Who is Binayak Sen? ➢ Charges on Binayak Sen. ➢ The Sedition law. ➢ Who are Naxalite? ➢ The Trial so far. • Court's verdict and logic. rights defender Dr Binayak Sen, Kolkata businessman Pijush Guha and Narayan Sanyal is a member of the highest decision making body, Politburo, of CPI. Appellant in aralgocunes.ga Binayak Sen has been convicted for .. But in the present case, the judgment is vague and findings are not clear.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Written and published at a time when Binayak Sen and the other two ://www. aralgocunes.ga). Binayak Sen is an Indian paediatrician, public health specialist and activist. He is the national .. Against this judgement, Binayak again applied for bail on 6 January An eight-member delegation of the . "Release Dr. Binayak Sen!" (PDF). Medico Friend Circle. February Archived from the original (PDF) on The translation has been done by the Free Binayak Sen Now campaign. You can download here .pdf) the Hindi original. For updates on the.
Surendra Singh further contends that as per Ex. Therefore, before declaring the organizations unlawful under Section 3 1 of the Act, any action by such organizations would not be cognizable under the Act, Mahendra Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Piyush Guha, argued that appellant Piyush Guha is a Bidi leaf businessman, he used to visit Raipur in connection with his business; on he came to Raipur in relation to his business, he stayed at Mahendra Hotel and on same day he was taken by police, closing his eyes with tape, he was detained for six days at different places and his signatures were obtained on some papers on He is no way connected with commission of any offence.
As per evidence of B. Jagrat PW , appellant Piyush Guha has been arrested near railway station on under suspicious condition, but this witness himself has filed reply supported by affidavit before the Supreme Court in bail petition of appellant Binayak Sen in which he has specifically mentioned that he has arrested appellant Piyush Guha from Mahendra Hotel which he has tried to explain in the present case that by mistake he has mentioned the place Mahendra Hotel.
When Piyush Guha was detained, his bag was checked, thereafter he was taken to the police station where seizures were prepared but articles were not sealed. Although recovery memo reveals that articles have been sealed, but evidence of B. Maravi PW - Senior Superintendent of Police reveals that at the time of granting permission for registration of FIR as required under sub-section 3 of Section 16 of the Act, , he perused the documents seized from Piyush Guha brought before him along with Ex.
This reveals that the documents were not sealed and there was likelihood of tampering. Mahendra Dubey placed reliance upon the order dated passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arup Bhuyan v. On the other hand, Mr. Defence has also examined defence witnesses and has proved the documents. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that conviction of the appellants is well founded.
At the stage of considering application under Section 1 of the Code for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of appeal, no meticulous scrutiny of evidence is required. Kishore Bhaduri while relying upon the evidence of various witnesses and documents, further submitted that as held by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath's case supra , criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression.
In the present case, the appellants have crossed the limits of criticism. Kishore Bhaduri also submitted that sentence imposed upon the accused after appreciation of evidence should not be suspended in a routine manner. Kishore Bhaduri placed reliance in the matters of State of Maharashtra v. State NCT of Delhi 9 in which the Supreme Court has held that suspension of sentence only on the ground that bail granted during trial was not misused and likelihood of delay in disposal of appeal is not proper.
By detailed arguments and comprehensive presentation on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that even on merits, conviction of the appellants is not sustainable under the law and evidence collected on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing inference that the appellants have committed aforesaid offence including the offence of sedition or that by their act they have excited disaffection towards the Government established by law or have shown disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
By detailed submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the applications and contended that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and admission of accused persons by adducing defence witnesses are sufficient to establish the fact that the appellants have committed aforesaid offence including the offence of sedition. The appellants have convicted only on and there is no likelihood of delay in hearing the appeals.
At the stage of considering application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail in accordance with Section 1 of the Code , the Court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence; the Court is only required to prima facie assess the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties to ascertain whether conviction of the appellants is well founded on the basis of admissible evidence and whether there exists ground for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants, during the pendency of appeals.
Provisions of Section 1 of the Code read as follows: - " Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail. At the time of such consideration, the Courts have opportunity to examine and consider legally admissible evidence marshalled during trial.
