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
June 10,2020

New Delhi, Jun 10: Delhi recorded 1,366 fresh cases of COVID-19 on Tuesday, taking the tally to 31,309, while the death toll mounted to 905, authorities said on Wednesday.

According to a health bulletin issued by the Delhi government's health department, there are 18,543 active cases, while 11,861 patients have either recovered, been discharged or migrated.

No health bulletin was issued on Tuesday.

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
June 30,2020

New Delhi, Jun 30: Short video making app TikTok, one of the 59 apps banned by the Central government on Tuesday, has said that it complies with all data privacy and security requirements under the Indian law and has not shared any information of its users in India with any foreign government, including the Chinese Government.

Taking to microblogging site Twitter, Tiktok India posted the statement issued by Nikhil Gandhi, Head of TikTok, India.

"The Government of India has issued an interim order for the blocking of 59 apps, including TikTok and we are in the process of complying with it. We have been invited to meet with concerned government stakeholders for an opportunity to respond and submit clarifications. TikTok continues to comply with all data privacy and security requirements under Indian law and has not shared any information of our users in India with any foreign government, including the Chinese Government," reads the statement.

"Further, if we are requested to in the future we would not do so. We place the highest importance on user privacy and integrity. TikTok has democratized the internet by making it available in 14 Indian languages, with hundreds of millions of users, artists, story-tellers, educators and performers depending on it for their livelihood, many of whom are first-time internet users," the statement further reads.

Amid border tensions with China in Eastern Ladakh, the Centre had on Monday banned 59 mobile apps including Tik Tok, UC Browser and other Chinese apps "prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity and defence" of the country.

A senior official at the IT ministry said the prime reason to block the apps under section 69 A of Information Technology Act is to stop the violation and threat to the security of the state and public order and to plug the data leaks.

"Almost all of them have some preferential Chinese interest. Few are from countries like Singapore. However, the majority have parent companies which are Chinese," the official said.

This move will safeguard the interests of crores of Indian mobile and internet users. This decision is a targeted move to ensure safety and sovereignty of Indian cyberspace, Ministry of Information Technology said.

Comments

Angry Indian
 - 
Tuesday, 30 Jun 2020

war is fought man to man face to face...how china killed how soldier,

and we indian banning there app...what a joke

now bakth will say 56 inch chest modi is hero...

 

in our counrty we have 100% fool leaders and 80% foolish citizen...we will never develop..

 

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
February 10,2020

New delhi, Feb 10: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutional validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018, and said a court can grant anticipatory bail only in cases where a prima facie case is not made out.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said a preliminary inquiry is not essential before lodging an FIR under the act and the approval of senior police officials is not needed.

Justice Ravindra Bhat, the other member of the bench, said in a concurring verdict that every citizen needs to treat fellow citizens equally and foster the concept of fraternity.

Justice Bhat said a court can quash the FIR if a prima facie case is not made out under the SC/ST Act and the liberal use of anticipatory bail will defeat the intention of Parliament.

The top court's verdict came on a batch of PILs challenging the validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act of 2018, which was brought to nullify the effect of the apex court's 2018 ruling, which had diluted the provisions of the stringent Act.

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.