Skip to content

Full text: The Binayak Sen Judgement (English Translation)

December 31, 2010

Protest in Jaipur

(Given below is the full text of the judgement sentencing Dr Binayak Sen for life. It is a translation from the Hindi. The translation has been done by the Free Binayak Sen Now campaign. You can download here (.pdf) the Hindi original. For updates on the Free Binayak Sen Now campaign, see BinayakSen.net. If you are on Facebook, you can join the Binayak Sen Solidarity Forum.)

Court:-  Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

(Sitting Bench:  B.P. Verma)

Session Serial Number:  182/2007

Chhattisgarh Government

By – Reservation Centre, Ganj, ———————– Prosecution

Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

//  Versus //

  1. Pijush (Piyush) alias Buboon Guha

S/o Sunil Kumar Guha, age 40 years, Occupation

Tendu leaf trader, resident of Sagarpara

Police Station Jaalangi, District Murshidabad

Howrah – 75 (West Bengal)

  1. Dr. Vinayak (Binayak Sen) S/o

Dr. D.P. Sen, age 60 years, Occupation Doctor

Resident of A-26, Surya Apartment, Katora Talab

Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

  1. Narayan Sanyal alias Naveen alias Vijay

S/o Late J.N. Sanyal alias T.N. Sanyal

Age 74 years, Occupation nothing

Resident of P-7 Senhati Colony, Diamond Harbour Road

Kolkata 7000034

Thana Behala, District Kolkata

(West Bengal)   —————————————- Accused

Shri T.S. Pandya, Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution

Shri S.K. Farhan, Advocate for the accused Pijush (Piyush) Guha

Shri Surendra Singh and Shri Mahendra Dubey, Advocates for the accused Dr. Binayak Sen

Shri Hashim Khan, Advocate for the accused Narayan Sanyal

// ORDER//

(Announced today, dated 24th of December, 2010)

  1. The charges against the accused under sections 121(a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 124(a) of the IPC or 124(a) of the IPC read with section 120B of the IPC, section 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005 (CSPSA) or 8(1) of the CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC, section 8(2) of the CSPSA or section 8(2) of the CSPSA read with 120B of the IPC, section 8(3) of the CSPSA or section 8(3) of the CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC, section 8(5) of the CSPSA or section 8(5) of the CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC, section 10(a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) or section 10(a) of the UAPA read with 120B of the IPC, section 20 of the UAPA, section 21 of the UAPA, section 38(2) of the UAPA, and section 39(2) of the UAPA are that on or before or around the date of 06.05.2007 [6 May 2007], on Station Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), in Central Jail Raipur (Chhattisgarh) or Central Jail Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) or Katora Talab Raipur (Chhattisgarh) or Hotel Mahendra Raipur or Hotel Gitanjali Raipur, they conspired to wage war, or conspired to an attempt to wage such war or conspired to abet such war against the Indian state or the state government, and by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brought or attempted to bring into hatred or contempt, or excited or attempted to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, and thus committed sedition or conspired to commit sedition, and were a member of an unlawful organization, or took part in meetings or activities of any such organization or contributed or received or solicited any contribution or conspired to do so, and not being a member of the unlawful organization contributed or received or solicited contribution or harboured any member of the unlawful organization, or conspired to do so, and managed or assisted in the management of the unlawful organization, or promoted or assisted in promoting a meeting of the unlawful organization or in any way indulged in any activity of the unlawful organization in any manner or through whatever medium or device, or conspired to do so, or committed or abetted or attempted to commit any unlawful activity, or conspired to do so, and was a member of an unlawful association, or took part in meetings of such association, or contributed to, or received or solicited any contribution for the purpose of such association, or in any way assisted in the operations of such association, or conspired to do so, and was a member of a terrorist organization, knowingly held any property derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act or acquired through the terrorist fund, and associated themselves with a terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities, and with the intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, invited support for the terrorist organization, arranged meetings or addressed such meetings.
  1. The undisputed facts in the proceedings are that accused Narayan Sanyal was transferred from Bilaspur jail to Raipur jail for medical treatment; that on being given pen and paper, accused Narayan Sanyal signed the application form for exhibits P. 40 to P. 46; the postcard of article A-24 was written by Narayan Sanyal which was posted by Albert Kujur.  It is also undisputed that the First Information Report was written on 19.04.2005 [19 April 2005] on Nagesh’s report and the chargesheet was produced in the Dantewada court, accused Narayan Sanyal was arrested in crime record number 9/05 of police station Konta, witness Vijay Thakur introduced Binayak Sen to Narayan Sanyal, accused Narayan Sanyal was sent from Dantewada to Central Jail Raipur on 10.04.2006 [10 April 2006].  It is also undisputed that exhibit P.172 is the photo of accused Binayak Sen sporting a beard, accused Piyush Guha stayed in room no. 109 of the hotel of witness Balram Moti on 01.05.2007 [1 May 2007].
  1. It is also undisputed in the proceedings that during investigation, accused Dr. Vinayak Sen said that the house was in his wife’s name and asked for the search of the house to be conducted only on her arrival, due to which the police went to the Surya Apartment again after giving a notice of 2-3 days, where the body search was undertaken, and papers were prepared after the house and the lock was unsealed and the broken seal was impounded.  It is also undisputed that it was on the identification by accused Vinayak Sen that one yellow-coloured letter, one letter in English from Andhra Pradesh, postcard, letter written by CPIM, CPU, computer, 8 CDs, clothes, seal, the locks put on the channel gate of his house, one yellow booklet (article A-17 and A-18), one yellow booklet (A-19), one letter to accused Dr. Vinayak Sen from one Madan Lal Badkhade (article A-20) and one letter in English titled “Human Rights and Naxalite Groups” (article A-21), photocopy of a handwritten letter in English, newspaper cutting, postcard, and one book on Salwa Judum addressed to Vinayak Sen were seized.  It is also undisputed that on 22.01.2007 [22 January 2007] Advocate Sudha Bharadwaj and Dr. Vinayak Sen came to meet accused Narayan Sanyal.  It is also undisputed that the mobile phone number 94252-06875 belongs to the wife of Dr. Vinayak Sen, Ilina Sen, and that the material included in article A-19 to article A-36 is material that was taken out of his house by accused Dr. Vinayak Sen and seized according to seizure memo, exhibit P.20.
  1. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2007, all the police station authorities were informed through a wireless message from the Police Superintendent, Raipur that concerned police station in-charges should search suspicious persons, suspicious vehicles, hotel, lodge, rest houses and dhabas closely.  They were also directed to closely search the street vendors, detain all suspicious characters and carry out legal procedures against them.  Carrying out the said order from Police Superintendent-Raipur, the station in-charge of Ganj–Raipur police station, Inspector B.S. Jagrit, put together a team of police staff and had just left to investigate suspicious persons, suspicious vehicles, hotel, lodge, resthouse etc. according to the order, when at 16:10 o’clock, he was told by an informer to keep an eye out for those walking towards the station carrying bags and to search them well.  At that time, he suddenly spotted accused Piyush Guha walking briskly towards the Raipur railway station. He was stopped and questioned on the basis of suspicion, but not receiving satisfactory answers, and becoming increasingly suspicious, his bag was searched and a lot of Naxalite literature and books and booklets were found in his bag.  Immediately, Inspector B.S. Jagrit informed Police Superintendent Ajatshatru Bahadur Singh who was visiting the area, city Police Superintendent Shashi Mohan Singh, police station in-charge Ganj, Ravindra Upadhyaya of Crime Branch, Raipur, etc., to come to the railway station right away.  Accused Piyush Guha was also interrogated by them after they reached the railway station, but still no satisfactory answer was obtained and accused Piyush Guha was brought to the police station Ganj, where he was closely questioned and his blue-black bag was searched carefully, in which in addition to the above mentioned Naxalite literature and magazines, two other magazines supportive of Naxalism and the Naxalite movement were obtained, Prabhat Patrika, and three hand written letters were also obtained, of which two were written in English and one in Bengali.  These letters had been sent to some other Naxalite leader and had been written to inspire terrorist, Naxalite activities.  In the body search, Rs. 49,000 in cash was also recovered from the accused Piyush Guha.  Finding the accused involved in “Naxalite and terrorist activities and unlawful activities against the government, etc.,” accused Piyush Guha was taken into custody and the above mentioned articles were lawfully seized, the accused arrested, after obtaining permission from the senior Police Superintendent, the charges were duly framed according to all the regulations.  After this, city Police Superintendent B.B.S. Rajput was appointed the investigation officer for preliminary investigation by the Police Superintendent Raipur, upon whose close questioning, accused Piyush Guha revealed that the abovementioned three letters were given to him by the accused Dr. Vinayak Sen.  During investigation, it was found that the above mentioned letters concerning Naxalite activities were given to the accused Dr. Vinayak Sen by the imprisoned Naxalite leader, accused Narayan Sanyal, during a meeting in the jail.  The said letters were given by the accused Binayak Sen to accused Piyush Guha in order to send them to the secret code numbers listed in these letters.
  1. During probe, on searching accused Dr. Binayak Sen’s house, a postcard addressed to accused Binayak Sen by the jailed accused Narayan Sanyal, a letter from Naxalite Commander Barkade lodged in Central Jail Bilaspur addressing accused Binayak Sen as “comrade,” eight CDs in which accused Vinayak Sen is shown to be conversing with the village women and children in the villages of Salwa Judum and Narayanpur, have been seized.  During the search of the house of accused Dr. Vinayak Sen, a letter written in English and one booklet containing a banned and objectionable write-up, as well as cassettes on Salwa Judum, CPU and 8 CD cassettes, etc., were seized.  During investigation, it was found that the accused Narayan Sanyal, who was lodged in jail, and who is a member of the highest organization of the Naxalites-Maoists, the “Politburo,” executed destructive activities of the Naxalites with the help of accused Binayak Sen and Piyush Guha, which were found to amount to “sedition.”  And through the medium of Binayak Sen and Piyush Guha, accused Narayan Sanyal had executed violent activities in plains and in urban areas, and was involved in dispersal of  Naxalite propaganda in order to raise money; this led to the arrest of accused Dr. Binayak Sen and accused Narayan Sanyal through a production warrant. After the entire investigation was completed, the conviction slip was prepared which was presented in front of Shri Rajneesh Shrivastav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur by Reservation Centre, Ganj-Raipur.
  1. Criminal case number 1333/07, Government versus Piyush Guha and two others, was registered by Shri Rajneesh Shrivastav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur under section 121(a) of Indian Penal Code, 124(a) or 124(a) read with section 120B of IPC, sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(5) of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Securities Act, and section 10(a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or sections 10(a), 20, 21, 38(2) and 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the case was assigned to the Honourable Sessions Court, Raipur vide assignment order dated 24.08.2007 [24 August 2007].  The Honourable Sessions Court, Raipur transferred this case to the Fast Track Court on 05.09.2007 [5 September 2007] for lawful proceedings.
  1. Upon transfer of the case, the Fast Track Court charged the accused as described in para 1, under sections 121(a) of the Indian Penal Code, 124(a) of the IPC or 124(a) of the IPC read with section 120B of the IPC, sections 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act or section 8(1) of CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC, section 8(2) of the CSPSA or section 8(2) of the CSPSA read with section 120B, section 8(3) of the CSPSA or section 8(3) of the CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC, section 8(5) of the CSPSA or section 8(5) of the CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC, section 10(a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) or section 10(a) of the UAPA read with 120B of the IPC, section 20 of the UAPA, section 21 of the UAPA, section 38(2) of the UAPA, and section 39(2) of the UAPA.  When the specific charges were read out to the accused and explained to them, the accused denied the charges and requested a trial, upon which the case was moved to the trial stage.
  1. During the trial, this court received the case at the level of the examination of evidence on 21.10.2009 [21 October 2009], and the rest of the trial was completed by this court.  After the trial, the accused declared themselves to be innocent during the examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.  In addition to this, accused Pijush Guha, Binayak (Vinayak) Sen and Narayan Sanyal gave different statements in their defence, which are as below:-
  1. Accused Pijush Guha:- Accused Pijush Guha has stated in his defence that he comes to Raipur frequently in relation with his tendu leaf business.  On May 1st, when the tendu leaf season had started, he had come to Raipur and was staying in Mahindra Hotel, and that day itself the police grabbed him from said hotel and kept him blindfolded for 6 days, which is why he doesn’t know where he was kept.  Later, on 06.05.2007 [6 May 2007], he was forced to sign some papers and a false case was made out.  He does not know Narayan Sanyal or Vinayak Sen, and he had a ticket to go back to Kolkata on 02.05.2007 [2 May 2007].
  1. Accused Vinayak Sen:-  Accused Dr. Vinayak Sen has separately given a written statement, the gist of which is that he is an MBBS doctor and a member of the PUCL.  The police was declaring innocent villagers to be Naxalites, beating them up and subjecting them to many atrocities, which was loudly protested by members of the PUCL.  Due to this, senior officials of the police threatened to entrap him with false charges, and hence he has been falsely implicated in this case.
  1. Accused Narayan Sanyal:-  Accused Narayan Sanyal has said in his defence that first a false case was made against him in Andhra Pradesh, but when he obtained bail in that case, then a false case was made against him in Dantewada.  When the testimonies were taken in that case, and when no witness against him appeared in the said case, then the current case was made out.  The police threatened him in jail and forcibly dictated a letter to him to make this false case, and having falsely charged him with being a Naxalite, want to keep him in jail on this wrong basis. He does not know Piyush Guha and hence the question of sending him a letter does not arise.
  1. In support of the charged crime, the prosecution has produced testimonies of a total of 97 prosecution witnesses. In his defence accused Dr. Binayak has presented testimonies of 11 defence witnesses. Accused Narayan Sanyal and Piyush Guha have not presented any witnesses in their defence.
  1. The questions to be decided are:-

(1) Did the accused, on 06.05.2007 [6 May 2007], at Imke (east) railway station road, Raipur(C.G.) or Central Jail, Raipur(C.G.) or Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) or Katora Talab, Raipur(C.G.) or Hotel Mahendra or Hotel Geetanjali, Raipur, abet the waging of war against the Indian state and the State Government of Chhattisgarh or conspire to wage war against the Indian State and State government (vide section 124A and 120B of IPC 1860) through Naxalite Literature, magazines, letter, newspaper, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU and visible representation as means/signs?

(2) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India, and by doing so commit “sedition” through Naxalite literature, magazines, letter, newspaper, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

OR

Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India, and by doing so commit the criminal conspiracy of sedition through Naxalite literature, magazines, letter, newspaper, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

(3) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, while being a member of an unlawful organization, participate in meetings or activities of said unlawful organization or receive a communication to participate or send such a communication or request a communication to participate in meetings or activities of such unlawful organization, through Naxalite literature, magazines, letter, newspaper, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

OR

Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, while being a member of an unlawful organization participate in meetings or activities of said unlawful organization, participate or receive a communication to participate or send a communication to participate or request a communication to participate in meetings or activities of such unlawful organization, and by doing so commit an offence of criminal conspiracy, through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

(4) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, not being a member of an unlawful organization, participate or receive a communication to participate or send a communication to participate or request a communication to participate in meetings or activities, and provide shelter to a member of such unlawful organization, through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

OR

Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, not being a member of an unlawful organization, participate or receive a communication to participate or send a communication to participate or request a communication to participate in meetings or activities, and provide shelter to a member of such unlawful organization, and by doing so commit an offence of criminal conspiracy, through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

(5) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, manage affairs of an unlawful organization or help to manage the affairs of such unlawful organization or patronize and help members or organize meetings of such unlawful organization or by any means participate in any unlawful activities of said organization or be an instrument or medium of that organization, through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

OR

Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, manage affairs of an unlawful organization or help to manage the affairs of such unlawful organization or patronize and help members or organize meetings of such unlawful organization or by any means participate in any unlawful activities of said organization or be an instrument or medium of that organization, and by doing so commit an offence of criminal conspiracy, through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

(6) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, carry out unlawful activities or motivate them or attempt to carry out or plan to carry out such unlawful activities through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

OR

Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, commit the offence of criminal conspiracy to carry out or motivate or attempt to carry out or make a plan to carry out unlawful activities through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

(7) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, were members of an unlawful group or continued to be members of said group or take part in the meetings of said group or sent communications to said groups or received communications for its activities or requested communications or aided the activities of said organization through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

OR

Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, commit the offence of criminal conspiracy by being members of an unlawful group or continuing to be members of said group or taking part in the meetings of said group or sending communications to said groups or receiving communications for its activities or requesting communications or aiding the activities of said organization through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

(8) Were the accused on the mentioned date, place and time members of a gang engaged in terrorist activities or members of a terrorist organization?

