Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Tuesday, 11 March 2014
Monday, 9 September 2013
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.
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
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
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
Bill to negate Supreme Court verdict gets Rajya Sabha nod
NEW DELHI: Contending that there was a need to check growing "criminalisation" in politics, Rajya Sabha on Tuesday "unanimously passed" a bill negating a Supreme Court verdict to allow people in jail to contest polls.
Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013 provides for a change in the act of 1951. The amendment to sub-clause 5 of section 62 of the RPA, if passed by Parliament, shall come into effect from July 10, 2013, the day the Supreme Court gave its judgement that those in jail can not contest election.
"The fact is that the political class is the most accountable class in the country. Politicians are accountable to Parliament, to the Election Commission, to the country, to the people, to whom we go every after five years. We are the most accountable set of people in the country," Law minister Kapil Sibal said in his reply after a discussion on the bill.
"It is we who have passed the law to make us accountable. It is us who have decided to disclose our assets. Which other institution has taken such steps to make themselves more accountable," he said.
Sibal, who was congratulated by all members for bringing the Bill, said the apex court's order might perhaps not have come had the "environment" been different.
"I dare say, in an another environment, we perhaps would not get such a judgement. The environment is that political class is being looked upon with suspicion," Sibal said.
After examining the Supreme Court order, Government had filed a review petition, but instead of waiting for the outcome, it felt the need to "suitably" address the situation. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bill-to-negate-Supreme-Court-verdict-gets-Rajya-Sabha-nod/articleshow/22097825.cms
Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013 provides for a change in the act of 1951. The amendment to sub-clause 5 of section 62 of the RPA, if passed by Parliament, shall come into effect from July 10, 2013, the day the Supreme Court gave its judgement that those in jail can not contest election.
"The fact is that the political class is the most accountable class in the country. Politicians are accountable to Parliament, to the Election Commission, to the country, to the people, to whom we go every after five years. We are the most accountable set of people in the country," Law minister Kapil Sibal said in his reply after a discussion on the bill.
"It is we who have passed the law to make us accountable. It is us who have decided to disclose our assets. Which other institution has taken such steps to make themselves more accountable," he said.
Sibal, who was congratulated by all members for bringing the Bill, said the apex court's order might perhaps not have come had the "environment" been different.
"I dare say, in an another environment, we perhaps would not get such a judgement. The environment is that political class is being looked upon with suspicion," Sibal said.
After examining the Supreme Court order, Government had filed a review petition, but instead of waiting for the outcome, it felt the need to "suitably" address the situation. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bill-to-negate-Supreme-Court-verdict-gets-Rajya-Sabha-nod/articleshow/22097825.cms
Thursday, 22 August 2013
Supreme Court: Karunanidhi's wife need not come to Delhi court, can be questioned in Chennai
New Delhi: The
Supreme Court has asked a court investigating the 2G spectrum scam to
appoint a commission to question DMK leader M Karunanidhi's wife Dayalu
Ammal at her home in Chennai, on medical grounds.
The court acted on a report submitted by the AIIMS hospital, after Dayalu Ammal's daughter petitioned that she was too unwell to step out of her home.
Dayalu Ammal has been summoned by a special CBI court as a witness in the telecom case linked to the allocation of valuable 2G spectrum to ineligible companies at throwaway prices.
Her daughter Selvi had sought an exemption and told the
Supreme Court that Dayalu Ammal could not respond to the summons, she
had been diagnosed with behavioral problems and was losing her ability
to even recognize close relatives.
Dayalu Ammal, Karunanidhi's second wife, was a director in Kalaignar TV Private Limited, which allegedly received a bribe of over Rs. 200 crore from a firm that bagged licences for spectrum at dirt-cheap prices when DMK's A Raja was Telecom Minister.
Karunanidhi's daughter and DMK Rajya Sabha member Kanimozhi is also an accused in the case.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-karunanidhi-s-wife-need-not-come-to-delhi-court-can-be-questioned-in-chennai-408959
The court acted on a report submitted by the AIIMS hospital, after Dayalu Ammal's daughter petitioned that she was too unwell to step out of her home.
Dayalu Ammal has been summoned by a special CBI court as a witness in the telecom case linked to the allocation of valuable 2G spectrum to ineligible companies at throwaway prices.
Dayalu Ammal, Karunanidhi's second wife, was a director in Kalaignar TV Private Limited, which allegedly received a bribe of over Rs. 200 crore from a firm that bagged licences for spectrum at dirt-cheap prices when DMK's A Raja was Telecom Minister.
Karunanidhi's daughter and DMK Rajya Sabha member Kanimozhi is also an accused in the case.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-karunanidhi-s-wife-need-not-come-to-delhi-court-can-be-questioned-in-chennai-408959
Thursday, 15 August 2013
Monday, 5 August 2013
Youth jumps from 5th floor of court buildin
KANPUR: A youth jumped from the fifth floor of the multi-storey
building of Kanpur Nagar on Saturday. He was immediately rushed to the
UHM Hospital where doctors pronounced him dead. He was later identified
as Anuj Kumar Gupta.
A suicide note was recovered from the body, wherein Anuj had accused his wife and in-laws of harassment. In the suicide note, Anuj, who had a grocery shop at Canal Road, said that on June 16, his wife had shifted to her parents' house along with all valuables and cash worth Rs 1 lakh.
At that time, he was in his shop. After coming to know of the incident, he contacted his in-laws but was abused and threatened of dire consequences. The in-laws demanded that he provide a space in his shop for his brother-in-law to run a business.
Anuj further wrote that he had submitted a complaint with the police and a copy of it to the SSP. However, the police took no action. In the letter, Anuj also accused his father-in-law of physical exploitation.
On Saturday, Anuj had rushed to the court to meet his counsel after receiving a call.
