Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Crime & justice fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about crime & justice. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

6,853 published reviews in this topic

Fact CrescendoCrime & justice

Claim: BJP members arrested for printing counterfeit rupee

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerned a social-media video of counterfeit currency and the allegation that the people arrested in connection with it were BJP or RSS members. The review says the video was shared on Facebook on July 25, 2020, with a caption asserting that BJP and RSS members were caught printing counterfeit notes. It also notes that the video showed bundles of currency, including new ₹2,000 and ₹500 notes and old ₹1,000 notes, but did not itself identify the people shown or establish their political affiliation. To investigate the video’s provenance, the reviewers converted frames into still images and searched them using reverse image search. They found a matching video report about a seizure in Pune. According to the review’s account of that reporting, Pune police and military intelligence jointly seized counterfeit notes valued at ₹55 crore, and six people were arrested. The review names them as Sheikh Aleem Gulab Khan, Sunil Sarda, Ritesh Ratnakar, Tufail Ahmed Mohammed Ishaq Khan, Abdul Ghani Khan and Abdul Rahman Abdul Ghani Khan. It says some reports noted that some notes were marked “Children’s Bank,” but the review did not investigate that case detail further. The review found no evidence that those arrested belonged to the BJP, RSS or another political organization. It says its Marathi-language team investigated their political background and that police sources indicated the accused had no political background. Its conclusion is therefore about the unsupported political affiliation in the post—not a denial that counterfeit currency was seized or that people were arrested.

FACTLYCrime & justice

Video shows a Hindu girl molested in Kerala

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a video shared as showing a Hindu girl being molested in Kerala. FACTLY reports that the video does depict a girl being sexually assaulted, but says the incident was in Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh, in 2017—not Kerala. It therefore identifies the video’s location and date as inconsistent with the claim’s framing. [S1] FACTLY says it used reverse image searches of screenshots from the video. Those searches found similar visuals in a Times of India YouTube video; its description identified a minor girl as having been molested and filmed in Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh. The review also cites a Times Now account describing an incident in Kanigiri town, where three boys sexually assaulted and filmed a girl. [S1] The review’s conclusion is that the video is old and has no connection to Hindu girls in Kerala. The distinction is not that the footage depicts no assault: the review says it does. Rather, the identified incident and provenance contradict the claim about where and whom the video shows. [S1]

Fact CrescendoCrime & justice

Photo of 3 IPS officers who are siblings.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE.

A Facebook post claimed that the three IPS officers pictured together were two brothers and a sister. Fact Crescendo’s review identifies the image as one posted by the page “Silchar Diary” on September 4, 2020, with a caption asserting that the officers were from the same family. The review says it traced the image to an Instagram post by officer Pooja Vashisth on August 22, 2020, and found the same picture on officer Tushar Gupta’s Instagram profile. [S1: “The photo was published by a Facebook Page ‘Silchar Diary’ on Friday, 4th September, 2020 at 03:06pm with the caption ‘Two brothers and one sister in the same family are IPS’”; “We saw that she had posted this particular picture on the 22nd of August, 2020.”] The review describes checking comments on the Facebook post, searching the names mentioned in a comment, and comparing officers’ social-media profiles and photos. It then says the reviewers contacted Vashisth and Gupta for clarification. [S1: “At first, we went through the comments and saw that some people have been pointing out that these officers are not siblings.”; “We immediately contacted Officer Pooja Vashisth and Officer Tushar Gupta seeking clarity on the matter.”] The decisive evidence reported is Gupta’s direct response: the three officers were batchmates, not siblings. That statement directly contradicts the post’s family relationship claim. The excerpt does not provide the third officer’s name or a separate statement from that officer. [S1: “Officer Tushar Gupta responded and clarified that all three of them are Batchmates and not Siblings.”]

FACTLYCrime & justice

Photo of Bhuvanapalli (Telangana) District Court Judge Abdul Haseem sitting on stairs along with an old woman and resolving her pending issue

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim identifies the man in a photo with an older woman as Bhuvanapalli District Court Judge Abdul Haseem, and says he came downstairs because she could not climb the stairs and resolved her pending issue. FACTLY’s review says the encounter itself was real, but the claim misidentified both the man and the district: “While the incident is true, the man in the photo is ‘Jayashankar Bhupalpally’ District Collector Abdul Azeem.” It also states that “there is no ‘Bhuvanapalli’ district in Telangana.” [S1] To check the man’s identity, FACTLY reports running the image through Google Reverse Image Search. That search found the same photo in a February 2020 article by The Hans India, which identified the man as District Collector Abdul Azeem. The review recounts that he noticed the woman on the steps and asked about her problem; she described an old-age pension issue, and the report said he contacted the DRDO and secured its sanction. [S1] The review further says the same photograph appeared on the official Jayashankar Bhupalpally district website and that the district’s official website listed Mohd Abdul Azeem IAS in its profile. These details support the distinction central to the claim: the man was identified as a district collector, not a district judge. The real encounter and assistance do not substantiate the claimed judicial role or place name. [S1]