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. .
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4741700
The judgment given in any case depends on the proceedings of the court and the judge's discretion. The standards adopted in a particular case may differ in the high court and Supreme Court. There are certain guidelines for a death sentence and it must be a 'rarest of the rare' case. Thus, there is no question of whether a judgement is 'right' or 'wrong' . It all depends on how the bench of judges perceive the case based on the submitted proof. The outlook of judges of a bench may also differ. There is no standardisation in the verdict to be pronounced. However, I would like to point out that judges are given too much discretion. In the end, judges base their verdict on the proof put forth after investigations.
-PB Sawant, former judge, Supreme Court of India
In our country, a death sentence is pronounced only in the 'rarest of rare' cases. The court makes its decision on the basis of evidence and the investigation carried out, but the punishment should be awarded in such a way that justice actually prevails. The reason that the judges gave for reducing the death sentence of the convict in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case are dubious. There is no justification for such a dreadful crime. It is different in a case where the victim is alive and the accused offers to marry the victim.
While upholding that he was guilty of the crime, the judges cited mitigating circumstances, which included the young age of the accused at the time of the murder and his having married and become a father. These factors cannot reduce the gravity of a crime that was premeditated and executed in the most brutal manner.
This kind of leniency on the part of the Supreme Court is not justified. The verdict in such a case should act as a deterrent to others as well. Leniency would make people feel that anyone can get away with such a gruesome offence. Rape and murder of a victim is a very serious crime. The commutation of the verdict is not justified.
-Kiran Moghe, president, Janwadi Mahila Sanghatana
A former IPS officer's son, Santosh Kumar Singh, who was convicted of brutally raping and murdering 25-year-old Priyadarshini Mattoo 14 years ago, escaped the death sentence when the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi high court's order and gave him a life term.
The SC said the "horrendous crime" had happened because Santosh's parents were over-indulgent. The judges said many ghastly crimes happen when "an accused belongs to a category with unlimited power or pelf or even more dangerously, a volatile cocktail of the two".
The apex court added that Singh was young at the time of the incident, and after his acquittal by the trial court he got married and became a father, and there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of reforming.
Pratibha Srikantamurthy
A fast track sessions court convicted cab driver Shiva Kumar to rigorous imprisonment for life for kidnapping, raping and murdering BPO employee Pratibha Srikantamurthy in December 2005.
Pratibha, who joined HP Globalsoft in 2005 after her marriage, went missing on December 13, 2005 after leaving home for her night shift. Her body was found on the outskirts of Bangalore a day later.
The 113-page judgement said, "There was no dominating control over the deceased. She was not a helpless woman," adding the crime was not enormous in nature and not in the "rarest of rare" bracket. The judge said Kumar, who was 22 then, is now 27. He was not a habitual offender and the prosecution had not shown that he had been convicted for crime earlier, he said.
Without harsh punishment, people will not fear the law
In rape-murder cases, the law is not as harsh as it should be. Thus, there is no fear in society when it comes to committing these crimes. Take any rape or criminal case; the time it takes to reach a verdict is very long. When the fast track courts take that much time (five years in Pratibha's case), why do we need them at all? In this way, people will lose faith in fast track courts. They will be dissatisfied with our judicial system if there is no change in the procedures, especially in cases involving atrocities against women. Such soft judgements will obviously have consequences, wherein people will not be afraid of committing crimes against women. Moreover, by commuting a death sentence, you give the accused time to find ways to get free.
Capital punishment is criticised vehemently on moral grounds, so we do not have an option but to replace it. However, if it is stopped, bad elements in society will continue committing such crimes.
-Lata Bhise, advisor, Yashada
The judgement cannot be made on the basis of public opinion
Life imprisonment until death is as bad or may be worse than a death sentence. Capital punishment is not required as long as the guilty is being punished for his crime. In fact, a life term is more severe as the convict has to live with his guilt in isolation.
People expected a death sentence in the Priyadarshini case, but the judgement cannot be based on public opinion. Mob mentality tends to be brutal, so the judiciary should not get influenced by what people think. Every murder is heinous, but the 'rarest of rare' case can be applied only to the most gruesome crimes.