However, after failing to locate the counsel, he climbed to the fifth floor and jumped from there. The police informed his elder brother Amit Gupta of the incident.
After reaching the court premises, Amit told police that Anuj was in his shop till 11 am. After receiving a call, he rushed to the Birhana Road. Amit also said that he repeatedly tried to contact Anuj but his mobile was switched off.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-04/kanpur/41057180_1_court-building-suicide-note-grocery-shop
A suicide note was recovered from the body, wherein Anuj had accused his wife and in-laws of harassment. In the suicide note, Anuj, who had a grocery shop at Canal Road, said that on June 16, his wife had shifted to her parents' house along with all valuables and cash worth Rs 1 lakh.
At that time, he was in his shop. After coming to know of the incident, he contacted his in-laws but was abused and threatened of dire consequences. The in-laws demanded that he provide a space in his shop for his brother-in-law to run a business.
Anuj further wrote that he had submitted a complaint with the police and a copy of it to the SSP. However, the police took no action. In the letter, Anuj also accused his father-in-law of physical exploitation.
On Saturday, Anuj had rushed to the court to meet his counsel after receiving a call.
However, after failing to locate the counsel, he climbed to the fifth floor and jumped from there. The police informed his elder brother Amit Gupta of the incident.
After reaching the court premises, Amit told police that Anuj was in his shop till 11 am. After receiving a call, he rushed to the Birhana Road. Amit also said that he repeatedly tried to contact Anuj but his mobile was switched off.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-04/kanpur/41057180_1_court-building-suicide-note-grocery-shop
Friday, 2 August 2013
Wednesday, 31 July 2013
बलात्कारी को फोन कर कहा, मुझसे शादी कर लो
बलात्कारी को फोन कर कहा, मुझसे शादी कर लो
मध्यप्रदेश के इंदौर शहर में एक अजीब सा मामला सामने आया जहां 18 साल की लड़की ने जिला कोर्ट में कहा कि उसकी शादी उसके दुष्कर्म के आरोपी से ही करा दी जाए।
लड़की का कहना था कि उसके मां-बाप एक अधेड़ से उसकी शादी करवा रहे हैं इससे बेहतर है कि मैं अपने दुष्कर्मी से शादी कर लूं।
इंदौर में गौरी नगर की 18 वर्षीय युवती मंगलवार को कोर्ट आई। एक वकील की मदद से फोन कर उसने अपने दुष्कर्म के आरोपी भगवान करण सिंह को बुलाया।
जब वह वहां पहुंचा तो लड़की ने पूरी बात बताई और उससे कहा कि मुझसे शादी कर लो। जब भगवान ने शादी की बात सुनी तो उसने हां कर दी।
भगवान का कहना है कि भले ही मुझ पर दुष्कर्म का आरोप लगा है लेकिन मैं इसे अपनी प्रेमिका मानता हूं। और इस तरह दोनों शादी के लिए राजी हो गए।
मां-बाप के दबाव में आकर लगाया था दुष्कर्म का आरोप
भगवान सिंह पर फरवरी 2013 में दुष्कर्म का आरोप लगा था। मामला कोर्ट में विचाराधीन है और भगवान को जमानत पर रिहा कर दिया है। मामले में पेच यह है कि अब शादी करते वक्त लड़की का कहना यह है कि उसने मां-बाप के दबाव में आकर यह आरोप लगाया था।
http://www.amarujala.com/news/states/madhya-pradesh/she-called-the-rape-accused-and-said-marry-me/
मध्यप्रदेश के इंदौर शहर में एक अजीब सा मामला सामने आया जहां 18 साल की लड़की ने जिला कोर्ट में कहा कि उसकी शादी उसके दुष्कर्म के आरोपी से ही करा दी जाए।
लड़की का कहना था कि उसके मां-बाप एक अधेड़ से उसकी शादी करवा रहे हैं इससे बेहतर है कि मैं अपने दुष्कर्मी से शादी कर लूं।
इंदौर में गौरी नगर की 18 वर्षीय युवती मंगलवार को कोर्ट आई। एक वकील की मदद से फोन कर उसने अपने दुष्कर्म के आरोपी भगवान करण सिंह को बुलाया।
जब वह वहां पहुंचा तो लड़की ने पूरी बात बताई और उससे कहा कि मुझसे शादी कर लो। जब भगवान ने शादी की बात सुनी तो उसने हां कर दी।
भगवान का कहना है कि भले ही मुझ पर दुष्कर्म का आरोप लगा है लेकिन मैं इसे अपनी प्रेमिका मानता हूं। और इस तरह दोनों शादी के लिए राजी हो गए।
मां-बाप के दबाव में आकर लगाया था दुष्कर्म का आरोप
भगवान सिंह पर फरवरी 2013 में दुष्कर्म का आरोप लगा था। मामला कोर्ट में विचाराधीन है और भगवान को जमानत पर रिहा कर दिया है। मामले में पेच यह है कि अब शादी करते वक्त लड़की का कहना यह है कि उसने मां-बाप के दबाव में आकर यह आरोप लगाया था।
http://www.amarujala.com/news/states/madhya-pradesh/she-called-the-rape-accused-and-said-marry-me/
Sunday, 28 July 2013
Shinde daughter moves SC for change in divorce rules
Shinde daughter moves SC for change in divorce rules
Union Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde's daughter has set into motion a debate over the right of a woman to walk out of a traumatic marriage against her husband's will.
In a writ petition before the Supreme Court, Smriti Shinde has challenged the constitutional validity of a provision in the Hindu Marriage Act which, according to her, permits a man to " defeat the right" of his wife to seek divorce by withholding his consent.
A bench presided over by Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre on Smriti's petition in which she contended that the provision was violating the rights of women under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Pointing out that gender justice could not be achieved by treating unequals as equals, she submitted that the government was bound to make special provisions for women. A woman should not be compelled to obtain her husband's consent to maintain a petition for divorce initially filed with mutual consent, she argued.
