Hyderabad HC confirms life imprisonment to Pakistani national for waging war against Indian government

HYDERABAD: In a significant judgment, a division bench of Hyderabad High Court confirmed the order of the trial court in convicting and sentencing a Pakistani national for waging a war against the Indian government.The bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice U Durga Prasad Rao was dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Ashique Ali alias Shaneel Tahir Ahmedi challenging the order of the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast track court), Nizamabad, convicting him on three counts for the offences under Section 121, 121-A IPC (waging war against the Government of India) and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (stay even after expiry of visa period), and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The Pakistani national in conspiracy with A2 - Major Chaudry Zahid Ahmed, A3 - Hawaldar Mahemood and A4 - Hawaldar Tahir, all Pakistan nationals and employees of military intelligence of Pakistan army (against whom case was separated) intended to collect sensitive and strategic defence information relating to Indian Armed Forces. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, Ali came to India on June 15, 2001, under the  guise of a tourist for 30 days to visit Delhi and Kanpur.

After entering Delhi via Samjautha express, Ali destroyed his passport to conceal his identity. In violation of the visa and passport rules and the provisions  of the Foreigners Act, Ali visited Batala, Amritsar and Qadian in Punjab state, Hyderabad and Nizamabad in erstwhile Andhra Pradesh state and Mumbai and Nagpur in Maharashtra. He overstayed at Hyderabad in India for collection of defence information and he did not inform about his overstay in India to authorities as required under Section  3/14 of Foreigners Act, 1946. 

During the illegal overstay, he collected the defence information of Secunderabad cantonment area and passed over the same through e-mails to the other accused. Ultimately he was caught at a telephone booth while talking with his Pakistani masters on Jan 26, 2002, near Jannapally junction in Nizamabad. 

The counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution miserably  failed to establish the alleged conspiracy among A1 and A2 to A4.  Though it is alleged that A1 used to have telephonic  conversations with A2, the prosecution could not establish the telephone number to have belonged to A2. The appellant could not go back to Pakistan after expiry of visa since he had lost passport after entering India, he added.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the bench opined that collecting the nation’s defence information was also one type of waging war. Hence, the acts of the accused certainly attract Section 121 of IPC. 

As for the appellant’s argument that he had lost his documents and as such he could not go back to Pakistan, the bench said that if that was true, he ought to have informed police or authorities concerned in India to make  arrangements for his migration. But he never adopted such course. The bench dismissed the appeal by holding the trial court’s judgement.