D. BANDYOPADHYAY DISTORTS COURT ORDER AND
PROCEEDINGS OF "SAINBARI CASE"
Shri Debabrata Bandyopadhyay is a trusted Advisor
to the Trinamul Congress Supremo Mamata Banerjee. He is also a former Secretary
of Revenue and erstwhile Secretary of Rural Development in the Government of
India.
In a recent piece titled, "Citizens Beware!
Killer Convicts at Large!" in the Mainstream magazine dated December 4-10, 2009
he has thrown mud on CPI (M) functionaries by building a monument of falsehood
about "conviction", "release on parole" and
"destruction of records".
In doing so and by using expressions such as
"black mamba", "killer convicts", "nasty killer"
to describe a serving and elected minister and other public functionaries, the
author only further sullies his already discredited image.
What is striking is the absolute lack of editorial
due diligence in publishing this malicious piece written by the former
bureaucrat. Any editor worth her/his salt would have taken pains to check the
veracity of the claims as well as been tempted to use editorial standards to
vet some of the abominable language used. But alas, so consumed is the editor
in buying the spurious monument of lies, there is none of that necessary
editorial work.
Bandyopadhyay's entire article is a pack of lies,
wrapped in a monument of malice intended to deliberately attack and demonize
serving ministers and senior leaders of the ruling Communist Party of India
(Marxist).
The context that provides the author to make such
a willful character assassination and deliberate falsification of facts is the
‘Sainbari’ incident on 17th March 1970, where two brothers - sympathisers of the
Congress party named Moloy Sain and Pronob Sain were killed.
These murders were made the pretext to falsely
implicate the entire leadership of the CPI (M) in Burdwan district. It must be
noted that this was done when West Bengal was under President's rule and the
Congress party was going all out to target the CPI (M) and its cadres.
The argument of Bandyopadhyay's article is that:
1. 50/60 armed hooligans under the leadership of
“Benoy Konar” attacked the residence of Sains in Burdwan with “foul mood” and
murdered two Sain brothers named Moloy Sain and Pronob Sain.
2. 17 of the miscreants were responsible for the murder
of the Sain brothers.
3. The author does not care to mention their names.
4. Eight of them, were "convicted" and life
imprisonment was imposed upon them by the District and Sessions Judge of
Burdwan in 1971.
5. Of the eight thus convicted- he names Benoy Konar
(who is current Central Committee member of the CPI [M]), Politburo Member and
West Bengal industries minister Nirupam Sen, Manik Roy (mentioned as
"absconding"), Amal Haldar and Paltoo Bandyopadhyay.
6. The "convicts went on appeal before the
Calcutta High Court twice.
7. On both occasions their appeal was rejected.
8. The convicts did not "curiously" prefer
to appeal before the Supreme Court and instead "waited for an opportunity
to get them out of the prison by foul means".
9. Later, when the CPI (M) came to power, "all
the convicts of the Sain murder case were released on “unconditional and
unlimited parole”.
10. The "records of the case" were
"pilfered" from the "archives of the Calcutta High Court through
their [the CPI (M)'s] committed members of the "Coordination
Committee" among the employees of the High Court" and were destroyed.
11. The Registrar General, Calcutta High Court had
"shockingly" reported to the Supreme Court that the High Court had no
paper relating to the Sainbari case.
12. The "convicts" have been "enjoying
unrestricted and unconditional parole for the last 32 years".
13. One Joydeep Mukherjee has filed a writ petition
before the Supreme Court to find out how the "convicts" have been
"enjoying unrestricted and unconditional parole for the last 32 years".
Thus framing his case for the article's headline
that "killer convicts are at large", Bandyopadhyay then goes on to
construct an elaborate pack of cards bringing the Singur and Nandigram
"incidents" into the picture as he makes scurrilous after scandalous
claim about the persons in question.
FACTS OF THE CASE AND ORDER
1. The 2nd
United Front Government led by Ajoy Mukhopadhyay was dismissed by Governor
Dharam Veera on 16-03-1970.
