I.T. Act which reads as follows;
66F. Punishment for Cyber terrorism- (1) Whoever,- (A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by-
(i) denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorized to access computer resource; or
(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access; or
(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any Computer Contaminant. and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70, or (B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism. (2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life'."
219Spl.C.No.272/2015
249. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused accessed the computers resource exceeding authorised access and tweeted/re-tweeted on his twitter account with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India and to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India.
250. A plain reading of the aforesaid section the prosecution has to prove that the accused accessed the computers resource exceeding authorised access and tweeted/re-tweeted on his twitter account with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India and by means of such conduct caused death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupted or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70.
251. In this case, the prosecution has adduced evidence to show that the accused tweeted and re-tweeted on his twitter account in favour of terrorist organisations, supporting their activities, claiming cession or secession of Kashmir from the Union of India, promoting enmity between two religions, etc. But the prosecution has not placed any materials to show that the accused accessed computer resource exceeding authorised access and tweeted/re-tweeted on his twitter account with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India 220 Spl.C.No.272/2015 and caused any death or injury to any person or destruction of any property in India. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the twin conditions of the said section and failed to prove that the accused has committed the offence under section 66F of the Information Technology Act. Accordingly, this court has answered point No.11 in the negative.
252. Point No.12 :- The learned counsel for the accused argued that as per section 2(e) of U.A.(P) Act, the sanction must be issued not below the rank of Joint Secretary. In this case, the sanctions Ex.P.62 and Ex.P.63 are issued by the Deputy Secretaries which is contrary to section 2(e) of U.A.(P) Act. These sanctions are issued by incompetent officers and they are defective sanction orders. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
253. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the sanction orders issued by the State and Central Government are in accordance with law and they are not defective sanction orders. The Deputy Secretaries have power to issued sanction orders on behalf of the government. In support of his arguments, he has produced 'The Karnataka Govt (Transaction of business) Rules, 1977 and 'Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure' before this court.
254. This court has perused the aforesaid Rules and Manual and has also given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. The learned counsel for the accused argued that as per section 2(e) of U.A.(P) Act, the sanction must be issued not below the rank of Joint Secretary. It is pertinent to note that 221 Spl.C.No.272/2015 the word designation authority defined in the said section is connected to chapter - V of the said Act, but it has no application to chapter - VII. The word designated authority is not used in section 45 of U.A.(P) Act and the designated authority is nothing to do with issuance of sanction for prosecution of the accused under U.A.(P) Act. Hence, this court does not find any merit in the said argument.
255. Section 2(e) of The Karnataka Govt (Transaction of business) Rules, 1977 defines 'Secretary' as follows;
"2(e). "Secretary" means an Additional Chief Secretary Principle Secretary or a Secretary to the Government and except in rule 7, includes a Special Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary or any other officer holding these posts on ex-officio basis."
256. It appears from the said section that the Deputy Secretary is also a secretary within the meaning of the said section. In these type of offence, the role of the secretary is very limited. After receipt of the draft charge sheet from the investigation officer, the secretary has to send the same to the competent authority for recommendation. The competent authority has to make an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a recommendation to the State Government to issue or not to issue sanction. Based on the recommendation made by the competent authority, the Secretary has to issue sanction to prosecute the accused. In this case, PW.26 - Smt. C.N Meena Nagaraj followed all the formalities and issued sanction to prosecute the accused on behalf of the State Government. As per the aforesaid section, PW.26 is competent to issue the 222 Spl.C.No.272/2015 sanction order and this court does not find any merits in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused.
257. Section 5(9)(c) of Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure reads as follows;
"5(9)(c). Director/Deputy Secretary - Director/Deputy Secretary is an officer who acts on behalf of the Secretary. He holds charge of a Secretariat Division and is responsible for the disposal of Government business dealt within the Division under his Charge. He should not only provide able leadership but also ordinarily dispose of the majority of cases coming up to him on his own. He should use his discretion in seeking orders of the Joint Secretary/Secretary on important issues either orally or by submission of papers."
258. It appears from the said section that the Deputy Secretary is an officer who acts on behalf of the secretary. He holds the charge of Secretariat Division and is responsible for the disposal of Government business dealt within the Division under his charge. In this case, PW.31 - Shri Chikkara has issued the sanction order after considering the recommendation made by the competent authority on behalf of the Central Government. As per the aforesaid section, PW.31 is competent to issue the sanction order and this court does not find any merits in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused.
259. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Sadik Shariff Vs. State by Vijayanagar P.S., Mysore, CRL.R.P. No.98/2009, decided on 16.11.2009. In this decision, the petitioner was charged under section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of U.A. (P) Act besides other IPC offences. The investigating officer obtained sanction from the State Government to prosecute the petitioner for the said offences and the Under Secretary of the 223 Spl.C.No.272/2015 State Government issued the sanction order to prosecute the petitioner for the said offences. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the Central Government has named only the Secretary of the State Government in Home Department to be competent to issue sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of U.A.(P) Act and the State Government has no power to delegate such power to Under Secretary. The Hon'ble High Court has further held that under the provisions of section 45(1), it is the Central Government, which can authorise its officers to issue sanction by delegation of power at para 16. In this case, the investigating officer has obtained sanction from the Central Government and the Deputy Secretary issued the sanction order to prosecute the accused under the provisions of U.A.(P) Act. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is aptly applicable to the case of the prosecution rather than the case of the accused.
260. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the sanction must be issued within 14 working days from the date of submission of the draft charge sheet as per the Rules. In this case, the sanction order was issued after 24th day from the date of submission of draft charge sheet. Therefore, the sanction orders issued in this case are defective sanctions. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the sanction orders issued by the State and Central Government are within time stipulated under the Rules. Hence, they are not defective sanctions.
224Spl.C.No.272/2015
261. In this regard, this court has perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution carefully. PW.26 has testified that she received the draft charge sheet along with a request letter seeking sanction for prosecution of the accused for various offences under the provisions of IPC and U.A.(P) Act on 30.04.2015 and she forwarded the same on the same day to the competent authority. PW.41 has testified that he received the file from the State Government on 30.04.2015, made an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and made a recommendation to the State Government to issue sanction on 07.05.2015 within seven days. PW.25 has testified that she received the recommendation from the competent authority on 07.05.2015 and he submitted the recommendation of the competent authority to the Central Government on 11.05.2015 within one week. PW.31 has testified that he received the file from the State Government along with the recommendation of the competent authority on 12.05.2015 and he forwarded the sanction order to prosecute the accused under the provisions of U.A.(P) Act to the State Government on 15.05.2015. PW.26 has testified that she received the sanction order from the Central Government on 20.05.2015 and issued sanction order to prosecute the accused on 23.05.2015. The aforesaid evidence clearly indicates that the State Government required to take sanction from the Central Government and therefore, the State Government constrained to sent the file to the Central Government. The State Government conducted the proceeding within seven working days, the competent authority made the recommendation within seven working days and the 225 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Central Government has issued sanction within seven working days. Hence, there is no delay in issuing sanction as argued by the learned counsel for the accused and there is no merit in the said submissions.
262. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Sri J. Suresh Vs. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No.772/2014, decided on 29.03.2016 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1979 SCR(2) 1007. In these decisions, the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived by it. There is no dispute in the said ratio. In this case, the prosecution has produced the sanction order as well as examined the persons who issued sanction orders and the competent authority who made a recommendation to issue sanction order. The prosecution has fulfilled both the conditions laid down in the said decisions.
263. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashrafkhan 226 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Alias Babu Munnekhan Vs. State of Gujarath, (2012) 11 SCC
606. This court has gone through the said decision. In the said case, the accused was facing charges under the provisions of TADA. As per section 20-A(1) of TADA, the District Superintendent of Police has to grant prior approval before registration of the case under the said Act. In the said case, no prior approval was granted by the District Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court acquitted the accused for the offences alleged against them. It is pertinent to note that the facts involved in both the cases are distinguishable. Hence, with great respect to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of the accused.
264. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Subhashree Das @ Mili Panda and others Vs. State of Orissa, CRLMC No.3080/2010, decided on 19.10.2011. In the said case, the State of Orissa has not made appointment of any officer to carry out the independent review and there has been no prescription of any time limit for making the necessary recommendation. Hence, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the order of taking cognizance by the court. In this case, the Government of Karnataka appointed competent authority and followed all the formalities in accordance with law. It clearly goes to show that the facts involved in both the cases are distinguishable. Hence, with great respect to the Hon'ble High Court, the aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of the accused.
227Spl.C.No.272/2015
265. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Roopesh Vs. State of Kerala, Crl.Rev.Pet. No.732/2019, decided on 17.09.2019. In the said case, the accused was facing the charge under section 124A of IPC and no sanction was given under section 196 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the order of taking cognizance by the session court for the offence under section 124A of IPC. In this case, the State Government has issued sanction under section 196 of Cr.P.C. and the Central Government has issued sanction under section 45 of U.A.(P) Act. It clearly goes to show that the facts involved in both the cases are distinguishable. Hence, with great respect to the Hon'ble High Court, the aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of the accused.
266. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi and others Vs. State of Gujarath, (1997) 7 SCC 744. In the said case, it is held that if the designated court has taken cognizance of the offence without a valid sanction, such action is without jurisdiction and any proceedings adopted thereunder will also be without jurisdiction. There is no dispute in the said ratio. In this case, as discussed supra, the prosecution has obtained valid sanctions to prosecute the accused. Hence, with great respect to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of the accused.
267. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 228 Spl.C.No.272/2015 in Sayyed Mohammed Naushad and another Vs. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.1206/2017 C/W Criminal Appeal No.820/2017, decided on 14.11.2022. In the said case, it is held that when the State Government accorded sanction only under the provisions of Section 196 of Cr.P.C., conviction of the accused persons under the provisions of U.A.(P) Act in the absence of any sanction order under U.A.(P) Act either by the Central Government or any officer authorised by the Central Government or by the State Government is impermissible. In this case, as discussed supra, the prosecution has obtained valid sanctions to prosecute the accused from the Central Government as well as the State Government under Section 45 of U.A.(P) Act and under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. respectively. Hence, with great respect to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of the accused.
268. The learned counsel for the accused argued before the court that no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the sanctioning authority before according sanction to prosecute the accused for any of the offences. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has not complied section 196(3) of Cr.P.C. This Court has gone through Section 196(3) of Cr.P.C. As per the said section, it is not mandatory on the part of the sanctioning authority to order for a preliminary investigation by a Police Officer not being below the rank of Inspector. In this case, PW.41 has testified that he has gone through the case file and also secured the Investigating 229 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Officer for clarification as the file was voluminous. He instructed PW.40 to point out incriminating tweets made by the accused and PW.40 pointed out the incriminating tweets in the voluminous documents. The said facts clearly indicate that PW.41 has gone through the file meticulously and applied his mind before making recommendation to issue sanction. Hence, this court does not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
269. The learned counsel for the accused argued that as per the allegation, the offence is committed against a foreign country. As per section 45(1)(ii) of U.A.(P) Act, the central government has to constitute competent authority, but no such authority is constituted by the Central Government in this case. This court has meticulously gone through section 45(1)(ii) of U.A. (P) Act and it does not say that the Central Government has to appoint competent authority where the offence is committed against the Government of a foreign country. But it says that the Central Government has to issue sanction in such a case. In this case, the Central Government has issued sanction to prosecute the accused for the offences punishable under the provisions of U.A.(P) Act. Hence, there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
270. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.26 has not issued sanction under section 45 of U.A.(P) Act and the same has been admitted by PW.26 during her cross-
230Spl.C.No.272/2015 examination. Hence, the sanction issued by PW.26 is a defective sanction. It is pertinent to note that the Central Government has issued sanction to prosecute the accused under the provisions of U.A.(P) Act. PW.26 has issued sanction to prosecute the accused under the IPC offences. There is no need to issue sanction under Section 45 of U.A.(P) Act as PW.31 has issued sanction under Section 45 of U.A.(P) Act. Hence, there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
271. Before parting with the discussion, the investigation officer Shri Thammaiah M.K. has taken a lot of pain to collect the evidence against the accused to bring him to the law book and he was also very punctual in attending the court. The efforts made by Shri Thammaiah and his punctuality require appreciation. It is also required to appreciate the valuable assistance extended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri Shankar T. Bikkannavar.
272. In view of the discussions made supra, this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER This court has not pronounced the judgment in respect of the offence punishable under section 124A of IPC and the same is kept in abeyance in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.G. Vombatkere Versus Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No.682/2021, decided on 11.05.2022.
231Spl.C.No.272/2015 The accused is not found guilty of the offences punishable under section 121 of the IPC and Section 66F(1)(A)(ii) of The Information Technology Act. Hence, acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 121 of the IPC and Section 66F(1)(A)
(ii) of The Information Technology Act.
Further, the accused - Shri Mehdi Masroor Biswas is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 13, 18-B and 39 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 125, 153A, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c) and 505(2) of IPC. Hence, acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 13, 18-B and 39 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 125, 153A, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c) and 505(2) of the IPC.
(Partly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcription thereof computerized by him, partly typed by me, corrected and then pronounced in open Court on this 16th day of January, 2024) (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
232Spl.C.No.272/2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE This court has heard the convict, his counsel and the learned Special Public Prosecutor on the award of the sentence.
2. The convict submitted that he is an innocent and he does not understand where he failed to prove his innocence. He further submitted that he was a good student and is a B.Tech. graduate. He has aged parents. His father is 74 years old and his mother is 64 years old. He is the only earning member in his family. Hence, he prayed to take a lenient view while awarding the sentence.
3. The learned counsel for the convict submitted that none of the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. The punishment for the offence under section 18-B of U.A.(P) Act is five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and the punishment for the offence under Section 125 of IPC is imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years. Therefore, the discretion is vested with this court to impose sentence from five years to life imprisonment for the said offences. The punishment for other offences is not more than seven years. He further submitted that the convict is a B.Tech. graduate and he is the only son to his parents. There are no bad antecedents against him. The convict has not interacted with anybody physically and he was a single person. No act is committed within the territory of India. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Dutt vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 2687 and argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded 233 Spl.C.No.272/2015 sentence of five years though AK-47 rifle was recovered from the possession of the accused in the said case. In this case, nothing is seized from the possession of the accused. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3483 and argued that there are common ingredients in section 153A and section 505 IPC and the maximum punishment for the said offences is three years. He further submitted that the convict has been in custody for more than nine years. Hence, he prayed to take a lenient view and impose minimum punishment and also prayed to extend the benefit under section 428 of Cr.P.C. and order to run the sentences concurrently.
4. The learned Special Public Persecutor argued that the convict always tried to point out loopholes in the case of the prosecution and this was the tendency of the convict throughout the trial. He further submitted that the convict did not open his twitter account in routine course. He used proxy IP address to open his twitter account in 2009 to hide his identity. Accordingly, he concealed his identity and tweeted anonymously. The convict knew that supporting a terrorist organisation and instigating youths to joint ISIS is a crime. Hence, this is a planned crime. He further submitted that there is no remorse on the face of the convict about his acts and there is no chance of reforming. There is no guarantee that he will not commit similar offence in future. He further submitted that the convict has supported a deadly terrorist organisation. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Singh, MANU/SC/1030/2014 and argued that the 234 Spl.C.No.272/2015 sentence should be proportionate to the crime and extending undue sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system to undermine public confidence in efficacy of law. He strongly opposed to take a lenient view while awarding sentence. He prayed to impose maximum punishment and order to run the sentences consecutively.
5. This court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and has gone through the aforesaid decisions meticulously. It is settled principle of law that while deciding the quantum of punishment, it is required that the court should strike a balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It is also well settled principle of law that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime and extending undue sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system to undermine public confidence in efficacy of law. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentence and it should be proportionate to the crime.
6. It is also well settled principle of law that if the accused is below 21 years of age and there is no previous conviction and the offences are not exclusively punishable with imprisonment for life, the court has to release the offender on probation of good conduct under Probation of Offenders Act, otherwise the court has to assign reasons for imposing sentence of imprisonment on such accused. Keeping in mind the aforesaid statutory and 235 Spl.C.No.272/2015 salutary principles, this court proceeds to examine the facts of this case.
