After 15 years of court trial, a Delhi court on Wednesday convicted five men for the murder of TV journalist Soumya Vishwanathan. The Delhi court held Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar guilty of murder while convicting Ajay Sethi of stealing property under the sections of MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) 1999.

After 15 years of court trial, a Delhi court on Wednesday convicted five men for the murder of TV journalist Soumya Vishwanathan. The Delhi court held Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik and Ajay Kumar guilty of murder while convicting Ajay Sethi of stealing property under the sections of MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) 1999. Soumya's mother, Madhavi Vishwanath, told Hindustan Times, "We have been fighting for 15 years. It's a relief, but we have lost our daughter." She said," We are not in favour of the death penalty. We want them to suffer like we are suffering." Here's everything you need to know about the Soumya Vishwanathan murder case before the court announces the quantum of sentence for the convicted men. What's the Soumya Vishwanathan Murder Case? On 30 September 2008, Soumya Vishwanathan, a 25-year-old correspondent working with India Today, was found dead in her car on Nelson Mandela Marg in South Delhi. She was reportedly returning home from work at 03:30 am. Initially, the cops struggled to find her killers. But during a 2009 investigation into the murder of BPO employee Jigisha Ghosh, one of the accused confessed to being involved in Soumya's murder. In April 2009, the Delhi police charged the accused under the MCOCA in the Soumya Vishwanathan murder case. They filed a chargesheet against five men, Ravi Kapoor, Amit Shukla, Baljeet Malik, Ajay Kumar and Ajay Sethi in June 2009. ALSO READ | Same-sex marriage: Former SC judge Indu Malhotra explains why legislation is essential in India The authorities charged them with murder, robbery, and other offences in 2010. In August 2016, a trial court sentenced Ravi Kapoor and Amit Shukla to death in the 2009 Jigisha Ghosh murder case while sentencing Baljeet Malik to life imprisonment. However, in January 2018, the Delhi High Court upheld Malik's sentence while commuting Kapoor and Shukla's death sentences to life imprisonment. On 27 February 2019, Malik filed a plea in the Delhi High Court to speed up the trial. Finally, in May 2023, after 15 years of her murder, final arguments commenced after the court concluded the recording of evidence. On 13 October 2023, Additional Sessions Judge Ravindra Kumar Pandey reserved the judgment in the case after the completion of arguments by the defence and prosecution. Five days later, on 18 October 2023, the Delhi court convicted Kapoor, Shukla, Kumar and Malik for Soumya Vishwanath's murder and Sethi for receiving stolen property under the MCOCA. The court has set the date for sentencing on 26 October 2023. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Soumya Vishwanathan Case: Murder of TV journalist that shocked Delhi 15 years ago; Here's all you need to know

Organised crime is not restricted to a &quot;particular state&quot; and a trial court can take note of charge sheets filed against offenders outside the state for invoking the stringent MCOCA, the Supreme Court has held.

The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA), which is in force in Delhi too, is invoked against offenders to curb the menace of organised crimes.

A bench comprising justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao made the observation while dealing with the appeal of Delhi government against an order of the high court.

The high court had upheld a trial court order discharging Uttar Pradesh-based alleged gangster Brijesh Singh from the charges under the MCOCA on many grounds, including that the charge sheets, pertaining to running of organised crimes syndicate, were filed in cases outside the national capital.

The apex court, which upheld the order of the high court, said &quot;the words &#39;competent Court&#39; in Section 2(d) of MCOCA is not restricted to courts in Delhi and charge sheets filed in courts in other states can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity&quot;.

&quot;The commission of crimes like contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering etc by organised crime syndicates was on the rise.

&quot;To prevent such organised crime, an immediate need was felt to promulgate a stringent legislation. The government realised that organised crime syndicates have connections with terrorist gangs and were fostering narcotic terrorism beyond the national boundaries.

&quot;The MCOCA was promulgated with the object of arresting organised crime which was posing a serious threat to the society. The interpretation of the provisions of the MCOCA should be made in a manner which would advance the object of the MCOCA,&quot; the bench said in a 34-page judgement.

Justice Bobde, writing the judgement for the bench, said the menace of organised crime posed a serious threat to civil society and there was a need for making special provisions for prevention and control of criminal activities of the organised crime syndicates and gangs.

This need was recognised by the Maharashtra Legislature which brought the MCOCA in 1999, it said.

The top court considered the question whether charge sheets filed in competent courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting a &quot;continuing unlawful activity&quot; and booking offenders under the MCOCA.

It also dealt with the question whether there can be prosecution under the MCOCA without any offence of organised crime committed under the jurisdiction of the particular court.

It held that the words &#39;competent court&#39; under the MCOCA was not restricted to the courts of a particular state where the law is in force and charge sheets filed in courts in other states can also be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity.

The apex court also held that an offender cannot be prosecuted under MCOCA without an organised crime being committed within Delhi.

