A Pune court acquitted 21 workers of the Hindu Rashtra Sena (HRS) accused of murdering 28-year-old Pune techie Mohsin Shaikh. Additional sessions judge S B Salunkhe, today, delivered the order of acquittal to HRS chief Dhananjay Desai and others, stating that that the evidence on record was not strong enough to convict and the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Shaikh was murdered in 2014 allegedly by HRS workers while on his way home with a friend, after offering prayers at a mosque. As per the FIR filed by his brother, Mobin Shaikh, his brother was attacked because he had a beard and was wearing a skull cap and they attacked him with hockey sticks and banged a cement block on his head. Mobin rode on another bike a little ahead, which is why he was way ahead when the mob attacked Mohsin.

Communal clashes had broken out after the circulation of objectionable pictures of Shivaji Maharaj and Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray on social media and Desai had allegedly made speeches instigating violence on two occasions.

In its chargesheet the cops quoted at least two witnesses, who heard HRS members plan the attack.

The chargesheet said, “The activists were carrying hockey sticks, wooden batons etc. During the meeting, they started discussing that HRS president Dhananjay Bhai has said that Muslims should be thrashed for posting derogatory pictures of Shivaji Maharaj on Facebook. Their vehicles, shops should be damaged. They should not be allowed to do any business in the area. There should be terror of HRS in Hadapsar.”

A lot has transpired since the fateful incident to this unfortunate acquittal today. Three accused: Vijay Gambhire, Ganesh Yadav and Ajay Lalge, were granted bail in 2017 after a controversial reasoning was given by a Bombay High Court judge while granting the same. While granting of bail in criminal cases is not uncommon, the grounds for the grant of the bail is what makes this case stand apart. While pinning the blame on the religious identity of the victim, Justice Mridula Bhatkar had infamously said, “The accused had no other motive such as personal enmity against the innocent deceased…[his] fault was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the accused… it appears that in the name of religion they were provoked and have committed the murder.”

In February 2018, however, the Supreme Court, unhappy with Justice Bhatkar’s remarks, cancelled the bail granted to the accused. A bench of Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao further cautioned courts against passing observations “which may appear to be coloured with a bias for or against a community”. The top court maintained that courts must be “fully conscious of the plural composition of the country” and hence abide by their duty to objectively decide the rights of different groups.

By 2018, all accused, except Dhananjay Desai were out on bail.

Further, when Ujjwal Nikam was appointed as Special public prosecutor in the case at the victim’s family, the appointment was soon cancelled. The reasons for  the same were never revealed and Nikam himself refused to comment on the same. 

Then Chief Minister, Prithviraj Chavan provided Rs 5 Lakh compensation to the family and had even promised a government job to Mohsin’s brother which never materialized. Later, in 2018, his family was given Rs. 10 lakh compensation through a government resolution, after Mohsin’s father had filed a PIL in Bombay High Court

Waiting for ‘justice’ in the case, Mohsin’s father, Mohammed Sadiq Shaikh died in 2018 owing to heart failure.

Related:

SC Cancels Bail of Accused in Mohsin Shaikh Lynching Case

Mohsin Sheikh Lynching: Father dies waiting for Justice

Muslim man’s murder: India’s courts simply don’t punish hate speech with the severity it merits

The post Mohsin Shaikh murder: All of the Hindu Rashtra Sena accused acquitted appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Around 200 activists from different groups such as Muslim Manch, Jamiat Ulema Hind, Dalit Yuva Andolan and others protested in front of the Yeruda Jail, Pune demanding the cancelling of the bail of Dhananjay Desai, the main accused in the lynching of Mohsin Shaikh in 2014.

By TwoCircles.net Staff Reporter

They also submitted a petition to the DCP to re-arrest Dhananjay Desai.

Desai had appealed for bail on January 17, 2019, in the Bombay High Court which was granted to him following which he was released on February 9, 2019.
 

 

Courtesy: Two Circles.net

The post Activists demand cancellation of bail of main accused in Mohsin Shaikh lynching case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Mohsin Sheikh Lynching: Father dies waiting for Justice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pune: Relatives of IT professional Mohsin Shaikh received news of Rs. 10 Lakh compensation from the Maharashtra Government on Saturday. Not directly, not through a letter but with news ofa Government Resolution circulating on social media. Shaikh was beaten to death allegedly by Hindu Rashtra Sena activists in 2014 when communal tension was spread in Pune through rumour-mongering on Facebook. Shaikh was returning home when he was grabbed and beaten.
 
