Sunday, December 26, 2010

Policemen in dock for implicating four in false robbery case

Policemen in dock for implicating four in false robbery case

New Delhi, Dec 26 (PTI) A Delhi court has filed a complaint against four police personnel, including an inspector, and others for implicating four men in a false robbery case saying it involved serious constitutional and human rights violations.
Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau also issued notice to the Delhi government seeking its response as to why compensation should not be provided to the four men who were acquitted in the case.
The court also expressed its concern over the manner in which police officers acted to implicate the accused.
"Serious constitutional and human right violations have been observed by this court in the present case. None of the accused before this court who all come from very poor families, have any previous criminal record. They have suffered detention and trial for an offence they have never committed," the court said.
It acquitted Dalip Kumar, Deepak, Ravinder and Vikas, who were accused of robbing Nitin, the complainant, of his wallet and a mobile phone at knife point on January nine this year at Jahangirpuri here.
The court expressed surprise after Nitin deposed before it during the trial that no incident of robbery had taken place.
He testified that he went to the police station on instruction of his employer- property dealers Kuldeep Soni, Deepak Soni and Vishwajeet-- where constable Sajjan Singh, head constable Dalip, assistant sub inspector Umed Singh and inspector SB Yadav allegedly made him sign some blank sheets.
The complainant also did not identify any of the accusedduring the trial.
The court, which directed an inquiry into the matter by Delhi police''s Crime Branch, was shocked after being told that Nitin was complainant in another FIR bearing No 205/10 dated June 16, 2010 with the same sort of allegations.
Likewise, the court was further told that Kuldeep, Deepak and Vishwajeet were also complainants in different FIRs with similar sort of charges with Jahangirpuri police station.
"It is not the duty of the government to lodge false cases in order to book the suspected criminals. I may say that the officers of the State (Police) have failed to act in accordance with law and to perform the duties assigned to them.
"Initiating and instituting false criminal proceedings knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for the same is a serious offence. Registration of false cases against suspects is an impermissible method of crime control," the Judge said. .

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 Delhi Seminar of 11dec10 coverage-p7 news channel 20 dec 10 Delhi Seminar of 11dec10 coverage -p7 news channel 20 dec 10

Part 1/2



Part 2/2

(There is NO SOUND at 8.15min to 9.40min timeline duration in the telecasted programme )


Monday, December 20, 2010

Court puts woman, her kin on trial for falsely implicating 3 cops|Only a woman judge can pass such order that woman do lie,perjure,mislead and utter falsehood

A Delhi court has ordered prosecution of a woman, her husband and father-in-law for falsely charging three Haryana policemen with raping her at a police station six years ago.

ASJ Kamini Lau ordered criminal trial of the three Jahangirpuri residents, while absolving a police sub-inspector and two constables of the charges of abduction and rape of the woman. "A complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is being lodged under appropriate provisions of law against the girl, her husband and her father-in-law for the commission of offence of instituting criminal proceedings against the cops who were falsely charged," Lau said while acquitting the officials.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

498a seminar meet on 11th December 2010 covered by p7 news channel

p7 news channel programme covering the 498a seminar held in Delhi on 11th Deccember 2010.

The programme was interrupted due to direct telecast of Smt Sonia Gandhi’s speech of Congress Plenary meet at Burari Delhi.

Expect that it to would be retelecasted. This part has coverage of seminar along with bytes of Manoj singhal,Sanjay Mehra,Abhimanyu, Rishi Ahuja and Manish Mittal along with bytes of parents

The below is the approx minutes of the programme that was aired

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Supreme Court admits it erred, upholds commutation of death penalty

Supreme Court admits it erred, upholds commutation of death penalty

Supreme Court: a frank admission

New Delhi: In a rare instance, the Supreme Court has admitted that its earlier judgments, in one and the same case, upholding the death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court were a mistake and violation of human rights of the accused. The court in a second review upheld the Assam Governor's order commuting the punishment to life sentence.

A Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and A.K. Ganguly in a recent order said: “Instances of this court's judgment violating the human rights of the citizens may be extremely rare but it cannot be said that such a situation can never happen. On a review of the reasoning in the petition, we find that the finding in the judgment is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.”

Inalienable right

Writing the judgment, Justice Ganguly said: “Human rights are the basic, inherent, immutable and inalienable rights to which a person is entitled simply by virtue of his being born a human. They are such rights which are to be made available as a matter of right. The Constitution and legislation of a civilised country recognise them since they are so quintessentially part of every human being. That is why every democratic country committed to Rule of Law put into force mechanisms for their enforcement and protection.”

