Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

59) - Sub Inspector of Police, CID, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh while he was moving near bus stand of Bhadrachalam (AP). Mr. Surendra Singh also submits that the prosecution has tried to prove the fact that the appellant has attended Naxalite meetings in different areas, especially within the jurisdiction of Police Station Konta and Police Station Chhuria. The prosecution has examined Vijay Thakur (PW-41) - the then Police Inspector posted at Police Station Konta and Sher Singh Bande (PW-49) - Police Inspector Police Station Chhuria, who have deposed that they were informed by the villagers that appellant Binayak Sen attended Naxalite meetings in their areas, in their evidence they have deposed that they have not seen appellant Binayak Sen in any meeting and they were informed by other villagers. Even in the statement of Vijay Thakur (PW-41) recorded under Section 161 of the Code dated 12-8-2008, name of appellant Binayak Sen does not find place in the list of people who have attended such alleged meeting. Evidence of aforesaid responsible police officers reveal that their evidence is based on conjectures & surmises and statements not admissible in evidence.

17. Mr. Surendra Singh contends that as per prosecution, Shankar Singh & Amita Shrivastava are hardcore naxalites, but the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that how they are hardcore naxalites. The prosecution has also not adduced any evidence to show that the appellant was in association of hardcore naxalites. Mr. Surendra Singh further placed reliance in the matter of Javed Masood and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan6 in which the Supreme Court has held that if a witness is not declared hostile by prosecution, his evidence is binding on prosecution. In the present case, most of the witnesses have not been declared hostile by the prosecution and, therefore, their statements are binding on the prosecution. Mr. Surendra Singh also placed reliance in the matter of Bhugdomal Gangaram and others v. State of Gujarat7 in which the Supreme Court has held that testimony of the person based on information of another person is not admissible in absence of examination of the informant as a witness.

34. During course of search of the house of Binayak Sen, Article A19 - one booklet of Communist Party of India (ML) of November-December 2004, Article A20 - one letter written by Madanlal Barkhade from jail to Binayak Sen addressing him as "fiz; dkWejsM fcuk;d lsu" relating to problems in jail, Article A21 - one printed material Andhra Pradesh: Women's Rights and Naxalite Groups, Article A22 - photocopy of one hand written letter, Article A23 - one booklet like papers, Article A24 - letter written by Narayan Sanyal to appellant Binayak Sen, paper cuttings relating to human rights and Naxalites, atrocities of police and Article A36 - one booklet of Salwa Judum, have been seized which have been admitted by appellant Binayak Sen.

40. As per evidence of Vipendra Ram Yadav (PW-40) & Vijay Thakur (PW-41), accused Narayan Sanyal is accused in Crime No.9/2005 registered at Police Station Konta. As per evidence of Sher Singh Bande (PW-49), on 21-5-2007 at Vijay Jhadi Khedi forest, naxalites were convening meetings and dangerous arms & ammunition including bombs were found. On 1- 6-2007 naxalites were found in possession of dangerous explosives within Police Station Farsegarh area. Even as per Article A36, book of Salwa Judum, after constitution of the alleged Salwa Judum, murder by members of maoists has substantially increased and they have killed about 70 persons.