“Through a Government Resolution, the State Revenue Department announced a compensation of ₹5 lakh from the State fund and a matching amount from the Central fund. The GR directed authorities at the Pune Collectorate to hand over the ₹10 lakh to Shaikh’s family. The then Congress-Nationalist Congress Party government led by Prithviraj Chavan had given his family a compensation of ₹5 lakh soon after the crime,” The Hindu has reported.
 
Shaikh’s father, Sadiq Shaikh, received news of the compensation after he filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court in July 2017. Speaking to Sabrang India, he said that this was not a spontaneous or voluntary decision but in response to a Writ Petition filed by him in the Bombay High Court. “I first sought information under the Right to Information Act and then filed a petition. Since the next date of the hearing is on July 31, I believe that this GR has been brought out. Officially I have not been intimated yet but am getting this news through the social media.”
 
Sadiq Shaikh had demanded a raise in the government compensation and a government job for Mohsin’s brother, Mobin Shaikh. “Both the erstwhile Congress-NCP, and the present BJP governments have only doled out assurances. No job has ever been given to my second son, Mobin,” said Sadiq Shaikh in the report.
 
He was unhappy with the way all successive governments have acted. “The promise for compensation under the Victims Relief Fund remains unfulfilled. I seek a government job for my son Mobin, I am sure they can find something for him in the Railways. Above anything, I want justice. His killers, all except one have been given bail. I want the courts to act on this case and provide justice. Ban the Hindu Rashtra Sene who is responsible for my son’s murder,” he told Sabrang India.
 
“The police had arrested 21 HRS activists, including their leader Dhananjay Jayram Desai, alias Bhai, a resident of Parmar Bungalow in Paud, in connection with the case. While most of the accused in the case were released on bail, Desai is lodged in Yerwada jail and the matter is pending before the court,” reported The Indian Express.

The post Rs. 10 Lakh Compensation for Mohsin Shaikh’s family after Father approaches Bombay HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In June 2017, three years after the killing, and in a blow to an already faltering investigation  special public prosecutor and advocate Ujjwal Nikam withdrew his position as public prosecutor in the murder case of Mohsin Sadiq Shaikh, a Pune-based techie who was killed in 2014 by members of radical outfit Hindu Rashtra Sena (HRS). Mohsin was attacked and killed while he was returning to his home after prayers on June 2, 2014.

The three – among 21 from the Hindu Rashtra Sena who were booked in connection with the murder – reportedly attended an “inflammatory” meeting just before they accosted and killed Shaikh. The meeting was held in the background of communal clashes in Pune. The group’s leader Dhananjay Jayram Desai was allegedly addressing the meeting that instigated the audience to violence.Hearing an appeal by the deceased’s brother against the grant of bail, the apex court directed that the three to be taken into custody, and the Bombay high court to give fresh consideration to the bail plea and to take a decision within six weeks.

The apex court stated while arriving at its decision that the religious identity cannot be an excuse to assault or murder anyone. A bench of Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao further cautioned courts against passing observations “which may appear to be coloured with a bias for or against a community”.The top court maintained that courts must be “fully conscious of the plural composition of the country” and hence abide by their duty to objectively decide rights of different groups, News18 reported.

The apex court stated: “While it may be possible to understand a reference to the community of the parties involved in an assault, it is difficult to understand why it was said that ‘the fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion’…”

The Supreme Court observed that while the Bombay high court’s order may have intended to simply lay emphasis on the fact that communal hatred and not personal bias was behind the attack and may not have intended to hurt the feelings of any particular community or support the feelings of another community, “the words are clearly vulnerable to such criticism” and that “the direction cannot be sustained”.

Mohsin Shaikh was on his way to meet a friend when he was attacked by a mob of 23 on June 2, 2014, in Pune’s Hadapsar. The prosecution reasoned that the accused “targeted them because they belonged to a certain community”, and claimed that “the accused were said to have been highly motivated to do the act because they had attended a meeting of a body called Hindu Rashtra Sena about half an hour before the incident”.A fresh bail hearing in the Bombay high court is scheduled for today, February 16.

A report in Indian Express said that Justice Bhatkar on January 12, while granting bail to Vijay Rajendra Gambhire, Ganesh alias Ranjeet Shankar Yadav and Ajay Dilip Lalge, noted that the accused had attended a meeting “prior to the incident of assault. The applicants/accused otherwise had no other motive such as any personal enmity against the innocent deceased Mohsin.”

The bail order stated, “…Dhananjay Desai was the one who was the speaker in the meeting and he instigated the audience… the transcript of the speech given by Dhananjay Desai was sufficient to show that he had incited feelings of religious discrimination. The meet was held… prior to the incident of assault.”

In its chargesheet, however, the cops quoted at least two witnesses, who heard HRS members plan the attack.

The chargesheet said, “The activists were carrying hockey sticks, wooden batons etc. During the meeting, they started discussing that HRS president Dhananjay Bhai has said that Muslims should be thrashed for posting derogatory pictures of Shivaji Maharaj on Facebook. Their vehicles, shops should be damaged. They should not be allowed to do any business in the area. There should be terror of HRS in Hadapsar.”
 

The post SC Cancels Bail of Accused in Mohsin Shaikh Lynching Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In January 2017, in a controversial decision, the Bombay High Court had granted bail to the alleged perpetrators. Advocate Ujjwal Nikam’s appointment as public prosecutor was cancelled after he made a request, although the reason behind Nikam withdrawing his appointment remains unclear. What makes the move even more surprising is that the state government did not ask for the consent from Mohsin Shaikh’s family before cancelling the appointment of Ujjwal Nikam.

The family is clueless and shocked. Advocate Hafiz Qazi who is also associated with the case said, “It is shocking for us. Ujjwal Nikam is very learned lawyer. The case made a tremendous progress under him. But requesting to remove himself as public prosecutor without no reason is more surprising.”

Commenting on how the family’s view had been ignored, Hafiz said, “State government should have consulted Mohsin’s father before cancelling the appointment, but they did not do so. That is also one thing that disturbs because he was appointed after the request from the Mohsin’s family,” added Hafiz Qazi.

Late Mohsin Shaikh’s father Sadiq Shaikh has sent a message to Ujjwal Nikam requesting reasons behind this sudden move move but he hasn’t got any response yet. Sadiq Shaikh has also written to him to get reappointed in the case. It seems Nikam is not willing to comment on this issue as several other activists-lawyers as well as Sabrangindia tried to reach him but failed. Over the issue, Sadiq Shaikh said, “I am trying to reach him since I got the notification this morning, but still I haven’t received any response from him. I do want to know what has made him to take this decision.”

According to lawyers familiar with the matter, lawyers from another radical outfit Sanatan Sanstha met Ujjwal Nikam in the past few months and tried to put pressure on him to leave the case, but this not confirmed. Sadiq Shaikh said, “We don’t know if this is truth or not. But I am surprised as to what power has came into effect which made Ujjwal Nikam change his decision?”

After Nikam’s decision, Sadiq Shaikh feels uncertain about the future. He said, “I still believe that Nikam ji will look forward to my request to represent Mohsin’s case again. I have asked him the same. But if he doesn’t agree, we will have to look towards the lawyers who could be as powerful as Ujjwal Nikam.”

Following this brutal killing, the then CM Prithviraj Chavan announced and provided Rs 5 lakh to the family as compensation and also promised to provide a government job to Mubin Shaikh, a brother of Mohsin. However, no such job was given to him by the state government citing technical flaws in offering a job to the brother of the victim.
 
 

The post Ujwal Nikam’s Sudden Withdrawal from Mohsin Shaikh Murder Trial Leaves Family Shocked appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mohsin’s father, Mohammad Sadiq Shaikh, released a self-made video where he is seen talking about the shortcoming of the justice process and delay made by the administration in providing the compensation and promised a job to the younger brother of Mohsin. This video was uploaded earlier this month.

In the video, Sadiq says, “It has been three years since the death of my son. And I have not received any money from the victim relief fund.”

Talking about the progression of the case Sadiq said, “The case was promised to be brought on Fast track but it has not been done yet. Nor I have got any justice.”

Then Sadiq moves into the reason behind putting up the video. He said, “My younger son is getting married by the end of April. As he has not got any job yet, we are bound to borrow money from people to fulfill the money need.”

He said, “If my son (Mohsin) was alive today, he would have been earning well and I’d not be asking any money from the victim relief fund. Eve if my younger son was employed, there would be no money crisis.”
 

Before ending the video, Sadiq said, “I request to the government of Maharashtra and government of India through this to provide me justice in this case.”

In 2014, during the aftermath of uploading of derogatory images of Chatrapati Shivaji and late Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray led to the sporadic violence by right-wing activists across the Maharashtra state resulting into the destruction of public and private properties. The violence claimed the life of Shaikh resident of Solapur whereas another youth Younus Khan was left battling for his life in hospital.

Courtesy: Two Circles

Mohsin was the resident of Solapur and was working in an IT company situated in Hadapsar area of Pune who, according to the police, was assaulted by the members of Hindu Rashtra Sena when he was returning from a Mosque to his rented home in Bankar Colony, Hadapsar after offering night prayer at around 9.00 pm on Monday.

