Home News Reports High Court nails lies of hate peddlers, finds no communal motive in Junaid lynching case

High Court nails lies of hate peddlers, finds no communal motive in Junaid lynching case

In 2017, an unfortunate crime took place. A young man called Junaid was murdered in a moving train. The unfortunate murder was given an interesting turn by the usual suspects. Many media houses reported how Junaid was killed because of the suspicion that he was ‘carrying beef’. The country’s “liberal” elite had taken to social media and the streets to claim “not in my name” when the beef theory peaked.

The High Court in its order dated 28th March has confirmed that the fight started over seat dispute and there was no communal intention to the crime.

- Ad - - article resumes -

The following observation was made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court during a hearing granting bail to one of the accused, Rameshwar Dass.

The judgement makes it amply clear that the fight started over seats and “caste” slurs. The High Court observation too doesn’t mention beef or religious slurs to be a part of the reason for violence.

The trial court had last year dismissed Dass’s bail plea saying that he boarded the train and “was involved in the quarrel with the victims from the very beginning”. The High Court observed :

“I do not think, the distinction drawn by the trial court is apt. On the contrary, it is seen that the assault was never made in the beginning, but the same was made when the other boys entered the train.”

Justice Chaudhari observed :

“Except attributing him the abuses in the name of castes or giving slaps in the first round, it cannot be said that there was any allegation about the petitioner asking Naresh or any other boy to assault the other group, including the deceased. There is not even remote whisper that the petitioner had instigated or asked anybody to make assault.”

The High Court reiterates their observation in a later part.

The High Court makes 3 interesting observations in the portion attached above :

  1. The incident seems to have taken place over the issue of seat sharing
  2. There is no evidence of preplanning
  3. There was no intention to create disharmony

Nowhere in the order (or the FIR) is the word “Beef” mentioned. In the light of this order, it is essential to note how the mainstream media had spun this entire incident in a probable bid to paint India as “lynchistan”.

FirstPost claimed Junaid was killed because of accusations of him carrying beef.

Times of India too had made the same assertion.

Even BBC had jumped on the bandwagon painting India as an intolerant nation.

This comes as no surprise as back in July 2017, OpIndia had received an email from a “whistleblower” who allegedly had access to the work desks at a news channel. This “whistleblower” claimed that the beef part in Junaid’s case was added by a journalist sitting in Delhi, even though the local reporter had not mentioned it in his original draft:

With the whistleblower’s stand being vindicated by the High Court observations, one wonders if all those “journalists” and the “not in my name” propagandists who concocted the beef story just to paint India and its Hindu majority as intolerant and violent louts will now apologise or retract. Though, we are not holding our breath.

Help Opindia Reach Every Indian. Share This Post
Support OpIndia by making a monetary contribution

Big Story

Soon-to-be inaugurated statue of Swami Vivekananda vandalised in JNU, abusive slogans painted.

Don't miss these

2019 World Cup Is Here!

Catch the latest on Cricket World Cup as it unfolds, special coverage by Opindia

Latest articles

Connect with us

186,344FansLike
194,829FollowersFollow
119,000SubscribersSubscribe
Advertisements
Help Opindia Reach Every Indian. Share This Post