Smriti, whose attempt to seek divorce by mutual consent was frustrated with her husband changing his mind, contended that law should not compel a woman to remain bound to a marriage even if she was emotionally and mentally unable to cope up with it.
She said a woman in the Indian sociocultural milieu would go for divorce only when continuance in marriage would be more traumatic than the consequences of being a divorcee. She has also attempted to revive the demand for having ' irretrievable breakdown of marriage' as a ground for dissolving marriages.
The Supreme Court, while deciding a divorce case in 2006, had also asked the government to seriously consider an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act to include irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for grant of divorce.
The government, however, had probably decided against any change in the existing provision for divorce.
Smriti got married in 1993 and has two children. She has been living separately from her husband since January 2005. The couple filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent in May 2007 and the family court granted a divorce in 2007. But the husband never turned up before the court.
The Bombay High Court set aside the decree of divorce holding that nonappearance of the husband showed that his consent did not continue. The Supreme Court was also of the same view and dismissed an appeal by her.
Union Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde's daughter has set into motion a debate over the right of a woman to walk out of a traumatic marriage against her husband's will.
In a writ petition before the Supreme Court, Smriti Shinde has challenged the constitutional validity of a provision in the Hindu Marriage Act which, according to her, permits a man to " defeat the right" of his wife to seek divorce by withholding his consent.
A bench presided over by Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre on Smriti's petition in which she contended that the provision was violating the rights of women under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Pointing out that gender justice could not be achieved by treating unequals as equals, she submitted that the government was bound to make special provisions for women. A woman should not be compelled to obtain her husband's consent to maintain a petition for divorce initially filed with mutual consent, she argued.
Smriti, whose attempt to seek divorce by mutual consent was frustrated with her husband changing his mind, contended that law should not compel a woman to remain bound to a marriage even if she was emotionally and mentally unable to cope up with it.
She said a woman in the Indian sociocultural milieu would go for divorce only when continuance in marriage would be more traumatic than the consequences of being a divorcee. She has also attempted to revive the demand for having ' irretrievable breakdown of marriage' as a ground for dissolving marriages.
The Supreme Court, while deciding a divorce case in 2006, had also asked the government to seriously consider an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act to include irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for grant of divorce.
The government, however, had probably decided against any change in the existing provision for divorce.
Smriti got married in 1993 and has two children. She has been living separately from her husband since January 2005. The couple filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent in May 2007 and the family court granted a divorce in 2007. But the husband never turned up before the court.
The Bombay High Court set aside the decree of divorce holding that nonappearance of the husband showed that his consent did not continue. The Supreme Court was also of the same view and dismissed an appeal by her.
Tuesday, 9 July 2013
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
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
Former Andhra minister arrested in dowry harassment case
Former Andhra minister arrested in dowry harassment case
HYDERABAD: The Central Crime Station (CCS) sleuths on Monday arrested Cantonment MLA P Shankar Rao and booked him in a dowry harassment case following a complaint from his daughter-in-law Vishnu Priya. The former minister was arrested from his Musheerabad residence around 4.30 pm and cases under sections 195-A (threatening any person to give false evidence) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC were registered against him.
Shankar Rao had secured an anticipatory bail in an earlier complaint lodged by his daughter-in-law but the arrest took place based on a fresh complaint by her 15 days ago stating that he was forcing her to withdraw her earlier complaint.
CCS DCP LKV Ranga Rao said Vishnu Priya lodged the fresh complaint with the women police station of the CCS in the third week of June this year alleging that Shankar Rao has been threatening her to change the statement she has given in a dowry harassment case booked against him and his family members.
While he was being brought to the CCS women police station, the MLA told the police that he was feeling sick and after arriving at the police station premises, he fainted. The police immediately shifted him to Osmania General Hospital for medical treatment. "Based on the doctor's advice, we will take a call on when to produce the MLA before the court," the DCP said.
Vishnu Priya was married to Shankar Rao's son Shashank in 2005. A year ago, Vishnu Priya lodged a complaint against her husband Shashank, father-in-law Shankar Rao, mother-in-law Vishwa Shanti and sister-in-law Sushmita alleging that they were harassing her for dowry following which a case under section 498-A (subjecting a married woman to cruelty) was booked against all of them.
However, Vishnu Priya approached the AP High Court a month ago alleging that the police are not investigating the case properly. Following this, the MLA and his son, who already obtained anticipatory bail from a local court, surrendered before the CCS officials on June 19 and were let off on bail.
After this incident, the MLA is alleged to have threatened Vishnu Priya to change her statement in the dowry harassment case following which she lodged the fresh complaint with the CCS police. When the cops came to arrest Shankar Rao, his daughter Sushmita obstructed them upon which Musheerabad police took her into custody under section 151 of the CrPC. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Former-Andhra-minister-arrested-in-dowry-harassment-case/articleshow/20980792.cms
HYDERABAD: The Central Crime Station (CCS) sleuths on Monday arrested Cantonment MLA P Shankar Rao and booked him in a dowry harassment case following a complaint from his daughter-in-law Vishnu Priya. The former minister was arrested from his Musheerabad residence around 4.30 pm and cases under sections 195-A (threatening any person to give false evidence) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC were registered against him.
Shankar Rao had secured an anticipatory bail in an earlier complaint lodged by his daughter-in-law but the arrest took place based on a fresh complaint by her 15 days ago stating that he was forcing her to withdraw her earlier complaint.
CCS DCP LKV Ranga Rao said Vishnu Priya lodged the fresh complaint with the women police station of the CCS in the third week of June this year alleging that Shankar Rao has been threatening her to change the statement she has given in a dowry harassment case booked against him and his family members.