Following this brutal killing, the then CM Prithviraj Chavan announced and provided Rs 5 lakh to the family as compensation and also promised to provide a government job to Mubin Shaikh, a brother of Mohsin. However, no such job was given to him by the state government citing technical flaws in offering a job to the brother of the victim.

On September 5, 2014, a district level committee established under Central Relief Scheme held a meeting in Solapur and it found deceased family eligible for compensation of amount Rs 3 Lakh from the Central Government.

Talking with TwoCircles.net in 2016, Sadiq Shaikh told, “I keep calling Mantralaya and every time they give me different answers. Sometime Jagtap Sahib picks up the phone and says the file has gone missing while other time Govindraj Sahib says it is in progress.”
 

The juveniles were granted bail after two months of their arrest in August 2014 and three other accused – Shubnam Dattatrey Barade (19), Mahesh Maruti Khot (24) and Abhishek Chavan (29) all residents of Kalepadal near Hadapsar were granted bail by Bombay High Court in April 2016. While granted bail, the high court imposed severe conditions on the accused.

A special court in Pune rejected bail plea of Dhananjay Desai for the third time. The court also rejected his discharge application citing evidence against him establishing his role in the criminal conspiracy behind the killing of Mohsin.
 

The post WATCH: Father of Mohsin Shaikh murdered in 2014 releases video, asks for justice and compensation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bombay High Court judge granting bail to three murder accused said that she considered the fact that the victim was Muslim a point in their favour.

What are the implications of Justice Mridula Bhatkar’s January 12 order granting bail to three men accused of killing an unarmed innocent Muslim man in Pune in June 2014?

The Bombay High Court judge, in words now gone viral, argues, “The accused had no other motive such as personal enmity against the innocent deceased…[his] fault was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the accused… it appears that in the name of religion they were provoked and have committed the murder.”

So, killing an innocent man because you have been instigated by hate speech is less serious than killing someone for personal reasons.

How valid is that argument?
 

Hate speech and violence

Undoubtedly, ordinary men and women who may never have harboured violent intentions do get stirred up after listening to powerful speakers berating other communities, especially if the speaker’s allegations confirm the former’s prejudices.

To what extent can such speeches provoke violence is not known, but it is noteworthy that after listening to the testimonies of victims, policemen and politicians on the causes and events of Mumbai’s 1992-’93 riots for over five years, Justice BN Srikrishna concluded in Volume I of his inquiry report into the riots that in January, 1993:
 

  “the communal passions of the Hindus were aroused to fever pitch by the inciting writings in Saamna and Navakaal … Shiv Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray like a veteran general, commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims…”  
 

Indeed, Thackeray himself described his newspaper Saamna’s role through the riots as having “prepared a burning generation, Saamna’s job is to keep this generation smouldering. Every word of Saamna was like a flame”.

In 2008, when fast-track special courts were set up to try offences of the 1992-’93 Mumbai riots, many ordinary men would turn up to face trial for crimes they had allegedly committed 15 years back. Almost all were acquitted, but a few of those acquitted were guilty. They admitted to this reporter that as youngsters, they had been swayed by the rhetoric of those days.

“God knows what happened to me, I was just 20,” said one.

A Shiv Sainik wept as he clasped the hands of his Muslim victim outside court. The latter had just testified that this accused was not the man who he had named as having attacked his home, thereby paving the way for the Sainik’s acquittal.

Another Sainik, speaking about how his frequent requests for leave to attend court had affected his job, vowed tearfully that never again would he be swayed.

Having seen riot victims struggle in vain for justice for more than a decade, this reporter felt that in the absence of true justice, perhaps these admissions of remorse could be seen as a kind of redressal. But none of these men had committed murder. Their brains addled after reading and listening to Thackeray’s and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s hateful rhetoric against Muslims, they had thrown stones, and damaged Muslim property.
 

Nailing instigators

But can those who, overwhelmed by such poison, kill innocents, be seen as deserving of bail, which would normally be denied to those who have had personal motives for killing? If so, then those who provoke such communal attacks should be considered the greater criminals, for whom jail without bail must be the rule.

In this particular case, the instigator, Dhananjay Desai of the Hindu Rashtra Sena, has been behind bars for two-and-a-half years. His bail application is coming up. If he also gets bail, Justice Bhatkar’s reasoning will become meaningless.

