First conviction in Delhi Riots case: Man convicted for setting house of Muslim family on fire
New Delhi: A Delhi Court on Tuesday convicted one person of rioting and other charges in the 2020 Delhi Riots cases. This is the first conviction in the 2020 Delhi Riots cases.
The court observed that merely the fact he was not seen resorting to vandalism and looting did not mean he was a bystander. Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat also underlined that there was nothing on record to show that the accused person was not associated with unlawful assembly or to show that he did not share a common object.
Dinesh Yadav was convicted for offences under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 457 (house trespass), 392 (robbery), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house, etc.) read with Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution alleged that a mob of around 200 rioters gathered in front of the house of the complainant. The mob then broke into the house and robbed the house before setting some of the material in the house of fire. The complainant and her children had to jump to the terrace of the adjacent house in order to save their lives.
Yadav denied all the charges, saying he was being framed. He also chose not to lead any evidence in his defence. His counsel contended that no active role had been attributed to his client by the witnesses, indicating that he was only a bystander and did not share an object of the alleged unlawful assembly.
"The fact that the accused also belongs to the Hindu community and was present in the mob armed with a wooden rod which mob resorted to violence against the Muslims, indicates that he shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.
“The mere fact that he was not seen entering complainant's house or vandalising or looting or putting it on fire, does not mean that he was a mere bystander. There is nothing on record to show that the accused had disassociated himself from the unlawful assembly and he did not share the common object of the assembly.” The Court said.
Yadav was stated to have been seen among the rioters - a fact sufficient to indicate “beyond any doubt that he too shared the common object of the assembly” having knowledge of the mob’s intention.
Arguments on the quantum of the sentence will be heard on December 12.
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.
Karnataka Assembly passes bill on Palace Grounds amid opposition protest
Bengaluru, Mar 6 (PTI): The Karnataka Assembly on Thursday passed the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill, reaffirming state ownership over 472 acres and 16 guntas of land here, amid protests by the opposition BJP.
During the discussion, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state government would have to provide Rs 200 crore worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for each acre of land, which means that for 15 acres, Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR would be issued.
“If we accept it, then this 2-km stretch of road will become the costliest road in the world. If we accept it then how are we going to develop the city in later stages? How will you carry out development works?” asked Patil.
He also pointed out that this question was raised not only under the Congress government but also during the previous BJP regime.
However, the BJP-led cabinet has opposed the project.
ALSO READ: Budget session: Law Min. HK Patil introduces Microfinance bill in Karnataka assembly
“Suppose we agree to it then, what will be the valuation of the 472 acres? It will be lakhs and lakhs of crores of rupees. Can we accept?” Patil wondered.
The Minister said the government had previously exercised its executive powers to issue an ordinance, which was approved by the Governor. Now the government is bringing a bill with two amendments.
“In this bill, we have made provisions either to develop or drop the road development work,” Patil explained.
However, BJP state president B Y Vijayendra and BJP MLA Arvind Bellad opposed the move, alleging that the government was targetting Yaduveer Krishna Datta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the scion of the Mysuru royal family, and the BJP MP from Mysuru-Kodagu constituency out of political vendetta.
“We talk of 472 acres of Mysuru Maharaja but here there are many Maharajas who too own 400 acres, 500 acres and thousands of acres of land, which is known to everyone,” Bellad said.
He slammed the Congress government, saying political power should not be misused for personal vendetta.
“Why (the then Deputy Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah brought the law in 1996 pertaining to the Bangalore Palace? Why are you setting eyes on the Bangalore Palace?” he asked.
Vijayendra charged that Wadiyar won the election on BJP ticket so the state government realised that it should acquire it.
“This bill has been brought for political vengeance. We are not discussing whether Rs 3,000 crore is exorbitant or not but the moment Yaduveer became MP, the state government woke up. You should be ashamed. This house should not be used for political vendetta,” he said.
Intervening, Minister Priyank Kharge said Vijayendra should not have raised it because the intention behind building the road was noble.
According to him, the BJP too had the same plan when it was in power.
He sought to know whether thousands of crores of rupees be spent on a road which should have cost significantly less.
In response, BJP MLA B A Basavaraj (Byrathi) said issuing TDR will not be a burden on the state government and appealed to the ruling Congress to reconsider its stance.
Minister Ramalinga Reddy too explained that the Karnataka government acquired the entire land way back in 1996.
The Mysuru royal family went to the High Court, which gave ruling in favour of the state government. The royal family then approached the Supreme Court, where the case is still going on, the Minister pointed out.
“The final judgment is pending in the SC to decide whether the acquisition was right or wrong. If the SC says it’s the royal family’s property then let it be so. If the order is in the state government’s favour then we can take a decision. The bill is only about it,” Reddy explained.
Speaker U T Khader then called for a voice vote and the bill was passed by the Assembly amidst opposition BJP’s discontent.
