Daily Archives: May 27, 2017

Wife, ‘paramour’ who murdered innocent husband get Governor pardon

Wife, ‘paramour’ get Governor pardon

QuarkCity engineer’s murder

Were denied bail by High Court, appeal against conviction lying pending

Posted at: May 27, 2017, 1:44 AM
Last updated: May 27, 2017, 1:44 AM (IST)

Sukhwinderjit Singh, victim
Nitin Jain

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 26

Mohali QuarkCity engineer Sukhwinderjit Singh’s murder convicts – his young wife Neki Nalwa and her alleged paramour Himmat Singh Brandy – who were denied bail repeatedly and whose appeal against conviction is lying pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, have finally got pardon from the Punjab Governor.

“Considering their mercy petitions, the Governor of Punjab, while exercising powers under Article 161 of the Constitution, allows remission of the remaining sentence of the convicts and their release upon fulfilment in writing of the nine laid-down conditions,” Punjab Additional Chief Secretary, Home Affairs, Justice and Prisons, Nirmaljit Singh Kalsi wrote in separate pardon orders issued to this effect on May 22.

The development assumes significance as both Neki and Brandy were denied bail repeatedly and their appeals against conviction are lying pending and have been posted for next hearing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 24. Both were languishing behind bars since their arrest in December 2005 and were sentenced to life term in June 2012.

Ropar Jail Superintendent Gurpal Singh Saroa confirmed the receipt of pardon orders of both convicts, but their formal release orders were yet to be issued by the District Magistrate concerned. “They are still lodged in jail and will be freed only after receipt of the release orders,” Saroa told The Tribune.

It was on the “good conduct” report sent by the Jail Superintendent on September 7, 2016, that the Governor accepted the mercy petitions of both convicts.

According to the pardon orders, the copies of which are with The Tribune, both convicts are required to tender an undertaking of maintaining peace, keeping their conduct good and producing themselves as and when asked for by the Punjab Government, besides furnishing a personal bond of Rs 30,000 and two surety bonds of the same amount.

Among the other conditions, the convicts are required to keep the District Magistrate and the SHO concerned informed about the complete address where they stay during the remaining period of their sentence; their pardon will be deemed withdrawn in case of their indulging in any illegal activity; they are required to pay the remaining amount of fine, if any, due before their release; and in case of any violation of the laid-down conditions, the amount of bonds will be confiscated in favour of the Punjab Government.

The pardon orders were issued subject to the fulfilment of conditions laid down in the Supreme Court order issued on July 23, 2015, and any other order thereafter issued in that case.

Article 161

“Power of the Governor to grant pardon, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases. The Governor of a state shall have the power to grant pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends.”

The judgment

On June 6, 2012, Neki and Brandy were sentenced to life term by a Mohali court while concluding the trial spanning over six years.

The judgment read, “It stands amply proved that Himmat Singh and Neki Nalwa had conspired with each other, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, they committed the murder of Sukhwinderjit Singh by firing a shot from a pistol. It is proved on record that Himmat Singh had forged his driving licence, which was recovered from the spot. However, Himmat did not possess any type of arms licence in his name, so the prosecution has also proved its case against him under Section 25 of the Arms Act. As a result, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused and so they are held guilty of the commission of the said offences and are convicted thereunder”.

Third convict released

However, the third convict in the case, Paramveer Singh, who was charged with supplying cartridges used in the crime, was convicted and sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and was subsequently released on bail.

Victim’s father had passed away

Sukhwinderjit’s aged father Inderjeet Singh, who retired as Chief Engineer, had died on April 14, 2015, while fighting a sustained battle for justice.

Victim’s son is 17

Victim’s only son Fateh Tej Pratap Singh, aged 17, is living with his septuagenarian grandmother Rajinder Kaur, who has decided to challenge the pardon orders.

Neki’s suicide bid

On March 16, 2009, Neki had cut both her wrists in the women’s cell of Patiala Central Jail, where she had been lodged at that time, following which she had been booked for attempt to suicide.


