Terror funding convict JKLF chief Yasin Malik can appeal against the life imprisonment but not his conviction, legal experts are of the view according to hindustantimes.com.

A Delhi court on Wednesday awarded life imprisonment to Yasin Malik, one of the foremost separatist leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, in a terror funding case, saying the crimes were intended to strike at the "heart of the idea of India" and intended to forcefully secede J&K from Union of India.

Special Judge Praveen Singh awarded varying jail terms to Malik for offences under the stringent anti-terror law--Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the IPC, rejecting the NIA's plea for capital punishment.

Special Judge Praveen Singh awarded varying jail terms to Malik for offences under the stringent anti-terror law--Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the IPC, rejecting the NIA's plea for capital punishment.

On May 10, he had pleaded guilty under various sections which refers to an accused accepting his crime and punishment. During charges framing, the accused can either plead guilty or claim trial. In case of the latter, the case proceeds, but otherwise, the accused pleads guilty followed by conviction.

Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa opines that "in terms of section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) no appeal lies in cases where accused pleads guilty of the offences and has been convicted."

“However in the order of sentence in cases of conviction passed by court of sessions, Metropolitan magistrate or any other magistrate, the appeal can be filed to the extent or on the legality of the sentence passed by the court. In cases where appeal doesn’t lie, a revision can be filed in the high court under section 401 CRPC if the order passed by the court is incorrect, illegal or improper. The revision however has very limited jurisdiction in the court, “ he said.

Senior advocate AS Chandhiok is of the view "the provision of plea bargaining is aimed to reduce the case load in courts and hence the provision of challenging the sentence is available."

"Advocate Umesh Sharma, feels "the accused can challenge the sentence saying that the punishment is disproportionate and be reduced."

According to hindustantimes.com, "even though the maximum sentence, under which Malik was charged, is death penalty, in accordance with 121 of the IPC (waging war against the state), the court awarded him a life term. While doing so, it held that the case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare where the death sentence should be the only fitting punishment."