{"id":267527,"date":"2022-05-27T16:00:52","date_gmt":"2022-05-27T10:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=267527"},"modified":"2022-06-03T11:50:14","modified_gmt":"2022-06-03T06:20:14","slug":"no-death-penalty-but-life-imprisonment-for-yasin-malik-terror-funding-jk-uoi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/27\/no-death-penalty-but-life-imprisonment-for-yasin-malik-terror-funding-jk-uoi\/","title":{"rendered":"No death penalty, but life imprisonment for Yasin Malik: Patiala House Courts stresses on why \u2018Terror Funding\u2019 should be recognized as one of the gravest offences"},"content":{"rendered":"

Patiala House Courts: <\/strong>Stating that the crimes for which the convict had been convicted were intended to strike at the heart of the idea of India and to forcefully secede J&K from the Union of India, <\/strong>Parveen Singh, ASJ-03, expressed that terror funding should be recognized as one of the gravest offences and has to be punished more severely.<\/p>\n

Prsent matter was listed for deciding the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the convict Mohd. Yasin Malik was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121, 121 A of Penal Code, 1860, Sections, 17, 18. 20 38 and 39 of UAPA.<\/p>\n

In view of the Delhi High Court\u2019s decision in Vishal Yadav v. State Govt of UP., <\/em>Crl A 910 of 2008, socio-economic report of the convict was called for.<\/p>\n

As per the said report, the convict owned a three-storey residential house in Srinagar where his mother and divorced sister alongwith her 2 sons used to reside. With respect to the social status of the convict he was acting as JKLF Chairman and was an influential person.<\/p>\n

As per the jail conduct report of the convict, he had been satisfactory in the jail and no jail punishment was recorded against him. Further, with regard to his inclination towards reformation, his behaviour towards everyone remained cordial and peaceful and he seemed to be inclined toward reformation.<\/p>\n

\n

Analysis and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n

Court expressed that it is a well settled position of law that while awarding sentence the Court has to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to arrive at a just sentence to be awarded to the convict.<\/p>\n

Further, it is also well settled that there is no straight jacket formula for awarding sentence based upon any individual theory of punishment and that each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.<\/p>\n

Twin objective of sentencing is deterrence and correction.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe crimes for which convict has been convicted are of very serious nature. These crimes were intended to strike at the heart of the idea of India and intended to forcefully secede J&K from UOI. The crime becomes more serious as it was committed with the assistance of foreign powers and designated terrorists. The seriousness of crime is further increased by the fact that it was committed behind the smoke screen of an alleged peaceful political movement.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Bench elaborated stating that admittedly the convict had been engaged in violent terrorist activities prior to 1994.<\/p>\n

In Court\u2019s opinion, there was no reformation of the said convict and adding to this, Court stated that he never expressed any regret for the violence he had committed prior to the year 1994.<\/p>\n

Further, it was notice that when he claimed to have given up the path of violence, Government of India took it upon its face value and gave him an opportunity to reform and in good faith tried to engage in a meaningful dialogue. However, the convict did not desist from violence. Rather, betraying the good intentions of the Government he took a different path to orchestrate violence in the guise of political struggle.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cConvict has claimed that he had followed Gandhian principle of non-violence and was spear heading a peaceful non violent struggle.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Bench observed that, the convict cannot invoke the Mahatma and claim to be his follower because in Mahatma Gandhi\u2019s principles, there was no place for violence, howsoever high the objective might be.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIt only took one small incident of violence at Chauri Chaura for the Mahatma to call off the entire non-cooperation movement but the convict despite large scale of violence engulfing the valley neither condemned the violence nor withdrew his calendar of protest which had led to the said violence.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In view of the above discussion, Convict was sentenced as under:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n