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]

Entertainment

Bharti Singh, Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcome second child after she’s rushed to hospital mid-shoot

Comedian Bharti Singh and her husband Haarsh Limbachiyaa welcomed their second child after she was rushed to hospital during a television shoot.

Published

on

Bharti

Popular comedian and television personality Bharti Singh and her husband, writer-host Haarsh Limbachiyaa, have welcomed their second child. The baby was born on Friday after Bharti was taken to the hospital following a sudden medical emergency earlier in the day, according to media reports.

Emergency during television shoot led to hospitalisation

As per available information, Bharti Singh was scheduled to shoot for the television show Laughter Chefs on Friday morning when her water broke unexpectedly. She was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital, where she later delivered her second child. No further details about the baby have been shared publicly so far.

The news of the delivery comes weeks after the couple announced Bharti’s second pregnancy on social media.

Pregnancy announcement and maternity shoot

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa had revealed the pregnancy during a family vacation in Switzerland. A few weeks ago, Bharti also shared pictures from her maternity photoshoot, where she was seen wearing a blue silk gown with white floral patterns.

Sharing the photos online, Bharti wrote, “2nd Baby Limbachiya coming soon,” along with a baby emoji.

Family background

Bharti Singh and Haarsh Limbachiyaa became parents for the first time in 2022, when they welcomed their son, Lakshya.

The couple is among the most well-known faces on Indian television. Bharti is widely recognised for her comic timing and distinctive on-screen persona, while Haarsh has made his mark as a writer and host. Apart from their television work, the two also co-host a podcast together.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com