At the time of considering the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, sentence should not be suspended in a routine manner. Normally, sentence should not be suspended in cases of conviction relating to heinous offence involving capital punishment or imprisonment for life.
It is pertinent to note that after conviction by competent court in elaborate trial the theory of presumably innocent person looses ground. While dealing with the question of suspension of sentence the Supreme Court in the matter of Anil Ari v. State of West Bengal10 has held that exercise of power under Section 1 of the Code should be used only after careful consideration of relevant aspects, mere fact of grant of bail during trial and absence of its misuse is not sufficient to suspend sentence and grant bail.
While dealing with same question, the Supreme Court in the matters of Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and another11 and Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and others12 has held that at the time of considering the question of suspension of sentence, the Court is required to consider gravity and seriousness of the offence.
In the matter of State of Haryana v. Section of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence.
One of the essential ingredients of Section is the requirement for the Appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed.
If he is in confinement, the said Court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.
The Appellate Court is duty bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the period the accused-respondent was granted parole.
While dealing with same question, the Supreme Court in Madhukar Wamanrao's case supra has held even in case of cheating, forgery and conspiracy, the Court is required to consider gravity of offence, and considering gravity of offence, order of suspension was reversed. While dealing with same question, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sidhartha Vashisht supra has held that at the time of considering suspension of sentence the Court is required to consider seriousness of offence, manner in which it was said to have been committed, gravity of offence and time for hearing the appeal.
In the present case, conviction is inter alia for offence of conspiracy and sedition. It is trite to say that for constituting the offence of conspiracy and sedition it is neither necessary that the person accused should himself be the author of the seditious material nor is it necessary that there should be actual or attempted hatred, contempt or disaffection, brought or excited, by the accused himself.
The existence of conspiracy can be gathered from circumstances leading to irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons. Once conspiracy is proved the act of one conspirator becomes act of the other.
During course of trial, the prosecution examined 95 witnesses and proved articles and exhibits. Defence examined eleven witnesses and produced 40 documents. As per case of the prosecution in a nutshell, co-accused Narayan Sanyal is a hardcore naxalite and member of banned organizations, he was having close intimacy with appellant Binayak Sen and he was arrested by Ch. Deva Reddy PW on at Bhadrachalam bus stand.
Co-accused Narayan Sanyal was required in cases registered in this State and he was detained in Raipur Central Jail where after obtaining permission from authorities, appellant Binayak Sen visited Raipur jail for meeting Narayan Sanyal for thirty-three times from to As per evidence of prosecution witnesses, appellant Piyush Guha made confession before police that those three letters have been given by Narayan Sanyal to appellant Binayak Sen for sending the same to Kolkata and appellant Binayak Sen has handed over those letters to appellant Piyush Guha, but this part of evidence i.
However, the fact remains that prior to seizure of these letters the Government machinery has permitted appellant Binayak Sen to meet Narayan Sanyal who was in Raipur Central Jail and Binayak Sen has visited jail thirty- three times within short span i. After arrest of appellant Piyush Guha and seizure of three disputed letters from him, house of appellant Binayak Sen was searched and Binayak Sen was arrested on As per evidence collected on behalf of the prosecution, accused Narayan Sanyal has also tried to send letter Article A14 on to some other prisoner which has been seized.
As per case of the prosecution, Article A37 - the alleged letter written by Chhattisgarh Rajya Committee CPI Maovadi to appellant Binayak Sen in which the appellant was addressed as "fiz; lkFkh" has also been seized from the house of the appellant at the time of seizure which has been denied by the appellant.
Seizure of this article does not find place in seizure memo Ex. P, but same was part of charge sheet. By examining defence witness Amit Banerjee DW-5 , defence has tried to prove that they have not received aforesaid copy, but as per record of the trial Court and evidence of this witness, virtually he has not received copy of charge sheet and the appellant himself has received copy of charge sheet and his counsel Mr. Kamlesh Ganjir was present at the time of receiving such charge sheet.
They have not objected at the time of filing charge sheet relating to non-supply of any document. While answering to additional questions No. Although as per evidence of Prahlad Sahu DW-1 - Samanvayak of Roopantar Institution working since , Shankar Singh was working as teacher in Roopantar, but he has left the job since and the appellant is also a member karyakarta of Roopantar.
Initially this witness has deposed that office of Roopantar was in Kakkad Bhawan from to , from to it was at Kanwarram Chowk, Katora Talab, Raipur and thereafter since the office is situate at Vijeta Complex, Amlidih, Raipur. As per his evidence, he does not know the situation of Kakkad Bhawan. On Article A1 - one bulletin named Prabhat was found in possession of appellant Piyush Guha, which reveals that accused Narayandas Sanyal is senior member of politburo, his name is Comrade Narayandas Sanyal Naveen Prasad Vijay Da and after his arrest Dandkaranya Special Zonal Committee has shown its grievance and issued press note to its members for opposing the same.
In this bulletin, certain comrades have been shown as active members of South Bastar Division, they were members of Jan Mukti Gorilla Sena. On same day PLGA has also attacked upon Aara Police Outpost of Jashpur and killed two members of armed force while causing serious injuries to twelve persons and have taken all arms from the police outpost.
On 16th April, they have also succeeded in killing seven SPOs and have further succeeded in taking 49 arms. Members of PLGA were thousand in number.
On 10th January, while police was dismantling the statute of alleged Shaheed comrades, with the use of special bomb they have succeeded in killing one member of CRPF. In Darbhaguda explosion, active member of Salwa Judum has been killed, but they have not killed the persons who have surrendered before them.
It also reveals that members of armed forces have committed atrocities and cruelty and have mercilessly killed innocent peoples of the villages. Kunjam PW , T. Ramakrishna Rao PW- 23 , S. Yadav PW , K. Deshmukh PW , N. Kerketta PW , B. Priya are members of hardcore naxalite group and they were in close contact with appellant Binayak Sen.
In different attacks by banned organizations or unlawful organizations, members of armed force have been killed and their arms have been looted by the aforesaid members of unlawful organizations.
As per defence of Piyush Guha, he is a bidi leaf merchant and he used to visit Raipur Chhattisgarh in connection with his business from West Bengal. Normally it was not possible for Piyush Guha to be in possession of such documents. But the fact remains that he was found in possession of the alleged handwritten letters written by Narayan Sanyal.
As per evidence of aforesaid witnesses, Narayan Sanyal is also a hardcore naxalite involved in different crimes and offences in which arms and ammunition of police force have been looted and members of armed force have been killed. The appellant was closely associated with Narayan Sanayal, he frequently visited jail 33 times to meet Narayan Sanyal. The appellant offered explanation that for health care and other general discussion he visited Narayan Sanyal in the jail.
The appellant is expert of pediatrics i. Code name of this appellant is shown as Rana which also reveals Krantikari Adivasi Mahila Mukti Manch and its activities. On 1- naxalites were found in possession of dangerous explosives within Police Station Farsegarh area.
Even as per Article A36, book of Salwa Judum, after constitution of the alleged Salwa Judum, murder by members of maoists has substantially increased and they have killed about 70 persons.
Men in uniform are also human beings and citizens of this country. In a loose sense they personify and represent the law and order enforcement as well as coercive arm of the Government. Aforesaid documentary evidence reveal that these unlawful organizations have been indiscriminately targeting the armed forces in the name of spreading awareness and countering atrocities by men in uniform, thereby the attempt has been to excite disaffection and feeling of disloyalty and enmity towards the Government established by law, particularly because the movement is neither confined to any particular atrocity by men in uniform nor is against any identified group.
It appears to be a general rebellion movement targeting any and every men in uniform just because they wield State's legitimate power of coercion, thereby exposing the emphasis of the movement to be of having and spreading disloyalty and enmity towards the Government established by law.
As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kedar Nath supra , every man has fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, but citizen has no right to create public disorder or disturbance of law and order, such fundamental right is required to be exercised within reasonable limit.
The organizations have right to oppose the public policy and the Government in lawful manner, even they may oppose to the extent of their condemnation, but they are not authorized to excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law or to excite disorder. Priya who are absconding after arrest of the appellants herein. In case of conspiracy, normally no direct evidence and direct connection of the accused with other conspirators would be possible.
