Chamarajpet Idgah ground is a public property, legal fight will continue: Minister R Ashoka
Bengaluru, Aug 30: Chamarajpet Idgah ground here is actually a "public property" and the legal fight over its ownership will continue in the courts, Karnataka Revenue Minister R Ashoka said on Tuesday, following the Supreme Court refusing to grant permission for Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations there, and ordering status quo.
He said the government will abide by the court order.
"People of Chamarajpet and Bengaluru were eager to celebrate Ganesha festival at the ground, but the Supreme Court has ordered status quo. We will fight legally in the courts, in the days to come," Ashoka said.
The ground is currently under the control of the state Revenue Department.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant permission for Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations at Idgah ground and ordered status quo on land by both parties.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Indira Banerjee asked the parties to approach the Karnataka High Court for the resolution of the dispute.
The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the Karnataka Waqf Board challenging the order of the High Court.
A division bench of the Karnataka High Court on August 26 permitted the state government to consider and pass appropriate orders on the applications received by the Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru (Urban) seeking the use of Idgah ground at Chamarajpet.
Chamarajpet Nagarikara Okkoota Vedike, a citizens' forum, that wanted to organise the festival at the ground said they will abide by the order, but will fight the ownership issue legally.
"After the Supreme Court order there is no question of installing Ganesh idol there (Idgah ground), the government will also not allow it. Everyone has to obey the Supreme Court order," Ramegowda of Chamarajpet Nagarikara Okkoota Vedike said.
However, Karnataka State Board of Auqaf Chairman Moulana Shafi Saadi in New Delhi said, the Supreme Court order is a welcome one, as it doesn't allow attempts to disturb Hindu-Muslim unity, because of Chamrajpet Idgah ground issue.
"The Supreme Court has upheld the Places of Worship Act of 1991 and has ordered status quo...I want to tell Hindu brothers that Karnataka's Muslims are not against Ganesha festival celebrations, Islam does not preach opposing other's religious practices," he said, maintaining that Idgah is a Waqf property where Muslims have performed Namaz for 200 years.
Police have made tight security arrangements in and around Idgah ground at Chamarajpet, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing the matter today and had even held a "route march".
A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on August 26 had modified an interim order of a single judge bench on the Chamrajpet Idgah playground dispute, saying religious and cultural activities can be allowed by the government there, but for a limited period from August 31.
Earlier, the court on August 25 had ordered that the two-acre land should be used only as a playground and Muslims should be allowed to pray there on only two festivals -- Bakrid and Ramzan -- till the case was disposed of.
The Joint Commissioner (west) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had recently ruled that the property belonged to the Revenue Department following the civic body's Chief Commissioner's directions to verify the ownership of the land.
However, the Karnataka State Board of AUQAF and District Waqf Officer, Bengaluru challenged the order of the Joint Commissioner before the Single Judge of the HC.
The original property dispute dates back to 1955 and the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of the Waqf in 1965.
The decades-old dispute over Idgah Maidan had once again come to the fore earlier this year, when some Hindu outfits sought BBMP's permission to hold events there.
This resulted in two contrary sets of documents emerging -- the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf presented a 1965 gazette notifying the land as Wakf property and the 1974 City Survey records and all other civic records thereafter showed the land to be a playground.
In the meantime, following the BBMP order, several Hindu organisations announced they would celebrate Independence Day on the ground. Also, local Congress MLA B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan had announced they would go ahead and hoist the tricolour there.
However, the State Revenue Department organised the Independence Day event and an assistant commissioner-rank official hoisted the flag on August 15 for the first time at the Idgah ground.
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.
