Express News Service
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has asked the state police “if there is any statute that allows for the public flogging of guilty persons.”
On July 3, the court was considering a case involving five Muslim males who were publicly beaten up by police in the Kheda district of Gujarat, last October.
During the case’s hearing, a Gujarat High Court bench asked public prosecutor Mitesh Amin to state unequivocally whether the state government recognised the fact that the incident occurred. The court asked the public prosecutor, “We made it clear at the last hearing that we will not decide this case based on emotion. We merely want you to say whether or not the flogging incident occurred.”
The bench asked, “You can either argue that this was your officer’s responsibility and that if they hadn’t done it, the situation would have deteriorated to a worse extent. You have the option of claiming that the incident did not occur at all and that the evidence on record should not be considered.”
The public prosecutor, however, said that the Muslim petitioners had pleaded falsely in the case. He alleged that the Muslims had plotted to scare Hindus in the area.
The public prosecutor argued, “Earlier, some incidents took place in that area even during the Holi festival, and that this place has been sensitive and sensitivity has flared up there on several occasions. As part of their plot, they threw stones to disrupt the Hindu festivals.”
He further said that the timing of the altercation, the incarceration of the Muslims, and the time specified in the petition were all off.
AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has asked the state police “if there is any statute that allows for the public flogging of guilty persons.”
On July 3, the court was considering a case involving five Muslim males who were publicly beaten up by police in the Kheda district of Gujarat, last October.
During the case’s hearing, a Gujarat High Court bench asked public prosecutor Mitesh Amin to state unequivocally whether the state government recognised the fact that the incident occurred. The court asked the public prosecutor, “We made it clear at the last hearing that we will not decide this case based on emotion. We merely want you to say whether or not the flogging incident occurred.”googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
The bench asked, “You can either argue that this was your officer’s responsibility and that if they hadn’t done it, the situation would have deteriorated to a worse extent. You have the option of claiming that the incident did not occur at all and that the evidence on record should not be considered.”
The public prosecutor, however, said that the Muslim petitioners had pleaded falsely in the case. He alleged that the Muslims had plotted to scare Hindus in the area.
The public prosecutor argued, “Earlier, some incidents took place in that area even during the Holi festival, and that this place has been sensitive and sensitivity has flared up there on several occasions. As part of their plot, they threw stones to disrupt the Hindu festivals.”
He further said that the timing of the altercation, the incarceration of the Muslims, and the time specified in the petition were all off.
