The bulk of the judgment by the Raipur sessions court that sentenced doctor-activist Binayak Sen to life imprisonment, labours over Sen’s links with Maoists, that legal experts say, even if proved, attract a lesser punishment. The key legal provision for offences relating to support to Maoist or any other banned organisation is Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
While the sessions court found Sen guilty under this section, it chose to limit the sentence to five years. But, intriguingly, it maximised the sentence for the sedition under IPC Section 124A, that in comparison, rests on tenuous links and weak evidence riddled with holes.
In his 92-page judgment, sessions court judge B P Varma first takes up the question of whether Sen passed on seditious letters written by jailed Maoist Narayan Sanyal to Piyush Guha. He concludes Sen did, relying on the testimony of cloth vendor Anil Kumar Singh (apart from two policemen) and rejecting contradictions.
Thereafter, the verdict quotes from several other witness testimonies to establish that Sen had a history of close links with the banned CPI Maoist and supported and sheltered members of its urban network. He dwells on the seizure of postcards written by Narayan Sanyal and another Maoist Madanlal Barkhade from Sen’s house, that he says establishes that.
In this context, apart from Sanyal, the judge focuses on two others Shankar Singh and Amita Srivastava who he calls ‘hardcore Naxals’. The first testimony he cites is that of Deepak Choubey. A resident of Raipur, Choubey said he had rented his father-in-law’s house to Sanyal, since he came with a recommendation from ‘eminent citizen’ Dr Binayak Sen. Choubey claimed Sen had introduced Sanyal as a relative.
Another witness, Arun Dubey, a bank manager, testified that he gave his house on rent to Shankar Singh, who worked for Rupantar, the NGO headed by Sen’s wife Ilina Sen. Dubey said Sen and Sanyal would often visit his tenant Singh and Amita, who Singh introduced as his ‘bhaujai’ or sister-in-law. Two school prinicipals testified that they hired Amita on Ilina’s recommendation. One of them, Meena Puri said Amita left the job abruptly without tendering a resignation.
The judge quotes the testimony of police inspector B S Jagrit, who claims Amita and Shankar absconded soon after Sanyal was arrested. He also quotes Sher Singh Bande of the Churia police station who said the two were among the Naxals active along the Chhattisgarh-Maharahstra border, high-level Naxal meetings would take place here, attended among others by Sen and Ilina. On cross questioning by the defence, Bande admitted he had not personally witnessed this, but heard this from villagers, and hence this could be hearsay. But the judge does not mention this in the final order.
Interestingly, of the 50-odd witnesses cited in the judgment, nearly half are policemen. It is entirely based on testimonies of policemen, that the judge concludes Amita and Shankar are absconding hardcore naxals, and by association, Sen guilty of providing support to the CPI Maoist’s network. “Based the above testimonies, it is clear that hardcore Naxals Shankar Singh and Amita Srivastava were acquaintances of Binayak Sen and Ilina Sen, who helped them open bank accounts, get jobs and even houses on rent,” the judge observes.
