English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case: Court acquits all accused citing lack of evidence

Published

on

Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case: Court acquits all accused citing lack of evidence

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Finally, the verdict in Sohrabuddin  Shaikh alleged fake encounter case went the way that was apparent through the various stages the trial went through, will all accused being acquitted owing to witnesses turning hostile and prosecution failing to provide clinching evidence.

The special CBI court in Mumbai hearing the encounter killing case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and his aide Tulsiram Prajapati in 2005 and 2006, today (Friday, Dec 21) acquitted all 22 accused, citing lack of proof.

The case had drawn much attention as BJP chief Amit Shah was also an accused in the case but was discharged later. The case and Shah was also referred to as the reason behind the ‘mysterious’ death of Judge BH Loya, who was handling the case, as well as deaths of retired judge Prakash Thombre and advocate Shrikant Khandalkar who were supposedly his confidantes. It was alleged that Judge Loya was under pressure to give a judgment favourable to Shah.

A report on news portal ‘thecitizen.in’ said: “Loyla’s (sic) death followed his appointment as the Judge of the CBI trial court. His predecessor had been transferred as he pulled up Shah for not appearing before the court. Loyla did the same and now three years after he died, his family has raised a number of questions that constitute the Caravan story. Significantly, Loyla’s successor MB Gosavi was more accommodating and he discharged Shah agreeing with the argument that he had been framed by the CBI, and was not involved.”

As for suspicions about Judge Loya’s death, the Supreme Court ruled there was nothing suspicious about Loya’s death and there is no need for investigation.

Today, in its verdict on Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case, the court said the CBI could not establish that policemen abducted Sohrabuddin from Hyderabad, brought them to Valsad and kept them in illegal confinement. Reading its order the CBI court said, “Government machinery and prosecution put in a lot of effort, 210 witnesses were brought but satisfactory evidence didn’t come and witnesses turned hostile. No fault of the prosecutor if witnesses don’t speak.”

Sohrabuddin Sheikh, an alleged gangster, was killed in an alleged fake encounter in 2005 by the Gujarat Police. His wife was allegedly raped and killed three days later. Shaikh’s aide Tulsiram Prajapati was the sole witness to the murders. He was in police custody after the incident but was shot dead in another encounter in December 2006, when the police claimed he was trying to escape.

There were 22 accused policemen and others in the case who have been facing trial. Out of the 210 witnesses brought in by the prosecution, 92 have been declared hostile.

“CBI prosecution tried its best to prove the case, but unfortunately the evidence, even after three chargesheets were not substantial enough to prove the allegations beyond doubt… Despite three investigations, the evidence is lacking.”

“The prosecution had only three important witnesses to establish its claim about the abduction of Shaikh and Kausar Bi from the bus[, but they] had turned hostile. Besides that, they had no evidence to prove their case,” the judge said.

“Tulsiram Prajapati’s abduction story could not be proved. The CBI in its third chargesheet had claimed that he was the third person travelling with Shaikh and Kausar Bi on the bus from Hyderabad to Sangli. However, the material evidence and witnesses in the court have established that he was not on the bus. He was arrested from Bhilwara directly on November 26, 2005,” the judge said.

The court said the allegation that Tulsiram Prajapati was murdered through a conspiracy is not true. CBI could not establish that Ashish Pandya was called by Vanzara for killing Tulsiram Prajapati in an encounter, according to the court.

The court also expressed sorrow at its inability to convict anyone and said, “I feel extremely sorry for the family of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, and Tulsiram Prajapati, especially his mother Narmadabai. But the evidence before me could not establish the roles of any person accused in the case…[there is] no material evidence to prove any charges against the accused.”

The court also rejected applications of two crucial witnesses seeking re-examination, saying they were not tenable. The witnesses had alleged that they were threatened by the accused on the day their statements were recorded and hence they could only manage to give a partial statement. Interestingly, lawyers of both witnesses were not present today, reported TheWire.

The court had earlier discharged, for want of evidence, 16 of the 38 persons chargesheeted by the CBI. These included Amit Shah, then Rajasthan home minister Gulabchand Kataria, former Gujarat police chief PC Pande and former senior Gujarat police officer D.G. Vanzara.

Deputy SP Patel had been accused of intimidation and evidence tampering. However, the court said on Friday that there was no evidence to show that he had used his power to try and intimidate anyone.

According to the CBI, Shaikh, an alleged gangster, his wife Kausar Bi and his aide Prajapati were abducted by Gujarat police from a bus when they were on their way to Sangli in Maharashtra from Hyderabad on the night of November 22 and 23, 2005.