-Ritu Lamba, law student
Such acts go against the norms of humanity and compassion
The Priyadarshini Mattoo case has revived the debate over whether capital punishment should be awarded and if it can deter others from committing such crimes. Our Constitution and statutes recognise capital punishment as a deterrent to heinous crimes. In case of a crime as gruesome and merciless as rape and murder, the convict should certainly be granted a death penalty. Such acts go against the norms of humanity and compassion. Anything less than life imprisonment until death should not be acceptable.
As far as the Supreme Court verdict in this case is concerned, the death sentence should not have been reduced to life imprisonment. Keeping in view the heinousness of the crime, the court should have upheld the previous decision and stood by it.
-Sameer Nargolkar, lawyer
Severity of punishment is not a deterrent to crime
Death penalty must be abolished in India because it is a cruel way of punishing someone. It is surprising that the lower courts are enthusiastic in awarding death sentences. A capital punishment with the noose does not go well in a civilised society. If we call ourselves civilised, we must stop this practice. The severity of punishment does not act as a deterrent to crime. The surety and speedy delivery of punishment is more important. People generally feel that life imprisonment is a soft way of punishing someone. Considering the severity of the crime, courts can prolong the period of imprisonment. In case of Priyadarshini, the accused got a life term till death, which is a severe punishment.
-Ramesh Awasthi, founder, MASUM
Flaws in investigation and filing of cases affect judgement
There are two issues in the trial of rape cases — the time required by the court and the quantum of punishment. Both these clauses must be revisited and given a rethink. Two judges can differ in their judgement because the circumstantial evidence may vary. That is how they may arrive at different conclusions. A judge has to decide on the basis of the evidence placed in front of him. If the investigation done by the police is shabby, it can affect the judgment.
I agree that the way rape-murder cases are handled needs to be debated, but it is wrong to criticise the judges and their judgement. Many issues have to be considered in every case. Moreover, if the judgement is based on the investigation, collection of evidence and the way the case is filed, the judge can only do so much. I would say that investigation agencies are the real culprits. One must be persistent in pointing out the flaws in the investigation process and filing of cases.
-Aroona Nafday, advocate
There is a rise in false rape cases, so a court has to be cautious
One cannot say the law has been soft in both cases. The judges have given their verdict based on circumstantial evidence and the investigation reports. The investigation into a case and collection of evidence are the reason for delayed judgements. A court cannot pronounce a verdict without proper facts and data. Cases get prolonged till judges receive the essential proof.
In a recent report, the Pune police said that 74% of rape cases in 2008-2009 were found to be instances of consensual sex. Moreover, there have been cases in which the accused has been falsely implicated. For example, in the case of the American student of Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in Mumbai last year, the medical report did not confirm rape and the DNA report was negative. The complainant told the doctor she was raped by three men whose names she did not know. However, in the FIR, she accused six men and named them. Then, she claimed that she may have been raped, but that she had fallen unconscious after 1 in the night. On the other hand, phone records show that she was texting and calling all night. Thus, in such a case, circumstances become confusing and the judicial process cannot be hurried. Due to the high number of false rape cases and women-centric laws, the court has to ensure that a person is not falsely implicated.
I am not denying that rapes do not happen and the real culprit has to be punished, however, the case has to follow the required process of investigation before a judgement is given.
-Atit Rajpora, activist, Save Indian Family Foundation
team speak up Rajesh Rao, Disha Kohli & Mallika Rale
GET IN TOUCH: Please email us your views at punespeakup@dnaindia.net,
or call on 020- 39888888 extn 125.
http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?queryed=40&querypage=4&eddate=10/13/2010&view=nw
After making it to the national headlines, Shiney Ahuja's maid has told told the fast track court that the actor never raped her. She admitted slapping false charges on the actor on the instructions of the woman who helped her in getting the job with Ahujas.
Meanwhile, Shiney Ahuja, who is fighting an alleged rape case hurled at him by his maid servant, has faced a big setback on his professional front.
