Kolkata, May 12 -- The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday refused to suspend the life sentence of convicted Maoist leader Arnab Dam in the 2010 Silda EFR camp attack case, observing that injured eyewitnesses identifying an accused years after a "major terrorist attack" could not be treated as unusual or improbable.

The court, however, directed the superintendent of the correctional home to provide all reasonable facilities to Dam, a PhD scholar, to continue his research work from prison.

A division bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray rejected Dam's plea for suspension of sentence pending appeal, holding that there was prima facie incriminating evidence against him and noting the "exceptional gravity" of the offences.

Dam and 22 others were convicted under provisions of the IPC, UAPA, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act in connection with the February 15, 2010 attack on the Eastern Frontier Rifles (EFR) camp at Silda in West Midnapore, in which 24 EFR personnel were killed and three others injured.

According to the prosecution, around 70 to 80 armed members of the banned extremist group CPIML (Marxist), carrying sophisticated weapons, grenades and bombs, stormed the camp, looted arms and ammunition and left shouting anti-India and Maoist slogans.

Appearing in person, Dam argued that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) had been conducted and that he was identified in court nearly 12 years after the incident.

He also said he had remained on bail for five years during the trial without allegedly misusing the liberty granted to him. The bench, however, noted that at least three prosecution witnesses, including two injured eyewitnesses and an independent witness, had identified Dam in court as part of the group involved in the attack.

Rejecting the argument regarding delayed identification, the court observed that injured eyewitnesses were more likely to remember details of such an incident

and the faces of those involved.

It also held that the absence of a TIP was "not necessarily fatal" to the prosecution's case.

The court noted there was no undue delay in hearing the appeal and therefore Article 21 did not come into play

at this stage.

While dismissing the application, the bench clarified that the observations made in the order were prima facie and would not affect the final hearing of the appeal.

Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.