(9) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time knowingly possess property created or acquired through terrorism or acquired through the terrorist fund?

(10) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time commit a crime related to the membership of a terrorist organization?

(11) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time commit a crime related to providing support to a terrorist organization?

// Inference and Reasons //

  1. Firstly, it would not be irrelevant to mention here that during the trial, the defence lawyers raised a lot of objections during the direct examination of the prosecution witnesses, in relation to which the Eleventh Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur has noted in the witness documents of the prosecution witnesses that the objections be resolved at the time of final resolution in the trial, meaning at the time of verdict. Therefore, the resolution of said objections is being done in this verdict along with the appreciation of evidence of the witnesses concerned.
  1. Prosecution witness B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), Inspector, said in his statement that he knows the accused present in this trial. Exhibit P343 is a clear photograph of accused Piyush Guha.  Exhibit P172 is a photograph of accused Binayak Sen, who had a beard and moustache at that time, but presently he does not have a beard and moustache. Exhibit P173 is a photograph of accused Narayan Sanyal aka Vijay aka Naveen Sanyal. According to this witness, he was posted at Police Station Ganj as Police Station In-charge/Inspector on 06.05.2007. On that day he got information from the police control room, Raipur, to check hotels, lodges, dharamshalas, railway stations, talkies [movie theatres], etc., and take action against suspicious people, and he left to do as instructed at 12 pm and entered that information in the daily diary/register of Ganj police station. Said diary/register is Exhibit P344, and its true copy is Exhibit P344C, which is attached to the trial transcript.
  1. According to the statement of prosecution witness B.S Jagrit (PW 95), he met Ravindra Upadhyay, city inspector, Raipur and his staff when he was on the way to check the site. During checking, accused Piyush Guha was seen walking to the railway station with a bag under suspicious circumstances, and was stopped by police officers. When questioned, he sometimes said his residential address was in Kolkata, sometimes Howrah etc. which raised suspicions. On the basis of this suspicion, his bag was searched. In his bag were found some clothes, three magazines, including ‘Maoist magazines, Prabhat Patrika and Peoples March’ and he also possessed three hand written letters, two of which were written in English, one in Bengali, and a Bengali newspaper was found as well. He was also in possession of Rs.49000. His body search memo was prepared, which Jagrit brought to the Ganj police station.  Inspector Ravindra Upadhayay of police station Ganj registered his return in the daily diary; the daily diary concerned is Exhibit D6A (photo copy is Exhibit D6).
  1. Inspector Ravindra Upadhayay (PW 36), supporting the abovementioned statements of prosecution witness B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), said that on 06.05.2007, upon receiving information from the police control room Raipur, he went to the railway station for investigation, where he met Jagrit and the police party accompanying him. At around 3:45 p.m, he had received information that he should check a person whose features were described to him.  On the basis of the said features, accused Piyush Guha was stopped and a team of police constables were sent to call nearby people so that he could be questioned in their presence, but nearby people did not come.  Upon this, people walking on the street were stopped, who were Anil Kumar Singh and Rajesh Gupta. They told that he is a suspected person who must be checked and then the bag of Piyush Guha was opened, where clothes, two Hindi magazines, one English magazine, a newspaper, three letters—two of them were in English and one in Bengali, and cash amounting to Rs.49000, a Motorola mobile and a railway ticket were found. The said magazines and other stuffs appeared to be Naxalite literature. On that ground he was taken to the police station along with Anil Kumar Singh and Rajesh Gupta. The said bag was brought to the police station, hung on Piyush Guha’s shoulder. On close inspection of the bag, Prabhat patrika, a Hindi magazine, magazine of CPI(ML-Dandakaranya Committee), one English magazine-Peoples March Voice of Indian Regulation [sic], three letters—two in English, one in Bengali, of which one English letter was addressed to ‘V’ and one English letter to ‘P’, were found. Also found were Rs.49000 in cash and a railway ticket (dated 06/05/2007) from Raipur to Howrah, a Bengali newspaper and a Motorola mobile. On the request of the accused, the clothes and bag were returned, but the rest of the items were confiscated and the seizure memo Exhibit P1 was made, on which his signature appears from c to part c, and accused Piyush Guha’s signature appears on b to part b. Before going to the police station, a panchanama for the body search of accused Piyush Guha, Exhibit D1, was made, which has his, accused Piyush Guha’s and the witnesses’ signatures.
  1. Witness of the said seizure, Anil Kumar Singh (PW 1) has testified that around 10-11 months prior to his testimony, at around 4:00 pm one day when he was going to the railway station in front of Samrat Talkies, he saw policemen waving their hands and he stopped.   They showed him accused Piyush Guha and told him to stop for a while, saying that he [the accused] is a suspicious character who needs to be searched. The accused was in possession of a blue-black coloured hand bag which he was carrying on his shoulder and, on being asked, said that his name was Piyush Guha. On that occasion there was one more person present as witness, whom he did not know. Policemen asked the accused to open his hand bag; the bag contained three magazines, three letters and two Bengali newspapers. Out of three letters, two were in English, one in Bengali and there were bundles of cash in the bag.  Also, the bag had one railway ticket to Kolkata and a mobile phone. After that the police team asked him and Piyush Guha to come along with them to the police station. The bag was handed over to Piyush Guha while on the way to the police station. In the police station, when accused Piyush was questioned by the police regarding the seized articles, about where had he obtained the letters from, accused Piyush Guha answered that accused Binayak Sen used to meet accused Narayan Sanyal in Jail and accused Binayak Sen got the letters from accused Narayan Sanyal, which accused Binayak Sen gave to him, to take them to Kolkata.
  1. During evidence, the counsels for accused Binayak Sen, Narayan Sanyal and Piyush Guha objected to recording the above statement of witness as evidence on the ground that disclosure made by the accused to the police is not admissible as evidence and hence accused Piyush Guha’s stating the name of Binayak Sen in the presence of a witness is also not admissible as evidence. In this regard, in their support, case law in Aghnu Nageshia V. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119, Udaybhan V. State of U.P. AIR 1882 SC 1118, Mohammad Inayatullah V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 483 and Prabhu V. State of U.P. 1963 SC 1113 has been cited. But the abovementioned witness Anil Kumar Singh is a seizure memo witness, not a memorandum witness and the statement has been made by this witness about the facts and circumstances at the time of seizure, which is admissible as evidence related to the demeanour of accused persons and their conduct, under Section 8, 10, 17 and 21 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.  Hence the said objection, being baseless and without merit, is dismissed.  Reliance in this regard is placed on case law in Mohd. Afzal v State of NCT of Delhi 2005 Cr.L.J. 3950 (SC) and Deepak Payang V. State of Arunachal Pradesh 2010 Cr.L.J. 2567. Case law produced by accused persons in Aghnu Nageshia V. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119, Udaybhan V. State of U.P. AIR 1882 SC 1118, Mohammad Inayatullah V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 483 and Prabhu V. State of U.P. 1963 SC 1113 is not applicable because their facts and circumstances being different from this case.
  1. Witness Anil Kumar Singh (PW-1) has further stated that police had made seizure memo of the bag and the belongings kept in the bag of accused Piyush Guha, which is marked as P1, bearing his signature on the part from A to A and accused Piyush Guha had signed on part B to B of Exhibit D1 in his presence.  On being shown the magazine article A-1 to A-3, newspaper article A-4 and A-5, article A-6 railway ticket and article A-7 mobile, letters of article A-8, A-9 and A-10 recovered from accused Piyush Guha, this witness has stated that these articles were recovered from accused Piyush Guha himself, and has also testified about the recovery of cash Rs. 49000.00 from accused Piyush Guha.  Similar statements have also been given by witness Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95) and Ravindra Upadhyay (PW 38). The defence has raised an objection regarding witness Anil Kumar Singh being shown the identified articles and being questioned about them, during the abovementioned testimony, but the said objection, being baseless, is also overruled same.
  1. Witness Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95) and Ravindra Upadhyay (PW 36) have been cross examined in great detail on behalf of accused persons but the aforesaid statements of these witnesses regarding seizure have remained consistent even during the cross examination. Therefore, on the basis of above statements of witness Anil Kumar Singh (PW-1), witness Ravindra Upadhyay (PW-36) and witness Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW-95), and the details of the seizure memo Exhibit P-1, articles, magazine, newspaper, railway ticket, Motorola mobile, letters and cash of Rs. 49,000.00, comprising articles A1 to A10, are certified to have been recovered from accused Piyush Guha on 06.05.2007.
  1. As per the statement of Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), he had put in an application with the Superintendent of Police, Raipur in order to obtain permission for registering the crime, which is Exhibit P 179.  As per the order from part A to A [of the said Exhibit], Superintendent of Police Raipur, Shri B.S. Maravi, had given order on the said application to register the crime. Supporting aforesaid facts, B.S. Maravi (PW-69) has said in his statement that he was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police in Raipur district in year 2007. During his posting, on 06.05.2007 Police Station In-charge Ganj B.S. Jagrit had submitted an application asking for permission to register case under Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam 2005 (Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act, 2005), enclosed with which were the seized documents consisting of three magazines, newspaper etc. He, after perusing the seized documents and after being satisfied upon enquiry into the complete sequence of events, had granted permission on the same application form Exhibit P 179 itself, to lodge a case under the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam. From the above statements of witnesses, it is established that Section 8(4) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam 2005 has been lawfully followed.
  1. As per the statement of Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), he had registered the First Information Report, Exhibit P 344 in this case, on receiving order Exhibit P 179 from the Superintendent of Police. This witness has proved his signature on part A to A of the First Information Report of Exhibit P 344.
  1. As per statement of Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), in this case B.B.S. Rajput, City Superintendent of Police, Urla, Raipur was appointed as Investigation Officer by Superintendent of Police, Raipur. Appointment letter is Exhibit P 345 which carries the signature of Superintendent of Police, Raipur. Having written letter of Exhibit P 346, after above mentioned order, he had handed over the case documents including the case diary to City Superintendent of Police, Urla, B.B.S. Rajput. This witness has further stated that he, on 06.05.2007 at 17:05 o’clock, had arrested accused Piyush Guha as per arrest memo, Exhibit D 2, and had taken him in police remand.  Copy of the First Information Report, Exhibit P 344, was forwarded to the court concerned, receipt of which is Exhibit P 85, which has the seal of the aforesaid court. Similarly, Constable Chhakkan Lal Sahoo (PW 26) has made a statement regarding his informing the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur about the arrest of the accused Piyush Guha.
  1. Witness Superintendent of Police Raipur B.S. Marawi (PW 69) has stated that on 08.05.2007 he had designated City Superintendent of Police, Urla, Raipur B.B.S. Rajput as Investigation Officer for crime no. 44/07 of police station Ganj and on 24.05.2007 had constituted a team of investigating officers under leadership of Ajatshatru Bahadur Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, for investigation of aforesaid crime, which is Exhibit P 180 and in this case, the proposal for the permission to prosecute was sent to the Chief Secretary, Home, Chhattisgarh Government which is Exhibit P181.  Supporting aforesaid facts, witness B.B.S. Rajput (PW 97) has said that upon him being appointed Investigation Officer vide order of Superintendent of Police Raipur, Exhibit P 345, he has investigated this case.  In compliance of the aforesaid order, B.S. Jagrit had sent case diary as per case summary, Exhibit P346, which he had received on 07.05.2007.
  1. As per the prosecution, accused Piyush Guha is stated to have stayed in various hotels in Raipur, in which regard witness Rajkumar Naamdev (PW 2) has stated that he is the manager of Mahindra Hotel, Raipur. Police had seized the register of the said hotel vide seizure memo, Exhibit P 2. In this regard, the seized register is article A-11, according to which accused Piyush Guha had stayed in room no. 109 on 17.04.2007 and on 01.05.2007 in the aforesaid hotel which finds mention in the register, Article A-11. Copy of aforesaid page of above mentioned register is Article A-11C. Similarly, police had seized the bill book of above mentioned hotel vide Exhibit P 3. The aforesaid seized bill book is article A-12, according to which payment of Rs 416.00 for staying in the hotel on 17.04.2007 and Rs. 412.00 for staying on 01.05.2007 has been made against bill receipt no. 336 and 388.  The said facts have also been supported by witness Balram Moti (PW-09) in his statement.  The said witnesses have stated that they do not remember the fact of accused Binayak Sen coming to meet Piyush Guha in the hotel, because of which these witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution.
  1. According to witness Suresh Chandra Yadu (PW-4), he is the owner of Gitanjali Hotel Raipur which is situated at Station Chowk, Raipur. His hotel is about 1000-1500 feet from the Samrat Talkies. Police personnel had seized the Visitors’ Register of his Hotel Gitanjali; the relevant seizure memo is Exhibit P 8 and the seized register is Article A-13, which shows on page number 1088 the arrival of accused Piyush Guha to his hotel on 22.09.2006 and his departure on 23.09.2006. This witness has stated that accused Piyush Guha stayed in the said Hotel on 12.10.2006, 07.12.2006 and 12.01.2007. This witness has been declared hostile for not supporting the prosecution case further but according to the above statements of this witness, the facts of accused Piyush Guha coming to Raipur from time to time and having stayed in hotels as stated above are proved.
  1. Here, it will not be out of context to mention that during recording of evidence of this witness in court, the defence raised objection when questions were being put by the prosecution regarding the distance between Hotel Gitanjali and Hotel Samrat, and about the facts mentioned at page no. 1088 of article A-13, saying that the prosecution cannot ask these questions from this witness. But the said objection appears to be unfounded because the distance of the hotels situated near the incident site, and the distance to prominent places and facts mentioned at page no. 1088 of article A-13, are facts and circumstances relevant to the case and hence the objection is overruled.
  1. Regarding the involvement of accused Piyush Guha in Naxalite and criminal activities, A.R.Kunjam (PW-19) has stated that he was posted as Assistant Jailor in Central Jail, Raipur from 2004 to 2008.  On 31.07.07, the police had seized the Register No. 16 of warrant branch for undertrial prisoners on his producing it. Seizure memo is Exhibit P 52, which contains his signature, according to which Piyush Guha was admitted to Central Jail, Raipur on 09.05.2007. At that time his name, parentage and address was enteredin the above mentioned register.  Production Warrant was received for producing accused Piyush Guha before CJM Court, Purulia, which is mentioned in the register. A case was pending against accused Piyush Guha before CJM Court, Purulia,  under section 121, 121(A), 122, 123, 427, 323, 326, 506, 307 of IPC and 3, 4 C.S.Act and 25 Arms Act.  Accused Piyush Guha was sent on 3.06.2007 for production before CJM Court, Purulia, and returned from Purulia on date 15.09.2007 which is entered under serial number 21 in another register. Admission of the accused Piyush is registered at serial no. 835 of Register number 18, which has the signature of Piyush Guha. The above said register is Exhibit P 53 whose part A to A is accused Piyush Guha. The photo copy of register is at Exhibit P 53C. The return of Piyush Guha from Purulia is entered in register no. 21, at serial no. 3005. The register is Exhibit P 54, and its photocopy is Exhibit P 54C. Abovementioned facts have been supported by Investigating Officer B.B.S.Rajput (PW 97) and Dilip Kumar Dev (PW 48) and Sadhan Kumar Pathak (PW 93).
  1. According to the statement of Dilip Kumar Dev (PW 48), during his tenure in CID he went to P.S. Bandwan, District Purulia for the investigation of crime no. 20/2005. During investigation, he investigated the FIR of P.S. Bandwan, Exhibit P 138, and presented the concerned chargesheet for the trial in the court of C.J.M. Purulia.  The accused had been charged in the aforementioned chargesheet.  The same statement has been given by Sadhan Kumar Pathak (PW 93). According to the statement of this witness, he was In-charge of the police station Bandwan, District Purulia (West Bengal) on 04.10.2005. He went to the Gudpana C.R.P.F. Centre, which falls within the jurisdiction of his police station, after getting the news of its demolition. Upon reaching there, he saw that the camp, which had been under construction, had been blown by fixing land mines all around, which had caused the whole camp to be demolished.  After inquiring, he got to know that about 150 Maoists from Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal had carried out the whole incident.   He registered Crime no. 20/05 on his return to the police station.  He mentioned the details of people involved in columns 7 and 12. The copy of the FIR of Crime no. 20/05 P.S. Bandwan is Exhibit P 138C, which is three pages long, and has been signed by him. The chargesheet of this Crime number has been produced in the Purulia court, West Bengal. Aforementioned chargesheet and chargesheets against accused Piyush Guha and other accused have also been produced. The said statements of these witnesses stayed consistent in their cross examinations. Thus, the involvement of accused Piyush Guha in Naxalite and criminal activity is confirmed.
  1. About accused Narayan Sanyal being involved in Naxalite and criminal activities, Additional Sub Inspector Ram Kumar Sahu (PW 32) says that  he was posted in D.K.S. police station, Gol Bazaar in July 2007 and, on orders of senior officers, had gone to Bhadrachalam and Khammam (Andhra Pradesh) and met the Superintendent of Police regarding documents pertaining to the incident, and had obtained the remand application given by the Circle Inspector, Bhadrachalam, FIR no. 5/2006 dated 03.01.2006 registered in Bhadrachalam, district Khammam police station, and the statements of C.H. Deva Reddy and B. Ashok Kumar.  All these documents, Articles A-47, A-48, A-49 and A-50 respectively, were attested by S.D.O.P., Bhadrachalam, and were handed over to the investigation officer, Police Station Ganj.  According to head constable, G. Ramprasad (PW 47), he was posted as Head Constable at Bhadrachalam town police station on January 2006.  On 3rd January, 2006, upon a report by Sub Inspector C.H. Devareddy, a case was registered on the FIR 5/06 in the Bhadrachalam police station.  Inspector B. Ashok Kumar (PW 58) has stated that in January 2006, he was posted as Police Circle Inspector at Bhadrachalam police station. In Bhadrachalam police station,  Crime no. 5/2006 was registered under sections 120B, 121, 121A, 124A, 415, 199 of the Indian Penal Code, section 25, Arms Act, section 8, Andhra Pradesh Security (Prevention) Act, section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932, sections 10/13, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and sections 3/6 , Indian Wireless and Telegraph Act, 1993. The above mentioned FIR is Article A-48 which has been investigated by him, and the accused in this incident is Narayan Sanyal alias Naveen Prasad alias Bijay alias Vijay, s/o J.N. Sanyal, 66 years, resident of Kolkata, said to be living in Raipur at that time.  He [Narayan Sanyal] was arrested by Sub Inspector C.H. Devareddy and was produced in Bhadrachalam court by him after making a remand report.
  1. According to the statement of B. Ashok Kumar (PW 58), having found the case of accused Narayan Sanyal being involved in aforesaid criminal sections established during investigation, he had submitted the charge sheet in the Session’s Court, Khammam,  where trial is still pending. The remand report is Article A-62, which is four pages long, bearing his signature and the chargesheet is Article A-67, which is in three pages long, bearing his signature.
  1. Supporting above stated facts, Sub Inspector C.H. Devareddy (PW 59) has said in his statement that he was posted as Police Station In-charge in Bhadrachalam Town, Andhra Pradesh from September 2004 to November 2007. On 03.01.2006, at night during patrolling, he received information that some person belonging to the top Maoist cadre is roaming in the Bhadrachalam bus stand area.  Thereupon, he went to the Bhadrachalam bus stand with a patrolling party and saw one person in suspicious circumstances, who is present in the Court today.  Witness, pointing towards accused Narayan Sanyal, stated that he was the same person whom he had seen at the bus stand under suspicious circumstances. Afterwards, he had questioned him. On being questioned, he did not give any satisfactory answers. Upon his search, a bag was recovered from accused Narayan Sanyal, in which, one pistol loaded with six live cartridges, 2 walkie-talkies of Motorola, Rs. 13,000 cash, seven Bengali books, one Hindi book, one spiral book, 15 Maoist confidential documents, one letter in two folds, one driving license belonging to Ajay Chaudhary containing his photograph issued by R.T.O. Ranchi were found. A search memo was prepared in the presence of witnesses. On being inquired about his name and address, the person stated his name to be Narayan Sanyal alias Navin Kumar alias Vijay alias Subodh etc, residing at Raipur, with a permanent address of Kolkata. He stated himself to be a Member of Central Committee of C.P.I Maoist and a member of its Politburo.  Above said documents and articles were brought to the police station after being seized, and its report is registered as Crime no. 5/2006.
  1. Assistant Sub Inspector Sukhau Ram (PW 34) testified that on June 2007, he was the head constable in the Jangla Police Station in Bijapur district. On 09.08.2007, on receiving a complaint, he filed Crime no. 17/2007 in Jangla police station.  In this connection, a chargesheet has been filed in the Dantewada court. Certified copy of the complaint in connection with Crime no. 17/07 is shown as Exhibit P 124. The defendants have not challenged the stated facts.   Sub Inspector Vipendra Ram Yadav (PW 40) testified that on April 2005, he was Assistant Sub Inspector in Konta police station.  On 19.04.2005, on the report of Nagesh, he filed the FIR. A complaint was registered on the basis of this FIR and investigated.  In the investigation, he found evidence against accused Narayan Sanyal and filed a chargesheet in Dantewada court. This witness further testified that accused Narayan Sanyal is a hardened Naxalite. Certified copies of the FIR and the chargesheet of Crime No. 09/2005 from Konta police station are shown as Exhibit P 130 and Exhibit P 131. Certified copy of Narayan Sanyal’s arrest memo is shown as Exhibit P 132.
  1. Inspector Vijay Thakur (PW 41) corroborated the above facts in his statement and further said that from 31.03.2003 to 06.05.2006 he was Police Station In-charge at Konta police station.  In Konta police station under Crime no. 09/2005, he arrested the accused Narayan Sanyal. His signature can be found on this arrest memo, Exhibit P 132. As Police Station In-charge, he is familiar with the jurisdiction of his police station. Accused Narayan Sanyal is a Naxalite offender and he was active in Sukma and Konta areas. Ayatu, Hidma, Jiyanna, Deva and Mangu were also among such Naxalites. Those who worked in the urban network of the Naxalites used to participate in their meetings. Narayan Sanyal, Ramanna, Gopanna, Binayak Sen, Rajendra Sail and Pradeep Singh were among the people who attended these meetings.

