A SHORT HISTORY OF SAINBARI CASE

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.