But we have had hatemongers more powerful than Desai. Some have ruled us: Bal Thackeray, who was the remote control of the Maharashtra government for five years, and commanded the state police’s loyalty for decades; LK Advani, who having led a rath yatra in 1990 which left a trail of riots in its wake, and having presided over the demolition of the Babri Masjid, became our home minister in 1998; Narendra Modi, whose inflammatory statements after the 2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat and during his election campaign later that year, led him to victory in his state. None of these three have ever been arrested for hate speech.

Thackeray had cases filed against him, but his party, which ruled Maharashtra in alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party from 1995 to 1999, had all but two of them withdrawn. Advani’s days in power ended in 2004. Why didn’t Congress home ministers who succeeded him expedite the Babri Masjid demolition case against him? Why didn’t the Congress, the main Opposition party in Gujarat, file cases for hate speech against Modi all these years?

There’s no doubt that the party that has ruled us for more than 50 years, has preferred to indulge, not punish, hatemongering politicians.

It gave Thackeray a state funeral in 2012. In 2008, it also gave a state funeral to Salahuddin Owaisi, the chief of Hyderabad’s All India Majlis-e-Ittihad-e-Muslimeen, known for his incendiary speeches, which in 1984, were followed by riots. The case against Akbaruddin Owaisi, his younger son and Telangana MLA, is gathering dust since 2013. Congress Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi even justified the massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi after another prime minister, his mother Indira, was assassinated by two Sikhs. He then went on to win the biggest ever majority in Parliament, seconded only by our current Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
 

What the law says

Electoral politics may be amoral, but what about the law?

The maximum punishment for hate speech is three years, which goes up to five years if it is made inside a place of worship. In 2008, a Special Court convicted Shiv Sena ex-MP and ex-MLA Madhukar Sarpotdar, party corporator Jaywant Parab, and up-vibhag pramukh (deputy chief of one locality) Ashok Shinde for anti-Muslim speeches made in December 1992. Judge Rajeshwari Bapat-Sarkar ruled that provocative speeches made by elected representatives well aware that they would lead to violence, deserved punishment “to send the correct signal that wrong doing would be punished”.

For the first time, leaders of a party that thrived on hate speech were convicted for it. This was the only riots case conviction upheld in the Sessions Court. Yet, these three hatemongers didn’t get the maximum punishment – the trial court sentenced them to one year in jail, which the Sessions Court reduced to two months.

In 2012, Maharashtra Samajwadi Party president Abu Asim Azmi was convicted for hate speech – and sentenced to two years.

If we accept the argument that demagogues who inspire killings are more culpable than the killers themselves, then punishment for hate speech must be enhanced. But first, politicians who indulge in hate speech must be charged, arrested and deprived of bail.

Neither is likely to happen. Justice Bhatkar’s order therefore, snatches away even the crumbs of justice that our system gives to those killed only for their religion.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

The post Muslim man’s murder: India’s courts simply don’t punish hate speech with the severity it merits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“I consider this factor in favour of the applicants/accused. More-over, the applicants/accused do not have any criminal record and it appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder,” Justice Bhatkar observed.

Shaikh was brutally murdered by members of Hindu Rashtra Sena in June 2014 while he was on his way back from a mosque after offering prayers. 14 of 21 accused have already been granted bail by the court.

A case of murder was registered against the members of HRS at the Hadapsar police station and 21 HRS members, including their leader Dhananjay Jayram Desai alias Bhai, were arrested.

A report in Indian Express said that Justice Bhatkar on 12 January, while granting bail to Vijay Rajendra Gambhire, Ganesh alias Ranjeet Shankar Yadav and Ajay Dilip Lalge, noted that the accused had attended a meeting “prior to the incident of assault. The applicants/accused otherwise had no other motive such as any personal enmity against the innocent deceased Mohsin.”

Her bail order stated, “…Dhananjay Desai was the one who was the speaker in the meeting and he instigated the audience… the transcript of the speech given by Dhananjay Desai was sufficient to show that he had incited feelings of religious discrimination. The meet was held… prior to the incident of assault.”

In its chargesheet, however, the cops quoted at least two witnesses, who heard HRS members plan the attack.

The chargesheet said, “The activists were carrying hockey sticks, wooden batons etc. During the meeting, they started discussing that HRS president Dhananjay Bhai has said that Muslims should be thrashed for posting derogatory pictures of Shivaji Maharaj on Facebook. Their vehicles, shops should be damaged. They should not be allowed to do any business in the area. There should be terror of HRS in Hadapsar.”

While the bail plea of Desai will come up for hearing in Bombay High Court on 1 February, the murder victim’s family plans to challenge the bail order in the Supreme Court.

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter
 

The post Bombay High Court cites Muslim man’s religion as provocation, subsequent murder appeared first on SabrangIndia.