Mumtaz Alam, IndiaTomorrow.net,
New Delhi, Oct 19: The BJP government of Rajasthan today moved the Supreme Court seeking imprisonment of Bollywood star Salman Khan in about two-decade old chinkara (gazelle) killing case. Challenging the acquittal granted to Khan by the Rajasthan High Court in July, the state government has urged the apex court to make Khan surrender and go back to jail to serve the rest of his sentence term.
In 2007, Khan was convicted by a lower court for hunting down and killing the chinkaras. He was awarded a one-year prison term and a five-year prison term respectively in the 1998 case. He spent a week in jail in Jodhpur before being granted bail. He then moved the Rajasthan High Court which, in July this year, found him not guilty in the killing of the endangered species of gazelle in two separate incidents in 1998 while he was shooting a film in the desert state. As he was acquitted by the high court, the state government moved the Supreme Court challenging the acquittal.
Now let’s move to Gujarat, also run by BJP.
In June this year, about a month before Salman’s acquittal, a special court here pronounced judgement in the 2002 Gulbarg Society massacre case. Some 69 people including a former parliamentarian were killed at the housing society in Ahmedabad during the Gujarat riot in Feb-March 2002. While 24 of the accused were convicted, 36 were acquitted.
The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) sought permission from the state government to challenge the special court order in the Gujarat High Court seeking cancellation of some acquittals and enhancement of punishment for some convicts. The SIT wanted to challenge the acquittal of 14 of the accused and death sentence for 11 convicts who were awarded life sentence by the lower court.
As per the legal arrangements between SIT and state government, SIT, the prosecuting agency in the case, has to take permission of the state government to move higher courts challenging the lower court verdicts.
Even after several reminders from the SIT, both before the expiry of 90-day period for challenging a lower court order and after, the state government did not respond. The special court had announced verdict on 17 June and the 90-day period expired on 17 Sep.
Moral of the story
One government challenges acquittal of ‘killer’ of an animal, wants to see him behind bar and so moves the Supreme Court. But the other government does not show any interest in challenging acquittals in the killing of 69 human beings or in enhancing the punishment of some convicts in the case.
Does it mean that life of animal is more precious than that of human being? Or, are the accused main deciding factor?