2. A 24-Hour
Bangla Bandh was called by the CPI (M) and other Left Parties on the next day 17-03-1970.
3. In each and every locality in West Bengal the
“Bandh” was being observed peacefully and the cadres of Leftist Parties took
out processions and organized mass meetings against the dismissal of the State
Government.
4. A similar peaceful procession was taken out in at
Talmaruin area of Burdwan Town on that day by CPI (M) workers.
5. It was attacked by antisocial elements of Congress
Party with bombs, lethal weapons and as a result one Gourhari Dey was injured
seriously.
6. In the clash followed, 2 Sain brothers named Moloy Sain and Pronab Sain
and one private tutor were killed.
7. At 12:30
PM on the same day, one Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya s/o Bomkesh Bhattacharjee of
Ahiritola Lane, P.S. & Dist. Burdwan lodged an FIR with the Burdwan Police
Station. The FIR was drafted by the District Congress President Nurul Islam in
the Congress Party Office in consultation with Panchu Gopal Mukherjee, S.P. of
Burdwan, Shankari Chatterjee, Officer-in-Charge, Burdwan Police Station and
Rabindranath Ghosh, S.I. of Burdwan Police Station.
All the above three police officers had taken a
pledge to wipe out CPI (M) from Burdwan District. Bijoyesh Ganguly was
mentioned as witness.
8. The manufactured FIR mentioned clearly the
following:
a. A peaceful ‘Bandh’ was being observed at the
call of a political party but its armed cadres were giving provocative slogans.
b. At about 8-00 am an armed procession of about 1500/2000 people were proceeding through
Pratapeswar-Shibtola in the town where the residence of Sain brothers was
situated.
c. The processionists broke open the residence of
the Sain Brothers, set it to fire and in the ensuing clash two Sain Brothers
named Moloy Sain, Pronob Sain and family private tutor Jiten Roy were killed.
9. On the basis of the said FIR the Burdwan Police
Station started P.S Case no 50
dt. 17.3.70 under sections 148/149/307/302/336/380 of I.P.C. against the
following persons and took up investigation of the case.
(1) Ajit Kumar Mukherjee @ Tila (2) Kalyan Dutta Mondal (3) Pabitra Bhattacharjee (4) Madhu (5) Anwar
Hossain (6) Akbar Hossain (7) Tapas Mukherjee (8) Vivek (9) Bulu
(10) Amal Banerjee (11) Bablu Banerjee (12) Saikat Sain (13) Gandhi (14) Budo (15) Mahadeb
Bhattacharjee (16) Swadhin Chatterjee (17) Mridul Sen (18) Salil Bhattacharjee (19) Subhas Chatterjee (20) Dilip Dubey (21) Ajoy Chatterjee (22) Bablu Dutta (23) Pradip Ghosh (24) Baidyanath Samanta (25) Sujit Ghosh (26) Subodh Chowdhury, (27) Amiya Dawn of Shaktigarh, Freedom Fighter Subodh
Chowdhury and in the name of others totaling to 72 and 1500
unknown people.
In the original FIR there was no mention of the names
of the then MLA Benoy Konar, Gokulananda Roy, Municipal Councillor Mojammel
Hossain, Ramnarayan Goswami @ Kudo, Abdul Rashid, Swapan Banerjee and others.
10. Shri Tarun Dutta was the District Magistrate of
Burdwan.
11. Later the officiating Chief Minister Shri
Sidhartha Shankar Roy had been to Burdwan a number of times. He met the mother
of Sain brothers Smt. Mrignayana Devi and made a wide-spread false and
malicious propaganda that she was forced to eat boiled rice mixed with blood of
her two slain sons on the fateful day. He had also introduced her to Smt.
Indira Gandhi.
12. The notorious Governor Dharam Veera also visited
Burdwan to give it wide publicity.
13. All the anti-Leftist Forces and a section of
perverted media in the country had spread concocted stories of CPI (M)
brutality and made it an all India issue.
