All you need to know about Godhra train burning case

Agencies
October 9, 2017

New Delhi, Oct 9: The Gujarat high court is likely to pronounce its verdict on a set of appeals challenging convictions and acquittals by a Special Investigation Team court in the 2002 Godhra train burning case on Monday, more than two years after the completion of hearings on the matter.

The judgement will be delivered by a bench of justice Anant Dave and justice GR Udhwani at about 11am.

Here’s all you need to know about the case:

Train set on fire

A coach of the Sabarmati Express was set on fire at Godhra on February 27, 2002. The blaze in S6 coach killed 59 Hindus, mostly karsevaks or volunteers returning from Ayodhya, where rival Hindu and Muslim groups are locked in a decades-old dispute over a religious site.

The train fire sparked three days of reprisal attacks across the state that left 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus dead, official sources say. And as many as 100,000 Muslims and 40,000 Hindus were rendered homeless in the riots. About 130 are still reported missing.

Probe into the carnage

The Nanavati Commission, appointed by the Gujarat government to probe the incident, concluded that the fire in the coach was not an accident but it was set on fire. The Sangh Parivar claimed the train fire was targeted at the Hindus, who were returning to Ayodhya after a pilgrimage.

A damning report of Mohinder Singh Dahiya, the then assistant director of Gandhinagar’s Forensic Studies Laboratory (FSL), concluded that the coach was set afire by someone “standing in the passage of the compartment near seat number 72, using a container with a wide opening about 60 litres of inflammable liquid has been poured and then a fire has been started in the bogie”.

The accused

The special SIT court on March 1, 2011, convicted 31 people and acquitted 63 in the case. While 11 people were sentenced to death, 20 were handed out life imprisonment.

The court convicted 31 people while accepting the prosecution’s contention that there was a conspiracy behind the incident.

All the 31 were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy. Those acquitted included prime accused Maulana Umarji, the then president of Godhra municipality Mohammad Hussain Kalota, Mohammad Ansari and Nanumiya Chaudhary of Gangapur, Uttar Pradesh.

Later, several appeals were filed in the high court challenging the convictions, while the Gujarat government questioned the acquittal of the 63 people.

The 2002 Gujarat riots

There were SIT probes into the involvement of several political leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi - who was then the Gujarat chief minister - for criminal conspiracy in the riots. Modi and others were cleared after the SIT filed a closure report on February 8, 2012.

Maya Kodnani, the women and child welfare minister in the then Modi government in Gujarat, was sentenced to life in prison for a separate case of rioting in Ahmedabad’s Naroda Patiya area, a verdict she has challenged. She has been on bail since 2014.

Comments

Althaf
 - 
Monday, 9 Oct 2017

When court is controlling by sangh parivar then what verdict we can expect ?? All verdict will be in favor of sangh parivar.

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 30,2020

New Delhi, Mar 30: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday interacted with Indian ambassadors and high commissioners abroad and urged them to remain alert to developments in global efforts against COVID-19 including breakthroughs to help the country's fight against the coronavirus.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla were also present during the interaction through video-conferencing.

"Coming together for India PM interacted with Indian Ambassadors/High Commissioners abroad and urged them to remain alert to developments in global efforts against COVID-19 including breakthroughs to help our national efforts to fight COVID19," External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said in a tweet.

"PM appreciated the efforts of our missions in helping Indians abroad, in particular, students and workers," he added.

The number of positive coronavirus cases in the country stood at 1,071 on Monday. It includes 29 deaths and 99 people, who have been cured of the highly contagious virus.

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
February 21,2020

Nagpur, Feb 21: Former Maharashtra chief minister and senior BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis on Friday condemned AIMIM leader Waris Pathan's reported remarks that 15 crore Muslims are more than a match for the country's 100 crore Hindus, and asked the latter not to mistake the majority community's tolerance for weakness.

Pathan has been widely condemned for reportedly stating that "15 crore hain lekin 100 crore pe bhari hain".

He purportedly made these comments while addressing an anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act rally in Kalaburagi in north Karnataka on February 16. The AIMIM leader has claimed he was quoted out of context.

Speaking to reporters in Nagpur, Fadnavis demanded an apology from Pathan and asked the Uddhav Thackeray government to take action.

"We condemn the statement made by Waris Pathan and demand an apology. In case he does not apologise, the state government must take action against him," he said.

Fadnavis said Pathan should understand that minorities were safe and enjoyed full freedom in India because 100 crore Hindus live in the country.

He said no one would dare utter such a statement in a Muslim-majority nation, adding that the "Hindu community is tolerant but its tolerance should not be mistaken for weakness".

"Pathan should apologise to the nation and the Hindu community," he said.

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 3,2020

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

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.