TOI has learned that the makers of his highly anticipated projected Har Pall (who were contemplating releasing the film soon), that stars Preity Zinta in the lead, have decided to push back the release until the court passes its verdict. With the timeline of when the case will be resolved yet unavailable, it is not good news for the actor who is hoping to come back to the industry and reclaim his ground with this movie as well as Accident in which he is paired opposite Soha Ali Khan.
"With such negative publicity against Shiney still grabbing headlines, the makers of Har Pall are wary of releasing the film. They feel it will get disastrous box office results if they release it now. According to perception, many pundits feel that audiences will reject Shiney's film as he still hasn't been pronounced free of the charges of raping his domestic servant. Shiney's brand name needs to get positive light somehow to resurrect his acting career," says a top trade source on conditions of anonymity.
"For the makers it is important that Shiney gets a verdict in favour of him. They will quickly release the film by riding on the positive wave. If not, they will then plan how they can still release it as lots of money is at stake. They will have to go ahead and promote the film with or without Shiney. The film is completely ready which means the producers have kept their investment locked and that's not good," the source adds. The director of Har Pall, Jahnu Barua, confirms TOI's news and adds, "The situation is such that we have to wait and watch."
PTI adds:
The 20-year-old girl appeared before a court on September 3, and said that she was never raped by Shiney and that she had filed the complaint against the actor at the behest of the woman who had secured her the job of a maid in Ahuja's residence.
"On September 3, the victim identified Shiney in the court and said she used to work at his residence as a domestic help. But when asked about the incident she said it never happened and that she was never raped," public prosecutor Kashinath Dighe said.
Following this, the court declared her hostile. If the court deems fit, she can be punished for perjury, he said. The prosecution will continue presenting other evidence including the statements of 12 other witnesses, forensic reports and other documentary evidence. The next date of hearing has been fixed on September 15.
The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Shiney-never-raped-me-Maid/articleshow/6512247.cms#ixzz0yvuwjUAs
Shiney Ahuja's maid denies he raped her
September 8, 2010
A woman who worked as domestic help for actor Shiney Ahuja has denied in court that the actor raped her.The same woman had accused Ahuja of rape in 2009. The actor spent three months in jail. He admitted to having consensual sex with her.
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/shiney-ahujas-maid-denies-he-raped-her/162596?cp
PTI
New Delhi, Aug 1 (PTI) A court here has asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to get an inquiry done into the registration of fake FIRs after noting that a witness, who was termed as complainant in a robbery case, had denied the occurrence of any such incident.
Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau noted the police officers had registered two FIRs on the alleged robbery of a mobile phone, which was handed over to the complainant in one case, after it was pointed out by Shivendra Biswas, counsel for one of the accused.
The complainant, Nitin, said while recording the statement before the court that no incident of robbery as alleged had taken place. He deposed that he was taken to the Jahangirpuri police station in March where the case was registered at the instance of one Kuldeep Soni who ran a news channel in the name of K-7 News channel. It was pointed out to the court by the counsel that Nitin had testified that he took one old mobile phone from Vishwajeet whereas Vishwajeet had himself lodged another case for the robbery of the same phone. "I am shocked to observe that the allegations and narration of the incident is absolutely similar in both the FIRs,"
ASJ Lau said. "If what has been testified by the witness Nitin that the present FIR has been registered on an incident which never took place is correct, then it is a serious matter that life and liberty of four young boys has been curtailed in violations of all existing norms," the court added. It said an offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code would be made out not only against Kuldeep Soni but also against all such officers of Police Station Jahangir Puri who were involved in registration and investigations of the present case in respect of an incident which did not happen.
The court asked the police chief to get the matter investigated by an independent agency to get to its bottom and file a report to it within 15 days. It also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (north-west) to ensure safety and security of 18-year-old Nitin by saying that no public person, including Kuldeep, and police officers of Jahangirpuri police station should approach him. The court also allowed bail application of all the accused, except one, who were arrested in the case.
