LUCKNOW: Three members of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for conspiring to wage war against the Government of India and attempting to spread terror through organised activities across Uttar Pradesh.
Passing the order on Thursday, a special NIA/ATS court in Lucknow also slapped a fine of Rs 29,000 each on Shivraj Singh Bagdawal and Rajendra Kumar alias Arvind of Almora, and Kripashankar alias Manoj of Kushinagar.
Based on the evidence and effective prosecution, special Judge Jainendra Kumar Pandey, found the three guilty under various sections of UAPA, including Section 18 (conspiracy), Section 20 (membership of a terrorist organisation), Section 38 (association with a terrorist organisation) and Section 39 (support to a terrorist organisation), as well as Section 121A of the IPC (conspiracy to wage war against the State).
According to Special Public Prosecutor MK Singh, the trio was arrested on October 8, 2010, by the Special Task Force (STF) from the Kidwai Nagar locality of Kanpur.
After their arrest, the investigators recovered a substantial quantity of Maoist literature, including pamphlets, CDs, cassettes and magazines, which the accused were allegedly distributing among sympathisers to propagate their ideology.
"An FIR was registered at Kidwai Nagar police station, and a probe was carried out by the ATS, which filed a chargesheet," said Singh.
During the trial, the prosecution presented documentary and material evidence to establish that the accused were actively involved in a conspiracy to wage war against the dispensation.
The court ordered that in case of non-payment of fines, the convicts would have to undergo additional imprisonment ranging from two to six months, depending on the specific offence. The court highlighted that the period already spent in custody would be set off against their sentences.
The court also directed the convicts to be lodged in Lucknow district jail.
It also ordered that the case property be disposed of as per the rules after the expiry of the appeal period or in accordance with directions from the appellate court, if an appeal is filed.