In the instant case, the Assam trial court held Ram Deo Chauhan alias Raj Nath Chauha guilty of murdering four members of a family in March 1992 and slapped the death penalty on him. This was confirmed by the Gauhati High Court and later by the Supreme Court in July 2000.

Review petition

In a review petition, the convict took the stand that he was a minor aged 16 at the time of the offence and the hence the death penalty could not have been awarded by the courts below.

A three-judge Bench by a majority of 2:1 rejected the review petition and again confirmed the death sentence. But Justice K.T. Thomas, in his minority judgment, felt that since there was a doubt whether Ram Deo was a minor or not when the offence was committed, it would be in the interest of justice to commute death to life imprisonment.

Later, acting on a an article written by Ved Kumari, Professor of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, the National Human Rights Commission headed by the former Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma felt that Justice Thomas' reasoning was the correct approach and recommended that the death sentence be commuted and the Governor accordingly did so.

However, on a writ petition, the Governor's order was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2009 holding that the NHRC had no jurisdiction to intervene in the matter.

Governor's order restored

Allowing the review petition against this order, the Bench said: “On a very careful consideration of this issue, this court thinks that in view of various questions of far-reaching importance having been raised in this second review, it may be a travesty of justice if this petition is dismissed. If a person has been guaranteed certain rights either under the Constitution or under an international covenant or under a law, and he is denied access to such a right, then it amounts to a clear violation of his human right and NHRC has the jurisdiction to intervene for protecting it. We are of the opinion that in doing so, NHRC acted within its jurisdiction.”

The Bench restored the Governor's order of commutation of the death sentence.

Eminent people dare SC to book them for contempt too

Eminent people dare SC to book them for contempt too

NEW DELHI: Twenty-five citizens, including eminent persons, on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court daring it to initiate contempt proceedings against them as they were expressing solidarity with advocates Prashant and Shanti Bhushan, who had alleged that eight of the 16 former Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt.

The applicants included RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal, social activist Aruna Roy, National Advisory Council (NAC) member Harsh Mander, former IIM Ahmedabad director-in-charge Prof Jagdeep S Chhokar, Magsaysay Award winner Rajendra Singh, former IFS officer and social activist Madhu Bhaduri, JNU's professor emeritus Amit Bhaduri, former West Bengal additional chief secretary Kalyani Chaudhuri and social activist Madhu Kishwar.

Others included professionals ranging from engineers, journalists, RTI activists, a major general and an educationist. Appearing for them, senior advocate Vikas Singh requested a Bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and H L Dattu that they be made parties in the contempt proceedings drawn against Prashant Bhushan for his views about corruption in judiciary published in a weekly magazine last year. With so many eminent persons seeking to be respondents in the case, the bench refused to take up the application.

पत्नी ने किया जज को जलाने का प्रयास

पत्नी ने किया जज को जलाने का प्रयास

रायपुर। छत्तीसगढ़ के कोरबा में एक जज को उनकी पत्नी ने पेट्रोल छिड़ककर जिंदा जलाने का प्रयास किया। जज की शिकायत पर पुलिस ने आरोपी पत्नी को गिरफ्तार कर लिया। मंगलवार को मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट के समक्ष आरोपी को पेश किया गया, जहां से उसे न्यायिक हिरासत में भेज दिया गया। बताया गया है कि कुछ समय से दोनों के संबंध ठीक नहीं चल रहे थे।

स्थानीय अदालत में न्यायिक दंडाधिकारी द्वितीय श्रेणी केपी सिंह भदौरिया ने पुलिस को बताया कि मंगलवार सुबह घर में उनकी पत्नी मन्नू ने उन [जज] पर पेट्रोल छिड़क दिया और माचिस लेकर उनकी ओर दौड़ीं। जज ने भागकर अपनी जान बचाई। कोरबा के पुलिस अधीक्षक रतन लाल डांगी ने बताया कि जज की शिकायत पर मुकदमा दर्ज कर मन्नू को गिरफ्तार कर लिया गया।

मन्नू ने बताया कि वह अपने पति से परेशान थी। उसने करीब आठ साल पहले अपने पति के खिलाफ दहेज प्रताड़ना का मामला दर्ज कराया था, लेकिन बाद में उनके बीच सुलह हो गई थी।

Put all new FIRs online: Delhi HC

Put all new FIRs online: Delhi HC

7th Dec 2010

NEW DELHI: In a major move towards transparency in police functioning, the high court has directed the Delhi Police to start uploading all First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in the city onto its website within 24 hours of filing. The police are required to implement the order from February 1, 2011.

