Six get life term in teacher murder case
The judgment was delivered by the court of principal district and additional sessions judge-IV, Anupam Kumari, after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defence and examining witness testimonies. Monetary penalties were also imposed.
According to additional public prosecutors Rajendra Prasad and Kripa Rai, the incident occurred on the morning of July 19, 2019. Satyendra was on his way to collect milk when he was attacked near a peepal tree by Radheshyam Giri, Shivdani Giri, Jaiprakash Singh and Banarasi Giri.
Shortly afterwards, Prince Giri and Gunjan Giri arrived on a motorcycle and fatally shot him in the head. The deceased's father lodged an FIR naming all six accused — Jaiprakash Singh, Radheshyam Giri, Shivdani Giri, Gunjan Giri, Prince Giri and Banarasi Giri — and claimed the motive for the murder was a land dispute.
The prosecution produced 10 witnesses to support its case. Based on the evidence and testimonies, the court found all six accused guilty.
Radheshyam Giri, Shivdani Giri, Jaiprakash Singh, and Banarasi Giri were sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs 50,000 each under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to two years' imprisonment and fined Rs 5,000 each under Section 148 IPC for rioting.
Prince Giri and Gunjan Giri, who were identified as the shooters, were also sentenced to life imprisonment. In addition, they received three years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000 each under Section 148.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Friendship Day wishes
,
messages
and
quotes
!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Can Abu Salem walk free soon? Here's what the Maharashtra government and the courts have said
Gangster Abu Salem, who was extradited to India from Portugal in 2005, has been trying to make the case for premature release from prison. But the state government told the Bombay High Court this week that he has to serve out a term of 25 years as per the conditions of his extradition from Portugal – which means that he cannot be released before 2030. India had assured Portugal that Salem would not be given the death penalty or jail term exceeding 25 years if he was found guilty in cases that were pending against him. In 2015 and 2017, Salem was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of builder Pradeep Jain and the 1993 Bombay blasts, respectively. On what basis is Salem seeking release? Abu Salem, or Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari, was named as an absconding accused in the first chargesheet filed by Mumbai Police in the Bombay blasts case on November 4, 1993. The police claimed that Salem had been given the task of transporting and concealing weapons, and was linked to the conspiracy to execute the blasts. On March 12 that year, a dozen bombs went off across Mumbai in a terrorist attack coordinated by Dawood Ibrahim and his gang, killing 257 people. Salem remained a wanted accused in the blasts case as well as the 1995 murder of Jain, a Mumbai-based builder. He was said to have fled the country, and remained absconding as the trial against the other accused began and ended. It was only in 2002 that investigators had a breakthrough, and Salem was detained in Lisbon, the capital of Portugal. He was said to have undergone plastic surgery to change his appearance, but his identity was established on the basis of his fingerprints that were available in police records. A year later, the Portuguese government consented to India's request for Salem's extradition on the basis of documents and evidence that were made available on his alleged role in crimes in India, including the 1993 terrorist attack. Salem appealed against the government's order in courts in Portugal, and L K Advani, then deputy Prime Minister, gave an assurance that he would not be given the death penalty or a prison term of more than 25 years. On November 11, 2005, Salem was extradited to India. He was put on trial for the murder of the builder, and the 1993 blasts case. He was found guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), and was sentenced to life imprisonment. For the past few years, Salem, who is lodged in a jail in Maharashtra, has been knocking on the doors of various authorities, including the trial court, Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court, asking for the date on which he would be released. He has been claiming that he is entitled to benefits that a prisoner gets, including remission. Remission is a reduction in the jail term based on grounds including the nature of the offence and good conduct, and as part of special schemes, etc. Salem has claimed that based on the time he has spent in jail, he is entitled to 3 years and 16 days of remission. Also, given that he had been detained in Portugal from September 2002 onward, he has spent more than 25 years in jail, and should have been released on March 31, 2025. Based on these calculations, Salem has written to Portuguese authorities on various occasions, claiming that the conditions of his extradition have been violated. He has also written to the Maharashtra Prison Department, the state government, and the courts. Back in 2017, Salem had sought remission under a special scheme introduced by the state to mark the 125th birth anniversary of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. He had said that his case was 'entirely different' from that of other convicts, as the agreement between Portugal and India guaranteed 'pardon, reprieve, respite or remission'. And what have the courts ruled in this matter? * Salem had approached the Supreme Court in 2018 with his plea on early release. In 2022, the court said that considering the gravity of his offences, no special privileges could be extended to him. The court also said that his contention that the period of his detention should be considered to have started in 2002 when he was first detained could not be accepted, as he was convicted of entering Portugal on a fake passport and had been punished in that country. The court said that in keeping with the assurance given to Portugal, once Salem completed 25 years in jail, which would be in 2030, the Union of India would consider the matter. * Last year, Salem approached the trial court in Mumbai, asking for the tentative date of his release, and a calculation of his remission as per prison rules. The court rejected his plea in December 2024 after the CBI submitted that as per the order of the Supreme Court, he could be released only in 2030. * Salem then approached the Bombay High Court, where the Prison Department and Home Department of the state submitted in May that he had actually been in prison for 19 years. The Home Department also submitted that since Salem is a convict in two cases, under the anti-terror law, TADA, his life imprisonment would not be calculated as a 14-year prison term. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs too filed an affidavit in May, saying that as a TADA convict, Salem's life imprisonment was for 60 years – however, to honour the assurance given to Portugal, the question of his release would arise on November 10, 2030, after he had served 25 years. The Union of India would abide by the assurance at the appropriate time, subject to remedies which may be available, the affidavit said. In July, the High Court admitted Salem's plea seeking remission and early release, but said that he was yet to complete the 25-year term, and that his plea would be heard in due course. This week, the state informed the court in an affidavit that Salem does not have a 'palatable history', citing the criminal offences he had been convicted of. It said that given his criminal record, Salem was a 'Category 8' prisoner who would have to spend 60 years in jail before being considered for release. However, as per the agreement with the Portuguese, Salem would not be put in jail for more than 25 years, the state said. But these 25 years would be 'actual imprisonment', and would not include remission. Therefore, he cannot be released before 2030.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Two Naxalites carrying collective reward of Rs 11 lakh held in Chhattisgarh
