GN Saibaba Case: Bombay High Court Acquits With Strong Observations on Trial’s Failure of Justice
In a significant development, the Bombay High Court has acquitted former Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba and others in an alleged Maoist-links case, citing a failure of justice due to the trial being held without mandatory compliance with the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki SA Menezes observed that there was “total non-compliance of various provisions of UAPA,” rendering the entire proceedings null and void.
Trial Failure and Lack of Evidence
The High Court, in its detailed judgment, highlighted the violation of mandatory provisions of UAPA related to arrest, search, and seizure. The court emphasized the invalidity of the sanction accorded to prosecute the accused, leading to a fundamental flaw in the trial process. The lack of compliance with Sections 43-A and 43-B of the UAPA further undermined the credibility of the trial, according to the judges.
The crucial observation made by the court was the absence of any evidence linking the accused to incidents, attacks, or acts of violence. The prosecution failed to establish a connection between the accused and any terrorist act, whether in preparation, direction, or support. This lack of evidence, as pointed out by the court, renders the trial a failure of justice.
Doubts Over Seizure and Incriminating Materials
The court expressed skepticism regarding the seizure of alleged incriminating materials from Saibaba’s University residence. The doubts stemmed from several factors, including the choice of an illiterate panch witness for the seizure of electronic evidence, the closed-door nature of the seizure, and the absence of essential details such as hash values and references to sealing and labeling of seized articles.
In a noteworthy statement, the court asserted that merely accessing Communist or Naxal philosophy content, even of a violent nature, is not inherently illegal unless specific evidence links the accused to acts of violence or terrorism. The prosecution failed to provide such evidence, and the court deemed the seizure of incriminating evidence doubtful.
Acquittal and Legal Grounds
Consequently, the Bombay High Court set aside the conviction rendered by the Sessions Court, acquitting all six accused of charges under Sections 10, 13, 20, 38, 39 of the UAPA and Section 120-B of the IPC. The court summarized the entire prosecution as “vitiated on account of invalid sanction” and highlighted the failure to establish legal grounds for the arrest and seizure of incriminating material.
Maharashtra Government’s Appeal Denied
Following the judgment, the State of Maharashtra Government sought a stay on the implementation of the acquittal, pending appeal before the Supreme Court. However, the court rejected the application, emphasizing the importance of individual liberty, especially in serious cases, and citing its lack of jurisdiction to reconsider its decision.
Background and Controversial Proceedings
GN Saibaba and his co-accused were arrested in 2014 on charges of having links with Maoist organizations and waging war against India. The prosecution alleged their involvement with the banned CPI (Maoist) group, relying on seized pamphlets and electronic material. Previous procedural irregularities led to the Bombay High Court setting aside the conviction in 2022, but the Supreme Court later overturned this decision.
Conclusion
In a case marred by procedural lapses and the lack of substantial evidence, the Bombay High Court’s acquittal of GN Saibaba and others highlights the importance of adherence to legal provisions in ensuring justice. The court’s strong observations on the failure of justice due to non-compliance with UAPA underscore the significance of a fair and lawful trial process.
The legal representatives in the case include:
- Mr. Pradeep Mandhyan, Mr. Barunkumar, and Mr. H.P. Lingayat, Advocates for appellant Nos. 1 to 3 (Appeal No. 136/2017).
- Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Barunkumar & Mr. H.P. Lingayat, Advocates for appellant Nos. 4 & 5 (Appeal No. 136/2017).
- Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. N.B. Rathod, Advocate for appellant (Criminal Appeal No. 137/2017).
- Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate, Mr. H.S. Chitale, and Mr. Jugal Kanani, Advocates for the State, with Mr. P.K. Sathinathan serving as Special Counsel for the State.
Case no. – APEAL/137/2017
Click here to read the judgment
Source : Bombay Highcourt
Read Also: Acquits GN Saibaba and 5 Others in Alleged Maoist Links by Bombay High Court