33. Binayak Sen’s counsel objected to the testimony of witness Inspector Vijay Thakur (PW 41) on grounds that he was making a statement contradicting his statement under section 161 Cr.PC and was talking about Binayak Sen attending these meetings. Since the witness was deposing under Main Examination, he could not be stopped from giving evidence and the accused would have the opportunity to cross examine the witness, hence, the objection was overruled as insubstantive.

34. Inspector Vijay Thakur (PW 41) testified that he knows the accused Binayak Sen, and he also knows Amita Shrivastav and Shankar Singh. He knew them through newspaper reports. During the deposition, when he was shown pictures of Amita Shrivastav and Shankar Singh, accused Binayak Sen’s counsel raised a serious objection. Since information about Amita Singh [sic] and Shankar Singh absconding was given by the investigating officer, and documents related to Amita Singh [sic] and Shankar Singh are present in the case, this objection was overruled.

35. According to Inspector Vijay Thakur (PW 41), Amita Shrivastav and Shankar Singh also frequently met with Naxalites.  The photos presented to this witness were identified as Shankar Singh, Exhibit P 60, and Amita Shrivastav, Exhibit P 61.

36. Sher Singh Bande (PW 49) testified that he was Sub Inspector in Chhuria police station on 06.04.2007.  He knows the accused.  During his deposition, he even identified the accused by name. He said further that Chhuria police station is adjacent to Maharashtra and Naxalites were active in the area. In the Chhuria police station area, local Naxalite squads Jobe and Devri were active. Top level state and central committee Naxalite meetings took place in Chhuria area.  In this area, Vishnu Milind Thumbde, Shankar, Ashok, Parvati, Ganesh and women Naxalites Varsha, Urmila and Amita were also active. Binayak Sen and Ilina Sen also used to come to these meetings. Accused Narayan Sanyal was also active in the Chhuria area.  PUCL people met Naxalites in the Chhuria area.  Amita and Shankar are hard core Naxalites. Narayan Sanyal is also a hardcore Naxalite. On 21.05.2007, Naxalites were meeting in Bijepar and Jhadikhedi forests. When they were surrounded, they ran away. Various items were recovered from the spot. In this connection, Crime no. 113/07 was registered. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed in Rajnandgaon court, Exhibit P 137.  When the said crime number was included as Exhibit 137, the Counsel for the accused raised an objection on the ground that this cannot be done because the said document was not presented along with the chargesheet.  Since this witness was deposing under Main Exination, and since the document presented were relevant to his statement and for the resolution of the case, the objection was overruled. According to this witness, Article A-51 to A-55 in the original were brought by him personally, while typed copies of these articles were previously attached to the case proceedings, the typed copies being Articles A-56 to A-61.  The witness authenticated his signature on the seizure memo, Exhibit P 137. The counsel for the accused did not contradict any of the above stated facts during cross-examination, and their aforesaid statements remained uncontradicted in the cross-examination.

37. Additional Sub Inspector Dheeranand Jha (PW 60) testified that in August 2008, under instructions of the Superintendent of Police Raipur, he went to Giridih (Jharkhand). There he took the statement of Sub Inspector Parameswar Shukla, Suburban Giridih police station. In the Suburban Giridih police station, the incident which occurred on 11.11.2005 was registered as Crime no. 205/05.  The incident involved nearly 300 Maoist Naxalites committing property loss and murders.  According to him, accused Narayan Sanyal was mainly involved in these incidents.

38. Additional Sub Inspector H C Jadhav (PW 62) testified that on 12.08.2008, under instructions from the Superintendent of Police Raipur, he went to investigate cases in Balrampur, West Bengal, where he took the statement of Sadhan Kumar Pathak.  There was a police camp under construction in Bandwan where nearly 140-150 Maoists had gathered, and they attacked the camp in Gudpana that was being constructed, and destroyed it with landmines. In this connection, a crime was registered in the Bandwan police station. Certified copy of this is shown as Exhibit P 105. In this case, Vijay Da’s name came to the surface. This witness said that the accused Narayan Sanyal present in the court is also known as Vijay Da.

39. Inspector B.S. Kerketta (PW 66) testified that from 17.09.2008, to August 2008, he was Police Station In-charge in Kirandul police station. In Kirandul police station, village Arahanpur was a CRPF centre. In joint searches by CRPF and district police forces, there was an encounter with Naxalites in which three Naxalite bodies were recovered. The remaining Naxalites escaped. Several items were recovered from the spot including machine gun, old bag, tiffin bomb, cartridges, detonators, electric wire, battery, pamphlet, Prabhat magazine, Peoples War journal etc. and a photo of the accused Narayan Sanyal. Prabhat magazine carried an article regarding protests against Comrade Sanyal’s arrest.  The seizure memo in this regard, and certified copies of the Peoples War magazine and Prabhat magazine were brought by him. Certified copy of the seizure memo is shown as Exhibit P 174, FIR as Exhibit 175. Certified copies of Prabhat Patrika and Peoples War Journals are shown as Exhibits P 176 and P 177. The witness was not challenged by the defence, neither during deposition nor during cross examination.

40. Inspector Parameswhar Shukla (PW 79) testified that he was Circle Inspector, Police in Sadar Subdivision, Giridih, Jharkhand in 2008.  On date 11.11.2005, in Town police station, Giridih, Crime 285/05 was registered under sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 353, 427, 435, 387, 307 and 302 IPC. The FIR of this is shown as Exhibit P 184. Upon investigation, he found involvement of accused Narayan Sanyal in crime 285/05.  A report to this effect, shown as Exhibit P 201 and bearing his signature was sent by Superintendent of Police Giridih to Superintendent of Police Raipur. In this connection, covering memo is shown as Exhibit P 202 bearing the signature of Superintendent of Police, Giridih.  This witness further said that in his state, Jharkhand, CPI Maoist is a banned organisation. Accused Narayan Sanyal is a politburo member of the Maoist organisation. He got a production warrant for Narayan Sanyal from Giridih CJM court and sent it to Raipur court, so that Narayan Sanyal could be taken to Giridih for Crime no. 292/05.

41. Somprakash Pushkar (PW 89) testified that he went to Andhra Pradesh with the necessary documentation in order to obtain information regarding Narayan Sanyal alias Vijay alias Naveen Prasad. He went to the Intelligence Department with these documents. On the basis of these documents, he was given information in 21 pages, which is shown from Exhibit P 262 to Exhibit P 287. Said facts were corroborated by Magiram Varma (PW 80), who said that he was in the Special Crime Intelligence Department, Police Headquarters, Raipur, and worked as a steno under the Inspector General, Police. The information gathered from the Andhra Pradesh Intelligence Department was sent by Deputy Inspector General, Special Crime Intelligence Branch, Police Headquarters Raipur to Superintendent of Police, Raipur through a memorandum.  This memo is shown as Exhibit P 88.  This bears the signature of Deputy Director General of Police, Pavan Dev.  The information in this memo is shown as Exhibit P 262 to Exhibit P 287. The statement of this witness was not challenged by the accused. Thus this witness’s statement is also uncontradicted in the cross examination.

42. Examining the prosecution witnesses stated above, and the Exhibits, the fact of accused Narayan Sanyal’s being a member of the politburo of the Maoist organisation, and being involved in the incidents and crimes cited above is established.

43.  As far as accused Dr Binayak Sen’s involvement in Naxalite activities is concerned, Prosecution Witness Anil Kumar (PW 1) in Section 3 of his statement said that accused Piyush Guha, on being questioned about where he had acquired the documents seized from him, replied that Binayak Sen used to go to meet with Narayan Sanyal in jail and that that was how the said letters were given to Dr. Binayak Sen.

