Asaduddin Owaisi on 7/11 acquittals: Will Govt punish ATS for jailing innocents for 18 years?
The Bombay High Court's judgement came nearly a decade after a special court awarded the convicts capital punishment and life sentences.
'12 Muslim men were in Jail for 18 years for a crime they didn't commit. Their prime life is gone. 180 families who lost their loved ones, several injured no closure for them. Will the government take action against officers of Maharashtra ATS who investigated this case ?' the Hyderabad MP asked in a post on X.
A bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Shyam Chandak observed that 'the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubts,' legal news website Bar and Bench reported.
The court found the statements of nearly all prosecution witnesses unreliable. The court reportedly said there was no reason for taxi drivers or people inside to remember the accused after almost 100 days of the blast.
'Innocent people are sent to jail, and then, years later, when they are released from jail, there is no possibility for reconstruction of their lives. For last 17 years, these accused are in jail. They haven't stepped out even for a day. The majority of their prime life is gone. In such cases where there is a public outcry, the approach by police is always to first assume guilt and then go from there,' Owaisi said in the post.
On the evening of July 11, 2006, bomb blasts took place at seven different places in the Mumbai local train within just 11 minutes. In this incident, 189 people lost their lives in the blast, while more than 827 passengers were injured.
The bombs were placed in first-class compartments of trains from Churchgate. They exploded near the stations of Matunga Road, Mahim Junction, Bandra, Khar, Jogeshwari, Bhayandar and Borivali. A trial court in 2015 convicted 12 people in the blasts case.
The chargesheet was filed in the case in November 2006. After this, in 2015, the trial court convicted 12 accused. Of these, 5 were sentenced to death, while 7 were given life imprisonment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
34 minutes ago
- India.com
Malegaon verdict: Owaisi questions BJP's 'hypocrisy' on terrorism, asks if Centre, Maha govt will...
(File) Malegaon verdict: AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi on Thursday questioned the 'hypocrisy' of the BJP government on terrorism over the acquittal of all the seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case, and hoped the Centre will challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. The seven accused who were acquitted by a special court in Mumbai include former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. The September 2008 blasts near a mosque in the Maharashtra town killed six persons and injured 101. Speaking to reporters in the Parliament complex, Owaisi said, 'Will the Modi government and the Maharashtra government challenge the verdict in Supreme Court? Or will they continue their hypocrisy on terrorism?' He said the acquittal, coming 17 years after the blasts, raises serious questions about the investigation. 'First, the Mumbai ATS under Hemant Karkare probed the case, and then it went to the NIA. The investigation was deeply flawed. Despite the NIA saying military-grade RDX was used, no accountability has been fixed as to where that RDX came from,' he said. Owaisi also referred to earlier blasts, including the 2006 Malegaon attack and the Samjhauta Express bombing, arguing that justice has been denied across multiple cases. 'Who carried out the Samjhauta blast? Who was behind Mecca Masjid, Ajmer, and Mumbai train blasts? Even in the 2006 Malegaon case, Muslims were arrested and brutally tortured. They were later discharged. So who really did it,' he asked. The AIMIM chief also criticised the 'double standards' in terrorism cases, saying, 'There cannot be two approaches to terrorism. There has been no closure for the families of the victims, whether it's Malegaon, Samjhauta, Mumbai, or Mecca Masjid.' He also recalled how in 2015, special prosecutor Rohini Salian alleged pressure to go soft on the accused in the Malegaon blasts case. 'In 2017, the NIA reintroduced Pragya Thakur's name in the chargesheet. So, who will be held accountable for this mess,' he asked. Targeting the BJP's stand against saffron terror claims, Owaisi said, 'Was the person who killed Mahatma Gandhi Chinese? Who assassinated Rajiv Gandhi? Who killed Indira Gandhi?' Demanding the government to explain if it intends to appeal the acquittal, Owaisi said, 'If the real culprits are roaming free, the country has the right to know who bombed Malegaon in 2008?' (Only the headline has been reworked by staff. Copy comes from an agency feed)
News18
43 minutes ago
- News18
NCERT Books May Not Be Accurate, But Muslim Rule In India Was Oppressive
The barbarity of Muslim rulers is well-documented, mostly by Muslim writers Revision of a Class VIII social science textbook by the National Council for Education Research and Training (NCERT) has once again brought the issue of the saffronisation of the education system, especially of historiography, to the fore. While the new NCERT outlook may be coloured with the ideological tilt of the ruling coalition, its opponents are not exactly impartial in their criticism. The book, Exploring Society: Indian and Beyond, informs students about the Sultanate and Mughal periods. It describes Babur as a 'brutal and ruthless conqueror, slaughtering entire populations of cities". Akbar, termed as a 'blend of brutality and tolerance", fares a shade better. Aurangzeb, too, has been depicted as the destroyer of temples and gurdwaras. But if the new NCERT books are inaccurate, Left-leaning historians and intellectuals are also presenting facts and arguments that are at variance with reality. For instance, the most visible public historian, Dr Ruchika Sharma, has claimed that the jizya tax was not used to spread Islam. But Firuz Shah Tughlaq, who ruled during 1351-88, wrote in his autobiography, 'I encouraged my infidel subjects to embrace the religion of the Prophet, and I proclaimed that everyone who repeated the creed and became a Musalman should be exempt from the jizya or poll-tax. Information of this came to the ears of the people