Video of man attempting to strangle girl in UP is being shared with a false communal narrative
Fact check reveals accused, victim belong to same community
A video showing a young man attempting to strangle a young woman in the middle of a road while covering his face with a cloth is being widely shared on social media platforms (here, here, here, and here). The claim accompanying the video suggests that, in the Amroha district of Uttar Pradesh, a Muslim man attempted to kill a Hindu woman after she rejected his proposal. Through this article, let us fact-check the claim made in the post.
Claim: Video shows a Muslim man attacking a Hindu girl in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.
Fact: This viral video shows an incident that occurred on 04 January 2025 under the jurisdiction of the Gajraula police station in Amroha district, Uttar Pradesh, where a young man named Rahul attempted to strangle a young girl on the road. According to the Amroha police, there is no communal angle involved in the incident. Both the accused and the victim belong to the same community. Hence the claim made in the post is FALSE.
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we conducted a relevant keyword search. This search led us to multiple news reports (here, here, here, here, and here) featuring the same visuals. According to these reports, the incident occurred on 04 January 2025 in Salempur Gosai, under the jurisdiction of the Gajraula police station, in Amroha district, Uttar Pradesh. The reports identified the accused as Rahul. A nursing student, who resides in a village within the Gajraula police station area, was returning home from college on 04 January 2025. On the way, Rahul, a resident of the same village, stopped her. He then attempted to strangle her by wrapping a scarf around her neck. Some nearby bystanders intervened and saved the student. Following this, the police registered a case against Rahul and arrested him the next day. The reports further stated that Rahul had been in a relationship with the girl for the past four years. A few days earlier, he reportedly saw her talking to another boy, which enraged him and led to the attack.
According to a ‘Times of India’ report dated 07 January 2025, Amroha SP Kunwar Anupam Singh stated, “The police have arrested the accused and sent him to jail under judicial custody. The accused and the victim are from the same village. We have registered a case against the accused under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, and 109 of the BNS, along with Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, based on the complaint filed by the victim’s family members.”
In response to a viral video on X (formerly Twitter), the Amroha police stated that the accused had been apprehended and was currently in custody. They also confirmed that both the accused and the victim belonged to the same caste and knew each other prior to the incident. Additionally, the police dismissed the communal narrative being spread on social media and urged people not to share misinformation about the incident.
महोदय, कृपया अवगत कराना है कि उपरोक्त प्रकरण में प्राप्त तहरीर के आधार पर अभियोग पंजीकृत है, अभियुक्त को गिरफ्तार कर जेल भेजा जा चुका है। दोनो पक्ष सजातीय हैं तथा पूर्व परिचित हैं। कृपया भ्रामक खबर न फेलाये।
— Amroha Police (@amrohapolice) January 7, 2025
The Amroha Police has also issued a press release on this matter, which states that the accused in this incident is Rahul, son of Dharamveer. Additionally, we have contacted the Gajraula police station. In a conversation with us, an official from the Gajraula police station refuted the viral claim and clarified that there is no communal angle involved in this incident. He further stated that both the victim and the accused belong to the same community.
To sum up, there is no communal angle involved in the incident where a man attempted to strangle a young girl in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, on 04 January 2025. Both the accused and the victim in this incident belong to the same community.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