The landmark order, passed by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan, said it's the duty of the police to provide information and the accused does not need to move court to get a copy of an FIR.

"Fair and impartial investigation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and presumption as regards the innocence of an accused is a right. Therefore, a person booked under criminal law has a right to know the nature of allegations so that he can take necessary steps to safeguard his liberty," the bench said.

Earlier, additional solicitor general A S Chandiok and amicus curie Arvind Nigam submitted their suggestions on the matter.
The counsel had said that recording of an FIR was an official act of a public official in discharge of his or her official duties and, therefore, it was a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The court said an accused was entitled to get a copy of the FIR earlier than what's prescribed under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (which says the FIR would be supplied through a magistrate's order after the accused moves court).

Monday, December 6, 2010

New-age couples take MoU path to break free

New-age couples take MoU path to break free

HYDERABAD: In a curious trend unfolding at the city family courts, new-age couples are citing seemingly contradictory clauses in their divorce petitions to break free from their unsuccessful marriages. This, say advocates, is increasingly being based on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the estranged spouses a few days before they approach the family court seeking legal intervention to end their marriage. "The MoUs are entered into with the sole purpose to catalysing a fast divorce," said a lawyer.

Often times under the MoU, the spouse filing the divorce petition is given a free hand to take refuge under any clause which will help the court declare their marriage as null and void. At the same time, the other partner chooses to remain unavailable for court proceedings thereby ensuring that a legal end to their marriage is pronounced at the earliest.

"By failing to turn up at the court for hearings, the other party shows his or her unwillingness to mend their marriage following which the court usually grants a legal separation without much delay," says P Sundaraiah, senior advocate at Hyderabad family court. A recent petition filed at this court had cited non-consummation of marriage and impotency of the partner as the grounds to declare the marriage null and void under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

"For a person to know the potency status of his or her partner, the marriage needs to be consummated first. But this seldom happens and the petitioners level two blatantly contradictory charges on their estranged spouse," says advocate Anita Jain of Secunderabad family court. While those filing it in agreement with their partners seldom face a problem, in many contested divorce cases, such contradictory charges have earned the petitioner a defamation suit. In one recent case, the husband of a woman seeking divorce on the ground of his impotency, filed a defamation case based on the medical report (which he came armed with to the court). Needless to say, the medical report dismissed charges of impotency levelled against him by his wife.
Reacting to such petitions, the courts often call for an independent medical test to verify the authenticity of the partner's claim. But on grounds of it being a sensitive matter, people often refuse to undergo the test, say advocates.
A section of the lawyers, however, reason in favour of pressing such charges in one petition in genuine cases. "Clubbing these two clauses together goes on to make the case stronger. Behavioural patterns are often an indication of the impotency of spouses, and claiming a marriage dissolution on grounds of non-consummation stand perfectly justified in such cases," says Nischala Siddha Reddy, advocate at Secunderabad family court.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Justice Dhingra aquits Mother in law of dowry death, slamming the trial court and public prosecutor for callousness. 'Criminal Justice System in India Needs Overhauling'

Justice Dhingra aquits Mother in law of dowry death, slamming the trial court and  public prosecutor for callousness. 'Criminal Justice System in India Needs Overhauling'

The Delhi High Court has said the justice delivery system needs overhauling as the poor are not getting timely justice in higher courts which are are kept occupied with cases involving persons with money or power.

"The whole criminal justice system needs overhauling so that the constitutional mandate of equality before law is made meaningful and it should not be the case that higher courts are kept occupied by the persons with money or power, as is the case today," the court said.

The court made the remarks while setting aside the conviction of a poor vegetable vendor who had to spend seven years in jail due to delay in disposing his appeal in the High Court.

The trial court had awarded seven years jail term to the vendor for allegedly killing his wife in 2003 and he filed an appeal in 2004 on which the High Court took six years to pass the verdict.

In the verdict, Justice S N Dhingra found him innocent and acquitted him but he had already spent his jail term.
"In this case, the High Court did not find time to hear the appeals of other two appellants who continued to remain in jail during trial period as well as appeal period for no crime of theirs," the court said adding the High Court should fix a time limit for disposing of such appeals.

"Neither the criminal should be let off by default as the High Court has no time to hear appeals nor should the innocents rot in jail by default," the court said.

The High Court pulled up the trial court for convicting the accused even though there were not sufficient evidence against him and merely on the basis of a statement made by his brother-in-laws.

"The conviction seems to be the result of a callous criminal justice system where neither the defence counsel prepared the case nor the prosecutor discharged his duty in an impartial manner nor did the judge consider it as his duty to see what offence was made out and everyone acted in a mechanical manner," the court said.

The court found that there was no evidence that the accused was harassing his wife for dowry leading to her death."The most disturbing factor is that no evidence, whatsoever, was collected by the police about the real facts. No effort was made by the public prosecutor or by the trial judge to even go through the evidence and consider what charges were made out. Charges seemed to have been framed in a mechanical manner," the court said.

In this case, the accused had married Janki in December, 2000 and she died within five months of her marriage.The court said that in such cases husband and in-laws should come forward to tell what was the real cause of death.

"The criminal practice in India has been on the lines of old track that accused must not speak and he should not be examined as a witness. I do not know why this practice developed but in all matrimonial offences, this practice is shutting the doors of the court to the version of the other side by their advocates," the court said.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Woman, paramour her brother booked for pushing husband to attempt suicide

Woman, paramour her brother booked for pushing husband to attempt suicide

December 02 2010

Gandhigram police in Rajkot city have booked a woman, her lover and her brother for allegedly threatening her husband and prompted him to attempt suicide two days ago.

The case has been registered on Wednesday after police and fire brigade teams saved the man from committing suicide on Tuesday.

The police said Pankaj Trivedi (33) had tried to jump off his terrace on the third floor of his residence at Shivshakti Colony on University Road.

The neighbours who spotted Trivedi had called up the police and fire brigade.

The police said Trivedi told them that he was mentally harassed and threatened by his wife Archana, whom he married six months ago.

He claimed Archana asked him to file a divorce case and claimed alimony. She reportedly threatened to slap a dowry case against him and his parents and book them under domestic violence Act.

“Based on the call details and SMS produced by Trivedi, the police have registered a case against Archana, her Jamnagar-based brother Harish Dave and her lover Anil Goswami,” said Gandhidham police.

The preliminary investigation revealed that Archana and two other accused have been threatening Trivedi and book him under dowry case, if he refused to give her divorce.

Trivedi said this was Archana’s third marriage and ever since their marriage in May 2010 she has been in constant touch with Goswami. He claimed Archana and Goswami were in a relationship for over five years and had got married to him only for alimony.

On Tuesday, Dave called Trivedi to kill him and Goswami had sent a SMS saying that they will book him and his family if he doesn’t listen to them.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

When private becomes public – Tapped private conversation made public

When private becomes public – Taped private conversation made public

Where does public interest begin and an individual's right to privacy end?

The question is being asked following the publication of transcripts of telephone conversations of lobbyist Niira Radia with certain politicians, corporate leaders and journalists. On Monday, Tata Group Chairman Ratan

Tata moved the Supreme Court to protect his right to privacy as his conversations with Radia, whose PR firm handles corporate communications for the Tatas, were splashed across at least two national magazines.

Right to privacy
In India, the right to privacy is not recognised as a separate constitutional right. However, in various judgments, the Supreme Court has held that the right to privacy is included in the fundamental right to life and personal liberty recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This right is not absolute and can be curtailed, but only "according to procedure established by law".

The Supreme Court has held that right to privacy extended to telephone calls as "conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential nature". Tapping telephones, thus, is a contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution, subject to certain exceptions, unless the procedure established by law is followed.

Case by case basis
However, whether the right to privacy has been violated in a particular case would depend on the facts of the individual case and there is no blanket law or provision that covers all such cases.

Commenting on the Tata case, senior advocate Harish Salve said: "The police have the right to secretly record my telephonic conversations for investigation of a crime. But that does not mean that you can put my private conversation with my wife on websites."

Investigation of crime
It is a well settled legal position that law enforcement agencies have the right to secretly record private conversations of individuals for crime prevention, detection and investigation, provided they do it in accordance with the procedures established by law.

In fact even Tata has not disputed this in his petition. What he has questioned is the leaking of the tapes of the "private" conversations he had with Radia on the ground of violation of his right to privacy.

