At her one-room home in Khargone’s Anand Nagar, Surajbai Gangle, 70, talks of the April 10 night time when she “hardly acquired any sleep” as communal clashes over a Ram Navmi procession tore by the city. Lastly, she says, she acquired up from her mattress to seek out two youngsters standing outdoors her dwelling.
“I requested them what they have been doing and the boys requested me to go inside, saying I’d get injured within the stone pelting… I believed they have been my grandsons. However my daughter-in-law Sunita later instructed me that they have been kids of our Muslim neighbours, Kalu Khan and Jabir Khan. She had seen them from behind as they have been leaving and recognised them,” she says.
Minutes later, three homes belonging to the Gangles — Surajbai’s, her son Subhash’s and grandson Vickey’s — have been attacked within the riots that spilled over to their locality.
This grew to become the premise of separate claims, totalling Rs 13.2 lakh, filed by Surajbai, her son Subhash, and grandson Vickey within the Khargone claims tribunal — the primary such beneath the Madhya Pradesh Prevention and Restoration of Damages to Public and Non-public Property Act that got here into pressure in January this 12 months.
Whereas Surajbai’s son Subhash, who works with the fireplace division, has filed a declare of Rs 4.80 lakh accusing 9 folks of the Khan household, her grandson Vickey, who works as a driver, has filed claims totalling Rs 5.5 lakh accusing 9 members of the Khan household. The Khans stay about 250 metres from the Gangles.
However it’s Surajbai’s declare that has attracted consideration — she has filed claims of Rs 2.90 lakh, accusing eight folks of looting her home, together with Kalu Khan and his 12-year-old son.
The 34 claims circumstances, together with that of the Gangles, taken up for listening to by a Khargone tribunal, which was set as much as recuperate damages within the wake of the April 10 communal conflict, supply a window into the workings of the particular courtroom — outlined by abstract trials and the shortage of a prison investigation course of to reach at culpability.
Thus far, the tribunal has despatched notices to 270 accused and handed orders in six of the 34 circumstances.
Pointing to the lacunae within the regulation that enables juveniles to be tried for a civil offence when, in accordance with the IPC, they’ll solely be tried by a juvenile board, Ravindra Chhabra, a senior advocate practising on the Madhya Pradesh Excessive courtroom, mentioned that whereas a minor will be tried as per the Code of Civil Process and a discover will be issued within the baby’s identify, “after the discover is issued, as soon as it’s established that the defendant is a minor, the courtroom ought to appoint a guardian or advert litem for the aim of the litigation”.
Shivkumar Mishra, the retired district courtroom decide who presides over the two-member tribunal bench, nevertheless, mentioned, “Whereas submitting the declare, it can’t be made necessary for the claimant to specify the age of the accused because it won’t all the time be potential to take a look at an individual and decide his age.”
Sajid Pathan, who represented the accused within the tribunal, factors to a different “loophole” — whereas the FIR lodged by Surajbai within the aftermath of the rioting doesn’t point out Kalu or his son, whereas deposing earlier than the tribunal, Surajbai said that she had seen the 2, apart from others, looting her home.
After the 12-year-old was issued a restoration discover of Rs 2.90 lakh primarily based on Surajbai’s software, Kalu moved the Indore Excessive Court docket for his son’s identify to be dropped from the proceedings of the tribunal. The Excessive Court docket, nevertheless, turned down their plea.
At their one-room home, Kalu’s spouse, Ranu, says that when the police got here handy over notices to her members of the family, they have been accompanied by Surajbai’s daughter-in-law Sunita. “I instructed Sunita that my son and husband don’t have anything to do with the riots. She then instructed me, ‘Give us the names of those that did it and we are going to drop their names’.”
The opposite circumstances within the tribunal
Among the many circumstances wherein the tribunal has handed orders is the one wherein it awarded Rs 50,000 for a burn damage to Sawant Mukesh, a resident of Anand Nagar in Khargone.
Mukesh had demanded a compensation of Rs 1 lakh whereas accusing his neighbours Iqbal and Nisar of attacking him. He additionally claimed Rs 10,000 for the harm allegedly accomplished to 2 doorways in his home.
Advocate Rajesh Joshi, who defended Iqbal and Nisar within the tribunal, mentioned, “The claims tribunal was set as much as determine on compensation for civil issues and particularly harm to private or public property and never for bodily damage. An damage is a prison case that must be heard in a session courtroom and never the claims tribunal.”
Within the case of one other applicant, Mukhtiyar Khan, the courtroom needed to drop the case towards three of the 16 folks he accused of damaging his home since they have been “non-existing”.
Advocate Sudheer Kulkarni, who’s contesting Mukhtiyar’s declare, held the courtroom accountable for sending out notices to individuals who didn’t exist. “It’s laughable, however the courtroom doesn’t have the assets to scrutinise the claims earlier than accepting them.”
“All circumstances associated to the riots at the moment are reaching the periods courtroom and are removed from reaching any conclusion, however on the similar time tribunal is deciding on the matter inside three months, how are they geared up to do it?” mentioned Rajendra Joshi, who’s defending among the Muslim accused within the tribunal.