BJP Questions Law College Admission Of Kolkata Rape Case Accused Despite Poor Test Score
Malviya took to social media platform X on Monday morning to highlight what he described as irregularities in the admission of Zaib Ahmed to South Calcutta Law College, which operates under the University of Calcutta's jurisdiction. According to the BJP leader's allegations, Ahmed secured admission despite achieving a rank of 2634 in the Calcutta University Law Entrance Test for undergraduate programs in 2024.
The political figure questioned the fairness of the admission process, suggesting that students with superior academic credentials and law-abiding backgrounds were being denied opportunities while Ahmed gained entry with what he characterized as substandard performance. Malviya demanded immediate answers regarding who facilitated Ahmed's admission and whether any protective measures were extended to the accused.
Ahmed faces serious criminal charges alongside two co-accused individuals in connection with the sexual assault of a 24-year-old female law student. The incident occurred on June 25 within the college premises, specifically in a security guard's quarters, following the victim's rejection of a marriage proposal from the primary accused, Manojit Mishra.
Investigation details reveal that Mishra, angered by the rejection, forcibly brought the victim to the location where he committed the assault. Ahmed and the third accused, Pramit Mukherjee, allegedly remained present during the crime and recorded the incident while instructing the security guard to stay outside the room. All three individuals have been arrested and face charges related to sexual assault and criminal conspiracy.
The case has generated significant public outrage throughout Kolkata, with demonstrations occurring across the city. The incident has drawn comparisons to the previous year's RG Kar Medical College tragedy, where a second-year postgraduate medical student was sexually assaulted and murdered within the hospital premises during the night of August 8-9, 2024.
The admission controversy adds another layer to the ongoing legal proceedings, as questions arise about institutional accountability and the vetting processes for student admissions. The case has intensified discussions about campus safety, admission transparency, and the protection of students within educational institutions.
Public attention now focuses on both the criminal investigation and the administrative inquiry into how admission procedures may have been compromised, with demands for comprehensive reform to prevent similar incidents and ensure merit-based, transparent admission processes in prestigious educational institutions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
33 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Attack on pastor: Sulthan Bathery police register suo motu case
The Sulthan Bathery police have registered a case as part of the continuing investigation into the alleged manhandling attempt by a group of suspected Bajrang Dal activists against a pastor accusing him of conducting a door-to-door religious campaign for conversion in Wayanad district. The suo motu case was registered on August 2 after a video clip of the alleged attack, which took place on April 2, 2025 following allegations over forcible religions conversion attempts, resurfaced on various social media platforms. Pastor arrested for sexually assaulting five minor girls in Chennai The statement of the pastor who represented the Pentecost church would be recorded soon. However, no formal complaint was raised by the threatened pastor till date. Police sources said efforts were on to identify the attackers involved in the incident. The suo motu case was registered under Sections 192 (wantonly giving provocation with the intent to cause riot), 351 (3) [criminal intimidation to cause death or grievous hurt] and Section 3(5) [criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. A senior police officer associated with the ongoing investigation said the pastor was threatened by the gang when he reportedly went to a tribal settlement at Cherukad near Sulthan Bathery to invite children to a summer vacation camp on April 2. 'The statement of the tribespeople at the settlement would be recorded soon for more clarity,' he added. The incident comes to light at a time when the State is going through an intense political storm over the recent arrest and imprisonment of two catholic nuns in Chhattisgarh, alleging forcible religious conversion and human trafficking attempts. The Bajrang Dal and the BJP activists had drawn the criticisms of their political opponents and the church in the name of supporting the legal action.
