Tue Oct 28 16:33:22 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary of the text and a rewritten news article based on it:

Summary:

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court overturned a lower court’s acquittal and sentenced Mohammed Hanifa to five years of rigorous imprisonment. Hanifa was convicted under the IPC, UAPA, and Explosive Substances Act for attacking a Deputy Superintendent of Police in 2013 who was attempting to execute a warrant related to Hanifa’s alleged involvement in a 2011 pipe bomb attempt targeting BJP leader L.K. Advani. The High Court found that the trial court erred in dismissing police testimony due to minor discrepancies, emphasizing that independent witnesses are often unavailable in cases where the accused is hiding.

News Article:

Madurai High Court Sentences Man to 5 Years in DSP Attack Case

MADURAI, October 28, 2025 – The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has sentenced Mohammed Hanifa, also known as Tenkasi Hanifa, to five years of rigorous imprisonment for attacking a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in 2013. The conviction overturns a previous acquittal by the Principal Sessions Court in Dindigul.

Hanifa was found guilty under the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the Explosive Substances (Amendment) Act. The case stems from an incident in which DSP Karthikeyan, who was also investigating Hanifa’s alleged involvement in a 2011 pipe bomb attempt on senior BJP leader L.K. Advani, was attacked while attempting to execute an arrest warrant.

According to the prosecution, DSP Karthikeyan and his team located Hanifa in Batlagundu, Dindigul district. During the attempted arrest, Hanifa allegedly attacked the DSP with a knife. After overpowering Hanifa, police seized weapons, detonators, gel bags, and documents, including what authorities described as a “hit list.” A subsequent search led to the discovery of additional explosives hidden by Hanifa.

The High Court, in its ruling, stated that the trial court erred in dismissing police testimony based on minor discrepancies, arguing that finding independent witnesses in such cases, where the accused is actively hiding, is often unrealistic. The court found the police officers’ testimony credible and stated that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Read More