- A thief enters a Juggi, threatens inhabitants, decamps with cash
- Yes, he robs Rs 195
- …and …. runs out
- the innocent people at the house / spot raise an alarm
- the thief is caught …police take custody …
- All this happens in year 2000
- lower courts sentanse him
- but the strange thing is he goes on appeal and appeal and 13 years later…YES 13 years later he lands at Delhi HC , who partially acquits him (of one of the offenses )
- It gives me a warm feeling that however small a person may be, however petty a theft may be, there IS readdress
- But IF criminal cases can be sent to HC without any limits, how will we clear the humungous backlog that is piling up ??
- are the honourable HC judges to sit on judgement in every case of petty theft ?
- and what about lower courts ?
- what else is necessary to speed up the system ??
- woman goes to bank
- withdraws money
- gets back into car ….is followed …robbed
- accused are arrested, tried and convicted
- remission of sentence sought
- convict GETS reduction / remission of sentence as he has a family to support
- HCs decision is laudable !!
- However a question surfaces, will HUSBANDS get any remission ??
- NO …they have to pay in full … NO use arresting them …. milk them of their money and change …
- An effective police force , un corrupt and vigilant is needed to protect the innocent from the greedy, rowdy and criminal elements of society
- However, do our police have the time to do that ?
- Or are they busy arresting husbands ?
- A brief reading of cases like this one shows the pathetic case of parents who have lost innocent children , as the kid was kidnapped for Ransom and the police seem to be rather slow in their follow up
- In this case the kid is killed finally and NEVER re united to the hapless parents !!
- Prayers to all missing children !!!
- Prayers to families and this country
link to judgement
Notes and thoughts
- A woman looses her husband
- Moves in to another man’s house with her three children
- probably has a live in relationship with that man as that man’s wife has moved out
- That woman dies
- Her daughter (and other children) live with that man
- Her daughter ..identified as just "P" , studying in the 11th standard, claims the man raped her !!
- Yes, she claims that the man raped her and she is pregnant
- She delivers a baby that dies pre mature
- The moot question is whether the consent for sex was there or was it forced
- Man is crucified by lower court
- Blood boils when we think of a man raping a 11th standard kid …
- Until…until.. HC unties the knot beautifully
- One more important rape case
- I hate to add notes and kill the beauty of the HC verdict
- those who have time, please read the verdict
- Also shows how the lower court miserably fail in their duty
PS : If the link above does NOT work, please complain and post comments …. I’m trying new formats to blog cases
- Complainant states that the accused committed ".. sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage. .."
- She goes on to say "..He also c committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature…."
- He is charged with Rape
- Doubt arises as to whether the accused is a juvenile
- HC decrees that school records are the most conclusive proof
- Should anyone know more about the antecedents of this case please post a comment or reply
Note : Just the first page is given below. Rest of the judgement is enclosed as a PDF file [from the HC website] …this is a test post… IF you cannot locate an attachment please post a comment or reply
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 13 th May, 2013
pronounced on: 22 nd May, 2013
+ CRL.REV.P. 6/2013 & Crl.M.A.178/2013 & 179/2013
RAKHI PANCHAL….. Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
STATE & ORS…… Respondent s
Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. This Revision Peti tion is directed against an order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(ASJ) whereby the learned ASJ declared the date of birth of Respondent No.7 Arun Kumar @ Monu to be 10.11.1993. Thus, on the date of the alleged commission o f the offence, he was found to be less than 18 years and thus a juvenile. The Respondent No.7 was, therefore, directed to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for inquiry in accord ance with the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) A ct, 2000 (the Act).
IS this Indian Pre marital consented sex turned into RAPE. GPM 22 05 2013 CRLR 6 2013.pdf