#Sections 302 and 307 IPC | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

juudgeblog · 7 years ago

Text

Hashimpura Massacre Case – Verdict by the Delhi High Court Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonment

This article is written by Advocate Sanjeev Sirohi.

It has to be stated right at the outset that in a much awaited judgment, the Delhi High Court finally ending the years of nail biting suspense has finally delivered its historic verdict in Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors in CRL.A. 574/2015 & Crl.M.A. No. 8003/2015 which was reserved on 6 September and then finally pronounced on 31 October has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. This landmark 73-page judgment authored by Justice Dr S Muralidhar for himself and Justice Vinod Goel while pronouncing the verdict observed that, “Family of the victims had to wait 31 years to get justice, and monetary relief cannot compensate their loss.” Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for the appellant Zulfikar Nasar and advocate Vrinda Grover appeared for National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The Delhi High Court termed the brutal massacre as “targeted killing” of unarmed and defenceless people by the police.

To begin with, it is first and foremost pointed out in para 1.1 that, “Hashimpura is a mohalla, i.e. a small area of Meerut city, about 82.5 kms north-east of Delhi, in Uttar Pradesh. Meerut’s population in terms of the 2011 census was approximately 3.5 million. Around 3.6% of the population are Muslims. Many of them earn meager sums as artisans and labourers to keep themselves and their families going.” It is then pointed out in para 1.2 that, “On 22nd May 1987, in the evening hours, Hashimpura witnessed a tragedy that would leave a deep festering wound. Around 42 to 45 men, old and young, all Muslim, were rounded up by the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), packed into a truck and taken away. Each of them was shot by the PAC personnel with .303 rifles in cold blood and the bodies dispatched to a watery grave – some in the Gang nahar (canal) and the remaining in the Hindon river. Five of them survived to recount the horrific tale. Of the 38 that were killed, the dead bodies of just 11 of them were able to be identified later by their relatives. The remaining bodies were not recovered.”

To be sure, it is then spelled out in para 1.3 that, “In May, 1987 communal riots took place in Meerut district. As a result, the police, paramilitary and military forces had been posted at mohalla Hashimpur for riot control and security. This included the ‘C-Company’ of the 41st Battalion of the PAC. On 21st May 1987, the brother of an Army Major was killed in the mohalla adjacent to Hashimpura and two rifles belonging to the PAC personnel ‘were looted by certain anti social elements’. This led to the registration of FIR No. 204/1987 at PS Civil Lines, Meerut under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 347, 436 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The criminal case arising therefrom is still pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Meerut.

Of course, para 1.4 then goes on to add that, “On 22nd May 1987 post noon, around 644 men, all Muslim, belonging to mohalla Hashimpura were arrested under Sections 107, 116 and 151 CrPC. They were first rounded up under a peepal tree in Hashimpura and divided into two groups. The first group comprised elderly men and young boys and the second comprised young men. They were to be sent to the PS Civil Lines and Police Lines in Meerut in the trucks of the PAC, the Army, the CRPF and the local police on the directions of the District Administration. The 42 to 45 males rounded up by the PAC and taken away in a truck and killed belonged to the first group.” It is then explained in para 1.5 that, “The criminal justice process in connection with the murders commenced with the registration of two first information reports (FIRs). FIR No. 110/1987 was registered at PS Link Road, Ghaziabad on 22nd May, 1987 and FIR No. 141/1987 was registered at PS Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad on 23rd May, 1987. The investigation of both cases was handed over to the Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID), Uttar Pradesh.”

As things stand, it is then revealed in para 1.6 that, “The CB-CID filed a charge sheet in the criminal court in Ghaziabad in 1996, nine years after the event. 18 officers of the PAC were arraigned as accused in the first charge sheet. The 19th accused was arraigned in the supplementary charge sheet. Under the orders of the Supreme Court, passed in 2002 and 2007, the trial of the cases was transferred to Delhi. Charges were thereafter framed by the trial court on 24th May, 2006 against all the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B and 364/302/307/201 all read with 149 IPC. 19 years had elapsed by this time. During the pendency of the trial three of the accused died. The trial meandered for over eight years ending in a judgment dated 23rd March 2015 whereby all the 16 remaining accused were acquitted. That was 28 years after the commission of the crime.”

Needless to say, this aroused a lot of resentment among the relatives of the victims who were brutally killed. So they decided to go in for appeal. They firmly believed that justice had not been done with them by the trial court.

Not just this, even the State of UP and NHRC also decided to go in appeal against this judgment of trial court as they too were not happy with it. This is made amply clear in para 1.7 which stipulates that, “Aggrieved by the acquittal, three appeals have been filed in this Court – two by the victims and their families and one by the State of U.P. This Court permitted the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to intervene. Accepting the plea of the NHRC, this Court permitted additional evidence to be recorded by the trial Court, even while these appeals were kept pending.”

More glaringly, it is then disclosed in para 1.8 that, “By this judgment in the said appeals, we proceed to reverse the judgment of the trial Court and hold the 16 accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged viz., criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, murder, causing evidence of the crime to disappear. In arriving at this conclusion, we have also relied on the additional evidence recorded, which was not available to the trial Court. We hold that this was targeted killing by armed forces of the unarmed, innocent and defenceless members of a particular community.” It is also conceded in para 1.9 of this judgment that, “We are conscious that for the families of those killed, this is perhaps too little, too late. They have had to wait for 31 years for justice. The monetary compensation they have received cannot make up for the lives lost. This case points to the systemic failure that results, not infrequently, in a miscarriage of justice.”

The unfolding of events

It is imperative to now narrate the entire chain of events that preceded the ghastly killings. Para 3 points out that, “The trigger to the events leading to the registration of the two FIRs have been noticed earlier. To continue the narration of events that transpired at Hashimpura on 22nd May 1987 in the evening at around sunset, the PAC officials/jawans wearing khakipilli (dusky yellow) coloured uniforms, armed with rifles with sangeens (bayonets) gathered about 42 to 45 able bodied elderly men and young men and made them board a yellow coloured truck with PAC written on it in the white paint. It is stated that about 18 to 20 PAC jawans also got into the same truck having registration No. URU-1493, which belonged to C-Company of 41st Battalion PAC.”

Going forward, it is then pointed out in para 4 that, “The said truck, driven by Constable Mokam Singh, moved away from Mohalla Hashimpura towards the Delhi road. After moving for some time the truck stopped to allow more PAC officials to board. It then began moving again. After about 1 to 1 ½ hours of the journey, the truck reached the patri of Gang nahar in Murad Nagar. After travelling for about 1 ½ kilometers on the patri, the truck was brought to a halt. The lights of the truck were then switched off.”

Now coming to para 5, it continues further in the same vein and brings out that, “After stopping the truck, the accused personnel of the PAC started bringing down the persons from the hold one by one. The first person to be brought down – Mohd. Yasim, a resident of Hashimpura mohalla, was shot with the rifle of one of the PAC jawans and his body was thrown into the Gang nahar. The next one, Ashraf, was similarly brought down, fired at and killed and his body was thrown into the canal. The third person brought down was Zulfiqar Nasir (Appellant No. 1 in Crl A No. 574 of 2015) who was also a prosecution witness (PW-1) in the trial. He too was shot by the accused and thrown into the canal. PW-1 deliberately stopped breathing, feigning death. He managed to survive by concealing himself in the bushes around the water and later escaping on foot from the canal.”

What is more, para 6 then brings out that, “At the time when PW-1 was concealing himself, those inside the truck began shouting ‘bachao bachao’. Upon this, the accused present at the spot began firing indiscriminately at the persons inside the truck. Those inside the truck who were thus injured included Mohd. Usman (PW-3), Muzib-ur-Rehman (PW-4) and Babuddin (PW-11 and Appellant No. 1 in Crl. A. 629/2015). Leela Dhar (A-12), himself an accused, was part of the PAC jawans who also suffered an injury at this time by a ricocheting bullet. After this accused persons began throwing the bodies of those they had shot into the waters of the canal. In this process 15 to 16 bodies were thrown into the Gang nahar. These included three who miraculously survived: Mohd. Naeem (PW-2), Mohd. Usman (PW-3) and Muzib-ur-Rehman (PW-4).”

Moving further, para 7 then states that, “Noticing the headlights of an approaching vehicle, the accused persons stopped firing. The truck URU-1493 was driven back to the main road. After about 30 minutes, the truck again stopped at the pul/culvert of the Hindon Canal near Makanpur village. The accused persons got out of the truck and opened the rear portion (dala). They again brought down the remaining abducted persons and fired at them one by one. 15 to 20 persons, who were thus killed, were thrown into the canal. Babuddin (PW-11) who was also similarly shot at and thrown into the canal, miraculously survived.”

The two incidents

It would be imperative to mention here that para 8 then specifically points out that, “There were, therefore, two separate incidents that took place on the evening of 22nd May, 1987. The first incident took place at the Gang nahar in Murad Nagar. This further involved two distinct stages: one being the shooting of three persons i.e. Mohd. Yasim, Ashra and Zulfiqar Nasir and their bodies being thrown into the Gang nahar and the other the indiscriminate firing upon those inside the PAC truck and throwing 15 to 20 of the abducted persons who had been shot into the Gang nahar.

To put things in perspective, it is then mentioned in para 9 that, “The second incident was that which took place at the Hindon Canal pul/culvert where the remaining abducted persons were pulled down from the truck, shot at point blank range and their bodies thrown into the Hindon canal.” Para 10 then envisages that, “According to the prosecution, from the above two incidents, it could be reasonably inferred that close to 42 to 45 persons were abducted and barring five who survived i.e. Zulfiqar Nasir (PW-1), Mohd. Naeem (PW-2), Mohd. Usman (PW-3), Muzib-ur-Rehman (PW-4) and Babuddin (PW-11), the remaining were killed by the PAC jawans/officers.”

It cannot be lost on us that para 14 then holds that, “To continue the chronological narration, on 24th May, 1987 the investigation of both FIRs was transferred to the CB-CID, Uttar Pradesh. As already noted the chargesheets were filed in 1996. Between 1997 and 2000, the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad issued warrants against accused persons about 23 times but was unsuccessful.” The moot question is: Why the accused persons didn’t comply if they had nothing to hide? Why for 23 times they didn’t appear? Why no strict action was promptly taken against them?

More importantly, it is then revealed in para 15 that, “In September 2002, unhappy with the progress of the investigation, the families of the deceased filed Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 321/2002 in the Supreme Court of India seeking transfer of the trial from the Sessions Court, Ghaziabad to the corresponding Court in Delhi. By orders dated 22nd September, 2002 in Transfer Petition (Crl.) 321/2002 and 11th July, 2007 in Transfer Petition (Crl.) 285/2006, the Supreme Court transferred both criminal cases to the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi (hereinafter the ‘trial Court’).”

Click here

Simply put, para 16 then discloses that, “The trial Court framed charges against 19 accused on 24th May, 2006 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B and 364/302/307/201 all read with 149 IPC. Each of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Three of the accused, Surender Pal Singh [Accused No. 1 (‘A-1’)], Kush Kumar (A-5) and Om Prakash Sharma (A-18) expired during the pendency of the trial.” Para 17 then states that, “The recording of evidence of PW-1 Zulfiqar Nasir commenced on 22nd July, 2006. It is only on 23rd May 2014, that the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter on 21st March 2015, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment.”

Summary of conclusions

For the sake of brevity, it is time now to dwell directly on the summary of conclusions. Para 115 states explicitly that, “To summarize the conclusions:

(i) The key issues in the present appeals concern fixing the identity of both the truck in which the 42 to 45 abducted persons were taken and of the persons belonging to the PAC who were involved in the killing of around 38 of the abducted persons. (para 42)

(ii) Entry No. 6 in GD Entry Register dated 22nd May, 1987 of the C-Compnay Post, Police Lines, Meerut, marked through PW-72, as Ex. PW-72/A records the departure of the accused persons from Police Lines, Meerut at 7.50 am. Apart from setting out the name of the Commander, Surender Pal Singh (since deceased), it shows that he was accompanied by the 18 named accused. The said GD entry No. 6 shows that the said personnel of the PAC who had gone out in truck URU-1493 were having with them 17 rifles of .303 bore with 856 rounds and one revolver with 30 rounds. It further confirmed that the driver of the truck was Constable Mokam Singh. (para 50)

(iii) The truck running register (Ex PW-70/A) makes it clear that the truck visited on that date various areas including Hashimpura mohalla. Ex.PW-91/A which contained the list of officers posted with the C-Company of the PAC shows that the truck bearing number URU-1493 was used on that date by the accused Respondents. This also showed that the driver of truck URU-1493, when it was used on 22nd May 1987, was Mokam Singh. (para 51)

(iv) The presence of the accused in the truck stands proved, not only by the entries in the GD Register, but even in the replies given by these accused when their additional statements under Section 313 Cr PC were recorded in the trial court on 16th April, 2018. (para 57)

(v) There is thus evidence of a clinching nature which proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the evening of 22nd May, 1987, the accused persons of the PAC were present in the truck URU-1493. (para 59)

(vi) The factum of the firing inside the truck is proved by several pieces of evidence. (para 62) The fact that there was a hole in the body of the truck on which a 6×6 inch patch was welded, with the two dents/depressions in the body of the truck is sufficient to prove that it was truck URU-1493 which was involved in the transportation of 42 to 45 persons rounded up and abducted by the PAC and the subsequent killings of around 38 of them. (para 66)

(vii) The medical evidence has demonstrated that from the body of one of the deceased, a .303 bullet was recovered. The forensic evidence more than adequately demonstrates that this matched with the rifles issued to the accused. There has been no satisfactory explanation forthcoming for the presence of a .303 bullet in the body of one of the deceased. (para 69)

(viii) As many as six doctors had conducted the post-mortem and confirmed that the deceased died due to gunshot injuries. No doubt the bodies were decomposed since they were recovered from the canal after a gap of three to four days. Only a few of them could be identified, and even then, for some reasons, the police did not show these bodies to the families and close friends of the victims. They were made to identify the dead bodies only from photographs and clothes recovered. What, however, stands firmly established is that the deaths were homicidal and the deaths were on account of gunshot injuries. (para 70)

(ix) Both the first incident of killing and throwing of the bodies into the Gang nahar as well as the second incident involving the killing and dumping of the bodies into the Hindon Canal is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. (para 71)

(x) The involvement of the accused in this crime is more than adequately established through the contemporaneous evidence in the form of GD Registers establishing the fact that none of the accused has actually denied their presence at Meerut or that they were using the truck URU-1493. The identity and involvement of the said truck in the incident is also established beyond reasonable doubt. (para 71)

(xi) The evidence also clearly establishes the prior meeting of minds of the accused and their careful planning in executing the killings of the victims. Their guilt for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B IPC, and pursuant thereto committing the offence of kidnapping punishable under Section 364 IPC and murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and thereafter destroying the evidence of such crime thus punishable under Section 201 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. (para 72)

(xii) Although the victims were not taken to an enclosed place by the PAC, they were unlawfully detained, kept in a PAC, they were unlawfully detained, kept in a PAC trunk and taken to two places and asked to keep their heads down and not allowed to move. This leads this Court to conclude that they were kept in unlawful custody by the accused purporting to discharge their official functions when in fact they were clearly acting illegally. The deaths of the victims, in the present case, are custodial deaths. (para 81)

(xiii) The present case is yet another instance of custodial killing where the legal system has been unable to effectively prosecute the perpetrators of gross human rights abuses. The prolongation of the trial for over two decades, compounded by the endemic systemic delays, have frustrated the attempts at securing effective justice for the victims. (para 95)

(xiv) A case is the targeted killings of persons belonging to one minority community and killing of 38 of them soon after the incident of riots in which two rifles of the PAC were allegedly taken away by the rioters. It points to the disproportionate reaction by the PAC in targeting the members of the minority community. The Court is therefore unable to accept the submission on behalf of the accused that the motive for the commission of the crime was not proved. (para 104)

(xv) This Court recommends that every State Legal Services Authority should designate a Nodal Officer to address the needs of the victim families in the case of custodial killings or State excesses. The procedure put in place should ensure that such victims or the families are able to access and seek relief under the scheme and that such relief should not be limited to monetary compensation but other range of reliefs respecting the rights to basic survival and dignity of such families. (para 114)

Final directions

Truth be told, para 116 then stipulates that, “For the aforementioned reasons, this Court sets aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court acquitting the Respondents/Accused Nos. 2 to 17 in Crl.A. 574/2015 and hereby convicts each of them for the offences under Section 120-B and Sections 302, 364, 201 all read with Section 120-B IPC.”

Be it noted, para 117 then notes that, “This case involves the killing of around 38 innocent persons in cold blood by members of an armed force viz, the PAC. The gravity of the crime is obvious. At the same time, the Court is aware that this case has been pending for over three decades for reasons not entirely attributable to the accused. Their acquittal by the trial Court 28 years after the event as reversed by this Court, 31 years after the event. The present age of the accused persons has also therefore to be accounted for. The Court also notes that substantial sums by way of compensation have been disbursed to the victims and their families.”

Most important of all, it is then held in para 118 that, “Keeping in view all of the above factors, this Court sentences each of the aforementioned 16 accused to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC which, in this case, will mean the remainder of the person’s natural life.” It is then clarified in para 119 that, “For the other offences, the sentence awarded to each of the 16 accused is as under:

(i) For the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, to imprisonment for life;

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 10 years and fine of Rs 10,000 and in default of payment of fine to six months’ simple imprisonment (SI);

(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, to RI for 5 years and fine of Rs 10,000 and in default of payment of fine to six months’ SI; and

(iv) For the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC, to RI for 3 years and fine of Rs 10,000 and in default of payment of fine to six months’ SI.

The above sentences are directed to run concurrently

Now coming to the concluding paras, it is held in para 120 that, “Crl A. Nos. 574, 629 and 884 of 2015 are accordingly allowed. The pending applications are disposed of. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by Respondents 2 to 17 in Crl A. 574 of 2015 stand cancelled and they shall surrender on or before 22nd November 2018, failing which the SHO concerned will immediately take them into custody for serving out the sentences awarded to each of them.” It is then held in the last para 121 that, “The trial Court record be returned forthwith together with a certified copy of this order.”

All said and done, even though this landmark judgment is being hailed as sending a loud and strong message to all the men in uniform that if they dare to kill innocents then they will have to pay a heavy price but such an unconscionable delay of 31 years is unpardonable, unacceptable and unheard of in all good countries! What is more, even now this landmark judgment will be challenged in the Supreme Court and then another round of legal battle will begin afresh! 3 accused have already died a natural death! Why such unforgivable delay in delivering justice? For this even our courts must introspect!

