HomeWorldConvicts of Bilkis case question consistency of plea by Gujarat government challenging...

Convicts of Bilkis case question consistency of plea by Gujarat government challenging SCSEXI News

A convict in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case has questioned the jurisdiction of the petitioners who had challenged the exemption granted to him and 10 other convicts in the case, saying they were “complete strangers” in the case. Huh.

In his counter-affidavit, Radhey Shyam, who was recently released on exemption by the Gujarat government, said that none of the petitioners are related to the case and are either political activists or “third party strangers”.

Questioning the maintainability of the petition, he said that if such petitions are considered by the court, it would be an open invitation for any member of the public to “jump before any court in any criminal matter”.

“The respondent at the very outset seriously questioned the status and maintenance of an urgent writ petition filed by a political activist or in other words, a complete stranger to the urgent matter,” he said.

He said that in the PIL questioning his release petitioner number one, CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali, a former MP and vice-president of All India Democratic Women’s Association, said that petitioner number 2, Revathi Lol, an independent Claims to be a journalist, while Petitioner No. 3, Roop Rekha Verma, claims to be the former Vice Chancellor of Lucknow University.

The affidavit said, “With great respect and humility, the responding respondent submits that if such third party petitions are considered by this Court, it will not only violate the established position of law, would destabilize but also open the floodgates and be an open invitation to any member of the public to jump into any criminal case before any court”.

Shyam said that the apex court has clearly stated in the earlier cases that a total stranger cannot be allowed to question the correctness of a decision in a criminal case and if it is allowed, any other Everyone can challenge the criminal prosecution/proceedings registered. day by day by the courts, even if the guilty person does not wish to do so and is inclined to accept the decision.

In his affidavit filed through advocate Rishi Malhotra, he said, “Thus, it is further held that unless an aggrieved party was subject to any disability recognized by law, no third party shall be allowed to decide against him.” Allowing questions to be raised would be unsafe and dangerous.”

He said that since the 1992 judgment in “Janata Dal v HS Choudhary”, a view which was reiterated and reiterated in 2013 in “Subramanian Swamy v Raju”, the apex court has consistently stated in unequivocal terms that a third The party which is a total stranger to the prosecution has no ‘locus stand’ in criminal matters and has no right to file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

“Accordingly, this Court considering the fact that the conviction in this present case by the Trial Court took place in the year 2008 and till then the Premature Policy of Gujarat was in force dated 9th July, 1992, the State Government was directed to To consider the application for premature release in accordance with the policy of July 1992,” it said.

The affidavit states that in this present writ petition, the petitioners wish to challenge the condonation order of the State of Gujarat, in which 11 accused persons including the respondent respondent were acquitted.

“In para 1B, the writ petitioner has contended that he has no personal interest in the matter and does not stand to gain anything by filing the same.

“It is further submitted that the writ petition has been filed purely in public interest and according to the petitioner the release of such persons has shaken the conscience of the society which has prompted the petitioner to file this PIL”, Said it.

Interestingly, neither the State nor the aggrieved nor the complainant has approached this Court and thus, it is respectfully submitted that if such matters are considered by this Court, the affidavit states that If done, “a certain state of law will certainly become an unstable state of law”.

The release and consequent release of 11 convicts from Godhra sub-jail on August 15 this year under the Gujarat government’s exemption policy has sparked a debate on the issue of such relief in heinous cases. The convicts had completed more than 15 years in jail.

On August 25, the top court had sought response from the Center and the Gujarat government on a petition challenging the exemption granted to the 11 convicts in the case.

It had asked the petitioners to present the 11 convicts as parties in the case, who have been granted exemption.

TMC MP Mahua Moitra has also filed a separate petition in the apex court challenging the grant of exemption.

Bilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the riots following the Godhra train burning incident. His three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed.

The investigation of the case was handed over to the CBI and the Supreme Court transferred the trial to a court in Maharashtra.

A special CBI court in Mumbai had on January 21, 2008 sentenced 11 to life imprisonment for the gang-rape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of seven members of his family.

Later the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court upheld his sentence.

read all latest news of india And today’s fresh news Here