if government makes absolutely #aadhar compulsory (over few years), then link all #bank a/c, #property, #shares, own car, loans etc etc to aadhar, will it become VERY easy for #FamilyCourt and #Magistrate court to loot you in one go, and give % of everything to wife (and her …….. ) ???
An Andhra man was jailed for 8 yrs for rape he didn’t commit – all to protect powerful persons?
Despite murmurs of a politician’s son’s involvement, Satyam Babu was convicted for Ayesha Meera’s murder.
Friday, March 31, 2017 – 17:43
In a significant judgement, the Hyderabad High Court acquitted P Satyam Babu, who had spent many years in jail, for the rape and murder of Ayesha Meera, a 17-year-old pharmacy student in Vijayawada.
The murder took place in 2007, and Satyam Babu was convicted by a Vijayawada women’s special sessions court in 2010, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
However, family members of the victim and Satyam Babu had held at the time that he was not guilty, and that he was falsely framed in the case. In spite of the victim’s family alleging that a politician’s family was involved in the murder, the young man was arrested and made to pay the price for the crime.
The HC has now directed the Andhra Pradesh government to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation to the youth, who spent eight years in jail without any evidence of his involvement. It also ordered action against the police officers, who investigated the case.
The victim was a first year pharmacy student and was living in a private ladies hostel in Ibrahimpatnam near Vijayawada. On the night of December 27, 2007, her blood-stained body was found in the hostel’s bathroom, with multiple stab injuries.
The ‘murderer’ was even reported to have dropped a letter, which claimed that the girl was raped and killed for refusing his proposal.
In August 2008, almost a year after the victim was killed and the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) took up the case, the police arrested Satyam Babu.
Satyam Babu was arrested in a cell phone robbery case on August 17 that year, and the police had claimed that he had confessed to her murder during interrogation.
However, several activists had alleged that the police arrested Satyam Babu only so they could let the grandson of former deputy CM Koneru Ranga Rao off the hook.
The parents of the victim, Shamshad Begam and Iqbal Basha, also alleged that relatives of the then state Minister Koneru Ranga Rao were involved in the rape and murder.
They also alleged that a Dalit youth was being made a scapegoat to save the real culprits.
Satyam Babu’s arrest was condemned widely and called an eyewash as he could barely walk properly, due to a neurological disorder. The youth had been suffering from GB Syndrome, which had badly affected his nervous system and his two legs were paralysed.
Ranga Rao had then denied these allegations. According to reports, he told the media that he would not stop the killing of his grandson in an encounter, even if there was an iota of evidence to show that he was the “demon” who raped and murdered the girl.
In May 2010, the police claimed that Satyam Babu had escaped from their custody at Suryapet, while the security got out of the vehicle to buy some food. However, activists immediately alleged that they were trying to frame Satyam Babu and shoot him down in a fake encounter.
He was arrested again, within a few hours of his escape. Satyam Babu was then convicted and has been in jail since then.
In September 2010, the sessions court convicted Satyam Babu to 14 years in under section 302 of IPC for murder and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under section 376 of IPC for rape.
Reversing the conviction, the Hyderabad High Court has asked the police to ‘punish those who framed him’.
Following the court order on Friday, the victim’s parents said that Rs1 crore should be given as compensation for Satyam Babu and demanded that the government set up a fast-track court to try and punish the real culprits.
Anti-Romeo squad shaves head of man in presence of cops in UP’s Shahjahanpur
An “anti-Romeo squad” shaved the head of a man in the presence of policemen who had caught him with a female friend in a public park in Shahjahanpur.
The incident happened last week, but a video of it went viral on Friday, after which senior police officials suspended the three constables who were present at the site.
“Three constables namely, Suhail Ahmed, Laiek Ahmed and Sonu Pal have been accused of involvement in the incident. Prima facie it appears that they were present there and failed to stop those who were shaving the head of the victim. I have ordered their suspension on this ground,” Shahjahanpur SSP, K B Singh said.
