Bombay HC acquits DU ex-professor G N Saibaba, others in suspected Maoist links case
Former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba and five others were arrested in 2013 over allegations that they were members of the banned CPI (Maoist) and its frontal group Revolutionary Democratic Front.
Ex-Delhi University professor GN Saibaba, (Express File Photo By Amit Mehra) Noting that the prosecution failed to prove its case against former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba, sentenced to life in an alleged Maoist links case, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court Tuesday acquitted him and five other co-accused and allowed their appeals against their conviction in 2017.
Hours later, the Maharashtra government informed the High Court that it had approached the Supreme Court with an appeal against the order. The High Court had turned down the state request to stay the order.
A two-judge bench of Justices Vinay G Joshi and Valmiki S A Menezes said that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused and ruled that the sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was null and void, and that the entire prosecution case had been vitiated on account of invalid sanction to prosecute the accused.
The bench said the trial that was held despite the violation of mandatory provisions of law amounted to a “failure of justice”.
It pointed out that the prosecution failed to establish legal seizure of material and could not prove any incriminating material against the accused.
In its 293-page verdict, the bench held that the prosecution failed to prove electronic evidence and it was difficult to accept that the accused had conspired and made preparation to commit a terrorist act which was not spelt out in the case. Observing that procedural mandate was not followed in maintaining the case diary despite charges of serious offences levelled against the accused, it said the evidence could not be “free from doubt’”.
It also observed that mere possession of literature sympathetic to Maoist philosophy could not be an offence under the UAPA and merely downloading Naxal material wouldn’t constitute an offence unless specific evidence was provided.
The bench set aside the trial court judgement convicting the accused persons as “being unsustainable in the hands of law”, allowed the appeals against the conviction order and acquitted the accused – wheelchair-bound Saibaba, Mahesh Tirki, Hem Mishra, Pandu Narote (who died in 2022) and Prashant Rahi, all sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court in 2017; and Vijay Tirki who was sentenced to 10 years in jail.
Saibaba and the other accused were arrested between 2013 and 2014 by the Gadchiroli police on allegations that they were members of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and its frontal group Revolutionary Democratic Front.
According to police, many documents, a hard disk and pen drives were seized from Saibaba’s residence.
Lodged in Nagpur Central Jail, Saibaba was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2017. On appeal, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court discharged him on October 14, 2022, saying there was no valid sanction for prosecution as required under the UAPA. It also acquitted four others in the case. Narote, the sixth accused, died in August 2022. In April 2023, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order discharging the accused, and remanded the matter back to the High Court to be decided afresh by a different bench.
After the order Tuesday, Advocate General Birendra Saraf, appearing for the Maharashtra government, informed the High Court that it had approached the Supreme Court with an appeal against the judgement.
Saraf asked the High Court to stay the order for a reasonable time, but the bench told him: “Even though charges are serious, looking at the powers that the statute vests with us, we are not inclined to make any adventures. We have already acquitted the accused and directed their release forthwith if not required in another crime. We cannot stall said order, which may have an effect on the right of personal liberty. We reject the application of stay.”
Share