Rs.30,000/month for wife though NO DV proven !!… HC also says go and pay !!!

A magistrate court has ordered Rs 30,000 per month for wife and kids. The husband screaming from the rooftops saying that no evidence or enquiry was done, no examination was done, no DV Proven !!!! … However the High Court says that the wife and children have to be maintained and as long as the magistrate is satisfied that the complaint disclosed prima facie violence the magistrate can go and order interim maintenance !!!!..

This is the fate of married men in India…

Interim maintenance is the biggest to millstone around a married man’s neck. He can be penalised even before anything is proven against him. He can be Penalized without any wrong doing

Bharat Bararia vs Priyanka Bararia on 17 May, 2017





Able bodied male expected to earn according to Delhi minimum wages act and pay maintenance !!

The sessions court orders Rs.5000 Per month maintenance for the wife and child assuming that the husband is able bodied male and so should be earning sr least 17,000 per month …. This happens even though the husband has not been cross examined, & NO proof been provided by the wife!!

Smt. Seema vs Amit on 20 May, 2017
Delhi District Court

Smt. Seema vs Amit on 20 May, 2017


Criminal Appeal No. 98/2017
CNR NO. DLST01­002920­2017

Smt. Seema ……….appellant
w/o Sh. Amit
D/o Sh. Ganga Singh
r/o H. No. 16/157, Shahid Camp
Dakshin Puri, New Delhi ­ 110062


Amit ……….respondent no. 1
s/o Sh. Ashok Kumar r/o H. NO. 891, Gali no. 4, Jwala Puri, New Delhi The Stae (Govt. of NCT) ……….respondent no. 2 Date of Institution : 19th April 2017 Date of arguments : 15th May 2017 Date of order : 20th May 2017 J U D G M E N T

  1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred as Act) has been preferred against the order aged 23.03.2017 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby trial Court granted interim maintenance on the application 23 (1) of Protection of Woman from Domestic Seema vs Amit & ors. page no. 1 of 8 CA No. 98/2017 Violation Act, 2005 and directed respondent­Amit to pay the interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500/­ per month to the appellant.
  2. Aggrieved with the said order, appellant preferred the present appeal with the submissions respondent­Amit is working in a band party and this fact was admitted by him in his written statement and trial Court ignored this fact and did not pass the order on interim maintenance to the appellant­ Seema and her minor children. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the fact that respondent­Amit did not disclose the details of the immoveable properties as well as his place of working in his income affidavit. Moreover, it is the settled law that an able bodied person earns according to Minimum Wags Act, prevailing in Delhi. Learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that while passing the order of interim maintenance that the appellant­Seema has no source of income and is depended upon her parent and it is very difficult to survive in Delhi when the price index of day to day house hold goods and rationing are increasing day by day.

  3. Learned trial Court failed to provide maintenance i.e. fooding, clothing and medicines to the appellant­Seema and her minor children, since the date of filing of the complaint. The interim maintenance should have been passed from the date of filing of complaint and not from the date of order.

Seema vs Amit & ors. page no. 2 of 8
CA No. 98/2017
4. Learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that appellant­ Seema has no source of income and her children were totally dependent upon the earning of her old aged father. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate overlooked the documents filed by respondent­Amit i.e. application dated 30.11.2015 addressed to Commissioner of Police and medical documents i.e. discharge summary dated 21.11.2015 of Safdarjung Hospital are the false evidence as no such incident ever took place as appellant/complainant Seema is residing separately from her husband since 09.09.2015. The written statement filed by respondent­Amit, there is no mention of such kind of incident took place on 18.11.2015.

  1. Learned Trial Court failed to consider the fact that impugned order is non­speaking and ambiguous in nature and overlooked the fact that complainant/Seema and respondent/Amit have resided in domestic relation and complainant has no source of income while the kids are school going and they have the need of food, clothing and medicines but trial Court has provided the educational expenses only to the children while the maintenance is to be provided to the appellant­Seema and her minor children
  • Therefore, a prayer to enhance the interim maintenance to the appellant­seema and her minor children to the tune of Rs. 3,000/­ each per month from the date of filing of the petition.

