Calcutta High Court orders fresh trials in ten murder cases registered during Nandigram unrest

Calcutta High Court orders fresh trial in Nandigram murder cases, deeming State's withdrawal decision invalid and harmful to society.

The Calcutta High Court has ordered a fresh trial in ten cases relating to murders that took place during the unrest at Nandigram between 2007 and 2009. The West Bengal government’s decision to withdraw such cases is not based on any acceptable legal proposition and sends the wrong message to society, the court observed.

A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi held that the State’s decision to apply Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code — which allows the public prosecutor to withdraw from a case before the judgment is pronounced — was not legal or valid.

“Murders did take place. Post-mortem reports available with the case diaries establish such fact. Therefore, as on date, in society there are persons who are guilty of such murders. Allowing the prosecution to withdraw under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not be in public interest. In fact, it would cause public harm and injury,” the division bench noted in the order, dated February 12.

The State government had argued that the decision to apply Section 321 of the CrPC was based on arguments that the cases could be the result of political vendettas, as well as the return of public peace and tranquillity.

“Political vendetta in the incident or in the lodgement of the criminal case is of no consequence when the criminal case by itself has substance. The present criminal cases involve multiple murders,” the division bench said.

In its order, the court said that eradication of violence of any form in a society is an ideal which a State should strive for; and in a democracy, violence in any manner or form, either pre or post-poll, should be eschewed.

“A State must exhibit zero tolerance towards any form of violence. Any attempt to justify a crime and clothing it with political issues is insufferable,” the division bench noted in its order.