Tag: riots

2020 Delhi riots: Court frames charges of abduction, murder against Tahir Hussain, others

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A court here on Thursday framed charges for several offences, including abduction and murder, against AAP leader Tahir Hussain and 10 others in connection with the alleged murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala was hearing the case registered at the Dayalpur Police Station against 11 accused, including Hussain, on the complaint lodged by the officer’s father.
Sharma’s body was recovered from Khajuri Khas drain near the Chand Bagh pulia.
“I find that accused persons namely Mohd Tahir Hussain, Haseen, Nazim, Kasim, Sameer Khan, Anas, Firoz, Javed, Gulfam, Shoib Alam and Muntajim are liable to be tried for an offence punishable under section 120 B (criminal conspiracy) IPC read with sections 147 (rioting ) 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon) and 153A (punishment for promoting enmity between groups on the ground of religion etc) and 302 (murder) of the IPC,” the judge said.
They are also liable to be tried under sections for kidnapping and wrongful confinement, the judge added.
All accused, except Muntajim, were put on trial for the offences under sections 153 A of the IPC read with 120B and 149 IPC, the judge said, adding, Haseen and Nazim are also liable to be tried for the offence under the provision of the Arms Act.
According to Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey, a witness had captured a video of the throwing of a dead body in the drain and the call detail records (CDR) of all accused, except accused Anas, Nazim and Kasim, proved their presence in and around the spot of the incident, which corroborated the prosecution’s case against the accused.
“All accused indulged in targeting Hindus and their acts were apparently prejudicial to the harmony between communities of Muslims and Hindus. They disturbed the public tranquillity as well,” the judge said.

The judge said the act of a group of more than one person from a mob can make everyone liable.
Pramachal said that in the present case, it was not necessary for all members of mob to play some overt act in the killing of Ankit Sharma and according to the evidence before the court, the mob was acting in a “well-prepared manner to attack Hindus and their properties, which signified the existence of prior meeting of their mind.”
Tahir Hussain also played the “role of instigator to kill Hindus” and also exhorted this mob “not to spare Hindus,” the judge said.
“He (Hussain) instigated the mob when Ankit came forward towards this mob and the conspiracy need not be specifically to kill Ankit. When the accused persons were acting in pursuance to conspiracy and common object to kill Hindus, it covered the killing of Ankit as well for the reasons that Ankit was killed because he was Hindu,” the judge said.
The judge said the mob continuously indulged in the firing of gunshots, pelting of stones and petrol bombs “towards Hindus and houses of Hindus.”
“These acts of the mob make it clear that their objective was to harm Hindus in their body and property to the maximum possible extent. It is also clearly shown that this mob consciously wanted to even kill Hindus,” the judge said.
The ASJ also said that at the present stage of the trial, the court cannot raise any presumption against the veracity of the statements of the witnesses because of the delay in recording their statements.
The rule of prudence can be applied only after trial, at the time of assessment of the evidence on the parameters of credibility, he added.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Court #frames #charges #abduction #murder #Tahir #Hussain
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 24, 2023
Delhi riots: Court rejects police revision petition against separate FIR order

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A court here has dismissed a revision petition filed by the Delhi Police against the order of a magisterial court to register a separate FIR on the basis of a complaint pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
Upholding the order directing the station house officer (SHO) concerned to register a case, the sessions court said that just because there was a flood of complaints, the investigating agency could not make an exception to the mandate of law.
The court also observed that an excess number of complaints cannot be a reason for the clubbing them together unless there was the proximity of time and place showing “continuous action” by the perpetrators in the alleged crime.
The court was hearing the matter wherein the complainant, Mohd Vakil, had moved an application for the registration of a separate case, rather than attaching his complaint in an FIR registered by Karawal Nagar police station, and the magisterial court in November last year had allowed his plea.
Against the magisterial court’s order, the Delhi Police had filed the present revision petition in the sessions court.
“Excess number of complaints cannot be a ground to club all or several complaints without there being the proximity of time and place of the alleged crime, so as to show continuous action of the perpetrators,” Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said in an order passed on Tuesday.
The judge also said there was no “illegality” committed by the magistrate.
The judge noted that complainant Mohd Vakil, a resident of Shiv Vihar, claimed to have been injured by an acid bottle thrown on his house by some rioters on February 25, 2020, and his complaint was clubbed in FIR number 138/20.

This FIR was registered on the complaint of a man called Furkan Ansari, of another lane in the same locality, who had alleged damage to his car and house by rioters during his absence on the same day, the court noted.
The judge also noted that during the proceedings, the prosecution informed that the final report in the FIR was not yet filed and they were about to file an “untrace report” (regarding the offenders remaining untraceable).
“The complainant in a case is conferred with certain legal remedies, in case he is not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the investigating agency and clubbing all complaints of several incidents, in one FIR cannot be termed legal, unless all these complaints on the face of it show the time and place of such incidents to be the same and indicate towards the same perpetrators of the crime i.e, on the basis of continuity of action of the perpetrators,” the judge said.
ASJ Pramachala further said that “just because there was a flood of complaints, investigating agency could not make an exception to the mandate of law”.
The judge said, “I also find that the FIR no. 138/20 cannot be termed as a sufficient step taken on the complaint of the respondent (Mohd Vakil) herein. The place of incident in aforesaid FIR and the place of incident as disclosed in the complaint of the respondent herein were apparently different places.”
He said that even though both incidents were outcomes of riotous acts, still the investigation in both could not be the same.
The judge said that Ansari was not present at his house during the alleged incident, and according to him, the incident occurred at an unknown time and date, while Vakil had claimed to be an eyewitness of the incident, besides mentioning the concrete date and time of the alleged incident.
“The case laws referred by the state are not applicable to the situation involved herein. It is not a case of two versions of the same incident,” the judge said rejecting the arguments of the petitioner (Delhi Police).
According to Delhi Police, the magisterial court had failed to consider that Vakil’s complaint was clubbed in accordance with the law and that Vakil had no grievance against the police regarding the quality of the investigation.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Court #rejects #police #revision #petition #separate #FIR #order
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 23, 2023
Delhi riots accused objects in HC to intervention by media association in plea against leak

[ad_1]
New Delhi: Delhi riots accused Asif Iqbal Tanha on Tuesday objected to the “intervention” by a news broadcasters’ association in his plea before the Delhi High Court against the “leak” of his alleged “disclosure statement” in the case pertaining to the larger conspiracy behind the 2020 violence.
Counsel for News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA) said the petition concerns a prayer for registration of FIR against journalists which would have ramifications and, being a well-recognised body, it wanted to assist the court in the matter by filing an intervention application.
Following the application, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani had earlier suggested his recusal from the matter on account of his “past association” with the body.
Senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for the petitioner, alleged that the association, which was “not interested” in the issue of broadcast of the alleged disclosure statement when a complaint was made to it, has now filed the intervention application to ensure that the eventuality of the judge’s recusal “must come true”.
He asserted there can be no “intervention” by a third person in a criminal matter and urged the court to consider the fact that the application was filed only when the petition, which was filed in 2020, travelled through six judges to reach before this court for adjudication.
“Notice is not for asking in criminal matters… this is not a PIL. I am espousing a personal cause. This is my grievance,” Aggarwal argued.
Counsel for NBDA as well as another media organisation, which is seeking a hearing in the case, said their applications were not for recusal of the judge but only intervention.
The counsel for the petitioner also said he was not seeking the recusal of the judge on account of any apprehension of bias.