7. It appears from the records that the prosecution has not produced any materials before this court to show that the convict was previously convicted in any other case. However, the convict was 24 years old at the time of commission of the offence and minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence punishable under section 18-B of U.A.(P) Act. If the minimum punishment is prescribed for an offence, the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be extended. Therefore, this is not a fit case to release the accused either under section 360 of Cr.P.C. or under any provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
8. As per the convict, he has aged parents and he is the only son and earning member in his family. This is only the mitigating circumstance in favour of the convict.
9. The aggravating circumstances against the convict are that the accused is a B.Tech. graduate. He has not opened his twitter account in a routine course and subsequently he tweeted supporting a deadly terrorist organisation ISIS/ISIL without knowing the consequences of his acts. He opened his twitter account by using proxy IP address to hide his identity. This facts clearly indicates that the convict opened his twitter account with definite purpose. The convict was not an illiterate at the time of committing the offence. He was a B.Tech. graduate and having worldly knowledge. He knew the consequences of his acts at the time of commission of the offence. In one of the tweets, the accused tweeted that he was observing the activities of Islamic 236 Spl.C.No.272/2015 State of Iraq from his higher primary school. This fact clearly goes to show that the convict had planned to commit a crime before opening the twitter account. Further, the accused has not tweeted on his twitter account supporting the activities of ISIS ten times, twenty time or hundred times, but he has tweeted/retweeted thousands and thousands times supporting the activities of deadly terrorist organisation ISIS/ISIL, supporting the beheading of the said terrorist organisation, supporting mass killing of the persons belonged to other religion and glorified the ISIS fighters as martyrs. The accused suggested to kill the Syrian Government head and the rest of the clowns surrounding him and also suggested to form army to fight against democracy and secure weapons to wage war against the Governments of Syria and Iraq. Hence, the accused has committed heinous offence.
10. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offences under section 125 of IPC and section 18-B of U.A.(P) Act is imprisonment for life. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offences under section 39 of U.A.(P) Act is imprisonment for ten years. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offences under section 153A and 505 of IPC is three years. This court can award sentence up to seven years for the offence punishable under section 13 of U A (P) Act. As discussed supra, the punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed by the accused. The punishment should neither be so harsh nor so negligible, but it should be proportionate to the crime. In this case, the accused has not committed any offence within India and he is not actively participated in the war waged against the 237 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Governments of Syria and Iraq. However, he tweeted and retweeted thousands and thousands times supporting all the activities of deadly terrorist organisation ISIS/ISIL, waged war against the Governments of Syria and Iraq which is Asiatic Power in alliance and at peace with the Government of India, recruited the persons to the terrorist organisation and invited the support and encouraged the Muslims to further the activities of the deadly terrorist organisation. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, if three years imprisonment is imposed for the offence punishable under section 153A and 505 of IPC respectively, seven years imprisonment is imposed for the offence punishable under section 13 of U.A.(P) Act, ten years imprisonment is imposed for the offence punishable under section 39 of U.A.(P) Act and ten years imprisonment is imposed for the offence punishable under section 18-B of U.A.(P) Act and section 125 of IPC respectively, it is proportionate to the crime committed by the accused. As regards imposition of fine, in the opinion of the court, it is just and proper to impose fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 153A, Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c) and 505(2) of IPC, Rs.25,000/- for the offence under section 13 of U.A.(P) Act, Rs.50,000/- for the offence under section 39 of U.A. (P) Act, Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under section 18-B of U.A.(P) Act and Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under section 125 of IPC by considering the gravity of the offence. Hence, this court proceeds to pass the following:
238Spl.C.No.272/2015 ORDER The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 18-B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 125 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 153-A of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall 239 Spl.C.No.272/2015 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(c) of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Substantial sentences in respect of all the above offences shall run concurrently.
The period of detention undergone by the accused in judicial custody shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him as provided under section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Since M.O.1 to MO.5 and MO.7 to MO.9 are valuable properties, it is ordered to be confiscated to the state after completion of appeal period.240
Spl.C.No.272/2015 Since MO.6 and MO.10 to MO.12 belong to the convict, it is ordered to be given to the convict on proper identification.
Since MO.13 to MO.18 are documents, it is ordered to be kept in the file.
The whole fine recovered to be applied in defraying the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
Office is directed to supply free copy of this judgment to the accused forthwith through email and send the hard copy of the judgment through post since the presence of the accused is secured through Video Conferencing.
Further, office is hereby directed to send a copy of this judgment to District Magistrate, Bengaluru Urban.
Further, office is hereby directed to issue warrant of conviction against the accused accordingly.
(Typed by me in my Laptop, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on this 31st day of January, 2024) (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :-
PW1 / CW49 Shri Gunashekar
PW2 / CW1 Shri K.P. Ravikumar
PW3 / CW6 Shri H.S. Hariprasad
241
Spl.C.No.272/2015
PW4 / CW26 Shri Shrinivasaiah
PW5 / CW42 Shri Nagaraj
PW6 / CW7 Shri Ashuthosh Kumar
PW7 / CW8 Shri Rajashekar
PW8 / CW13 Shri Gangadhar Datanal
PW9 / CW25 Shri S. Baskaran
PW10 / CW9 Shri K.S. Umesh
PW11/ CW14 Shri B.G. Satish
PW12 / CW16 Shri Dhanush
PW13 / CW18 Shri Yoga Sai Prakash
PW14 / CW20 Shri Rajsunil
PW15 / CW24 Shri G. Manoharan
PW16 / CW23 Shri Sundaramurthy
PW17 / CW2 Shri Brijesh Joshi
PW18 / CW3 Shri Mohammed Mudassir
PW19 / CW34 Shri V. Manohar Rao
PW20 / CW40 Shri T. Senthil Kumar
PW21 / CW38 Shri Ravi Norona
PW22 / CW45 Shri Shrinivas Rao
PW23 / CW46 Shri Jayaprakash. C
PW24 / CW47 Shri Anandkumar. J
PW25 / CW50 Shri Arun Solanki
PW26 / CW58 Shri C.N. Meena Nagaraj
PW27 / CW39 Shri Agnelo Stanley
PW28 / CW52 Shri Firoz Khan
PW29 / CW48 Shri Narayana Rao.S
PW30 / CW56 Shri Abhishek Goyal
PW31 / CW59 Shri S.K. Chhikara
PW32 / CW31 Smt C. Shrividya
PW33 / Addl.Witness Shri Anilkumar. C PW34 / Addl.Witness Shri Prakash 242 Spl.C.No.272/2015 PW35 / CW62 Dr. Kumuda Rani PW36 / CW63 Shri P.T. Subramanya PW37 / CW37 Shri Abhiram Belavadi PW38 / CW27 Shri Joseph Antony PW39 / CW32 Smt M. Maheshwari PW40 / CW60 Shri Thammaiah PW41 / Add. witness K.Ramanna List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P.1 Document given by Cw.1 on 13.12.2014.
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 on Ex.P.1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW.2 on Ex.P.1 Ex.P.2 FIR sent to the Court of XLIX Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, CCH-50, through Cw.42. Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.1 on Ex.P.2 Ex.P.3 Copy of order received from the office of the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru. Ex.P.4 Copy of intimation received from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW.30 in Ex.P.4 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.4 Ex.P.5 mahajar made on 13.12.2014
Ex.P.5(a) to (c) Signatures of PW.3 in Ex.P.5 Ex.P.5(d) to (f) Signatures of Cw.4 in Ex.P.5 Ex.P.5(g) to (i) Signatures of Cw.5 in Ex.P.5 E.P.5(j) Signature of PW.25 in Ex.P.5 Ex.P.5(k) Signature of PW.40 om Ex.P.5 Ex.P.6 Agreement executed between PW.4 and accused Ex.P.6(a) to (d) Signatures of PW.4 on Ex.P.6 Ex.P.6(e) Signature of accused 243 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.7 Notice issued to PW.6 Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.8 The sealed cover prepared and sealed by the I.O. on 14.12.2014 Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW.6 on Ex.P.8 Ex.P.8(b) Signature of Rajashekar on Ex.P.8 Ex.P.9 The document kept inside Ex.P.8 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW.6 on Ex.P.9 Ex.P.9(b) Signature of Rajashekar on Ex.P.9 Ex.P.9(c) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.9 Ex.P.10 Copy of mahajar containing 41 pages prepared on 14.12.2014 Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW.6 on last page of Ex.P.10 Ex.P.10(b) Signature of Rajashekar on last page of Ex.P.10 Ex.P.10(c) Screenshot of home page bearing page No.24 in the document of Ex.P.10.
