State sends ASI to probe worker's death in Pune
2
Jalpaiguri: The death of a 27-year-old man from Ambari in Jalpaiguri's Raiganj in Pune last week under mysterious circumstances has prompted a probe by the Bengal govt.
The deceased, Dipu Das, used to work as a daily wage labourer.
On July 29, his brothers, Gouranga and Apu, called him on the phone to inform Das that his mother had passed away on July 28, only to realise that Das had too had died the same day.
The agency with which Dipu worked in Pune said he fell down under the influence of alcohol and was admitted to BJ Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital after the fall, but succumbed to his injuries. The death certificate issued by the hospital stated "complications following spinal cord injuries" as cause of death.
You Can Also Check:
Kolkata AQI
|
Weather in Kolkata
|
Bank Holidays in Kolkata
|
Public Holidays in Kolkata
But a deep cut on Das's neck made his brothers suspicious about the cause of death. At first, Trinamool netas intervened, apprehending the death was part of a pattern of atrocities on Bengali-speaking people in BJP-run states. Then, the state govt intervened.
Acting on the govt's instructions, ASI Binod Ram from Bhorer Alo police outpost flew down to Pune from Bagdogra with Dipu's brothers. Sources said the ASI will coordinate with Pune cops and check if there was any discrepancy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
11 minutes ago
- The Wire
Kerala Police Register FIR After Pastor is Threatened Over Allegations of Religious Conversion
Communalism In footage aired by local media, a group of people can be seen confronting the pastor and issuing threats of physical harm. New Delhi: The Kerala police have registered a case after a group of right-wing people allegedly threatened a pastor over accusations of religious conversion. The case was registered after the police took suo motu cognisance and initiated action on their own, without a formal complaint, reported Press Trust of India. The incident comes days after the arrest and imprisonment of two catholic nuns from Kerala in Chhattisgarh over allegations of religious conversion and human trafficking. The incident has resulted in a political storm in the southern state. The police in Wayanad registered the case in the latest incident on Saturday (August 2) based on a video circulated on social media platforms in this regard. The incident is believed to have taken place a few months back. In footage aired by local media, a group of people can be seen confronting the pastor and issuing threats of physical harm. The FIR, registered by the Sultan Bathery police says that the accused had tried to threaten a person alleging religious conversion, videographed the incident, and circulated it on social media platforms with the intention of destroying the peaceful atmosphere existing in the society. The FIR has been registered under various sections of the BNS including 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 351 (3) (criminal intimidation to cause death or grievous hurt) and 3 (5) (an offense committed by several people with a common intention). The PTI report said that a probe is being conducted to identify the accused persons seen in the video, sources added. Meanwhile, the two Kerala nuns arrested in Chhattisgarh were granted bail on Saturday, along with a man who was arrested with them. 'The judge granted bail observing there was no need to keep them in custody,' said Amrito Das, the counsel for the nuns, reported Hindustan Times. Earlier, following the bail hearing on Friday (August 1), Das had said that the prosecution had not asked for the trio's custody for interrogation, and the alleged victims had been sent back to their homes. He had also pointed out that the alleged victims are all adults practising Christianity. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Mamata to be held accountable for inciting linguistic conflict: BJP
Amid chaos over Delhi police allegedly referring to Bengali as Bangladeshi language in a communication note, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader on Monday morning hit out at West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, suggesting that she be booked under National Security Act (NSA) for allegedly inciting linguistic conflict. He argued that her reaction to the entire issue was "misplaced and dangerously inflammatory", while adding that Delhi Police's letter does not describe Bangla as a 'Bangladeshi' language. "Mamata Banerjee's reaction to Delhi Police referring to the language used by infiltrators as 'Bangladeshi' is not just misplaced, it is dangerously inflammatory. Nowhere in the Delhi Police letter is Bangla or Bengali described as a 'Bangladeshi' language. To claim otherwise and call upon Bengalis to rise against the Centre is deeply irresponsible. Mamata Banerjee should be held accountable--perhaps even under the National Security Act--for inciting linguistic conflict," Malviya posted on X. He said that the police were "absolutely right" in referring to the language as Bangladeshi in the context of identifying infiltrators since the term focuses on dialects, syntax, and speech patterns that are different from Bangla spoken in India. "The official language of Bangladesh is not only phonologically different, but also includes dialects like Sylheti that are nearly incomprehensible to Indian Bengalis," Malviya said. "Delhi Police is absolutely right in referring to the language as Bangladeshi in the context of identifying infiltrators. The term is being used to describe a