Agency: PTI Mohla/Bijapur, Aug 7 (PTI) Two Naxalites carrying a collective reward of Rs 11 lakh on their heads were arrested from two districts in Chhattisgarh, police said on Thursday. Shrikant Punem was apprehended following an encounter between security forces and Maoists in a forest of Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki district at 4pm on Wednesday, the district's Superintendent of Police YP Singh said. The exchange of fire took place in the forest of Khursekhurd village under Madanwada police station limits when a joint team of District Reserve Guard (DRG) and 27th and 44th battalions of Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) was out on a search-cum-area domination operation, he said. The offensive was launched as part of the district police's ongoing 'Operation Prayas' against Naxalites in Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, which shares a border with Gadchiroli in Maharashtra, he said. On finding security personnel zeroing on them, the Naxalites escaped into the dense forest, though one of them was rounded up during the search of the area, he said. 'Punem hails from Gangaloor area of Bijapur district and was divisional committee member of the Maoists. He was presently heading Aundhi-Mohla joint area committee as its commander. He was carrying a reward of Rs 8 lakh. One 9 mm pistol, four live cartridges, one mobile phone, Rs 11,080 cash, and Maoist documents were recovered from his possession," the SP said. The search operation in the area is ongoing to trace the ultras, he added. In separate action, Shankar Kursam (36), a wanted Maoist janmilitia commander, was arrested from the forest between Peddapal and Hirmagunda villages in Bijapur district, a local official said. 'A joint team of DRG and CRPF's 85th battalion was involved in this action. Kursam was wanted in several Naxal-related incidents, including triggering an IED blast near Singar Bahar Nala on April 9 this year in which a CRPF jawan was killed and the murder of a civilian in Mankeli village on December 23, 2023," the official said. He was carrying a reward of Rs 3 lakh on his head while the Bijapur SP had separately announced a reward of Rs 10,000 for information leading to his arrest, the official added. PTI COR TKP BNM view comments First Published: August 07, 2025, 19:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
'Even If Not Convicted...': Supreme Court Jabs Probe Agency On Conviction Rate
New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate 's conviction rate - 0.1 per cent of 5,892 money laundering cases filed in the first six months of this year - has been red flagged, again, by the Supreme Court. The court also took a shot at the federal agency's habit of incarcerating suspects for extended periods while they try to build a case - a habit called out by the opposition - and said, "... and even if they are not convicted, you have been successful in sentencing them almost without a trial for years together." The stinging reprimand came as a Chief Justice BR Gavai-led bench was reviewing a May judgement on JSW Steel's acquisition of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd, or BPSL. The court had then said JSW's resolution plan for BPSL was "illegal". But in July that verdict was recalled after petitions filed by both sides, as well as public lenders like the State Bank of India; the court said certain facts had to be reconsidered. However, it was sharp observations on the efficacy of the ED that raised eyebrows. The topic came up when a lawyer referred to the agency's investigation into BPSL. To this the Chief Justice quipped, "Here also the ED is there?" Appearing for the agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta complained of a "narrative being built on YouTube" (against the ED and its investigation timelines), and pointed to what he said was a little-known fact - that it had recovered Rs 23,000 crore in laundered cash. "In some cases, when politicians are raided and cash was found, our (cash-counting) machines stopped functioning... we had to bring new machines," he declared. The court, however, reminded the Solicitor General it does not "decide matters on narratives". "I don't see news channels... I see headlines in newspapers in the morning for 10-15 minutes only," the Chief Justice responded, and seized on a more pertinent point. "What is the conviction rate?" the Chief Justice asked. Mr Mehta acknowledged that conviction rates are 'very low' but blamed 'ills plaguing the criminal justice system'. The Chief Justice then shot back, "Even if they (suspects in money laundering cases) are not convicted you have been successful in sentencing them almost without a trial for years..." The exchange follows different benches of the Supreme Court criticising the 'high-handedness' of the ED, particularly in money laundering cases involving opposition leaders. In March the government told Parliament - as the ED was grilling RJD patriarch Lalu Prasad Yadav - that the agency's decadal conviction rate for cases against politicians is 1 per cent. In fact, last year there were multiple instances in which the Supreme Court hauled up the ED over its handling of cases, including telling it it cannot "keep filing chargesheets to keep people in jail". That rebuke was delivered by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna after the ED filed supplementary chargesheets to claim denial of bail to an accused jailed for 18 months. The court made a similar observation in April the year before; Justice Krishna Murari and Justice CT Ravikumar said, "Without completing investigation, a charge sheet cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail..." READ | "Probe Agency Can't Arrest Accused If...": Supreme Court's Big Ruling These mattes came to a head in a furious political row over the arrest and incarceration of AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the alleged liquor policy scam case. Both were jailed for months before being given bail by the Supreme Court. The opposition has repeatedly criticised the government over its use, they say, of federal investigative agencies like the ED to 'target and harass' rival politicians, particularly before elections. In response, the ruling BJP has just as repeatedly denied such claims, and said each investigative agency works independently towards its goal of rooting out all corruption.
