What is true or false in Resham Chaudhary case? – Madhesh Update

What is true or false in Resham Chaudhary case?

   March 31, 2021  

Dipendra Jha

Reshmalal Chaudhary, who won from Kailali Constituency No. 1 by an overwhelming majority, is currently lodged in Dilli Bazaar Jail. There is a long way to go to see him now. I think the politics of the country is revolving around him!
There has been a lot of speculation about the issue of silk. Few are true, many are false.

At one point, as Reshma’s lawyer, I debated her case in the Supreme Court. I have had the opportunity to study his files and evidence in detail. Having obtained higher education in human rights, constitution and criminal law, I have tried to analyze this case objectively through this article based on the work experience of the last 15 years in this field.

Before going into the analysis, it is important to understand that the media can influence society and court decisions. Therefore, in some countries it is customary to prosecute a major criminal case in another province or city. The reason for doing so is to prevent the media, society and the judiciary from forming any preconceptions against the accused. In our country, there is no such provision in the trial so far.

In Michel Foucault’s words, “permanent power creates the truth that suits itself and spreads it to the people, and the people form ideas by believing it to be true.”

This statement of his is exactly in the case of Resham Chaudhary. We never pay attention to the fact that the court’s decision may be affected by the fabricated and biased material. We do not care that justice can be affected by insistent beliefs. We are lazy, we don’t have to read. In a word, it can be assessed that such and such is a criminal.

Police were killed in the Tikapur incident. The pain of the police families is similar to the pain of about five dozen families killed in the Madhes movement.

The High Court, Dipayal, had sentenced Resham to five years imprisonment in the industry of birth and murder.

When High Court Judges Teknarayan Kunwar and Sitaram Mandal passed the verdict, Kitani Jaheri, the statement made by the co-accused on the occasion, the statement of the victim and Resham Chaudhary Tharuhat Sangharsh Samiti area no. The issue of being the coordinator of 1 has been taken as the main basis. The same basis was taken by District Judge Parashuram Bhattarai in the decision of the district court.

As Reshma is not satisfied with the decision, she has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on March 26, 2008 and is currently under consideration to settle the dispute. The name of Resham has not been mentioned in the complaint filed by Deputy Inspector of Police Man Bahadur Bohora on August 26, 2072 BS.

For the second time, on 20 September 2072, the name of Resham is mentioned in the supplementary petition including Sarada Kadayat. This is considered as an afterthought in a criminal justice system. The plaintiff cannot be independent evidence in itself unless other evidence is examined or other evidence is supported. This is just information that has been deliberately brought.

No one can be blamed for doubt. Moreover, the issue of silk is pending in the Supreme Court for judicial examination. So let’s not draw conclusions about the many lies and the few truths that have come out.

Silk was not around the scene at the time of the Tikapur incident. The contact details of his mobile confirm this. The call details show that he reached Lamki, Chisapani, Gulariya and Bhigaud at different times that day. This is confirmed by the mobile tower report of Ncell and NTC.

Eyewitnesses Dambar Bahadur Bista, Dev Bahadur Maija, Ansingh Bista, Surendra Chand, Netra Padal, Shamsher Singh, Keshav Singh Mahara, Dipendra Singh Dhami and others did not mention that Resham Chaudhary was at the spot. Harinarayan Chaudhary and Ram Prasad Chaudhary have been in the forefront of the incident, according to eyewitness Surendra Chand. Similarly, in a document filed by Police Constable Man Bahadur Budha Magar, the respondent said that he had only heard that Resham Chaudhary was at the spot.

Yes, sixteen people, including Ram Bahadur Chaudhary, who made the statement on the spot, have made a similar statement to the police saying that Resham Chaudhary is the mastermind of the incident. The co-defendants have denied before the court that they were forced to sign the statement given to the police due to fear and intimidation. It seems that the same statement was made and signed. There are many instances where the statement made before the police cannot be taken as independent evidence. Co-defendant’s poll cannot be independent evidence in itself.

Meanwhile, a report released by the international human rights organization Amnesty International in August 2073 confirmed that the accused in the Tikapur incident were victims of torture and inhumane treatment in police custody.

Seen in this light, there is no concrete evidence in the case against Resham Chaudhary.

It is natural for people to coordinate for political events. Besides, there is no evidence anywhere that Silk has issued any written or verbal order to commit violence or kill people. There is a case against him only on the basis of Poluwa. It is against the principle of criminal justice to imprison a person on the basis of what he has heard. There is a principle of criminal justice, instead a hundred criminals should be acquitted but not a single innocent person should be found guilty.

It is natural for people who do not study, research and analyze the issue to make the impression that they are silk killers. But if he studies the file independently without any request or prejudice, he will get the benefit of the doubt.

The high court has added some sentences to the sentence passed by the district court in the case. High has sentenced Reshma to life imprisonment. There is plenty of room for the Supreme Court to review the differences between the district and higher authorities. The Supreme Court may also order the case to be returned to the district and decided on the basis of fair evidence. With regard to silk, the issue is almost impossible due to the current legal system and the Supreme Court’s guiding order.

The Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court has set a precedent that a case pending for judicial appeal cannot be withdrawn.

There is a provision in sub-section 8 of 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: No matter what is written elsewhere, the case under consideration cannot be withdrawn in the spirit of appeal, seeker investigation or review or in case of repeat case.

Yes, according to Article 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2074, which provides for pardon, there is a risky way of pardoning those convicted in cases including Resham Chaudhary. Sub-section 5 of the Act prescribes punishment from the decision to appeal, seek or review the case or repeat the case.

There is a provision that such punishment cannot be pardoned in cases where it has not been finalized. As per sub-rule 910 of rule 83 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2074, the party to the case may file an application before the court to withdraw the case, appeal or petition for any reason. If it is to be returned as per the prevailing law as per sub-rule 920 of the rules, the court may return the appeal as per the demand of the petitioner. Pursuant to sub-rule 930 of the rules, even if the date of filing the application is not the date of the party but the later date, there is a provision to return all the appeals before that.

However, if the sentence is not commuted due to any difficulty in the process of remission after the appeal is withdrawn, there is no possibility of re-appeal. Also, as Nepal is also a party to treaties and conventions, including human rights, there is a danger of interim punishment if a court uses the extraordinary jurisdiction to challenge the pardon through a writ. There is a precedent of interim after the amnesty in the case of Bal Krishna Dhungel.

Similarly, according to Article 139H0 of the House of Representatives Election Act, 2074 BS, there is a provision to disqualify a candidate for the House of Representatives if the verdict is final. Therefore, it is almost certain that Resham Chaudhary will not be a Member of Parliament.

Again, an apology is an acknowledgment of a mistake, and in doing so, the political future of Silk will remain uncertain. In order to do justice to silk, it is necessary to change the attitude of the people towards the issue. There should be no media trial or civil society trial on this issue. Let the case be decided by a fair judicial system. If there is an environment to give justice by looking at this issue objectively without external point of view, except for one or two persons directly involved in the incident, Resham Chaudhary and others will get justice.

Whether it is the beheading of Bhim Dhakal in the Jhapa scandal, or the incident in which seventeen thousand people were killed during the People’s War, or the case of Biplab and Sike Raut, I would not say that he should be put in the same basket. But the rule of law is ridiculed if the same law is used differently for different communities. No one should be put in a nail and no one should be put in a chair of Singha Durbar by putting the political incident in a criminal pajamas.

Therefore, the political issue should be addressed politically and the criminal issue should be addressed judicially rather than obstructing the path of justice by making noise as soon as the issue of Resham Chaudhary is raised.

Article Source setopati