14. After completion of the investigation the D.D.I.,
Asansol submitted a charge sheet against 111 persons including Benoy Konar and others on 8.2.71 under various sections of the Penal code
including sections 326/302/440/836/114/149/336 of I.P.C. before the
S.D.J.M Burdwan.
15. The Investigating Officer requested the Court to
release 34 innocent persons who were
arrested indiscriminately by him.
16. Out of these 111 accused persons, 56 persons were in jail as Under Trial Prisoners.
17. In this case " STATE V AJIT MUKHERJEE AND 83 OTHERS” also known as the “SAINBARI CASE” there
was mention of 78 persons as public
witnesses.
18. After submission of the Charge Sheet some more
arrests were made.
19. During the running of the trial at Burdwan, the
advocate Bhabadish Roy defending the accused, Freedom Fighter Shibshankar
Chowdhury (Kalo Da), Purnananda Batabyal, Pancha Bagdi, Ram Mudi, Arun
Devbhuti, Nitya Paul, Anwar, Brinta (Bagha), Arun Dutta, Shanti Bhanja and many
other CPI (M) leaders & cadres were killed by criminals of Congress Party
in Burdwan Town. A total reign of terror was created by the Congress hoodlums
and butchers in connivance with Superintendent of Police Panchu Gopal Mukherjee
and other police officials in the town.
20. Most of the CPI (M) leaders and cadres living in
Burdwan town had fled and took shelter elsewhere.
21. The accused persons, therefore, made a prayer
before the Sessions Judge, Burdwan for the transfer of the case outside the
Burdwan town on safety and security reasons.
22. The Learned Sessions judge rejected the prayer of
the accused persons.
23. Thereafter the accused persons moved the Hon'ble
High Court, Calcutta. On 21.2.71
the Hon'ble High Court transferred the case to Alipore and the S.D.J.M Alipore
committed the case to the court of Sessions on 13.6.74.
24. Some of the accused persons died in the meantime
and some were absconding. So, the Third Court of Additional Sessions Judge
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee framed Charges against 83 accused persons on 13.8.77 including Benoy Konar, Dilip Dubey,
Ramnarayan Goswami, Ashok Bhusan Chakraborty, Mridul Sen, Sukanta Konar,
Nirupam Sen, Rajat Banerjee, Amiya Saha, Swapan Banerjee under sections 148/149/302/149/436 of IPC and read out their
names. All the accused persons pleaded innocence.
25. The names of Amal Haldar and Manik Roy were
mentioned neither in the original FIR nor in the charge sheet framed by The
Third Court of Additional Sessions Judge on 13-08-1977.
26. In the meantime, the Left Front Government came to
power on 21st June, 1977. Immediately after installation, it declared
the following policies on the basis of “Forgive and Forget”:
a. No revenge will be taken against those
criminals and murderers of the Congress Party who had butchered more than 1200 CPI (M) leaders and cadres in West Bengal between
1971 and1977 and created a reign of terror during this period.
b. All political prisoners irrespective of
affiliation would be released unconditionally.
27. On 20.9.77
the Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, filed an application u/s 321 Cr.P.C seeking the court's consent for withdrawal
from the prosecution of the accused persons.
28. On 30-09-1977
Shri Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee heard the case and ordered to withdraw cases
against only 4 accused persons.
29. All the other accused persons appealed to the
Calcutta High Court. Maintaining the order of 30-09-1977 the Calcutta High Courted directed the
State Government to submit afresh a petition before the Third Court of
Additional Sessions Judge for withdrawal of the case. Shri Asit Ganguly
defended the accused persons.
