Back
Refuses to Reduce Sentence of Convicts Citing Gravity of Offences
The has dismissed an appeal by two men convicted under the ) who sought a reduction of their seven-year sentence to the minimum of five years. A division bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod held that the gravity of the offences—which involved against India—warranted no leniency, even though the accused had .
Background of the Case
The appellants, Akthar Hussain Laskar (alias Md. Hussain) and Abdul Aleem Mondal (alias Md. Jubal), were convicted by the under multiple provisions, including Sections 13 (Punishment for unlawful activities), 18 (Conspiracy), 38 (Membership of a terrorist organisation), and 39 (Support to a terrorist organisation) of the , along with Sections 120-B (Criminal conspiracy), 121-A (), 153-A (Promoting enmity), and 153-B (Imputations prejudicial to national integration) of the . The trial court sentenced them to seven years of imprisonment.
The prosecution’s case, accepted by the trial court, revealed that the accused were active members of various Telegram groups, including “Khorasan Eagle,” and were in constant touch with foreign associates. They planned to travel to Afghanistan via Kashmir and Pakistan to join the terrorist organisation . They also radicalised and recruited gullible Muslim youths for banned outfits such as , the , and the . The accused had discussed procuring arms with the intention of waging war against India and expressed readiness to sacrifice their lives for the terrorist cause.
Arguments Advanced
Counsel for the appellants argued that since the accused had and had already spent over four years in custody, the trial court should have imposed the of five years. They pointed to a previous ruling in , where this court had reduced a sentence from seven to six years in a , and sought similar treatment. They maintained that the appellants had and repented.
The Special Public Prosecutor for the opposed the appeal, drawing attention to the trial court’s detailed findings in paragraph 12 of its order. The prosecution emphasised that the accused were not ordinary offenders but were engaged in a against the nation. The material collected during investigation—including incriminating chats, videos, and audio clips—demonstrated their clear intention to commit grave offences against the country’s security.
Court’s Legal Analysis
The High Court examined the reports it had called for from the jail authorities and the probation officer. The jail report stated only that the conduct of the convicts was “,” with no mention of their reformation or . The probation officer’s report was based solely on statements made by the accused themselves and offered no individual assessment.
The bench noted that the trial court, while imposing the seven-year sentence, had carefully considered the gravity of the matter. In paragraph 12 of its judgment, the trial court recorded that the accused were active on Telegram groups, in touch with foreign terrorists, and ready to sacrifice their lives. The High Court observed:
“The Court has to take note of very ingredients of the offences which have been invoked against them and the material collected during custodial investigation of accused Nos.1 and 2 is nothing but involving in the activities to wage war against the very Country in which they have born and living.”
Distinguishing the case from the mob fury precedent relied upon by the appellants, the bench stated that the previous reduction was in a different context, whereas here the accused were “planning to .” Hence, the earlier judgment would not assist the appellants.
Key Observations
In its ruling, the court emphasised that lies with the judiciary, even when the accused pleads guilty. It held:
“the Trial Court considering the , imposed sentence of 7 years committed by the appellants and the appellants also as a matter of right cannot claim to impose of only 5 years and it is the discretion of the Court to impose the same, even though the accused persons have without trial.”
The bench further noted the lack of evidence of reformation from the jail and probation reports, stating that the behaviour report was merely “one line sentence that their behavior is ,” without any indication that the convicts had or shown for their actions.
The Decision
Answering the in the negative, the division bench dismissed the . It upheld the seven-year sentence imposed by the trial court, finding it .
The judgment reinforces the principle that the prescribed under the is not an automatic entitlement for those who plead guilty. Where the offence involves a against the nation, courts will exercise their discretion to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the conduct, regardless of a plea of guilty or time already served.