Justice Bhambhani then said although “recusal should not come so easy”, he “has to have some comfort to decide the matter” and there should be no perception of bias.
“Recusal should not come so easy but there are higher considerations than deciding than A versus B… It is not actual bias but the perception of bias. Even deciding the application, I have to have the comfort level. I never get into a matter where I myself am not comfortable with my independence,” said Justice Bhambhani.
Aggarwal said instances where applications are filed with the “knowledge” about a judge’s “predisposition” in relation to not hearing certain matters should be dealt with an “iron hand”.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, who appeared for Delhi Police, said the present case was not a “criminal matter as such” and the media organisations have a legitimate interest in its outcome.
He said the issue of recusal pertained to the judge’s “conscience” and “nobody has to persuade” him on that issue as there was no application for recusal from any party.
“There is a party your lordship has represented earlier (as a lawyer)… This (recusal) is your lordship’s own judgement,” Jain said.
Senior counsel for Tanha has earlier argued that the application for intervention was an “attempt to overreach the institution” after Justice Bhambhani suggested sending the plea to another judge on account of his “past association” with NBDA.
The senior counsel had then said that he would assist the court on the law of recusal, adding “This is the dirty tricks department at its worst and if we do not stand up to this, I think we are making it far too easy for people to do this exercise”.
Tanha had moved the high court in 2020 against certain media houses disseminating his alleged admission of his guilt before filing of cognisance was taken by the trial court.
In his petition, Tanha has said he was aggrieved by various publications reporting that he has confessed to orchestrating the Delhi riots and alleged that he was coerced to sign certain papers in the effective custody of the police.
He has contended that the action of two media houses in placing contents from charge sheet in the media violated the programme code.
Tanha, who was arrested in May 2020, was released from jail in June 2021 after the high court granted him bail in the riots case on larger conspiracy.
In its status report filed the case, the police said that while the inquiry could not establish how the details of the investigation were shared with the media, no prejudice was caused to Tanha in his exercise of the right to a free and fair trial.
Tanha’s counsel has earlier argued before the high court that the internal inquiry conducted by the police into the leak was an “eyewash”.
The matter would be heard next on April 12.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #accused #objects #intervention #media #association #plea #leak
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 21, 2023
Delhi riots: HC seeks status report on disbursal of compensation to victims

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday sought a status report, within four weeks, from the North-East Delhi Riots Claims Commission (NEDRCC) on the claims received by it from the victims and the amounts disbursed to them, if any.
A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh was considering a number of petitions submitted by riot victims seeking compensation and some seeking enhanced compensation under the “Assistance Scheme for the Help of Riot Victims” of the Delhi government.
The NEDRCC was set up by the Arvind Kejriwal-led government in April 2020.
The judge also directed the Secretary of the Commission to place on record the procedure followed by it in processing the applications for claims and award of compensation.
The assistance scheme provides for compensation for the death of a major or a minor, permanent incapacitation, serious or minor injuries, and loss of property.
The petitioners’ lawyers claimed that surveys were done by the office of the Claims Commission in a few of the cases and that the amounts awarded were significantly lower than those set forth in the scheme of the Delhi government.
Advocate Karuna Nundy, representing one of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioner is seeking enhanced compensation and is aggrieved about the grant of ex gratia compensation of total Rs 5 lakh for the two children who died during the riots.
She argued that the compensation was significantly inadequate and that a further grant of Rs 5 lakh was required.

According to Samir Vashisht, standing counsel for Delhi Government, the Claims Commission has been evaluating the claims, and a status report can be requested for detailed information regarding the progress of the applications up to this point.
Given that the petitioners have a variety of financial hardships, Judge Singh noted that the Claims Commission should move the matter along quickly.
“I want to see what the commission is doing and then proceed to hear the matter,” the court said.
The judge listen the matter for the next hearing on April 28.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #seeks #status #report #disbursal #compensation #victims
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 20, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Court orders framing of arson, attempt to murder charges against 19