In India, telephone tapping is governed by the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 that was amended to add some new provisions after the Supreme Court directed the authorities to strike a balance between the need for investigation and the right to privacy as also to check unauthorised interception of conversations.

The rules make it mandatory for the officers authorised to intercept any messages to maintain proper records of the same. These include keeping records of the names of all those to whom the intercepted material has been disclosed, the number of copies made of the intercepted messages, the period during which the authorisation to tap remained in force and the date of destruction of the tapes/CDs, transcripts, etc.

The rules also put some obligation on the service providers who are bound to maintain secrecy and destroy the recordings and transcripts pertaining to the interception within a stipulated time.

Unauthorised tapping
In February 2006, CDs of former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh's conversations with his party chief Mulayam Singh, film stars and businessmen were distributed to the media. These recordings were made without authorisation.

The Supreme Court passed an order banning the publication and broadcast of taped telephonic conversations of any person if done illegally. The order is still in force.

Crucial questions
As the government orders a probe into the leakage of Radia tapes, several crucial questions demand answers.

Can investigating agencies make public an individual's private and personal conversations recorded during a probe authorised by law?

The question becomes more complicated when the conversation contains derogatory and defamatory references to third parties who had nothing to do with the alleged crime under investigation.
Are the probe agencies obliged to keep secret the tapes/CDs of conversations – at least those parts that are private in nature – tapped during an investigation?

Said advocate Prashant Bhushan, who is representing the Centre for Public Interest Litigation in the 2G-spectrum case in the SC: "There are no private conversations or professional conversations. The case involves fixing government policies and planting stories in the media by Radia in the interest of her clients…and in any case public interest is paramount and it would override any privacy interest."

"Privacy cannot be treated as an omnibus rule. At the core of it lies a person's body and home, which is subject to search and seizure – an invasion authorised by law. Beyond that, even confidential business and other discussion have to yield to larger public interest," added noted jurist Rajeev Dhavan.

Making a case for transparency in public life, Dhavan said: "In the Spycatcher case (a case where English courts upheld a government ban on a book alleging that the head of British military intelligence and some other senior people were Russian spies), the English media rightly chastised even judges who upheld censorship of what was already in the public domain by calling them fools. Any prior restraint (on publication of the contents of the Radia tapes) by courts in this case would invite the death of democratic discourse."

But Salve felt that there cannot be public interest in somebody's private conversations. "You can't make India a banana republic," he said.

The bottom line
The divide, then, is quite clear.
So is the law: private conversations can be tapped in public interest but only in accordance with the law.

But such recordings can be used only for the purpose of authorised investigations, revealed only to persons authorised by law to have access and then destroyed also in terms of set procedures.
Any deviation from these principles is not permitted.

But that still doesn't clarify the grey areas: since each breach of privacy case is unique, the authorities and courts have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

And this can lead to decisions that aggrieved persons can consider arbitrary.

"As a general rule, public interest would override the privacy argument. But in some exceptional cases, you may have to accept the privacy plea," said eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani.

SIFF,GHRS voice on Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill - P7 news channel kayda kanoon 28 nov 2010

SIFF,GHRS voice on Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill - P7 news channel kayda kanoon 28 nov 2010


PART 1/2




PART - 2/2


FIR against woman for forging legal papers

FIR against woman for forging legal paper

Sumit Saxena, Hindustan Times Email Author New Delhi, November 30, 2010

A city court has ordered registration of a criminal case against a woman who forged judicial records in the custody case of child. A metropolitan magistrate at Tis Hazari courts observed that the woman intended to gain mileage over her husband in her domestic violence cases along with her child custody case.

Laviral (name changed) and Sheila (name changed) got married in March 2007. Gagan Preet Singh and Karan Bir Singh, counsel for Laviral, told the court, “Sheila in connivance and conspiracy with unknown persons had prepared a false and forged document that is a written statement of his petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and in her reply to the petition seeking custody of child.”

The court noted that Sheila in her reply to a case following the custody of the couple’s two-year-old son filed an affidavit with forged signatures and stamp of an oath commissioner.

“The investigating officer did not notice the forged signatures and stamps and processed the documents during the case hearing,” said the counsel for Laviral.

According to the action taken report of station house officer of Subzi Mandi police station, it was revealed that Sheila

claimed that the documents were sent to her at residence in Jhansi but the place of verification and signature on them mentioned the place as Delhi.

The court noted that facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of Sheila recorded during inquiry revealed committing of a cognizable offence by the accused and unknown persons.