While he was being brought to the CCS women police station, the MLA told the police that he was feeling sick and after arriving at the police station premises, he fainted. The police immediately shifted him to Osmania General Hospital for medical treatment. "Based on the doctor's advice, we will take a call on when to produce the MLA before the court," the DCP said.
Vishnu Priya was married to Shankar Rao's son Shashank in 2005. A year ago, Vishnu Priya lodged a complaint against her husband Shashank, father-in-law Shankar Rao, mother-in-law Vishwa Shanti and sister-in-law Sushmita alleging that they were harassing her for dowry following which a case under section 498-A (subjecting a married woman to cruelty) was booked against all of them.
However, Vishnu Priya approached the AP High Court a month ago alleging that the police are not investigating the case properly. Following this, the MLA and his son, who already obtained anticipatory bail from a local court, surrendered before the CCS officials on June 19 and were let off on bail.
After this incident, the MLA is alleged to have threatened Vishnu Priya to change her statement in the dowry harassment case following which she lodged the fresh complaint with the CCS police. When the cops came to arrest Shankar Rao, his daughter Sushmita obstructed them upon which Musheerabad police took her into custody under section 151 of the CrPC. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Former-Andhra-minister-arrested-in-dowry-harassment-case/articleshow/20980792.cms
जज साहब, मुझे बीवी से बचाओ
जज साहब, मुझे बीवी से बचाओ
नई दिल्ली, पवन कुमार। जज साहब, जब से शादी हुई है सकून की जिंदगी नसीब नहीं हुई। विवाह के बाद से ही पत्नी व ससुराल वालों द्वारा मारपीट व व गाली-गलौज की जा रही है। जिससे मेरी जिंदगी नरक बन गई है। पत्नी के व्यवहार में बदलाव की उम्मीद करते-करते 23 साल बीत गए, मगर अब मुझसे सहा नहीं जाता। मुझे पत्नी से तलाक दिलवाया जाए। यह मजमून है एक 50 वर्षीय अधेड़ व्यक्ति द्वारा पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट में दायर याचिका का। व्यक्ति ने क्रूरता के आधार पर अपनी पत्नी से विवाह के 23 साल बाद तलाक की मांग की है।
उत्तर प्रदेश के बुलंदशहर स्थित एक स्कूल में अध्यापक 50 वर्षीय राजेंद्र (परिवर्तित नाम) ने अपनी 47 वर्षीय पत्नी कांता (परिवर्तित नाम) से तलाक की मांग करते हुए अपने अधिवक्ता एनके सिंह भदौरिया व मनीष भदौरिया के माध्यम से पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट में एक याचिका दायर की है। याचिकाकर्ता का कहना है कि उसकी शादी कांता से 13 दिसंबर, 1990 को दिल्ली में तालकटोरा क्षेत्र में हुई थी। उसके ससुर रिटायर्ड लेफ्टिनेंट कर्नल हैं और साला मेजर है। विवाह के बाद उनके एक बेटा और दो बेटी हुईं। विवाह के बाद से ही उसकी वैवाहिक जिंदगी में उसके ससुराल वालों का दखल शुरू हो गया। जिससे उसकी पत्नी का उसके प्रति व्यवहार क्रूर होता चला गया। उसकी पत्नी ने 23 सालों में करीब आधा दर्जन बार घर से निकलने को मजबूर किया। राजेंद्र ने बताया कि उसकी पत्नी उसे दिन-रात गालियां देती है। बिना गालियों के उसकी बातचीत ही शुरू नहीं होती। अक्सर उसके साथ मारपीट भी की जाती है। वह विरोध करता है तो उस पर पुलिस में मुकदमा दर्ज कराने की धमकी दी जाती है। वह अपनी पत्नी के इस व्यवहार से तंग आ चुका है। कांता अपने सास-ससुर से मिलने भी नहीं जाती और न ही बच्चों को वहां पर भेजती है। पत्नी के व्यवहार से तंग आकर वह पिछले 15 महीनों से बुलंदशहर में अलग रह रहा है। इस दौरान पत्नी ने उसे बच्चों से भी मिलने नहीं दिया। अब वह अपनी पत्नी के साथ विवाह के कानूनी बंधन में बंधकर नहीं रह सकता। लिहाजा, उसे पत्नी से तलाक दिलाया जाए।
http://www.jagran.com/news/national-please-save-me-from-my-wife-10541189.html
नई दिल्ली, पवन कुमार। जज साहब, जब से शादी हुई है सकून की जिंदगी नसीब नहीं हुई। विवाह के बाद से ही पत्नी व ससुराल वालों द्वारा मारपीट व व गाली-गलौज की जा रही है। जिससे मेरी जिंदगी नरक बन गई है। पत्नी के व्यवहार में बदलाव की उम्मीद करते-करते 23 साल बीत गए, मगर अब मुझसे सहा नहीं जाता। मुझे पत्नी से तलाक दिलवाया जाए। यह मजमून है एक 50 वर्षीय अधेड़ व्यक्ति द्वारा पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट में दायर याचिका का। व्यक्ति ने क्रूरता के आधार पर अपनी पत्नी से विवाह के 23 साल बाद तलाक की मांग की है।
उत्तर प्रदेश के बुलंदशहर स्थित एक स्कूल में अध्यापक 50 वर्षीय राजेंद्र (परिवर्तित नाम) ने अपनी 47 वर्षीय पत्नी कांता (परिवर्तित नाम) से तलाक की मांग करते हुए अपने अधिवक्ता एनके सिंह भदौरिया व मनीष भदौरिया के माध्यम से पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट में एक याचिका दायर की है। याचिकाकर्ता का कहना है कि उसकी शादी कांता से 13 दिसंबर, 1990 को दिल्ली में तालकटोरा क्षेत्र में हुई थी। उसके ससुर रिटायर्ड लेफ्टिनेंट कर्नल हैं और साला मेजर है। विवाह के बाद उनके एक बेटा और दो बेटी हुईं। विवाह के बाद से ही उसकी वैवाहिक जिंदगी में उसके ससुराल वालों का दखल शुरू हो गया। जिससे उसकी पत्नी का उसके प्रति व्यवहार क्रूर होता चला गया। उसकी पत्नी ने 23 सालों में करीब आधा दर्जन बार घर से निकलने को मजबूर किया। राजेंद्र ने बताया कि उसकी पत्नी उसे दिन-रात गालियां देती है। बिना गालियों के उसकी बातचीत ही शुरू नहीं होती। अक्सर उसके साथ मारपीट भी की जाती है। वह विरोध करता है तो उस पर पुलिस में मुकदमा दर्ज कराने की धमकी दी जाती है। वह अपनी पत्नी के इस व्यवहार से तंग आ चुका है। कांता अपने सास-ससुर से मिलने भी नहीं जाती और न ही बच्चों को वहां पर भेजती है। पत्नी के व्यवहार से तंग आकर वह पिछले 15 महीनों से बुलंदशहर में अलग रह रहा है। इस दौरान पत्नी ने उसे बच्चों से भी मिलने नहीं दिया। अब वह अपनी पत्नी के साथ विवाह के कानूनी बंधन में बंधकर नहीं रह सकता। लिहाजा, उसे पत्नी से तलाक दिलाया जाए।
http://www.jagran.com/news/national-please-save-me-from-my-wife-10541189.html
Monday, 8 July 2013
Missing activist's bones found, wife killed him
Missing activist's bones found, wife killed him
NEW DELHI: Six months after a social activist and local communist leader from Bawana in north Delhi went missing under mysterious circumstances, the crime branch has disclosed that he was murdered by his wife and her brothers-in-law.
The cops have recovered the skeleton and other remnants of Ramcharan Ram (60) and arrested his wife Janki Devi (45) and her brother-in-law Vinod Kumar (35). Cops are still looking for another accused, Jhagru, who is also Janki's brother-in-law. Vinod and Jhagru are self styled godmen.
Janki was afraid of losing the property as Ram was having an affair, police said, adding that her brothers-in-law were enraged after the leader brutally thrashed his wife.
The case was cracked after the special operation squad (SOS) of crime branch received a tip-off that the missing leader may have been murdered and buried by his wife and brothers-in-law. The informer said that the accused were trying to flee to Bihar. "Immediately, a team led by ACP Suresh Kaushik and inspector Ashok Kumar was formed to arrest the accused," said additional CP Ravindra Yadav said.
The SOS team apprehended Janki and Vinod, who were packing their bags, from their house in Bawana. During questioning, both tried to mislead the police team but broke down under sustained interrogation and confessed to have murdered Ram.
The accused revealed that Ram sold one of his houses for around Rs 7 lakh and purchased another house for Rs 4 lakh. Janki said Ram had developed an illicit relation with a woman in the area and had spent the remaining amount received from the sale of the house on her.
This led to frequent quarrels between the couple and Ram often beat her up, Janki claimed. They had a big fight when Janki caught him trying to take away property documents of the house with intentions of transferring it on the woman's name.
In December 2012, she shared her problem with Vinod and Jhagru, who assured to help her. For two weeks before the murder, the accused held Ram captive in a room on the first floor of his house. They told the neighbours that he had gone to his native village.
On the New Year's Eve, they made Ram consume a lot of alcohol but he did not get drunk enough. The next day, they made him drink more alcohol until he was extremely inebriated and then Jhagru smothered Ram with a pillow while Vinod and Janki pinned down his hands, police said.
That night, they could not dispose of the body. Next evening, when there was dense fog, they put the body in a gunny bag and took it to a nearby isolated field and buried it in a pit. Yadav said they had recovered the skeleton and remnants of the body on the instance of the accused with the help of a mobile crime team and forensic experts. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Missing-activists-bones-found-wife-killed-him/articleshow/20963903.cms
NEW DELHI: Six months after a social activist and local communist leader from Bawana in north Delhi went missing under mysterious circumstances, the crime branch has disclosed that he was murdered by his wife and her brothers-in-law.
The cops have recovered the skeleton and other remnants of Ramcharan Ram (60) and arrested his wife Janki Devi (45) and her brother-in-law Vinod Kumar (35). Cops are still looking for another accused, Jhagru, who is also Janki's brother-in-law. Vinod and Jhagru are self styled godmen.
Janki was afraid of losing the property as Ram was having an affair, police said, adding that her brothers-in-law were enraged after the leader brutally thrashed his wife.
The case was cracked after the special operation squad (SOS) of crime branch received a tip-off that the missing leader may have been murdered and buried by his wife and brothers-in-law. The informer said that the accused were trying to flee to Bihar. "Immediately, a team led by ACP Suresh Kaushik and inspector Ashok Kumar was formed to arrest the accused," said additional CP Ravindra Yadav said.
The SOS team apprehended Janki and Vinod, who were packing their bags, from their house in Bawana. During questioning, both tried to mislead the police team but broke down under sustained interrogation and confessed to have murdered Ram.
The accused revealed that Ram sold one of his houses for around Rs 7 lakh and purchased another house for Rs 4 lakh. Janki said Ram had developed an illicit relation with a woman in the area and had spent the remaining amount received from the sale of the house on her.
This led to frequent quarrels between the couple and Ram often beat her up, Janki claimed. They had a big fight when Janki caught him trying to take away property documents of the house with intentions of transferring it on the woman's name.
In December 2012, she shared her problem with Vinod and Jhagru, who assured to help her. For two weeks before the murder, the accused held Ram captive in a room on the first floor of his house. They told the neighbours that he had gone to his native village.
On the New Year's Eve, they made Ram consume a lot of alcohol but he did not get drunk enough. The next day, they made him drink more alcohol until he was extremely inebriated and then Jhagru smothered Ram with a pillow while Vinod and Janki pinned down his hands, police said.
That night, they could not dispose of the body. Next evening, when there was dense fog, they put the body in a gunny bag and took it to a nearby isolated field and buried it in a pit. Yadav said they had recovered the skeleton and remnants of the body on the instance of the accused with the help of a mobile crime team and forensic experts. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Missing-activists-bones-found-wife-killed-him/articleshow/20963903.cms
Women named in dowry harassment jump before train
Women named in dowry harassment jump before train
JAIPUR: Depressed over a case of dowry harassment lodged against them, a
woman and her 30-year-old daughter committed suicide by jumping before a
train in Bikaner on Saturday. The case had been registered by the
woman's daughter-in-law last month.
According to the police, the victims, Kiran Puri, a widow (54) and her daughter Gitika (30) were residents of Pawanpuri area.
"Kiran's son had a dispute with his wife. After which the wife accused him, Kiran and Gitika of dowry harassment. They claimed that they were innocent and were being harassed," said a police officer.
After lodging the FIR last month, the police arrested the husband, his mother Kiran and his sister Gitika. "While the man was sent to judicial custody, Kiran and Gitika were released on bail," said the officer.
On Saturday, Kiran and Gitika went to the railway tracks near Vyas Colony in Bikaner around 4am and jumped before a train. While Kiran died on the spot, Gitika was rushed to hospital in critical condition. She also succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.
"We have launched an investigation whether the two women were harassed," said the officer.
According to the police, the victims, Kiran Puri, a widow (54) and her daughter Gitika (30) were residents of Pawanpuri area.
"Kiran's son had a dispute with his wife. After which the wife accused him, Kiran and Gitika of dowry harassment. They claimed that they were innocent and were being harassed," said a police officer.
After lodging the FIR last month, the police arrested the husband, his mother Kiran and his sister Gitika. "While the man was sent to judicial custody, Kiran and Gitika were released on bail," said the officer.
On Saturday, Kiran and Gitika went to the railway tracks near Vyas Colony in Bikaner around 4am and jumped before a train. While Kiran died on the spot, Gitika was rushed to hospital in critical condition. She also succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.
"We have launched an investigation whether the two women were harassed," said the officer.
Saturday, 6 July 2013
What India’s New ‘Anti-Rape’ Bill Actually Says
What India’s New ‘Anti-Rape’ Bill Actually Says
NEW DELHI–After clearing the Lok Sabha or lower house of Parliament earlier this week, a bill to toughen India’s laws on sexual offenses is being debated in the upper house on Thursday.
The bill, which will amend India’s penal code and laws of criminal procedure and evidence, was drafted in response to widespread street protests after the fatal gang rape of a 23-year-old woman in Delhi in December.
Among the significant provisions of the bill, seen by India Ink, are longer sentences for sex offenders, a broader definition of rape and punishments for other sex crimes like stalking and voyeurism.
Here are some of the bill’s crucial changes:
– Women’s rights advocates and victims of sexual offenses have long accused a male-dominated police force of refusing to register complaints by women, and even facilitating a monetary settlement or brokering a marriage between victims of rape and the accused.
The bill lays down punishment for police officers who fail to record the initial complaint, known as the first information report, of a woman who alleges she was attacked with acid, assaulted by a man who intended to molest her or “outrage her modesty,” stripped naked or raped. Such officers can receive jail terms of six months to two years.
– The bill creates a separate offense to address acid attacks, common in South Asian countries, especially by men who are spurned by women they express an interest in.
Under the bill, those convicted of throwing acid on a woman, causing “permanent or partial damage or deformity,” or maiming or disfiguring her, will be punished with prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life and a fine.
With an eye to the rehabilitation of the victim, the bill says the fine should be paid to the woman as compensation.
– The bill defines sexual harassment, which includes “physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures,” a demand for sexual favors and showing pornography to a woman who does not want to see it. Those convicted of harassment can receive prison sentences of up to three years.
Making “sexually colored” remarks is also included in the definition of sexual harassment, for which the bill prescribes a prison sentence of up to a year.
– The bill criminalizes the forced stripping of women, or disrobing, in public spaces or in private confines, with a minimum jail term of three years and a maximum of seven. Under the current law, disrobing a woman is not a separate offense.
– One of the more controversial provisions in the bill is the section on voyeurism, which seeks to punish men who watch or photograph women who are conducting a “private act,” such as bathing, using the toilet or having sex.
The bill lays down a punishment of three to seven years in prison for those convicted of voyeurism more than once.
Voyeurism is not a separate offense under the current law.
– The bill creates another new, and much-debated, offense: stalking. This provision deals with men who follow a woman and establish contact with her or attempt to do so “to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest” by the woman.
E-stalking, or monitoring of a woman’s activities online, such as browsing or checking of e-mail, has also been made punishable.
A man convicted of stalking once can be sentenced to a term of up to three years, and if convicted again can receive a sentence of up to five years.
– The bill expands the definition of rape to include not just penovaginal intercourse but the insertion of an object or any other body part into a woman’s vagina, urethra or anus, and oral sex.
This responds to a longstanding demand of women’s rights groups. The issue of rape by different means was highlighted in the Delhi gang-rape case, where an iron rod was inserted into the young woman’s body.
Prison sentences for rape can range from seven years to life. The current law allows courts to hand down a sentence of less than seven years for “adequate and special reasons,” a provision omitted in the bill.
– The bill raises the age of consent for sex to 18. This means that intercourse with a woman under 18 is statutory rape and courts conducting rape trials cannot consider whether the woman consented to having sex. It also, in effect, criminalizes consensual sex with women under 18, a subject of much controversy.
