Jharkhand Court Awards Life Imprisonment To Eleven Accused In Lynching Of Meat Trader Over Transporting Beef

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

A Fast Track court in Jharkhand awarded life term to 11 persons for the lynching of a meat trader in Ramgarh district on suspicion of transporting beef.

Facts

A meat trader named Alimuddin Ansari alias Asgar Ali was lynched on 29th July 2017 by a mob in Bazartand area of Ramgarh district. Victim Alimuddin Ansari was transporting beef in his vehicle from Chitarpur area in Ramgarh when his vehicle was intercepted near a gas agency in Bazartand by members of gau rakshak samiti. The meat trader was lynched by the mob in broad daylight and his vehicle was set on fire. The victim was followed by Raju Kumar, one of the accused from Chitarpur and it was he who informed others about Ansari’s position. A video of the incident was posted online and circulated on various social media websites and platforms.

Verdict and Proceedings of the case

Police filed charge sheet against 12 accused in September last year and trial was completed within 6 months. The prosecution presented 19 witnesses to support their case and defense presented one witness. Court declared them guilty on 16th March and their punishment was decided on 21st March. Out of all the 12 accused 11 were convicted of life imprisonment along with separate prison terms under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. They were all found guilty of murder, rioting, rioting with a deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, mischief causing damage and mischief by fire. Three of them have also been sentenced under criminal conspiracy. They were further slapped with a fine of rupees 2000 each. Moreover, Court has also instructed DLSA to initiate proceedings to provide the family of the victim with adequate compensation as the victim was the sole breadwinner of the family.  Additional Public Prosecutor Sushil Kumar Shukla prayed to the court for maximum punishment but defense requested leniency on the ground that this was the first criminal case against them. The court deferred the trial of 12th accused on account of him being a minor. The prosecution wanted the 12th accused to be tried as an adult as he is between 16 to 18 years of age.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sushil Kumar Shukla said this was the first case of cow vigilantism in the country in which accused were convicted and punished. Defense Counsel DN Singh said This was an inaccurate judgment and he will file an appeal against the conviction in Jharkhand High Court.

Widow of Alimuddin Ansari Mrs. Mariam Khatun said she is satisfied with the verdict.

Learning of the case

From this verdict, we learn that lynching is a serious offense and preparators of such a crime will be punished strictly.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -