Criminal Liability For Attacks On Public Transportation And Infrastructure
✅ Criminal Liability for Attacks on Public Transportation and Infrastructure
I. Introduction
Attacks on public transportation (such as buses, trains, metros, airplanes) and infrastructure (like railway tracks, airports, bridges, and highways) are treated as serious criminal offenses due to their impact on public safety, national security, and the economy.
Such attacks often involve:
Terrorism
Sabotage
Destruction of public property
Murder and grievous hurt
Conspiracy
Unlawful assembly or riots
II. Legal Framework in India
Key Laws Applicable:
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 302 – Murder
Section 307 – Attempt to murder
Section 435/436 – Mischief by fire or explosive substance
Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy
Section 153A/295 – Promoting enmity or causing religious strife
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
For acts causing destruction of buses, trains, public offices, etc.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
For terror-related acts affecting infrastructure.
Railways Act, 1989
Section 150 – Endangering safety of passengers.
Explosive Substances Act, 1908
For use of bombs/explosives in public spaces.
Aircraft Act, 1934 and Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016
For attacks or threats against air transportation.
✅ III. Key Case Laws (Detailed Analysis)
1. 2006 Mumbai Train Bombings Case
Facts: On July 11, 2006, seven bombs exploded on Mumbai’s suburban train network during peak hours, killing 189 people and injuring over 800.
Legal Provisions: IPC Sections 302, 307, 120B; Explosive Substances Act; UAPA; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
Judgment:
After a prolonged trial, in 2015, 12 accused were convicted by the special MCOCA court.
5 were given death sentences, and 7 got life imprisonment.
Significance:
Recognized the train network as a national lifeline.
The attack was declared a terrorist act, highlighting how infrastructure-targeted terrorism is dealt with under UAPA.
2. Parliament Attack Case (2001) – Mohd. Afzal Guru & Others v. State (2005)
Facts: Terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament in December 2001, with intent to cause massive casualties and institutional breakdown.
Though not a transportation attack, this case is significant as:
The modus operandi included hijacked vehicles.
Public roads and access points to government buildings were used and destroyed.
Judgment:
Afzal Guru was convicted for conspiracy and aiding terrorism.
Conviction under IPC, UAPA, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act.
Significance:
Set precedent for conspiratorial liability, even if the accused did not directly participate in violence.
Showed use of public infrastructure in committing terror can bring highest penal consequences (including death penalty).
3. 2001 Kurnool Train Sabotage Case
Facts: Train tracks were deliberately tampered with, leading to a major derailment in Andhra Pradesh. Over 20 people died.
Legal Charges:
IPC 302, 307, 435, 120B
Railways Act Section 150
Explosive Substances Act
Judgment:
Accused were found guilty of premeditated sabotage, classified as terrorism.
Received life imprisonment.
Significance:
Shows how attacks on railway infrastructure (even without explosives) amount to attempt to murder or murder, depending on outcomes.
Highlighted need for railway security modernization.
4. Samjhauta Express Blast Case (2007)
Facts: Bomb blasts occurred on the Samjhauta Express (India-Pakistan train) near Panipat, Haryana, killing 68 people, mostly Pakistanis.
Legal Charges:
IPC 302, 307, 120B
Explosives Act, UAPA
Investigation & Trial:
National Investigation Agency (NIA) handled the case.
Charges were filed against Hindu extremist groups.
Judgment (2019):
All accused were acquitted due to lack of admissible evidence.
Significance:
Demonstrated challenges in prosecuting terror-related cases, especially when evidence is circumstantial.
Showed political and communal sensitivity around cross-border transportation attacks.
5. Tamil Nadu Bus Burning Case (Dharmapuri, 2000)
Facts: Three college students set fire to a Tamil Nadu state transport bus during a protest, killing three female students.
Legal Charges:
IPC Sections 302 (murder), 436 (mischief by fire), 147/148 (rioting), 120B (criminal conspiracy)
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld death sentences for the accused in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini & Others.
Significance:
Treated as heinous crime against public order and transport system.
Sent a strong message against violent protests involving destruction of public vehicles.
6. 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks (2008) – Ajmal Kasab Case
Facts: Terrorists attacked Mumbai landmarks including CST railway station, killing hundreds and injuring more.
Relevant Segment:
The attack on CST railway station involved indiscriminate firing on passengers, causing mass casualties.
Legal Charges:
IPC 302, 307, 121 (waging war), 120B
UAPA, Explosives Act, Arms Act
Judgment:
Kasab was found guilty and executed in 2012.
Court described attack on public spaces like stations and hospitals as war against India.
Significance:
Elevated attacks on transportation hubs to the level of national security threat.
Justified maximum penalty for deterrence.
7. Air India Flight 182 Bombing (1985) – Comparative Case (Canada/India)
Facts: A bomb planted by Khalistani extremists on a flight from Canada to India exploded mid-air, killing all 329 on board.
Relevance: Attack on international air transportation, with implications for Indian law enforcement.
Outcome:
Only one person (Inderjit Singh Reyat) was convicted; others acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Significance:
Triggered global reforms in airport security and anti-terrorism cooperation.
Showed how jurisdictional complexity affects justice in transportation attacks.
✅ IV. Key Legal Principles Emerging
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Criminal conspiracy liability (Section 120B IPC) | Even if an accused did not physically commit the act, planning or aiding makes them equally liable. |
| Terror-related attacks invoke special laws (UAPA) | Leads to stricter procedures, longer detention, and higher burden of proof. |
| Acts against transportation = Attempt to murder or murder | Courts treat such attacks as intended to cause maximum fatalities. |
| Damage to public property = Aggravated offence | Even in protest or riot situations, destruction of buses/trains leads to severe punishment. |
| Use of explosives or sabotage = Additional charges | Explosives Act and Railways Act provide specific punishments. |
✅ Conclusion
Attacks on public transportation and infrastructure are not merely property offences — they often result in mass casualties, economic disruption, and public fear. Indian courts have repeatedly:
Treated such offences as terrorist acts.
Applied maximum penalties (including death sentence) in egregious cases.
Highlighted the importance of forensic evidence and inter-agency cooperation.
Emphasized that public anger or political causes do not justify violent damage to public infrastructure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments