Monthly Archives: March 2013

கற்பழிப்பு குற்றச்சாட்டில் மகன் கைது; அவனது தாயும் கைது !! …உடந்தை / கற்பழிப்புக்கு உதவினார் என்ற குற்றச்சாட்டு !!

இப்படியெல்லாம் ஒரு இளம் பெண்ணை கற்பழிப்பதா ??? அந்தோபரிதாபம்…அட்டுழியம் ….கேட்பாரில்லையா ???

இளம் ஆண்..இளம் பெண்…இருவரும் பேஸ்புக்கில் சந்தித்தனர்…உரையாடினர்.. பின் நேரில் சந்தித்தனர்…பழகினார்கள்

திடீரென ஒரு நாள் அந்த இளம் ஆணின் தாயார் இளம் பெண்ணுக்கு மயக்க மருந்து கொடுக்க !!!!, மகன் இளம்பெண்ணை லாட்ஜில் கற்பழித்து விட்டான் !!!

ஆக தாயாரும் , மகனும் லாக்கப்பில்….

இளம் பெண் ஜாலியா … சீச் சீ ரொம்ப வருத்தமா இருக்கு !!!

போலீஸுக்கே புரியல்லை கேஸ் “……..Sub-inspector Shivram Tugave said, “It is not clear why the mother would be party to a rape involving her son.” The police said as both the families are related,…..” ஆமாம் ரெண்டு குடும்பங்களும் உறவுக்காரர்கள் !!!!

========மீதி கதை செய்தி கீழே =======

Man arrested for rape, mother for abetment

, TNN | Mar 30, 2013, 12.40 AM IST

inShare
A
A
MUMBAI: The Nalasopara police on Friday arrested a 22-year-old man for allegedly raping a constable’s daughter who he met on a social networking site. The police also arrested the accused’s mother for abetting the crime.The accused is employed with a private insurance firm. The 21-year-old victim is related to the accused.

Sub-inspector Shivram Tugave said, “It is not clear why the mother would be party to a rape involving her son.” The police said as both the families are related, they are checking if any family dispute was the cause for the alleged rape or allegations.

The victim, who lives in Ghatkopar, had initially registered a complaint with the Pant Nagar police, but later the case was moved to the Nalasopara police. In her police complaint, the girl said that she met the accused on Facebook a year ago. They used to often chat online and later even started meeting each other.

Earlier this month, the accused invited the girl to his Nalasopara home for a birthday party. The victim claimed that the accused’s 45-year-old mother, who works as a maid, offered her an aerated drink laced with sedatives. She told the police the accused took her to a nearby lodge, raped her and filmed the act. The father and younger brother of the accused were unaware about their relationship.

In her statement, the victim said that the man and his mother started forcing her to marry him and threatened to make the clip viral, but she refused. She then confided in her father, who registered a complaint.

The Vasai sessions court has remanded them in police custody till April 3.

Advertisements

Lower courts convict husband on wife’s flimsy oral testimony . Husband fights back 8 years to get justice !!

Karnataka High Court

Syed Samad Pasha Ahmed vs State Through Mahila P.S. on 15 March, 2013

Author: Dr.Jawad Rahim

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM

CRIMINAL R. PETITION No. 2601/2011

BETWEEN

SYED SAMAD PASHA
S/O SYED AHMED
AGED 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
R/O LATUR,
MAHARASHTRA STATE.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI USTAD ZAKIR HUSSAIN, ADV.)

AND:

STATE THROUGH
MAHILA P.S.
GULBARGA.
… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, HCGP)

CRL.REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 READ WITH SEC.401,Cr.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, GULBARGA, IN CRL.A.37/11 BY ORDER DATED 23.11.2011 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.2649/05 DT.6.4.2011 BY II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, GULBARGA.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER

Concurrent finding of guilt recorded against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. is brought in question in this revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C.

2. Heard at length learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ustad Zakir Hussain and Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused records in supplementation thereto. It reveals:

a) PW1-Gulnaz Begum lodged report against her husband-Syed Samad Pasha and his parents, Syed Ahmed Pashal and Aleemabee alleging they tortured her mentally and physically with a view to extract dowry and also caused harm. They threatened her of dire consequences. Thus a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 223, 504 and 506, I.P.C.

b) It was investigated and final report was filed in C.C.2649/05 on the file of Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Divn.) & KMFC, Gulbarga. The accused being summoned, pleaded not guilty encessitating trial and in the trial that ensued, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced 10 documents.

c) Accused put up defence of denial simplicitor and did not lead evidence in defence.

d) The learned trial judge, anlyzing the evidence on record, opined it inculpates the 1st accused-husband for the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. but exculpates him and accused nos.2 and 3 for the other offences alleged. In this manner, the husband was convicted while the parents were acquitted.

e) The consequent sentence imposed on him was assailed in Crl.A.37/11 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga. Despite grounds in the appeal that the evidence of PW1 and other witnesses did not bring out material to substantiate the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C., the learned appellate judge confirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

f) Assailing both the judgments, he is in revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C.

3. Sri Ustad Zakir Hussain, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit, the evidence of PW1- Gulnaz Begum and her witnesses do not even remotely bring out a case that she was harassed or tortured, physically or mentally. There is no material to hold she suffered at the hands of the petitioner in any manner during her matrimony with him. He would submit, accused has successfully brought out he is a resident of Maharashtra and was employed at Latur; complainant and her parents were residents of Gulbarga and they wanted him to settle in Gulbarga which he did not do. He has also pointed out through cross-examination that she had no problem in living with him, but on her own volition did not like to live with him in Maharashtra because there were too many members in his family. Learned counsel would submit, such statement is an admission of fact that life of the complainant with the accused was neither torturous nor there was any threat to her life or limb. He would submit, evidence failed to prove the charges and it was ignored by the trial court despite accused specifically pointing out to such circumstances. He would submit, the appellate court also erred in not giving any credence to the grounds in appeal against the finding of the trial court with reference to the evidence on record.

4. Several other contentions are urged with reference to the evidence on record which have received my consideration.

5. In negation of these grounds and contentions, Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned HCGP, would persistently contend for the charge under Section 498A, I.P.C., it is enough if the woman deposes that the conduct of her husband was cruel and it made her life miserable. He would submit depriving food, affection or consortium of married life itself would amount to cruelty to attract the ingredients of the offence, and no further evidence would be required. He read out to me the evidence of PW1-Gulnaz Begum to show she has in clear terms stated for 2-3 months after marriage, accused started demanding money and sent her to the parental home to get money failiing which she need not return to him. He would submit, she was deprived of medication when required and she was not allowed to live in peace. These circumstances bring out a case supporting the charge under Section 498A, I.P.C.

6. I have bestowed my concern to what both sides have urged and re-appraised the records and evidence tendered by witnesses.

7. Though there is a concurrent finding of the courts below and the scope of revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C. is limited, that limit has been enlarged as I have treated this petition as one under Section 401, Cr.P.C. since records have been called for. Consquently it confers on this court, that is, High Court, any of the powers conferred on the court of appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391, Cr.P.C.

8. On re-appraisal of evidence, it is quite evident, no doubt Gulnaz Begum sought punishment of her husband- 1st accused and her in-laws. But her ocular testimony was devoid of any incriminating aspects against accused nos.2 and 3. This was noticed by the trial court and rightly they were acquitted.

9. So far as 1st accused is concerned, she did speak about being not treated well, being sent to her maternal home to get money and warned that if she fails, she can continue to remain there and not to join him. There is evidence by her that she was not given food, but absolutely there is no statement on fact as to the nature of overt acts inculged into by the petititioner. As the charge is for the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C., prosecution would succeed only if the ingredients which constitute the offence are established.

10. It is necessary to emphasize the language of Section 498A since if proved, the husband or any relative who has indulged in cruelty will be visited with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years. What is ‘cruelty’ is also explained. It means, ‘willful conduct which is of the nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb.’ Therefore, even if the conduct was willful to compel a woman to drive her to commit suicide, it would not be enough. The conduct must be of such nature as to compel her to do so. A combined reading woud show, there must be material on record from the victim or any other acceptable legal evidence establishing that the conduct was so willful and of such natutre as to compel her to commit suicide or endanger her life or limb.

11. PW1-Gulnaz Begum has given a narrative account of her life from the time of marriage which is just a general statement without stating any particular form of harassment; there is only a general statement that she was harassed. Merely compelling her to go to her parents’ house to get money or else to stay there, would undoubtedly fall not within the mischief of Section 498A, I.P.C. She merely states he asked her to get money and her parents had expressed difficuclty to meet his demand. She has referred to cheque having been issued to him to make payment of some money but there is no statement in her evidence it was only towards dowry. It shows, either she is a truthful witness who did not want to exaggerate, or no incident occurred which would fall within the mischief of Section 498A, I.P.C.

12. Be that as it may, conviction can be based only on inculpating material on record which translates into legal evidence and not otherwise. De hors her statement, the other evidence on record, at the most, may show all was not well in the life of the couple. Accused can no doubt either demolish the case of prosecution pointing out lack of incriminating aspects or show by preponderance of possibilities that the incident did not occur in the manner alleged. In this case he has done so. He has elicited from PW1 itself that he was a resident of Latur village in Maharashtra where he was gainfully employed, but PW2 declined to lead llife with him there; she wanted him to migrate to Gulbarga and live with her and her parents which he declined. Hence she left his company, which otherwise can be termed as desertion. This defence certainly accrues to his benefit to create a reasonable doubt in his favour against the charge for the offence alleged.

13. The learned trial judge and appellate judge have both been over enthusiastic in accepting her statment in evidence that the accused harassed her as sufficient to indict him without orealizing that it is a case of charge for the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. and if proved he would have been in jail for 3 years which could have ruined the matrimony instead of being saved.

14. For the reasons discussed above, and taking into consideration all other material to establish the charge, the impugned judgments passed by the trial court and appellate court certainly are unsustainable and therefore, set aside. The petitioner succeeds in his revision. His conviction for the offence under Section 498A, I.P. C. is hereby set aside. Fine amount if any, deposited by him, is ordered to be refunded.

Sd/-

JUDGE

vgh*

Link

என்னாது உன் மாமனார் போலீஸ் அதிகாரியா ??

என்னாது உன் மாமனார் போலீஸ் அதிகாரியா ?? டேய் …டேய்… என் மாமனார் ரிட்டையர்ட் ஸ்கூல் டீச்சர் ..அதுக்கே நான் பயந்துகிட்டு இருக்கேன் !!!!! நல்ல வேலை செஞ்ச போ !!

married in June 2012…arrested in Mar 2013… Just married ..BUT NO bail !! ;-(

 

Senior Delhi cop’s son-in-law arrested for demanding dowry Updated:

Monday, March 25, 2013, 23:49 [IST]

Delhi police son-in-law arrested

New Delhi, March 25: A Delhi court Monday sent the son-in-law of a joint commissioner of Delhi Police to one day police custody, after his wife filed an FIR against him for demanding dowry. Duty Metropolitan Magistrate Preety Parewa sent Arun Singh, the son-in-law of Joint Commissioner (Security) D.P. Verma to police custody after he was arrested late Monday night. The court granted police custody of Singh as sought by police to recover jewelry of the woman from her husband’s home. Singh, meanwhile, moved bail application before the court which would come up for hearing Tuesday. Filing the FIR at Hauz Khas police station, Singh’s wife Nimisha alleged that she was harassed by her husband and in-laws for dowry. She said that they got married in June 2012, and it was love marriage. At the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry but they later started demanding dowry from her, she said. Singh, who works with a MNC in Gurgaon, however, alleged that Nimisha wanted to become a film actress to which he did not agree and thus she filed a false case against him. He further alleged that his wife went through a breast implant, without informing him. IANS

 

 

 

Woman pays 16 lakh supari, kills husband and claims he had illicit affair !! No opposition left with husband dead :-(

 

News in Tamil and brief, non legal translation

 

non legal translation: Venkatesh is a building contractor living in the posh Banjara Hills area of Hyderabad with his wife Lakshmi. The couple have three children Manohar (28), Mahesh (26) Madan (24). Mahesh lives in America and Madan in Canada