set of dialects, syntax, and speech patterns that are distinctly different from the Bangla spoken in India. The official language of Bangladesh is not only phonologically different, but also includes dialects like Sylheti that are nearly incomprehensible to Indian Bengalis," he added. Malviya further stated that Delhi police's use of "Bangladeshi language" was a shorthand for linguistic markers used to profile alleged illegal immigrants from the neighbouring country. "There is, in fact, no language called 'Bengali' that neatly covers all these variants. "Bengali" denotes ethnicity, not linguistic uniformity. So when the Delhi Police uses "Bangladeshi language," it is a shorthand for the linguistic markers used to profile illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, not a commentary on Bengali as spoken in West Bengal," he said. His remarks come after Banerjee on Sunday accused the Delhi Police of describing Bengali as a "Bangladeshi language", calling it scandalous, anti-national and unconstitutional. Sharing a letter by Delhi Police on X, Banerjee said, "See now how Delhi police under the direct control of the Ministry of Home, Government of India, is describing Bengali as 'Bangladeshi' language! Bengali, our mother tongue, the language of Rabindranath Tagore and Swami Vivekananda, the language in which our National Anthem and the National Song (the latter by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay) are written, the language in which crores of Indians speak and write, the language which is sanctified and recognised by the Constitution of India, is now described as a Bangladeshi language!!" Meanwhile, Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Mohammed (Md) Salim also trained guns on Delhi Police, calling it "illiterate", posted on X, "Will the 'illiterate' [?]Delhi Police tell us what's this 'Bangladeshi language'? Moreover, why Delhi Police has failed to make their officers aware of the 8th Schedule of our Constitution. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
The Wire
3 hours ago
- The Wire
Malegaon Terror Blast Judgment: How the Crucial Witnesses Prosecution Dropped Impacted the Case
Government Sukanya Shantha Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. Mumbai: Since the trial for the 2008 Malegaon terror blast commenced in 2018, the prosecution examined 323 witnesses over a span of seven years. In the process, it dropped several witnesses, without providing any explanation as to why. The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court felt that these witnesses had been 'crucial' in establishing the chain of events. The decision to drop these witnesses, said special NIA judge A.K. Lahoti, gave the scope to draw an 'adverse inference' against the prosecution. The 1036-page judgement was made available on August 1, a day after the court acquitted all seven accused – including BJP leader and formed member of parliament Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army officer Prasad Purohit. In it, the court has raised questions about the prosecution's intention to drop several crucial witnesses who the court observed would have helped connect the missing dots in the case. Besides Thakur and Purohit, five other persons – Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi were also acquitted by the NIA court on July 31. The acquittal, the court has observed, was an outcome of the prosecution's failure to bring sufficient evidence. Even with 'grave suspicion', the court was not able to punish the accused persons, as 'mere suspicion is not enough', the court observed. According to the Anti-Terrorism Squad's case, which was later taken up by the NIA, Purohit has allegedly founded an organisation 'Abhinav Bharat' in 2006 and had attempted to establish a 'Hindu rashtra [nation]' which would have its own constitution, flag and 'government in exile' to be run from either Israel or Thailand. As a part of this agenda, the accused persons had come together and carried out the terror blast in Malegaon. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over the case soon after the earlier special public prosecutor Rohini Salian made a dramatic exit from the case in 2015 claiming that she was given instructions to 'go soft' on the accused persons charged in the case. She had claimed that she had received the instructions from 'higher ups'. Since Salian's exit, Rasal has been involved in the case for close to a decade. Among the many witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop are those who could have helped establish the movement of the alleged bombers days before the blast occurred. Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange One of the witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop without any cogent explanation is the person whose user ID and phone number was used to book tickets. According to the ATS's case, which was later taken over by the NIA which eventually filed a chargesheet in 2016, one witness named Vilok Sharma had used his account and his phone number to book the train tickets for two absconding accused persons, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, to travel from Pune to Indore. The two, according to both the ATS and the NIA, were accused of planting the bombs. Another person, Praveen Takkalki alias Pravin Mutalik, who the ATS had earlier accused of participating in the blast along with the two absconding accused was eventually discharged from the case after the NIA did not find any evidence against him in 2017. The judgment, narrating the NIA's case, points to Sharma's