In a significant development, the Gujarat High Court has overturned the conviction and life imprisonment sentence, along with a hefty ₹5 crore fine, that were imposed on a businessman. The individual, accused of issuing a false flight hijack threat which later proved to be a hoax, had appealed against the verdict. The Court, composed of Justices AS Supehia and MR Mengdey, carefully examined the case and ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's direct involvement in creating or placing the threat note in the aircraft lavatory.
The judges highlighted that the overall evaluation of the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They emphasized that the evidence did not definitively link the appellant to the serious offense of hijacking. Additionally, the Court noted that the appellant's behavior, such as inquiring about lavatory usage and the flight's destination, could not lead to a conviction. The Court took into account statements from crew members who admitted other passengers had also used the lavatory and that they hadn't witnessed the accused placing the note.
The Court underscored that the prosecution was required to establish a clear connection between the threat note and the appellant. Acknowledging the stringent punishment prescribed for hijacking under the Anti-Hijacking Act, the Court highlighted the importance of impeccable evidence in such cases. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed by the special NIA court were set aside.
The incident in question involved the discovery of a threat note in the lavatory of a Jet Airways flight bound for Delhi on October 30, 2017. The note, written in Urdu, demanded the flight divert to 'Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir' and threatened harm to passengers if the demand was not met. Subsequently revealed as a hoax, the note led to the appellant's conviction under the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016, resulting in life imprisonment and a significant fine.
Addressing the notion of a "credible threat," the High Court acknowledged that communicating an intention to cause harm or restrict an individual's freedom aboard a high-altitude flight could be deemed credible. The judges highlighted the alarming impact of such threats on passengers, emphasizing that their credibility cannot be assessed in the moment. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that a threat's credibility diminishes simply because it's later proven to be a hoax.
The Court also dismissed the appellant's assertion that issuing a threat-note doesn't equate to physical aircraft hijacking, referencing the Anti-Hijack Act's broad definition of hijacking. The judges emphasized that 'any form of intimidation' outlined in the Act encompasses both physical control and threats, even in abstract form.
Upon discovering the threat note, crew members and pilots promptly alerted authorities and made an emergency landing, displaying the gravity of the situation. While acknowledging the security measures taken, the Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution couldn't conclusively prove the appellant's direct involvement in the hoax threat. As a result, the conviction and sentence were quashed.
The appellant was represented by Senior Advocates Yogesh Lakhani and Vikram Chaudhari, along with Advocates Hardik P Modh, Rishi Segal, Amit Laddha, and Shweta Segal. Additional Public Prosecutor Vrunda C Shah represented the State, while Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas and Advocate Kshitij Amin represented the NIA.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Gujarat High Court conviction quashed life imprisonment fine businessman flight hijack threat hoax appeal Anti-Hijacking Act lavatory aircraft evidence guilt crew members passengers credible threat urgency hoax revelation prosecution Anti-Hijacking Act 2016 definition intimidation security measures emergency landing Senior Advocates representation Additional Public Prosecutor Additional Solicitor General.
