Sessions Trial No._____/2007



Pijush Guha & Other

Synopsis of  Arguments for Accused        Dr. Binayak Sen .

  1. The  case is based on circumstantial evidence.The law relating to appreciation of circumstances is:

AIR  2009  SC  378 (paras 11, 12)

  1. There can be no conviction on suspicion, surmises, or conjectures.

AIR  1990  SC 79 (paras 18-21)

AIR  1991  SC  1388  (para 11)

(2006) 12 sec 306

  1. If a piece of evidence is not  put to the accused in his examination u/s 313 Cr P C, it cannot be used against him.

AIR  2004  SC 5068  (E)

(2006) 12  SCC  306(C)

  1. A  reasonable  explanation  by the accused regarding a piece of    evidence  has got to be accepted

AIR  1956  SC  217

5.  No   presumptions can be  raised against an accused  unless it is         permitted by Law

AIR 2008  SC 2467 (B)

  1. Mere production and marking of a document does not amount to proof of the contents of the document .

AIR 1971 SC 1865 (A)

(2003) 8 SCC 745   (para 16)

7. Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits retroactive application of penal law. Therefore, the CG Special Pblic Security Act and the Unlawful Activities   Prevention Act  are not applicable to the accused.

AIR  1977 SC   2091

AIR   1991   SC   2173

  1. Confession to Police is  barred by  s 25 Evidence Act.Therefore, the confession of Guha is inadmissible.

AIR 1966  sc 119

  1. The letters from Guha were found on Search and seized u/s 102  Cr.

PC. Any statement made by Guha subsequent to this would not be covered u/s 27 Evidence Act.

AIR  1976  SC 483

2005 Cr L J 3950 at 4001, 4002

10. A confession  contained in a statement u/s 27 Evidence Act is in any case inadmissible.

AIR 1962  SC 1116 (A)

AIR 1963  SC 1113

AIR  2003  SC  4076 (para 10)

11.The evidence of the jail officials is that no letters could have been passed to Binayak Sen by Sanyal during the interviews. This evidence is binding on the Prosecution.

AIR 2010  Sc 979  (A,B)

12.A statement recorded under 161 Cr PC is not substantive evidence. Therefore, (ev p 154) of Gopanna (PW 16 is inadmissible

AIR  1980  SC 873

(2007)    7 SCC 378  (C)

13.Important omissions in the statement u/s 161 Cr PC of witness

Deepak Choubey (PW 7), Vijay Thakur (PW 41) and others render their      testimony unreliable

AIR  1996  SC 2478 (C)

(2001) 9 SCC   1 (para 50-52)

14.Hearsay evidence of Vijay Thakur  (PW 41) and  Sher Singh (PW 49)  that

accused attended meeting of Naxalites is inadmissible.

AIR 1983 SC 906 (para 13)

15. The evidence of   B S Rajput (PW 97)  that he viewed a video recording of Binayak Sen meeting  Naxalites in a jungle is inadmissible by virtue of  section 59 Evidence Act , which prohibits proof of documents by oral evidence . A video recording  constitutes documentary evidence as defined by s 3 Evidence Act, and proof of   contents of documents is stipulated in section 61,62 Evidence Act.

16. If there is no re sealing of  documents found in the house search of accused, then the seizure of   Art. A/37  cannot be believed.

AIR  2003  Sc 4076 (B)

17. An anonymous letter like Art A/ 37 is inadmissible in evidence

AIR     1993  Sc  2633.

18.   Frequent meetings between accused does not prove conspiracy.

AIR  1977  Sc 1489 (para 8)

AIR 1987  SC  955 (para 14)

19.   It is no offence to read or hear seditious matter. Therefore no offence  u/s 124 A   IPC is made out

AIR  1972  SC 373  (para 5, 10)

AIR 2000 SC  464


That the synopsis of arguments may kindly be taken on record.

16.12.2010                                                                Counsel for Accused



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s