3 QUESTIONS AGAINST MODI ..............................
3 QUESTIONS AGAINST MODI
..............................
1.NO CLEAN CHIT TO NAREDRA MODI
What we understand clean chit is not actually the clean chit.The Metropolitan Magistrate Of Ahmedabad has acquitted Modi on the ground of the lack of evidences.Many Judgements have been delivered by the Supreme Court and the High Courts which clearly state that one who is acquitted on the ground of the lack of evidences is not clean.
You ought to observe the Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 which defines Proved,Unproved and Disproved Facts.Proved Fact is that which is found true.Disproved fact is that which is found false.Unproved fact is that which is neither found true,nor found false due to the lack of evidences.The allegation imposed against Modi was unproved and when the fact remains unproved then the accused is acquitted but not given clean chit.Actually Clean Chit is that condition of judgement where the evidences and witnesses are proved false after trial or investigation.The SIT never told that the evidences and witnesses are false.The SIT only told that there is no competent evidences to further proceed in the case.If there is lack of evidences then a lot of reasons can be counted for the lack of evidences .As Modi was the CM,so not a single independent witness dared to speak against him.
2.The Case was Disposed Of Ex Parte
Zakia Zafri had filed Protest Petition against the Investigation Report Of SIT.There are some legal procedures to deal with the Protest Petition in exercise of the power to a Magistrate conferred under sections 190,200 and 202 of the CrPC.A Magistrate can take cognizance of a complaint under section 190 of the CrPC.Protest Petition is also a complaint filed by the informant against the Charge Sheet Of the Investigating Agency.Under section 200 of the CrPC,the Magistrate has to examine the complainant and its witnesses if the complaint and statements of the witnesses would not have been filed in written with Affidavit.Zakia Zafri would have filed Protest Petition alongwith Statements of the witnesses with affidavits,so there would be no need to examine the complainant and its witnesses in exercise of the power conferred under section 200 of the CrPC.Modi was accused of one of the Conspirator Of Gulbarg Society Riot where murder had occured.The allegation was exclusively triable by the Court Of Session.Under section 202(2) of the CrPC,the Magistrate shall examine the complainant and its witnesses if the allegation appears to be Exclusively Triable by the Court Of Session.So ,the Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have examined the complainant and witnesses which the learned Magistrate didn't because the allegation against Modi was Exclusively Triable by the Court Of Session.
3.Witnesses were Declared Prejudiced without the reasonable Ground
Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 provides in what conditions the witnesses can be impeached or stated false.Those who were Witnesses against Modi were declared prejudiced and old enemy of Modi by the SIT and the same logic was accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate.Firstly,it should be noted that those who were witnesses against Modi were exploited/victimized by Modi. Sanjeev Bhatt and such other exploited people/victims were witnesses.How an exploited people /victim can be stated enemy? If this logic is accepted throughout the country then all accused will be acquitted because each exploited people/victim is stated enemy of the accused or at least prejudiced. Secondly,it should be noted that there is no provision in section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 or any other sections where the witnesses can be impeached on the ground of the old enemity or without proving the reason of prejudices.Old Enemity and otherwise prejudices can be a ground for the acquittal of the accused if the witnesses are challenged and proved false.Witnesses against Modi were not challenged and proved false,so there was the reasonable ground to proceed further and exercise trial against the said accused i.e.Modi.
(From Rahul kumar facebook wall )
..............................
1.NO CLEAN CHIT TO NAREDRA MODI
What we understand clean chit is not actually the clean chit.The Metropolitan Magistrate Of Ahmedabad has acquitted Modi on the ground of the lack of evidences.Many Judgements have been delivered by the Supreme Court and the High Courts which clearly state that one who is acquitted on the ground of the lack of evidences is not clean.
You ought to observe the Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 which defines Proved,Unproved and Disproved Facts.Proved Fact is that which is found true.Disproved fact is that which is found false.Unproved fact is that which is neither found true,nor found false due to the lack of evidences.The allegation imposed against Modi was unproved and when the fact remains unproved then the accused is acquitted but not given clean chit.Actually Clean Chit is that condition of judgement where the evidences and witnesses are proved false after trial or investigation.The SIT never told that the evidences and witnesses are false.The SIT only told that there is no competent evidences to further proceed in the case.If there is lack of evidences then a lot of reasons can be counted for the lack of evidences .As Modi was the CM,so not a single independent witness dared to speak against him.
2.The Case was Disposed Of Ex Parte
Zakia Zafri had filed Protest Petition against the Investigation Report Of SIT.There are some legal procedures to deal with the Protest Petition in exercise of the power to a Magistrate conferred under sections 190,200 and 202 of the CrPC.A Magistrate can take cognizance of a complaint under section 190 of the CrPC.Protest Petition is also a complaint filed by the informant against the Charge Sheet Of the Investigating Agency.Under section 200 of the CrPC,the Magistrate has to examine the complainant and its witnesses if the complaint and statements of the witnesses would not have been filed in written with Affidavit.Zakia Zafri would have filed Protest Petition alongwith Statements of the witnesses with affidavits,so there would be no need to examine the complainant and its witnesses in exercise of the power conferred under section 200 of the CrPC.Modi was accused of one of the Conspirator Of Gulbarg Society Riot where murder had occured.The allegation was exclusively triable by the Court Of Session.Under section 202(2) of the CrPC,the Magistrate shall examine the complainant and its witnesses if the allegation appears to be Exclusively Triable by the Court Of Session.So ,the Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have examined the complainant and witnesses which the learned Magistrate didn't because the allegation against Modi was Exclusively Triable by the Court Of Session.
3.Witnesses were Declared Prejudiced without the reasonable Ground
Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 provides in what conditions the witnesses can be impeached or stated false.Those who were Witnesses against Modi were declared prejudiced and old enemy of Modi by the SIT and the same logic was accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate.Firstly,it should be noted that those who were witnesses against Modi were exploited/victimized by Modi. Sanjeev Bhatt and such other exploited people/victims were witnesses.How an exploited people /victim can be stated enemy? If this logic is accepted throughout the country then all accused will be acquitted because each exploited people/victim is stated enemy of the accused or at least prejudiced. Secondly,it should be noted that there is no provision in section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 or any other sections where the witnesses can be impeached on the ground of the old enemity or without proving the reason of prejudices.Old Enemity and otherwise prejudices can be a ground for the acquittal of the accused if the witnesses are challenged and proved false.Witnesses against Modi were not challenged and proved false,so there was the reasonable ground to proceed further and exercise trial against the said accused i.e.Modi.
(From Rahul kumar facebook wall )
Comments