– The bill does not make marital rape an offense, ignoring a longstanding demand of women’s rights advocates.
– The bill takes a tough stand on rape by public servants. Under the current law, when a rape is committed by a police officer or prison staff, those convicted can be punished with sentences ranging from 10 years to life.
The bill clarifies that imprisonment for life means the convict must remain in prison till the end of his natural life.
The bill also allows women to bring a complaint of rape against members of the armed forces.
– When a rape leaves a woman dead or in a “persistent vegetative state,” the bill demands a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum punishment of death. This is the first time that the death penalty is being prescribed for sexual offenses in India, which, unlike nearly all European nations, retains the death sentence, but uses it only in the “rarest of rare cases.”
– The bill increases the minimum punishment for gang rape from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years, and the maximum punishment to life imprisonment.
– The bill provides for life imprisonment or death for repeat offenders convicted of rape and gang rape.
– The bill makes procedural changes to address concerns that women are uncomfortable or intimidated by male police officers, or are treated with insensitivity when they approach police stations to register complaints of sex crimes.
The bill requires that all initial reports involving sexual harassment, disrobing, voyeurism, stalking, rape and gang rape be taken by women officers only.
– In order to ensure speedy trial, the bill requires that rape trials be completed “as far as possible” within two months from the time the police file charges against the accused.
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/what-indias-anti-rape-bill-actually-says/
NEW DELHI–After clearing the Lok Sabha or lower house of Parliament earlier this week, a bill to toughen India’s laws on sexual offenses is being debated in the upper house on Thursday.
The bill, which will amend India’s penal code and laws of criminal procedure and evidence, was drafted in response to widespread street protests after the fatal gang rape of a 23-year-old woman in Delhi in December.
Among the significant provisions of the bill, seen by India Ink, are longer sentences for sex offenders, a broader definition of rape and punishments for other sex crimes like stalking and voyeurism.
Here are some of the bill’s crucial changes:
– Women’s rights advocates and victims of sexual offenses have long accused a male-dominated police force of refusing to register complaints by women, and even facilitating a monetary settlement or brokering a marriage between victims of rape and the accused.
The bill lays down punishment for police officers who fail to record the initial complaint, known as the first information report, of a woman who alleges she was attacked with acid, assaulted by a man who intended to molest her or “outrage her modesty,” stripped naked or raped. Such officers can receive jail terms of six months to two years.
– The bill creates a separate offense to address acid attacks, common in South Asian countries, especially by men who are spurned by women they express an interest in.
Under the bill, those convicted of throwing acid on a woman, causing “permanent or partial damage or deformity,” or maiming or disfiguring her, will be punished with prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life and a fine.
With an eye to the rehabilitation of the victim, the bill says the fine should be paid to the woman as compensation.
– The bill defines sexual harassment, which includes “physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures,” a demand for sexual favors and showing pornography to a woman who does not want to see it. Those convicted of harassment can receive prison sentences of up to three years.
Making “sexually colored” remarks is also included in the definition of sexual harassment, for which the bill prescribes a prison sentence of up to a year.
– The bill criminalizes the forced stripping of women, or disrobing, in public spaces or in private confines, with a minimum jail term of three years and a maximum of seven. Under the current law, disrobing a woman is not a separate offense.
– One of the more controversial provisions in the bill is the section on voyeurism, which seeks to punish men who watch or photograph women who are conducting a “private act,” such as bathing, using the toilet or having sex.
The bill lays down a punishment of three to seven years in prison for those convicted of voyeurism more than once.
Voyeurism is not a separate offense under the current law.
– The bill creates another new, and much-debated, offense: stalking. This provision deals with men who follow a woman and establish contact with her or attempt to do so “to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest” by the woman.
E-stalking, or monitoring of a woman’s activities online, such as browsing or checking of e-mail, has also been made punishable.
A man convicted of stalking once can be sentenced to a term of up to three years, and if convicted again can receive a sentence of up to five years.
– The bill expands the definition of rape to include not just penovaginal intercourse but the insertion of an object or any other body part into a woman’s vagina, urethra or anus, and oral sex.
This responds to a longstanding demand of women’s rights groups. The issue of rape by different means was highlighted in the Delhi gang-rape case, where an iron rod was inserted into the young woman’s body.
Prison sentences for rape can range from seven years to life. The current law allows courts to hand down a sentence of less than seven years for “adequate and special reasons,” a provision omitted in the bill.
– The bill raises the age of consent for sex to 18. This means that intercourse with a woman under 18 is statutory rape and courts conducting rape trials cannot consider whether the woman consented to having sex. It also, in effect, criminalizes consensual sex with women under 18, a subject of much controversy.
– The bill does not make marital rape an offense, ignoring a longstanding demand of women’s rights advocates.
– The bill takes a tough stand on rape by public servants. Under the current law, when a rape is committed by a police officer or prison staff, those convicted can be punished with sentences ranging from 10 years to life.
The bill clarifies that imprisonment for life means the convict must remain in prison till the end of his natural life.
The bill also allows women to bring a complaint of rape against members of the armed forces.
– When a rape leaves a woman dead or in a “persistent vegetative state,” the bill demands a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum punishment of death. This is the first time that the death penalty is being prescribed for sexual offenses in India, which, unlike nearly all European nations, retains the death sentence, but uses it only in the “rarest of rare cases.”
– The bill increases the minimum punishment for gang rape from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years, and the maximum punishment to life imprisonment.
– The bill provides for life imprisonment or death for repeat offenders convicted of rape and gang rape.
– The bill makes procedural changes to address concerns that women are uncomfortable or intimidated by male police officers, or are treated with insensitivity when they approach police stations to register complaints of sex crimes.