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A Sessions court here has ordered framing of charges against Faisal Farooq, the owner of Rajdhani school, and 18 others for their alleged involvement in a case of arson, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
The court was hearing a case where a riotous mob, on the purported instigation of Farooq, allegedly torched DRP School and adjoining properties near Shiv Vihar Tiraha on February 24, 2020. The 18 accused persons were reportedly part of the riotous mob.
According to the prosecution, the mob was using Rajdhani School as its base for the purpose of throwing petrol bombs and stones at the properties of a particular community and also robbed valuable items from the school.
“I find that (all) accused persons are liable to be tried for offences punishable under sections 120 B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 147 (rioting ) 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon) 302 (murder) 153A (punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.), 395 (dacoity)…of the IPC,” Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said in an order passed on Friday.
Charges are to be framed against them also under sections 427 (punishment for committing mischief and thereby causing loss or damage to the amount of Rs fifty or upwards), 435 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to an amount of 100 rupees or upwards), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.) and 450 (house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment for life) of the IPC, the judge said.
All accused except for Farooq were also liable to be tried under sections 147, 148,153 A, 395,427, 435, 436, 450, 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC read with sections 120 B, 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) and 188 ( disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC, the judge added.
“Faisal Farooq is also liable to be tried for offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 307, 395, 427, 435, 436, 450 of the IPC read with 120 B of the IPC, and for the offence punishable under sections 153A and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC,” the judge said.
ASJ Pramachala also put on trial Mohd. Ansar under the provisions of the Arms Act.

Regarding the identification of the accused persons as members of the riotous mob, the judge said the rule of prudence can be applied only after trial, at the time of assessment of the evidence on the parameters of credibility.
Rejecting the arguments for the discharge of the accused, such as call details record (CDR) locations and the delay in registration of FIR and recording statement of witnesses, the judge said, “I have considered all these contentions, but I do not find the discharge of any accused being made out on the basis of these contentions, in view of the evidence of identification of all the accused persons as part of the riotous mob.”
ASJ Pramachala said while CDR locations were not the basic premise of the prosecution’s case and were used as additional evidence, the absence of the test identification parade (TIP) could not be claimed as a ground for discharge.
The judge also rejected the plea of delay for seeking discharge, saying “It is well known that riots had shaken Delhi and so even police agency could have been under tremendous pressure on account of riots and the consequent flow of complaints and by that time already Covid 19 virus had knocked the door of our society and was on continuous rise, leading to nationwide lockdown .”
The court said the credibility of any witness can be looked into only after conducting the trial and there was evidence of arson on the day of the alleged incident.
Regarding the alleged conspiracy, the court said, “In the present case, the description of evidence shows the deliberation among Farooq and other accused persons, which was subsequently followed by an attack on DRP School and other nearby properties of Hindus.”
It said prior to the attack, a large number of people of a particular community had assembled at Farooq’s school, which was followed by continuous instances of pelting of stones and petrol at nearby properties and DRP School, and this reflected “preparations made on the basis of a meeting of mind among the accused persons to indulge into a particular act as alleged in this case.”
Noting the complaint and statements of witnesses, the court said it was “beyond doubt that an unlawful assembly was formed with a common object to attack upon the properties belonging to persons from the Hindu community.”
Regarding the offence of attempt to murder, the court noted the statement of a witness, according to which the mob was exhorting to kill people of a particular community and that accused Mohd. Ansar fired at him.
It said, “The acts of accused Farooq showed that he had a meeting of mind with other members of the mob for facilitating an attack against the properties of Hindus and DRP School. He also made a provocative statement against Hindus, which had the effect of encouraging hatred between the community of Hindus and Muslims.”
Dayalpur police station had registered an FIR against Faisal Farooq, Shahrukh Malik, Shahnawaz, Rashid, Mohd. Faisal, Mohd. Sohaib, Shahrukh, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvez, Aarif, Sirajuddin, Faizan, Irshad, Anis Qureshi, Mohd. Parvez, Mohd. Illyas, Mohd. Furkan, and Mohd. Ansar.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Court #orders #framing #arson #attempt #murder #charges
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 18, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Court rejects anticipatory bail of accused, probe ordered