Shaikh was killed in an alleged fake encounter on November 26, 2005 near Ahmedabad. His wife was killed three days later and her body was disposed of, the CBI said. A year later, on December 27, 2006, Prajapati was also shot dead by Gujarat and Rajasthan police in an alleged fake encounter near Chapri on Gujarat-Rajasthan border.

The case was initially probed by the Gujarat CID before the CBI took over in 2010. The Supreme Court in 2013 directed that the trial be shifted to Mumbai from Gujarat on the central agency’s request to ensure a fair trial.

Between March 2012 and June 2012, JT Utpat heard the case before being succeeded by Judge BH Loya, who heard the case from June 2014 till his death in December 2014. His successor Madan Gosavi heard the case till June 2017, discharging some of the accused, including Shah. The case was now being heard by Special Judge SJ Sharma, who in 2017 had discharged three accused, including former Gujarat DIG D.G. Vanzara and IPS officer Dinesh MN.

The prosecution examined 210 witnesses, of which 92 turned hostile.

On November 29, 2017, when the first witness was to be examined, the trial court suddenly gagged the media from reporting on the case on a plea made by the defence advocates. Several journalists, including from The Wire, appealed against the order before the high court, which set aside the order on January 24.

Justice Revati Mohite-Dere, who set aside the gag order and was initially hearing the bunch of discharge applications — decided by Justice A.M. Badar on Monday — was transferred soon after, in February.

Even on the day of the verdict, the court is yet to decide on several contentious applications by key witnesses seeking re-examination. Witnesses have claimed that they have been threatened and faced intimidation from the policemen facing trial. Similar claims have also been made by the complainant and Prajapati’s mother Narmadabai in her exclusive interview to The Wire. Although a prime witness, she failed to appear before the court for deposition.

On Thursday, the Ministry of Home Affairs suspended Gujarat cadre Indian Police Service officer Rajnish Rai, who was the first investigator in the case and had arrested three IPS officers accused in the case, reported The Hindu. Rai had reportedly written to the ministry seeking voluntary retirement in August, but the Centre had rejected his plea.

On November 20, former chief investigating officer Amitabh Thakur had claimed that Shah, who was the state’s home minister at that time, and four senior police officers benefited politically and monetarily from the case. All the five named by Thakur were discharged by the trial court between 2014 and 2017.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Rahul Gandhi, Centre clash over Ladakh deepens as eight Congress MPs suspended

The Lok Sabha saw repeated disruptions after Rahul Gandhi was denied permission to speak on the Ladakh issue, leading to protests and the suspension of eight Congress MPs.

Published

on

Chaos engulfed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday as tensions between the opposition and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party intensified over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to raise the issue of the India-China military standoff in Ladakh. The disruption eventually led to the suspension of eight Congress MPs for the remainder of the parliamentary session.

The confrontation unfolded after the Leader of the Opposition tried, for the second consecutive day, to read out excerpts from an unpublished book by former Army chief General M.M. Naravane that refer to the 2020 Ladakh crisis. The Speaker denied permission, citing procedural rules, triggering protests from opposition members.

Several MPs protested by refusing to speak when called upon, expressing solidarity with Gandhi. The uproar forced repeated adjournments of the House and, according to reports, involved members throwing pieces of paper towards the Chair.

Following the disorder, eight Congress MPs — including Hibi Eden, Amarinder Raja Warring and Manickam Tagor — were suspended. Warring later questioned the action, saying the protests were in response to Gandhi being denied the opportunity to speak despite having authenticated the document and submitted it to the House.

The BJP strongly criticised the Congress leadership. Party MP Anurag Thakur accused Rahul Gandhi of undermining Parliament and insulting the armed forces, alleging that the opposition was attempting to distract from recent government actions, including the presentation of the Union Budget. He also said the BJP would move a formal complaint seeking strict action against the suspended MPs.

Outside Parliament, Gandhi accused the ruling party of trying to silence him, saying he was prevented from speaking on the sensitive issue of the India-China border. He argued that he had followed procedure by authenticating the content he wished to quote but was still denied permission.

What happened a day earlier

On Monday, the Speaker had also disallowed Gandhi from reading the excerpts, with senior ministers countering his remarks during the debate. Government sources later maintained that the Congress leader violated House rules by attempting to introduce unpublished material into the official record without prior approval.

When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Gandhi again raised the matter, insisting that the information had been authenticated. As the Speaker moved on to other members, two opposition MPs from the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress declined to speak, signalling their support for him.