Ex.P.10(d) Signature of PW.40 at last page of mahajar.
Ex.P.11 mahajar drawn on 15.12.2014 Ex.P.11(a) & (b) Signature of PW.7 and that of Gangadhar in the last page of Ex.P.11 Ex.P.11(c) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.11. Ex.P.12 Sealed cover containing the details of changed password Ex.P.12(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.7 and Gangadhar in Ex.P.12 Ex.P.12(c) Signature of PW.11 in Ex.P.12 Ex.P.13 Letter inside the sealed cover (Ex.P.12) Ex.P.13(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.7 and Gangadhar in Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.14 Copy of mahajar prepared on 10.03.2015 Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW.7 in the last sheet of Ex.P.14 Ex.P.14(b) Signature of Bhaskar in the last sheet of Ex.P.14 244 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.14(c) The sheets which are part and parcel of Ex.P.14 which bears No.1666 to 1670.
Ex.P.14(d) Signature of PW.40 at page No.1665 in
Ex.P.14
Ex.P.15 Police notice
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.16 The notice issued to PW.9 on 10.03.2015
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW.9 in Ex.P.16
Ex.P.17 The DVDs subjected to its admissibility
Ex.P.18 Mahajar prepared by A.C.P. Thammaiah and
his personnel
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW.10 at last page of Ex.P.18
Ex.P.18(b) & (c) Signatures of Mr.Venkateshwaran and
Ms.Arathi Sunil at last page of Ex.P.18 Ex.P.19 Letter received by PW.10 on 09.03.2015 Ex.P.19(a) Signature and seal of PW.10 in Ex.P.19 Ex.P.20 The covering letter being written on Company letter head Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW.10 in Ex.P.20 Ex.P.20(b) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.20. Ex.P.21 to The document of Bio-data, Salary Certificate, Ex.P.24 Certificate of Bank Account and Attendance Register pertaining to accused. Ex.P.25 Notice issued to PW.11 to be a witness for Data Extraction from Twitter Account Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW.11 at Ex.P.25 Ex.P.26 Documents of sealed envelope Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW.11 in Ex.P.26 Ex.P.26(b) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.26 Ex.P.27 The CD inside the sealed cover Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW.11 upon Ex.P.27 Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW.40 upon Ex.P.27 245 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.28 mahajar document at pages 88 to 1109 in the charge sheet Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW.11 at the last page of Ex.P.28 Ex.P.28(b) Signature of another person by name Santhosh at the last page of Ex.P.28 Ex.P.28(b) Signature of PW.40 Ex.P.29 Sealed cover prepared by the I.O. on 26.12.2014.
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW.12 upon the Ex.P.29 Ex.P.29(b) Signature of PW.12's friend Manikanta Ex.P.29(c) Signature of PW.40 on the envelope. Ex.P.29(d) The white paper inside the sealed cover containing new password.
Ex.P.30 mahajar document from page No.1117 to 1267 which was prepared on 26.12.2014 Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW.12 in the last page No.1267 of the Ex.P.30 Ex.P.30(b) Signature of PW.1's friend Manikanta at page No.1267 of Ex.P.30 Ex.P.30(c) Signature of PW.40 on page No.1267 of Ex.P.30.
Ex.P.31 Sealed cover prepared on 28.12.2014, containing the details of changed password. Ex.P.31(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.13 and Prashanth respectively on Ex.P.31.
Ex.P.31(c) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.31 Ex.P.32 Document from page No.1272 to 1334 Ex.P.32(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.13 and Prashanth at page No.1334 Ex.P.32(c) Signature of PW.29.
Ex.P.32(d) Signature of PW.40 at page No.1334. Ex.P.33 The printed screenshots of accused's twitter account from page No.1339 to 1644.
246Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.33(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.14's cousin and PW.14 respectively in the last page of Ex.P.33.
Ex.P.33(c) Skipped Ex.P.33(d) & (e) The tweet at page No.17 of Ex.P.33 which shows that person informed that he is an ISIS informer and informs that the account has to be removed and at page No.19 of Ex.P.33, there are many tweets twitted by accused on various dates in respect of Abu Turaab IS which is continued in page No.20 also.
Ex.P.33(f) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.33. Ex.P.34 The sealed cover prepared on 30.12.2014 which was containing the details of changed password.
Ex.P.34(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.14's cousin and PW.14 respectively in Ex.P.34.
Ex.P.35 mahajar drawn at Lahari Recording Company Ex.P.35(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.16 and Late. Mirza Hussain respectively in Ex.P.35 Ex.P.35(c) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.35. Ex.P.36 The statement containing 5 pages, given by PW.17 before the Judicial Magistrate.
Ex.P.36(a) to (e) Signatures of PW.17 on each page of Ex.P.36 Ex.P.37 5 screenshots identified by PW.17 are together marked Ex.P.38 The sealed cover containing 164 statement of PW.18 Ex.P.38(a) & (b) Two Signatures of PW.18 in Ex.P.38 Ex.P.39 The written information obtained from Commercial Officer South East.
Ex.P.39(a) Signature of the Officer by name Smt.Harini Krishnamurthy Ex.P.40 Written information regarding account details of accused given by PW.20.
247Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.40(a) to (c) Bank account statements, account opening application form, PAN card copy pertaining to accused.
Ex.P.40(d) Signature of the then Operation Manager of Chamrajpet Branch of HDFC on the annexures Ex.P.40(a) to (c) Ex.P.41 E-mails(consisting of 5 printed pages) received by PW.21 Ex.P.42 The certificate of Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW.21 in Ex.P.42 Ex.P.43 Details consisting of 5 printed pages of vis-a-
vis photon card bearing No.9241160774 supplied by PW.21.
Ex.P.44 Details consisting of 6 printed pages of CAF form along with proof identity and address documents supplied by PW.21.
Ex.P.45 Letter addressed by IO to CFSL, Hyderabad. Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW.40 (I.O.) Ex.P.45. Ex.P.45(b) The list of exhibits sent for examination along with Ex.P.45 and nature of examination required (from page 2116 to 2119) Ex.P.46 The written permission give by then DCP. Ex.P.47 The out going passport issued in PW.22 and other officials' favor.
Ex.P.48 The acknowledgement issue by CFSL, Hyderabad.
Ex.P.49 The letter dated 22.05.2015 addressed to FSL, Madiwala.
Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW.40
Ex.P.50 List of articles/properties submitted to FSL for
examination.
Ex.P.50(a) Signature of PW.40
Ex.P.51 Passport
248
Spl.C.No.272/2015
Ex.P.52 Acknowledgement dated 19.03.2015 issued by
FSL, Madiwala.
Ex.P.53 Passport issued by I.O.
Ex.P.54 Written leave of DCP.
Ex.P.55 The requisition given by the I.O.
Ex.P.56 The details of articles submitted to FSL.
Ex.P.57 The report received from FSL.
Ex.P.57(a) Signature of PW.32 in the last page of the
report.
Ex.P.57(b) Signature of PW.32's then Director.
Ex.P.58 Sample seal
Ex.P.58(a) Signature of PW.32 in Ex.P.58
Ex.P.59 The assignment in writing submitted by PW.23.
Ex.P.59(a) Signature of PW.23 in Ex.P.59
Ex.P.59(b) Signature of PW.24 in Ex.P.59
Ex.P.59(c) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.59
Ex.P.60 The report containing 36 pages, submitted by
PW.23. (the said document is available vide page No.3437 to 3472 of charge sheet volume No.9) Ex.P.60(a) Signatures of PW.23 in Ex.P.60 Ex.P.61 The report consisting of 32 pages, prepared and submitted by PW.24 (page No.3229 to 3260 of volume-8 of charge sheet).
Ex.P.61(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.24 in Ex.P.61 Ex.P.62 Sanction order issued by Central Government. Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW.31 in Ex.P.62. Ex.P.63 The order issued by Department of Treasury Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW.26 and office seal are together marked .
Ex.P.64 Notice issued to PW.27 by Investigating Officer Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.64 249 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.65 The covering letter written by PW.27 on 26.03.2015 Ex.P.65(a) Seal and signature of PW.27 Ex.P.65(b) to (e) Copies of Voter ID, Passport, PAN card, Rental Agreement.
Ex.P.65(g) The copy of Customer Application Form with respect to cell No.7259520485.
Ex.P.65(h) The copy of Customer Application Form with respect to cell No.9663871394.
Ex.P.65(i) The copy of Customer Application Form with respect to cell No.41476668.
Ex.P.66 Notice issued by IO to PW.27 on 23.03.2015. Ex.P.67 Reply letter issued by PW.27 on 26.03.2015.
Ex.P.67(a) Seal and signature of PW.27 in Ex.P.67 Ex.P.68 Certificate issued by PW.27 Ex.P.68(a) Seal and signature of PW.27 in Ex.P.68 Ex.P.69 Call details and GPRS number at page
No.2248 to 2737 at volume-7 and 8 of charge sheet.
Ex.P.70 The memo issued to PW.28 by the I.O. on 09.05.2015.
Ex.P.70(a) Signature of PW.28 in Ex.P.70 Ex.P.71 The report submitted by PW.28.
Ex.P.71(a) Signature of PW.28 in Ex.P.71 Ex.P.72 The report submitted by PW.29 on 19.12.2014 (at pages No.3261 to 3436 of volume 8 & 9 of charge sheet) Ex.P.72(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.29 in Ex.P.72 Ex.P.73 The notice issued by PW.30 invoking Sec.91 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P.74 The mail reply received from Twitter. Ex.P.75 The 2nd notice issued by PW.30 through E-
mail.
250Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.76 The reply by Twitter on 21.12.2014 , regarding notice issued by PW.30 through E-mail Ex.P.77 The 4th notice issued by PW.30 on 30.12.2014. Ex.P.78 The reply by Twitter through E-mail to the notice at Ex.P.77.
Ex.P.79 The notice at pages No.3926 to 3939 of volume-10 of charge sheet.
Ex.P.80 The reply by Twitter through E-mail to the notice at Ex.P.79.
Ex.P.81 The E-mail reply by Twitter on 17.01.2015 (at pages 3945 to 3946).
Ex.P.82 CD in the sealed cover having the written versions of PS 83/15, Article 28 and also signature of PW.32 along with laboratory seal. Ex.P.82(a) Signature of PW.16 in Ex.P.82 Ex.P.83 & Two DVDs bearing Article No.32 and 33, sent Ex.P.84 by PW.32.
Ex.P.85 The Notice issued by CCB seeking for customer details of specific IP address. Ex.P.85(a) Signature of PW.33's then Senior, C.N.Suresh Babu at Ex.P.85 Ex.P.86 The documents at page No.3476 to 3479 of volume 9 of charge sheet Ex.P.86(a) Signature of C.N.Suresh in the last page i.e., page No.3479 .
Ex.P.87 Document signed by Abhiram Belavadi, who was working as Circle Alternate Nodal Officer for Vodafone.
Ex.P.87(a) Signature of Abhiram Belavadi in Ex.P.87. Ex.P.88 The PEN drive soft copy provided by PW.35 in a sealed cover with the seal of his office. Ex.P.88(a) Initial of PW.35 on Ex.P.88. Ex.P.89 The sample seal affixed on the sealed cover returned by PW.35 to the IO.
Ex.P.90 The Article assigned with No.D1.
251Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.90(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.90 Ex.P.91 The Article assigned with No.D2. Ex.P.92 The Article assigned with No.D3. Ex.P.92(a) Signature of PW.40 upon Ex.P.92 Ex.P.93 The Article assigned with No.D4. Ex.P.94 The Article assigned with No.D5. Ex.P.95 The Article assigned with No.D6. Ex.P.96 The Article assigned with No.D7. Ex.P.96(a) The CD in the sealed condition. Ex.P.97 The Article assigned with No.D8. Ex.P.98 Separate report given by PW.35, consisting of 8 pages.
Ex.P.98(a) Signature and designation seal of PW.35 at the last page of Ex.P.98.
Ex.P.99 Certificate issued by PW.16 u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.99(a) Signature of PW.16 in Ex.P.99 Ex.P.100 & CDR consisting of 4 pages and the 65B Ex.P.101 Certificate issued by PW.37 respectively. Ex.P.100(a) & Signatures of PW.37 at first page and last
(b) page of CDR.
Ex.P.101(a) Signature of PW.37 in Ex.P.101. Ex.P.102 The reply submitted by then Nodal Officer by name Mr. SN Murthy to the I.O.
Ex.P.102(a) Signature of Mr. SN Murthy in Ex.P.102. Ex.P.102(b) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.102. Ex.P.103 The cover letter consisting of 2 pages sent by PW.37.
Ex.P.103(a) Signature of PW.37 in Ex.P.103 Ex.P.104 The CDR consisting of 32 pages (from page No.2186 to 2217 of volume-7 of charge sheet). Ex.P.105 The Certificate issued u/S.65B on behalf of Ex.P.104.
252Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.105(a) Signature of PW.37 in Ex.P.105. Ex.P.106 The covering letter addressed by PW.38 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 11.03.2015.
Ex.P.106(a) Signature of PW.38 in Ex.P.106. Ex.P.106(b) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.106. Ex.P.107 The soft copies of 2 volumes being at pages No.1695 to 1863 of volume-6 of charge sheet. Ex.P.108 The document at page No.1902.
Ex.P.108(a) Signature of Mr. Bharadwaj Ramasubramanyam, who was the then colleague of PW.38 in M/s. Poovayya & Co. Ex.P.108(b) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.108. Ex.P.109 The certificate issued by PW.38 as per Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of Ex.P.107.
Ex.P.109(a) Signature of PW.38 in Ex.P.109. Ex.P.110 The CD containing the retrieved data assigned with No.CAH-01-2015-CD.
Ex.P.111 Sec.65B Certificate issued in respect of Ex.P.110.
Ex.P.111(a) Signature of PW.39 in Ex.P.111 Ex.P.112 The report prepared by PW.39 consisting of 5 pages.
Ex.P.112(a) Signature of PW.39 in the last page of Ex.P.112.
Ex.P.113 Notice given to S.Rajashekar. Ex.P.114 The Certificate issued by PW.40 in respect of Ex.P.10.
Ex.P.114(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.114. Ex.P.115 The statement of accused recorded on 13.12.2014 at pages 2875 to 2882 of charge sheet in volume-8. "If I am allowed..........media postings"
Ex.P.115(a) Signature of accused in Ex.P.115.253
Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.115(b) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.115. Ex.P.116 & Notices issued by PW.40 to Sanjay Kumar and Ex.P.117 Harish Suvarna respectively.
Ex.P.118 & Notices issued by PW.40 to Umesh and Arathi
Ex.P.119 Sunil respectively.
Ex.P.120 Certificate u/S.65B issued by PW.40 in relation
to Ex.P.11
Ex.P.120(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.120 Ex.P.121 The printouts at book No.18 to 28 containing the contents of DVD Article No.19 to 21. Ex.P.122 11 separate Certificates issued by PW.40 on 22.12.2014, in respect of the contents of each book at Ex.P.121 Ex.P.122(a) Signatures of PW.40 in Ex.P.122 Ex.P.123 The Notice issued by PW.40 to Santhosh, one of the Panchas.
Ex.P.124 The printout hard copy of E-mail "[email protected]"
Ex.P.124(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.124 Ex.P.125 The Certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act (at page No.1111) issued by PW.40 in respect of Ex.P.28 Panchanama .
Ex.P.125(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.125. Ex.P.126 The booklet containing twitter direct messages which contain page No.1 to 778 (file No.17). Ex.P.127 The Certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act appended to Ex.P.126.
