While not going into the merits of granting bail to Binayak Sen, it is most unfortunate for the Court to observe that ”
“We are a democratic country. If Gandhian literature is found on some one, it doesn’t make him a Gandhian. He may be a Naxal sympathiser but that doesn’t make him guilty of sedition,” said the court. The court also observed that possession of Naxal literature is not a proof of sedition.
“He is a sympathiser. Nothing beyond that,” the bench further said.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/supreme-court-grants-bail-to-binayak-sen/149264-3.html?from=nll
However, senior advocate UU Lalit, appearing for the state government, said that no case is made out for the bail and submitted that the activities of Sen have to be seen in a broader perspective.
Then, what is the meaning of corroborative /circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence is to corroborate the crime.
If the crime is not proved. the corroborative evidence is to be thrown out.That’s all.
Unwanted non sequitur observations may be quoted out of context in cases and the culprit,especially in a case like sedition, shall go scot free.
In a terrorist case, literature of fundamentalist/violent literature is used to prove sedition.
Now that can be quashed by quoting this observation.
True.possession of Gandhian literature does not make one a Gandhian,nor the absence of it makes a man violent.
Sometimes His Lordships go overboard with clichés.
You must be logged in to post a comment.