Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Trial of Binayak Sen PDF
The Trial of Binayak Sen PDF
The Trial of Binayak Sen PDF
the same charges: that of having conspired at any of six different places (sic) to wage war against the state, and of being members of or contributed funds to or a ssisted the work of an illegal organisation.
Human rights activist Binayak Sen spent two years in jail before being granted bail. Charged with sedition, waging war against the Indian state, as well as being a Maoist supporter, both under normal laws and under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities Act, the evidence has been full of discrepancies and contradictions on material points. The trial has just concluded at the sessions court in Raipur.
This article was written before the judgment of the sessions court, Raipur. Jyoti Punwani ( jyoti.punwani@gmail.com) is a Mumbai-based freelance journalist and human rights activist.
he trial of one of the most celebrated political prisoners in recent times has just ended. Going through the trial proceedings makes one laugh at the kind of evidence the Chhattisgarh police have managed to gather against Binayak Sen; but the human rights acti vist spent two years in jail on the basis of this evidence, charged with sedition, waging war against the State, as well as being a Maoist supporter, both under normal laws and under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The international clamour for his release, with Nobel Laureates joining in, had no effect on either our highly educated prime minister or the person who appointed him, the supposedly liberal Congress Party president who surrounds herself with some of the countrys leading intellectuals. Even the Supreme Court rejected his bail application the rst time, with no reasons being given. Binayak Sen made news when he was in jail, but soon after he was released on bail by the Supreme Court (again, no reasons given) he faded away from media focus. But his trial continued. Had it been reported regularly, the country would have known the nature of the evidence against him, and also about the ordinary men and women who stood up in court and insisted the police version was wrong. The complete blackout of the trial throws light on the functioning of the Chhattisgarh media, which had gone to town when Sen was arrested, proclaiming in banner headlines his guilt by calling him a Naxali daakiya (Naxalite postman). There is one more aspect of this episode that needs to be highlighted: Sens coaccused, the alleged hardcore Naxalite Narayan Sanyal, and businessman Piyush Guha, were denied bail and remained in custody all this time. The evidence against them did not inspire condence either. What were the specic charges against Sen? All three accused in the case faced
Evidence?
What was the evidence to support these charges? The prosecution alleged that Sen had passed on letters from Narayan Sanyal, whom he used to meet in Raipur Central Jail, to Piyush Guha, to be sent out. These letters were allegedly found on Guha when he was arrested. However, jailor after jailor testied that there was no way Sanyal could have handed over anything to Sen in jail because Sanyals visitors were not only searched before and after meeting him, but all Sanyals meetings with visitors were held under strict supervision. Not only could the jailors see Sen and Sanyal during the meeting, they could also hear their conversation, which they testied, centred on the 74-year-old Sanyals health, his case, and his family. When asked if they had been pulled up for carelessness in monitoring Sanyal, the jail staff said no. Two jailors were declared hostile by the prosecution. The prosecution could not prove that Sen ever met Guha. The hotel owner and manager, in whose hotels the police alleged the two would meet, told the court that they had never seen Sen or anyone come to meet Guha. The prosecution declared them hostile. Thus the triangle sought to be established by the prosecution of Sen as the link between Sanyal and Guha could not be established. It could be argued that witnesses normally turn hostile in cases against Naxalites, being too scared of the latter to depose against them. However, in Chhattisgarhs cities, there is little evidence of Naxalite terror. On the contrary, be it Raipur or Dantewada, this state has seen members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and the opposition Congress gang up to boot out anyone suspected of being a Naxalite sympathiser, even Gandhians and scientists. The police have of course taken the lead in targeting those they label Naxalite sympathisers. They did not allow academics Nandini Sundar and Ujjwal Singh to
Economic & Political Weekly EPW december 25, 2010 vol xlv no 52
21
COMMENTARY
meet people in Dantewada last December, nor did they let an all-womens team reach Dantewada to join Gandhian Himanshu Kumars peace march around the same time. If any terror exists in Chhattisgarhs cities, it is the terror of the police. Hence the ordinary men and women who disproved the police story against Sen in court two hoteliers and one school principal were unlikely to have been acting under fear of the Naxalites. And what of the jailors? What motivated them to deny the police version?
Fabricated Evidence?
The prosecution had one more weapon against Sen, a proof that needed no eyewitnesses to validate it: a letter dated 1 December 2005, ostensibly written by Naxalites thanking him for his services in Chhattisgarh and hoping for similar services in Orissa. This unsigned letter, in the form of a computer printout, made a sudden appearance when a prosecution witness was deposing, a man who claimed to have been called by the police to witness their search of Sens house. Unlike the other documents seized from the house, this letter had neither Sens signature nor that of the investigating ofcer, B B Rajpoot, who was part of the police search party, on it. It had instead only the signatures of the two witnesses the police claim were present during the search. It is neither mentioned in the list of documents seized from Sens house (seizure memo) nor in the nal report presented with the challan; nor in the list given to the courts maalkhana where all seized material is stored. I have no know ledge who found it or from where, the town inspector, B S Jagrit told the court, maintaining however, that it was found in Sens house. Both he and the investigation ofcer had the same explanation as to why it had neither Rajpoots nor Sens signature: Either we forgot, or this paper got overlooked because it was stuck to some other document seized during the search. But how come the witnesses signed it? To prevent planting of evidence, all the material seized from an accuseds house is supposed to be sealed in the presence of witnesses before being taken away. The prosecution claimed this was done. The defence alleged it was not. And to
substan tiate its allegation, Sens lawyer Surendra Singh asked for permission to play the video recording of the entire seizure, shot by a professional videographer hired by Sens wife Ilina, with the permission of the court. Summoned by Sen as a defence witness, the videographer told the court that he had seen the police take away the seized material in an open bag. However, the judge B P Verma refused to allow the video to be screened at that stage, even after the special public prosecutor (SPP) challenged the authenticity of the CD. However, that same afternoon, the same judge allowed the SPP to play a CD which, claimed the prosecution, showed Sen talking to Naxalites in the jungle. In the witness box at that time was another defence witness, documentary maker Ajay T G, who had shot this particular video. Like the videographer, Ajay too maintained that he needed to see the CD before he could identify it. The judge allowed it to be played, but refused to see it himself. However, the CD could not be played and hence remained unidentied. Ajay T G told the court that he had lmed Sen and advocate Holaram Prajapati talking to adivasis during a 2004 Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) investigation into the killing of three
divasis in a village adjoining the forest. a This set of CDs made by Ajay was seized from Sens house. Sens alleged Naxalite links were sought to be established through other material seized from his house especially his computer, wherein names of various persons were found, whom the police said were Naxalites. The computer had details of payments made to those working for Rupantar, the non-governmental organisation set up by Binayak Sen and his wife Ilina that works on issues of health and biodiversity. In his testimony, inspector Jagrit described Rupantar as a Naxalite organisation run by the Sens, which did urban networking for the Naxalites. The Malti and Vijay mentioned in the computer, said Jagrit, were the same Malti and Vijay known to the police as Naxalites. An entry Vijay-non AA budget was interpreted by Jagrit as being codewords used by Naxalites. The defence explained Malti Jadhav and Vijay had worked for Rupantar, and that non AA budget meant non-Action Aid budget. Incidentally, as pointed out by the defence, Rupantar continues to get funds from both the central and the state governments! Then there is the case of Amita Srivastav, declared to be an absconding Naxalite by
NE
NE
22
december 25, 2010 vol xlv no 52 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
COMMENTARY
the police. A woman by the same name was recommended by Ilina Sen to a local school which employed her. However, when shown a photograph said to be of the absconding Amita, the school principal said she was not the person employed by her. The principal was declared hostile.
More than one policeman testied that PUCL members Sen, his wife Ilina and then general secretary Rajendra Sail, participated in meetings with Naxalites in Chhattisgarhs jungles. Under crossexamination, they admitted this was just hearsay. One policeman said that local villagers had told him this, but he had not recorded their statements because it would have been dangerous for them!
What is interesting also is the way policemen deposed about Naxalites giving long accounts of their violent acts and the terror they create, their lack of belief in any law and their desire to overthrow the state at the point of a gun. Under crossexamination, these policemen admitted they had neither read Naxalite literature, nor interacted with any of them. What could be the reason for such indifference? Did the police feel the accused would not be able to get good lawyers? Or, that since the trial would not attract media attention, these discrepancies would never come to light outside the court? Like everywhere else, in Chhattisgarh too, the police seem to have been pretty condent that the press would not stray from the briefings given to it. What is frightening is that on such imsy evidence, the accused were deprived of their liberty for three years (Sen for two years). Said Sens advocate Mahendra Dubey, who cross-examined most of the witnesses: With the most important prosecution evidence having been demolished, whats left? Just a list of supposedly incriminating documents seized from his house? Going by that, all scholars would go to jail. Advocate Surendra Singh, Sens senior counsel, who concluded the defence arguments, saw this case as an attempt to stie any form of dissent. That attempt seems to have succeeded; few fact-nding teams have been allowed to enter Dantewada in the last year, especially after Operation Green Hunt was launched. Even established political parties such as the Communist Party of India (CPI) are being targeted. Their leading activists are being arrested on false charges; when they organise protest rallies the adivasis going to these rallies are beaten, as happened in November. More such conduct will leave the eld open to the police and the Maoists. But hope exists. Lawyers such as Sudha Bharadwaj continue ghting at the local level, and at the Supreme Court, Nandini Sundar and ex- CPI MLA Manish Kunjam have not given up. The very fact that Binayak Sen, Narayan Sanyal and Piyush Guha could get lawyers who demolished the prosecutions version, in the capital of a state where human rights is a dirty word, is proof that the State has not made cowards of all of us.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW december 25, 2010 vol xlv no 52
23