In a shocking new revelation, a journalist, Ajit Anjum, former managing editor of India Today and News 24 had alleged that the friend of Nirbhaya, who was brutally gang-raped in a moving vehicle in December 2012, demanded thousands of rupees from news channels for appearing for interviews. Anjum contended that the sole witness of the Nirbhaya gangrape case had shamelessly monetised the tragedy that befell on her girlfriend.
#Netflix पर देर रात तक #DelhiCrime देखकर विचलित होता रहा.निर्भया रेप कांड पर है ये सीरीज.मुझे याद आ गया निर्भया को वो दोस्त,जो उस गैंगरेप के वक्त उसके साथ बस में था.जो अपनी दोस्त के साथ हुई दरिंदगी का गवाह था.उसके बारे में आज वो सच बताने जा रहा हूं जो आज तक छिपा रखा था.
(1/10)— Ajit Anjum (@ajitanjum) October 12, 2019
In a series of tweets posted by Anjum, the journalist asserted that Nirbhaya gangrape victim’s friend charged exorbitant money from news channels for narrating the ghastly sequence of events of the dreadful night of December 16, 2012, when his friend Nirbhaya was fatally assaulted and gang-raped by 6 men in a private bus. Anjum claimed that he had conducted a sting operation on Nirbhaya’s friend where he is seen dealing with a TV channel and accepting money to give it an interview.
Ajit Anjum tweeted that the incident is from September 2013 when the accused in the Nirbhaya rape case were sentenced to death by a fast track court. There was continuous coverage of Nirbhaya gangrape case on all channels so I asked reporters to get Nirbhaya’s friend to the channel’s studio for an interview but they informed me that he was demanding money for his appearance on news channels,” Anjum alleged.
मैंने भी अपने रिपोर्टर्स को निर्भया के दोस्त को अपने स्टूडियो लाने की जिम्मेदारी दी. कुछ देर में मुझे बताया गया कि उसका दोस्त अपने चाचा के साथ ही स्टूडियो जाता है और इसके बदले हजारों रुपए लेता है. सुनकर पहले तो यकीन नहीं हुआ . उस लड़के पर बहुत गुस्सा भी आया
( 3/10)— Ajit Anjum (@ajitanjum) October 12, 2019
He further added, “I asked my reporters to bring Nirbhaya’s friend to the studio. However, I was informed that his friend goes to the studio with his uncle and charges thousands for an interview. I could not believe it at first. It was insane.”
Expressing his anguish over the man’s brazen attempts to monetise a cruel and lethal assault on his own friend, Anjum asserted that he was baffled at the moral bankruptcy of the boy, watching him broker deals with channels for telling her poignant story. “I constantly saw him on television. I never saw the pain in his eyes,” Anjum said.
मेरे रिपोर्टर ने मेरे सामने बैठकर मोबाइल से उस लड़के के चाचा से बात की. उसने एक लाख लेकर स्टूडियो में आने की बात की. कम करके 70 हजार पर बात तय हुई. मैंने सोचा कि कहीं चाचा तो भतीजे के नाम पर पैसे नहीं ले रहा?
मैं चाहता था कि पैसे उस लड़के के सामने दिए जाएं
(6/10)— Ajit Anjum (@ajitanjum) October 12, 2019
Deciding to conduct a sting operation on Nirbhaya’s friend, Anjum said, “I made my reporter sit in front of me and asked him to talk to boy’s uncle on phone. He demanded Rs one lakh for coming to the studio but the deal was finalised for Rs 70000. I wanted that money to be given in front of Nirbhaya’s friend. Rs 70000 was offered to uncle right in front of the boy. Everything was recorded. He was then taken to the studio. After ten minutes into the conversation, the boy was asked why does he take money from channels to narrate the story. The boy kept refusing that he charges money for his appearance on interviews.”
“Then during the recording, the boy was shown part of his sting on screen. It was then he apologised in front of the cameras,” the journalist tweeted.
निर्भया के उस ‘दोस्त’ को मैं जितना सुना सकता था, सुनाया. उस शो को ऑन एयर करके लिए करीब -करीब पूरा न्यूजरुम एक तरफ और मैं एक तरफ. रिकार्डिंग के बाद उसे ऑन एयर नहीं करने का फैसला मेरा था. रिकार्डिंग के बाद मुझे लगा कि कहीं आरोपियों के वकील इसका इस्तेमाल अपने पक्ष में न कर लें .
— Ajit Anjum (@ajitanjum) October 12, 2019
Anjum said that the decision to not broadcast the sting operation was taken considering that the case was ongoing in the court. The journalist was concerned that the explosive nature of the sting operation could have been used by the lawyers of the accused in their favour and thus he decided against the broadcasting of the sting operation.
