In a dramatic turn, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on October 23, 2025, overturned the 2018 acquittal of Mohammed Hanifa, alias Tenkasi Hanifa, in a case involving an alleged attempt to murder a police officer and possession of explosives. The bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice L. Victoria Gowri delivered the verdict after hearing extensive arguments from both sides, directing Hanifa to appear before the court for sentencing on October 28.
Background
The case dates back to July 2013, when the Crime Branch CID’s Special Investigation Division launched a search for Hanifa, who was wanted in a 2011 case related to a foiled bomb plot targeting the then Home Minister L.K. Advani. A non-bailable warrant had been issued, and a team led by DSP Karthikeyan tracked him to Batlagundu in Dindigul district.
According to the prosecution, when officers attempted to arrest Hanifa, he attacked the DSP with a long knife. Though the officer escaped unharmed, Hanifa was overpowered, and a cache of explosives including gel sticks, detonators, and a “hit list” of Hindu leaders was allegedly recovered from locations he later identified.
The Dindigul Sessions Court in 2018 acquitted Hanifa, citing contradictions in witness testimony, procedural lapses, and the failure to involve local police during the operation. The State challenged this acquittal under Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court’s Observations
Justice Velmurugan, writing for the bench, found the trial court’s reasoning “flawed and hyper-technical.” The bench observed, “Minor contradictions cannot destroy the core of a credible prosecution. Courts must look for the ring of truth, not mathematical precision.”
The judges agreed with the prosecution that secrecy was essential during the arrest since prior notice to local police could have allowed the accused to escape. They also held that the testimony of police and revenue officers though not public witnesses could not be dismissed outright. “In cases of absconding accused and terrorism-related offences, independent witnesses are hard to secure,” the court said.
The High Court relied on the recovery evidence, the confessional lead to explosives, and the expert’s report confirming the materials were high-grade and dangerous. The bench rejected the defence’s argument about procedural irregularities, holding that such errors were not fatal when substantive evidence was consistent and credible.
Decision
Concluding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the 2018 acquittal. “The contradictions noted by the trial court are minor and immaterial,” the bench held, restoring the prosecution’s case in full.
The court convicted Mohammed Hanifa under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The matter has now been posted for sentencing on October 28, 2025, marking a significant reversal in one of Tamil Nadu’s long-pending terror-related prosecutions.
Case Title: State Represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, Coimbatore vs. Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 475 of 2019
Date of Judgment: Pronounced on October 23, 2025
