11 get life term in Gulberg society massacre case

June 17, 2016

Ahmedabad, Jun 17: Calling the Gulberg massacre as the "darkest day" in the history of civil society, a special SIT court here today sentenced 11 convicts to life imprisonment in the case of burning alive of 69 people, including former Congress MP Eshan Jafri in the 2002 post-Godhra violence.

Gulberg1

Rejecting the demand for death sentence for all the convicts, the court said life imprisonment for the 11 will be till death if the state does not exercise power to remit the sentence.

The court awarded ten year jail term to one of the 13 convicted for lesser offences while 12 others have been given seven-year sentence each. The prosecution had argued that all the 24 convicts should be given death penalty.

While describing the massacre as the darkest day in the history of civil society, Special court Judge P B Desai refused death penalty saying, "If you look at all aspects, no previous antecedent has been placed on record".

Post the incident, 90 per cent of the accused were released on bail, yet no complaints against them have been given even by victims, and there is no record to show that they committed any offence during the time of bail, the judge further said, while giving reasons why he thought that this was not a fit case to give capital punishment to the convicts.

The court said it has decided to award imprisonment for life without any time frame to 11 accused, who have been convicted for murder, while requesting the state not to use its power to remit the sentence after 14 years of imprisonment.

"CrPC provisions give power to the state to remit sentence after 14 years jail, section 433-A imposes some restriction on that power. In case the state does not exercise power to remit the sentence, life imprisonment will mean that it is till death," the court said.

"I cannot add beyond what has been prescribed under section 302, it is not necessary for a state to exercise power to remit sentence, state may not exercise power of remittance," the judge said, adding the court's direction cannot be binding as he cannot take away the executive powers of the state.

As regards the 13 others accused convicted for lesser offences not including murder (302), the court awarded 10 years imprisonment to one Mangilal Jain, while 12 others were awarded seven-year sentence each.

The Gulberg Society massacre, which took place here on February 28, 2002 when Narendra Modi was the Gujarat Chief Minister, shook the nation when a mob of 400 people set about attacking the society in the heart of Ahmedabad and killed the residents including Jafri.

It was one of the nine cases of the 2002 Gujarat riots probed by the Supreme Court-appointed SIT.

"All the sentences will run concurrently as the Supreme Court has laid it down clearly that if the crime had single purpose, sentences given for different sections of IPC should run concurrently," the court said.

The prosecution and the victims had demanded that sentences awarded to all the accused should not run concurrently as all the 24 convicts will have to spend their entire life behind bars.

Earlier on June 2, the court had convicted 11 persons for murder and other offences, while 13 others, including VHP leader Atul Vaidya, were charged with lesser offences. It had acquitted 36 others in the case.

Those given life sentence in the case are - Kailash Dhobi, Yogendra Shekhawat, Jayesh Jingar, Krishna Kalal, Jayesh Parmar, Raju Tiwari, Bharat Rajput, Dinesh Sharma, Narayan Tank, Lakhansinh Chudasama and Bharat Taili.

One Mangilal Jain, who was convicted for lesser offence, has been sentenced to 10 years jail term.

Besides, VHP leader Atul Vaid, Mukesh Jingar, Prakash Padhiyar, Surendrasinh Chauhan, Dilip Parmar, Babu Marwadi, Manish Jain, Dharmesh Shukla, Kapil Mishra, Suresh Dhobi, Ambesh Jingar and Sandeep Punjabi have been sentenced to seven years imprisonment each.

During the argument on quantum of sentence, special public prosecutor and counsel for Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), R C Kodekar had asked the court for nothing less than death sentence or jail term till death for all 24 convicts.

Lawyer for the victims, S M Vora, also sought maximum punishment for the accused and argued that sentencing for each offence should not run concurrently so that they spend their entire life in jail.

However, lawyer of the accused, Abhay Bhardwaj, has refuted the demand of capital punishment or maximum punishment in his arguments saying that the incident was spontaneous and there were enough provocations for it.

The Gulberg society massacre was one of the nine cases of 2002 Gujarat riots probed by the SC-appointed SIT.

The incident had taken place a day after S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express was burnt near Godhra train station in which 58 'kar sevaks' returning from Ayodhya were killed.

During the course of trial, as many as 338 witnesses were cross-examined, with four different judges having presided over the case.

Comments

Ahmed Ali K
 - 
Friday, 17 Jun 2016

Death sentence?
for what?
Is he a non Hindu?

Jaleel S
 - 
Friday, 17 Jun 2016

Rarest of rare judgement...

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 27,2020

New Delhi, Mar 27: Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba has asked states to urgently strengthen the surveillance of international travellers who entered the country before the lockdown as there appeared to be a "gap" between the actual monitoring for COVID-19 and the total arrivals.

In a letter to chief secretaries of all States and Union Territories, Gauba said such a gap in monitoring of international passengers for coronavirus "may seriously jeopardise the efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19", given that many amongst the persons who have tested positive so far in India have history of international travel.

"As you are aware, we initiated screening of international incoming passengers at the airports with effect from January 18, 2020. I have been informed that up to March 23, 2020, cumulatively, Bureau Of Immigration has shared details of more than 15 lakh incoming international passengers with the States/UTs for monitoring for COVID-19.

"However, there appears to be a gap between the number of international passengers who need to be monitored by the States/UTs and the actual number of passengers being monitored," Gauba said in his letter.

The government had started monitoring of all international passengers who have arrived in India in last two months in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak.

Gauba said,"it is important that all international passengers are put under close surveillance to prevent the spread of the epidemic."

