Pramod Mutalik urges Centre to ban All India Muslim Personal Law Board; asks members to go to Pak
Bijapur: Accusing All India Muslim Personal Law Board of instigating Hindu by stating that it would go ahead with the construction of Babri Masjid where the Ram Temple is going to be built, Pramod Mutalik, Sri Ram Sene Chief has not only demanded the Board be banned but has asked the Board members to go to Pakistan if they don’t believe in the Constitution of India or law of the land.
“Recently, the Board has issued a statement saying that it will go ahead and build Babari Masjid where the Ram temple is proposed. By giving such a statement, the Board is only provoking Hindu sentiments when the decades-long dispute has been resolved by the Supreme Court. The Board’s statement amounts to contempt of Court which has already given verdict about ten months ago in favor of the Temple”, Mutalik said at a press conference on Saturday.
Demanding the Union Government to ban the Board, he also accused the BJP government of going soft on the Board. “I really don’t understand why the BJP government is having a soft corner for the Board. Why no action has been taken against the Board so far. When the matter has been resolved amicably and Prime Minister, Narendra Modi has already performed ‘Bhumi Puja’ for the construction of Temple on August 5, then why the Board has been raising the issue of Masjid after ten months of the verdict, what is the intention behind it”, he said while showing a copy of tweet reportedly issued by the Board from its official Twitter account.
He also demanded the banning of SDPI for reportedly stating that the Babri masjid would be rebuilt at the same site.
Alleging the BJP government of neglecting, Pravin Togadia, one of the pioneers of temple movement, Mutalik wondered why such a person was not invited for the ‘Bhumi Puja’ program.
Referring to the COVID situation in the country, he echoed the sentiments of Congress which has accused the BJP government of involving in large scale corruption in buying equipment for containing the virus.
“I am openly saying that while the State government is involved in corruption, the Union Government has succumbed to pressure of Allopathic medicine manufacturing companies by not allowing Ayurvedic medicines to be used for treating COVID infection”, he said.
Mutalik claimed a noted Ayurvedic doctor Giridhar Kaje had treated some 10 COVID patients in just nine days with his medicines. “Yet the government is not ready to accept his medicine for treatment though they cost only Rs. 300.
“Instead, the government wants the people to shell out lakhs of rupees in getting Allopathic medicines”, he said.
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.
K'taka HC confirms capital punishment on man who killed five, including three of his minor children
Bengaluru, Jun 10: A division bench of the Dharward Bench of the High Court of Karnataka has confirmed the death sentence on a man who killed five persons including his three minor children.
The HC has also issued several directions to the prosecution in cases where it is seeking the death penalty.
"The atrocity of the crime resulting in five deaths including 3 children below 10 years of age and the brutality with which the same has been committed, leaves us no option but to confirm the order of death sentence passed by the trial court, which we do with a heavy heart.
This in our considered opinion qualifies the test of rarest of rare cases requiring the award of death penalty," the bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja said disposing of two petitions filed by the convict and the State.
ALSO READ: BJP sets up helpline number to help party workers in fight against 'vindictive' Karnataka govt
The HC had reserved the judgement on the petitions after completing the hearing on November 22, 2022 itself. But it had sought several pieces of information including certain records and reports.
These records, the court said were necessary to issue directions to be followed in all cases where the prosecution seeks for award of the death penalty.
The accused Byluru Thippaiah, a labourer from Kenchanagudda Halli in Kampli, Hosapete, Ballari, suspected his wife of 12 years was having an affair which led to quarrels.
They had four children, and Thippaiah declared that only one of them was born to him. On February 25, 2017, he attacked his wife, Pakkeeramma with a chopper.
He also attacked his sister-in-law Gangamma and his children Pavithra, Nagaraj and Rajappa. All the five succumbed to their injuries.
The Sessions Court at Ballari which conducted the trial against him, examined 36 witnesses and 51 material objects before finding him guilty and awarded the death sentence on December 3, 2019 under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC and directed him "to be hung till death.".
Thippaiah approached the HC against the sentence imposed by the Trial Court while the prosecution approached the HC for confirmation of the death penalty.
The HC in its judgment said that it was shocked at the brutality.
"The manner in which the offence has been committed by the appellant is having attacked two women and three children in the house, hacked them and chopped them resulting in multiple injuries being caused to them and the Appellant coming out of the house and proclaiming that he has killed the prostitutes while holding chopper covered in blood. The same would shock the conscience of anybody and has indeed shocked our conscience, despite us having dealt with so many cases of offences relating to murder," the HC said.
The HC while confirming the death sentence, ordered for payment of compensation to Rajeshwari, the only child that survived the massacre.
The Additional Registrar was directed to forward the concerned file to the District Legal Service Authority to make necessary arrangements.
The HC also gave guidelines for the prosecution to follow in all cases where it is seeking the award of the death penalty.
These include placing report on the conduct and behavior of the accused in jail, a psychological and physiological evaluation of accused, details of family background, relationship with siblings, history of violence or neglect, opinion of parents, relationship with family members, educational background, socio-economic background, criminal antecedents and history of social behaviour.
"The above reports to be submitted firstly at the time when the Appellant is committed to trial, a second report, at the time of hearing on sentence if the Appellant were to be convicted, third report at the time when the appeal is heard and the matter is reserved for judgment," the HC directed.