Rahul Gandhi targets India-US trade deal

Separately, Gandhi also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi over what he described as a lack of transparency surrounding the India-US trade deal. He questioned how negotiations that had reportedly remained unresolved for months were concluded overnight and alleged that the agreement compromised the interests of Indian farmers, particularly in agriculture and dairy.

Government sources, however, rejected these claims, stating that sensitive sectors would remain protected and that the deal does not undermine farmers’ interests. They said contentious issues, including market access, had been carefully handled.

The opposition has demanded full disclosure of the terms of the agreement, even as both sides continue to trade sharp political accusations inside and outside Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee alleges mass voter deletions in Bengal, targets Election Commission

Mamata Banerjee has accused the Election Commission of deleting thousands of voter names without due process, raising questions over the timing of the exercise ahead of elections.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday intensified her attack on the Election Commission over voter roll revisions, alleging that a large number of names have been deleted without due process as the state heads towards elections.

Addressing party workers, Banerjee claimed that 40,000 voters’ names were removed from her constituency alone, alleging that the deletions were carried out unilaterally and without giving voters a chance to be heard.

“In my constituency they have deleted 40,000 voters’ names unilaterally… Even a murderer gets a chance to defend himself,” she said.

Allegations against election officials

The chief minister directly accused an election official, alleging political bias and irregular conduct in the revision process. She claimed that voter names were being removed while officials sat in Election Commission offices, calling the process illegal.

“They cannot do it, it is illegal. 58 lakh names have been unilaterally deleted,” she said, echoing claims earlier made by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee.

Banerjee also alleged that individuals described as “micro-observers” had been appointed illegally, claiming they had no role under the Representation of the People Act and were linked to the BJP.

‘Alive but marked dead’

In a dramatic moment during her address, the chief minister asked those present who had been marked as deceased in the voter lists to raise their hands.

“See, they are alive but as per the Election Commission they are dead,” she said.

She further alleged that names were being deleted under the category of “logical discrepancy,” adding that even noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had earlier been questioned regarding the age of his mother.

Questions over timing of voter roll exercise

While stating that she did not oppose the Special Intensive Revision process in principle, Banerjee questioned the timing of the exercise.

“I have no problem with SIR, but why do it on the eve of elections? Why not after elections?” she asked.

Reiterating confidence in her party’s organisational strength, the chief minister said she was prepared to fight the issue politically and democratically.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court raps Meta over WhatsApp privacy policy

The Supreme Court warned Meta that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy while hearing a case related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy and a CCI penalty.

Published

on

WhatsApp

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered strong observations against Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, over the messaging platform’s 2021 privacy policy, warning that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya said the court would not allow the sharing of user data in a manner that exploits Indians, remarking that privacy protections under the Constitution must be followed. “You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,” the Chief Justice said during the hearing.

The matter relates to a plea challenging the law tribunal’s decision that upheld a ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on WhatsApp, while also permitting certain data-sharing practices for advertising purposes.

Court questions accessibility of privacy policy

During the hearing, the court raised concerns about whether WhatsApp’s privacy policy could realistically be understood by large sections of the population, particularly those who are poor or not formally educated.

The bench questioned if users such as roadside vendors, rural residents, or people who do not speak English would be able to comprehend the policy’s terms. It also expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of opt-out clauses, stating that even legally trained individuals find such policies difficult to understand.

Describing the alleged data practices as potentially exploitative, the court said it would not allow private information to be taken without genuine and informed consent from users.

The Chief Justice also cited a personal example, suggesting that users often begin seeing advertisements shortly after exchanging sensitive messages on WhatsApp, such as medical conversations, raising questions about how user data is being utilised.

Arguments from government and Meta

Appearing for the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices, calling them exploitative and commercially driven. In response, the Chief Justice said that if companies cannot operate in line with constitutional values, they should not do business in India.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Meta and WhatsApp, countered the allegations by asserting that all WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted and that the company cannot read message content.

Background of the case

In November 2024, the CCI ruled against WhatsApp over its 2021 privacy policy, holding that the company had abused its dominant market position by effectively forcing users to accept the updated terms.

The watchdog objected to WhatsApp making continued access to messaging services conditional on permitting data-sharing with other Meta platforms, leading to the imposition of a ₹213 crore fine. Meta has deposited the penalty.

In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp challenged the CCI order. Later, in November 2025, the law tribunal lifted a five-year restriction on data-sharing while maintaining the financial penalty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com