Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Conviction of Dr. Binayak Sen, shame for Indian judiciary :: says MASUM

Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM) strongly condemn the judicial verdict of rigorous life imprisonment against Dr. Binayak Sen. By this act Indian state and its machineries again prove their scant respect for humanitarian laws and its international obligations for the same. Binayak's conviction challenged the judiciary and its related components, such as, investigation, prosecution and justice delivery system in India.

All the governments, both the central and states are trying to make the land as a "police state". If Judiciary acts not judiciously then the faith of the commoners, in general and law abiding Human Rights groups, in specific, on judiciary will definitely shrink in coming days. Now it became clearer that Indian judiciary being loosing its so called independent identity and existence.

Conviction of Binayak Sen is giving a clarion call to all HR groups, individuals, academics and true patriots for greater solidarity against challenges posed by the Indian state.

Lastly, we hope our movements will win the battle and Binayak with other HRDs will be free from the manipulated and concocted charges framed by the STATE against them.

Few critical Observations on given verdict:

· One Deepak Choubey’ in his testimony stated that he accepted Narayan Sanyal as a tenant in his house on the recommendation of Dr. Binayak Sen some time before Narayan Sanyal’s arrest.

The Judge has ignored the fact that Deepak Choubey did not own the house but acted on behalf of his brother in law. Though, Choubey was not the owner of the said house but police recorded his statement as house owner.

· As mentioned in the judgment that Dr. Binayak Sen met Maoist Leader Mr. Narayan Sanyal for 33 times in 18 months, but it was not mentioned that each and every meeting had prior permission from Prison authority. Even not single prison personnel have been examined by the judge during the trial.

· The judge has unquestioningly accepted the version of the police on the basis of the supposed testimony of the seizure witness Anil Singh, ignoring the objections of Pijush Guha and co-accused Binayak Sen to the effect that the seizure witness had claimed to overhear a conversation between Guha and the police in a situation where the police had Guha in their custody, and any statement made by Guha to the police in a custodial situation is inadmissible as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It should not be forgotten that the seizure witness Anil Singh did not accompany the police when they came to apprehend and search Guha, but was supposedly a passerby, who was stopped by the police when Guha was already in their custody. Any statement made before a police official by an accused/ witness under police custody is not admissible according to section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code and the judge shown his sheer disapproval for the same.

· The judge not paid any heed to Mr. Pijush Guha’s plea and kept mum on his illegal detention and custodial torture for four days. The judicial act was only to shield the perpetrator police.


Report by:
Kirity Roy
Secretary, Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM)
National Convenor, Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI)

40A, Barabagan Lane (4th Floor)
Balaji Place, Shibtala, Srirampur
Hooghly, PIN- 712203
West Bengal

Fax - +91-33-26220843
Phone- +91-33-26220844 / 0845