Lakshmi claims that her husband had an illicit affair with another woman and even threatened to bring her home

So, Lakshmi planned to kill her husband and paid a supari of Rs 16 lakhs to her brother’s son Pradip Kumar. However Pradip Kumar started threatening Lakshmi and demanded Rs 30 Lakhs, lest he would reveal Lakshmi’s plans

So, Lakshmi decided to kill her husband herself. She mixed sleeping tablets in her husband’s coffee. Venkatesh dozed off after drinking the coffee. Lakshmi poured Kerosine on Venkatesh and Burnt him alive

The next day she surrendered to the police and told them “…I paid Rs 16 Lakhs to my brother’s on Pradip Kumar…. so arrest him as well…”

Police have not arrested Lakshmi and Pradip Kumar and are conducting inquiries

==============news =============

| சனிக்கிழமை, 30, மார்ச் 2013 (14:44 IST)

கள்ளக்காதலில் ஈடுபட்ட கணவரை கொலை செய்து எரித்த மனைவி

ஐதராபாத் பஞ்சார ஹில்ஸ் பகுதி கவுரிசங்கர் நகரை சேர்ந்தவர் வெங்கடேஷ். கட்டிட காண்டிராக்டர். இவரது மனைவி லட்சுமி இவர்களுக்கு மனோகர் (28), மகேஷ் (26), மதன் (24) ஆகிய 3 மகன்கள் உள்ளனர். இவர்களில் மகேஷ் அமெரிக்காவிலும், மதன் கனடாவிலும் வசிக்கிறார்கள்.

வெங்கடேசுக்கும் ஐதராபாத் இபுராகிம் நகரைச் சேர்ந்த ஒரு பெண்ணுக்கும் இடையே கள்ளக்காதல் ஏற்பட்டது. இதையறிந்த லட்சுமி கணவரை கண்டித்தார். இதில் அவர்களுக்கு இடையே அடிக்கடி தகராறு ஏற்பட்டது.

கள்ளக்காதலியை வீட்டுக்கே அழைத்து வந்து குடித்தனம் நடத்துவேன் என்று வெங்கடேசன் மனைவியை மிரட்டினார். இதனால் லட்சுமி கணவரை கொலை செய்ய சகோதரர் மகன் பிரதீப் குமாரிடம் கூறினார். அதற்கு அவர் சம்மதித்தார். கணவரை கொலை செய்ய பிரதீப்குமாரிடம் ரூ.16 லட்சம் கூலியாக கொடுத்தார்.

ஆனால் அவர் லட்சுமியை மிரட்ட தொடங்கினார். கொலை திட்டத்தை வெளியே சொல்லாமல் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்றால் எனக்கு ரூ.30 லட்சம் கொடு என்று மிரட்டினார்.

இதனால் லட்சுமி கணவரை தானே கொலை செய்ய திட்டமிட்டு, கணவருக்கு காபியில் தூக்க மாத்திரை கலந்து கொடுத்தார். காபியை குடித்த வெங்கடேசன் ஆழ்ந்த தூக்கத்தில் விழுந்தார்.

கணவர் உயிர் பிழைத்து விடுவாரோ என்று அஞ்சினார். இதனால் சமையல் அறையில் இருந்து மண்எண்ணை எடுத்து வந்து கணவர் உடல் மீது ஊற்றி தீவைத்தார். உடல் கருகி வெங்கடேசன் பிணமானார்.

மறுநாள் காலை பக்கத்து வீட்டுக்காரரிடம் நான் என் கணவரை கொலை செய்துவிட்டேன் என்று கூறினார். மேலும் பஞ்சாரஹில்ஸ் போலீசில் சரண் அடைந்தார்.

போலீசில் லட்சுமி கூறும்போது, என் கணவரை கொலை செய்ய சகோதரர் மகனுக்கு ரூ.16 லட்சம் கொடுத்தேன். அவர் ஏமாற்றி விட்டார். அவரையும் கைது செய்யுங்கள் என்று புகார் கூறினார். போலீசார் லட்சுமியையும் பிரதீப்குமாரையும் கைது செய்தனர்.

http://www.nakkheeran.in/Users/frmNews.aspx?N=95683