Gurgaon gang rape: Main rape accused arrested, but ground reality unchanged
GURGAON: Gurgaon
police on Friday nabbed the key accused in the Thursday early morning
rape in a moving car, bringing the total number of arrests in the case
to six. The accused has been identified as Dharambir, and it was he who planned the rape to get value for the Rs 10,000 he had paid to the two victims and also raped one of them.
The Toyota Corolla Altis car in which the two women
were raped by the accused has been retrieved and the five persons who
were arrested on Thursday were sent in judicial custody on Friday.
Dharmabir had been trying to get to girls over the past week but when he
couldn't he got a friend to lure them to get into his car and then
carried out the rape of the victims. Police are currently interrogating
him about the whereabouts of last of the seven accused, Vikram, who is
at large.
"Dharambir, 27, is a native of Dor Kalan village near
Narnaul and used to work as a taxi driver. We recovered the Corolla
Altis car, which was used in the rape. We found out during the
interrogation that the accused had raped the victims without using
contraceptives. There is a possibility of getting strong biological
evidence against the accused from the car," an investigating officer
said.
The victims of the horrific incident were two Delhi-based
women who had hired a private cab a little after 12.30am on Thursday
after finishing their work in a pub. The two residents of Tughlakabad
had left Empire Club in Metropolitan Mall on MG Road at 12 midnight.
Sources said that the two were entry "escorts" and regulars at the club
for three days in a week and would help boys to gain the cheaper "couple
entry" and avoid the expensive "stag entry".
On the same day
police arrested five of accused, identified as Devender, Parmod, Harish
Khan alias Nisar, Satish and Devinder. One of the accused is a native of
Mewat district while the other four belong to Nangal Peepa village in
Mahendergarh distirct. An Indica car has been retrieved from them. One
of the two victims, who is 27 years old, told police that they had come
out of Empire Club a little after midnight and reached in front of
Club-18 in an auto. Since their taxi driver had not reached in time to
pick them up, they hired a Toyo http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/Gurgaon-gang-rape-Main-rape-accused-arrested-but-ground-reality-unchanged/articleshow/20823417.cms
Saturday, 29 June 2013
पत्नी और ससुरालवालों की ज्यादती से परेशान होकर पहुंचा कोर्ट
पत्नी और ससुरालवालों की ज्यादती से परेशान होकर पहुंचा कोर्ट
एनबीटी न्यूज ॥ राजनगर
युवक के साथ मारपीट की शिकायत पर कोर्ट ने पत्नी सहित ससुराल पक्ष के पांच लोगों के खिलाफ कंप्लेंड केस दर्ज करने का आदेश दिया है। शकूरपुर निवासी आकिल की ओर से उसके अधिवक्ता सुरेन्द्र सिंह ने कोर्ट में प्रार्थना पत्र दिया।
प्रार्थना पत्र माध्यम से बताया कि आकिल की शादी 10 अप्रैल 2011 को मुरादनगर निवासी उस्मान की बेटी गुलिस्ता परवीन के साथ हुई थी। शादी के बाद से गुलिस्ता परवीन का व्यवहार अच्छा नहीं रहा। आरोप है कि वह दहेज के झूठे मुकदमे में फंसवाने या फिर आत्महत्या करने की धमकी देती थी। उसने गुलिस्ता को समझाने का प्रयास किया, लेकिन वह मायके चली गई।
गुलिस्ता और उसके पिता ने कहा कि अपना मकान और दो लाख रुपये गुलिस्ता के नाम कर दो। इस शर्ता पर ही गुलिस्ता तुम्हारे साथ जा सकती है। आरोप है कि मना करने पर गुलिस्ता के परिवार वालों ने आकिल और उसके पिता के साथ मारपीट की और जबरन स्टांप पेपर पर साइन कराने चाहे। किसी तरह से वे दोनों जान बचाकर भाग आए। उन्होंने मामले की शिकायत पुलिस में की, लेकिन पुलिस ने रिपोर्ट दर्ज नहीं की।
http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/20821351.cms
एनबीटी न्यूज ॥ राजनगर
युवक के साथ मारपीट की शिकायत पर कोर्ट ने पत्नी सहित ससुराल पक्ष के पांच लोगों के खिलाफ कंप्लेंड केस दर्ज करने का आदेश दिया है। शकूरपुर निवासी आकिल की ओर से उसके अधिवक्ता सुरेन्द्र सिंह ने कोर्ट में प्रार्थना पत्र दिया।
प्रार्थना पत्र माध्यम से बताया कि आकिल की शादी 10 अप्रैल 2011 को मुरादनगर निवासी उस्मान की बेटी गुलिस्ता परवीन के साथ हुई थी। शादी के बाद से गुलिस्ता परवीन का व्यवहार अच्छा नहीं रहा। आरोप है कि वह दहेज के झूठे मुकदमे में फंसवाने या फिर आत्महत्या करने की धमकी देती थी। उसने गुलिस्ता को समझाने का प्रयास किया, लेकिन वह मायके चली गई।
गुलिस्ता और उसके पिता ने कहा कि अपना मकान और दो लाख रुपये गुलिस्ता के नाम कर दो। इस शर्ता पर ही गुलिस्ता तुम्हारे साथ जा सकती है। आरोप है कि मना करने पर गुलिस्ता के परिवार वालों ने आकिल और उसके पिता के साथ मारपीट की और जबरन स्टांप पेपर पर साइन कराने चाहे। किसी तरह से वे दोनों जान बचाकर भाग आए। उन्होंने मामले की शिकायत पुलिस में की, लेकिन पुलिस ने रिपोर्ट दर्ज नहीं की।
http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/20821351.cms
Lump sum payment received from Ex-husband against relinquishment of monthly maintenance not taxable: Tribunal
Lump sum payment received from Ex-husband against relinquishment of monthly maintenance not taxable: Tribunal
MUMBAI: Marriages are made in heaven, but a divorce happens on earth and with it comes the inevitable question of alimony and its tax implications. In a recent decision the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a lump sum payment received from a former husband, against relinquishment of monthly maintenance is a capital receipt and is not taxable.
The case relates to a Delhi-based woman, who had received a lump sum of $99,000 from her ex-husband based in the United States, but had not shown the amount in her tax declaration. Based on current exchange rate this sum translates to approximately Rs. 60 lakh.
Under Indian tax laws, any sum of money received by an individual without any consideration (without getting anything in return), in excess of Rs 50,000 in a year, is taxable. But if the same is received from a relative, such as a spouse, or on certain occasions such as marriage, it is exempt.
The tax officer, in this case, had held that as the divorce had taken place several years ago, the Delhi-based resident was not a 'relative' and hence such payment was not exempt but taxable as 'income from other sources' in her hands. This approach adopted by the tax officer, was rejected at the first level of appeal - commissioner of income-tax (appeals).
The commissioner held that the amount was paid by way of alimony only because they were husband and wife. Thus the payment received was from a relative (which includes spouse).
Further it cannot be said that the lump sum amount was received without any consideration. It was received against relinquishment by the wife of her right to receive monthly alimony payments (both past arrears and future payments). Such monthly payments were provided for in the divorce agreement.
Hearing an appeal filed by the tax officer, the Delhi ITAT upheld the order of the CIT (appeals). It observed that: "In this case, the taxpayer was to receive monthly alimony which was to be taxable in each year. As such monthly payments were not received they were not offered for tax as income. The lump sum received by the woman was a consideration for relinquishing all past and future claims." It was a non-taxable capital receipt not liable to tax, concluded the ITAT.
"Tax on alimony payment cannot be avoided by merely taking a lump sum consideration. Various facts such as the period of time the monthly alimony was not received, action taken for receipt of such alimony, and the fact pattern of the final settlement by way of lump sum payment will determine whether it will be treated as non-taxable," cautions a civil advocate, attached to the Mumbai high court.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Lump-sum-payment-received-from-Ex-husband-against-relinquishment-of-monthly-maintenance-not-taxable-Tribunal/articleshow/20823480.cms?
MUMBAI: Marriages are made in heaven, but a divorce happens on earth and with it comes the inevitable question of alimony and its tax implications. In a recent decision the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a lump sum payment received from a former husband, against relinquishment of monthly maintenance is a capital receipt and is not taxable.
The case relates to a Delhi-based woman, who had received a lump sum of $99,000 from her ex-husband based in the United States, but had not shown the amount in her tax declaration. Based on current exchange rate this sum translates to approximately Rs. 60 lakh.
Under Indian tax laws, any sum of money received by an individual without any consideration (without getting anything in return), in excess of Rs 50,000 in a year, is taxable. But if the same is received from a relative, such as a spouse, or on certain occasions such as marriage, it is exempt.
The tax officer, in this case, had held that as the divorce had taken place several years ago, the Delhi-based resident was not a 'relative' and hence such payment was not exempt but taxable as 'income from other sources' in her hands. This approach adopted by the tax officer, was rejected at the first level of appeal - commissioner of income-tax (appeals).
The commissioner held that the amount was paid by way of alimony only because they were husband and wife. Thus the payment received was from a relative (which includes spouse).
Further it cannot be said that the lump sum amount was received without any consideration. It was received against relinquishment by the wife of her right to receive monthly alimony payments (both past arrears and future payments). Such monthly payments were provided for in the divorce agreement.
Hearing an appeal filed by the tax officer, the Delhi ITAT upheld the order of the CIT (appeals). It observed that: "In this case, the taxpayer was to receive monthly alimony which was to be taxable in each year. As such monthly payments were not received they were not offered for tax as income. The lump sum received by the woman was a consideration for relinquishing all past and future claims." It was a non-taxable capital receipt not liable to tax, concluded the ITAT.
"Tax on alimony payment cannot be avoided by merely taking a lump sum consideration. Various facts such as the period of time the monthly alimony was not received, action taken for receipt of such alimony, and the fact pattern of the final settlement by way of lump sum payment will determine whether it will be treated as non-taxable," cautions a civil advocate, attached to the Mumbai high court.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Lump-sum-payment-received-from-Ex-husband-against-relinquishment-of-monthly-maintenance-not-taxable-Tribunal/articleshow/20823480.cms?
Govt wants judges fined for frequent adjournments
Govt wants judges fined for frequent adjournments
NEW DELHI: The government has suggested that higher judiciary impose fines on judges for allowing frequent and too many adjournments, a move which can potentially ensure swift punishment for those guilty of heinous crimes, early release of undertrials who may be found innocent as well as respite for those who have been embroiled in interminably long litigation over civil disputes.
The government has been holding consultations with the Supreme Court to urge the latter to ensure that the amendment made under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which capped the adjournments permissible in a case at three, are implemented. It suggested that the higher judiciary consider imposing fines on judges infringing the three adjournment ceiling.
In fact, in cases of heinous crimes like rape, the amended Section 309 of CrPC lays down a timeframe of two months for the completion of inquiry as well as trial.
Sources said the law ministry has held several rounds of consultations with the apex court, and expressed satisfaction with the response it received to the proposal for strict enforcement of Section 309 of CrPC, limiting the number of adjournments before the subordinate judiciary.
The apex court too has in a number of recent judgments frowned upon the trend among subordinate judiciary to allow frequent adjournments: something which has been identified as one of the main factors behind the huge pendency of cases. The government is hopeful that SC may take steps shortly to ensure that the guidelines under the amended Section 309 are no longer disregarded by judges.
Section 309 of CrPC provides that "every inquiry or trial shall be held as expeditiously as possible and the recording of examination of witnesses shall be continued on day-to-day basis unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded".
The government later incorporated some more guidelines relating to adjournments which specified that "no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party and even in cases where the pleader of a party is engaged in another court, shall not be a ground for adjournment".
The other important guideline said if a "witness is present in court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in court is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the court may, if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit". Sources said some of these guidelines may be notified soon so that it becomes compulsory for the subordinate judiciary to enforce them.
Already, the law ministry has drawn up a list of other important amendments carried out in CrPC in the recent past but which are not being enforced by the lower judiciary.
For instance, a new Section 436A has been inserted, which provides that "if an accused has spent half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence, not being an offence for which the death punishment has been specified as one of the punishment, he shall be released by the court on his personal bond with or without sureties".
Another amendment in Section 437 of CrPC provides that "if the accused had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years, such person shall not be granted bail". http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-wants-judges-fined-for-frequent-adjournments/articleshow/20825760.cms
NEW DELHI: The government has suggested that higher judiciary impose fines on judges for allowing frequent and too many adjournments, a move which can potentially ensure swift punishment for those guilty of heinous crimes, early release of undertrials who may be found innocent as well as respite for those who have been embroiled in interminably long litigation over civil disputes.
The government has been holding consultations with the Supreme Court to urge the latter to ensure that the amendment made under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which capped the adjournments permissible in a case at three, are implemented. It suggested that the higher judiciary consider imposing fines on judges infringing the three adjournment ceiling.
In fact, in cases of heinous crimes like rape, the amended Section 309 of CrPC lays down a timeframe of two months for the completion of inquiry as well as trial.
Sources said the law ministry has held several rounds of consultations with the apex court, and expressed satisfaction with the response it received to the proposal for strict enforcement of Section 309 of CrPC, limiting the number of adjournments before the subordinate judiciary.
The apex court too has in a number of recent judgments frowned upon the trend among subordinate judiciary to allow frequent adjournments: something which has been identified as one of the main factors behind the huge pendency of cases. The government is hopeful that SC may take steps shortly to ensure that the guidelines under the amended Section 309 are no longer disregarded by judges.
Section 309 of CrPC provides that "every inquiry or trial shall be held as expeditiously as possible and the recording of examination of witnesses shall be continued on day-to-day basis unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded".
The government later incorporated some more guidelines relating to adjournments which specified that "no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party and even in cases where the pleader of a party is engaged in another court, shall not be a ground for adjournment".
The other important guideline said if a "witness is present in court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in court is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the court may, if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit". Sources said some of these guidelines may be notified soon so that it becomes compulsory for the subordinate judiciary to enforce them.
Already, the law ministry has drawn up a list of other important amendments carried out in CrPC in the recent past but which are not being enforced by the lower judiciary.
For instance, a new Section 436A has been inserted, which provides that "if an accused has spent half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence, not being an offence for which the death punishment has been specified as one of the punishment, he shall be released by the court on his personal bond with or without sureties".
Another amendment in Section 437 of CrPC provides that "if the accused had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years, such person shall not be granted bail". http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-wants-judges-fined-for-frequent-adjournments/articleshow/20825760.cms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)