Ex.P.127(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.127 Ex.P.128 E-mail sent to Face book by PW.40 (ink page No.2124).
Ex.P.128(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.128. Ex.P.129 & The acknowledgments sent by Facebook for Ex.P.130 Ex.P.128 (at ink page No.2125 and 2126) 254 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.131 The reply received from Facebook on 19.12.2014 (at ink page No.2127 to 2173) Ex.P.131(a) The relevant portion at page No.2128 of Ex.P.131 which shows that the physical addresses provided by Airtel is confirmed that the Facebook ID registered as '[email protected]' belong to accused and so also the E-mail ID '[email protected]' and '[email protected]'.
Ex.P.132 Office copy of request letter dated 19.12.2014 (at ink page No.2739) which was sent to the Nodal Officer, Vodafone Ltd., Bengaluru. Ex.P.132(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.132 Ex.P.133 The notice dated 20.12.2014 sent to Google Ink via Email by PW.40 (ink page No.2859) Ex.P.133(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.133. Ex.P.134 The printout of the Email sent to Google Ink (ink page No.2860 and 2861) Ex.P.135 The notice sent to Yahoo.com via Email by PW.40 (ink page No.2862) Ex.P.135(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.135 Ex.P.136 The printouts of Email sent to Yahoo.com (at ink page No.2863 and 2864) Ex.P.137 Voluntary statement of accused dated 29.12.2014 (at page No.2886 to 3000) Ex.P.138 The questionnaires regarding the status of emails and facebook account of the accused (at ink page No.3001) Ex.P.139 The document containing the details of Twitter handles from page No.3002 to 3093.
Ex.P.140 Contents of volume No.1 (page No.1 to 450) referred to printouts of direct messages of Twitter account "@Shamiwitness" downloaded on 15.12.2014.
Ex.P.141 Contents of volume No.2 (page No.451 to 855) referred to printouts of direct messages of 255 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Twitter account "@Shamiwitness" downloaded on 15.12.2014.
Ex.P.142 The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act appended to the document. (certificate is available in volume No.1) Ex.P.142(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.142. Ex.P.143 The hard copy of questionnaire dated 25.12.2016 from Sl.No.1481 to 11014 (page No.3094 to 3133) Ex.P.144 Printouts of tweets of the accused in volume No.13 from page No.6295 to 6934 containing tweets from Sl.No.1525 to 8417.
Ex.P.145 Printouts of tweets of the accused in volume No.14 from page No.6935 to 7410.
Ex.P.146 & Police notice issued by PW.40 on 26.12.2014 Ex.P.147 to Mr.Dhanush and Mr.Manikanta respectively .
Ex.P.146(a) & Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.146 & Ex.P.147 Ex.P.147(a) respectively.
Ex.P.148 Certificate issued by PW.40 u/S.65B of Evidence Act (at page No.1268) Ex.P.148(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.148. Ex.P.149 The request letter sent by PW.40 to Facebook.inc vial E-mail (at page No.2865- 2866), the automatic response made by Facebook.inc (at page No.2867-2868), the official response made by Facebook.inc (at page No.2870), the request sent by the Cyber Crime P.S. to Face book.inc (at page No.2871) and notice issued u/S.91 of Cr.P.C. to Facebook.inc Menlopark, California, USA (at page No.2872) are together marked. (from page No.2865 to 2872) Ex.P.150 & The notices issued by PW.40 on 28.12.2014 to Ex.P.151 Mr.Prashanth (page No.1270) and Mr. Yoga Sai Prakash (page No.1269) respectively to appear as panchas.
256Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.152 The certificate issued by PW.40 on 28.12.2014 u/S.65B of Evidence Act (at page No.1335). Ex.P.152(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.152. Ex.P.153 The portion of voluntary statement of accused "channel IV new copy........................... [email protected]"
Ex.P.154 The questionnaires (ink page No.3190 to 3227 of charge sheet) of 38 pages given to accused to explain them on 29.12.2014.
Ex.P.155 The certificate (at page No.1645) u/S.65B of Evidence Act regarding digital evidence on 31.02.2014 Ex.P.155(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.155 Ex.P.156 The notice issued by PW.40 to accused to give his voice sample.
Ex.P.156(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.156. Ex.P.156(b) Signature of accused in Ex.P.156. Ex.P.157 The letter sent to the Managing Director, M/s.
Lahari Recording Company to arrange for taking the voice sample of accused on 31.12.2014.
Ex.P.157(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.157. Ex.P.157(b) The acknowledgement given by the Lahari Recording Company.
Ex.P.158 A letter received from the Managing Partner, Lahari Recoding Company on 31.12.2014. Ex.P.159 One C.D. (Article 27) which is kept in sealed cover.
Ex.P.160 One C.D. (Article 29) which is kept in sealed cover.
Ex.P.161 The office copy of notice issued to one Suresh P Roodgi on 02.01.2015, to appear for enquiry. Ex.P.162 The certificate of authority dated 03.01.2015, issued by the then DCP / CCB, Bengaluru City. Ex.P.163 A mail received from DCP Crime on 15.12.2014, which was containing the threats 257 Spl.C.No.272/2015 of previous mails sent by Mr. M.N. Reddy, the then Police Commissioner along with mails as annexures. (page No.3869 and 3870) Ex.P.164 The notice dated 15.12.2014 issued to Twitter ink seeking details of twitter account of Shami witness and also twitter account followers including images twitted and re-tweeted by accused. This document is at page No.3878 to 3880).
Ex.P.165 A mail sent by DCP Crime to Twitter account containing two attachments. This document is at page No.3881.
Ex.P.166 Those attachments sent with mail. This document is from page No.3882 to 3893.
Ex.P.167 A copy of mail received on 29.12.2014 from the DCP Crime, regarding request to Twitter to provide the details of 31 twitter accounts which are associated with shami witness (at page No.3894 to 3896).
Ex.P.168 Threats of previous mails and correspondence made through Twitter account (from page No.3897 to 3900).
Ex.P.169 The covering letter with the list of 426 Twitter ID's who are in touch with Shamiwitness account, sent to Twitter.Ink to find out who the account holders and their activities. This document is from page No.3901 to 3925.
Ex.P.169(a) The pages No.3924 and 3925 of Ex.P.169. Ex.P.170 The second copy of E-mail sent to PW.40 by DCP Crime on 08.01.2015 with attachments which was forwarded to Twitter.Ink. (at page No.3941) Ex.P.171 One more E-mail dated 09.01.2015, sent by DCP to Twitter.Ink and also forwarded a copy to PW.40. (at page No.3942 and 3943) Ex.P.172 One more E-mail dated 11.01.2015, sent by DCP with attachments to Twitter.Ink and also forwarded a copy to PW.40 (at page No.3944).
258Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.173 Copy of E-mail dated 15.01.2015, sent by DCP to Twitter.Ink seeking details of the Twitter accounts of persons who are associated with Shamiwitness (at page No.3947 to 3965). Ex.P.174 One more E-mail dated 17.01.2015, sent by DCP to Twitter.Ink and also forwarded a copy to PW.40 regarding seeking details of 36 account holders who are in touch with Shamiwitness (at page No.3967 to 3988). Ex.P.175 The copy of reply forwarded by DCP Crime dated 22.01.2015 with attachment (page No.3989) Ex.P.176 The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by PW.40 regarding printouts of mail taken out from 15.12.2014 to 22.01.2015 by DCP and then forwarded to PW.40.
Ex.P.176(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.176. Ex.P.177 The cross reference table from page No.3993 to 4246 of volume No.10.
Ex.P.178 The certificate issued by PW.40 u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act (at page No.3991).
Ex.P.178(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.178. Ex.P.179 The details of 1547 suspended Twitter accounts sent by Twitter.Inc (from page No.4252 to 4286).
Ex.P.180 A reply received to Twitter notice-12 u/S.91 of Cr.P.C. which is in page No.4289 to 4290 of volume No.10.
Ex.P.181 The attachment given by Twitter regarding Network Data which is downloaded and printed as per page No.4291 to 4650 of Vol.No.10, page No.4651 to 5570 of Vol.No.11 and page No.5571 to 5879 of Vol.No.12 are together marked.