30. On 29-11-1977 the Public Prosecutor
filed an application afresh u/s 321
Cr.P.C before the Third Court of Additional Sessions Judge for withdrawal from
the prosecution of the accused persons with the consent of the court on
following grounds.
a. There was an occurrence on the relevant date
and relevant time in the house of the Sains, but the accused persons did not
participate in that occurrence. That most of the accused belonged to one
political party and most of the witnesses belonged to a rival political party,
and that the accused persons had been falsely implicated in the case. That the
investigation had not been fair and impartial and that the rival political
party directed the course of the investigation and the evidence collected by
the investigation agency was grossly tainted.
b. As two major political parties were involved in
the case, if instant prosecution was carried to its logical end, it is almost
certain that feelings or acrimony and hatred would be engineered between the
local workers of the said two political parties, and that the current (then)
situation in Burdwan town is quite peaceful and the trial is bound to disturb
the peaceful atmosphere that is prevailing in the town.
c. The then State government (of the Left Front)
had effected a policy of "Forgive and Forget" which was directed at
putting an end to all political and ideological bitterness of the past.
d. The entire trial is based on the FIR lodged by
one Dilip Bhattacharjee. But he himself has declared in writing that he did not
know who had committed the murder. He was not a witness to the incident. He had
neither written the statement of the FIR nor did he himself submit the same to
the concerned police station. The FIR was drafted by the District Congress
President Nurul Islam. He had put his signature on the same without going
through it. Mr. Islam himself had also submitted it to the police station. The
written declaration of Shri Bhattacharjee was enclosed marked Annex-A.
Witness No. 43 Itika Dutta of Suratmahal Lane of Town Hall Para
of Burdwan had submitted in writing that during the incident on 17-03-1977 she was out of Burdwan. The Investigating
Officer had manufactured a false statement under section 161 Cr.Pc. without meeting her.
The brother of two slain Sain brothers Bijoy Sain
submitted in writing that along with two others he was confined to a room
during the incident and so did not know what actually had happened.
Bijoy Sain, his sister Swarnalata Josh and
brother-in-law Amalkanta Josh had in writing pleaded for withdrawal of the case
in view of the prevailing peaceful atmosphere in the town.
e. The Investigating Officer had recorded the
statement of Swapan Mukherjee on 08-04-1970,
Nurul Islam on 08-04-1970 and
Bijoyesh Ganguly on 23-04-1970 as witnesses to the
incident but surprisingly their names were not mentioned in the original FIR.
Even they had not put their signature on the FIR as witnesses.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that on the basis
of such weak documentary evidences and witnesses, it was not possible for him
to continue the case against so many people. So, he wanted to withdraw the
case.
In the meantime, Hon’ble Judge Gitesh Ranjan
Bhattacharjee got transferred to the Calcutta High Court as its judge. So, the
Additional Sessions Judge R.K. Kar examined the grounds of withdrawal by
looking at similar judicial precedents and on the basis of principles laid down
by the Supreme Court in considering such grounds observed that:
a. There was a case of recantation of testimony by
the person who filed the FIR.
b. He was unsure of the numbers mentioned in the
charge sheet and that following the incident.
c. Leaders of the rival political party had
colluded with the investigating officer in getting statements recorded from
various witnesses.
d. There were several discrepancies with the
statements given by the witnesses.
e. The manner the FIR was filed and in the way the
investigation was done.
f. These facts and circumstances supported the
Public Prosecutor's submission.
g. The investigation had not been impartial.
h. He would not be able to lead cogent and
convincing evidence to warrant a conviction of the accused was not without
basis.
i. The general political atmosphere in Burdwan
Town at that time, featuring political murders and attacks on rival political
parties, the general inaction of the police during the incident - either to
halt the miscreants' attack on the Sain house as a retaliation to an alleged
bomb attack on them or to apprehend them after the incident.
j. Other precedents on incidents arising out of
rivalry between different associations and dismissal of charges owing to the
need to continue to maintain harmony post such incidents.
k. In the light of prevalence of relative calm and
peace eight years since the Sainbari incident, the judge mentioned that the
Public Prosecutor's submission of withdrawal on such grounds deserved
consideration.
l. However on the third ground of the Left Front
government's policy of "forgive and forget", the judge clearly
mentioned that "the policy of Government is no consideration for giving
consent for withdrawal" citing other precedents.
m. In sum, the judge considered the other grounds
enough to not find sufficient reason to withhold consent for withdrawal. Thus,
the 83 accused persons were
acquitted of the offences under Cr. PC section 321(b) passing the following order on 06-05-1978.
“CHARGES HAVING BEEN FRAMED AGAINST ACCUSED PERSONS
OF THE INSTANT SESSION TRIAL CASE THEY ARE, THEREFORE, ACQUITTED OF THE
OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 321
(b) CR.PC.”
If anyone goes minutely through the proceedings of
the court, he will come across the following facts.
The "convicts" went on appeal against
their "sentence" to the High Court and that eventually they were
released on "parole" are thus completely false and flows from the
rather flowing imagination of the said author.
It also appears very clearly that the numbers 8 and 17
are discretely chosen to make a scurrilous point.
Amal Haldar's name for example is not part of the 83 accused in the "State vs Ajit
Mukherjee..." case.
· How could someone who has not been convicted
appeal for "parole"?
· And from where did Bandyopadhyay make his claim
that eight persons were convicted and sentenced to "life
imprisonment"?
· And why would anyone who has not been
"convicted" appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn a judgment of
"conviction" if that never happened?
· These are questions that deserve legitimate
answers from the obviously deranged former bureaucrat.
· That Bandyopadhyay's later assertions on the CPI
(M) using its "power" to grant "parole" to the
"convicted" and that the records of the case archive were destroyed
are nonsense is proved from the "State vs Ajit Mukherjee..." case
records.
· Curiously, Bandyopadhyay also makes other assertions
that the Registrar General, Calcutta High Court had "shockingly"
reported to the Supreme Court that the High Court had no paper relating to the
Sainbari case, when no appeal to the non-existing conviction was ever filed in
the High Court!
· The author continues in his nonsensical vein
claiming that the "CPI (M) government had granted unconditional and
unlimited parole" and hopes that the "Supreme Court gave an order
revoking the parole of the convicts".
· It is mentioned in the article that one Joydeep
Mukherjee has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court to find out how
the "convicts" have been "enjoying unrestricted and
unconditional parole for the last 32
years".
· As established before, these are all false
premises and one wonders how the Supreme Court could admit the petition which
is certainly a false affidavit - a sure case of contempt of Court.
In fact, the order in the "State vs Ajit
Mukherjee and 83 others case" -
passed by the Third Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore dated 30 September 1977 and another dated 6 May 1978 - eventually
acquitted the 83 accused persons from the
charges framed against them.
So, the entire contention of the article written
by D. Bandyopadhyay is concocted, manufactured and distorted. It is nothing but
a fairy tale and nonsense. It is completely false and flows from the rather
flowing imagination of the said author.
The deranged writer D. Bandyopadhyay is a trusted
advisor of the leader of the chief party in the opposition in the state is a testament
to the state of affairs that exists in the anti-Left Front alliance in West
Bengal.
Considering the track record of the leader in
question - in the sheer mindlessness, in the nonsensical obstructionism, in the
poverty of logic and reason in the Trinamul's politics, it is not a surprise
that she keeps such abominable company to advise her. He and other perverts are
the “Think Tank” of Mamata Banerjee. It can be easily realized how they are
going to destroy the future of West Bengal.
D. Bandyopadhyay is the most appropriate successor
of “Goebles and Hitler”. If both of them were alive, they would have hung their
heads in shame watching their successor surpassing their limits of distortion
of facts and perversions. The use of most derogatory words such as “convict on
parole”, “public menace”, "killer convicts” “black mamba” “Khokan Sen”,
“District level operator” "nasty killer" etc. by this uncultured
former bureaucrat speaks of his unsound mind and manner of his bringing up.
It is, therefore, expected that the Supreme Court
of India takes drastic steps against the perverted Maoist intellectual D.
Bandyopadhyay for distortion of court proceedings and against Joydeep Mukherjee
for filing a false affidavit before the Apex Court.
