The court reaffirms that sentencing must balance the severity of the offence with mitigating factors and the potential for rehabilitation of the accused, reducing excessive life sentences in consideration of guilty pleas and remorse.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ JAIN, J.

1. “Just Deserts” is the question posed to us.

2. There are five appeals before us.

3. All the appellants were arraigned as accused in case RC No.08/2019/NIA/DLI. When the learned Trial Court heard arguments and ascertained the charges, they all pleaded guilty.

4. They were accordingly convicted for various offences under IPC [Indian Penal Code 1860] and UAPA [Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967]

5. Arguments on sentence were heard and they all were sentenced vide order dated 28.11.2022.

6. Such order, related to quantum of sentence, is under challenge before us.

7. We may highlight right here that in four appeals [CRL.A. 53/2023, 54/2023, 56/2023 & 57/2023], the appellants have challenged the extent of the sentence and have no grievance or concern with respect to the fact that they had voluntarily pleaded guilty before the learned Trial Court.

8. However, with respect to appellant Ishfaq Ahmad Bhat (A-7), when the appeal was filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act (NIA Act), he challenged the legality of conviction as well, contending that the Trial Court had proceeded on the alleged plea of guilt in a mechanical manner. He asserted that when application under Section 229 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Trial Court, it was, in essence a plea of guilt by way of plea bargaining. According to him, the conviction was not sustainable on the basis of such plea of guilt. Fact, however, remains that during course of consideration of the appeal, additional affidavit was filed stating therein that the appellant was no longer desirous of challenging his plea of guilt and consequent conviction and that he was confining his appeal to the extent of sentence qua those offences for which he had been given life sentence.

9. The present appeals are under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act (NIA Act) and are in the nature akin to one mentioned in Section 375 Cr.P.C. which specifies that if any accused pleads guilty and is convicted on the basis of such plea of guilt, there shall be no appeal, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.

10. Thus, the scope of all the aforesaid appeals is very limited in sphere and only the aspect related to the extent or legality of the sentence is required to be seen, the prayer being that they be given minimum sentence for offence under Section 121A IPC and in relation to appellant Muzzafar Ahmed Bhat, for offence under Section 23 UAPA as well. In other words, it needs to be seen whether the sentence for said offences is unduly harsh, as contended by the appellants.

11. The question of plea of guilt, not being voluntary, is not tenable even otherwise.

12. When arguments on charge were heard, all the appellants conceded to such charges. Eventually, when the charges were ascertained vide order dated 03.09.2022, the learned defence counsel informed the court that they all wanted to plead guilty.

13. A specific application in terms of Section 229 Cr.P.C. was also moved seeking to plead guilty, stating therein, that the accused were remorseful for the alleged acts and voluntarily seek to plead guilty, without any pressure or coercion and that they had also duly understood the consequences of their pleading guilty to the different charges. Learned Trial Court, vide order dated 24.09.2022 apprised them that they were under no obligation to plead guilty and could still claim trial, as per law. They were also made aware in vernacular that if they insisted for pleading guilty, they could be straightaway held guilty and could be sentenced to the maximum of the punishment prescribed under offences for which they had been charged. However, they remained firm.

14. Learned Trial Court, and rightfully so, gave them time for reflection and when the matter was taken up on 01.10.2022, they, again, persisted in their such plea.

15. The charges were framed on 01.10.2022 and the contents thereof were duly explained, separately to all of them, with the prescribed