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A court here has rejected the anticipatory bail of an accused in a case pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots and directed the Delhi Police to conduct a proper investigation into the case.
The court was hearing the pre-arrest bail plea of Sunder against whom Bhajanpura police station had registered a case for various offences, including for rioting and arson.
“The report (by the investigating officer) shows that till the time of moving this application, the applicant remained untraceable by the police. Moreover, his name has been taken by several eyewitnesses and he is also reported to be appearing in the video footage and in these circumstances, I do not find the applicant entitled to pre-arrest bail,” Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said in an order passed on Wednesday.
The court rejected the argument of Sunder’s advocate that the applicant was granted bail in two other cases registered at the same police station, saying it could not be a “guiding factor” to decide the bail application in the present case.
“At the same time, I am not very much satisfied with the kind of investigation done in the case, wherein no attempt has been made to recover any looted materials. Hence, the matter is referred to the station house officer (SHO) to ensure that a proper investigation is done in this case…IO shall hand over a copy of this order to SHO for compliance,” the court said.
The court noted the IO’s reply, according to which Sunder had joined the investigation on March 6 and allegedly in his disclosure statement, he confessed to having looted and vandalised several stores, including mobile phone shops.
“But surprisingly neither anything has been said about an attempt made to recover the looted articles, nor the requirement of further investigation or interrogation of the applicant and on the contrary, IO reports that custodial interrogation is not required,” the court said noting the reply.
The court also noted that the IO said nothing has been done to recover the looted articles.

(Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by Siasat staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Court #rejects #anticipatory #bail #accused #probe #ordered
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 16, 2023
Court convicts nine in 2020 North-East Delhi riots case

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A court here has convicted nine persons in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, an official said on Tuesday.
The matter pertains to rioting, arson and vandalism in the Gokulpuri area during the riots.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastaya Pramachala convicted Mohd. Shahnawaz a.k.a. Shanu, Mohd. Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid a.k.a. Raja, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvez, Md. Faisal and Rashid a.k.a. Monu under sections related to rioting, theft, mischief by fire, destroying properties by setting them on fire and unlawful assembly.
“I find that the charges levelled against all the accused persons in this case are proved beyond doubt. Hence, accused persons are convicted for offences punishable under the relevant sections of the IPC,” ASJ Pramachala said.
“On the basis of the assessment of the evidence in this case and further reasoning, I am convinced with the version of prosecution against the accused persons. I find it well established that all the named accused persons, in this case, did become part of an unruly mob, which was guided by communal feelings and was having a common object to cause maximum damage to the properties of persons belonging to the Hindu community,” he added.
Special Public Prosecutor D.K. Bhatia represented Delhi Police in the matter.
[ad_2]
#Court #convicts #NorthEast #Delhi #riots #case

( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 15, 2023
Gujarat Assembly passes resolution against BBC for docu on 2002 riots

[ad_1]
Gandhinagar: The Gujarat Assembly on Friday passed a resolution requesting the Centre to take strict action against BBC for tarnishing the image and popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with its documentary on the 2002 riots in the state.
The controversial two-part series by the British Broadcasting Corporation titled ‘India: The Modi Question’ misrepresents the events of 2002 in a malicious and low-level attempt to tarnish India’s image globally, Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Vipul Patel said in the House while moving the resolution.
The documentary claims to have probed certain aspects of the riots, which took place after the Godhra train burning incident when Modi was Gujarat’s chief minister.
The documentary was banned in India soon after its release.
Patel’s resolution was supported by BJP MLAs Manisha Vakil, Amit Thaker, Dhavalsinh Zala and minister Harsh Sanghavi.
It was passed by voice vote in the absence of Congress MLAs who were expelled from the House earlier in the day.
After passing the resolution unanimously, Speaker Shanker Chaudhary said the attempt by BBC is “reprehensible” and is “condemned vehemently,” adding the House passed the resolution to send its message to the Centre.
“India is a democratic country and freedom of expression is at the core of its Constitution, but that does not mean a news media can act by abusing such freedom,” said Patel while moving the private-member resolution in the second sitting of the House.

