Editor
In Short: A 90-year-old man in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh, has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs 55,000 for a 42-year-old case involving the shooting deaths of 10 Dalits. The man is the sole surviving culprit among the 10 identified perpetrators. Critics question the appropriateness of the fine considering his age. The verdict concludes a long legal battle, but the impact of the crime lingers for the victims' families.
UTTAR PRADESH: A 90-year-old man in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh, has been handed a life imprisonment sentence and a fine of Rs 55,000 in connection with a 42-year-old case. The verdict was delivered by the court, marking the end of a long legal battle that began in 1981 when 10 Harijans (Dalits) were tragically shot dead. The case has seen a total of 10 individuals held accountable, but as the trial progressed over the years, nine of the convicts passed away, leaving the 90-year-old man as the sole surviving culprit now sentenced to life imprisonment.
The incident in question took place in the village of Sadupur, under the jurisdiction of Makhanpur police station in Firozabad. A group of individuals unleashed a barrage of gunfire, resulting in the brutal deaths of 10 Harijans. Additionally, three people sustained bullet injuries during the incident. Following a complaint lodged by DC Gautam, a clerk at Firozabad railway station, a case was registered against unidentified individuals. Subsequently, an investigation was launched, leading to the identification of 10 perpetrators. The case, recorded under crime number 452/1981, involved charges of murder (section 302) and attempted murder (section 307). These individuals were named in the case filed at Shikohabad police station, within the Mainpuri police district, which was later reorganized and renamed Firozabad.
While the court's decision to impose a fine of Rs 55,000 alongside the life imprisonment sentence was intended to serve as a punitive measure, questions have been raised regarding the appropriateness of the fine. Critics argue that given the age of the convicted individual, the imposition of a substantial financial penalty seems impractical and possibly even unjust. However, it is important to note that such decisions are made within the legal framework, and the court deemed the fine necessary as part of the sentencing process.
The case serves as a reminder of the tragic events that unfolded more than four decades ago, leaving an enduring scar on the affected community. With the conclusion of the trial, the surviving convict faces a life behind bars, while the families of the victims continue to grapple with the lasting impact of this heinous crime.