Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yasmeeen ISIS
Yasmeeen ISIS
IN
2
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
JUDGMENT
SHAFFIQUE, J.
the 2nd accused has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3
years for the offence punishable under Section 120 B of the IPC, and also to
months for the offence punishable under Section 125 of the IPC, and further to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each for the offence punishable
Police Station, Kasaragod on 10.7.2016 from Sri. Abdulla T.P, stating that his
son along with his wife and their child was missing for more than 1½ months
after they left to Mumbai. Crime 534/2016 was registered by the police. Forty
other persons were also missing from the locality for which also crime was
registered.
left India to join Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) which is declared as a
investigation and all the missing cases were clubbed together. During
3
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
her child. Taking into account the gravity of the situation, the Ministry of Home
that pursuant to the conspiracy, accused 1 and 3 to 15 left India and joined
activities of ISIS and trying to leave India with her child. It was also found
that in order to further the activities of ISIS, they had raised funds and had
received funds for utilising the same for the activities to the support the
objectives of ISIS.
accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused for raising
funds for a terrorist organization. Some part of the funds were transferred to
the accused who in turn transferred the same to the 1 st accused to arrange
their travel to Islamic State controlled territory. It is also the prosecution case
that the accused tried to exit India through Indira Gandhi International Airport,
New Delhi.
5. The Special Court had framed charge against the accused under
Seciton 120B of the IPC read with Section 125 of IPC and Sections 38, 39 and
40 of UAP Act. The accused denied the charges. The prosecution therefore
examined PW1 to PW52 and placed reliance upon Exts.P1 to P124. MO1 to
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
4
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
MO30 were the material objects produced and identified. After completing the
above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the entire evidence
basically against the 1st accused. The role of 2nd accused/appellant herein was
not proved. The prosecution was unable to bring forth any incriminating
persons who attended the classes conducted by the 1 st accused. PWs 4 and 6
who were alleged to have attended such classes in the house of PW8 has
specifically deposed that the appellant was not available in the said house at
the relevant time. PW18 and PW21 also deposed that they had attended the
classes of 1st accused. But they did not depose to the fact that the appellant
had attended the classes. Learned counsel submits that PW7 is the only
witness who stated about the attendance of the accused/appellant in the secret
class in the house of PW8, which evidence is self contradictory and cannot be
believed. It is pointed out that court below had relied upon Ext.P31 mahazar
which indicates that the appellant had shown to the Investigating Officer, the
hall where the classes were conducted. In the absence of any confession
statement, learned counsel submits that, the said material cannot be relied
upon against the appellant. It is submitted that the evidence of DW1 has not
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
5
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
been properly considered by the court below. Evidence of DW1 would show
that the appellant was at Kollam during the month of Ramzan, in 2015 and
therefore the statement that she is in the house of PW8 is clearly belied.
7. Learned counsel argued that the electronic record that has been
produced has not been certified in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act and therefore the court below is not justified in placing reliance upon the
same. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has a case that
the 2nd accused had married the 1st accused which is belied by the fact that
Afghanistan does not indicate that the tickets were taken at the instance of the
appellant. The appellant pleaded ignorance regarding the visa and e-ticket to
There is also no evidence to prove the fact that the 1 st accused had transferred
funds to the appellant. The court below had relied upon video footage from
ATM counter which by itself will not prove the allegations raised by the
evidence to implicate her in any of the offences and the court below committed
serious error in placing reliance on the documents which lack clarity and they
ought to be discarded.
behalf of NIA while supporting the judgment of the trial court pointed out that
the court below had taken note of the entire evidence as such, and had clearly
6
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
ideology and she was even arrested by the police while attempting to leave
India to Afghanistan with her child. Enough evidence has been adduced by the
prosecution to prove the involvement of the 1 st accused, and the 2nd accused
there is no reason for her to attend the classes of the 1 st accused wherein ISIS
ideology was propagated. She had also no reason to receive money collected
finding that the 1st accused was taking classes with respect to Hijra, violent
jihad etc and there is proof to indicate that the appellant/2 nd accused also
attended certain classes as stated by PW7 and PW8. Another finding of the
court below is that the CCTV footage produced by the prosecution proves that
the appellant was withdrawing money through ATMs of different banks. It was
also found that procurement of visa and e-ticket to Afghanistan for the
appellant is a fact within her knowledge for which prosecution may not be in a
show that the appellant purchased Ext.P23 Air India e-ticket for proceeding to
Afghanistan. The accused could not prove as to how she had come in
Court below was substantiated by the materials placed on record. First let us
examine the evidence of PW7 and PW8. PW7 identified the accused.
