Sessions Judge Manas Ranjan Barik Holds Prosecution Failed To Prove Terror Links, Recruitment Activities, Terror Funding Or Sedition Charges Against Maulana Abdul Raheman Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
A Sessions Court in Cuttack has acquitted Maulana Mohammad Abdur Raheman Ali Khan of all charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Section 124-A IPC (sedition). The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
Sessions Judge Manas Ranjan Barik delivered the judgment on May 26, 2026, in ST Case No.103 of 2017 arising from STF Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.03 of 2016. Prosecutors had charged the accused under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 21, 38 and 40 of the UAPA, along with Section 124-A IPC. However, after reviewing the evidence, the Court acquitted him on all counts.
Allegations of Terror Recruitment and Funding
According to the prosecution, Abdul Raheman operated a madrasa in Cuttack and spread extremist ideology. Investigators claimed that he recruited youths for terrorist organisations, including Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) and Indian Mujahideen (IM). They also alleged that he raised funds for terrorist activities and promoted disaffection against the Government of India.
To support these claims, prosecutors relied on witness statements, travel records, bank transactions, seized documents, voice samples and alleged links with terror suspects investigated in other cases. Additionally, they referred to material connected with a Delhi Special Cell investigation.
Court Finds Evidence Insufficient
The defence argued that the case rested largely on suspicion and assumptions rather than reliable evidence. After examining the record, the Court found merit in that argument.
Although several witnesses claimed that the accused delivered provocative speeches, the evidence did not directly connect him to terrorist acts. Likewise, the prosecution failed to establish his involvement in recruitment activities, terror funding or membership in a terrorist organisation.
No Testimony From Students or Parents
A major weakness in the prosecution’s case concerned the madrasa allegations. Notably, investigators did not examine any student or parent who could support claims of indoctrination or unlawful teachings.
Furthermore, no student or parent had ever filed a complaint against the madrasa. Annual meetings took place regularly. Yet no allegation of unlawful activity emerged during those gatherings.
As a result, the Court held that the recruitment and radicalisation allegations lacked direct supporting evidence.
Sedition Charge Not Proved
While examining the sedition charge, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi.
The judgment reiterated that strong criticism of government actions does not amount to sedition by itself. Instead, the law requires proof of incitement to violence or public disorder. Therefore, allegations of anti-government statements alone cannot satisfy the ingredients of Section 124-A IPC.
Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof
The Court stressed that criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof.
Moreover, the Court noted that offences under the UAPA carry serious consequences. Consequently, the prosecution must meet a strict standard of proof. In this case, investigators failed to produce sufficient material linking the accused to terrorist activities, recruitment, terror financing or unlawful association with terrorist organisations.
Acquittal on All Charges
The Court examined 46 prosecution witnesses and numerous documentary exhibits. After reviewing the entire record, it found the evidence insufficient to prove any charge under the UAPA or the IPC.
Ultimately, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court acquitted Abdul Raheman of all charges.