at large, and great numbers of Hindus presented themselves, and were admitted to the honour of Islam. Thus they came forward day by day from every quarter, and adopting the Faith, were exonerated from the jizya, and were favoured with presents and honours." It was not just that the jizya was discriminatory; how it was collected was also humiliating. The taxpayer was ordered to offer the money, keeping his palm up; the collector snatched it rudely to show that the payer was at the mercy of the rulers. Sharma and others also try to normalise various barbaric Muslim invasions and the ensuing oppressive Muslim rule with the such-things-happened-in-those-times line. The underlying message is that the actions of medieval Muslim rulers should not be regarded as exceptionally brutal. Really? The famous American historian Will Durant wrote, 'The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilisation is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." The barbarity of Muslim rulers is well-documented, mostly by Muslim writers. Consider Taimur (1336-1405), Central Asia's jihadist conqueror. I reproduce the sack of Delhi (December 1398) in his own words; one lakh Hindus were slaughtered in the massacre. The following passage is from his memoirs, Malfuzat-i-Timuri, quoted from HM Elliot and J Dowson, The History of India as Told by its Own Historians. 'On the 16th of the month… when the soldiers proceeded to apprehend the Hindus and gabrs (Parsis) who had fled to the city, many of them drew their swords and offered resistance. The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahánpanáh and Sírí to Old Dehlí, burning up all it reached. The savage Turks fell to killing and plundering. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their wives and children in them, and rushed into the fight and were killed. The Hindus and gabrs of the city showed much alacrity and boldness in fighting… On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering, and destroying. When morning broke on Friday, all my army, no longer under control, went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering, and making prisoners. All that day, the sack was general. (…) Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulamá, and the other Musulmáns, the whole city was sacked… It was the will of God that this calamity should fall upon the city." Then there was Amir Khusru (1253-1325), or Amīr Khusrow. A Sufi musician, poet, and scholar, he is lionised as a symbol of composite culture, which is the desi term for multiculturalism. But he also celebrated jihad. As the historian Sita Ram Goel wrote, 'Amir Khusru describes with great glee how the heads of Brahmins danced from their necks and fell to the ground at their feet, along with those of the other 'infidels' whom Malik Kafur had slaughtered during the sack of the temples at Chidambaram." Goel has quoted passages from Khusru, like, 'When the royal army (of Alau'din Khalji) reached that province (Gujarat), it won a victory after great slaughter… The army of Islam broke the idols (at Somnath) and the biggest idol was sent to the court of the Sultan." This is Khusru—the icon of interreligious faith! Just because some votaries of Hindutva show excessive enthusiasm and prejudice in rewriting history doesn't mean that Muslim rule was humane. The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
France, Britain and Australia are no longer Christian-majority countries, Muslim population has increased by..., number of Islamic countries has...
Representational Image Christian population: A major demographic shift is underway across the world due to a multitude of factors such as wars, illegal immigration, religious conversion and refugee crisis due to various conflicts. According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, the number of Christian-majority countries has declined in the last 10 years, and Christians are no longer the majority population in major western nations including, Britain, France, and Australia. How many Christian-majority countries are there? As per the Pew Research survey, the number of Christian-majority nations has decreased by four from 2010-2020, even as the number of countries with a Christian majority population still remains the highest. The survey reveals that Christians are a majority in 120 of the 201, or about 60% of the total countries and territories on the planet, in 2020. The number was 124 in 2010, the report said. Why Christianity is declining? The primary reason for the decline in Christian-majority nations is number of people leaving the Christian faith in recent years, according to the survey, adding that a large portion of those who leave Christianity do not profess any other faith, or identify as atheists. The survey notes that the most most significant change has been witnessed in countries like Britain, Australia, France and Uruguay, where the Christians are no longer a majority as their numbers dropped below 50% in the past decade, while the numbers of atheists or those who do not identify with any religion surged. Notably, Uruguay is the only non-Christian majority country in the Americas as 52 percent of its population does not identify with any religion, while the Christian population has declined to 44 percent. The number of countries where majority of population do not identify with any religion has surged to 10 in 2020, while the number was seven in 2010. France, Britain and Australia do not have any majority religious group, however, the number of people who identify as non-religious is close to or greater than the number of Christians, the report revealed. What about Muslim countries? As per the Pew Research Center survey, there has been no change in the status of the 53 Muslim majority countries as their number remains the same it was a decade ago. There are only two Hindu countries in the world, India and Nepal, with the former being home to about 95 percent of the global Hindu population, which accounts for about 15 percent of global population. Hindus form the largest religious group in Mauritius, but are not the majority in that country. There are a total of seven Buddhist-dominated countries, while Israel remains the sole Jewish nation in the world, the report revealed.
