Dr. Binayak Sen's Trial - Some Thoughts

The Hon’ble Raipur Sessions Court has held Dr. Binayak Sen guilty under Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities Act of 1967, for support to Maoist or any other banned organization. Though the conviction under this section carries a maximum sentence for ten years, Dr. Sen has been awarded only five years under this section.

On the other hand, the Hon’ble Sessions Court has maximised the sentence for sedition, under Section 124 A.

As per a report appearing in ‘The Times of India’ dated 28th December 2010, the Hon’ble Sessions Court has held him guilty of passing on seditious letters written by the jailed Maoist Narayan Sanyal to Piyush Guha,. This was based on a testimony of a cloth vendor Anil Kumar Singh, apart from two policemen.

Other incriminating evidence against Dr. Sen included:

a) Seizure of post cards written by Narayan Sanyal and another Maoist Madanlal Barkhade from Dr. Sen’s house,

b) Testimony of Deepak Choubey, a resident of Raipur, who has deposed that he rented his father in law’s house to Sanyal, since the latter came with a recommendation from an ‘eminent citizen’ Dr. Sen. According to Chaubey, Sen had introduced Sanyal as a relative,

c) Another witness, Arun Dubey a Bank Manager, testified that he gave his house on rent to Shankar Singh ( held by the Hon’b;e Sessions Court as a hardcore Naxal), who worked for ‘Rupantar’ an NGO headed by Ilina Sen, Dr. Sen’s wife. Dubey further deposed that Sen and Sanyal would often visit his tenant Shankar Singh and Amrita Srivastava (also held as a hardcore Naxal by the Hon’ble Sessions Court). Amita was reportedly introduced by Singh as his sister in law,

d) Two school Principals testified that they hired Amita on Ilina Sen’s recommendation. One of them Meeta Puri, said that Amita left the job abruptly, without even tendering her resignation,

e) The Hon’ble Judge quotes the testimony of B.S. Jagrit , a Police Inspector, who has claimed that Amita and Shankar absconded soon after Sanyal was arrested. He also quotes Sher Singh Bande of the Churia Police Station, who said that Amita and Shankar were among the Naxals active along Chattisgarh-Maharashtra border, where high level meetings would take place, attended among others by Sen and Ilina. On cross questions by the defence, Bande admitted that he had not personally witnessed this but heard it from the villagers, and hence could be a hearsay. But the Hon’bl;e Judge does not mention the same in his final order. Interestingly, of the fifty odd witnesses cited in the judgement ,nearly half are policemen, and on their testimonies the Hon’ble Judge concludes that Amita and Shankar are absconding hardcore Naxals, and by association, held Dr. Sen guilty of providing support to the CPI Maoist network.

“ Based on the above testimonies, it is clear that hardcore Naxals Shankar Singh and Amita Srivastava are acquaintances of Binayak and Ilina Sen, who helped them open bank accounts, get jobs and even houses on rent”, The Hon’ble Judge observed.

Certain questions which merit attention:

1. Assuming that Dr. Sen is indeed guilty of passing seditious letters written by jailed Maoist Narayan Sanyal to Piyush Guha, one wonders what was Dr. Sen’s motive behind the same? Did Dr. Sen not make any statement in the Hon’ble Court written or oral, to justify the same, if indeed he believed that he did not do anything wrong ? Certainly, a person of his stature would have known better that by acting as a “courier” for a jailed Maoist, would certainly land him in trouble.

On the other hand, if Dr. Sen has denied the same, then did the final order take a note of it?

2. The verdict dwells on the seizure of postcards written Narayan Sanyal and other Maoist Madanlal Barkhade from Sen’s house. What were the contents in these postcards? Did they convey that Dr. Sen was a willing accomplice in the nefarious designs of the jailed Maoists, or was he a potential threat to the State?

3. Shankar Singh and Amita Srivastava have been held as “hardcore Naxals” by the Hon’ble Sessions Court. Was there any lookout notice by the State on these two, prior to this trial, ands were any FIRs filed against them? Did the State Police have any incriminating evidence against these two individuals?

Sadly enough, it is entirely on the basis of the testimonies of the policemen, that the Hon’ble Judge has concluded that they are absconding hardcore Naxals.

4. Shankar Sigh reportedly worked for ‘Rupantar’ , the NGO headed by Ilina Sen. Was Ilina Sen ever called upon to depose in the Hon’ble Court regarding the various background checks done on Shankar Singh, before accepting his services? And further more, what were the responsibilities shouldered by Singh, while he was with ‘Rupantar’? Most importantly, is Shankar still associated with it, or has he vanished all of a sudden? If Ilina has indeed deposed before the Hon’ble Court, then what was her version?

5. Deepak Choubey has claimed that he rented out his father in law’s house to Narayan Sanyal, since he came with a recommendation from Dr. Sen. Did Choubey not conduct any background verification on Sanyal on his own? How did Dr. Sen recommend Sanyal to Choubey, via a letter, or a phone call, or in person in the presence of any witness? Can this claim be substantiated? And above all, was there any lease agreement signed between Sanyal and Choubey’s father in law, and if ‘Yes’, then did Dr.Sen sign it as a witness?

6. Two School Principals have testified that they hired Amita on Ilina’s recommendation. Again, besides the recommendation, what were other background checks done by those two Principals on Amita, and secondly, during her tenure in their respective schools, what was her performance?

7. According to the testimony of Police Inspector B.S. Jagrit, who claimed that Amita and Shankar absconded soon after Sanyal was arrested, the questions to be asked are,

“Was the Police already on the lookout for both of them prior to Sanyal’s arrest, and if ‘Yes’ then on what specific charges?” and

“After they had reportedly absconded, did the State Police issue a lookout notice for both, and besides what all other measures they took to nab the two?”

And above all, even if one were to agree with the judgement that “Hardcore Naxals” like Shankar Singh and Amita Srivastava, were acquaintances of Dr. Sen and his wife, who helped them open bank accounts, get jobs and even houses on rent”, one wonders if Dr. Sen could be held guilty under section 124 A, the application of which is limited to acts of involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence?

Let the higher judiciary adjudicate on this question as and when the time comes.

But then, one wonders how come an eminent personality like Dr.Sen , manage to get himself involved with Maoists like Sanyal to such an extent, that his very credibility is at stake?

Certainly, now it is hard to believe, that Dr. Sen is really what his ardent supporters would love all of us to believe about him.