  • Seema vs Amit & ors. page no. 3 of 8
    CA No. 98/2017
    7. After assigning of this present appeal, notice was issued to respondents but respondent no. 1 could not appear even though the notice was served affixation. Therefore, the matter proceeded for arguments.

    1. Having herd the submissions and gone through the record and relevant portion of law.
  • The relief sought may also include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent.

  • Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any Court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in passing of the order by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) , or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.

  • The Appellate Court cannot reassess the evidence at large and come to a fresh opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the accused, so as to interfere with a concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below. But even in cases of concurrent finding, the Court may interfere on the following reasons:

  • Seema vs Amit & ors. page no. 4 of 8
    CA No. 98/2017
    (i) Where there has been in the trial, a violation of the principles of natural


    (ii) Where the conclusions reached by the Courts below are to patently

    opposed to the well­established principles of judicial approach as to amount to a miscarriage of justice.

    (iii) Where the Courts have committed an error of law or of the forms of legal process or procedure by which justice itself has failed;

    (iv) Where there has been an improper reception or rejection of evidence which, if discarded or received, would leave the conviction unsupportable;

    (v) Where there has been a misreading of vital evidence or the Court omits to notice very important points in the accused’s favour which would swing the balance to the other way;

    (vi) When there are two versions before the Court, that version which is supported by objective evidence should be preferred, unless properly explained by the other side. At any rate, in such a case, if the defence version is supported by objective evidence, the accused should be entitled to benefit of doubt.

    1. In the case of Kripal Singh vs State of UP AIR 1965 SC 712 where there has been in the trial, a violation of the principles of natural justice Seema vs Amit & ors. page no. 5 of 8 CA No. 98/2017 if the order is perverse or inadequate and had resulted in the miscarriage of justice, the Appellate Court may interfere and pass the appropriate order instead of remanding the case for reconsideration.
  • The monetary relief granted while disposing of the application under sub­section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited,­

  • (a) the loss of earnings;

    (b) the medical expenses;

    (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any

    property from the control of the aggrieved person; and

    (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.

    1. The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

    Seema vs Amit & ors. page no. 6 of 8
    CA No. 98/2017
    15. The Court has power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

    1. The respondent is working in a band party and earns Rs. 15,000/­. Though it seems that he has concealed his actual income, which is contrary to the Minimum Wages Act. For the person like respondent, whose earning must be Rs. 17,000/­ plus per month as per the recent Minimum Wages Notification. Appellant has to take care of her and two minor children.
  • Therefore, the amount of Rs. 2500/­ per month payable by the respondent to the appellant to meet the expenses is very less and meagre as to consider the day to day expenses and cost of living is increasing.

  • In view of aforesaid discussions and the judgments cited, it will be appropriate that the appellant be granted interim maintenance to the sum of Rs. 2,500/­ per month for her personal expenses, in addition to the interim maintenance already granted by the trial court for the minor children from the date of the appeal filed, which seems to be just, fair and sufficient to meet the end of justice. With these observations and directions, appeal stands disposed of.

  • Trial Court Record be sent back to the Trial Court concerned alongwith copy of this order for compliance.

  • Seema vs Amit & ors. page no. 7 of 8
    CA No. 98/2017
    20. Appeal file be consigned to record room, after compliance of all other necessary formalities.

    (announced in the (Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam)
    open Court on Special Judge (NDPS)/ASJ
    20th May 2017) South District: Saket

    Seema vs Amit & ors. page no. 8 of 8
    CA No. 98/2017

    Smt. Seema vs Amit on 20 May, 2017


    Man screams pleads for life as he’s beaten TO DEATH by women ! All violence is ??

    A man is mercilessly beaten to death in full public view by a woman as ppl watch !! Police take action ONLY after the cruel gruesome video went viral !!

    Sad state of men in india