According to her, 1st accused along with certain other friends used to come to
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
7
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
the house. The appellant also used to come to their house. When the friends
come 1st accused Rashid used to take classes in the hall in 1 st floor. Classes
were taken after closing doors and windows and closing the curtains. PW7 and
others were not permitted to go inside the hall. Appellant had come and
resided for 3 days and used to interact with them. At that time A1 had taken a
class. Class was regarding Hijra to IS. He had overheard A2 mentioning the
same to CW15 Jasmine. Thereafter the Accused had come twice and she had
come to attend the class of A1. During cross examination she reiterated the
fact that she heard the accused telling Jasmine that she will go to IS. A2 and
Jasmine were speaking in English. Evidence of PW7 proves two facts. One is
that the appellant had visited the house of PW7 on three occasions. Initially
she stayed there for three days. At that time 1 st accused had taken a class.
The class was about Hijra to IS. She heard the 2 nd accused mentioning the
same to CW15. Thereafter also she had come to their house and it was for
11. PW8 had identified the 2nd accused. He deposed that Ashwak,
Rashid, Aysha and Yasmeen (A2) were friends and they used to come to their
house and discuss matters in the hall on the top floor. A1 and Aysha were
giving leadership. Class was regarding Jihad. Quran classes were taken in
open. A2 had resided in the house for two-three days. He scolded Rashid (A1)
for taking such classes and even attempted to assault him. Rashid had taken
could identify A1's voice. The MO6 DVD was played in a laptop. He identified
the voice of Rashid. He also stated that he had received voice messages in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
8
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
Whatsapp. During cross examination the suggestion was that the accused did
not reside at their house nor did she attend the classes, which he denied. He
12. One of the contentions urged by the counsel for the appellant is
that neither PW7 nor PW8 had attended the class of 1 st accused which was held
in a closed room. Then how could they know that it was a class propagating
ISIS ideology. PW7 only states about a conversation she heard between
accused and CW15. CW15 has not been examined. Therefore it amounts to
accused had resided there only for two days. As to what was the topic of
that A1 was a close friend of him. He knew him since 2011. A1 and his wife
were working in Peace School. He also deposed that he knew CW36 Syed
Ahamed, who was working in Peace School, Kottackal. He joined there during
2012. Syed Ahamed's wife was Yasmeen who was also working in the same
magazine by name Dabiq. Rashid (A1) had shown PW4 the said magazine in
his tab. One Abubacker Al Baghdadhi is the Ameer of IS. PW4 had discussed
about him with Rashid (A1). A1 was in Peace School upto January, 2016. A
closed group was discussing about IS. Yasmeen (A2) had told him that A1 was
discussing about the ideology of IS. According to A1, Hijra means to proceed
9
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
persons were there. A1 had taken class. He was discussing about the “book
of Jihad” and a portion of the Jihad is holy war. M.M Akbar had warned them in
conducting anti Muslim discussion and asked to carry on the moral life of
14. PW6 had deposed that A1's attitude was in support of IS. He also
stated that during the month of Ramzan in 2015 Rashid had taken a class in
the house of Ashraf. Including Yasmeen there were about 9 persons. He also
attended the class on a day. The class was relating to the “book of Jihad”. His
idea of Jihad was to kill non Muslim and if so, they will get a better position in
PW21 also deposed that he had attended a class of Abdul Rashid in the house
of Doctor Ijas. Reference was made to “book of Jihad”. Jihad was the war
16. The aforesaid evidence of PW4, PW6, PW18 and PW21 who had
attended the class of 1st accused clearly proves the propagation of ideology of
attended by A2 in the house of PW7 and PW8 and taken by A1 was with
reference to IS and the Jihad, which according to them was a war against non
Muslims.
