He just peeped out of the house for namaz, they shot him: Jaleel’s daughter tells people’s tribunal
Abdul Jaleel was killed in police firing on December 19 in Mangaluru
Mangaluru: A three-member people’s tribunal headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice Gopala Gowda, recently called on eye witnesses and victims of December 19 violence and police action in the city to depose before it. The tribunal was constituted to bring out the truth about the violence and police action in the city on December 19. It was jointly organised Indian Social Forum, Bangalore, Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) and ‘Samvidhanadha Haadiyalli’ under the banner of “Listening Posts”.
The tribunal which was organised at a private hotel in the city also saw two young kids, barely into their teens lined up for the deposition. Much to the surprise of the tribunal which also consisted of former Karnataka Public Prosecutor, BT Venkatesh and senior Journalist, Sugata Srinivasaraju, the two kids came forward to depose before the tribunal.
When curious Justice Gopala Gowda enquired the kids, they introduced themselves as Shifani and Sabeel. They were 14 and 9 years old respectively and were students of 9th and 5th grade. The coordinator of the tribunal then informed Justice Gowda that they were kids of Abdul Jaleel, who was killed in Police firing on December 19.
Shifani and Sabeel had not come before the tribunal to seek assistance or help, they had come to tell the tribunal about what they saw on the fateful Thursday of December 19.
Justice Gowda then questioned the young kids and enquired about their studies and academics before asking anything about December 19. 9-year old Sabeel who told Justice Gowda that he wants to become a pilot to “fly in the sky” when he grows up added that his father had picked him and his sister from the school barely two hours before he was shot dead by the police.
“He picked us from our school van and took us home around 1:30 pm on December 19. We had lunch together that afternoon. There were chaos going around when he went out of the house saying he was going to offer namaz. He was then shot by the police in his eyes, and his brain” Sabeel told the tribunal.
When the tribunal asked Sabeel if his father had participated in the protest, Sabeel downplayed the allegations that he was taking part in the protest and said he was at home all the afternoon before going out for namaaz.
15-year old Shifani, who unlike her brother has not decided what she wants to become when she grows up, then took over and spoke to the tribunal. She added that she could see her father falling down after being shot soon as he stepped out of the house.
“He had lunch with us and left the house saying he is going to offer namaz. Soon as he stepped out, he was shot down by the police. We could see him walking and falling down all of a sudden. He was dead on the spot. He was with us just a few moments ago, and in no time he was dead. He just peeped out of the house to see where the police were and what was happening so that he can go and offer namaz and they killed him” Shifani said as she broke down before the tribunal.
Justice Gowda then expressed his condolence to the family and felt sorry for the trauma and dilemma the young kids had to go through at the tender age. He added that the truth will come out and any injustice made to them and their family on December 19 will not remain hidden.
The police has named both the deceased in police firing as the accused in the FIR, a move that prompted the state government from dispensing the ex-gratia amount it initially announced for the families of the deceased. The police and government have maintained that a thorough enquiry will be made into the case to bring out the truth.
Currently, a magisterial enquiry has been ordered by the government which is expected to submit its report to the government and Human Right Commission within three months. Meanwhile, a CID investigation into the matter is also underway to ascertain facts about what happened and how things panned out on December 19 in the port city.
Irrespective of the outcome of the enquiry, the loss incurred by the two very young minds of Shifani and Sabeel and the trauma they have been into of watching their father lying in the pool of blood is irreparable and if their version of facts come out as the truth in the enquiry, the question remains, who should be held responsible for tearing through the childhood of Shifani and Sabeel?
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.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
