Karnataka HC Refuses to Reduce Seven-Year UAPA Sentence for Accused Who Planned to Wage War Against India

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court rejected an appeal by two UAPA convicts seeking to cut their seven-year sentence to five years, citing the gravity of their planned terrorist activities and the material gathered during custodial investigation.

The High Court of Karnataka, sitting as a Division Bench, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2024 filed by two men convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code. The appellants, who had pleaded guilty before the trial court, sought reduction of their seven-year sentence to the statutory minimum of five years. The bench — Justice H.P. Sandesh, who authored the judgment, and Justice B. Pramod — held that the gravity of the offences and the material on record left no room for leniency, even though the accused had not contested the charges and had been in custody for more than four years.

The Appellants and Their Conviction

The first appellant, Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain, aged about 24 years, is a native of Cachar, Assam, and was residing in the Thilaknagar area of Bengaluru at the time of his arrest. The second appellant, Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md. Juba @ Md. Jubah, aged about 20 years, is a native of South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, and was living in Salem, Tamil Nadu.

The National Investigation Agency registered the case as R.C./40/2022/NIA/DLI and filed a charge sheet that was numbered as SPL.C. No. 125/2023. Both accused were charged with offences under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 153-A, and 153-B of the IPC and Sections 13, 18, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The case was tried before the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge for Trial of NIA Cases) at Bengaluru, who passed a sentencing order on 27 October 2023 imposing seven years of imprisonment.

The appeal before the High Court was filed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, seeking reduction of the quantum of sentence to the minimum prescribed period of five years.

What the Trial Court Found

Before addressing the appellants’ arguments, the Division Bench examined the trial court’s sentencing order in detail, particularly paragraphs 8, 10, and 12.

The trial court recorded that both accused had voluntarily pleaded guilty. Electronic gadgets and incriminating materials were recovered from Appellant No. 1. Based on disclosures made by him, Appellant No. 2 was arrested on 25 July 2022, and further incriminating materials were seized from his possession. During custodial interrogation, both men revealed that they had radicalised Muslim youths and criminally conspired to send them to Kashmir and the Khorasan province of Afghanistan for terrorist training. They had also provoked youths to wage war in the name of religion.

The trial court found that Appellant No. 1 was a member of a Telegram group called ‘Khorasan Eagle’ and had a Facebook account under the name ‘Md Hussain’. Videos, audio clips, and photographs related to Taliban and Al-Qaeda were found on his mobile phone. Incriminating chats and messages instigating youths to wage war against India and to indulge in communal disturbances were also found in the ‘Khorasan Eagle’ group. Appellant No. 2 was a member of Telegram groups ‘Path of Truth’ and ‘Kashmir Hizarat Saath’, the latter of which he himself had created. Jihadi content was found on his phone and he was found to be in constant contact with foreign associates.

The High Court extracted paragraph 12 of the trial court’s sentencing order, which set out that the accused were planning to travel to Afghanistan via Kashmir and Pakistan to join Al-Qaeda, that they had supported terrorist acts committed by banned organisations including TTP, Al-Qaeda, and Indian Mujaheddin, and that they had planned to procure and carry arms with the intention of waging war against India. Messages shared by Appellant No. 1 with his associates included statements such as “brother I am not afraid, but may Allah take me to battle field before something happen” and expressions seeking martyrdom. Appellant No. 2 had also shared messages stating he was ready to sacrifice his life for banned terrorist organisations.

The Appellants’ Arguments for Sentence Reduction

Counsel for the appellants made three principal submissions. First, the appellants had pleaded guilty without any trial, and the trial court retained a discretion to impose the minimum sentence of five years for the invoked offences. Second, the accused had already been in custody for more than four years and had repented and reformed. Third, counsel relied on a judgment of the same court in Crl.A. No. 2142/2025 dated 20 January 2026, where the sentence had been reduced from seven to six years, and argued that a similar reduction should follow.

Counsel also pointed to Section 265-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which contemplates that where an accused pleads guilty, the court may consider imposing half the sentence.

The NIA’s Special Public Prosecutor opposed any reduction. He pointed specifically to paragraph 12 of the trial court’s order and argued that the material on record demonstrated that these were not ordinary offenders. The accused had actively used encrypted communication channels, maintained foreign contacts, planned travel through Pakistan and Afghanistan, and were recruiting and radicalising others. The nature and scale of the activities, he argued, precluded any reduction to the five-year minimum.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench acknowledged that both accused had pleaded guilty and had not contested the charges. It also acknowledged that Section 265-A of Cr.P.C. creates a framework for courts to consider reducing sentences where guilt is admitted, and that the court retains a discretion in such cases. However, the bench held that this discretion is not exercised in a vacuum — the gravity of the offence and the material on record must be weighed.

On the probation and jail reports, the bench was measured. The Probation Officer’s report was based entirely on statements made by the accused themselves, with no independent assessment of reform. The Jail Superintendent’s report noted that the convicts’ behaviour was satisfactory, but contained no record of the actual sentence terms and made no finding that the accused had genuinely reformed or acknowledged guilt. The bench observed that the single-line finding of satisfactory behaviour could not, by itself, support a reduction in sentence.

The bench distinguished the precedent cited by the appellants. In Crl.A. No. 2142/2025, the court had reduced a seven-year sentence to six years in a case of mob fury. The present case involved accused who were planning to wage war against the country, a materially different category of offending. The bench held that the earlier judgment “will not come to the aid of the appellants to reduce the sentence from 7 years to 5 years.”

The court then addressed the core question of proportionality. It held that the trial court had taken due note of the gravity of the offences before imposing seven years, and that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed. The bench added that an accused who pleads guilty cannot claim, as a matter of right, that the minimum sentence must follow. The reduction to the minimum remains within the court’s discretion, and that discretion was not to be exercised favourably where the accused had been involved in activities aimed at waging war against India.

The bench answered the first point — whether it could exercise discretion to reduce the sentence from seven to five years — in the negative.

Order

The Division Bench dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2024. The seven-year sentence imposed by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge for Trial of NIA Cases) at Bengaluru under the order dated 27 October 2023 stands undisturbed.