A mockery of justice
First Published : 28 Dec 2010 11:04:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 28 Dec 2010 11:51:00 PM IST
The conviction wasn’t unexpected. Too much was at stake in this particular prosecution that had invited international attention. What was unexpected was the sentence. A day after the verdict, Chhattisgarh DGP Vishwa Ranjan looked suitably impassive while commenting on the conviction of Dr Binayak Sen on TV, but surely this would have been a memorable X’Mas for this ‘poet-policeman’. A life sentence for the man because of whom he had had to tolerate all that hatred from people like him â€" he with his love for the liberal arts, and a St Stephen’s background. Now finally, the soft-spoken doctor would stop giving interviews about the state’s military campaign against the poor. Everyone else had been dealt with. Dantewada and Bastar became a ‘no-go’ zone where troops carrying out Operation Green Hunt against the Maoists were the only outsiders allowed. What was going on in those jungles? No news came out. Just one man kept fighting there, former CPI MLA Manish Kunjam, but he was reminded again and again that in Chhattisgarh, anyone who dared work openly among the Adivasis would be treated like a criminal. His party leaders were jailed on charges of murder, Adivasis going for his rallies assaulted. There was, of course, the Supreme Court, which ever so often, responding to prayers from the tireless Prof Nandini Sundar (and her co-petitioners), lashed out at the Chhattisgarh government for arming Adivasis to fight other Adivasis through the Salwa Judum, and allowing troops to take over schools. But so far, the Raman Singh government has made sure no one monitors the court’s orders. On the ground, the police still rule. As they do in court. Comparing Additional Sessions Judge B P Verma’s judgment with the notes of evidence, one agrees with Sen’s lawyer Mahendra Dubey that judge chose to ignore most of the cross-examination, relying only on the special PP’s examination-in-chief. The most far-fetched police testimonies have been accepted. Consider this: Exhibit A 37, the crucial unsigned computer printout sent ostensibly by Maoists to Sen, was, according to the police, found in his house. But, unlike the other articles seized from his house, it does not bear either Sen’s signature or that of the investigating officer. It bears only the signature of the two seizure witnesses. Had he allowed the defence to play the video of the seizure, the judge would have seen the police taking away the seized documents from Sen’s house in an open bag. A copy of this letter was not given to Sen, though copies of all the other seized articles were. Nor is it mentioned in the seizure memo. Asked to explain, both the inspectors handling the case gave the same explanation: “Either we forgot, or this paper got overlooked because it was stuck to some other document seized during the search.’’ How then did the police remember to get the two witnesses sign this letter? But Judge Verma accepts this explanation! This isn’t the only one. Piyush Guha, the Kolkata-based businessman also convicted to life, was, according to the police themselves, arrested from two different places. The police told the court he was arrested from Station Road, Raipur, where he was hanging around suspiciously. However, in their reply to his bail application in the Supreme Court, the police stated his place of arrest as Mahendra Hotel, Raipur. Produced before the magistrate after his arrest, Guha had also said that he had been arrested from Mahendra Hotel. Asked to explain, investigating officer Rajpoot told the court: “I dictated Station Road, but the typist took down Mahendra Hotel.’’ Judge Verma described this typing mistake as “natural’’. Again, in the course of the trial, two different places and dates were given for the arrest of Narayan Sanyal. Policemen from Andhra Pradesh testified that Sanyal had been arrested from Bhadrachalam. But the judge chose to rely on the testimony of one Deepak Choubey who said he had taken Sanyal as a tenant in his house on the recommendation of Binayak Sen, and that Sanyal had been arrested from his house. Under cross-examination, Choubey admitted that that he had no direct knowledge of Sanyal’s arrest, someone else had told him about it. If Choubey’s hearsay evidence could be accepted, why not that of policemen? The judge relies on the fantastic testimony of two policemen that Binayak Sen, Ilina Sen, and former PUCL general Secretary Rajendra Sail used to attend meetings with Naxalites in the jungle. Under cross-examination, the policemen admitted they had been told this by villagers, whose statements they had not taken down. On such evidence has Judge B P Verma accepted that a seditious conspiracy was hatched between “Naxaliteâ€� Narayan Sanyal (who has yet to be convicted in any of the cases against him), Binayak Sen and Piyush Guha, and sent them to jail for life. “Naxaliteâ€� prisoner Sanyal passed on letters to Sen, Sen delivered them to Guha. In addition, literature critical of Salwa Judum was found in Sen’s house, says the judgment. Significantly, the judge, disregarding the Supreme Court’s criticism of Salwa Judum, accepts the official version that it is a voluntary peace movement by Adivasis.The judgment is completely silent on the testimony of two jailors that it was not possible for Sanyal to hand over anything to Sen in jail, for their meetings, cleared by the police, were held under strict supervision. The judge relies, instead, on the examination-in-chief of the jail staff, which said that Sen would pass himself off as Sanyal’s relative. Under cross-examination, they admitted that applications to meet Sanyal were made by Sen as PUCL general secretary, on the PUCL letter-head. These applications are part of the court’s record. With all the skills they commanded, the Chhattisgarh police could not prove that Sen and Guha ever met. A hotel owner and a hotel manager told the court they had never seen Sen visiting Guha in their hotels. But this finds no mention in the judgment. Instead, the testimony of one Anil Singh is relied upon, a man who apparently happened to be passing by when Guha was being arrested, and who overheard Guha tell the police that the letters found on him had been given by Sen. These letters find no mention in Guha’s arrest panchnama. Guha, points out the judge, is an accused in a Naxalite case in West Bengal. Again, he ignores the crucial date when Guha’s name was added as an accused in that case â€" after his arrest in Raipur. Interestingly, Judge Verma, the third judge to hear this case, in which 473 documents were produced and 80 judgments cited, delivered his verdict in a record eight days after six days of arguments concluded. And then he chose a day before the high court closed for X’Mas. About the author: Jyoti Punwani is a Mumbai-based journalist and political commentat
Topics:
No comments:
Post a Comment