India Today
43 minutes ago
- India Today
PM Modi takes stock as raging Ganga floods Varanasi
2:23 Days after her acquittal in the 2008 Malegaon blast case by a special NIA court, former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya has alleged she was tortured to name senior leaders. Sadhvi Pragya claimed she was pressured during the investigation to name Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, and RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat. She alleged that she was told the torture would stop if she complied, stating, "...unhone ki inke naam lo inke naam lo sabke naam lekar ke aur tum uh ye bologi to hum tumhen nahi peetenge (they said take their if you say this, we will not beat you)." Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde defended her claims, accusing the UPA government of coining the term 'Saffron Terrorism' to frame Hindutva leaders. A retired police officer was also mentioned as having suggested that Mohan Bhagwat should be implicated in the case.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
‘Bare allegations'—how Malegaon ruling debunked ATS & NIA's theories on RDX, conspiracy meetings
He made the observations in a 1036-page exhaustive judgment released Friday, acquitting former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt-Colonel Prasad Purohit, Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retd), Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni in the 17-year-old case. Special judge A.K. Lahoti observed that the prosecution could not produce even one reliable witness to establish the allegations around a series of conspiracies meetings, the source of explosives used in the blast, along with their handling and transportation to the explosion site. New Delhi: In its judgment acquitting all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, a special NIA court in Mumbai debunked all prosecution theories, presented by both the National Investigation Agency and Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). The case was first probed by the ATS before being taken over by the NIA at the central government's orders. The ATS filed its first chargesheet in January 2009 while the NIA did so in May 2016. 'Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to adduce cogent, reliable, and legally acceptable evidence. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions. Such discrepancies undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case and fall short of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,' Judge Lahoti observed. The court also pointed to several loopholes in the prosecution case while letting off the accused on the benefit of doubt. How RDX theory fell through On the night of 29 September, 2008, during the month of Ramazan and eve of Navratri, a bomb exploded opposite Shakeel Goods Transport Company situated between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk in Malegaon. The explosives were believed to have been hidden in a motorcycle. Six persons were killed and scores injured in the blast. Hours after the bomb exploded, Nashik Rural district police registered a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Explosive Substances Act. Weeks later, the local police invoked sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, before the Maharashtra ATS registered a case in the matter on 21 October, 2008, and formally took over the investigation. Over the next two months, the ATS arrested 11 accused, including Purohit and Thakur, on charges of hatching the blast conspiracy. The ATS claimed to have found that all accused were linked to a right-wing organisation named Abhinav Bharat and invoked the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act against them in January 2009. Regarding the source of RDX used in the blast, the ATS alleged that Purohit procured it during his posting as an army officer in Jammu & Kashmir and stored it in a cupboard before it was assembled at the house of Chaturvedi. Subsequently, one Ramji used it for the explosion, fitting the material on an LML Freedom motorcycle owned by Thakur, it stated in its chargesheet. In a contrary theory regarding the bike, the NIA alleged that Ramji and another accused, Sandeep Dange, had been using the vehicle for at least one year before the blast and got it delivered to Sendhwa in Madhya Pradesh through another accused. On assembly and transportation of RDX, the court junked the NIA's theory of its transport from Indore to Malegaon via Sendhwa, citing no evidence to back the claim. The witnesses to support the ATS claims that it was assembled and fitted at Chaturvedi's residence in Deolali camp turned against the investigators during cross-examination. The ATS also claimed to have carried out a raid at Chaturvedi's residence and a swab was taken from the floor of the house to detect traces of explosives. The result of the swab test came back positive, the court noted, adding that this formed the basis of the ATS case against him. However, two prosecution witnesses from the army said they had seen an ATS officer with a bag at Chaturvedi's residence. The officer, they said, was seen rubbing the floor from where traces were later recovered. The army officers revealed during cross examination that the role of the ATS officer was not mentioned earlier during investigation because of his request that he may lose his job. The court did not rule out the possibility that the explosive material was planted there. Also Read: Sadhvi Pragya's doctor debunks claim of cow urine curing her cancer, says she had surgeries Witnesses changed statements Regarding procurement of RDX, the court noted the prosecution's reliance on five witnesses—Shailesh Raikar, Shirish Yashwant Date, Captain Nitin Joshi, Milind Avinash Joshirao and ACP Mohan Kulkarni of the Maharashtra ATS. Raikar was serving in the Indian Army till March 2008, and the ATS presented his statement implicating Purohit vis-a-vis his posting in Kashmir and the possible source of RDX. Similarly, the ATS also presented a statement of Date, a businessman, against