He said the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) has repeatedly emphasised the importance of monitoring, and requested the states and UTs to take immediate steps in this regard.

"I would, therefore, like to request you to ensure that concerted and sustained action is taken urgently to put such passengers under surveillance immediately as per MoHFW guidelines," he said.

The cabinet secretary also urged the chief secretaries to actively involve the district authorities in this effort.The screening of international incoming passengers at airports was done from January 18 in a phased manner.

The Central and state governments have unleashed unprecedented and extraordinary measures to contain the spread of the fast-spreading coronavirus, which has already infected more than 700 people in the country and claimed at least 17 lives.

A nationwide lockdown was also announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday for 21 days.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 9,2020

New Delhi, Mar 9: A war of words broke out between the BJP and the Congress on Sunday over the Yes Bank crisis with the ruling party seeking to link it with the Gandhi family, while the opposition wondered if the prime minister and finance minister were "complicit" as the bank's loan book grew manifold.

Posting on Twitter a clip of a news channel report that Rana Kapoor, the arrested Yes Bank founder, had bought a painting from Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, BJP's information and technology wing in-charge Amit Malviya alleged that every financial crime in India has "deep links" with the Gandhis.

The Congress dismissed the charge "fake" and called it a "diversionary" tactic.

It said Priyanka Gandhi had sold an M F Hussain painting of her father Rajiv Gandhi to Kapoor for Rs 2 crore, and the entire amount was disclosed in her income tax return of 2010.

Malviya tweeted, "Every financial crime in India has deep link with the Gandhis. Mallya used to send flight upgrade tickets to Sonia Gandhi. Had access to MMS (Manmohan Singh) and PC (P Chidambaram). Is absconding. Rahul inaugurated Nirav Modi’s bridal jewellery collection, he defaulted. Rana bought Priyanka Vadra’s paintings."

Congress' chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala asked how does an M F Hussain painting of Rajiv Gandhi sold 10 years ago by Priyanka Gandhi to Yes Bank owner Rana Kapoor and disclosed in her tax returns connect with unprecedented giving of loans of Rs 2,00,000 crore in five years of the Modi government.

"More so, when (Kapoor's) proximity to BJP leaders is well known," he said.

Rubbishing the BJP's allegation, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi at a press conference said it was a "diversionary" tactic by the government.

He noted that the bank's loan book rose from Rs 55,633 crore in March 2014, the year Narendra Modi became prime minister, to Rs 2,41,499 crore in March 2019.

"Why did the loan book rise by 100 per cent in two years after demonetisation i.e from Rs 98,210 cr in March 2016 to Rs 2,03,534 ar in March 2018? Were PM and FM sleeping, ignorant or complicit?" he asked.

The entire amount Priyanka Gandhi had received was in cheque and was fully disclosed in the income tax return, Singhvi said.

Surjewala, taking to Twitter, said instead of diverting from the real issue of people's money sinking into a bad bank, should not the government answer questions like how did loans given by Yes Bank rise from Rs 55,633 crore in March 2014 to Rs 2,41,499 crore in March 2019, an increase of almost Rs 2,00,000 crore in fiver years of the Modi government.

Why did the loans given by Yes Bank rise by a whopping 100 per cent in just two years after demonetisation, he asked.

Surjewala also questioned why did the prime minister address a conference sponsored by Yes Bank on March 6 despite the RBI moratorium.

"Why did the Haryana BJP government deposit over Rs 1,000 crore in Yes Bank a month ago, knowing that it was sinking? Is this figure Rs 3,000 cr? Did Fadnavis government in Maharashtra make similar deposits?" Surjewala asked.

"Of course, the government's media proxies won't dare to ask these questions. But the nation wants to know!" he said in a series of tweets.

Kapoor, 62, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in Mumbai after charges of alleged financial irregularities and mismanagement in the bank's operations surfaced and the RBI and Union government initiated action to control its affairs.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 5,2020

Jodhpur, Jun 5: A video has gone viral on social media showing what could be called Jodhpur's George Floyd moment with a twist, showing cops throwing a person on the ground and pressing his neck with their knees for roaming around without a mask.

However, unlike the unfortunate incident in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the cops in Jodhpur reportedly acted after the person, said to be mentally challenged, turned violent after being confronted by the police.

Dumb TV media is playing the initial part of this video as 'India's George Flyod moment'. Doesn't matter to them that the same video shows the man beating the cops back badly pic.twitter.com/vGSaON6oii

— Swati Goel Sharma (@swati_gs) June 5, 2020

George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died after being arrested by the police outside a shop in Minneapolis in the US on May 25. Footage showed a white officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeling on Floyd's neck for several minutes while he was pinned to the floor. He was pronounced dead later in the hospital, triggering widespread protests across the US.

However, in the Jodhpur incident, the man, identifed as Mukesh Kumar Prajapat, did not die but instead started fighting with the policemen.

Jodhpur police officers confirmed that the video was shot in the city on Thursday after the police wanted to issue a challan against the man for roaming on the streets without wearing a mask before he started manhandling the police.

The video shows a cop pressing his neck with his knee while two other cops held the young man's legs. A huge crowd gathered when the scuffle broke out.

Meanwhile, the SHO of Dev Nagar police station, Somkaran, said that the police were issuing a challan to Prajapat when he attacked them and tore their uniform. An FIR has been lodged against Prajapat on a complaint lodged by the Pratap Nagar police station. He will be produced in the court later in the day.

Prajapat is said to be mentally challenged and had damaged his father's eye earlier for which a case was registered against him, the poice said. Action is being initiated against Prajapat under the Epidemic Act, they added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.