Case Summary: A2-Yasmeen Conviction Upheld for Terrorist Offenses

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment regarding the case involving A2-Yasmeen and her conviction for terrorist offenses under the UAPA. The court upheld the decision on reducing her sentence, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to anti-terrorism laws. Stay updated on the latest legal developments in this complex case.


  • The High Court found A2-Yasmeen guilty of offenses under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA.
  • The High Court reduced the substantive sentences for the aforementioned offenses from three years and seven years to one year and three years, respectively.
  • A2-Yasmeen was associated with A1 who propagated ISIS ideology, but the High Court found no evidence of her raising funds for terrorist organizations.
  • Charge under Section 40 of the UAPA was not upheld as the amounts received were for personal use and travel arrangements, not for funding terrorism.
  • There was evidence that A2 attended classes propagating ISIS ideology, but no indication she took steps to wage a war against any Asiatic Power.
  • Revelation videos and ISIS-related content found on memory cards suggested A2 was preparing to go to Afghanistan at the instance of A1.
  • The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of A2-Yasmeen for offenses under Section 125 IPC, Sections 39, and 40 of the UAPA but upheld the conviction for offenses under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA.
  • A2-Yasmeen was arrested on 01.08.2016 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi while attempting to travel to Afghanistan with her child.
  • There was a criminal conspiracy between A1 (husband of A2-Yasmeen) and A2-Yasmeen from 2015, leading to 14 persons joining ISIS in Afghanistan.
  • A2-Yasmeen was accused of actively supporting ISIS terrorist activities, raising funds for them, and utilizing received funds for supporting ISIS activities.
  • Out of 15 accused, all except A2-Yasmeen were absconding and she was sent for trial under various sections including under the UAPA.
  • A total of 52 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and various documents and objects were relied upon as evidence against A2-Yasmeen.
  • A2-Yasmeen was under judicial custody in Kannur women prison since her arrest on 1.8.2016.
  • Her personal belongings were listed at the time of admission to the prison.

Also Read: Legal Analysis: Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh – Permissibility of Subsequent Pleading in Election Petition Proceedings


  • Mr. Santosh Krishnan, learned Advocate for A2-Yasmeen supported the judgment of the High Court in respect of acquittal under Section 125 IPC and Sections 39 and 40 of the UAPA.
  • Mr. Krishnan argued that A2 deserved acquittal even in respect of Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA.
  • He emphasized that mere membership of an unlawful organization was not sufficient and clear proof of intent to accomplish the organization’s aims through violence was required.
  • The learned Additional Solicitor General, however, contended that the material on record unequivocally established A2-Yasmeen’s role in the offenses, questioning her acquittal under Section 125 IPC and Sections 39 and 40 of the UAPA.
  • He further stated that there was no justification to reduce the substantive sentence for offenses under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA.

Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF


  • The observations were made in the context of order of release on bail during trial.
  • In the case of Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, it was highlighted that material indicating acts done to further the activity of a terrorist organization is necessary for Sections 39 and 40 of the UAPA to apply.
  • The case of State of Kerala v. Raneef involved a Dentist providing medical aid to a wounded accused, leading to bail being granted by the High Court.
  • The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the veracity of allegations from either side, as evidence was yet to be presented.
  • The decision regarding guilt or innocence was explicitly reserved for the trial stage, with evidence yet to be led.
  • It was emphasized that for an offense under Section 38 of the UAPA to be applicable, the prosecution must establish the requisite mens rea.
  • The principles outlined in the cases of Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam and State of Kerala v. Raneef were relied upon to make this argument.
  • Courts were correct in recording conviction against A2 for offenses under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of UAPA.
  • High Court was incorrect in its observation regarding Sections 39 and 40 of UAPA.
  • High Court’s decision on the offense under Section 125 of IPC was deemed appropriate.
  • The prosecution primarily relied on an alleged extrajudicial confession by the appellant without corroborative evidence.
  • The appellant was a doctor bound by the Hippocratic oath when treating a patient.
  • The scope and operation of Sections 39 and 40 of UAPA were discussed.
  • High Court’s acquittal of A2 for charges under Sections 39 and 40 of UAPA was upheld.
  • Proviso to Section 43-D(5) was found not violated.
  • Existence of mens rea was indicated by certain features.
  • The respondent’s involvement in the crime was found lacking prima facie proof.
  • Details on the different nature of case against the respondent compared to the alleged assailants.
  • No allegations that the respondent was one of the assailants.
  • Analysis of offenses related to association or support of a terrorist organization under UAPA.
  • Sentencing considerations for A2-Yasmeen were discussed.
  • The High Court’s decision to reduce the sentence based on sympathy was noted.
  • Evidence pointing to A1 propagating IS ideology and A2-Yasmeen’s involvement.
  • Criteria for Section 39 of UAPA to be applicable were outlined.
  • The intensity of Yasmeen’s participation and involvement was clearly evident.
  • No room for sympathetic considerations in the circumstances of the case.
  • The sentence imposed by the trial court was deemed correct and adequate.
  • Yasmeen’s appeal challenging her conviction and sentence under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA was dismissed.

Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration


  • Reduction of sentence awarded to A2-Yasmeen for offences under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 of the UAPA is allowed.
  • Appeals stand disposed of in aforementioned terms.
  • Appeal preferred by the Union challenging the acquittal of A2-Yasmeen in respect of offences under Section 125 of the IPC and Sections 39 and 40 of the UAPA is dismissed.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001199-001199 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *