Madras High Court Overturns Acquittal In Case Linked To Assassination Plot Against Former Union Home Minister L.K. Advani
The High Court overturned the acquittal of an accused in a 2011 conspiracy to assassinate former Union Home Minister L.K. Advani, holding that minor contradictions in witness statements cannot outweigh consistent and reliable evidence proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Madras High Court overturned the acquittal by the Principal Sessions Court of accused involved in a case arising from an alleged plot to assassinate former Union Home Minister L.K. Advani during his visit to Tamil Nadu in 2011.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed under Section 378(1) of the CrPC, challenging the Sessions Court’s 2018 judgment that acquitted the accused of charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice L. Victoria Gowri, while observing that “the offence is also a heinous crime i.e., to take away the life of the former Home Minister, Mr L.K.Advani, through a planted bomb”, overturned the order of the Sessions court that had acquitted the accused of all charges.
T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, represented the appellant, while Advocate S.M.A. Jinnah appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Background
The case stemmed from a complaint registered in connection with an alleged plan to assassinate Former Minister L.K. Advani through a bomb attack. During the committal proceedings in the case, the accused absconded, and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him.
On July 8, 2013, a police team led by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) of the Special Investigation Division, CB-CID Madurai, acting on specific intelligence, traced the accused to Batlagundu in Dindigul district. When the officers approached him, he allegedly attacked the DSP with a long knife, attempting to kill him. The officer escaped unhurt, and the accused was subdued and arrested.
A search of the area led to the recovery of two knives, 18 detonators, 18 gel bags, a hit list of Hindu leaders, and certain documents referring to communal targets. The Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed that the recovered substances were high-grade explosives.
Following the incident, a separate case (Crime No. 240 of 2013) was registered against Hanifa under Sections 307, 353, and 153(A) of the IPC, Section 16(1)(b) of the UAPA, and Sections 4(a)(i) and 4(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
However, the Principal Sessions Court, in December 2018, acquitted the accused-defendant, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, citing contradictions in witness testimony and procedural irregularities in the seizure of evidence.
Court’s Observation
The Madras High Court, after reappreciating the entire evidence, held that the Sessions Court had erred by focusing excessively on minor discrepancies while ignoring the overall reliability of the prosecution’s case. The Bench found that the testimonies of the police officers and the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) involved in the operation were consistent and credible.
“The evidence... inspires the confidence of the Court, and there is no reason to discard their testimonies merely for want of independent witnesses,” the Bench noted.
The Court also observed that minor contradictions regarding the number of officers present, the timing of the arrest, or the vehicle used were “trivial and immaterial” and did not affect the core of the prosecution’s case. Rejecting the defence contention that the arrest was invalid due to non-intimation to local police, the Bench observed that secrecy was essential in apprehending an absconding accused involved in a terrorism-related case.
The Court further clarified that while confessions to police officers are inadmissible, the portion of the statement leading to the discovery of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is admissible and was rightly relied upon. “The contradictions pointed out are minor and immaterial. They do not go to the root of the prosecution’s case,” the court stated.
The Bench also found that the expert report confirming the presence of explosive substances substantiated the prosecution’s claim that the accused owned materials capable of causing serious destruction.
Conclusion
Setting aside the acquittal judgment, the Madras High Court directed the accused to appear before it on 28 October 2025, for sentencing proceedings.
Cause Title: The State of Madras v. Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa
Appearances
Appellant: T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Respondent: S.M.A. Jinnah, Advocate