The bill requires that all initial reports involving sexual harassment, disrobing, voyeurism, stalking, rape and gang rape be taken by women officers only.
– In order to ensure speedy trial, the bill requires that rape trials be completed “as far as possible” within two months from the time the police file charges against the accused.
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/what-indias-anti-rape-bill-actually-says/
Friday, 5 July 2013
SC cautions on slapping murder charge in dowry death case
SC cautions on slapping murder charge in dowry death case
HDFC Bank’s 30 year home loan
New Delhi, July 4: In dowry death cases, the trial courts should not
mechanically frame a murder charge against the accused unless there is
prima facie evidence supporting the finding, the Supreme Court has said.
"The question whether it is murder punishable under Section 302 IPC or a
dowry death punishable under Section 304B IPC depends upon the fact,
situation and the evidence in the case," said the apex court bench of
Justice TS Thakur and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai in a recent
judgment.
"If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial to prima facie
support a charge under Section 302 IPC, the trial court can and indeed
ought to frame a charge of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC,
which would then be the main charge and not an alternative charge as is
erroneously assumed in some quarters," said Justice Thakur pronouncing
the judgment.
If the main charge of murder was not proved against the accused at the
trial, the court could look into the evidence to determine whether the
alternative charge of dowry death punishable under Section 304B was
established, the apex court said.
The ingredients constituting the two offences were different, thereby
demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective relevant to such
ingredients, the bench said.
A charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not a
substitute for a charge of murder punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC, the court said.
The court said this while clarifying its earlier order of Nov 22, 2010,
which was being "mechanically" read to invoke the charge of murder in
every dowry death case.
The apex court by its interim order had directed all trial courts to
ordinarily add Section 302 of the IPC to the charge under Section 304B
"so that death sentences could be imposed in such heinous and barbaric
crimes against women".
Setting aside a Delhi High Court order upholding the addition of murder
charges by the trial court in pursuance to the apex court's Nov 22,
2010, interim order, Justice Thakur and Justice Desai said: "That was
not, in our opinion, the true purport of the order passed by this
court."
Clarifying the Nov 22, 2010, interim order, the apex court said: "The
direction was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due
regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case."
"All that this court meant to say was that in a case where a charge
alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 can also be
framed if the evidence otherwise permits," the judgment said.
It is common ground that a charge under Section 304B IPC is not a
substitute for a charge of murder punishable under Section 302.
The court said this while addressing the question whether the high court
was justified in affirming the trial court decision to add murder
charge against Jasvinder Saini and others who were under penal
provisions for punishment for cruelty against woman by her husband and
his relatives, dowry death and criminal breach of trust.
Initially while framing the charges, the trial court did not find any
evidence to invoke the murder charge but added it after the apex court's
Nov 22, 2010, interim order.
Saini and his relatives were named as accused in the case of his wife
Chandni's death under unnatural circumstance.
http://www.samachar.com/SC-cautions-on-slapping-murder-charge-in-dowry-death-case-nheuM3hdbbj.html
http://www.samachar.com/SC-cautions-on-slapping-murder-charge-in-dowry-death-case-nheuM3hdbbj.html
Wives Are Cheating 40% More Than They Used to, but Still Half as Much as Men
Wives Are Cheating 40% More Than They Used to, but Still Half as Much as Men
According to recent data from the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, American wives were nearly 40 percent more likely to be cheating on their spouses in 2010 than in 1990. The number of husbands reporting infidelity, meanwhile, stayed constant at 21 percent. Could women soon be catching up with male indiscretions in the world of infidelity? Yanyi Djamba, director of the AUM Center for Demographic Research, certainly seems to think so, telling Bloomberg that "the gender gap is closing" and explaining that men have been more likely to blame adultery on an unhappy marriage.
RELATED: One in Ten Europeans Were Conceived in IKEA Beds
What could be driving the rise of female cheating? Explanations abound, ranging from women's increased economic independence over the past several decades (women "can afford the potential consequences of an affair, with higher incomes and more job prospects," argued one sociologist) to cultural shifts to the Internet (including but not limited to dating and extramarital meetup sites). The user data for one such service, Ashley Madison, more or less confirms the data, at least in terms of age brackets:
http://news.yahoo.com/wives-cheating-40-more-used-still-half-much-193141903.html
According to recent data from the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, American wives were nearly 40 percent more likely to be cheating on their spouses in 2010 than in 1990. The number of husbands reporting infidelity, meanwhile, stayed constant at 21 percent. Could women soon be catching up with male indiscretions in the world of infidelity? Yanyi Djamba, director of the AUM Center for Demographic Research, certainly seems to think so, telling Bloomberg that "the gender gap is closing" and explaining that men have been more likely to blame adultery on an unhappy marriage.
RELATED: One in Ten Europeans Were Conceived in IKEA Beds
What could be driving the rise of female cheating? Explanations abound, ranging from women's increased economic independence over the past several decades (women "can afford the potential consequences of an affair, with higher incomes and more job prospects," argued one sociologist) to cultural shifts to the Internet (including but not limited to dating and extramarital meetup sites). The user data for one such service, Ashley Madison, more or less confirms the data, at least in terms of age brackets:
The ratio of males to females is greatest among users older than 65, with 14 men for every woman. The ratio is 4-to-1 among users in their 50s, 3-to-1 for spouses in their 40s, and evenly divided among people using Ashley Madison in their 30s.But there's no word on whether or not the NORC survey contains data on same-sex marriages — which, of course, did not exist in the '80s — and how the patterns may change as more and more gay couples are legally able to <strike>commit adultery</strike> get married. What we do know is that executives and managers are more likely to cheat than any other career, supporting the notion that wealth and power plays a role in encouraging infidelity — but then was that ever really in doubt?
http://news.yahoo.com/wives-cheating-40-more-used-still-half-much-193141903.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)