Cops, lawyers should not fight with each other: Bombay HC

Cops, lawyers should not fight with each other: Bombay HC
Cops, lawyers should not fight with each other: Bombay HC

Quashing a criminal case filed by a woman police constable against an advocate, also a woman, who used to park her car in front of Mahim police station here, the Bombay High Court has asked police personnel and lawyers not to fight with each other.

“It can’t be forgotten that advocates, police officers, public prosecutors and courts are stake holders in criminal administration of justice and they are expected to respect each other and not to fight,” observed a bench of Justices V M Kanade and Nutan Sardessai in a recent order.

Advocate Vaijayanti Kalekar used to park her car in front of the police station. One day, she had an argument on the parking issue with a woman constable who alleged that the lawyer was constructing a parking shed for the vehicle.

Following the altercation between the two, a complaint was filed by the constable against the lawyer alleging that the latter had insisted that she would continue parking the car and said the constable was free to do whatever she wanted against her.

Kalekar was booked under IPC sections 353 (assault or using criminal force to deter a public servant from performing duty), 188 (disobedience to the order promulgated by public servant) and 506 (criminal intimidation). She moved the high court seeking quashing of the police complaint.

“In our view, even if statements made in the complaint are accepted on its face value, the ingredients of offences which are levelled against the applicant lawyer are not made out.

Also, the applicant (lawyer) ought not to have behaved in the police station in a manner alleged by the constable.

“Without going into the correctness or otherwise of what is mentioned here, we are of the view that the allegations levelled against the applicant are not borne out from the statement made by the complainant,” said the judges.

“A perusal of the statement of the complainant clearly discloses that the ingredients of the offences levelled against the applicant are not made out even if they are accepted on its face value,” the court said while disposing of the application filed by the lawyer.

( Source – PTI )

Court asks cops to register FIR against MLC in abduction case

crimes against womenA court here has directed police to register an FIR against BSP MLC Brijesh Singh Prinshu for allegedly abducting a youth.

Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Abhinav Mishra yesterday directed the Sarai Lakhansi police station in-charge to lodge an FIR against the MLC.

One Indrabali Yadav, in his petition, alleged that the MLC had abducted his nephew Samar Bahadur on June 12 following a land dispute and expressed apprehension that he might be killed.

A police officer said FIR has not been registered yet and they were awaiting copy of the court order.

( Source – PTI )

CP shootout case: apex court confirms cop’s life sentence

The Supreme Court Monday dismissed the appeal by former Delhi assistant commissioner of police (ACP) S.S. Rathi and others, undergoing life imprisonment for the killing of two people in a shootout in the capital’s Connaught Place area in 1997.

Two people, Jagjit Singh and Pardeep Goel, were killed and another was injured in a shootout led by then Delhi ACP S.S. Rathi on March 31, 1997.

The matter was initially investigated by Delhi Police, but later handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Rathi and his three other associates were awarded life imprisonment by the special CBI court.

Their sentencing and conviction was upheld by the Delhi High Court, against which they appealed before the apex court.

No rape by cops, girls tell Chhattisgarh court

Two days after accusing four policemen of gang raping them in a police station complex in Chhattisgarhs Raigarh district, the two victims Friday retracted their earlier statements in a court Saturday.

The girls told a local court at Gharghora town Friday that they were not raped by policemen.

The girls, one of them a minor, belong to Dharmjaigarh yown where residents were outraged late Thursday by the alleged rape of the girls by four policemen Nov 9.

The girls escorted by dozens of angry local residents registered a first information report (FIR) at Dharmjaigarh police station against the identified four policemen. The town is located in Raigarh district, about 280 km from Raipur.

During the court proceedings Friday, the two refused to identify the accused policemen when Raigarh police chief Rahul Sharma produced all policemen who were on duty Nov 9, before the girls for identification.

The girls have also refused to undergo medical tests.

The rape charges had on Thursday sparked severe criticism against police force and Home Minister Nankiram Kanwar had reacted to the incident an “extremely shocking” and promised “total justice to the victims”.

Now residents of Dharmjaigarh town were reported to be embarrassed after girls refused to substantiate their charges that they made in an FIR that they went to see off two relatives at the bus stop on the night of Nov 9 when a police patrol team picked the men up and took them to the Dharmjaigarh police station.

The girls reached the police station to find out why their relatives were nabbed but were forcibly taken to a house in the complex by two policemen who raped them. They then called two other colleagues over the phone, who too raped them, they alleged.

Cops involved in barbaric acts threat to society: apex court

The Supreme Court Monday said some policemen in India still lived with a colonial mindset and perpetrated barbaric acts which were an anathema to a democratic society.

The court said this while hearing a case in which a man’s penis was cut off by policemen in Rajasthan.

‘If protector becomes the predator, civilized society will cease to exist,’ the judgment read.

‘This case reveals that some policemen have not got over their old colonial mentality and are persisting in barbaric acts in a free country which claims to be run by democratic constitution and rule of law,’ said Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur.

‘It also reveals a grisly state of affairs prevailing in our police set up,’ the court said.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Katju said the question before the court was: ‘What should be done to policemen who ‘Bobbitt’ a person in a police station and think they can get away with it?’

Victim Jugta Ram was taken to the Sadar police station in Barmer Feb 2, 1994 by constable Kishore Singh.

Jugta Ram was an assistant in a liquor shop owned by Bheru Singh and lived with the latter.

Jugta Ram was suspected of having an illicit relationship with Bheru Singh’s wife and his eldest daughter. The constable who took Jugta Ram to police station was related to Bheru Singh.

At the police station, Jugta Ram was illegally detained and tortured. On Feb 5, 1994, he admitted to his illicit ties with Bheru Singh’s wife.

Thereafter, he was held by the Station House Officer Sohan Singh and Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumer Dan and constable Kishore Singh used a sharp edged blade to chop off Jugta Ram’s penis.

In December 2005, the trial court awarded life imprisonment to constable Kishore Singh and different jail terms to Sohan Singh and Sumer Dan.

The Rajasthan High Court acquitted Sohan and Sumer Dan. Kishore Singh’s sentence was reduced to imprisonment already undergone.

The court said that what the policemen did ‘was a barbaric act’ and they deserve no leniency.

Rebutting the arguments of the senior counsel for the accused that there was no witness other than Jugta Ram, the judgment said: ‘A police station is not a public road or public place where people can see what is going on.

‘In our opinion, policemen who commit criminal acts deserve harsher punishment than other persons who commit such acts because it is the duty of the policemen to protect the people, not break the law.’

Don’t doubt cops who appear as witnesses, courts told

The Delhi High Court Monday said that courts should not doubt the evidence given by police officers as witnesses in a case.

The court’s observation was made while upholding life imprisonment awarded to a man, for killing his wife two years back, on the basis of statements of police personnel.

A division bench of Justice V.K. Jain and Justice B.D. Ahmed said: “The presumption that a person acts honestly and legally applies as much in favour of police officers as of others. It is not proper and permissible to doubt the evidence of police officers.”

The court relied upon the evidence of police officers after other witnesses turned hostile and no other witness turned up in the murder case in which the convict stabbed his wife to death.

“Judicial approach must not be to distrust and suspect their (policemen’s) evidence on oath without good and sufficient ground thereof,” the court said.

The court made the remarks on an appeal filed by Ram Dass challenging his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment in the murder case of his wife.

He had contended that the trial court had wrongly convicted him in the murder case as there was no witness to the incident and the court relied on the circumstantial evidence presented by police on the basis of their investigation.