“If someone behaves or acts like this (BBC), then it cannot be taken lightly. BBC is losing its credibility and seems to be working with some hidden agenda against India and the Indian government. Hence, this House requests the Central government to take strict action against the mind-boggling findings shown in the BBC documentary,” Patel said in the Assembly.
Through the documentary, there is a deliberate attempt to “tarnish the image and popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi” with an agenda to affect the country’s intention to find top place globally, Patel said.
He claimed opposition parties in other countries support the government during such times, but this is not the case in India, which allowed international organisations like the BBC to get the strength to carry out activities against the country.
The Nanavati-Shah Commission concluded after a thorough investigation the burning of coaches S6 and 7 of Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002, was a premeditated conspiracy, and that the state-wide riots that followed were spontaneous, Patel said.
The Nanavati-Shah Commission found no evidence the state government, religious organization, or political party played any role in the riots, and attempts to make the then chief minister (Modi) and officials responsible have also failed in the courts, Patel asserted.
Supporting the resolution, BJP MLA Vakil said the intention of the documentary was to tarnish India’s global image, adding Modi’s life has been a journey of courage and compassion.
As the chief minister and prime minister, he has become the most popular world leader, she said.
On the 2002 riots, she said certain NGOs and activists conspired to defame the Gujarat government and wanted to damage Modi’s reputation, adding there was a larger political conspiracy of destabilising the state government by hook or crook.
Vakil referred to the Supreme Court verdict on the Zakia Jafri case giving clean chit to Modi and claimed the BBC documentary was “mere international propaganda which is totally biased and showcases the colonial mindset”.
Supporting the resolution, Thaker said Modi is not a question but a solution for various issues plaguing the world today, such as climate change and COVID-19 pandemic, etc.
The BBC is in the habit of making controversial documentaries on subjects in India, Thaker alleged.
He also questioned the timing of the documentary by connecting it with the conclusion of Congress ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ led by Rahul Gandhi.
Gujarat Home Minister Harsh Sanghavi said the documentary was not just against Modi but against 135 crore citizens of the country.
“The resolution brought by Vipul Patel for strict action is historic. ..Is it Modi’s fault to realise the dream of making Gujarat a riot-free state? Many forces worked to ensure Gujarat does not get a stable government,” Sangahvi said in his speech in the House.
He said “so-called intellectuals” started hurling one allegation after another on Modi after he took over as the prime minister.
“As 2024 (Lok Sabha polls) approaches, they (opponents) have no other issue against Modi. They used BBC to make a documentary,” Sanghavi said.
He also criticised social activist Teesta Setalvad and said “truths regarding her have not been shown in any documentary”.
Sanghavi also quoted “important people” who have commented and criticised the BBC documentary such as the Indian foreign ministry spokesperson, British parliamentarian Bob Blackman, and former BBC head Mark Tully.
The Gujarat minister compared the BBC documentary to the “toolkit” conspiring against India, adding certain sections of the media suffered from “Modi phobia”.
[ad_2]
#Gujarat #Assembly #passes #resolution #BBC #docu #riots
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 10, 2023
Gujarat Assembly passes resolution against BBC for documentary on 2002 riots

[ad_1]
Gandhinagar: The Gujarat Assembly on Friday passed a resolution requesting the Centre to take strict action against BBC for tarnishing the image and popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with its documentary on the 2002 riots in the state.
The controversial two-part series by the British Broadcasting Corporation titled ‘India: The Modi Question’ misrepresents the events of 2002 in a malicious and low-level attempt to tarnish India’s image globally, Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Vipul Patel said in the House while moving the resolution.
The documentary claims to have probed certain aspects of the riots, which took place after the Godhra train burning incident, when Modi was Gujarat chief minister.
The documentary was banned in India soon after its release.
Patel’s resolution was supported by BJP MLAs Manisha Vakil, Amit Thaker, Dhavalsinh Zala and minister Harsh Sanghavi.
It was passed by voice vote in the absence of Congress MLAs who were expelled from the House earlier in the day.
After passing the resolution unanimously, Speaker Shanker Chaudhary said the attempt by BBC is “reprehensible” and is “condemned vehemently,” adding the House passed the resolution to send its message to the Centre.
“India is a democratic country and freedom of expression is at the core of its Constitution, but that does not mean a news media can act by abusing such freedom,” said Patel while moving the private-member resolution in the second sitting of the House.

