Possessing Book Of Bhagat Singh Is Not Barred Under Law

Key Takeaways

• The Sessions Court in Madras gave a judgement while acquitting two tribal persons alleged to have links with the Naxalites in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition case.
• The Court stated that books, certain articles, and paper cuttings of freedom fighter Bhagat Singh are not barred under the law.
• The two tribal persons were a father-son duo who was charged for the offences under Section 120B, 124A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
• The Court also stated that possessing newspaper cuttings and articles did not prove the offence committed by the accused.

Background

• In this case, Vittala Malekudiya, aged 23, a journalist by profession and his father Lingappa Malekudiya were arrested in the year 2012 and were alleged to harbours Naxalites who belonged to the banned Organization Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)- Peoples War.
• The accused's name who belonged to this banned organization was Vikram Gowda- Accused No.1, Pradeepa- Accused No 2, John- Accused No 3, Prabha- Accused No 4, Sundari- Accused No 5.
• The five accused and the father-son duo was accused of entering into a criminal conspiracy to wage war against Indian sovereignty. The father-son duo was accused of harbouring the five accused in the tribal area. The five accused had instigated the tribal people of the Kuthloor village to participate in the conspiracy.
• The police had ceased a lot of articles and newspaper cuttings that were alleged to belong to the Naxalites.
• The opposition also argued saying that the newspaper cuttings and the articles did not belong to the Naxalites and also further mentioned that since an election was being held in the year 2012, the journalist wrote a letter to the concerned officers stating that the villagers would boycott the election if the demands of the tribals were not fulfilled.
• The prosecution examined 23 witnesses to prove them guilty, but there was no sufficient evidence to prove them guilty.

Courts Observation

• The Court mentioned after an observation that the accused belonged to a banned organization of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People's War, and the prosecution proved this. The organization was a terrorist party as shown in the First Schedule of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in serial no 24.
• The Court said that to prove the involvement of the father-son duo in the criminal conspiracy, the prosecution depended upon the articles, newspapers and books seized from them. After scrutiny, the Court said that these articles, newspapers and books are required for day-to-day livelihood and cannot be used as evidence to prove them guilty.
• The Court also checked the handwriting in the letter and was found that the journalism student wrote the letter to boycott the elections of Lok Sabha as the leaders failed to fulfil the demands of the tribal people. It further stated that such letters could not find out their involvement with the Naxalites or their activity of concealing them. Hence, the writings were not sufficient to prove them guilty.
• The Court further mentioned that the accused were caught with books of Bhagat Singh, and this is not barred under law. The possession of articles and newspaper cuttings can also not be barred under law as it is needed in the day to day living of the people. The accused had not made such publications of articles and were also not answerable if they had made such publications.
• The Court also took into account the witnesses examined by the prosecution. None of them agreed that the father and son were members of the banned organization or harboured the other five accused. If they were involved with the Naxalites at least, one witness would speak the truth.

Courts Order

• The Additional District and Sessions Judge B.B. Jakati ordered that there was insufficient evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the father-son duo guilty.
• The bail bond of the father-son duo was cancelled, and the Court ordered to split up the case against the five other accused.

Questions
What other evidence can be presented by the prosecution to prove the accused guilty?
Why are the demands of the tribal people still not considered matters of importance in our country?
Let us know your views on the issue in the comment section below!