role in getting the tickets booked under fake names – Balwant Pathak and Mansingh – instead of their real names Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. Their travel to Pune, where the RDX explosive was allegedly procured from Purohit and then to Indore where the absconding accused had allegedly assembled, planted, fitted the explosive on the LML Freedom motorcycle, were fundamental to the investigation. Also read: Malegaon Blast Trial: 1,087 Hearings, Inexplicable Orders and Victims Who Refused to Relent The court said although the facts of the case create 'grave suspicion' against the accused, mere suspicion was not enough to convict them. The court finally had to give the 'benefit of the doubt' and acquit the seven persons facing trial in the case. The travel to Pune and Indore was crucial not just to establish the movement of the absconding accused but also their otherwise loosely hanging links with army officer Purohit, who now stands acquitted in the case. 'Thus, Vilok Sharma from the aforesaid point of view was a material witness who could narrate about ticket details, booking details and traveling history. But, the prosecution has not examined Vilok Sharma. The prosecution has dropped the said witness... Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on this point, it cannot be said that, from his account the railway tickets were booked in the name of two fake persons and those were actually booked by AA-1 (Kalsangra) and AA-2 (Dange).' It is not just Sharma's statement but also the fact that an absolutely essential certificate, to be procured under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, was not produced before the court. Without this certificate, electronic evidence is not admissible. The prosecution's case was that Kalsangra and Dange were in Pune around the same time as when Purohit had allegedly procured the RDX, i.e. August 8 to August 11. These finer details of the conspiracy and procurement of the explosive needed step-by-step building up of the evidence. The prosecution, according to the NIA judge, had dropped that. Sharma was dropped from the list of witnesses even though his name cropped up in the examination of other witnesses, especially a senior railway executive and an ATS officer. The judgement says: 'Thus, only Vilok Sharma was the witness who could say about the booking of the aforesaid ticket. The material witness Vilok Sharma is not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of material witness without any explanation give rise to draw the adverse inference against prosecution.' Another witness Pramod Deshmukh, who according to the investigating agency had seen Kalsangra and Dange had seen them in Pune around August 8 and 11, was an 'eye witness' but dropped by the witness. Another important witness, the court points out, was the policeman who diffused the detonator but was not examined as a witness. Judge Lahoti writes: 'Officer API Sachin Gawade who has actually diffused the detonator as per the case of prosecution is not examined as witness. He was the only person who could narrate the exact condition of the detonator, the procedure carried out by him for diffusing the detonator and collection of remnants after diffusing. The non-examination of material witnesses give rise to adverse inference." 'Missing' In 2016, the NIA had informed the court that around 13 witness statements, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before a magistrate, had gone missing. The central agency had attributed this sudden and suspicious disappearance of documents to their constant ferrying between the trial and the higher courts. While the original copies of these statements had gone missing, the NIA had sought permission before the NIA court to use the photocopies of the document – which the court had granted. This permission was challenged by one of the accused persons in the Bombay high court, which later stayed the trial court's order and had directed the NIA to file a fresh application authenticating that the photocopies were indeed a replica of the original. Interestingly, the NIA did not file that application, and the witnesses were examined solely on whether their testimonies were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. In the absence of these Section 164 statements, the magistrate who recorded them should have been examined. However, the prosecution decided against it. The judgment notes, 'The aforesaid statements (recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) were neither presented to the witnesses nor was the concerned magistrate examined in such circumstances.' These 13 statements were crucial for proving the conspiracy meetings, the movements of the alleged bombers, and other key aspects of the case. At least two of these witnesses were essential to prove the conspiracy meetings where conversations purportedly on revenge on Muslims were discussed. While it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present important witnesses in court, when the prosecution fails to do so, the court could have done it. Section 311 of the CrPC empowers the court to summon witnesses it deems essential for the case. Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. The prosecution examined a total of 323 witnesses in the case, of whom 39 turned hostile. However, public prosecutor Rasal did not initiate perjury proceedings against them, and nor did the court make any significant observations regarding the witnesses who refused to adhere to their original statements. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
