File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Case Summary Of State v/s Ariz Khan, Junaid, Salim, Anna (Batla House Encounter)

  • Batla House is a locality in Delhi's Jamia Nagar, where an encounter between the Delhi police and alleged terrorists took place on September 19, 2008.
  • The terrorists were suspected to be the members of terror outfit, Indian Mujahideen.
  • The encounter had taken place within a week of 2008 Delhi serial blasts that had killed 30 people.
  • Blasts had taken place at Karol Bagh, Connaught Place, Greater Kailash and India Gate. The Delhi police received intel about terrorists hiding at L-18 Batla House.
  • A police team carried out the raid when the encounter took place.
  • Two suspected terrorists, identified as Atif Amin and Mohammed Sajid, were killed in the Batla House encounter.
  • Delhi Police's inspector Mohan Chand Sharma received a gunshot during the encounter and died. Some suspected operatives identified as Ariz Khan and Shahzad.
  • One IM operative Mohammad Saif surrendered to the police.
  • Police launched a manhunt for the escaped terrorists. In January 2010, Shahzad was arrested from Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh.
  • Three months later in April 2010, the police filed a chargesheet saying the encounter took place as the Delhi police followed the lead in the serial blasts case.
  • Years later in 2018, Ariz Khan was arrested from Banbasa at the India-Nepal border.
  • According to the Police, Khan had acquired a Nepali citizenship card and passport under the fake identity of being one "Mohammad Salim".
     
  • The Delhi police filed another chargesheet in February 2011 against Shahzad. He was convicted of the murder of Mohan Chand Sharma and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2013 by the trial court.
     
  • On 15 February 2011, Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar framed charges against accused Shahzad Ahmed alias Pappu for the offences of:
    • murder (Section 302);
    • attempt to murder (Section 307)
    • section 333 (causing hurt to public servant)
    • 353 (assault to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty);
    • 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of his public functions)
    • 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code,
    • Besides section 27 of the Arms Act for his role in the 'encounter'.
       
  • A trial court had in 2013 convicted other accused namely Shahzad Ahmad, Indian Mujahideen operative, to life imprisonment for murdering constables Balwant Singh and Rajbir Singh and causing the death of Inspector MC Sharma by firing on them.
     
  • The court found Shahzad guilty of murder, attempt to murder, obstructing and assaulting public servants and grievously injuring the police officers to deter them from performing their duty. While convicting the accused Shahzad, Additional Sessions Judge Rajender Kumar Shastri in the judgment dated 25th July 2013 observed thus:
    "It agitates in my mind that the incident in question was not a sudden confrontation between police and the assailants. The police had already a piece of information, receiving which, a raiding party was formed well in advance. Despite all this, Inspector M.C. Sharma did not wear any body protection device i.e. bulletproof jacket. Moreover, at least two members of the raiding party were having no weapon with them, despite knowing the fact that they may face firing.

    It is not clear whether it was merely a misadventure or lack of professionalism in Delhi Police or scarcity of weapons with Delhi police. Whatsoever it may be, it did not give any license to the occupants of a flat to fire at police persons who came there to investigate a case, merely because they were unarmed or not wearing any bulletproof jacket. They were expected to assist the police and not to attack them. Accused is thus convicted for offense punishable U/s 186/353/333/307/302/34 IPC.
     
  • A Delhi Court on Monday awarded death penalty to convict Ariz Khan in the matter relating to the Batla House encounter of 2008 where police inspector Mohan Chand Sharma and two alleged terrorists were killed during the showdown between the two parties.
     
  • In awarding the death sentence, the Court observed that it is a fit case falling in the "rarest of the rare" category deserving the maximum sentence under the law.
     
  • Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Yadav pronounced the order on the sentencing of convicts in the open Court.
    "Convict on account of his despicable act has forfeited his right to live. After balancing mitigating circumstances against aggravating circumstances, it is concluded that it is the rarest of the rare cases where a convict deserves the maximum sentence provided under the law. It is the level of magnitude, degree of brutality, attitude and mindset of wrongdoer behind the crime along with other factors which makes it a rarest of rare case. Protection of society and deterring criminals is an avowed object of law and this is required to be achieved by imprisonment appropriate sentence. The most appropriate sentence for convict like Ariz Khan will be death penalty. Interest of justice will be met if convict is awarded death penalty."
     
  • The Court also went ahead to observe that "It should not be forgotten that deadly weapons like AK-47 and two pistols were retrieved from the flat where the shoot out took place. The defence has not able to clarify as to for which purpose these deadly weapons were kept by the convict and his accomplices in the flat. Considering the nature of devastation that these weapons can cause, it will be safe to conclude that these weapons were kept in the flat with a view to indulge terrorist and anti social activities."
     
  • While observing that the natural and inescapable conclusion in the matter shows that there is no chance of reformation of the convict Ariz Khan, it was also observed by the Court that the abhorrent and brutal act of firing on policemen without any provocation shows that he is not only a threat to the society but also is an enemy of the State. The following punishments were awarded by the Court:
    1. Sentenced to death for offence of sec. 302 of IPC and fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. He shall be hanged by neck till he is dead. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
    2. Convict to be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months for sec. 186 of IPC.
    3. Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 20,000 for sec. 333of IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
    4. Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for sec. 353 of IPC.
    5. Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000 for offence punishable under sec. 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
    6. Sentenced to simple imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 10,000 for sec. 174A of IPC.
    7. Sentenced to simple imprisonment of 3 years and fine of Rs. 50,000 for sec. 27 of Arms Act.
    8. Sentences shall run consecutively. The Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 11 lakh on the convict, out of which Rs. 10 lakhs are directed to be given to the family of deceased Inspector MC Sharma.
       
  • While the prosecution pressed for death penalty against convict Ariz Khan in the matter, the defense had sought for a lesser sentence on the grounds of parity and his age.
  • According to the prosecution it was submitted that the "collective conscience of society" was shocked due to the brutal manner in which Inspector MC Sharma was killed while he was discharging his public functions.
  • Additional Public Prosecutor AT Ansari represented the State whereas Advocate MS Khan represented the convict, Ariz Khan.
  • The Court convicted Ariz Khan under the following IPC sec.
    • 186
    • 333
    • 353
    • 302
    • 307
    • 174A
    • 34
    • 27 of Arms Act.

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers



Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


LawArticles

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

Titile

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

Titile

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

Titile

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Sexually Provocative Outfit Statement In...

Titile

Wednesday, Live Law reported that a Kerala court ruled that the Indian Penal Code Section 354, ...

UP Population Control Bill

Titile

Population control is a massive problem in our country therefore in view of this problem the Ut...

Privatisation Of Government Sector

Titile

Privatization of presidency Sector Although in today's time most of the services provided in ou...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online


File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly