What's new

Gulbarg Massacre: Ehsan Jafri's Firing Was Catalyst For Mob, Says Judge

ranjeet

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
18,311
Reaction score
-59
Country
India
Location
India
Firing by former lawmaker Ehsan Jafri, one of the 69 victims of the Gulbarg Society massacre in Gujarat in 2002, acted as a catalyst for the mob that killed him, a court said yesterday while sentencing 11 of the attackers to life in jail and 13 others to lesser terms.

The special court in Ahmedabad concluded that Ehsan Jafri provoked the mob that attacked the Gulbarg residential complex in Ahmedabad in February 2002, when riots swept through Gujarat in the aftermath of the Godhra train burning, leaving at least 1,000 dead.

In the Gulbarg Society killings, described by the court as the "darkest day in the history of civil society", a large mob dragged out former Congress parliamentarian Ehsan Jafri and others living in the complex, hacked and burnt them alive in a nearly four hour carnage.

Analysing the build-up, Judge PB Desai said: "The answer is categorically found, in my opinion, is the incident of private firing on the part of the deceased Ehsan Jafri which resulted in some deaths from amongst the members of the mob and injuries to the number of persons of the mob which infuriated the mob who saw persons belonging to the majority community falling to bullets being fired from the private weapon by Ehsan Jafri."

The evidence, said the judge, "categorically establishes that there was private firing by Ehsan Jafri from a number of locations within Gulbarg Society and upon the mob which had gathered outside."

The judge also accused eyewitnesses of "selective amnesia" on firing by Ehsan Jafri.

"It is selective amnesia on the part of all the eye-witnesses who claim to have seen and specifically pointed out in great detail each incident and the role played by each of the specific accused, in such graphic detail, while conveniently losing all memory with regard to private firing from Ehsan Jafri's weapon," he said.

Ehsan Jafri's son Tanvir Jafri has questioned the judgement. "We are not happy with the judgement. It's being said that a witness, who's also a victim apparently, has said that Ehsan Jafri fired some shots; why hasn't the police presented this witness to the court then?"


http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/gulb...as-catalyst-for-killer-mob-says-judge-1420507

@The_Showstopper
Do you have anything to add on this judgement?
 
. .
Good now the results are announced .zakia can remain in peace...but no she will appeal in higher court.
 
.
Good.If I was in Ehsan Jaffris place, I too would have tried to take out as many of the murderers as painfully as possible before they got to me.

I would shoot them in the balls so they die a horrific death

Have you read the judgement?

The mob that killed 69 people at Gulberg Society during the 2002 Gujarat riots was not “really interested in causing deaths” but turned murderous after ex-MP Ahsan Jafri opened fire at them, concluded a special court on Friday, while sentencing 11 of 24 convicts in the case to life imprisonment for murder.


The court also junked the testimony of the Investigating officer (IO) of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), J M Suthar, who defended Jafri’s firing as “self-defence”. It stated that “no less than 15 persons were injured in such private firing, of which one person fatally succumbed to the injuries”.

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...ty-massacre-in-which-jafri-68-killed-2859387/
 
.
What if he fired to defend his family???? so as he fired those 1000s killing justified??? am sure these convicts can't kill those 1000.... political influence saved many... instead of condemning 1000 deaths ... people trying to point fingers on deceased just like in Dadri..
 
.
What if he fired to defend his family???? so as he fired those 1000s killing justified??? am sure these convicts can't kill those 1000.... political influence saved many... instead of condemning 1000 deaths ... people trying to point fingers on deceased just like in Dadri..

Are you casting aspersion on our Judicial system?
 
. .
What if he fired to defend his family???? so as he fired those 1000s killing justified??? am sure these convicts can't kill those 1000.... political influence saved many... instead of condemning 1000 deaths ... people trying to point fingers on deceased just like in Dadri..

In such dicey situations taking decisions is tough .

Consider this
1) 50% chance mob would have dispersed after creating some trouble and damage if the ppl lock themselves inside.
2)100% death, if you take on mob with a gun. It will infuriate the mob and bring out the beast in them.

Other thing is if the MP had used the firearm inside his property well and good , it is called self defense. But if you come out of the house and wave the gun then you are just another mob. Another thing as you said is political influence is bane of Indian system. On that day he was just another citizen , but if he tries to use his influence as ex-MP then mob is will become enraged and would try to do more damage.

Well its another issue that most ppl will not openly say due to being politically correct that some rogue elements in muslim community have that particular attitude of boasting , bragging about how they can take out the opponents. Owaisi is a good example of it. There would not any issue if every one goes about doing their own work.
 
.
.
there is no reason to believe that Mr Jafri and his family would have been spared.. the firing might have made the mob angrier but their fate depended on how fast police could arrive... they were dead either way..
we can ignore the observation of the 'honourable' judge..
 
. .
there is no reason to believe that Mr Jafri and his family would have been spared.. the firing might have made the mob angrier but their fate depended on how fast police could arrive... they were dead either way..
we can ignore the observation of the 'honourable' judge..

What do you have to say about this? why eye-witnesses hid this information from the court?

"It is selective amnesia on the part of all the eye-witnesses who claim to have seen and specifically pointed out in great detail each incident and the role played by each of the specific accused, in such graphic detail, while conveniently losing all memory with regard to private firing from Ehsan Jafri's weapon,"
 
.
What do you have to say about this? why eye-witnesses hid this information from the court?

"It is selective amnesia on the part of all the eye-witnesses who claim to have seen and specifically pointed out in great detail each incident and the role played by each of the specific accused, in such graphic detail, while conveniently losing all memory with regard to private firing from Ehsan Jafri's weapon,"
I am saying no matter what witness said.. and you can rubbish witness all you want, but the end result would have been more or less same. unless you think the mob could have been pacified for longer duration by talking to them... this is one incident but if you see the larger event taking place, you cant say mob was there just to beat up a few people.
 
.
Have you read the judgement?

The mob that killed 69 people at Gulberg Society during the 2002 Gujarat riots was not “really interested in causing deaths” but turned murderous after ex-MP Ahsan Jafri opened fire at them, concluded a special court on Friday, while sentencing 11 of 24 convicts in the case to life imprisonment for murder.


The court also junked the testimony of the Investigating officer (IO) of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), J M Suthar, who defended Jafri’s firing as “self-defence”. It stated that “no less than 15 persons were injured in such private firing, of which one person fatally succumbed to the injuries”.

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...ty-massacre-in-which-jafri-68-killed-2859387/
Now the question arises here. What was mob doing there & what was there intention?
One thing is certain they were not there for exchanging sweets.
 
.
Now the question arises here. What was mob doing there & what was there intention?
One thing is certain they were not there for exchanging sweets.
That's not the point, the eye-witnesses kept this fact from the court.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom