Current Affairs

News
Binayak Sen could've been let off with just a fine

NEW DELHI: The sedition provision, under which civil liberties activist Binayak Sen is serving a life sentence, is so arbitrary that he could well have been let off for the very same offence with just a fine. This is because Section 124A IPC, without a word of explanation, offers three very different levels of punishment for those found guilty of sedition. The highest level of punishment for sedition is life sentence, which is normally given for a heinous offence like murder. The next level of punishment plunges to imprisonment not exceeding three years. The lowest punishment is nothing but a monetary penalty. Such dramatic disparity in the punishments prescribed for sedition has been highlighted like never before by the Binayak Sen case as the trial court gave him the highest level of punishment in December even though he has not been accused of complicity in any specific instance of Maoist violence. In a further irony, the Chhattisgarh high court devoted 35 pages to deny him bail in February without any discussion on the sentence. This is despite the fact that bail proceedings after conviction are all about "suspension of sentence". The high court order gives no inkling of how the life sentence was justified rather than the lesser sentence of three years or fine. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will address the sentencing anomaly, whether in Section 124A itself or in the high court order, when Binayak Sen's plea for bail comes up for hearing on Monday. The significance of this anomaly is that if the option of the lesser punishment (imprisonment up to three years) had been exercised, the trial court would have been legally obliged to release him on bail even while convicting him. For, Section 389 of CrPC stipulates that the court "shall" grant bail to the convicted person for the purpose of filing an appeal if the sentence is three years or less and the accused is already on bail. While steering clear of the sentence issue, the high court made much of Binayak Sen's failure to speak up against Maoist violence. It lamented that though he was "in the forefront of exposing atrocities of police", Binayak Sen "has not made any demand to these (Maoist) organizations to refrain from violence".

                                                                                                               
Back
Created by SaasVaap Techies pvt ltd