But it must be added here that we can draw some solace from what the eminent, senior and one of the most reputed criminal lawyer of Meerut – Dr OP Sharma who is also the former President of Meerut Bar known for his indepth knowledge and vast expertise in criminal law points out with some degree of satisfaction about this life term conviction of 16 PAC policemen by Delhi High Court that, “Usually the cases of riots collapse by the time the judgment is pronounced and in some cases it is noticed that cases are even withdrawn and even social organizations try to make compromise and therefore cases are withdrawn. I have seen so many riots in Meerut as in 1968, September 1982 in Mandir-Masjid dispute when there was curfew in Meerut for 3 months but no one was convicted. Riots of 1987 or riots due to Ayodhya dispute in November 1990 and May 1991 and after this in 2011 in L Block riots and Teergaran riots but no one was convicted. Above all, police could not recognize rioters for many years and FIR was lodged in name of unknown persons. I have seen so many riots in the city but have never seen anyone getting convicted.” Nasim Zaidi who is Ex-CEC and was the then Ghaziabad DM opined that, “A crime had taken place and an FIR was lodged immediately which resulted in probe and a judicial process. This is a satisfactory judgement.”

No doubt, a good beginning has been made here by Delhi High Court but a lot more needs to be done! It must be ensured that not just the 16 subordinate PAC police personnel are punished but even those superiors who were involved in this ghastly massacre are brought to book! Vibhuti Narain Rai who was the Ghaziabad SSP in May 1987 and who also was the first to complain after survivors approached him minces no words in saying convincingly and categorically that, “We must not forget that such a heinous offence can’t be engineered and delivered by lower level staff. The theory that a sub-inspector was commanding everyone and constables executed his orders is hardly believable…unless someone senior and powerful is involved, constables won’t obey commands of an SI. Hashimpura came to light only because they moved to Ghaziabad to effect the killings and we swung into action and lodged an FIR. At least a hundred Muslims were killed in Mailana and buried right there and the matter hushed up. There is no case diary and no one knows the case status.” He also adds that, “The 16 convicted are small fry. Big people got away. The Army role was never investigated despite early case diaries mentioning the role of a Major linked to a political leader. I am happy that those who executed the orders have been punished but let us not forget that those behind the curtain, who planned and designed it, were not touched. There was a Congress CM in UP…and Rajiv Gandhi was the PM. The kind of alertness needed…wasn’t shown. There was no course correction even when Mulayam Singh assumed power. The tone and tenor of investigation changed with change of power in Lucknow and is evident in case diaries.”

Finally and most importantly, it must be reiterated that judgment must be delivered in such sensitive cases in the shortest possible time which should not exceed few months at the most and not few decades as we most unfortunately have witnessed for ourselves in this landmark case! For this not just the judiciary but also the Centre as also States must swing into action and provide all type of support like appointing more judges, giving more infrastructure, creating more courts etc! Unless this is done on a war footing things are not going to change much on the ground and the aggrieved victims will have to wait for a gruelling long period and justice delayed is not just justice denied but injustice perpetrated which under no circumstances can ever be justified!

The post Hashimpura Massacre Case – Verdict by the Delhi High Court Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonment appeared first on iPleaders.

Hashimpura Massacre Case – Verdict by the Delhi High Court Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonment syndicated from https://namechangersmumbai.wordpress.com/

0 notes

tnwenglish · 5 years ago

Text

Khushi, accused in Bikru massacre, declared minor by Juvenile Board

Khushi has been made a co-accused in the incident and booked under sections 302, 307, 394 of IPC and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat, Kamalkant Gupta said that in case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a minor, who has completed or is above age of 16 years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment…

View On WordPress

#India #National

0 notes

seemabhatnagar · 2 years ago

Text

Supreme Court will not interfere in matters where call is to be taken by the Executive

Balwant Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

The Supreme Court (SC) of India dismissed the Criminal Petition of the Accused Balwant Singh one of the accused in the #CriminalConspiracy which had resulted in the #assassination of the then #ChiefMinister of #Punjab, Prakash Singh Badal. Further the Apex Court also didn’t find it appropriate to give #access to the #file of #Ministry of #HomeAffairs to the Petitioner.

This verdict was pronounced on 03.05.2023 by the Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising Hon’ble Justice B R Gavai J, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol J.

