Man dies after son held for 'kidnap'

A 73-year-old man died of cardiac arrest after his son was arrested by Bangalore police for allegedly kidnapping and marrying a girl, a few months ago.

Police have given the name of dead as Somashekhar, a resident of Mooranadu, near Madikeri.

Deviprasad, the son of Somashekhar, met Ramya, a resident of Bangalore, through a social networking site eight months ago and they fell in love. Ramya’s family was against their marriage.

But the couple tied the knot at Ashwini Temple in Madikeri in May and also registered their marriage on June 7. They stayed together for three months.

Missing complaint

On August 28, Deviprasad lodged a complaint at Madikeri Rural police station stating that Ramya had gone missing and suspected that her parents could have kidnapped her.

However, Ramya’s father,  who is a jeep driver for a senior police officer in Bangalore, lodged a kidnap case against Deviprasad at Siddapura police station (Bangalore) on September 1.

In the wee hours of September 2, Ramya’s family members along with a few policemen barged into the house of Deviprasad.

They allegedly manhandled Deviprasad and pushed his father, who had diabetes and blood pressure, before arresting the former.

Somashekar, who suffered cardiac arrest was rushed to a private hospital in Madikeri. Shocked by his son’s arrest, he died of heart attack in the wee hours of Wednesday.

Released on parole

Deviprasad, who was arrested and taken to Bangalore, was produced before a court and was sent to judicial custody. It is learnt that Deviprasad has been released on parole following the death of his father.

Mysore Range IGP Ramachandra Rao said an impartial and comprehensive inquiry will be conducted into the incident.

Kamal Pant, Additional Commissioner (Law and Order), Bangalore, said that stringent action would be initiated against any officer found guilty in the incident.

H S Revanna, DCP (South) the divisional DCP under whose jurisdiction Siddapura police station lies, said that the Madikeri police had registered a case over the death of Somashekhar. case.

He said that they were waiting for the autopsy report and also the investigation report of Madikeri police who are trying to establish whether Siddapura police really assaulted the elderly man leading to his eventual death.

Strict action

He said that if the investigations revealed the involvement of policemen in Somashekar’s death, strict action will be taken against them. Siddapura police refused to comment on the issue.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/355389/man-dies-son-held-kidnap.html 

Bail, not jail, the norm, says SC, but the reality is opposite

MUMBAI: Bail, not jail, is a dominant principle of criminal law practised by every mature democracy and in India often in its breach. Be it A Raja or Kanimozhi in the 2G case, Suresh Kalmadi in the CWG case or Asaram, facing an unproven sexual assault charge, once a case becomes high profile courts are diffident to grant bail even if that flies against the express directive of the Supreme Court.
The same neglect of the principle is often seen in the case of thousands of undertrial prisoners — people who fall in a category that's quite the opposite of the high-profile cases; men and women without resources, financial or political — who are left to languish in jail for want of bail orders from trial courts.

