Iran sentences three to death over Islamic State-linked shrine attacks

The three individuals were convicted of aiding and abetting in 'corruption on earth,' a charge that carries the death penalty in Iran. Two other individuals described as Islamic State members were sentenced to 15 years and 10 years in prison read more
Iran has sentenced three people to death and handed prison terms to several others in connection with two deadly Islamic State-claimed shootings at a major Shiite shrine in Shiraz, the judiciary announced Sunday.
The verdicts follow attacks in October 2022 and August 2023 on the Shah Cheragh mausoleum, a revered religious site in the capital of Fars province. The shootings killed 15 people and were later claimed by the Islamic State group.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
According to Fars province's chief justice, Sadrollah Rajaei-Nasab, the three individuals were convicted of aiding and abetting in 'corruption on earth,' a charge that carries the death penalty in Iran. The Revolutionary Court in Shiraz also sentenced them to 25 years in prison for assisting in 'moharebeh,' or enmity against God, another serious capital offence under Iran's Islamic penal code.
Two other individuals described as Islamic State members were sentenced to 15 years and 10 years in prison based on what authorities said was their level of involvement and cooperation in the shrine attacks.
The judiciary also sentenced two women to five years each. However, their punishment will be carried out under 'Islamic leniency' provisions. They will be monitored with electronic ankle bracelets and confined within a one-kilometre radius of their homes, Rajaei-Nasab said.
The verdicts are part of a broader case that includes weapons trafficking and other charges still under judicial review. Some of the rulings have been appealed to Iran's Supreme Court.
In July 2023, Iran publicly executed two men convicted over the first Shah Cheragh attack. Authorities said the second attack, in August 2023, led to the arrest of nine suspects, all of whom were identified as foreign nationals. A Tajik national, also linked to the Islamic State, was sentenced to death in September.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Shah Cheragh shrine, one of the holiest sites for Shiite Muslims in southern Iran, has become a target for militants in recent years, underlining the country's security challenges amid broader regional unrest.
_With inputs from agencies _

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

33 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

SC grants relief to man who filed complaint against YouTube influencer

New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection from coercive action till July 14 to the man who filed a complaint against social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for allegedly making communal remarks in a video. SC grants relief to man who filed complaint against YouTube influencer A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order while hearing a plea by Wazahat Khan, booked in FIRs across states, including West Bengal. The bench said Khan was already arrested by West Bengal Police and was in custody. His counsel said the FIRs and complaints against Khan were registered in several states for his old tweets, which were alleged to have hurt religious sentiments. After the bench agreed to hear his plea, his counsel sought no further coercive action against his client till the next date of hearing. "Having considered the prayer, we are inclined to grant the same," the bench said. As an interim measure, the top court said, till the next date of hearing on July 14, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the FIRs or complaints referred to in the petition or the FIRs or complaints which may be lodged against him in connection with similar allegations. "There is a famous Tamil saying. It must be there in Telugu also. A wound inflicted by a fire may heal but not a wound inflicted by the tongue," the bench observed. Khan was arrested by Kolkata Police on June 9. He moved the apex court alleging that FIRs and complaints have been lodged against him in several states, including Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Haryana, for certain old tweets made by him. The FIRs were in retaliation to a complaint filed by him against Panoli, who was arrested and later released on bail, he argued. "I have deleted all of them and apologised," his counsel said, submitting Khan was perhaps "reaping what he has sown". His counsel argued that the first FIR, according to the petitioner, was dated June 2. He referred to a number of previous judgements and orders of the apex court in which orders to consolidate the FIRs either in one state or multiple FIRs filed in a state to the state concerned were passed. The bench agreed to hear the plea and issued notice to the Centre and states of West Bengal, Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana. The matter would be heard on July 14. Khan, arrested by the Kolkata Police in June earlier, was booked in the case for offences under the BNS, including for promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, and insults or attempts to insult religion. An FIR was registered against him at the Golf Green Police Station in south Kolkata for allegedly promoting hate speech and hurting religious sentiments through his social media posts. The other charges slapped against him included provoking breach of peace and statements conducing to public mischief. Panoli, a 22-year-old law student, was arrested by Kolkata Police from Gurugram in Haryana on May 30 after a video she uploaded on social media drew widespread outrage. She was booked by Garden Reach Police Station in Kolkata on May 15. The Calcutta High Court granted her interim bail on June 5. Khan, the prime complainant against Panoli, got a complaint registered against the influencer for offences, including malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, leading the police to lodge a case against her. In the video, Panoli allegedly hurled abuses and made communal remarks while being critical of a section of Bollywood celebrities for their silence on Operation Sindoor. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

Hindustan Times

38 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

No comments on judge's impeachment as matter not before Parliament yet: LS Speaker Om Birla

Mumbai, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Monday said the matter related to the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma is not before Parliament yet and there is no point commenting on the issue. No comments on judge's impeachment as matter not before Parliament yet: LS Speaker Om Birla "We can discuss the issue when it is brought before Parliament. There is no point talking about a matter that is not before the House," Birla told reporters on the sidelines of a conference here. The then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, who is mired in a cash-discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in-house panel that investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Justice Varma to resign but the latter had refused. A motion for impeachment could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In the Lok Sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal has been sought. The committee consists of the CJI or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a "distinguished jurist". The monsoon session of Parliament is scheduled to begin from July 21 and conclude on August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court, led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred Justice Varma to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

The Hindu

an hour ago

• The Hindu

Supreme Court's 3-year Bar experience rule for judge exam triggers concern among aspirants

Last month's Supreme Court's landmark ruling reinstating the requirement that candidates must have at least three years of litigation experience before they can sit for the judicial service examination for entry-level judgeships has prompted concerns over the challenges it may pose for recent graduates. The court's decision was rooted in the belief that judicial officers must have practical exposure to the courtroom before donning the robe. 'The judges from the very day on which they assume office have to deal with the questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of litigants,' the apex court said in the May 20 judgment. It observed that, 'neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court system and the administration of justice. This is possible only when a candidate is exposed to the atmosphere in the court by assisting the seniors and observing how the lawyers and the judges function in the court'. Fundamental rights The ruling has triggered concerns among law graduates and aspirants. A review petition filed by Chandrasen Yadav, a young advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, argues that the mandatory three-year requirement infringes on his fundamental rights. Mr. Yadav submitted that the mandatory three-year practice rule should be implemented only from 2027 onwards to avoid unjust exclusion of recent graduates (2023–2025) who prepared under the previous eligibility criteria. 'Immediate enforcement causes retrospective hardship, violating principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution,' he said. Another petitioner, Chandra Sharma, who comes from an Army background, highlighted the requirement to obtain a practice certificate from a lawyer with 10 years of standing. 'Lawyers I have worked with had 5–7 years of experience. The new norms will make it more difficult for me to get a certificate,' she said. Pawan, a first-generation lawyer, echoed similar frustrations. 'I started my career under a senior advocate, but I couldn't sustain myself financially. I joined a law firm. Now that experience won't count. Why should I be penalised for taking a corporate job to survive?' Robust training The review petition argues that the apex court has overlooked key aspects of the very report it cited — the Shetty Commission. While the 1999 report had recommended a three-year practice period, it also noted that due to practical court training being integrated into modern legal education, such a requirement may not be necessary if robust training is provided post-selection. It highlighted Clause 8.35 of the Shetty Commission's Recommendations, which explicitly stated that if young and meritorious law graduates are imparted intensive training, it may not be necessary to prescribe three years of practice at the Bar as a precondition for entry into judicial service. Additionally, the review petition contended that the court failed to cite any 'data, statistics, or studies which establish that fresh law graduates perform poorly as judges, or that three years of practice necessarily correlates with better judicial competence and that past recruitments from among freshers have resulted in any systemic inefficiencies or failures'. The review petition, filed through advocate Kunal Yadav, argued that, 'a candidate selected for judicial service is not 'raw,' but one who has undergone a rigorous and multi-tiered selection process comprising a comprehensive preliminary examination, mains examination testing knowledge of substantive and procedural laws, and a final viva-voce conducted by senior judges or experienced legal professionals'. The plea additionally argued that the three-year requirement may discourage women, first-generation lawyers, and economically weaker candidates who may not have the means to sustain an uncertain legal practice before securing a stable judicial post.