Rss

  • stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Archives for : December2018

Bulandshahr Violence- Slain cop probed Akhlaq lynching

ADG: Lost An Honorable Officer To Violence

Meerut (UP):

Police inspector Subodh Kumar Singh, 47, who met a violent end during clashes sparked over a cow carcass on Monday in Syana village of Bulandshahr, was also the investigation officer in the 2015 lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq allegedly over possession and consumption of beef at Bisada village in Greater Noida’s Dadri. Singh had collected all the circumstantial evidence after the incident, including the meat sample from Akhlaq’s house. However, there were allegations against him for a biased investigation after which he was transferred to Varanasi in the middle of the investigation, said sources. “He was the IO of the Akhlaq lynching case from September 28, 2015 to November 9, 2015. The chargesheet in the case was filed by a different IO in March 2015,” said UP ADG (law and order) Anand Kumar.

Originally a resident of Targana village in Etah, Singh joined UP Police in 1998 and spent considerable period of his police career in the Meerut zone, including Meerut, Saharanpur and Muzaffarnagar districts. Singh is survived by wife and two teenage sons.

A batchmate who didn’t wish to be identified said, “Singh will always be known for his stronghold over crime.

He was very hard-working and always had a smiling face. After being transferred from Bisadha, he was sent to Varanasi and later to Mathura where he was promoted. He was the SHO Vrindavan for a very long time before he was deployed in Bulandshahr.”

During an encounter in Vrindavan in January 2016, he had also suffered injuries. He took over as station officer of Syana just two months ago. Prashant Kumar, ADG (Meerut zone), said, “We have lost an able officer in this violence. We will ensure the perpetrators of this attack are not left unpunished. A high-level investigation is under way.”

(Inputs from Abhishek Awasthi in Greater Noida)

Inspector Subodh Kumar Singh is survived by his wife and two sons

SIT formed, to submit its report in 48 hrs

UP government has formed a special investigation team (SIT) under IG (Meerut range) Ram Kumar to investigate allegations of cow slaughter and subsequent violence in which two persons, including a police inspector, were killed on Monday morning in Bulandshahr. ADG (law and order) Anand Kumar said that ADG (technical) SB Shiradkar is being sent to the spot and the latter will submit his report within 48 hours about the reason for and the people behind the violence. Amid certain media reports claiming that inspector Subodh Kumar Singh died of gunshot, ADG maintained that Singh sustained injuries from a blunt object on his head and any claims can be corroborated only after the post-mortem report.

Official sources have confirmed that 18-year-old youth Sumit, who was also killed in the violence, had sustained bullet injury. The ADG said: “Locals complained that cattle carcass was found in field. Police assured villagers of action but the latter carried carcass on a tractor & blocked main road. Protesters turned violent.” TNN

Related posts

Adanis’ decision to self-fund Aussie project is “no guarantee” the mine will go ahead #StopAdani

By Samantha Hepburn*
Indian mining multinational Adani has announced that it will self-fund a significantly smaller coal mine in the Galilee Basin, after failing to secure finance from more than 30 domestic and international banks and lenders. Federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan has described Adani as a “little Aussie battler” and praised the newly scaled-down project’s purported regional economic benefits.
The scaling down of the project has been extensive. Adani Mining chief executive Lucas Dow said the mine will cost A$2 billion and initially produce up to 15 million tonnes of thermal coal per year, with plans to ramp production up to 27.5 million tonnes per year.
That is far more modest than the A$16.5 billion investment in digging up 60 million tonnes of coal a year which the company first announced in 2010. The original plan was to transport the coal along a new 388km rail line to a specially built terminal at Adani’s Abbot Point coal port, for export to India. Under the scaled-down version of the project, Adani will need to secure access to existing rail infrastructure.
But there is still no guarantee that the mine will necessarily go ahead. Opening a new coal mine – even one with a relatively modest A$2 billion price tag – is socially and environmentally irresponsible, given the urgency with which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we need to reduce global greenhouse emissions, the fact that Australia is not currently on track to meet its own emissions targets, and of course the fact that 2018 is on course to become the fourth-hottest year on record.
The economics barely stack up either. A recent IEEFA report indicated that coal is facing a terminal decline as Asian markets make the transition to cheaper and more efficient renewable alternatives. Existing thermal coal power in India costs US$60-80 per megawatt-hour, roughly double the cost of new renewable generation. The Mundra coal plant, where much of the Adani coal was destined, is already operating under capacity and has been closed for significant periods.
Adani has decided not to proceed with its initially planned 388km rail link, and will instead aim to use the existing Aurizon rail infrastructure. However, there is a 200km gap in this link which will cost a significant amount to bridge – albeit almost certainly much less than the A$2.3 billion cost of the originally planned railway. Aurizon Network is legally obliged to consider Adani’s access application, but has not yet assessed and approved it.

Environmental and Indigenous issues

Then there are the existing and significant concerns regarding Adani’s environmental management of issues such as water contamination in the Caley Valley Wetlands near the Abbot Point terminal. These will not disappear just because the project has been revised.
Gaining the consent of Traditional Owners will also be crucial, yet the 12-member native title representation group is split down the middle. Adani’s existing Indigenous Land Use Agreement has been appealed in the High Court by the Wangan and Jagalingou people, on the basis that the group has not genuinely consented to the agreement, and that overriding native title to make way for a coalmine is socially and culturally regressive.

If the court does not uphold the agreement, this would create profound difficulties for the project as they may not be able to proceed with the development of the coal mine to the extent that it interferes with Indigenous landholdings.
So, while the decision of Adani to self-fund a scaled-down coalmine in Queensland might indicate determination, it also suggests a resistance to, and misunderstanding of, a rapidly changing energy sector and the broader social and environmental responsibilities that this change necessitates.

*Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University, Australia. This article first appeared in The Conversation

Related posts

Sohrabuddin Sheikh case- Judge tears into CBI for gap-riddled probe

As CBI makes final arguments in the alleged fake encounter case, judge raps agency for not being thorough in investigation

Special judge SJ Sharma presiding over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Tulsiram Prajapati alleged fake encounter case tore into the CBI’s final arguments, which began on Monday and lasted for barely two hours.

He questioned the prosecution, led by Special Public Prosecutor BP Raju, about loopholes in not just the CBI’s investigation but also those aspects which were probed by the Gujarat ATS and CID, before the CBI took over the casein2010.Atotalof92outof210witnesses examined in the case have turned hostile.

Despite CBI’s original case being that key conspirators in the encounter are then MoS Home, Amit Shah, then ATS chief DG Vanzara, then Dy SP ATS Rajkumar Pandiyan and SP Udaipur Dinesh MN, their names were not mentioned by the prosecutor. All the above accused have been discharged from the case.

On November 26, 2005 a local criminal from Madhya Pradesh, Sohrabuddin Sheikh was allegedly killed in an encounter in a joint operation by the Gujarat ATS and Rajasthan Police. The ATS claimed he was in the city to kill a prominent political leader. The CBI concluded that Sohrabuddin was abducted from a bus on November 22 near the Telangana border along with his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulsiram Prajapati, and then killed at the encounter scene three days later.

A year later, on December 28, 2006, Sohrabuddin’s close aide Tulsiram Prajapati, was also killed after he allegedly escaped from police’s custody on December 27, 2018 while returning from Ahmedabad to Udaipur Central Prison. The CBI concluded that Tulsiram wasn’t travelling on the train with the police. “So where did he go from Ahmedabad?” the judge asked, pointing out how no one had investigated that aspect.

It is CBI’s contention that Tulsiram, under pressure from then ATS chief DG Vanzara, gave away their location due to which Sohrabuddin was abducted. “Where is the evidence on record to show Tulsiram gave in to Vanzara?” the judge asked.

When Raju argued that tickets were planted on Sohrabuddin to make the encounter look genuine, the judge was quick to ask, “You say it is fake and planted. Has any effort been made to find out who planted the ticket? There were 38 accused with you, were they even interrogated on this?”

The judge also raised doubts about the CBI’s case that Tulsiram was the third person on the bus. During the probe, CBI had examined people from whom the bus tickets were purchased. But the judge said there was no explanation as to why these tickets were purchased from two different people, if all the three – Sohrabuddin, Tulsiram and Kauser Bi – were travelling together.

BP Raju then pointed at Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin’ s deposition, where he said he met Tulsiram in 2006 in Ujjain jail, where Tulsiram confessed to being the third person on the bus during the abduction. “The third person was never disclosed till the CBI took over the case in 2010,” the judge remarked. He said that there was no explanation why Rubabuddin didn’t mention this meeting with Tulsiram to the Supreme Court between 2006-10. It was on Rubabuddin’s petition, that the SC transferred the case to the CBI for investigation.

Defence lawyer SV Raju, appearing for one of the alleged shooters PI NH Dhabi and accused ML Parmar, said that none of the facts against his clients have been established with proper evidence.

While forensic experts have said that the bullets from Sohrabuddin’s encounter scene are a match with Dhabi’s service revolver, Raju argued that there is no evidence to show the revolver was in Dhabi’s possession that night. He further said that the officer from whom the revolver was seized, was not examined by the CBI. Raju also argued that there was no evidence to show there was a conspiracy in the case. “There is no evidence of abduction, conspiracy or murder of Sohrabuddin.” Arguments are likely to continue in the case today.

Mumbai Mirror

Related posts