‘No Murga Position’: New Dos and Don’ts For UP’s Anti-Romeo Squads
In the video, the constables are seen standing near the squatted victim as a man shaves his head.
Reportedly, the constables found the victim who was with his female friend outside a public park. They asked the woman to leave and called a barber and asked him to shave the man’s head.
Though senior police officials acknowledged the presence of the constables during the incident, they have claimed that they are not part of the anti-Romeo squad formed to protect women in Uttar Pradesh, as promised by the BJP.
“I have also asked a circle officer to investigate the matter. Further action against the constables will be taken on the basis of investigation,” K B Singh said.
COMPLETE COVERAGE: YOGI IN POWER
The constables are from Azizganj police post which falls under the city limits of Shahjahanpur.
Circle officer (city) Avneesh Chandra Srivastav said he had recorded the statements of the accused and a report would be sent to the SSP on Saturday.
The victim has not lodged any complaint against the constables in the matter.
AYESHA MEERA RAPE CASE: BABU ACQUITTED AFTER 8 YEARS IN JAIL FOR NO CRIME
THE SIASAT DAILY
April 1, 2017 Hyderabad, News, Top Stories 0 Comments
Hyderabad: In a sensational decision, a Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court comprising Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy and Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal on Friday acquitted Pidathala Satyam Babu for the rape and murder of B. Pharmacy student Ayesha Meera 11 years ago, and ordered police to pay Rs 1 lakh in costs to the defendant for lapses in the probe and arresting an innocent man. It claimed that the prosecution failed to produce evidence to prove that the appellant raped the victim and then killed her. The bench observed that the story of rape was created by the police as they have pressure from organisations and associations to nab the culprit. The bench also felt that the police brought in the theory of rape to protect the real culprits. Ayesha’s parents also alleged that police were making Sathyam Babu a scapegoat to close the case guarding the true culprits. Reprimanding the police officers the bench directed initiation of proceedings against these officers. It also criticised the trial court for believing in the police without looking into the lapses in the investigation.
17-year-old, Ayesha Meera was raped and murdered, on December 27, 2007. Her body was found in a pool of blood. As there was no progress in the case, massive agitations were taken up demanding the arrest of the culprits. Subsequently, as many as four people were taken into custody and questioned for several days. Sathyam Babu was nabbed by the police in August 2008. After trial, the Women Special Sessions Court sentenced life imprisonment and 10 years rigorous imprisonment to Sathyam Babu. Challenging the court verdict, Sathyam Babu filed a petition in High Court. After eight years, the High Court acquitted Sathyam Babu. It must also be noted that Mr. Babu, is physically handicapped.
Deccan Chronicle in its report stated, the bench pointed to anomalies like the police claim that the appellant scaled an eight-foot wall twice with a pedestal in one hand to kill the victim who was sleeping on the second floor of the hostel. “It is unbelievable,” the bench observed, that a man weighing 50 kg and physically challenged, can scale an eight-foot wall with a single hand. The bench said it cannot accept the theory that the appellant entered the room without disturbing the victim’s roommates, committed rape and murder, dragged the body to the toilet and wrote on her body.
Meanwhile people’s organisations, Muslim welfare associations and Sathyam Babu’s family members demanded reinvestigation into the murder to catch the real culprits.
Wife files rape / molestation S376 on her own brother in law and another person. The prosecution witnesses themselves do NOT corroborate her version !! On the day of the alleged rape, her own husband is at home, all family members are at home, but still she claims that some thrid parties had to come to help her !! The sessions court notices that she has filed 498a and tried to compromise with her husband and co !! HC even refuse leave to appeal !!
Sadly though the police seem to filed charge sheet on such a patently fake case
Key observations at HC are
* “…..Learned trial Court has also noticed serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecutrix and further found that the other prosecution witnesses have not corroborated her version. …also taken note of …compromise which was arrived at between prosecutrix and her in-law’s family pursuant to a case registered by her …under Section 498A IPC..” !!
* “….Her version is not supported by other prosecution witnesses….”
