Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Monday, December 23, 2024

Injustice Done In Dr GN Saibaba Case Is Most Atrocious For Which Both State And Judiciary Are Culpable

Posted in: Criminal Law
Wed, Oct 16, 24, 16:41, 2 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 13456
Hyderabad’s Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital after he died of cardiac arrest. His wife Vasantha Kumari disclosed that he had been suffering from an infection

As most of us know fully well, the eminent former Delhi University Assistant Professor and human rights activist Dr GN Saibaba breathed his last on October 12, 2024 in Hyderabad’s Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital after he died of cardiac arrest. His wife Vasantha Kumari disclosed that he had been suffering from an infection just days after he underwent an operation by which his gall bladder was removed. He was just 57 years of age and had he not been convicted wrongly and implicated falsely by Maharashtra police of Gadchiroli who arrested him on May 9, 2014 from his residence in Delhi for suspected Maoist links perhaps he would still have been alive and kicking teaching English like earlier by which many students would have gained further just like earlier!

It cannot be lost sight of that Dr Saibaba who was wheelchair-bound and was also over 90% handicapped since contracting polio as a child had said after his release that it was only by chance that he had come out of jail alive! It must be disclosed here that his body will be donated to a hospital as he earnestly wished for medical research. His wife told news agency PTI that the 10-years of cruel incarceration in an ‘anda cell’ (high security, egg-shaped prison cell) affected his body.

She added that:
He underwent laparoscopic surgery for gall bladder removal and developed post-operative complications and inflammation at the site of surgery.

Since 2003 he was teaching passionately as an Assistant Professor in Ram Lal Anand College affiliated with Delhi University and had he not been wrongly framed, he would perhaps have been teaching with a much more senior designation as more than ten years have elapsed since then. But alas! That was not to be! He is now no more alive!

What really rubbed salt further on his wounds was that he was suspended in 2014 where he was teaching and received only 50 percent of his salary after that! But on March 31, 2021, the RLA College’s Principal Rakesh Kumar Gupta issued a memorandum by which his services were terminated with immediate effect paying him three months salary! This led to huge uproar and a group of writers and academics under the umbrella of ‘Committee for the Defence and Release of Dr GN Saibaba’ to reverse its decision and reinstate him.

It must be noted that even the DU Teachers’ Association (DUTA) also stood in complete solidarity with Dr GN Saibaba and also wrote to the Delhi University Vice-Chancellor stating clearly that:
Any action against Dr GN Saibaba should await the final decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of his appeal. It was in July 2021 that Dr Saibaba finally moved the Delhi High Court challenging his termination and seeking his reinstatement and payment of back wages. The case continued to remain pending and was last taken up on September 30, 2024 before the Bench of Hon’ble Ms Justice Jyoti Singh who then relisted it for consideration on November 12 but he died exactly one month before!

It must be apprised here that Dr Saibaba was convicted by a Trial Court for waging war against the State and alleged Maoist links three years later in 2017 to life imprisonment after his arrest in May 2014 by the Gadchiroli police of Maharashtra 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 his residence. This leading case is a living testimony as to how strict laws are often misused and an innocent has to face punishment for a crime which he had never committed!

But ultimately things changed for the better when in October 2022, we had witnessed how the two-Judge Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of the Mumbai High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vinay Joshi and Hon’ble Mr Justice Valmiki SA Menezes overturned his conviction terming the sanction for prosecution granted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as null and void. The Nagpur Bench while taking potshots at his conviction said that the sanction given under UAPA by the State authority was without application of mind and the report submitted by the independent authority recommending the invocation of UAPA provisions in the case was cryptic and a laconic half-page communication. It was also held by the Bench 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.

It merits mentioning that Dr Saibaba had been lodged in the Nagpur Central Jail since his arrest in 2014! It was on October 14, 2022 that the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court discharged him saying that there was no valid sanction for prosecution as required under the UAPA. It also acquitted four others in the case. Narote who was the sixth accused died in August 2022. It is high time and this open and blatant misuse of anti-terror laws must be heavily crushed by ensuring speedier trial and bail to the accused till charges are proved!

It was on March 11, 2024 that even the Supreme Court of India refused to stay the acquittal of Delhi University Professor Dr GN Saibaba and five others in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It must be noted that the Apex Court Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the Bombay High Court judgment was well-reasoned and that the presumption of innocence gets fortified after an exoneration. The Apex Court Bench minced just no words to state in no uncertain terms most unequivocally that:
It’s a hard-earned acquittal…after how many years he [Saibaba] could earn it? There are two orders of acquittals in this case. Two different Benches of the High Court have acquitted him. Prima facie, we find that the judgment is very well-reasoned. Absolutely right!

In conclusion, it is definitely high time and now State must at all cost be made to pay huge damages to the family of the accused who is wrongly framed because it is the State and Centre who are the biggest litigator and if a person has to stay in jail for a long term, there must be costs imposed upon the State and Centre who wrongly prosecutes a person and falsely implicates him/her due to which the life of the concerned accused goes for a toss! How can this be ever permitted to go on with impunity in any democratic country? By the way, we are not since last 78 years any longer living in the colonial British rule when the citizens of India had just no fundamental rights whatsoever nor had any other rights and were subjected entirely to the whims and fancies of the Britishers who subjected Indians to merciless torture and jail at the drop of a hat and that too in most deplorable conditions! But now things must change and we have changed in some things but still a lot leaves much to be desired in our criminal justice system which we must have the guts to accept and work unitedly to herald changes in this direction!

In the ultimate analysis, it has to be conceded that State must be definitely made to pay through its nose if it wrongly implicates any person and that too under the most draconian anti-terror laws by which we see how a person after spending a long time in prison hardly manages to breathe in fresh air and dies as has happened most unfortunately in the case of Professor Dr GN Saibaba! Only then will we have the right to call ourselves democratic in the true sense! So also I must dare say here that the Judges who wrongly convict an accused must be also strictly made accountable so that no one is wrongly convicted at the drop of a hat and Judges also approach such cases more carefully ensuring that no one is wrongly convicted just because of being framed by police and prosecuted by the State!

Similarly, the police also must be made more accountable in this regard and those who frame wrongly must not be given medals but rather should be punished most strictly! Of course, this definitely cannot any longer be ever allowed to go on with impunity in a democratic country like India as it brooks no more delay and for this to happen we all have just no option but to unite firmly and exert united pressure on the government of the day to not allow this status quo to continue on this any longer under any circumstances! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top