44.  Inspector BS Jagrit testified that on 09.05.2007, he went to accused Binayak Sen’s house for search. However, as the house was locked, he returned.  On 15.05.2007, he went to Binayak Sen’s house to conduct the search and issued summons to the witnesses under Section 100 of CrPC, shown as Exhibit P 13. On that day Binayak Sen was told to open the locks who at that time said that A/26 Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur was owned by his wife Ilina Sen.  Since she was not present, the house was sealed and this was videographed. The memo for this by BS Jagrit is shown as Exhibit P 15.  The memo bears signatures of Dr Binayak Sen and BS Rajput. On 17.05.2005, they went to accused Binayak Sen’s house.  But even on that day, Ilina Sen was not there and the search could not be completed. Memo for this is shown as Exhibit P 7 which was prepared as per the direction of CSP, Urla, BBS Rajput. On 18.05.2005, a letter was written to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur regarding her presence during the search of accused Dr. Binayak Sen’s house as per the CJM Raipur’s previous search warrant, and the CJM Raipur’s permission was taken. The document is Exhibit P 347.

45. BS Jagrit (PW 95) further said that on 19.05.2005, he went to the accused Binayak Sen’s house for search at A/26 Surya Apartment, Katora Talab and found both Binayak Sen and Ilina Sen to be present. In their presence, the seal was broken and Ilina Sen opened the lock. The memo for this is shown as Exhibit P 18, the seizure memo for the broken seal is shown as Exhibit P 19. Before the search, police personnel and witnesses gave a body search, the memo for this is shown as Exhibit P 16. Women police also gave a body search and the panchanama for this is shown as Exhibit P 17.  Binayak Sen and Ilina Sen’s signatures are there on the panchanama. During the search, a small yellow book regarding merger between the Communist Party of India Marxist People’s War [sic] and the Maoist Communist of India (sic) MCCI, Peoples March special issue of November-December 2004, a total of 16 pages, one letter from Madan Lal Barkade, addressed to “Comrade Binayak Sen,” one English note on Andhra Pradesh Human Rights and Naxalite groups (sic) in 3 pages, one photocopy of a 4-page handwritten note in  English, in which world globing of republic of present state (sic) and other important things were written, Krantikari Janwadi Morcha (RDF), Globalisation and Indian Service Sector’s Shine, total of 8 pages, one post card which was addressed to accused Binayak Sen, in which the sender’s name was Narayan Sanyal, a total of 10 paper cuttings, and one Salwa Judum book were found and seized in the presence of witnesses as per seizure memo Exhibit P 20. Said seized materials were serially numberered from Articles A-19 to A-36.  In the same way, from the said house, one computer CPU of LG company and 8 CDs were seized in the presence of witnesses. The seizure memo for this is shown as Exhibit P 21. The said CPU was marked as Article A-46 and seized CDs numbered serially from Article A-38 to A-45.

46. The abovementioned seizure memo was corroborated by witness Shyam Sundar Rao (PW 12) and BBS Rajput (PW 97) and the seizure of abovementioned items was authenticated. During examination by the prosecution, even accused Dr. Binayak Sen himself identified all the Articles A-19 to A-36 and A-38 to A-48 as articles seized from his house except for Article A-37. Counsel for accused Binayak Sen cross-examined the said witnesses with regard to the seizure of the abovementioned items at length and it was suggested that Article A-37 was not seized from accused Dr Binayak Sen’s house. This was not accepted by the witnesses. From this it is established that Article A-37 was also recovered from Binayak Sen’s house. In this way, according to the statements of witnesses BS Jagrit (PW 95), Shyam Sundar Rao (PW 12) and BBS Rajput (PW 97), it is clearly established that Article A-19 to Article A-46 were seized from accused Dr. Binayak Sen’s house A/26 Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur from his sole possession.

47. As regards Article A-8 to Article A-10 being letters written by accused Narayan Sanyal, witness Sub Jailor C.S. Kaul (PW 15), has said in his statement that he was Sub Jailor in Raipur jail from 18.08.2006. On 27.12.2006, he was on supervision duty in both the octagons of the Raipur jail. At that time, he saw prisoner Ramesh given something by accused Narayan Sanyal. On being questioned, Ramesh told him that a letter was given to him by Narayan Sanyal to be given to prisoner Dhiraj Mohali. He took the letter from Ramesh. It was in English and in another language which he could not understand. He gave the said letter to the Jail Superintendent. This incident was entered into the Order Book by the Jail Superintendent and his signature was taken. The order book is shown as Exhibit P 24 and photocopy of it as P 24C. The letter is shown as Article A-14. The letter of Article A-14 and order book of Exhibit P 24 were seized according to seizure memo of Exhibit P 25. The witness further said that during his tenure, Narayan Sanyal used to get things from outside the jail by submitting applications. These applications are shown as Exhibit P 27 to Exhibit P 45. These were seized from him by the police as per the seizure memo of Exhibit P 26.

48. In this connection, witness Ramesh (PW 16) did not support the prosecution statements and tried to mislead the court by giving roundabout answers. The court feels that his testimony is not reliable. However, the said facts were corroborated by witness Niranjan Singh (PW 17) in his testimony, and the seized applications of Exhibits P 30 and P 31, seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P 47, and applications of exhibit P 27 to Exhibit P 45, seized as per seizure memo of Exhibit P 26, from Narayan Sanyal, are described as being seized by the police in his presence. Prosecution witness RS Yadav (PW 28) testified that he was Assistant Jailor from 11.11.2004 to April 2008 in Raipur Central Jail. During his posting, on date 08.05.2006, accused Narayan Sanyal was given paper and pen, upon which he (i.e. Narayan Sanyal) wrote applications as in Exhibit P 40 to Exhibit P 45 for buying things.

49. Witness KL Deshmukh (PW 29),  in his testimony has mentioned that the letter of Article A-24 was written by accused Narayan Sanyal and sent to accused Binayak Sen. Thus it is established that Exhibit P 27 to Exhibit P 45 are written by Narayan Sanyal. This has been accepted by Narayan Sanyal in his defence statement. Mannu Lal (PW 24) in his testimony said that he was Head Constable in the Ganj police station in June 2007. At that time, on 26.6.2007, under directions from Senior Superintendent of Police, he carried sealed documents mentioned in this context as per the memorandum, Exhibit P 80, of the Senior Superintendent of Police and submitted to the Director of the State Disputed and Questionable Documents Examination, Raipur. The ‘receipt’ of the documents being delivered on that day is shown as Exhibit P 81. Mannu Lal’s testimony was not challenged in cross examination.

50. Witness NK Sikkewal (PW 30) testified that he is in the Chhattisgarh State Police headquarters and examines documents. On 28.6 2007 the letter Exhibit P 80, Ganj police station crime no. 44/07 was brought to him from the Superintendent of Police of Raipur for examination. He examined all the documents intensively and with due diligence. He had red circled the disputed documents and marked them Q1 and Q2 and Q 2/1.These are shown as Article A-9 and Article A-8. In the same way, he numbered the natural handwriting from N1 to N 1/1 and N 2 to N20.  This numbering is done as follows: N1 Article 24, and N2 Exhibit P 30, N 3 Exhibit P 31, and from N4 to N13 Exhibit P34 to Exhibit P41, respectively; N 14 Exhibit P027; N 15 Exhibit P 42, N 16 Exhibit P 43, N 17 Exhibit P 44, and N 18 Exhibit P 45, N 19 Exhibit P 28, and N20 Exhibit P 29. According to the testimony of this witness, the sample handwritings were numbered S 1 to S24, which are shown as Exhibit P 91 to Exhibit P 114.

51. Witness Additional State Examiner, NK Sikkewal (PW30), testified that upon examination of the said documents he found that the person who created the documents and wrote S1 – S24 and N1 to N1/1 and from N2 – N20, is the same person who wrote the red marked documents Q1 and Q2 and Q 2/1. The opinion given by him is shown as Exhibit P 115. In this, his signature is visible from A to Part A.   This certification is shown as Exhibit P 16. This witness has authenticated his signature.

52. In this manner, the testimonies of the above people established that according to the seizure memo Exhibit P 1, the letter in English seized from accused Piyush Guha was written by accused Narayan Sanyal himself. According to prosecution, accused Narayan Sanyal gave these letters to accused Binayak Sen during his visits to be given to accused Piyush Guha for taking them to Kolkata.

53. Witness SK Mishra (PW 25) testified in connection with the meetings between accused Binayak Sen and accused Narayan Sanyal, and said that he has been jail superintendent in Central Jail Bilaspur from 31.06.2008. From November 2006 to April 2008 he was jail superintendent in Raipur jail. He said the jail maintained a separate register for recording visitors to undertrials. He knew accused Narayan Sanyal who was lodged in Raipur jail during his tenure. On account of his involvement with Naxalites, accused Narayan Sanyal was under surveillance. The police had carried out the seizures from him of letter relating to Narayan Sanyal and the order book as per seizure memo Exhibit P 25. The witness further said that the police asked him for the list of people meeting undertrial Narayan Sanyal. He gave them the list in a 3-page letter bearing his signature, Exhibit P 83. The entries in the list, from 1 to 88 are at Exhibit P 84 and a photocopy of the register recording visits is shown as Exhibit P 48C with his signatures.  Exhibit P 49C shows that the meetings in Exhibit P 49C were conducted by jailor Keshar and SR Thakur, and Column 11 bears their signatures.

54. Witness Ravindra Upadhyay (PW 38) testified that accused Piyush Guha told him that accused Dr Binayak Sen used to go to jail to meet accused Narayan Sanyal. Narayan Sanyal gave these letters (Articles A-8, A-9 and A-10) to accused Dr. Binayak Sen. Accused Binayak Sen gave the letters to Piyush Guha for taking to Kolkata. Witness SR Thakur (PW 43) testified that from 24.02.1999 to 28.05.2007, he was sub jailor in Central Jail Raipur. Outsiders who had to meet with the prisoners had to give an application to Jail Superintendent which is taken by the prison guard to the jailor. The jailor acts on it and then after granting permission, the meeting takes place. For important people, the meeting takes place in the office while for ordinary people the meeting takes place in the meeting room.  In the jail there is a register in connection with meetings, in which full details of the visitor and the prisoner are written down. On 22.7.2006 Dr Binayak Sen claiming to be a relative, met with prisoner Narayan Sanyal to discuss domestic matters. The witness testified that he knows Dr. Binayak Sen who is present in the court today as the accused. The abovementioned meeting of Dr. Binayak Sen with accused Narayan Sanyal on 22.07.2006 is entered at serial number 24. The said register is shown as Exhibit P 49 and bears signatures of himself, Dr Binayak Sen and Narayan Sanyal.

55. Witness SR Thakur (PW 43) testified that Exhibit P 49 register entries number 28, 30, 65, 69, 71, 73, 75, 78, 79, 80, 85, 86 respectively for 04.08.2008, 12.06.2006, 21.12.2006, 05.01.2007, 12.1.2007, 19.2.2007, 26.02.2007, 14.03.2007, 17.03.2007, 29.03.2007, 08.04.2007, 18.04.2007, were dates on which accused Binayak Sen came to meet accused Narayan Sanyal claiming that he was meeting him as a relative to discuss household matters.  In the said register, accused Dr Binayak Sen, accused Narayan Sanyal and Thakur himself had signed in columns 9, 10 and 11 respectively. This witness said that the Article A-14 letter and order book Exhibit P 24 were seized according to seizure memo P 25. This witness testified that he had signed as the officer in the column 11 in the register P 49 for entry numbers 24, 28, 30, 65, 68 and 71 and 73, 75, 76, 79 80 and 85. This witness in his cross examination acknowledged that in applications submitted by accused Dr Binayak Sen for meetings with accused Narayan Sanyal, he did not write saying that he was his relative.

56. Witness Jailor PKS Chauhan (PW 51) also testified that he was jailor in Central Jail Raipur from 11.11.2004 to 18.12.2006. During this time, he had arranged for the meetings of accused Narayan Sanyal with Bhishm Kingar, Madhav Sanyal, Bula Sanyal and Dr. Binayak Sen. These are recorded as entries in register, Exhibit P 49.  According to the entries, the accused in the present court, Dr Binayak Sen, met with accused Narayan Sanyal on that day by declaring that he was his relative. He said columns 9, 10 and 11 in the register were meant for information regarding visitors, prisoner and the jailor respectively. According to this witness, on 24.05.2006, 05.06.2006, 19.06.2006, 03.07.2006, 08.07.2006, 19.08.2006, 09.09.2006, 18.09.2006, 25.09.2006, 03.10.2006, 18.10.2006, 24.10.2006, 13.12.2006, 18.11.2006, 27.11.2006, 04.12.2006, and 14.12.2006, accused Binayak Sen represented himself as accused Narayan Sanyal’s relative and met him in his presence. In this regard, entries in register Exhibit  P 40 at serial numbers 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 52, 55, 60, 61 and 63, carry signatures of Binayak Sen in column 9 from A-1 to A-1, of accused Narayan Sanyal from A-2 to A-2, and of himself from A-3 to A-3.

57. Witness Jailor RK Singh Keshar (PW 46) gave a similar account in his testimony. He said he was in Bilaspur jail from 11.11.2005 to 06.07.2007 as jailor. During this period, on 22.01.2007 advocate Sudha Bharadwaj had come with accused Binayak Sen to meet with accused Narayan Sanyal. Register Exhibit P 119 contains this entry wherein accused Binayak Sen claimed he was accused Narayan Sanyal’s brother, which he had entered and signed.The said register Exhibit P 118 was seized via seizure memo Exhibit P 136 as per the testimony of witness AP Singh (PW 45), who was jailor in Bilaspur jail.  Seizure memo Exhibit P 136 from section A to A bears his signature. The abovementioned seizure memo has also been corroborated by Inspector BS Jagrit (PW 85) in his testimony. The counsel for the accused did not challenge these in any way.

58. I H Khan (PW 71) testified that jail superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur sent him a list of visitors who met Narayan Sanyal. The letter Exhibit P 118 contained a list of visitors (Exhibit P119) who met with accused Narayan Sanyal. This was not challenged by counsel for the accused. In any case, accused Narayan Sanyal and Binayak Sen have accepted in their defence statement that Binayak Sen came to meet Narayan Sanyal in jail. Although, the accused during the examination of the accused have denied that the pretext of “relative” was used for the meetings, but the uncontradicted testimony of the witnesses has established that accused Binayak Sen met with Narayan Sanyal on the various dates cited above by claiming to be his relative.

59. Regarding the matter of accused Binayak Sen having relationship with Naxalites, witness Deepak Chaubey (PW 7) in his testimony said that he knows Dr Binayak Sen and Narayan Sanyal present in the court. Accused Narayan Sanyal was his tenant. The father in law of this witness, Sashi Bhushan, owns a house in Daulat Estate, Daganiya, Raipur.  It is managed by the witness and his brother-in-law. When the witness was asked who came to get the house on rent (for Sanyal), he replied Dr Binayak Sen.  On this, accused Binayak Sen’s advocate objected that this was a leading question. However, the special public prosecutor asked this question in the course of the main examination. No suggestion was made to the witness nor was any answer suggested to him. Thus, the question does not come under the purview of Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and therefore the objection is baseless and is overruled.

60. Prosecution witness Deepak Chaubey (PW 7) testified that they had given an advertisement in the newspapers about the rental. Then accused Binayak Sen, Narayan Sanyal and Amita Shrivastav came to take the house on rent and on liking the house, accused Narayan Sanyal and Amita Shrivastav began to stay at the said house on rent paying a monthly rent of Rs 1500 per month. While taking the house on rent, accused Binayak Sen said that Narayan Sanyal was his relative. The house was given to Narayan Sanyal on rent because he was recommended by accused Binayak Sen who was a respectable citizen. At that time Amita Shrivastav said she was working in Vivekanand School as a teacher. From then Amita Shrivastav and Narayan Sanyal lived in that house for 6 to 7 months and in January 2006, when he went to collect the rent, the neighbour informed him that Andhra Pradesh police raided the house and arrested Narayan Sanyal and that Amita Shrivastav was absconding. On reading the newspapers, he came to know that Narayan Sanyal was a top-level Naxalite and that the police had announced a reward of 2 to 3 lakh rupees on him.  The witness further said that he read in the newspaper that accused Binayak Sen used to go to the jail to meet Narayan Sanyal.