A Mumbai lawyer says: "It's not only the underprivileged who fail to secure justice at a pre-trial stage, even highprofile arrests — cases that attract media hype — are often denied bail without adequate reasons for days or months." While releasing a bunch of accused in the 2G scam case, the SC reinforced that bail ought to be a norm, not jail.
Stiff opposition by police to bail applications even when investigations are over and the accused not likely to flee, has become the norm, lawyers said. Senior crime counsel Amit Desai said: "The court must be alive to the fact that liberty, a fundamental right, is taken away in such instances. It must ensure that the investigating officer concentrates on investigation that requires an accused to be in custody so that he can secure his liberty at the earliest.''
Police often treat denial of bail as an "easy route'', say experts. "Trials take time to begin. Often pre-trial incarceration exceeds maximum punishment for the charges invoked or becomes an incentive for police not to create a water-tight case on evidence,'' said advocate Saurabh Kirpal from Delhi. He added: "It becomes an easy route not to work hard at getting a conviction and treat pre-trial custody as substitute punishment."
There are times when despite long pre-trial jail, the case may end with an acquittal, which makes a mockery of justice. The need for an arrest is to secure presence of the accused for investigation, prevent further crimes and escape, make the community safer if the accused is prone to violence, and witness tampering. When these factors are absent, bail should be automatic.
Ashok Desai, former attorney general, said, "The object of denying bail cannot be punitive because punishment starts after conviction. Until then the accused is deemed innocent. Although bail, not jail, is the principle, there are two main factors to deny bail — possibility of the accused absconding and probability that he may interfere with the investigation and witnesses.
"A court has to balance the valuable right of liberty and the interest of society. It's here that often the prosecution suggests that if the offence is serious or the accused is an influential person, there's a danger of his absconding. This is why courts can impose conditional bail. If a condition is transgressed, the bail can be cancelled. Bail cannot be denied to teach a lesson to one whose offence is yet to be proved."
A series of commissions, from the third police commission to the law commission, stressed how police misuse arrest-powers. Ram Jethmalani, ace defence counsel, has for decades stressed that "pretrial arrest is neither meant to be punitive nor a punishment before verdict. It's meant to facilitate investigation." If an accused cooperates with the police and submits himself for investigation there's no justification for arrest, he said.
Senior Supreme Court counsel CA Sundaram said that legally, bail is a right. Advocate Harshad Ponda said liberty is guaranteed as a fundamental right. Under the right to life, liberty cannot be denied without adequate reason. Except when justified in heinous crimes such as rape, murder and dacoity.
Added Shrikant Bhat, a leading crime counsel in Mumbai: "The SC in 1994 laid down guidelines that hold good today. It proscribed police from using their power to arrest, just because it exists, without justification." Advocate Aabad Ponda said: "The amendment to the CrPC is to bring in some checks on indiscriminate and liberal arrests without any warrant by police.'' Every offence classified as non-bailable does not justify an arrest, said advocate Anand Grover.
Even in jurisdictions abroad, as in Florida, the law is firm that bail applications be decided on grounds that don't impinge on a person's liberty more than necessary to aid investigation or secure society's interest.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-08/india/41873447_1_denying-bail-conditional-bail-cwg-case

PIL questions immediate arrests in dowry harassment cases

PIL questions immediate arrests in dowry harassment cases

JAIPUR: A division bench of the high court has asked state government to give its reply to a PIL filed by one Vinod Singhal who questioned immediate arrests in cases pertaining to Section 498A (dowry harassment) and Section 406 of IPC (criminal breach of trust) filed by aggrieved wives against husband and his relatives.

The petition alleges that 70% matrimonial disputes are being converted into criminal cases by misuse of the provisions of Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. It has been alleged that once such a false criminal case is filed against the husband and his relatives the police immediately arrest the accused resulting in vanishing of chances of reconciliation between the warring husband and wife.

The PIL raises a point that since the offences are non-bailable, some guidelines must be issued so as to see that no husband or his relatives are arrested on false complaints. The petitioner demands that instead of registering the FIR immediately, the police must first call the parties for conciliation and in case the dispute remains unresolved, then only action should be initiated against the guilty husband and his relatives.

It has also been highlighted in the petition that in the recent past the Supreme Court too had observed that the law made for protection of women is being misused and has asked the Law Commission of India to report as to whether the law can be made bailable. The division bench of Chief Justice Amitava Roy and Justice V S Siradhana directed that a copy of the PIL be supplied to the government advocate. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/PIL-questions-immediate-arrests-in-dowry-harassment-cases/articleshow/20980608.cms 

दुष्कर्म का मामला निकला झूठा

दुष्कर्म का मामला निकला झूठा

वरिष्ठ संवाददाता, बल्लभगढ़ :
सहायक पुलिस आयुक्त (एसीपी) सेंट्रल पूनम दलाल ने थाना सदर पुलिस को जेल अधिकारियों के खिलाफ दुष्कर्म के आरोप में दर्ज मुकदमें को रद करने के आदेश दिए हैं।
विदित हो कि 14 मई 2013 को जिला नीमका जेल के बंद दो महिला कैदियों उपाधीक्षक शाहिद खान पर बंद कमरे में दुष्कर्म करने तथा दो महिला वार्डनों पर दुष्कर्म के लिए प्रेरित करने का आरोप लगाया था। इस मामले में महिलाओं की शिकायत पर थाना सदर में भी मामला दर्ज किया गया। मामले की जांच सेंट्रल एसीपी पूनम दलाल को सौंपी गई थी। जांच के दौरान एसीपी ने जेल में करीब 65 कैदियों के बयान दर्ज किए। इस दौरान उन्होंने जेल के कर्मचारियों से भी बातचीत की। जांच के दौरान एसीपी ने जेल अधिकारियों के खिलाफ मामले को झूठा पाया। एसीपी ने अपनी जांच पूरी करने के बाद थाना सदर पुलिस को लिखित में मुकदमा निरस्त करने के आदेश दिए हैं। इसकी पुष्टि थाना सदर प्रभारी प्रशिक्षु आइपीएस अभिषेक जोरवाल ने भी की है।

http://www.jagran.com/haryana/faridabad-10538273.html 

What if you're in her shoes, SC asks rejecting man's divorce plea

What if you're in her shoes, SC asks rejecting man's divorce plea

New Delhi: A man's plea for divorce on the grounds that their marriage is beyond salvage and that he will pay a substantial alimony to his wife has been dismissed by the Supreme Court saying that the husband would have never accepted dissolution of matrimonial ties had the wife raised identical reasons.
The court made the observation while rejecting the plea for divorce by the husband who had contended that though his wife's mental condition was normal, they have been separated for over 12 years and as such their marriage has irretrievably broken down. Also he said that he is willing to pay his wife any amount determined by the court as alimony.
A bench of justices P. Sathasivam and J.S. Khehar said he cannot be granted divorce "for the simple reason that the breakdown is only from the side of the husband" while the wife has consistently maintained that her paramount desire was to rejoin her husband."
"We would in our endeavour to determine the issue in hand examine the matter by reversing roles of the parties. We will examine the matter as if the wife had approached the Family Court seeking divorce on the ground that her husband had suffered brain damage leading to cognitive deficiencies.
"Yet, despite the said deficiencies, his working memory had returned to ‘near normal’ after treatment. "And his mental condition was such, that it would not have any effect on his matrimonial obligations. And the wife's family is agreeable to pay an amount to be determined by this court, so as to enable their daughter to break away, and find a more suitable match.
"Should she have been granted freedom from her matrimonial ties, in the given facts, in order to do complete justice to the parties? We would ask ourselves, whether the husband would have accepted such a plea...?" The court said, "In such situation, if this Court had, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, granted compensation to the husband and had dissolved his marriage on the pretext of doing complete justice between the parties, would the same be acceptable to the husband? "We have no doubt in our mind, that on a reversal of roles, the husband, without any fault of his own, would have never accepted as just, the dissolution of his matrimonial ties, even if the couple had been separated for a duration, as is the case in hand," the bench said.
It also said the medical condition of the wife, on which the man had based his claim for divorce, was "of his own doing."
The apex court's order came on the appeal by the husband, who had challenged the decision of the Family court in Hyderabad and the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had rejected his plea for divorce from his wife.
The couple were married in 1997 when they were barely out of their teens.
After his wife's second pregnancy resulted in her suffering some mental disorder due to medical complications, he had moved the Family court in 2002 seeking divorce on the ground that she was not mentally sound.
The trial court had refused to grant him any relief saying that apart from his and his family's contentions that she had not recovered, there was no other evidence to support their claim.
The court also noted that as per medical professionals who had examined her, the woman's mental condition was found to be ‘normal’ and also that she was capable of discharging her marital obligations.
The high court had upheld the view of the trial court, and he had moved the apex court. He had contended before the apex court that they have been separated for over 12 years, their marriage is beyond salvage and as he is willing to pay a court determined amount as alimony, their marriage should be dissolved.
The apex court while refusing to grant him relief noted that "we cannot persuade ourselves to grant a decree of divorce, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, for the simple reason that the breakdown is only from the side of the husband. The wife has consistently maintained, that she was intensely concerned with her future relationship with her husband, and that, her greatest and paramount desire was to rejoin her husband."
The bench also said that it was the husband himself who was ‘responsible for the state of affairs of his wife’.
 

 

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/news-current-affairs/article/what-if-youre-her-shoes-sc-asks-rejecting-mans-divorce-plea 

Magistrate held for 'rape' gets bail, to join duty

Magistrate held for 'rape' gets bail, to join duty

COIMBATORE: Judicial magistrate S Thangaraj, who was arrested on Saturday on charges of raping a female sub-inspector, got bail from the Tirupur district and principal sessions judge's court on Monday. The bail order was served to the Coimbatore Central Prison and the magistrate was released on Monday evening. "He will take charge on Tuesday at the fast track court in Coonoor," his lawyer, Bhavani B Mohan said.