A trial court can take note of charge sheets filed against offenders outside the state for invoking the stringent MCOCA, the Supreme Court has held

Organised crime is not restricted to a "particular state" and a trial court can take note of charge sheets filed against offenders outside the state for invoking the stringent MCOCA, the Supreme Court has held. The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA), which is in force in Delhi too, is invoked against offenders to curb the menace of organised crimes. A bench comprising justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao made the observation while dealing with the appeal of Delhi government against an order of the high court. The high court had upheld a trial court order discharging Uttar Pradesh-based alleged gangster Brijesh Singh from the charges under the MCOCA on many grounds, including that the charge sheets, pertaining to running of organised crimes syndicate, were filed in cases outside the national capital. The apex court, which upheld the order of the high court, said "the words 'competent Court' in Section 2(d) of MCOCA is not restricted to courts in Delhi and charge sheets filed in courts in other states can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity". "The commission of crimes like contract killings, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering etc by organised crime syndicates was on the rise. "To prevent such organised crime, an immediate need was felt to promulgate a stringent legislation. The government realised that organised crime syndicates have connections with terrorist gangs and were fostering narcotic terrorism beyond the national boundaries. "The MCOCA was promulgated with the object of arresting organised crime which was posing a serious threat to the society. The interpretation of the provisions of the MCOCA should be made in a manner which would advance the object of the MCOCA," the bench said in a 34-page judgement. Justice Bobde, writing the judgement for the bench, said the menace of organised crime posed a serious threat to civil society and there was a need for making special provisions for prevention and control of criminal activities of the organised crime syndicates and gangs. This need was recognised by the Maharashtra Legislature which brought the MCOCA in 1999, it said. The top court considered the question whether charge sheets filed in competent courts outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi can be taken into account for the purpose of constituting a "continuing unlawful activity" and booking offenders under the MCOCA. It also dealt with the question whether there can be prosecution under the MCOCA without any offence of organised crime committed under the jurisdiction of the particular court. It held that the words 'competent court' under the MCOCA was not restricted to the courts of a particular state where the law is in force and charge sheets filed in courts in other states can also be taken into account for the purpose of constituting continuing unlawful activity. The apex court also held that an offender cannot be prosecuted under MCOCA without an organised crime being committed within Delhi.

Organised crimes not restricted to particular state: Supreme Court

Abu Jundal, key accused in 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai, and 11 others were today convicted by a special &nbsp;court in India&#39;s western Maharashtra state in the 2006 Aurangabad arms haul case.&nbsp; 
 
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court acquitted eight others in the case while trial of two accused have been separated.&nbsp; 
 
Special MCOCA Judge Shrikant Anekar delivered the verdict after final arguments in the case concluded recently following a ten-year-long wait.&nbsp; 
 
The court also dropped MCOCA charges in the case, in which 22 people, including Lashkar-e-Toiba operative Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, were arrested. 
 
The court accepted prosecution&#39;s case that the aim of the convicted accused was to create terror in the minds of people and to eliminate public leaders like then Chief Minister of western Indian state of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, and Hindu leader Pravin Togadia. 
 
On May 8, 2006, a Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) team chased a Tata Sumo and an Indica car on Chandwad-Manmad Highway near Aurangabad in Maharashtra and arrested three terror suspects and seized 30kg of RDX, 10 AK-47 assault rifles and 3,200 bullets. 
 
The Indica, allegedly driven by Jundal, managed to give police the slip. Jundal, who hails from Beed district of Maharashtra, drove to Malegaon and a few days later he escaped to Bangladesh from where he fled to Pakistan, according to the state police. 
 
He was deported to India from Saudi Arabia in 2012. Later, charges were framed against the arrested accused in August 2013. 
 
During the trial, the prosecution examined 100 witnesses while defence lawyers examined 16. 
 
The trial was stayed by the India&#39;s top court for a while after one of the accused challenged constitutional validity of certain provisions of MCOCA. The stay was vacated in 2009. 
 
In August last year, the Bombay High Court directed the lower court to expedite the trial.&nbsp; 
 
(PTI)&nbsp;

Special court in western state of Maharashtra accepted that aim of convicted was to eliminate PM Narendra Modi, then Gujarat chief minister

Abu Jundal, key accused in 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai, and 11 others were today convicted by a special court in India's western Maharashtra state in the 2006 Aurangabad arms haul case. Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court acquitted eight others in the case while trial of two accused have been separated. Special MCOCA Judge Shrikant Anekar delivered the verdict after final arguments in the case concluded recently following a ten-year-long wait. The court also dropped MCOCA charges in the case, in which 22 people, including Lashkar-e-Toiba operative Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, were arrested. The court accepted prosecution's case that the aim of the convicted accused was to create terror in the minds of people and to eliminate public leaders like then Chief Minister of western Indian state of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, and Hindu leader Pravin Togadia. On May 8, 2006, a Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) team chased a Tata Sumo and an Indica car on Chandwad-Manmad Highway near Aurangabad in Maharashtra and arrested three terror suspects and seized 30kg of RDX, 10 AK-47 assault rifles and 3,200 bullets. The Indica, allegedly driven by Jundal, managed to give police the slip. Jundal, who hails from Beed district of Maharashtra, drove to Malegaon and a few days later he escaped to Bangladesh from where he fled to Pakistan, according to the state police. He was deported to India from Saudi Arabia in 2012. Later, charges were framed against the arrested accused in August 2013. During the trial, the prosecution examined 100 witnesses while defence lawyers examined 16. The trial was stayed by the India's top court for a while after one of the accused challenged constitutional validity of certain provisions of MCOCA. The stay was vacated in 2009. In August last year, the Bombay High Court directed the lower court to expedite the trial. (PTI)

India: 26/11 terror attack accused Abu Jundal convicted in 2006 arms haul case

mcoca

Mcoca, News on Mcoca, stories on Mcoca, articles on Mcoca, Mcoca stories at Wion, Mcoca news, Mcoca latest news