61. Manish Daga (PW 08) testified that he was principal in the Jatan Devi Daga Higher Secondary school Civil Lines. He knew Amita Shrivastav because in 2004-2005 she used to teach in his school.  She was paid Rs 3000 rupees per month. But in March 2005 after leaving, she did not return. He had read about her Naxalite activities in newspapers. Prosecution witness Meena Singh Puri (PW 10) testified that she was the vice principal in Vivekanand Higher secondary school, Danganiya. She said that Amita (Anita) Shrivastav was a teacher in the school about two years ago. She came to the job through Ilina Sen. The learned counsel for accused Binayak Sen objected to this saying that ‘Ilina Sen’s name is not relevant to the case and as such this should not be taken into account.’   However, since Ilina Sen is acknowledged by Binayak Sen as his wife and n mentioned by the prosecution and by the other witnesses, and the question is consistent, the court overrulesthe said objection.

62. According to the above mentioned statement by Meena Singh Puri (PW 10), Mrs Ilina Sen introduced Amita Shrivastav saying: ‘she needs a job, keep her’. Amita Shrivastav had an MA in sociology from Allahabad University and spoke good English so she was taken. She worked in the school for 7 months and then stopped coming to the school. She has not given any resignation letter either.  This witness was cross examined. During the cross examination, the witness said that Ilina Sen told her that Amita Shrivastav was known to her and for this reason alone she gave her the job. Ilina Sen also told her that she had worked in Daga School earlier. Amita had a CD related to the Second World War Nazi camps. This was shown to the students in the school. Later it was found that Amita was connected to Naxalites and had absconded.

63.  Witness Arun Kumar Dubey (PW 85) testified that he was in the Central Bank of India main branch Raipur as the Assistant Manager from 2004 to 2007.  He owned a house in Kailashpuri Raipur. He gave two rooms in the house on rent to a person named Shankar Singh for Rs 1500 per month. His neighbours and Shankar Singh told him that he was a social worker. After a few days, Shankar Singh told him that his brother and sister in law will be staying in the house and he himself would be coming and going. Shankar Singh told him that his sister in law was a teacher and brother was a journalist. He [Shankar Singh] said his sister in-law’s name was Amita and he did not remember the brother’s name.  This witness said further that accused Narayan Sanyal and Binayak Sen used to come to meet with Shankar Singh and Amita.  At that time, the accused Binayak Sen had a beard but not now. When he was shown the photos of Shankar Singh and Amita, numbered Exhibit P 171 and Exhibit P 61, he recognised them as his tenants. The witness introduced Amita for opening her bank account by signing as her introducer in the form. The witness also said that the electricity bill, Exhibit P 83, was given by his wife to Amita for address proof because the meter was in his wife’s name. Exhibit P 83 bears his wife Veena Dubey’s signature from Part A to A. The prosecution showed this witness a photo of accused Vinayak Sen in which he had a beard, Exhibit P 172, and a photo of Narayan Sanyal, Exhibit P 173, and he recognised both correctly.  The above stated facts were also testified to by B.S. Jagrit (PW 95) in his testimony.

64. According to the statement of witness Sher Singh Bande, Police Inspector (PW 49), he was posted as Sub-inspector/Station-in-charge in Chhuriya police station on 04-04-2007 and was promoted to the post of Inspector in Chhuriya on 12-12-2007. He knows all the accused. This witness has stated on record that he also knew them by name. According to the statement of this witness, the Chhuriya police station borders the state of Maharashtra. Vishnu Milind Tumde, Shankar, Ashok, Parvati and Ganeshu and female Naxalites Varsha, Urmila and Amita are active in the area. Accused Vinayak Sen and Ilina Sen attend the meetings of Naxalites. Accused Narayan Sanyal has been active with Naxalites in Chhuriya area. The witness further states that PUCL people meet and know Naxalites in the Chhuriya area. Amita, Shankar, Narayan Sanyal are hardcore Naxalites.

65. Witness inspector C.L. Sirdar (PW 52) states that he was posted at Farshegarh, district Bijapur, as station in-charge. During this time he registered crime no. 7/2007 regarding a Naxalite incident, F.I.R. of which is Exhibit P 138 (true copy Exhibit P138C) which he seized, seizure memo is Exhibit P 139 (true copy Exhibit P 139C). The aforementioned F.I.R., Exhibit P 138 carries his signature (Parts ‘A’ to ‘A’). He has also produced the original copy of the confiscated Naxalite literature for evidence, the photocopy of which is Exhibit P 140. The photocopy of its pages is from Exhibit P 140C-1 to P 140C-7. The witness has stated that accused Vinayak Sen, Ilina Sen, Vijjaiyya, PVCAL Department, Rajendra Sayal etc., are mentioned in Exhibit P 140. The aforementioned witnesses have been extensively cross-examined by the defence, but their statements have withstood the cross-examination.

66. Kumari Kakuli Das (PW 21) states that she works as the branch manager of the Civil Lines branch of the Central Bank of India. The police confiscated documents of civil lines branch with her help, which include the account opening form-proforma 60, rule 11B, form of Amita w/o Manish Shrivastav, the electricity bill of Veena Dubey, the certificate of tenancy of Amita from Veena Dubey and computer laser printout. Regarding this, the seizure memo is Exhibit P 60, carrying her signature.  The account opening form is Exhibit P 61 and the affidavit of Amita Shrivastav is Exhibit P 62, the electricity bill is Exhibit P 63; Exhibit P 64 and Exhibit P 65 are laser print-outs of the account of Amita Shrivastav acc. no. 11434, which carries the no. 1279084420 which is the new no. of account  11434. Exhibit P 68C is a photocopy of the register of passbook issue which has Amita Shrivastav’s signature. These facts have been seconded by witness Vijay Kumar Laad (PW 50).

67. Yogendra Khare (PW 22) stated that he worked as senior manager in the G. E. Road main branch of Central Bank of India, Raipur from 09-04-07 to 27-06-07. The police confiscated some bank documents from him according to the seizure memo, Exhibit P 55. Exhibit P 56 is a photocopy of the account of Shankar Singh; Exhibits from P 57 to P 60 are the documents which were seized from him. The photocopies of these are Exhibits P 57C to P 60C. These facts have also been vouched for by T.S. Balachandran (PW 20) P. Ramakrishna Rai (PW 23) and Sanjay Kumar Goyal (PW 55).

68. Witness P. Rama Krishna Rao (PW 23) testified that he held the post of manager in the Navbharat Press Complex main branch in April 2007. The police confiscated bank documents on 28-05-07. The seizure memo, Exhibit P 67, has his signature on it. According to Exhibit P 67, the account opening form for Shankar Singh, the certificate of employment for Shankar Singh issued by Rupantar Trust and the balance sheet were confiscated, which are Exhibit P 68 to Exhibit P 70. Exhibit P 71 is an attested photocopy of Shankar Singh’s balance sheet, Exhibit P 70; and other documents are Exhibit P 73 to Exhibit P 79. The inductment of the aforementioned documents as evidence has been objected to by the defence, but because the documents are useful in resolving the case properly, the objection is overruled.

69. Witness Ramswaroop (PW 44) states that he leased his house in Rohinipuram, Raipur, on rent to Shankar Singh. He has identified the photo in the document Exhibit P 60 as the photo of Shankar Singh. Shankar Singh had informed him that he worked in Rupantar Trust, Katora Talaab, Raipur and that Rupantar Trust belonged to Ilina Sen. The whereabouts of Shankar Singh are unknown after he left the house.  Udaychand Jain (PW 63) states that he works as an officer in Corporation Bank, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur. Exhibit P 77 is the account of Ilina Sen, acc. no. 10521, in which the name and signature of the introducer Vinayak Sen are there. It has been shown that the statements of account from 01-04-07 to 31-03-07 of the Rupantar Trust account, Ilina Sen’s account, the savings account of Ilina Sen, the savings account of Ilina Sen and Suresh Sahu, and the account of Shankar Singh, were brought by this witness, and are Exhibit P 141 to Exhibit P 146, carrying his signature, running into many pages. Inspector B.S. Jagrit has also supported the said facts.

70. The testimonies of the above witnesses prove that Ilina Sen and accused Vinayak Sen know and have relations with hardcore Naxalites Shankar Singh and Amita Shrivastav. They have helped Shankar Singh and Amita Shrivastav open Bank accounts and rent houses, providing them with their introduction.

71. Witness Principal Amba Das Rajaram Vankhede (PW 54) states that he was posted as the principal of P.W.S. Arts and Commerce College, Kamtiroad Nagpur from 01-08-1989 to 07-12-2007. He is acquainted with Soma Sen w/o Tusharkant Bhattacharya. She was a professor in his college. When she went on leave she applied to him. Exhibit P-147 to P-150 are applications written by Soma Sen. Soma Sen (PW 63) has stated that she is acquainted with accused Vinayak Sen and his wife Ilina Sen. Her husband Tusharkant Bhattacharya is in Hyderabad jail, he was arrested in Patna in September 2007 in relation with a Naxalite activity which occurred 30 years ago. A sample of her handwriting and a sample of her signature are exhibits P-158 to P-161, all of which are in her handwriting and carry her signatures.  P-147 to P-150 are applications in her handwriting, carrying her signatures.

72. Soma Sen (PW 63) further testified that she has known accused Binayak Sen since the World Social Forum of 2004. During her cross examination, this witness accepted that she is a member of PUCL and is the co-organiser of Committee against Violence of Women [sic]. She said in her cross examination that Madan Barkhade’s letter to accused Dr Vinayak Sen, Article A-20, seized by the police is the same as that which Madan Barkhade wrote to accused Vinayak Sen.

73. Witness CSP I H Khan (PW 71) testified that on 22.11.20007, he went to Nagpur and recorded the statements of Soma Sen and A R Wankhede, and took sample signatures of Soma Sen, Exhibits P158 to P161, and AR Wankhede gave him Soma Sen’s said application letters, Exhibit P 147 to Exhibit P 150, at his request vide letter Exhibit P185. The accused did not challenge these facts in the cross examination and these facts are also supported by B S Jagrit (PW. 5) in his statement.

74. Witness I H Khan (PW 71) further testified that he investigated Crime No. 75/2008 of Tikrapara police station of Raipur. Exhibit P 233C is a true copy of the FIR in the said Crime. In this crime, Malati alias KS Priya alias Prabhukumari and husband A Ramachandra Reddy alias Vijay alias Gudsa Usendi are the accused. Three Telugu documents and two CDs were seized from Malati. Copy of the seizure memo is Exhibit 265C. In these documents, there is a representation against the government. Malati and her husband Gudsa Usendi are active members of CPI Maoist. This witness further testified that on 21.01.2008, at DD Nagar police station, Raipur, Crime No. 14/2008, was registered under different sections. In this, a chargesheet was filed against Malati and other accused.  K B Khatri (PW  85) and Naresh Kumar Patel (PW 92), while testifying regarding Malati being associated with CPI Maoist, said that she is a hardcore Naxalite. Later during the trial, the Special Public Prosecutor said that Malati was convicted and sentenced under different sections of the IPC and Public Safety Act 2005, and Unlawful Activities Act 1967 by the 14th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur.

75. It has been proved that as listed in Exhibit P 21, the objects of Article A-38 to Article A-48, eight CDs and one CPU, were seized from the house of the accused Binayak Sen by Shyamsundar Rao (PW. 12), Inspector BS Jagrit (PW 95) and DSP BBS Rajput (PW 97). This was accepted by the accused, Dr. Vinayak Sen, during his examination. In this relation Inspector Viswas Chandrakar (PW 33) has testified that in June 2007 he was Police Station In-Charge for Gharsima police station. Senior officials ordered him to go to the Forensic Science Lab in Hyderabad to get the CPU examined. He went to Hyderabad with the CPU in sealed condition and a memorandum from the Police DGP, Chhattisgarh Government, to the Forensic Science Lab. He delivered the sealed CPU to the Forensic Science Lab in Hyderabad and received a receipt. In that connection, the DGP’s memorandum is Exhibit P 121 and the receipt from the Forensic Science Lab is Exhibit P 122. According to Viswas Chandra’s testimony, after 8 to 10 days, he went to Hyderabad again to get the report from the Forensic Science Lab.  He received from the Forensic Science Lab a report and a DVD, both of which were handed over to the Investigating Officer. The Forensic Science Lab Report, Exhibit P 123, has been numbered as part of the exhibits with the concurrence of the accused under CrPC Section 293.  The accused have not asked for cross examination of the experts concerned.

76. According to the testimony of Assistant Sub Inspector SL Kashyap (PW 68), he was ordered to bring the CPU in crime number 44/2007 of police station Ganj from Hyderabad; the said order is Exhibit P 178.  He was given a sealed envelope addressed to Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, which he submitted there and was given a CPU in a sealed condition which was deposited in police station Ganj, Raipur.

77. According to the testimony of Inspector BS Jagrit (PW 95), a DVD, Exhibit P121, was created after examination of the seized CPU by the FSL in Hyderabad, which was produced in the court in a sealed condition, after which four copies were created as per the order of the court, and each of the accused was given a copy of the DVD, a printout was made from the DVD which was produced in the court in the form of 6 boxes containing 58 books. The above mentioned boxes of printout are Article A-64 to Article A-69, and 58 books are articles A-70 through A-127.  After the court had opened a sealed packet on which it was written that it contained the preliminary report of the CPU dated 16.06.2007 and a DVD of the CPU, another envelope was received, containing one DVD, which is Article A-128, which is the DVD of article A-46, and it was this DVD that was obtained from FSL, Hyderabad, and its printout is Article A-70 to Article A-127.  The DVD of Article A-46 was sent to Hyderabad, where, upon its examination, the DVD of article A-128 was created and sent.  The print of Article A-70 through Article A-127 is in thousands of pages. Its summary Article 129 is in 141. In Article A-129, relevant parts have been highlighted.  Eight CDs seized from the possession of accused Vinayak Sen are Articles A-38 to A-45, and their printouts are Exhibits P 368 to P 393, whose brief description is in Exhibit P 394.  In this way, it is established that the seized CPU was examined following procedures, and printout and report accordingly obtained.

78.  According to the testimony of Dinesh Kumar (PW 81), he holds the post of SD Commercial in BSNL Raipur. Applications made by accused Vinayak Sen for telephone shifting for landlines 2422875, 242669, 2524470 and 524471 were seized by the police as per the seizure memo, Exhibit P 212, which has his signature.  The original application related to the said numbers is Exhibit P 213 to Exhibit P216, whose photocopy is Exhibit P 213C to Exhibit P 216C.  According to the testimony of this witness, police had seized the application for phone numbers 2510242, 2529100, 2523969 from him; the seizure memo, Exhibit P 217, has his signature.  The seized original application is Exhibit P 218 to Exhibit P 220, whose copy is from Exhibit P 218C to Exhibit P 220C.  The Superintendent of Police, Raipur, had asked for information concerning phone numbers 2422875, 2424880, 2100586, 2524770, 2524771, 2423875, which was given vide Exhibit P 221.  Call details of phone numbers 2523969, 2529100, 2510242 were also requested.  The above testimony of this witness was not challenged by the accused during the cross-examination.

79. According to the testimony of witness Saidutt Bohre (PW 96), he currently holds the position of Nodal Officer in Air Tel Limited.  On behalf of his company, he gave the Enrolment Form and call details for mobile number 9893224291 to the police on their request.  Exhibit P 224 is the memo of the Police Superintendent, Raipur, requesting said information.  Its true copies are numbered Exhibits P 353 to Exhibit P 357, according to which the bearer of the mobile number 9893224291, per Exhibit P 353, is Ilina Sen, wife of Vinayak Sen, resident of A/26 Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur, whose call details are listed as Exhibits P 358 to Exhibit P 364.  This above testimony of this witness was not challenged by the accused during cross-examination.

80. According to witness Sachin SonE Kusle (PW 83), he was asked for the holder and call details of phone number 0771-6540728 by Police Superintendent, Raipur, per memo number 225, and he gave the information in Exhibit P 226, and the associated original documents are Exhibit P 288 to Exhibit P 291, and Exhibit P 293 and Exhibit P 294. Photocopies of the same are Exhibit P 288C to Exhibit P 291C, and Exhibit P 293C and Exhibit P 294C. The above testimony of this witness was not challenged by the accused during cross-examination.

81. According to Shailendra Pande (PW 84), he holds the post of J.T.I. Mobile in BSNL Raipur.  Per Exhibit P 227, memo from Police Superintendent, Raipur, information about the holder and call details of mobile number 9425206875 were asked for from his [Shailendra Pande’s] office and were given.  Said mobile number is held by Ilina Sen and the associated Customer Acquisition Form is Exhibit P 228 and a copy of the exhibit is Exhibit P 228C. Documents associated with Address Proof are in Exhibit P 228 to Exhibit P 232, whose photocopies are Exhibit P 229C to Exhibit P 232C.  The above testimony of this witness was not challenged by the accused during cross-examination.

82. According to Manoj Kumar Soni (PW 87), he holds the post of Deputy Managing Director, Information Technology in BSNL Raipur. He was asked to provide the call details of mobile number 9433140168. Exhibit P 236 shows the call detail format. Said call details are in 28 pages, which are Exhibit P 237 to Exhibit P 264, and they have his signature. According to Mohan Thapa (PW88), on being given the memorandum Exhibit P 204 by Police Superintendent Raipur and on being asked for information about the holder of mobile number 09732449150, the information in Exhibit P 205 to Exhibit P 209 was given. Supporting said facts, witness B.S. Jagrit (PW85) said that parts A to E of call detail Exhibit P 240 show that a call was made from phone number 9433140188, which is a phone number in Bula Sanyal’s name, to Raipur phone number 9893224291 on 03.02.2007 [3 Feb 2007]. Similarly, as per the call details of Exhibit P 244 to Exhibit P 263, Bula Sanyal’s mobile called accused Vinayak Sen’s mobile. According to Exhibit P 309 to Exhibit P 318, Bula Sanyal’s mobile called accused Vinayak Sen’s mobile. This witness has further clarified that the phone numbers of accused Vinayak Sen and his wife Ilina Sen are 2422875, 2424609, 2423875, 2100586 and 6540728, and mobile numbers are 9425206875, 989322429, 9926003877, 9928803877 and 942506275, and accused Piyush Guha’s mobile number is 9732448150. According to this witness, mobile number 9433140188 is at the address of accused Narayan Sanyal’s elder brother’s wife Bula Sanyal, a Calcutta resident at P-7 Sonhati. This proves the fact of phone conversations and contact between accused Dr. Vinayak Sen and family members of accused Narayan Sanyal. In his statement, accused Dr. Vinayak Sen has also accepted that he talked on the phone to Bula Sanyal.

83. According to witness B.S.Marawi (PW 69), he sent a proposal to the Chief Secretary, Home, for permission to prosecute the case, which is Exhibit P 21 and has his signature. According to witness Vikassheel (PW 39), he held the position of Collector Raipur and District Magistrate Raipur from 30 April 2007 to 23 April 2008. On 18.07.2007 [18 July 2007], via Police Superintendent Raipur, he was presented with a request for the court to take cognizance of crime no. 44/2007 of Thana Ganj, District Raipur, under Section 16(4) of the Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam. Along with the proposal, the case diary and documents attached to it were sent to him. He studied the Police Superintendent’s proposal, the case diary and attached documents, and found the case cognizable under the said section of the Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam, and sent a request to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the case, which request is Exhibit P 127 and has his signature, and the Police Superintendent’s request is Exhibit P 129. According to witness D.R. Dhruv (PW 56), in October 2006 he was employed in the Home Department of the Chhattisgarh Government Secretariat. He knows Doctor S.V. Prabhat, who was employed as the Principal Secretary of the Home Department. He [Dhruv] worked with him for about one and a half years, and therefore recognizes his signature. Parts A to A of Exhibit P 151 and Exhibit P 152 bear the signature of Dr. S.V. Prabhat. Exhibit P 151 and Exhibit P 152 are the orders sanctioning prosecution. This proves that the prosecution followed procedure and filed the chargesheet against the accused in the court only after they obtained required permission and sanction for prosecution.

84. According to the statement of witness Collector K.R. Pisda (PW 73), he held the post of Collector, District Dantewada, from February 2007 to December 2007, and then was Collector Kanker from December 2007 to March 2009. According to this witness, the entire Dantewada district is a Naxalite-affected area and Kanker district is a partially Naxalite affected area. Having been posted to these districts, he can tell about Salwa Judum. In this region, the Naxalite problem is 30 years old. In the beginning, the Naxalites presented themselves to the common people as their supporters and well-wishers, and because of this they got the common people’s support and sympathy. Because of this support and sympathy, the Naxalites spread their organization in the entire area. But as the Naxalite organizations got stronger, their interference in the life of the Tribals increased. Naxalites used to illegally raise funds from the people of the area, demand that they join their organization, and development work was not allowed to proceed. Local markets were made to shut down, and means of transport close down. Because of these kinds of activities, anger against the Naxalites kept rising among the people. On disobeying the Naxalites, the villagers were punished by the Naxalites by setting up people’s court, wherein several people were murdered. The terrorism and the oppression of the Naxalites increased so much that it became a question of life and death for the tribals of the area. Because of these reasons, in the month of June in the year 2005, the anti-Naxalite ‘Salwa Judum’ campaign was started against the Naxalites.

85. According to witness Collector K.R. Pisda (PW 73), “Salwa Judum” is a word from the Gondi language in which “Salwa” means “Peace” and “Judum” means “meeting at one place for some decided purpose.” As such, the combined meaning of Salwa Judum in Hindi can be said to be “joining together for peace.” In this way, this witness explained in great detail about Salwa Judum. This witness further said that the Naxalite group which works in Dantewada is known by the name of “CPI–Maoist.” In the region, they have formed Zonal Committee, Dalam Committee, Area Committee and many other groups to conduct their activities. Among their village-level groups are Dandakaranya Kissan Majdoor Sangh, Krantikari Mahila Sangathan, etc. In this connection, Inspector B.S. Jagrit has testified that Naxalite CPI-Maoist and 6 front organizations are banned. Their names are “Dandakaranya Kissan Majdoor Sangh, Krantikari Adivasi Mahila Sangathan, Krantikari Kissan Committee, Mahila Mukti Sangh, RPC and Janatana Sarkar and CPI-Maoist.” All these organizations are banned.

86. As per Notification–KF–4–101/Home–C/07 dated 12-4-2007, Chhattisgarh Gazette (extraordinary), dated 12-4-2007, page number 203:-

“Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 (Serial No. 14, 2005 AD), Section–3(1)– because the state government has become aware that the following organizations are engaged in activities against the law, and violence and terror activities, and are encouraging firearms, explosives and other means, obstructing public order, peace and security, disrupting means of communication, obstructing the administration of laws and flouting established laws and orders of institutions, and so are creating danger for the security of the state.

And because in this connection, the illegal activities of these organizations are causing incidents of murder, arson, looting, and kidnapping, and firearms and explosives are being collected and used, as a solution the state government believes it is necessary to declare such organizations as illegal organizations.

Therefore, using the powers granted by section 3, subsection (1) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Janaksha Adhiniyam, 2005 (Number 14 of 2006), the state government declares the following organizations unlawful organizations for one year from 12 April 2007:

(1)            Communist Party of India (Maoist),

(2)            Dandakaranya Adivasi Kissan Majdoor Sangh,

(3)            Krantikari Adivasi Mahila Sangh,

(4)            Krantikari Adivasi Balak Sangh,

(5)            Krantikari Kissan Committee,

(6)            Mahila Mukti Manch

87. In the same way, as per Chhattisgarh government notification no. KF4-101/Home-C/2007 dated 11-4-2008, published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 11-4-2008, page 222 (13):-

“Making use of the powers granted under section 3, subsection (1) of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005 (No. 14 of 2006), and extending this department’s notification no. F-4-101/Home–C/07, dated 12 April, 2007, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and its four front organizations—Dandakaranya Adivasi Kisan Mazdoor Sangh, Krantikari Adivasi Mahila Sangh, Krantikari Adivasi Balak Sangh and Krantikari Kisan Committee are again declared  Unlawful Organizations for the period of one year.”

Similarly, according to the Chhattisgarh government’s notification, Exhibit P367, notification number-F-4-101/Home–C/07, dated 11 April 2008 was extended and Communist Party of India (Maoist) and its four frontal organizations—Dandakaranya Adivasi Kisan Mazdoor Sangh, Krantikari Adivasi Mahila Sangh, Krantikari Adivasi Balak Sangh and Krantikari Kisan Committee were again declared to be unlawful organizations for the period of one year.

88. In this way, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) had been declared a “banned organization” by the Chhattisgarh state government on the day of the offence.  In the same way, item number 24 in the list of terrorist organizations under section 2(1)(d) and section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, lists as terrorist organisations the ‘Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People’s War, all of its forms and all of its frontal organizations,’ which are now part of the Communist Party of India (Maoist).

89. According to witness B.S.Jagrit (PW 95), the accused in the present court belong to the CPI (Maoist) organization.  Accused Narayan Sanyal is a permanent member of the politburo of CPI Maoist, and his name is in the magazine seized from accused Piyush Guha, Exhibit P 1.   According to Exhibit P 268, Andhra Pradesh government had announced a reward of Rs. 11,00,000 for the wanted Narayan Sanyal of CPI Maoist. The said reward was announced in Exhibit P 277, serial no. 8.

90. According to B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), Naxalites, meaning CPI Maoist, have two kinds of networking in this area – urban and rural.  Urban network of Naxalites, meaning CPI Maoist, helps the rural networks by providing them with arms, ammunition, weapons, medicine and material for propaganda.  The accused present in the court used to work in the urban network.   The Naxalites in the urban networks help Naxalites in the rural networks in propaganda, expansion and supply of materials.  There is an urban network of Naxalites in Durg as well as Raipur city.  A cache of arms was caught in Raipur and Durg, K.S. Priya aka Shanti aka Premkumari w/o Gudsa Usendi aka Vijay, Praful Jha were nabbed with this cache, and three cases are underway in connection with this incident in Raipur and Durg courts.  The said K.S. Priya, Gudsa Usendi and Praful Jha are hardcore Naxalites.  The names of these three are in the printout of the print DVD of the Hard Disk of the CPU that was seized from the house of accused Binayak Sen on 19.05.2007.

91.  According to witness B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), Rupantar is an organization of Naxalites in Raipur, which is run by Ilina Sen and accused Dr. Binayak Sen.  The name of Dr. Binayak Sen is mentioned as the project director of “Rupantar organization” in the printout of the DVD, and it is also mentioned that he draws a monthly salary of Rs. 5500.00 from Rupantar.  This Rupantar organization is an urban networking organization of Naxalites.  It is not irrelevant to mention here that accused Dr. Vinayak Sen has himself admitted to the fact of working in Rupantar organization during the examination of the accused.  According to the earlier statement of this witness, he knows Shankar Singh, Amita Shrivastav, Madan Barkhade and Bopanna.  These are all hardcore Naxalites.  Shankar Singh used to work in “Rupantar organization.”  Amita Shrivastav used to teach at the “Daga school” and the Saraswati Shishu Mandir at Danganiya.  Madan Barkhade is in Balaghat jail and Bopanna is in Central Jail Raipur, and Shankar Singh and Amita Shrivastav have been absconding ever since Narayan Sanyal was arrested in Dantewada.   According to this witness, the photo of Shankar Singh is in Exhibit P 80 from Part B to B and that of Amita Shrivastav in Exhibit P 61 from Part F to F.  He also knows Soma Sen. Soma Sen is the wife of hardcore Naxalite Tusharkanta Bhattacharya, who was arrested in police station Buddhaji Nagar, Patna.  Shankar Singh, Amita Shrivastav, Madan Barkhade, Bopanna and Soma Sen have connections with the accused present in the court, and their names are in the printout of the DVD of the CPU seized from accused Vinayak Sen.

92.  Prabhat Patrika, Article A-1, which was seized from accused Piyush Guha, does not have the names and addresses of the printer and publisher printed in them.  The prosecution says that this is a magazine of the Communist Party of India (Maoist, Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee), in which “Koya Bhoomkal Militia” is mentioned, in which opposition to Salwa Judum has been demonstrated and PLGA has been praised, and homage has been paid to the killed Maoist comrades.  In the said magazine, accused Narayan Sanyal has been described as a member of the politburo of the party, and his arrest has been condemned and his release demanded, and those comrades who have been killed in encounters are called martyrs and presented as ideal.  Similarly, Article A-2 is a magazine honouring revolutionaries (krantikari abhinandan patrika) of the CPI (M-L) People’s War, and names and addresses of its publisher and printer are not printed in it.  Said magazine contains an article about red warriors and brave commanders of people’s guerrilla armies giving a call and paving the way for the formation of “janatana sarkars” [people’s governments]. In addition, there is a mention of a people’s war aiming to convert Dandakaranya area, described as our Dandakaranya, into a liberated zone.  Said magazine mentions that “People guerrilla army has made sleep difficult for the CRP forces” and takes responsibility for the attack on Chief Minister Chandra Babu Naidu.

93. In People’s March magazine, Article A-3, which has been called the voice of Indian Revolution,  proposed steel, aluminium and mining projects in Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand have been opposed, and administration, police and courts have all been described as working as the private army of these industrial projects.  In said magazine, PLA or PLGA have been praised, and Salwa Judum has been opposed.  There is an interview with comrade Maina and emphasis has been placed on women entering PLA or PLGA.  Addressing Narayan Sanyal as “Comrade Narayan Sanyal alias Comrade Vijay alias Comrade Prasad,” said magazine refers to him as a member of CPI (Maoist)’s highest body, the Politburo, and as a frontline leader of the movement being conducted by the Maoists since 1970.  In the same manner, the prosecution has testified that photographs and news related to Naxalites are printed in the Bengali newspaper of Articles A-4 and A-5.

94. The letter of Article A-8 is addressed to “Dear P” and the letter of Article A-9 to “Dear Friend V.” Article A-8 expresses happiness at the success of Ninth Congress and talks of bringing the organized and unorganized workers into the revolution and into our organization. It also calls murders reactionary and urges building of positive political force. Along with the mention of International Organizational Penetration Scheme, it talks of the Maoists in Nepal reaching the Parliament, and of sending some amount [of money] to somebody named “M.R.” The letter of Article A-9 addresses “V” and accuses him of not helping the jailed comrade and he has written “But it is not good.” There is also mention of words connected to lack of communication, a big opportunity of big contacts in V’s area and promise fulfilment.

95. The letters and magazines of Article A-19 to Article A-37 have been seized from accused Dr. Vinayak Sen. In the People’s March magazine of Article A-19, on the occasion of the formation of Communist Party of India (Maoist), joint interviews of its two General Secretaries, Ganpati and Kishan, have been published, in which Ganpati says the formation of the Communist Party of India Maoist is a new milestone, and calls for a protracted people’s war to destroy the present system. Accused Vinayak Sen is addressed as comrade in the letter of Article A-20. It is worth mentioning here that accused Narayan Sanyal wrote the letter of Article A-20 to accused Dr. Vinayak Sen while being held in Raipur prison. Article A-21 has a printed article with the title Women’s Rights in Andhra Pradesh and Naxalite Groups. Article A-22, Towards Building an Anti-LIS Imperialist Front, is a hand-written manuscript, which mentions Marxist and Leninist groups. Similarly, the document of Article A-23, has been issued by the Krantikari Janwadi Morcha Revolutionary Democratic Front, and it has the title “Globalization and the Glamorization of the Indian Service Sector” Article A-25 to Article A-35 are newspaper cuttings with news about Naxalite activities. Article A-36 is a book about Salwa Judum, which does not present Salwa Judum as a spontaneous movement of the people and describes relief camps as prison camps. ‘SPO’ [special police officer] has been called the “criminalization of tribal youth.”  It also talks about the killing of CRPF men and SPOs in an attack by PLJ. In the same way, said book has published praises of Janatana Sarkar, and the PUCL Joint Committee report on Salwa Judum, which criticizes the Salwa Judum. It also has an article about opposing the barbaric atrocities committed by Salwa Judum on the Maoists of Chhattisgarh.

96. Similarly, the letter seized from the house of accused Dr.  Vinayak Sen, Article A-37, shows that it was sent by Chhattisgarh State Committee CPI (Maoist) to accused Vinayak Sen and condemns Salwa Judum and the murders of Maoists Bhimkoda and Shyam Bihari, and describes the killings of PW and MCC activists.  In Articles A-38 to A-45, which are the CDs seized from the house of accused Vinayak Sen, and whose print-outs are Exhibit P 368 to Exhibit P 393, and whose brief description is Exhibit P 394, in book number-1, page number-1/161, accused Vinayak Sen and his wife are mentioned as being invited to a “Resistant Conference” by some Apoornanand, and on page number-1/179, there is a “Report on the terror of CRPF in Adivasi areas”, in which accused Vinayak Sen is described as the Secretary of PUCL.  Similarly, various pages in book number-2 mention Rupantar organization and describe many other articles.  Similarly, on page numbers –4/131 to 4/141, accused Vinayak Sen’s wife is said to be a lifelong member of CLSL, and defence witness Ajay TG and hardcore Naxalite Shankar are said to be its members.  Similarly, on page numbers 4/427 and 4/441, accused Vinayak Sen has described himself as the General Secretary of PUCL and on page number 441 he has been described as General Secretary of CLSS and the kidnapping of Sub-Inspector Prakash Soni by People’s War Group (PWG) is mentioned, and on pages 7/312 to 7/314 it is said that a workshop will take place on 7-8 January 2004, in which accused Vinayak Sen’s wife Ilina Sen and Shankar (who is a hardcore Naxalite and is currently absconding) will be present.  Similarly, said documents describe grant for the Rupantar organization by accused Vinayak Sen, and the sum drawn from Rupantar organization is mentioned, and the word “comrade,” used for addressing Naxalites, is mentioned.

97. The print-outs of the DVDs of Article A-46 to Article A-128, which are in the form of 58 books, Articles A-70 to A-127, whose summary, Article A-129,  on page number 1/117 shows a message about the death of Pakistan’s Omar Azghar Khan. On its page number 265, Maher Arak has been written about.  Similarly, on page number—223, Marxist Coordination Committee and the names of Yasin Malik and Ghulam Rasool Dar of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front have been mentioned, and in page numbers 8/45 to 6/49, the payable honorariums and other expenses of Rupantar have been mentioned, in which the names of Malti (said by the prosecution to be a hardcore Naxalite) and Praful Jha, and sums of money have been mentioned.  Similarly, on page 7/348 the name of hardcore Naxalite Amita Shrivastav, whom the prosecution describes as absconding, is mentioned, and from page number 25/139 to 146, Shankar Singh, who also is claimed by the prosecution to be a hardcore Naxalite, is shown as an employee of Rupantar organization.

98. The learned counsel for accused Pijush Guha has argued that accused Pijush Guha is a tendu leaf trader and he frequently visits Raipur in connection with his business.  On 01.05.2010 [this should be 01.05.2007] also, he was in Raipur in connection with his business, and was staying in Hotel Mahindra, but the police forcibly took him from Hotel Mahindra and illegally detained him, blindfolded, till 06.05.2007, and on 06.05.2007, conducted fake proceedings against him and involved him in an offence.  It was also argued that no letters or magazines  or mobile was seized from the accused Pijush Guha , and the entire proceeding conducted by the police is illegal and irregular, and the testimonies of the witnesses are also seriously contradictory. It is also argued that according to the narrative of the prosecution, accused Pijush Guha was arrested from Station Road, Ganj, whereas the rejoinder affidavit filed by investigator BBS Rajput in the Honourable Supreme Court shows the accused Pijush Guha as being arrested from Hotel Mahindra.  It is also argued that accused Pijush Guha does not know the other accused, and is not involved in any conspiracy with them, hence accused Pijush Guha should be acquitted.  In support of this argument of accused Pijush Guha, the case law  of State of Rajasthan vs. Gurmail Singh, 2005, Cr.L.J-1746, Ghanshyam vs. State of M.P., 2005, Cr.L.J. (M.P.)-655, Shamsher Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006, Cr.L.J. –NOC—12 (Raj.), Gopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 (1) Vidhi Bhaswar--214, Kishore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997(2) Crimes—81, Bahadur Sing vs. State of M.P and Ors, 2002(1) Crimes—222(SC), 2004(2) MPJR—119, Rajesh Jagadamba Awasthi vs. State of Goa, AIR 2005 SC—1389, Javed Masood and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 Cr.L.J—2020 (SC), Ajab Singh vs. State of MP, 1998 (2) MP Weekly Note, Note Number-25 and State of MP vs. MP Weekly Note, Note Number-26 have been cited.

99. Similarly, the learned counsel for accused Narayan Sanyal has said in his arguments that the letters of Articles A-8, A-9 and A-10 were obtained by the police and the administration through the jail authorities by threatening and pressurizing the accused Narayan Sanyal and forcing him to write them, but he [Narayan Sanyal] is not associated with any Naxalite and terrorist organization and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The argument has also been made that accused Narayan Sanyal does not know the other accused nor has he conspired with them. The argument has also been made that that there are serious discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses, and that witness Inspector B.S. Jagrit is the accuser in this case and he is the one who has done all the investigation in this case, which taints the proceedings of this prosecution. Therefore accused Narayan Sanyal must be cleared of all charges. In support of this argument, the following cases have been cited on behalf of accused Narayan Sanyal: Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339, Laxman vs. State of M.P. 1997(2), M.P. Weekly Note-222, Charles Victor vs. State of M.P. 2000(1), M.P. Weekly Note-180, Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P. 2008(1), M.P. Weekly Note-61, Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra 1999(3) Crimes 161.

100. However, the arguments put forth by the accused Pijush Guha and the accused Narayan Sanyal are not acceptable because from the above mentioned deposition of the witness, the facts regarding seizure of Articles A-1 to A-10 from the accused Pijush Guha, his stay from time to time in various hotels in Raipur, his being involved in Naxalite and criminal activities are established. That letters in Articles A-8 to A-10 were written by Narayan Sanyal in his own handwriting and that both the accused are connected to each other have also been established and need not be repeated here. Besides this, Pijush Guha has not explained how the letters in AticlesA-8 to A-10, written by Narayan Sanyal, came into his [Pijush Guha’s] possession, which further strengthens the stand of the prosecution. As far as the question of the forcible nabbing of Pijush Guha by police on 01.05.2007 from Mahendra Hotel and illegally detaining him blindfolded till 06.05.2007 is concerned, there is no evidence in this matter and neither has Pijush Guha presented any evidence in his defence to prove it.  Similarly, about there being a difference in the place of arrest of the accused Pijush Guha, Investigating Officer B S Rajput (PW 87) has said that he had filed a reply in the honourable Supreme Court, Exhibit D 42, wherein it was mentioned that Pijush Guha was arrested from Mahindra Hotel, but this was a typing error. While dictating his answer he had said that the accused Pijush Guha was arrested from Station Road on 06.05. 2007. However, due to a typing mistake, instead of the 06.05.2007, the date was written as 06.05.2005. The place of arrest had also been wrongly written as above due to a mistake of the writer, which seems natural. Therefore, accused Pijush Guha gets no benefit of the above argument. The facts of the case laws cited by accused Pijush Guha, State of Rajasthan vs. Gurnail Singh, 2005, Cr.L.J.-1746, Ghanashyam vs. State of M.P., 2005, Cr.L.J.(M.P.) -655, Shamsher Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006, Cr.L.J. – NOC – 12 (Raj.), Gopal vs. State of M.P., 2003 (1) Vidhi Bhaswar -214, Kishore  vs. State of M.P., 1997 (2) – Crimes – 81, Bahadur Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors, 2002 (1) Crimes – 222 (SC), 2004 (2) MPJ_R – 119, Rajesh Jagadamba Awasthi vs. State of Goa, AIR2005, SC – 1389, Javed Masud & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010, Cr.L.J. – 2020 (SC), Ajab Singh vs. State of M.P., 1998 (2), MP Weekly Note, Note No. 25 and MP state vs. MP Weekly Note, Note no.26 being different from the present case, the accused cannot get any benefits from these.

101. The argument by the learned counsel of the accused Narayan Sanyal that the police and the prosecution had applied pressure to forcibly make him write the letters in Articles A-8 to A-10 is also not acceptable as there is no evidence in the matter, nor has the accused Narayan Sanyal produced any reasonable evidence. The argument by the accused Narayan Sanyal about Inspector B S Jagrit being the prosecutor and the investigating officer also cannot be accepted because B S Jagrit (PW 95) has clearly testified that after receiving permission from Senior Police Superintendent., Raipur, to register an FIR, he registered the FIR on 07.05.2007. Later, on appointment of B.B.S. Rajput as the Investigating Officer, he had handed over the case diary to B.B.S. Rajput. Supporting this statement B.B.S. Rajput has stated that after receiving the case diary from B.S. Jagrit on 07.05.2007, he has conducted the investigation in this case and B.S. Jagrit has documented the investigation proceedings under his supervision.  Therefore, accused Narayan Sanyal cannot be given the benefit of the said argument. The facts of the case laws presented by accused Narayan Sanyal, Megha vs. State of  Haryana, A.I.R. 1995 SC 2339, Laxman vs. State of  M.P., MP Weekly Note – 222, Charles Victor vs. State of  M.P., 2000 (1), MP Weekly Note –180, Mahendra Singh vs. State of  M.P., 2008 (1), MP Weekly Note –61, Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra 1999(3) Crimes 161 being different from the present case, the accused cannot get any benefits from these.

102. The learned counsel of accused Vinayak Sen has argued that accused Vinayak Sen was arrested on 14.05.2007, on which date CPI (Maoist) had not been declared an ‘unlawful organisation’ and it was declared an ‘unlawful organisation’ only in the year 2009. Therefore, no charge under Sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) & 8(5) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam 2005, can be levelled against him. But this argument cannot be accepted because it has been proven above that CPI (Maoist) and its allied organizations had been declared ‘unlawful organisation’ for one year by Chhattisgarh Government on 12.04.2007, which has been published in the Chhattisgarh State Gazette (Extraordinary) as Notification No. F-S-101/Home-C/07 on 12.4.2007 which was later extended as Notification No. F-S-101/Home-C/07 until 12.4.2008, that is, for one year.

103. It is the argument of the learned counsel of accused Vinayak Sen that under Sections 10(A), 20, 21, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act 1967, no offence has been committed by the accused because the CPI (Maoist) was included in the shown Schedule of Terrorist Organisation, under Section 2(1) (E) and Section 35, only in 2008.  This argument is not acceptable because under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) – People’s War, and all its forms and front organizations have been declared as ‘Terrorist Organisations’ in the UAPA’s Schedule on No. 24, even before 2008, and in 2008, in Rule 35 of 2008, on December 31, 2008, the above mentioned list was reinforced at No. 33 as per ‘Section 2 of United Nations (Security Council) Act 1947 (43 of 1947) and also in the list of Organisations given in UN Directives for Prohibition & Control of Terrorism (Maintenance of Security Council Resolutions).’ Therefore, accused Dr. Vinayak Sen cannot be given the benefit of above argument.

104. During the hearing, the statements of witnesses examined by the prosecution were read line by line by learned counsel for the accused and these statements were claimed to be contradicting each other and they [the counsel] argued at length that the accused be exonerated. Although there are some omissions and inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses examined by the prosecution, these are not of substantial nature and the prosecution’s entire case cannot be considered as doubtful and therefore rejected, and also statements of prosecution witnesses cannot be considered unreliable on the basis of these. It must also be mentioned here that during the recording of evidence by prosecution witnesses, they were not asked specific questions about the said contradictions and made to confront the Investigating Officer and so the accused cannot get the benefit of the said argument. The facts in the Honourable case laws cited by the accused  Bhugadomal Gangaram vs. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1980 SC 873, Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (2007) 7 SCC – 378 and Dhanna & Ors vs. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1996 SC 2478 being different from the facts in this case, the accused cannot get any benefits from these.

105. Accused Vinayak Sen has presented the argument that Article A-37 is not mentioned in the final report and seizure memos, and that the copy of the chargesheet provided under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not have the signature of the accused Vinayak Sen on Article A-37, hence said document has been fabricated by the police to falsely implicate the accused in this case.

106. In this connection, the testimony of defence witness Amit Banerjee (DW 5) and Mahesh Mahobe (DW 9) has been presented. As per the testimony of witness Amit Banerjee (DW 5), the chargesheet against all three accused was presented in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, on August 2, 2007, and that he had received a copy of the chargesheet from the court on behalf of accused Piyush Guha, and that accused Vinayak Sen had himself received a copy of the chargesheet which he had seen. The copy of the chargesheet included in Exhibit D 53 is the same copy that he had received.

107. According to Defence Witness No. 9, Mahesh Mahobe, he performed videography of the police search operation at Surya Apartment, Katora Talab. He further said that seized CDs, cassettes, and documents were taken away by police in an open paper bag. In this regard, during cross examination B.S. Jagrit (PW 95) and B.B.S. Rajput (PW 97) stated that “Article A‑37 could have stuck to some other Article, hence the signatures of the accused and the investigator could not be taken.” Upon the suggestion of the accused Vinayak Sen to witness B.S. Jagrit that after the seizure, Articles A-19 to A-37 were kept at the godown [maalkhaana] of the Ganj police station, this witness assented to the suggestion implying the accused Binayak Sen’s acceptance of the seizure of the aforementioned Articles A-19 to A-37 from his house. Upon further cross examination, this witness stated that the aforementioned seized articles were presented in the court in a sealed condition, and that during the trial, on opening the envelope, a copy of Article A-37 was given in the court on the demand of all the accused. From this it is clear that the Articles from A-19 to A-37 were seized from the accused Vinayak Sen’s house and produced in the court in sealed condition, and a copy was provided to all accused after opening the seal in the court. If there were any lacunae in the copy, the accused should have immediately informed the court but defence witness number 5 Amit Banerjee clearly accepted in his cross examination that no application was submitted to the court that the received copy was not in accordance with the original chargesheet.