Thangaraj was arrested from ThattanKuttai near Kumarapalayam in Namakkal district on Saturday and sent to judicial custody after a female sub-inspector lodged a complaint with the Palladam all women police station, alleging that he had a physical relationship with her for more than a year after promising to marry her. The Palladam all women police station registered a case against the magistrate under Sections 376 (rape), 417 (cheating) and 506 (i) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

Thangaraj filed a bail petition before the Tirupur district and principal sessions judge's court, which came up for hearing on Monday before judge K Ganeshan. Public prosecutor KN Subramaniam argued that police had followed the rules and regulations of the Supreme Court and Madras high court in registering the case and, hence, the accused should not be allowed to enter the Nilgiris and Tirupur districts till the police investigation was completed.

Senior advocate Bhavani B Mohan, appearing on behalf of Thangaraj, argued that the woman SI had lodged a complaint with the Palladam all women police station on June 21 and that the case was registered on June 29. Police arrested the magistrate on Saturday and slapped rape charges on him. The charge does not apply in this case as they were in a relationship with mutual consent. The magistrate was not even told about the grounds of arrest. Mohan termed the incident as an assault on the judiciary and pleaded to the court to release Thangaraj.

Judge Ganeshan granted bail after the arguments concluded. Thangaraj, 31, of Oonjapalayam in Erode district is judicial magistrate at the fast track court at Coonoor in the Nilgiris district. He had allegedly been in a relationship with the woman sub-inspector attached to Palladam police station. However, he married another woman on June 20.  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Magistrate-held-for-rape-gets-bail-to-join-duty/articleshow/20867226.cms 

'Draconian' amendment in Hindu Marriage Act gives wives final say in divorce cases; men's rights groups not amused

 'Draconian' amendment in Hindu Marriage Act gives wives final say in divorce cases; men's rights groups not amused

Pune: Upset over the latest amendments in the Hindu Marriage Act which virtually give wives a final say in divorce 

 

cases, Men’s Rights Association (MRA) on Saturday staged a protest against the legislation which they term as 'draconian'.

 

"The bill has a provision giving power to the courts to not grant a divorce unless the wife was paid adequate amount of 

 

money in the name of financial security of the woman. Such powers may result in harassment of men," MRA president Atit Rajpara said.

 

He also said the bill also provides special powers to wives to oppose the divorce if she was unhappy with the money she received from the husband under section IPC 498 (A), domestic violence act and several other maintenance laws.

 

According to the MRA, such clauses are outright anti-male and gender-biased and therefore men’s rights activists and organisations are opposing them. Rajpara said the mens’ rights organisations want the bill to be gender-neutral.

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/MAH-PUN-draconian-amendment-in-hindu-marriage-act-giving-wives-a-final-say-in-divorce-ir-4306641-NOR.html?fb_action_ids=627117723973954&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%22627117723973954%22%3A167910723391944}&action_type_map={%22627117723973954%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

Seventy marriages saved, family court celebrates

Seventy marriages saved, family court celebrates

MUMBAI: "Judges, lawyers and counsellors of the family court need to have the vision to accommodate the needs and aspirations of a changing society where women now have a very clear identity both before and after marriage," said Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud of the Bombay high court on Saturday. The judge was addressing a packed house on the family court premises in Bandra, where 140 men and women on the verge of a split till a few days ago went home together as 70 happy couples.

The family court, its lawyers' association and marriage counsellors had organized a felicitation function for 111 couples who with a little help from their lawyers, counsellors and judges had given up their lengthy and acrimonious legal battle for a divorce, maintenance or custody and had resolved their differences to remain married. Seventy couples showed up, and a few among them who still were vacillating decided to drop their divorce proceedings after hearing Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice Chandrachud of the high court as well as the principal judge of the family court, Laxmi Rao.

Chief Justice Shah felicitated the youngest couple present, who were in their 20s, and stressed that proper and timely mediation could save many a broken marriage. He encouraged more such group reconciliation programmes and promised more facilities for the family court.

Judge Rao said there were several laws that were being misused-such as the Domestic Violence Act-by people "on wrong advice of well-wishers".

She, too, said that with proper intervention, marriages need not end in divorces even when things appear bleak.

President of the Family Court Bar Association advocate Sajan Oommen said: "Family court lawyers must play a more proactive role, as the Family Courts Act is not meant merely for dissolution of marriages but for a solution to matrimonial disputes."

Family court judge Swati Chauhan was the first in April to conduct a group reconciliation of quarrelling couples.

It was her experiment that paved the way for more reconciliations.  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Seventy-marriages-saved-family-court-celebrates/articleshow/20837521.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