* “… A glaring fact, that at the time of occurrence of incident, other family members including husband of the prosecutrix, were present but on her raising alarm, neighbours came at the site but none of the family members responded to her alarm, also creates serious doubts about the occurrence of alleged incident…..”
* “…There is yet another aspect of the matter that husband of the prosecutrix himself has appeared in the witness box as defence witness and has completely disowned the entire incident….”
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.
Crml Leave To Appeal No. 41 / 2017
State of Rajasthan —- Appellant
1. Ganesh S/o Mangilal, B/c Brahman
2. Prem Singh S/o Malsingh, B/c Rajput Both R/o Village Jinrasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu —-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay,
P.P., for the State
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Appellant-State has preferred this Leave to Appeal under Section 378(iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. to assail impugned judgment dated 04.10.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.24/2014. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has acquitted accused-respondents for offence punishable under Sections 450, 354 & 376/511 IPC. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that prosecutrix Ms. ‘A’, wife of Ranvir Singh Rajput, submitted a written report Ex.P/1 before Police Station, Sujangarh stating therein that she entered into matrimony with Ranvir Singh Rajput five years back and since then she is being harassed by her husband and in-laws. Attributing ill-intention on the part of her brother-in-law (Jeth) Prem Singh, she has alleged commission of aforesaid offences against him and other accused Ganesh in the night of previous day i.e. on 14.09.2014. As per version of the prosecutrix, at about 10.30 p.m. when she was sleeping, both the accused persons came and tried to molest her and on her raising alarm, some of the neighbours came there and the accused persons fled away.
On the basis of the report, FIR No.295/2014 was registered for offence under Sections 456, 354A, 354B read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for offences under Sections 457, 354 and 376/511 read with Section 34 IPC.
The matter was, later on, committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on charge, framed charges against the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 376/511, 450 and 354 IPC. In order to prove charges against the accused-respondents, prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited eight documents. Subsequent to that, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, accused persons examined two witnesses, namely, D.W. 1 Ranvir Singh and D.W. 2 Mahendra Singh. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court heard final arguments and by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences with a definite finding that prosecution has failed to prove charges beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned trial Court has also noticed serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecutrix and further found that the other prosecution witnesses have not corroborated her version. That apart, learned trial Court has also taken note of some relevant facts including the compromise which was arrived at between prosecutrix and her in-law’s family pursuant to a case registered by her against them for offence under Section 498A IPC. While recording finding favouring the cause of accused- respondents, learned trial Court has also taken note of the evidence of D.W. 1 Ranvir Singh, husband of the prosecutrix, and other witnesses.
I have heard learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly scanned the record of the case.
After threadbare examination of the testimony of prosecutrix P.W.1 Ms. ‘A’ and the statements of other prosecution witnesses, there remains no quarrel that a cumulative reading of entire evidence is insufficient to prove guilt against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
While it is true that prosecutrix P.W. 1 has castigated the accused-respondents for the offences but then in view of serious pitfalls in her statements, it is not possible to treat her testimony of sterling worth so as to record finding of guilt against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. Moreover, her version is not supported by other prosecution witnesses. A glaring fact, that at the time of occurrence of incident, other family members including husband of the prosecutrix, were present but on her raising alarm, neighbours came at the site but none of the family members responded to her alarm, also creates serious doubts about the occurrence of alleged incident. There is yet another aspect of the matter that husband of the prosecutrix himself has appeared in the witness box as defence witness and has completely disowned the entire incident.
Therefore, in totality of circumstances, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court has not committed any manifest error in appreciation of evidence and the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court cannot be categorized as perverse or inherently improbable. The legal position is no more res-integra that an appellate Court, while considering a verdict of acquittal, can very well re-appreciate the evidence but then upon reappreciation of evidence, if the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that two views are possible and the view taken by the learned trial Court is a probable one then it is not desirable to substitute its view for upsetting the verdict of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
As observed supra, I have not been able to find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence and conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court, therefore feel dissuaded to grant leave in the matter.
Consequently, leave to appeal craved for is declined and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA) J.
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting