The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dropped charges under National Security Act against Dr Kafeel Khan, the pediatrician directing his immediate release. Dr Kafeel Khan has been incarcerated in Mathura jail for the last six months.
The HC bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Marhur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh cancelled his detention in a habeaus corpus petition filed by a Kafeel’s mother. The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier extended his detention by three months till November 13.
In its last hearing, the HC bench adjourned the matter as parties prayed to file additional documents and the court wanted to pursue original records of the proceedings under the NSA, resulting in the detention of Khan and further extension of the same.
According to the plea, Khan was earlier granted bail by a court and he was supposed to be released. However, the NSA was imposed against him. Hence, his detention was illegal, the plea said.
Under the NSA, people can be detained without a charge for up to 12 months if authorities are satisfied that they are a threat to the national security or law and order. Khan is currently lodged in a Mathura jail.
The Gorakhpur doctor was arrested on January 29 by Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) for an alleged provocative speech against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Aligarh Muslim University in December 2019.
According to Hindu mythology, Lord Rama was born on the Sarayu river banks, which in present-day is a place identified in Uttar Pradesh. According to Hindu beliefs, a temple stood at the birthplace of Lord Rama, which was demolished in 1528 by Mughal emperor Babur who then constructed the Babri Masjid there. Again in 1992, kar sevaks blazed the mosque to the ground. The disputed land measured 2.77 Acres.
In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das filed a suit to build a temple on the Ramchabutra. In 1934, some parts of the mosque were damaged due to a struggle between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Then in December 1949, idols of Lord Ram were forcefully placed in the central dome resulting in a desecration of the mosque. A suit is later filed by Nirmohi Akhara in 1959, asking for possession of the site. A lawsuit is filed by Sunni Central Board of Waqf in 1961, claiming ownership.
In 1984, Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP) started a campaign for the construction of Ram Mandir at the site. In 1989, the foundations of Ram Mandir were laid down by the VHP after getting permission from the Rajiv Gandhi government. On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid was destroyed entirely. Hearings in High Court started in April 2002 to ascertain the ownership. On 30 September 2010, it was ruled by the Allahabad HC that the land should be divided into three parts- one third to Ram Lalla Virajman, which was represented by the Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha; one third to the Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining to the Nirmohi Akhara. The case is then taken to the SC by the parties in December. The judgment finally came in November 2019.
Question of law
Was the claim of the parties barred by limitation?
Who had ownership and title over the property?
Law of adverse possession applicable equally to the Hindu and the Muslims?
Can idols and idol worship places be considered as juristic entities?
Held
Based on the oral and written evidence presented, it was concluded that Babri Masjid was built on Janmaasthan of Lord Ram.
The disputed property would be treated as a single composite unit instead of the three portions split by the Allahabad High Court ruling in 2010.
A trust would be set up under Section 6 of the Ayodhya Dispute Act with the Board of Trustees or any other suitable body. Its working and management would be determined by the scheme framed by the Central government.
The disputed property would be handed to the Trust or the body as per the above clause, and 5 acres of land would be given to the Plaintiff, Sunni Central Waqf Board.
The ownership claim of the Shia Waqf Board was rejected.
Another piece of land will be given to the Muslims as per article 142
The Plaintiff has the right to worship at the disputed property subject to restrictions imposed to maintain peace and order.
The Allahabad High Court has overturned a 37-year-old conviction under dacoity of three persons from Kanpur Dehat on the grounds that in the absence of involvement of five or more persons, no sentence should be made out under clauses of dacoity.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery overruled the judgment of a special court (dacoity) judge made on March 11, 1983, in Kanpur Dehat district.
“The appellants are acquitted of the charges and are hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith,” the court said.
The three had filed an appeal against their conviction under Sections 395 (dacoity) and 397 (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt). While Balbir and Mohar Pal alias Chhakauri were awarded five-year rigorous imprisonment, Lala Ram (who was charged under Sections 395 and 397) was given a seven-year term. They had been out on bail.
Counsel for the accused cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Raj Kumar alias Raju vs. State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand), 2008, and Manmeet Singh alias Goldie vs State of Punjab, 2015, cases to argue that the trial court erroneously convicted the three men under dacoity.
“…it is clear that in case there is a conviction of less than five persons under Sections 395/ 397 IPC, Trial Court must arrive at a finding that there was the involvement of five or more persons,” the High Court observed.
In the absence of such finding no conviction could be made out under aforesaid sections, it noted.
It agreed with the argument of counsel for the convicted men Pranvesh that the trial court did not record any such finding. The trial court judgement simply mentioned that “three accused, facing trial before me, were also along with dacoits who committed dacoity in the house of Raj Kumar,” the High Court said quoting the lower court judgement.
“In my opinion, the above-mentioned finding is not sufficient to conclude that five or more persons were involved in the offence and not sufficient to convict appellants, who are three in numbers under the offence of dacoity,” Justice Shamshery noted.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the intervening night of June 26 and 27, 1981, when the three accused, along with four others committed dacoity in three houses in village Badra Majra Bakauthia under Kakwan area of Kanpur Dehat. At 11 p.m. that day, four dacoits jumped into the courtyard of one Raj Kumar and opened the door, which allowed six other dacoits to enter inside. They started beating the inmates and looted the belongings of the resident, who ran away. The dacoits then looted the houses of Ochhey Lal and Ganga Ram in the same village. They also used a firearm in the course of dacoity.
As per the prosecution version, the witnesses saw the features of known dacoits in the light of lantern, torches and burning straw and recognized Balbir, Mohar Pal and Lala Ram.
