Howsoever liberally we allow we are never satisfied with the things around us. However in a country like India, with so much poverty, lack of infrastructure, greed aka corruption, Over population leading unmeritorious people upward by sheer shortage of required number provoke thoughts. Here are those thoughts.
The CBI on Sunday took over the investigation into the alleged gang rape and assault that led to the death of a 19-year-old woman in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh. The accused has complained to police that it was a case of honour killing by the mother and brother of the deceased. When politicians selectively choose to exploit crime for political brownie point, truth can be anything.
The police had for past week searching a missing relative who was staying with the family from 16th September. (The incident happened on 14th September) The search led it to Medical College, Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh and it turned out that missing relative is now ‘naxal bhabhi’ trending on social media and she is a forensic professional.
Madhya Pradesh’s Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College has initiated an enquiry into the conduct of Dr Rajkumari Bansal, a forensic specialist from the institute who according to some media outlets was living with the victim’s family “posing as a relative”. The reports alleged she had links with Naxalism. The college said she “went on leave without information”.
Conflict of interest:
Presence of any forensic expert not sponsored or permitted by investigation agency is a serious lapse in investigation. It is also a serious attempt to sabotage the investigation. This may be the first but if this is not dealt seriously it may soon may become norm with criminal calling for forensic help to wipe clean the crime scene.
Apart from that, this social media is a buzz with pictures of this forensic expert with politicians who only play identity politics. If that be true, it may be part of a big play being planned by those people. They must also be investigated and their call records checked to see who gave instructions to the Bansal to reach Hathras.
Meanwhile several police teams from Mathura have been dispatched to Malappuram district in Kerala and elsewhere to investigate the journalist and three others booked under the anti-terror law UAPA and charged with sedition for allegedly conspiring to cause caste riots in the state. The four accused — Siddiqui Kappan, a journalist with a Malayalam-language news site in Delhi, Atikur Rahman of Muzaffarnagar, Masood Ahmad from Bahraich and Aalam from Rampur — were detained on October 5 while on their way to Hathras.
From Kerala to Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh, the network of riot mongers is very vast. It needs to be broken down, like yesterday.
Section 211 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides that false accusation of offence is itself an offence for which there is a punishment of imprisonment upto seven years and fine. This is the provision:
False charge of offence made with intent to injure.—Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
It starts with the narration that “Today on 6th October 2020 Assistant Police Inspector Mr. Kazi has informed me that on the basis of secret information“. Now the complainant has no information and Mr. Kazi who has information is not the complainant. Why? Obviously to escape the liability of section 211 quoted above.
Commissioner of Police is a high ranking officer and since Param Bir Singh is from Indian Police Service he has passed one of the toughest competitive exams but it appears law is not the strong suit of police officers or for Param Bir Singh. He so grossly out of sync that there is no option but ot conclude that he is ignorant of law. Let me explain.
Crime Investigation in India:
Crime investigation in India is governed, inter alia, by Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. (Buy it from my commercial site here) There are three sections of CrPC involved here. These are section 154, 161 and 162. The last is Most important.
Recording of FIR:
Section 154 of CrPC mandates that police is obligated to record commission of a cognizable offence in a register of First Information Reports and then proceed to investigate.
How can Police pronounce verdict of guilt when it has not even registered an FIR and commenced investigation?
Republic TV is a free to air Indian news channel launched in May 2017. It was co-founded by and Arnab Goswami and ruling party BJP’s MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who relinquished his stake in May 2019, leaving Goswami the majority stakeholder. Mumbai Police had earlier registered an FIR and summoned Arnab and his CFO after he had called Sonia Gandhi the President of Congress Party by her maiden name Antonio Maino.
AajTak is part of India Today group which was founded with a magazine in 1975-76, during emergency when other magazines were shutting shop due to press censorship. Aroon Purie was founder of this magzine though he was named as publisher and his father as owner. Read about Aroon Purie, here on wikipedia.
On 2 February 2019, Arnab launched Republic Bharat as it Hindi Channel in direct conflict with Aaj Tak which was number one on TRP ratings. Both Channels are engaged in TRP war for last three months. While English Republic TV has acquired 77% ratings demolishing all other English news channels, it has also overtaken Hindi Aaj Tak by it’s Bharat and is at the top now for over one month. This means huge revenue fall for other TV Channels.
Bombay High Court has granted bail to Rhea Chakraborty. The arguments in the matter were heard over seven days ago and now judgement is pronounced granting bail to her. There is a problem in the order.
Right to liberty is absolute:
As per the constitution, the right to liberty is absolute subject only to restrictions by a valid law. In this case the court took over seven days to decide, if Rhea Chakraborty was entitled to be free. Is that reasonable?
Justice delayed is justice denied:
I had pointed out that the requirement for bail under NDPS Act is very strict and it is almost a mini verdict on innocence. Section 37 of NDPS Act requires that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that s/he is not guilty of such offence. Now the judge has granted bail we have to assume that there was nothing on record to link her with the offence. We can not go into merits of the judgement. The reasons why Rhea should not be granted bail are already discussed here and I am surprised by the order which I have not read as yet.
Justice Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal of Bombay High Court has delivered the verdict after deliberating for seven days. Here is the problem.