Ex.P.181(a) The relevant entry pertaining to @i_jaman at page No.5666 in Ex.P.181.
259Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.182 The certificate issued by PW.40 u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act (in page No.4288 of volume No.10) Ex.P.182(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.182. Ex.P.183 The notice No.1 and 2 sent to Twitter.Inc and 723 suspended twitter accounts which are identified as ISIS accounts (page No.1675 to 1690 of Volume No.6) Ex.P.183(a) The acknowledgment given by Twitter.Inc (at page No.1691 of volume No.6) Ex.P.184 The notice issued to Twitter.Inc by PW.40 on 10.02.2015, seeking information of 1535 suspended twitter accounts. (at page No.1864 to 1899 of volume NO.6) Ex.P.184(a) The relevant acknowledgment given by Twitter account (at page No.1900 of volume No.6) Ex.P.185 Another notice sent to Twitter.Inc by PW.40 on 19.02.2015, seeking all the audio, video and images tweeted and re-tweeted by Shamiwitness (page No.2004 to 2073 of volume No.7) Ex.P.186 The printout of the acknowledgment given by Twitter.Inc (at page No.2074 and 2075). Ex.P.187 The notice dated 10.03.2015 sent to one Mr. M.S. Hariprasad by PW.40 to provide the original rental agreement entered with accused (at page No.2772 of volume No.8) Ex.P.187(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.187. Ex.P.188 The certificate issued by PW.40 u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act (at page No.1674) Ex.P.188(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.188. Ex.P.189 The reply given by Twitter.Inc dated 24.02.2015 (at page No.1694 of volume No.6). Ex.P.190 The tabulated details at page No.3480 in respect of PW18 Mudasir, the tabulated details of PW17 from page No.3481 to 3492 and 260 Spl.C.No.272/2015 tabulated details in respect of accused from page No.3493 to 3502, all are together marked.
Ex.P.191 The certificate issued by PW.40 u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of Ex.P.191 (at page No.3845).
Ex.P.191(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.191. Ex.P.192 The copy of rent agreement furnished by the landlord of the accused (from page No.2773 to 2776).
Ex.P.192(a) Signature of PW.40 on the 1st page of Ex.P.192.
Ex.P.193 The office copy of the notice sent to Airtel company on 12.03.2015, with details of 192 IP addresses (from page No.3502 to 3508 of volume No.9).
Ex.P.194 The copy of email sent to the Service Provider (from No.2842 to 2846 of volume No.8).
Ex.P.195 The covering letter along with details, sent by Airtel (at page No.3509).
Ex.P.196 The physical addresses of IP addresses provided by Airtel (from page No.3512 to 3513).
Ex.P.197 The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act (at page No.3510).
Ex.P.198 The details of physical address of IP addresses with phone number from page No.3514 to 3825 and 3840 to 3843 are together marked.
Ex.P.199 The physical details of the IP addresses provided by the Airtel (between page No.3826 to 3829).
Ex.P.200 The office copy of the mail sent to BSNL office seeking physical address of IP addresses provided by Twitter (at page No.2174).
261Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.201 The copy of notice sent to Vodafone service provider to furnish IP details of Twitter account @pcbkr123 (at page No.2182).
Ex.P.202 The office copy of the request made to IT incharge of Juniper Networks to provide information of IP addresses (at page No.2179). Ex.P.203 The reply received from Mr. George Thomas, Manager, Juniper Networks on 20.03.2015. Ex.P.204 List of banned terrorist organizations downloaded on from the MHA Website of the Government of India as on 27.01.2014.
Ex.P.204(a) The relevant portion at Sl.No.33 of the list. Ex.P.204(b) The certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act filed in support of Ex.P.204.
Ex.P.204(c) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.204(b). Ex.P.205 The list of Terrorists and list of terrorist Organizations downloaded by PW.40 (from page No.2779 to 2825 of the charge sheet). Ex.P.206 The letter sent by PW.40 to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru on 14.01.2015 (at page No.2826).
Ex.P.206(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.206. Ex.P.207 The copy of Gazatte of India dated 17.02.2015 which has stated the ban of Islamic State Organization (from page No.2829 to 2831). Ex.P.208 The document submitted by Mr. Bharadwaj Ramsubramanyam on 21.03.2015, containing the images tweeted and re-tweeted by the accused .
Ex.P.209 The letter send by Twitter, USA, which was furnished to PW.40 by Mr. Bharadwaj Ramsubramanyam, Advocate associated with Poovayya and Co.
Ex.P.209(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.209. Ex.P.210 The copy of CD (Article No.39) submitted by PW.40 along with PF.
262Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.210(a) Signature of PW.40 on Ex.P.210. Ex.P.211 The reminder request letter sent by PW.40 to Google Inc., USA on 23.03.2015, seeking details of three E-mail accounts.
Ex.P.211(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.211.
Ex.P.212 to The print outs in 31 volumes bearing Sl.No.29 Ex.P.242 to 59 respectively.
Ex.P.212(a) to The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.242(a) issued in Ex.P.212 to Ex.P.242 respectively. Ex.P.212(b) to Signatures of PW.40 in Ex.P.212(a) to Ex.P.242(b) Ex.P.242(a) respectively. Ex.P.212(c) The relevant page in Ex.P.212 in which the accused has posted the images of Massacred Soldiers of Syria in his Twitter account. Ex.P.212(d) The portion "Muslim homes + mosques were burnt + 100 slaughtered?" in page No.18 of Ex.P.212 which was tweeted by the accused. Ex.P.212(e) The portion in page No.36 of Ex.P.212, in which the accused has posted the images of ISIS fighters training.
Ex.P.212(f) The page No.116 of Ex.P.212, in which the accused has posted the images of dead bodies and tweeted as "Assadcrimes" meaning that the President of Syria, Assad killed those persons.
Ex.P.212(g) The page No.128 of Ex.P.212, in which the accused has posted the images of dead bodies of children and he has blamed the President of Iran namely Khanenei, Syrian local Shia leader namely Nasrallah and the Russian President namely Putin.
Ex.P.212(h) The page No.143 of Ex.P.212, in which the accused has posted the images of civilians killed in Syria with a tweet.
Ex.P.212(j) The page No.121 and 187 of Ex.P.212, in which the accused has posted the image of 263 Spl.C.No.272/2015 body of person and image of Suni Mosque being burned.
Ex.P.212(i) The tweet "Suni being killed" which was tweeted by accused in page No.121 of Ex.P.212.
Ex.P.212(k) The portion in page No.344, in which the accused has posted the image mentioning that "Suni City is being burned".
Ex.P.243 The statement given by Airtel regarding payment details of mobiles and landline No.7259520485, 9663871394, 41476668, 080- 60765326. The said document is in three sheets.
Ex.P.244 The mail sent by PW.40 to Facebook and G-
mail authorities through Cyber Crime Police Station, with attachment of notice.
Ex.P.245 The attachment dated 26.03.2015. Ex.P.245(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.245. Ex.P.246 The E-mail extract of the request made by PW.40 to Channel 4 on their website using 'contact us' option. The document is at page No.2086 to 2090 which contains E-mail and replies received.
Ex.P.246(a) The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by PW.40 in respect of Ex.P.246.
Ex.P.247 The notice issued to Twitter to furnish the details of the Twitter account of @i_jaman. Ex.P.248 The printouts of 'terms of service' taken from the Twitter website on 14.04.2015. The said print outs are at page No.2833 to 2841.
Ex.P.248(a) The portion "you are responsible for your use of the services, for any content you post to the services, and for any consequences thereof"
mentioned in Ex.P.248 at page No.2833.
Ex.P.248(b) The portion "what you say on Twitter may be viewed by all around the world instantly. You 264 Spl.C.No.272/2015 are what you tweet" mentioned in Ex.P.248 at page No.2833.
Ex.P.248(c) The portion "you may use the services only in compliance with these terms and all applicable local, state, national and international laws, rules and regulations" mentioned in Ex.P.248 at page No.2833.
Ex.P.248(d) The portion "All content whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person............services is at your own risk" mentioned in Ex.P.248 at page No.2834 in para No.4.
