The Ghaziabad Assault: Twitter And Eight Others Charged Under Various IPC Sections
By A Special Correspondent
First publised on 2021-06-17 07:11:11
About the Author
The UP government has slapped many charges against Twitter and eight others for the story of a Muslim man being assaulted in UP's Loni town near Ghazaibad. Those charged include journalists Mohammed Zubair of Alt News, Rana Ayyub, Saba Naqvi and Congress leaders Salman Nizami, Shama Mohamed and Maskoor Usmani. They are accused of sharing "misleading" posts linked to the incident that were re-tweeted by thousands of people. News portal The Wire has also been named. Twitter has been accused of taking no action against the posts even as "a clarification" was issued by the Ghaziabad Police on Monday. At the heart of the matter is an 'unverified' video where the victim makes unsubstantiated accusations which he did not mention in the FIR that he lodged. It needs to be mentioned that the story was also covered in detail by the mainstream media, both print and television. The FIR against Twitter and eight others has been filed under IPC sections 153 (provocation for rioting), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295A (acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 505 (mischief), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention).
Whenever such a crime is committed, there are several angles to the story. Journalists are required to take each such angle into account and hear the version of everyone involved and report the same. Sometimes they also give their opinion as to what according to them is the most plausible version. It is not necessary that the police version is always correct. For, the investigations are still going on and the case has not been proved in court. The police have its own version and the journalists who wrote the story have theirs. Unless a particular version is proven in court, the other versions cannot be said to be fake news. They are different versions on how the crime could have taken place and till the crime and how it took place is established irrefutably in a court of law, all angles and versions are possible. It is only after one version is proven that other versions can be called fake.
Both Hindus and Muslims are accused in the case and it is still not abundantly clear whether it was a hate crime or a dispute over selling of amulets that did not 'work' or even something else. The victim says on video that he was kidnapped, tortured, made to recite "Jai Shri Ram" and "Vande Matram" and his beard was cut off. Yet, he did not make these charges in the FIR. The police say that the victim knew some of the accused, had sold them amulets, went to meet them of his own accord and they thrashed him as the amulets did not 'work'. They say that there is no communal angle to the incident. The victim's son says that they are carpenters and no one in his family is in the business of selling amulets. Online portal Newlaundry has reported the involvement of a local Samajvadi Party leader, Umeed Pehelwan Idris, in influencing the victim. The police have already booked Idris for trying to give a "communal" colour to the incident.
