Rights activist Binayak Sen, Maoist ideologue Narayan Sanyal and Kolkata businessman Piyush Guha were on Friday sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in Chhattisgarh, which found them guilty of sedition, criminal conspiracy and collusion with Maoists.

They were convicted and sentenced by the second additional district and sessions Judge VP Varma in a packed courtroom.

They were sentenced to life imprisonment under IPC Sections 124 A (sedition) and 120 B (criminal conspiracy). They were also found guilty and sentenced under sections of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. But they were acquitted of the charge under IPC Section 121 (waging war against the state) and some sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The sentences will run concurrently. Defence lawyer Hashim Khan, who briefed the media on the court ruling, said they would appeal in high court.

Sen?s wife Elina, close relatives, representatives of civil rights and human rights groups and media personnel were present when the orders were passed. Sen?s brother Dipankar broke down in court, telling reporters: ?I have lost my voice. Please leave me alone.?

Elina sat down on the stairs of the court as her husband was placed under arrest. ?I disagree with this order. There are no evidences for this conviction. We will go for an appeal,? she said. ?It is a sad day for Indian democracy. He has worked for the poor for more than three decades. I don?t know how long will this legal battle continue,? she said.

Rajindar Sachar, former president of the People?s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), called the ruling ?outrageous?. ?It is scandalous to say that he was working against the interest of the country… Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, under which he has been convicted, is unconstitutional. PUCL will challenge his conviction and the Act,? Sachar said.

But the Congress, which is the main opposition party in Chhattisgarh, disapproved the criticism of rights activists, saying it is wrong to dismiss the judgment even before the legal process is to be completed.

?A decision has been taken after a trial of two years. An appeal has also been filed and as long as the matter does not come to a full end, it is wrong to dismiss a judgement… we are not a banana republic,? Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi told reporters at the AICC briefing in New Delhi.

Sen, who is national vice-president of the PUCL, was arrested by Chhattisgarh Police for alleged close links with the outlawed CPI (Maoist).

Held on the charge of acting as a courier for jailed Maoist ideologue Sanyal, Sen was sent to jail on May 14, 2007. He was granted bail by the Supreme Court on May 25, 2009.

Rights activists, NGOs and supporters across the world began a ?free Binayak Sen campaign?, mounting pressure on the state and Central governments to free the jailed activist. They described Sen as ?a distinguished paediatrician and tireless human rights activist, being held under draconian state laws?.

They argued that Sen invited the wrath of the state after he publicly criticized the Salwa Judum, the controversial anti-Maoist movement in Bastar.

But the Chhattisgarh government and police maintained that there was sufficient evidence against Sen and it was for the courts to decide.

During arguments, Special Public Prosecutor T C Pandya said Sen met Sanyal in jail 33 times between May 26 and June 30, 2007, carried seditious letters and passed them to Piyush Guha. The prosecution contended that Sen was part of an effort to establish an urban network of the outlawed CPI (Maoist).

The prosecution said police had seized a letter, purportedly written by Maoists to Sen, from his house and it was evident from the contents pf the letter that Sen had not just been in correspondence with the rebels but had even acted on their behalf.

The defence rejected the claim, saying the letter was planted by the police. On the prosecution claim that Sen met Sanyal 33 times in jail, his lawyers argued that he visited Sanyal on his brother?s request, applying on a PUCL letterhead each time and getting clearances from jail authorities and police officers.

According to the defence, the meetings took place in the jailer?s room and every time the two men spoke in Hindi so that every word could be heard and understood by the supervising officer. ?In such a situation, there is no room for conspiracy and passing letters,? his lawyers said.