108. Here it is extremely relevant to mention that the accused Vinayak Sen himself received the copy of the chargesheet dated 02.08.2007, but no objection was made by him during the proceedings that the copy was not in accordance with the original chargesheet, therefore the accused Vinayak Sen does not get any benefit of this argument.

109. The argument was also presented by the accused Vinayak Sen that he is associated with “Rupantar Organisation” and being the General Secretary of PUCL, had been raising his voice against police atrocities from time to time, because of which he was threatened by senior police officials, as a result of which this false case has been made against him. In this regard, from the accused Vinayak Sen’s side, testimonies of Defence Witnesses Rupantar organization convenor Prahlad Sahu (DW 1), Journalist of Deshbandhu Daily Newspaper, Shashank Sharma (DW 2), Reporter of Navbharat Daily Newspaper, Ajit Parmar (DW 3), Managing Editor of Dainik Chhattisgarh, Anil Jha (DW 4), Prabhakar Sinha(DW 6), Editor of Hitvaad Daily English Newspaper EV Murali (DW 7), Sub-Editor of Haribhoomi, Sukant Rajput (DW 8), Ajay TG (DW 10) and Chartered Accountant Mohammed Arif (DW 11) were recorded.

110. According to the statement of Defence Witness Shashank Sharma (DW 2), he is the Editor of Deshbandhu Daily Newspaper, Raipur. A news item was published in Deshbandhu Daily Newspaper on 13th June, 2005 issue regarding “Police and CRPF personnel broke into the houses of villagers and beat them; a PUCL fact finding team has demanded action against the police officers responsible for this act,” which is presented as Exhibit D 46. According to this witness, a news item with the title “Naxali neta achanak gayab, sangatanon ki chinta badhi” (Sudden disappearance of Naxalite leader, organizations’ worry increases) was published in the issue dated 31.12.2005, presented as Exhibit D 47. Similarly, Ajit Parmar (DW 3) stated that he is an Editor in Navbharat Press and that his newspaper Navbharat carried the news item titled “Katgaon ke nirdosh adiviasiyon par suraksha jawanon ka kahar” (Security Forces wreak atrocities on innocent adivasis of Katgaon) on 13 June, 2005, “Naxali samarthak sanghatanon par karvahi sheeghra-DGP(Prompt action against Naxalite supporter organisations – DGP) on 3rd January, 2006 and a news item titled “Rowlatt Act ki yaad dilata hai jan suraksha kanoon” (Public Safety Act reminiscent of Rowlatt Act) was published on 25th June 2006, which are presented as Exhibits D 48 to D 50. Similarly, Anil Jha (DW 4) said in his statement that his newspaper, Dainik Chhattisgarh published a news item titled “Jan suraksha kanoon sarkar ki manmaani chalane ka tareeka hai” (Public Safety Act is a tool for an authoritarian government) on 30th March 2006. On 16th February 2007, his newspaper published a piece with the title “Ek qaidi ki chitti” (Letter from a prisoner) bylined by Madan Lal Barkade, CPI (Maoist), Central Jail, Raipur which are presented as Exhibits D 51 and D 52. Similarly, a defence witness Sukhant Rajput (DW 8) stated in his testimony that his newspaper Haribhoomi published a news item titled “Naxali samarthakon ke khilaf karvahi ki tayari evam Naxali neta Vijay ko Andhra police le gayi” (Preparations on for action against Naxalite supporters and Naxalite leader Vijay whisked away by Andhra police) on 3rd January, 2006 which is documented as Exhibit D 56. But defence witnesses Sheshank Sharma, Ajit Parmar, Anil Jha and Sukant Rajput all accepted during cross examination that they were not correspondents and they did not themselves give aforementioned news items to the newspapers for publishing. Therefore, accused Binayak Sen does get any benefit from the testimony of these witnesses, rather the testimony of these defence witnesses strengthens the prosecution’s story. Therefore the accused Binayak Sen’s argument is acceptable (sic).

111. According to the statement of defence witness Prahlad Sahu (DW 1), he holds the post of convenor inRupantar organization, Raipur. The Director of Rupantar organization is Ilina Sen. Rupantar organization is a registered institution which is audited. The audited reports of Rupantar organization for the financial year 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 are Exhibits P 43 to P 45. The audited reports Exhibits P 43 to P 45 were audited by Defence Witness 11 Mohammed Arif himself, as stated in his testimony and he also stated that his signatures are present on the audit report. But here, it is worth special attention that this incident is dated 06.05.2007 and no audited reports were provided by accused Binayak Sen for the previous period that is 2005-2007. Apart from this, though defence witnesses Prahlad Sahu and Mohammed Arif stated that Rupantar organization is a registered institution, no document is presented in this regard. Similarly, defence witness Prabhakhar Sinha (DW 6) accepted during his cross examination that PUCL and Chhattisgarh Lok Swatantrya Sangathan are not registered organisations. Therefore, on the basis of audit reports Exhibits D 43 to D45 “Rupantar organization and PUCL and Chhattisgarh Lok Swatantrya Sangatan” do not seem to be organizations registered with the government and it was found during investigation above that Naxalite Shankar Singh, Malati etc used to be employed by Rupantar organization, whose Director is the accused Binayak Sen’s wife Ilina Sen and being employed in the aforementioned organization, accused Binayak Sen admitted receiving five thousand five hundred rupees per month as salary, which also makes it evident that the accused Binayak Sen was involved in Naxalite activities and used to shelter and support these activities.

112. As far as the question of the argument related to the accused not having mutual acquaintance and not knowing each other, it has been found in the investigation above that the letters of Articles A8 to A10 were written by accused Narayan Sanyal in Central Jail, Raipur which were given to accused Dr. Binayak Sen during their meeting in the jail, and those letters were further given to accused Pijush Guha with the purpose of sending them to various Naxalite organisations/sagamas etc named in code words. This proves the unity of minds of the accused and the facts of criminal conspiracy for sedition against the State. Apart from this, before the incident, a postcard was sent by accused Narayan Sanyal to accused Binayak Sen and accused Dr. Binayak Sen met accused Narayan Sanyal many times in jail claiming to be a relative of Narayan Sanyal, which also proves that the accused knew each other and had a relationship from before the incident, and hence, indulging in criminal conspiracy and working in accordance with said criminal conspiracy is proved. Therefore, the said argument is not acceptable.

113. Hence, on the basis of the aforementioned evidence, documents/articles produced by the prosecution, this court concludes that “accused Narayan Sanyal is a member of the apex body ‘Politburo’ of the banned terrorist organization, “the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) whose changed leading form at present is the Communist Party of India (Maoist).

114. According to Sec. 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967:-

“Cognizance of Crime – (1) The court will take cognizance of crime-

(1) Not without the prior approval of the Central Government or any authorized officer of the Central Government under Chapter 3,

(2) Not without the prior approval of Central Government or, as per the situation, State Government under Chapter 4 or Chapter 8, and where such crime is committed against foreign governments there without the prior approval of the Central Government”

In this case, Chhattisgarh Government’s orders approving prosecution, dated 24 July 2007, Exhibit  P 151, and order dated 31 July 2007, Exhibit P 152, are present according to which Chhattisgarh Government has given permission to take cognizance of crimes against the accused under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Sections 121(A), 124(A) of the IPC. Therefore this court can take cognizance under sections in Chapter 4 and 6 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 but there is no document or evidence available regarding the Central Government’s permission to prosecute the accused under crimes determined under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967. Therefore crimes covered between Sections 10 and 14 of Chapter 3 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Ac 1967, that is, alleged crimes under Sec. 10A of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 cannot be taken into cognizance.

115. On the basis of the above investigation, facts are established that the accused Narayan Sanyal and the accused Pijush Guha and Dr. Binayak Sen on 06.05.2007 or before this at Railway Station Road, Raipur (CG), Central Jail, Raipur (CG), Central Jail, Bilaspur (CG), Katora Talab, Raipur(CG), Hotel Mahendra, Hotel Gitanjali, Raipur (CG) were involved in spreading hatred, disrespect and exciting disaffection against the government established by law in India, by circulating Naxalite literature and publications promoting terrorist and Naxalite activities and executing destructive actions of Naxalite activities, namely, Prabhat Patrika, People’s March, English journal, Voice of Indian Regulation [sic], Human Rights and Naxalite Groups, Salwa Judum, Revolutionary Democratic Front, Vaishivikaran evam Bhartiya Seva Kshetr ki Chakachond (Globalisation and Glamorization of India’s Service Sector), etc, letters, newspapers, CD-cassette, Computer CPU etc, print and visual representations, and in so doing committing the criminal conspiracy of sedition, participating in conventions  and activities of unlawful activities of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), Naxalite organizations, despite not being members of unlawful organizations, participating in conventions and activities of Naxalite organizations and providing shelter to the members of such organizations, managing unlawful organizations, cooperating in management, cooperating with and promoting a meeting or members of said organization, participating in their unlawful activities and participants in other mediums or tools, executing unlawful acts, negatively inspiring to unlawful acts, making efforts for these unlawful acts to happen, planning such acts, accused Narayan Sanyal’s being a member of a terrorist organization involved in terrorist acts and all accused supporting terrorist organizations.

116. Therefore, against the accused the prosecution has been able to prove successfully crimes the under the Sec. 124(A) of the IPC read with Sec. 120(B) of the IPC,  Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam (Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act) Sec. 8(1), Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(2), Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(3), Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(5), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967  Sec. 39(2) and Sec. 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 against accused Narayan Sanyal with all its components.

117. Therefore, the accused Pijush Guha, Narayan Sanyal and Dr. Vinayak Sen are found guilty for the crimes under Sec. 124(A) of the IPC read with Sec. 120(B) of the IPC,  Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(1), Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(2), Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(3), Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(5), Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967  Sec. 39(2) and the accused Narayan Sanyal is proven guilty Sec. 20 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967. The accused Dr. Binayak Sen’s bail is voided.

118. However, it is not established that the accused persons were waging a war or trying to wage a war or abetting the waging of war against the Government of India or the State Government, were continuing to be members of unlawful organizations, taking part in meetings, making or receiving or soliciting contributions for their purpose or abetting in some way the activities of such organisations or holding property generated by proceeds of terrorism or received or earned through terrorist funds. Similarly, it is also not established that the accused Pijush Guha and Dr. Binayak Sen are members of some terrorist organization or group, involved in terrorist activities, or crimes related to membership in a terrorist organization.

119. On the basis of the above investigation, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of crimes against Pijush Guha, Narayan Sanyal and Dr. Binayak Sen under IPC Section 121(A), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 Sec. 10 (A) or Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 Sec. 10(A)  read with section 120(B) of the IPC, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 Sec. 21, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 Sec. 38(2) and under Sec. 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 against the accused Pijush Guha and Dr. Binayak Sen.

120. Therefore, the accused Pijush Guha, Narayan Sanyal and Dr. Vinayak Sen are acquitted under IPC Section 121(A), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 Sec. 10 (A) or Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 Sec. 10(A) read with section 120(B) of the IPC, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 Sec. 21 and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 Sec. 38(2), and the accused Pijush Guha and Dr. Binayak Sen are acquitted under Sec. 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

121. Therefore, the hearing on the question of sentencing for the crimes of accused Pijush Guha, Narayan Sanyal and Dr. Binayak Sen under IPC Sec. 124(A), read with Sec. 120(B) IPC, Chattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam (Chattisgarh Special Public Safety Act) Sec. 8(1), Chattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(2), Chattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(3), Chattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam Sec. 8(5), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sec. 39(2), and the accused Narayan Sanyal under Sec. 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is temporarily postponed for a short while.

(BP Varma)

2nd Additional Session Judge,

Raipur, (CG)

122. “The accused Pijush Guha, Dr. Vinayak Sen and Narayan Sanyal were heard on the question of penalty.” Learned counsel of accused Narayan Sanyal said that he had nothing to say on the question of penalty. The learned counsel of the accused Pijush guha and Dr. Vinayak Sen argued that accused Pijush Guha is young, and accused Vinayak Sen is aged and old, so they should be punished with minimum penalty. Special public prosecutor argued that all accused should be punished with the maximum penalty.

123. Arguments from both the sides were considered. Accused persons have committed the serious crime of criminal conspiracy of sedition against the lawfully established government in India, and the accused Narayan Sanyal is an active member of a terrorist organization, Communist Party of India (Maoist). Apart from this, assistance was given by the accused to terrorist organizations. The crime committed by the accused is of a serious nature. Currently, the manner in which terrorist and Naxal organizations are killing Central Security Forces, police officials/police personnel, simple tribals, and innocent people with barbarity/cruelty, has spread fear, terror, and unrest in the entire country, state, and society. Looking at that, this court does not find it appropriate to give the benefit of the Criminal Relief Act to the accused or by showing kindness by penalizing them with the minimum sentence.

124. Consequently, according to the aforementioned proven crimes the accused are sentenced with the punishment described in the following chart:-

Sr. No. Penalty under Sections Accused Pijush Guha Accused Narayan Sanyal Accused Binayak Sen
01. 02. 03. 04. 05.
01. IPC Sec. 124 (A) along with 120(B) Imprisonment for life and Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand rupees) monetary penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of one year with hard labour Imprisonment for life and Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand rupees) monetary penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of one year with hard labour Imprisonment for life and Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand rupees) monetary penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of one year with hard labour
02. Sec. 8(1) Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 2 years (two years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of thee months with hard labour 2 years (two years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of thee months with hard labour 2 years (two years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of thee months with hard labour
03. Sec. 8(2) Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 1 year (one year) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of thee months with hard labour 1 year (one year) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of thee months with hard labour 1 year (one year) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of thee months with hard labour
04. Sec. 8(3) Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 3 years (three years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of three months with hard labour 3 years (three years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of thee months with hard labour 3 years (three years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of thee months with hard labour
05. Sec. 8(5) Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 5 years (five years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of three months with hard labour 5 years (five years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of three months with hard labour 5 years (five years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of three months with hard labour
06. Sec. 39(2) Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 5 years (five years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of three months with hard labour 5 years (five years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of three months with hard labour 5 years (five years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of three months with hard labour
07. Sec. 20 Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 Not applicable (Accused Pijush Guha is not held guilty under Sec. 20 Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967) 10 years (ten years) imprisonment with hard labour and Rs. 2,000/-(Two Thousand) financial penalty and, on non-payment of monetary penalty, additional imprisonment of six months with hard labour Not applicable (Accused Dr. Binayak Sen is not held guilty under Sec. 20 Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967)

The sentences of the accused Pijush Guha, Narayan Sanyal and Dr. Binayak Sen will run concurrently.

125. In this case, the accused Pijush Guha has remained in judicial custody from 06.05.2007 until today, 24.12.2010, the accused Dr. Binayak Sen has remained in judicial custody from 14.05.2007 until 26.05.2009, and the accused Narayan Sanyal from 25.06.2007 until today, 24.12.2010. Therefore, these periods will be adjusted against the original imprisonment period under CrPC Sec. 429 and a separate certificate should be made and submitted under CrPC Sec.428 in this regard.

126. The seized property, magazines, journals, letters and newspapers will be enclosed with this case and seized CD-cassettes, computer-CPU, mobiles should be destroyed once the appeal period is over. The seized amount, forty nine thousand rupees, is appropriated in favour of the State government. In case of appeal, the disbursal of seized properties will be according to the directions of the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal.

(BP Varma)

2nd Additional Session Judge,

Raipur, (CG)

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 53,942 other followers

%d bloggers like this: