BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has refused to reduce the seven-year prison sentence imposed on two men convicted of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code, observing that the material against them involved activities aimed at “waging war” against the country.
A Division Bench of Justices H.P. Sandesh and B. Pramod dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2024 filed by Akthar Hussain Laskar alias Md. Hussain and Abdul Aleem Mondal. The judgment was delivered on September 2. The two men had sought reduction of their sentence from seven years to the statutory minimum of five years, principally relying upon the fact that they had pleaded guilty without undergoing a full trial.
The appellants had been convicted by the Special Court for NIA cases in Bengaluru for offences including criminal conspiracy and conspiracy to wage war under the IPC, along with Sections 13, 18, 38 and 39 of the UAPA dealing with unlawful activities, terrorist conspiracy, association with terrorist organisations and support to such organisations.
The High Court examined the material considered by the Special Court before sentencing them.
According to the investigation, the accused were active in Telegram groups and maintained contact with foreign associates. The prosecution material showed that they were allegedly planning to travel to Afghanistan through Kashmir and Pakistan to join Al-Qaeda. They were also found to have radicalised and recruited vulnerable youths for proscribed organisations including Al-Qaeda and Indian Mujahideen.
The material seized from electronic devices assumed particular significance. One accused was associated with a Telegram group called “Khorasan Eagle”, while the other was connected with groups including “Path of Truth” and “Kashmir Hizarat Saath”. Investigators recovered videos, audio clips, photographs and chats relating to Taliban and Al-Qaeda, besides material allegedly encouraging young people to wage war against India and participate in communal and terrorist activities.
The defence urged the Court to consider their guilty plea, more than four years spent in custody and reports stating that their prison behaviour was satisfactory.
The Bench was unconvinced. It noted that the Probation Officer’s report was substantially based upon statements of the convicts themselves, while the prison report merely described their behaviour as satisfactory without recording whether they had demonstrated remorse or genuine reformation.
The appellants also relied upon an earlier Karnataka High Court case where a seven-year sentence arising from a mob-fury incident had been reduced to six years. The Bench rejected the comparison.
The present case, it stressed, involved accused persons who were found to have been planning to wage war against the country, making the earlier precedent inapplicable.
The Court further held that pleading guilty does not entitle a convict, as a matter of right, to insist upon the minimum possible sentence. Sentencing remains a judicial exercise dependent upon the gravity and circumstances of the offence.
Finding the seven-year term proportionate to the crimes involved, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
The ruling sends an important message in terrorism prosecutions: cooperation through a guilty plea may be a relevant sentencing circumstance, but it cannot by itself eclipse the gravity of organised radicalisation, terrorist recruitment and preparations directed against the sovereignty and security of Bharat.
