While acquittingGN Saibaba and five others, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court expressed disapproval of the observations in the sessions court order which convicted the Delhi University professor to life sentence.
In March 2017, a Sessions Court in Gadchiroli had convicted Mr Saibaba, agriculturists Mahesh Tirki (22), late Pandu Narote (27), professor Hem Mishra (32), journalist Prashant Narayan Sanglikar (54) and labourer Vijay Tirki (30) under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) for having Maoist links and waging a war against India.
The sessions court, while convicting them, had said that Saibaba and two other accused possessed Naxal literature with the intent and purpose of circulation. Their main aim was to incite the people to resort to violence.
On the arguments of absence of valid sanction for prosecution, the sessions court had said that the same was not “fatal to the case of the prosecution”. Further, the sessions judge noted, "No leniency could be shown to Mr Saibaba in view of his 90% disability since he was mentally fit and was part of a think tank of the banned organisation”.
Imprisonment for life is not a sufficient punishment to Mr Saibaba, the sessions judge had said,adding that its hands were tied since it was the “maximum punishment statutorily provided”.
The HC expressed disapproval of the observations by the sessions judge saying that the same were unwarranted.
“We do not approve of the unwarranted observations of the learned Sessions Judge, which may have the unintended consequence of rendering the verdict vulnerable to the charge of lack of dispassionat objectivity,” noted HC in its 101-page judgment.