Ex.P.249 The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act issued in respect of Ex.P.248.
Ex.P.249(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.249. Ex.P.250 The print out of screenshots at page No.2092 and 2093.
Ex.P.250(a) The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act, pertaining to Ex.P.250.
Ex.P.250(b) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.250(a). Ex.P.251 The request letter sent by PW.40 to BSNL, Karnataka Circle on 17.04.2015, seeking details of physical address of IP address which was provide by Twitter.
Ex.P.252 The notice issued by PW.40 to Atria Convergence Technologies (@ACT) on 16.04.2015, to provide physical addresses of IP addresses supplied by Twitter with respect to ShamiWitness account.
Ex.P.253 The printout of the contents of CD sent by CFSL, Hyderabad, taken by PW.40 is at page No.5880 to 5933.
Ex.P.253(a) The relevant portion at page No.5886 of Ex.P.253 in the lower table at 4th column, it is shown that the registered owner of operating system / Laptop is Masroor which is the middle name of the accused.265
Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.253(b) The relevant portion at page No.5888 of Ex.P.253, where the shut down time of laptop is shown as 12.12.2014 at 2.58 UTC.
Ex.P.253(c) The relevant portion at page No.5889 of Ex.P.253, at 3rd column of the table, the name 'Cyber Ghost 5' is mentioned, which is used to hide the IP address of the user.
Ex.P.253(d) The relevant portion at page No.5891 in Ex.P.253, in the lower table with a title, software installed, at Sl.No.3 Cyber Ghost 5 is shown and last written time is shown as 12.12.2014 at 13.12 UTC.
Ex.P.253(e) The relevant portion (entire page) at page No.5895 of Ex.P.253, which contains all the details of devices examined by FSL. Ex.P.253(f) The page No.5896 and 5897, which disclose the home page of ShamiWitness.
Ex.P.254 The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to Ex.P.253.
Ex.P.254(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.254. Ex.P.255 The copy of notice from page No.7515 to 7527 bearing the original seal of the Airtel. Ex.P.256 The information supplied by the Airtel to PW.40 about the physical addresses of the IP address of the Facebook which are under page No.7413 to 7514.
Ex.P.257 The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act sent by Airtel with respect to Ex.P.256. Ex.P.258 The covering letter of Ex.P.256 issued by Airtel.
Ex.P.259 The time line analysis prepared by PW.40 regarding tweets and re-tweets made by the accused during the period of December 2010 to December 2014.
Ex.P.259(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.259.266
Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.260 The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act, issued in respect to Ex.P.259.
Ex.P.260(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.260. Ex.P.261 The incriminating key words printed in two volumes containing in three books, where the 1st book is from page No.5937 to 6294. Ex.P.262 The certificate u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by PW.40 in respect to Ex.P.261, Ex.P.144 and Ex.P.145.
Ex.P.262(a) Signature of PW.40 in Ex.P.262.Ex.P.263 to Book No. 60 to 67
Ex.P.270 Ex.P.263(a) to The certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.270(a) pertaining to Ex.P.263 to Ex.P.270. Ex.P.263(b) to Signature of PW.40 in the said certificates. Ex.P.270(b) Ex.P.271 The printout of resolution of United Nations against Al-Qaeda and ISIS dated 13.12.2011 Ex.P.272 The printout of resolution of United Nations against Al-Qaeda and ISIS dated 30.05.2013 Ex.P.273 The printout of resolution of United Nations against Al-Qaeda and ISIS dated 14.05.2014 Ex.P.274 The printout of resolution of United Nations against Al-Qaeda and ISIS dated 02.06.2014 Ex.P.275 The certificate with respect to Ex.P.271 to Ex.P.274 Ex.P.275(a) Signature of PW.40 Ex.P.276 The downloaded and printout materials / literatures of events pertaining to ISIS and ISIL (page No.53 to 112) Ex.P.277 The certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act, issued by PW.40 with respect to Ex.P.276 Ex.P.277(a) Signature of PW.40 Ex.P.278 The printout of details pertaining to timeline of events of ISIS.
267 Spl.C.No.272/2015 Ex.P.279 The certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act, issued by PW.40 with respect to Ex.P.278 Ex.P.279(a) Signature of PW.40 Ex.P.280 The printout document of tabulated IP address (page No.1 to 10) Ex.P.281 The certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act, issued by PW.40 with respect to Ex.P.280 Ex.P.281(a) Signature of PW.40 Ex.P.282 The covering letter issued by PW.41. Ex.P.283 The recommendation report issued by PW.41. Ex.P.284 The notification issued by the Government of Karnataka.
List of Material Objects (MOs.) Marked on behalf of the prosecution :-
M.O.1 to M.O.12 (1)Dell laptop, (2)Seagate hard disk, (3)Motorola mobile phone, (4)Samsung Mobile Phone, (5)D-link router, (6)Wallet containing PAN Card (bearing No.ATDPB4366N), two Axis Bank cards, One HDFC Bank card and currency (Rs.870/-), (7)Dongle (Micromax), (8)Transcend Pen Drives, (9)Cruzer pen drive, (10)Passport, (11)Certificates(4 in numbers), (12)three books in Arabic language M.O.1(a) The relevant hard disk M.O.1(a) The cloth bag in which laptop was kept.
M.O.1(b) Signature of PW.40 upon the cloth bag. M.O.2(a) The cloth bag in which hard disk was kept. M.O.2(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.2(a) M.O.3(a) The cloth bag in which Motorola Mobile was kept.
M.O.3(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.3(a) M.O.4(a) The cloth bag in which Samsung Mobile was kept.
M.O.4(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.4(a) 268 Spl.C.No.272/2015 M.O.5(a) The cloth bag in which Wifi router was kept. M.O.5(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.5(a) M.O.6(a) The cloth bag in which wallet was kept. M.O.6(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.6(a) M.O.6(c) Two ID cards issued by M/s.ITC.
M.O.6(d) One PAN card
M.O.6(e) 3 Debit cards (2 of Axis Bank and one of HDFC
Bank) are together marked.
M.O.6(f) Electricity Bill
M.O.6(g) Cash amount of Rs.870/- (Rs.100x7 + Rs.50x1
+ Rs.10x12)
M.O.7(a) The cloth bag in which Dongal was kept.
M.O.7(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.7(a)
M.O.8(a) The cloth bag in which Transcend PEN drive
was kept.
M.O.8(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.8(a)
M.O.9(a) The cloth bag in which Cruzer PEN drive was
kept.
M.O.9(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.9(a)
M.O.10(a) The cloth bag in which Passport was kept. M.O.10(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.10(a) M.O.11(a) The document of Employment letter. M.O.11(b) The document of Insurance.
M.O.11(c) The sealed bag containing M.O.11, M.O.11(a) &
(b) and Ex.P.6 also affixed with a slip containing signatures.
M.O.11(d) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.11(c) M.O.12(a) A sealed bag containing 3 small books which is already marked as M.O.12.
M.O.12(b) Signature of PW.40 upon M.O.12(a) M.O.13 DVD M.O.13(a) Signature of PW.6 on the list affixed with M.O.13 269 Spl.C.No.272/2015 M.O.13(b) Signature of another witness by name Rajashekar on the list affixed with M.O.13 M.O.14 DVD M.O.14(a) Signature of PW.6 on M.O.14 M.O.14(b) Signature of Rajashekar on M.O.14 M.O.14(c) Signature of PW.40 on M.O.14 M.O.15 Sealed cover assigned with article No.19 M.O.15(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.7 and Gangadhar on M.O.15, respectively.
M.O.16 DVD M.O.16(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.7 and Gangadhar on M.O.16 M.O.17 DVD M.O.17(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.7 and Bhaskar on M.O.17 M.O.18 DVD M.O.18(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.7 and Bhaskar respectively on M.O.18 List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence :-
NIL List of documents Marked on behalf of the defence :-
Ex.D.1 Document of Notification dated 14.10.2004, provided by Mr. SB Advocate for accused.
List of Material Objects (MOs.) Marked on behalf of the defence:-
NIL (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
*HRN/-