Conspiracy is required to considered in the light of entire circumstances and results of circumstances. At this stage, defect in framing of charge or distinct findings relating to such charge cannot be considered. Even otherwise, such defects would generally be procedural lapses curable as per Section of the Code. Hard copy of the computer record found in possession of appellant Binayak Sen reveals the names of Shankar Singh, Malti K.
The appellant has worked in remote rural and forest areas relating to the aforesaid work i. As per evidence of I. Priya whose name finds place in hard copy of the computer entry of appellant Binayak Sen is accused.
Appellant Binayak Sen was found in possession of naxalite pamphlets, booklets and letters, viz. They have spread their forces from forest area to city area. These documents themselves show that they are the documents prepared to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law and to bring into hatred towards the Government established by law.
The appellant has been found in possession of the aforesaid documents. The prosecution has not proved its authorship, but as held in the matter of Raghubir Singh and others v. State of Bihar14 it is not necessary that accused should be author of documents or seditious material found in his possession.
The Supreme Court has observed in para 17 of the said judgment thus, "Where charges of conspiracy and sedition were framed on basis of letters recovered in the search of accused, it could not be said that the charges were not justified as the accused were not the authors of the letters.
But, he also expressed his opposition to the violent activities carried out by Salwa Judum , which he believes, have created a split in the tribal community. The citation describes him as "one of the most eminent scientists" of India. Sen's accomplishments speak volumes about what can be achieved in very poor areas when health practitioners are also committed community leaders.
He staffed a hospital created by and funded by impoverished mine workers, and he has spent his lifetime educating people about health practices and civil liberties—providing information that has saved lives and improved conditions for thousands of people. His good works need to be recognized as a major contribution to India and to global health; they are certainly not a threat to state security.
The award announcement remarks "Dr Sen, as an accomplished medical practitioner has distinguished himself by his devotion to providing health services for the poor and by his strong advocacy against human rights violations and structural violence inflicted on the poor in Chhattisgarh, a state in central India. On 15 May , Sen was presented before a local court where he was denied the bail and was remanded to judicial custody.
On 18 May, he was produced in the Sessions Court, Raipur. The search was conducted lawfully the next day. On 7 June , Sen's wife Ilina Sen wrote a letter to the National Human Rights Commission , stating that the couple's work "has always been in the public sphere and completely overboard [above board] for the last 20 years and more. Amnesty International , which saw the arrest as harassment of a human rights activist, declared his detention in breach of international law.
It issued a call to the Government of Chhattisgarh to immediately release Sen, unless he could be charged with a cognisable offence. It states that Ramesh Gopalakrishnan, of Amnesty International, offered the following comment to BMJ about the supposed charges: "These offences allow sweeping interpretations of criminal intent. Activists in India are arrested all the time on such charges, which give wide, arbitrary powers to police.
He should be released immediately. The delegation insisted that Sen's visits to the jailed Naxalite Narayan Sanyal were for the latter's "medical treatment" and also regarding his legal case. They pointed out that these visits took place in the Raipur jail, following procedures laid down in the jail manual.
Nobel laurate economist and thinker Amartya Sen also criticised the Dec verdict for Sen's imprisonment.
He stated that instead of getting his due honour for his service, Sen had met with an unfortunate verdict. Sirpurkar at the Supreme Court of India sought a response from the Chhattisgarh government after senior counsel Soli Sorabjee claimed that Sen was illegally detained since 14 May on fabricated charges of supporting Naxalites.
The DGP has stated his belief that "Dalits movements, women empowerment movements, human rights movements, environment protection movements" are all suspect because Naxalites want to penetrate and hijack "movements not linked with CPI. This does not mean that you are immune.
This also does not mean your are not associated with banned activities. The prison authorities stated that this was for his security. On 29 April , Human Rights Watch in New York issued a public statement regarding the trial of Sen due to begin in Raipur on 30 April "the district court's limit of one supporter of the defendant at the trial is unnecessarily restrictive and raises broader concerns about the fairness of the trial.
Sen remains imprisoned, after nearly one year without trial, on allegations that he passed notes from a rebel leader whom he treated in jail to a person outside the prison. Sen has denied all wrongdoing and nothing in his character or history, as a dedicated community leader who has urged a peaceful settlement to this conflict for years, would support the accusations made against him.