“If someone behaves or acts like this (BBC), then it cannot be taken lightly. BBC is losing its credibility and seems to be working with some hidden agenda against India and the Indian government. Hence, this House requests the Central government to take strict action against the mind-boggling findings shown in the BBC documentary,” Patel said in the Assembly.
Through the documentary, there is a deliberate attempt to “tarnish the image and popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi” with an agenda to affect the country’s intention to find top place globally, Patel said.
He claimed opposition parties in other countries support the government during such times, but this is not the case in India, which allowed international organisations like the BBC to get the strength to carry out activities against the country.
The Nanavati-Shah Commission concluded after thorough investigation the burning of coaches S6 and 7 of Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002 was a premeditated conspiracy, and that the state-wide riots that followed were spontaneous, Patel said.
The Nanavati-Shah Commission found no evidence the state government, religious organization, or political party played any role in the riots, and attempts to make the then chief minister (Modi) and officials responsible have also failed in the courts, Patel asserted.
Supporting the resolution, BJP MLA Vakil said the intention of the documentary was to tarnish India’s global image, adding Modi’s life has been a journey of courage and compassion.
As the chief minister and prime minister, he has become the most popular world leader, she said.
On the 2002 riots, she said certain NGOs and activists conspired to defame the Gujarat government and wanted to damage Modi’s reputation, adding there was a larger political conspiracy of destabilising the state government by hook or crook.
Vakil referred to the Supreme Court verdict on the Zakia Jafri case giving clean chit to Modi and claimed the BBC documentary was “mere international propaganda which is totally biased and showcases the colonial mindset”.
Supporting the resolution, Thaker said Modi is not a question but a solution for various issues plaguing the world today, such as climate change and COVID-19 pandemic, etc.
The BBC is in the habit of making controversial documentaries on subjects in India, Thaker alleged.
He also questioned the timing of the documentary by connecting it with the conclusion of Congress ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ led by Rahul Gandhi.
Gujarat Home Minister Harsh Sanghavi said the documentary was not just against Modi but against 135 crore citizens of the country.
“The resolution brought by Vipul Patel for strict action is historic. ..Is it Modi’s fault to realise the dream of making Gujarat a riot-free state? Many forces worked to ensure Gujarat does not get a stable government,” Sangahvi said in his speech in the House.
He said “so-called intellectuals” started hurling one allegation after another on Modi after he took over as the prime minister.
“As 2024 (Lok Sabha polls) approaches, they (opponents) have no other issue against Modi. They used BBC to make a documentary,” Sanghavi said.
He also criticised social activist Teesta Setalvad and said “truths regarding her have not been shown in any documentary”.
Sanghavi also quoted “important people” who have commented and criticised the BBC documentary such as the Indian foreign ministry spokesperson, British parliamentarian Bob Blackman, and former BBC head Mark Tully.
The Gujarat minister compared the BBC documentary to the “toolkit” conspiring against India, adding certain sections of the media suffered from “Modi phobia”.
[ad_2]
#Gujarat #Assembly #passes #resolution #BBC #documentary #riots
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 10, 2023
2020 Delhi riots: Muslim man’s murder accused gets bail;