Purohit. However, during cross-examination, both alleged pressure from the ATS behind their statements implicating Purohit, and the court junked their testimonies. The ATS also presented Joshi, who was posted as chief administration and training officer at Nashik's Bhonsala Military School, as a star witness, alleging that Purohit had confessed before him about bringing RDX from J&K after conclusion of his posting and keeping it in a cupboard at his residence. However, during cross-examination, Joshi backtracked from the statement attributed to him by the ATS. He said he never met Purohit in 2007 and that there was no conversation about RDX. He also expressed frustration due to the lengthy questioning and sustained pressure from the ATS behind his statements against Purohit. Similarly, Joshirao, a businessman employed in the lift business, testified that he was taken into custody between 28 October and 7 November, 2008, and the ATS extracted statements from him against Purohit in this period. The most damaging admission, however, came from Kulkrani, who was the chief investigator of the ATS. He deposed before the court that he did not make any inquiry about Purohit bringing RDX from Kashmir, nor about his posting there. The entire case of the ATS about Purohit sourcing the explosives from there fell flat based on his statements before the court. 'The admissions given by PW-320 (ACP Mohan Kulkarni) are self-sufficient to show that he had not collected any information pertaining to source, procuring, transportation of RDX with the senior officer of A-9 (Purohit),' the judge observed 'There is nothing on record to show how A-9 has brought RDX from Kashmir except the bare allegations. Therefore, the testimony of PW-320 is also not helpful to the prosecution to connect A-9 with the said allegations of procuring, bringing RDX from Kashmir after completion of his posting,' he added. Question of conspiracy meetings The prosecution case hinged overwhelmingly on a series of alleged meetings between the accused persons months before the blast. It was alleged that the idea of setting up a right-wing organisation was the brainchild of Purohit during a meeting at Raigad Fort in Maharashtra, that was attended by him and other co-accused persons, who were later listed as prosecution witnesses. These witnesses denied having attended any such meeting in court. The prosecution also alleged that the intentions of the accused, including Purohit, came out in a meeting of Abhinav Bharat in Faridabad in January 2008. In that meeting, Purohit took responsibility for providing men to carry out blasts and also gave inflammatory speeches, it was alleged. The prosecution listed six witnesses who purportedly attended the Faridabad meeting to buttress the claims. However, they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. The prosecution further made the case that the largest part of the blast conspiracy was hatched at a Bhopal meeting on 11 and 12 April, 2008, attended by Thakur, Purohit, and three others, including Chaturvedi. The prosecution made the case that a bomb blast was planned in Malegaon in a densely populated area to seek revenge against Muslims. Purohit took responsibility for providing explosives and for giving the men for the explosion. The prosecution once again relied on witnesses such as Yashpal Bhadana, a resident of Faridabad, who had recanted his statement about the Faridabad meeting. Similarly, he retracted his statement given to the ATS and, during cross-examination, said he had never attended any meeting in Bhopal and was unaware of who had participated in it. He alleged that the ATS grilled him for five days, morning to evening, to extract a statement from him about the Bhopal meeting. Another star witness of the prosecution, said to have participated in the Bhopal meeting, did not confirm in court statements attributed to Purohit and Thakur about carrying out a blast in Malegaon. 'Case rests on circumstantial evidence' The NIA alleged in its chargesheet that wanted accused Ramji instructed his two aides—Dhan Singh and Amit Hakla—to carry out a recce of Malegaon to select a spot for the blast, and this was done in the month the explosion took place. However, the court observed lack of witnesses or evidence to establish the same, despite examining 323 witnesses in the case and NIA's interrogation of Dhan Singh. 'I am inclined to hold that it remained bare words about alleged recce. Except the bare wordings, no iota of evidence and hence, nothing survives in it,' the judge noted. The court also observed 'there is no direct evidence on the point of presence of the accused at Malegaon, on the date of the incident or before or after the incident'. It further debunked the prosecution's theory of the motorcycle being parked at the alleged spot of the blast, saying that in the wake of intense police deployment and denial of entry of vehicles from outside due to the crowd in the market on the occasion of Ramzan, it was impossible to bring the bike claimed to be used for the explosion. 'In the backdrop of the said facts, bringing the vehicle from outside and parking the same seems to be impossible. Thus, there is also no evidence in any form on the point of parking of vehicle loaded/fitted with RDX in front of Shakeel Goods Transport at Malegaon by any accused or on behalf of accused by any other person,' the order noted. 'On the aforesaid points, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence,' observed the judge. 'For reaching the conclusion, as to whether the bomb explosion (was) caused by the accused as per the alleged conspiracy or not, it is necessary to scan the entire evidence on record. It is a well settled position that the circumstances should be so linked so as to form a chain and the chain should be complete and there should be no other chance of anyone else committing the offence,' the judge observed in the order acquitting the accused. (Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui) Also Read: Hostile witnesses, Pragya Thakur & a 'Hindu Rashtra' plot—twists & turns in 2008 Malegaon blast case