17. Yet another evidence that had been relied upon by the court below
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
11
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
been transferred from the account of 1st accused to Sonia Sebastian on the
deposed that the said amount had been withdrawn through ATM on various
Patna. He produced MO20 the pen drive of the CCTV footage obtained as per
Ext.P50 mahazar. The CCTV footage is of ATM counter of the HDFC Bank
National Bank, Patna, who produced the CCTV footage of ATM counter located
deposed that on that day at 16.09 hours, the person in the photo had
withdrawn Rs.2,000/- from the account ending with xxx251. PW31 is the
Zonal Risk Manager of ICICI Bank, who supplied the CCTV footage of ICICI
ATM at Sitamarhi, Bihar. MO18 is the compact disk containing the images
PW36 is the Branch Manager SBI Bank, Sitamarhi, Patna. He produced MO19
transaction No.9534 from account ending with xxxx251. PW47 is the manager
of the ICICI Bank Trikarippur. He had produced the ATM transaction details of
the ATM card no. 53596902676000010 was issued to the account holder.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
12
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
prosecution has thus proved that the account ending with 251 is of Sonia
Sebastian who is the wife of the 1 st accused and the amount was withdrawn
from the said account on various dates from 3.6.2016 to 22.07.2016 by the 2 nd
Sonia Sebastian and the ATM card given to Sonia Sebastian was used by A2 for
collecting the amounts. It is stated that the CCTV footage would show that the
20. The 2nd accused was arrested on 1.8.2016 and she was under
personal belongings were entered in a register. Among the articles, there were
two Idea SIM cards. The SIM cards were seized by PW41 as per P29 mahazar
and produced as MO13 and MO14. The articles also contained a memory card
marked as MO15. The memory card contained revelation videos and videos
relating to ISIS, audio speech of Anwar Alwaki, a brief guide to Islamic State
and women of Islamic State. This according to the prosecution further proved
When these facts are proved, the question is whether the accused had
21. Section 125 of the I.P.C., Section 38, 39 and 40 of UAPA Act reads
as under:
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
13
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
14
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
prosecution ought to prove that the accused wages war against the
Government of any Asiatic Power that are in alliance with the Government of
India or even attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
15
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
Here the contention of the prosecution and even the charge is that A2 had a
criminal conspiracy with Abdul Rashid and other absconding A3 to A6 with the
intention of furthering the activities with ISIS, waging war against Asiatic
nations that are in alliance with the Government of India. Though there is
ideology by A1, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that she had taken any
conviction of the appellant under Section 125 cannot be sustained without any
such material.
23. From the available evidence, what we could deduce is that she had
24. Section 38(1) of the UAP Act clearly indicates that any person who
schedule. There is evidence to prove that the 2 nd accused was associated with
A1 who propagated ISIS ideology and had gone even to the extent of joining
him. Her attempt to proceed to Afghanistan was with a clear intention to meet
16
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
that is inviting support for the terrorist organization and the support would be
further its activity or make a person address. Looking at the scope of Section
39 and the evidence adduced in the case we could only find that the accused
was influenced by the ideology professed by A1. She herself has not arranged
any of the acts falling under Clause (a) to (c) of section 39. Sections 38 and 39
are distinct offences. Section 39 applies to a case where a person may not
have direct dealing with the organization but supports the said organization as
mentioned in clauses (a) to (c). As already stated, the accused in this case
was not doing any such activity. There is no evidence to prove that she was
involved in any such activity. She had already become a member of the
the contention of the prosecution is that she had collected money which was
funded by the 1st accused. Evidence is that she had received money from the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
17
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
1st accused. This is not a case where she was raising funds for a terrorist
funds from A1. Clause (b) of Section 40(1) has been relied upon by the
prosecution. The said provision applies only if a person receives money which
amounts received by A2 in India is only for her use and probably for
purchasing a ticket for the travel and other arrangement for herself and for her
son. There is no material to indicate that she had utilised the said amount for
27. From the facts of the case and the evidence tendered, we are of
the view that the 2nd accused can be made punishable only under Section 38 of
the Act. The other penal provisions against her is under Section 120 B of the
IPC. What we find from the facts involved in the case is that there was an
agreement between the 1st accused and the 2nd accused by which the 2nd
agreement is clear from the closed door classes in which A2 also participated
and other materials including the fact that A2 decided to join A1 along with her
child.
28. Therefore we are of the view that the finding of the Court below
regarding the guilt of the accused under Section 120B of the IPC and under
Section 38 of the UAP Act, are justifiable and we confirm the said view.
However the finding of the court below that the accused is guilty of offence
under Section 125 of the IPC and Sections 39 and 40 are liable to be set aside.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
18
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
29. Now coming to the sentence, the offence under Section 38 of the
Act attracts a maximum term of 10 years or with fine or with both. The
accused has been in custody from 1.8.2016. From the facts of the case, what
we find is that she had fallen for the ideology of ISIS by the influence of 1 st
accused and had slowly become a member of the terrorist organization. She
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she had denied the allegations against
her. According to her, she intended to join her parents in Saudi Arabia. A3
was her colleague and friend while working in Peace School and occasionally
they had contacts through telephone and social media till May, 2016.
According to her, she had not attended any of the said classes and she has no
connection whatsoever with ISIS or any other organization. From the evidence
it seems that the whole episode happened at the influence of A1 who was
preaching the ideology of IS since 2014. The fact that she was moving around
with A1 is also proved by the prosecution. Her intention was to join him on
the ideology propagated by him. At any rate, she is not the one who started
propagating the ideology. Therefore, we are of the view that a lenient view
concerned.
ii. The conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 120B of the IPC and
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
19
Crl.A.No.506 of 2018
imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the
IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for offence under Section 38 of the
Act. The sentence shall run concurrently and set off is allowed as directed by
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
kp
True copy
P.A. To Judge.