[ad_1]
New Delhi: A Delhi court has granted bail to a man accused of murder during the 2020 North East Delhi riots, saying in the name of opposing the bail plea the prosecution tried to mislead the court as eyewitnesses did not establish his culpability.
The court also asked the Commissioner of Police Sanjay Arora to sensitise all Investigating Officers (IOs) about their duty towards assisting the court in a fair manner.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala was hearing the bail plea of Rishabh Chaudhary in a case of rioting and alleged murder of a man called Mushraff, whose body was found in a drain near Johripur Pulia in Gokalpuri on February 27, 2020.
According to the postmortem report, there were 12 external injuries on the body and the cause of death was injuries to the brain produced by blunt force impact.
“…Cited eyewitnesses have been examined, but they did not establish the incident in question and the other two remaining witnesses did not claim having seen any person in the mob I find the applicant to be entitled to bail,” the judge said in an order passed on Friday.
“Hence, the bail application is allowed and applicant Rishabh Chaudhary is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs 30,000 each with one surety in the like amount,” the judge added.
The judge said the statement of an eyewitness before the Investigating Officer (IO) identifying the accused had no evidentiary value and that the same witness in his testimony before the court categorically stated he had not identified anyone in the riotous mob.
But the IO’s reply did not mention the witness’ statement before the court, the judge said.

“It is well within the knowledge of the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) and IO that statement under section 161 (examination of witnesses by police) of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC) cannot stand before the testimony given before the court and hence, the purpose of not mentioning the testimony of this witness given before the court appears to be nothing but to mislead this court ,” the judge said.
The judge noted the submissions of the SPP that one of the prosecution witnesses had identified Chaudhary as a member of the riotous mob and that the IO had mentioned him in the reply.
But in his testimony before the court, the other alleged eyewitness did not say anything about the incident which allegedly occurred on February 25 from around 7.30 pm to 8 pm, and which was being probed in the present case, the judge said.
“Thus, I find that in the name of opposing bail application through a reply the prosecution has attempted to mislead the court rather than assisting in a fair manner to project the correct picture of the developments taking place in the case,” the judge said.
He said any reply being filed by the IO or prosecution must be with the objective to assist the court and it was imperative to have a fair and transparent reporting of the facts.
“If the reply is filed in a jealous manner, thereby suppressing the material facts, it cannot be said to be assistance to the court. Hence, I find that there is a requirement to sensitise all the IOs in respect of their duty towards the court, so as to assist in a fair manner, rather than adopting the practice of hide and seek,” the judge said.
“Hence, once again I call upon the Commissioner of Police to do the needful for proper sensitisation of all the IOs in this respect,” the judge added.
The Gokalpuri police station had registered an FIR against 12 accused, including Chaudhary for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, including rioting, murder, criminal conspiracy and kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
The other accused in the case are Lokesh Kumar Solanki, Pankaj Sharma, Sumit Chaudhary, Ankit Chaudhary, Prince, Jatin Sharma, Vivek Panchal, Himanshu Thakur, Sahil, Sandeep and Tinku Arora.
In his bail plea, Chaudhary said he was arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Solanki but no recovery was effected from his possession and he was never related to Kattar Hindu Ekta’ WhatsApp group, directly or indirectly.
Chaudhary’s counsel said the applicant is a student of graduation aged 22 years and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail.
The name of the WhatsApp group had surfaced in a supplementary charge sheet filed by the Delhi Police against nine accused, including Chaudhary, for the alleged murder of a man named Hashim Ali during the riots.
According to the charge sheet, ‘Kattar Hindu Ekta’ group was created on February 25. Its alleged aim was to exact revenge for the troubles faced by Hindus and promote enmity between different groups on the ground of religion. It allegedly acted in a way which was prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
In the excerpts from the chats exchanged by the group filed in the charge sheet dated September 26, 2020, one of the members claimed RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) activists had come to support them.
Communal clashes had broken out in North East Delhi on February 24 between the supporters and opponents of the new citizenship law. The violence soon spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and around 200 injured.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Siasat staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
[ad_2]
#Delhi #riots #Muslim #mans #murder #accused #bail
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 4, 2023