The present Criminal petition was filed for calling the record of #mercypetition submitted on 25.03.2012 seeking clemency from the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution of India (COI). And to commute the death sentence into life imprisonment because of inordinate delay in deciding the mercy petition.

Fact: Balwant Singh, the petitioner in this case, is one of the accused who had hatched criminal conspiracy along with 8 others (Jagtar Singh Hawara, Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Shamsher Singh and Nasib Singh.) and had executed bomb blast on 31.08.95 in which Chief Minister of Punjab Prakash Singh Badal along with 16 others lost their lives and many were injured.

The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence pertaining to Sections 120-B, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860and u/s.3(b), 4(b) and 5(b) r/w 6 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and awarded death sentence.

In reference High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused (Petitioner Balwant Singh) but commuted the death sentence of Jagtar Singh into life imprisonment. However Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed Appeal before the Supreme Court against the commuting of death sentence into life imprisonment in the case of Jagtar Singh which is pending for consideration.

Other co-accused preferred appeal against the judgement of the High Court (HC) before the Apex Court but the present petitioner didn’t preferred any appeal or any Mercy Petition before the President of India.

The mercy petition pending before the President of India is filed by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC) on behalf of the Petitioner Balwant Singh.

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 27.09.2019 initiated a proposal on the occasion of commemoration of 550th Birth Anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji proposing special remission and release of prisoners.

Submission of the Petitioner Counsel:

Communication dt.27.09.2019 of Ministry pf Home Affairs, Government of India provided that 8 Sikh persons be given special remission under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and be released from prison and a further proposal for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment of one prisoner (petitioner) is to be processed under Article 72 of the Constitution of India.

Till date no decision has been taken.

As the State and the Union of India have not been able to decide the Mercy Petition which is pending for more than 10 years, this Court itself may grant that commutation.

Submission of the Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG)

Petitioner having expressed in specific terms that he has no faith in the judiciary of this country and that he did not regret at all being part of the crime and further has used contemptuous terms before the High Court which have been duly recorded, wherefore he does not deserve any mercy in view of his conduct.

Till date the petitioner himself has not submitted any Mercy Petition. The Mercy Petition dated 25.03.2012 was submitted by the SGPC. When the petitioner has not filed any Mercy Petition himself, there is no question of granting any relief as claimed.

Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation & creating law and order situation

Criminal Appeals filed by the co-accused Lakhwinder Singh & Jagtar Singh are still pending before this Court, as such consideration of any Mercy Petition would arise only after disposal of those appeals.

Criminal Appeal filed by CBI is also pending against the commuting of death sentence into lfe imprisonment in case of Jagtar Singh.

The decision in these appeals pending before this Court would be a relevant material and while considering the Mercy Petition the same could have a bearing. As such it would be appropriate to await the decision of the pending appeals.

There is no delay in consideration of the Mercy Petition. It is only after 27.09.2019 that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, required the State Government to send the proposal for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment under Article 72 of the COI.

Considering the prevailing situation, a decision has been taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs that it would be appropriate to defer taking any decision on the Mercy Petition as it could have serious potential of compromising the security of the nation or creating a law and order situation.

Observation of the Apex Court:

Delay in decision on Mercy Petition can’t be sustained.

Petitioner himself never submitted Mercy Petition. Mercy Petition on behalf of petitioner Balwant Singh was submitted by the SGPC.

The Ministry of Home Affairs communication dated 27.09.2019, is the proposal for considering the commutation of the death sentence of the petitioner was started and a decision was taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs to keep the same pending till disposal of the pending appeals before this Court, filed by the co-accused as well as by the CBI.

Deferring the decision by Ministry of Home Affairs amounts to a decision declining to grant the same for the present.

Since Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation or creating law and order situation.

It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues.

This Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions.

Seema Bhatnagar

#mercypetition #assasination #callofexecutive #supremecourt #highcourt #criminallawyers

1 note · View note

indiaaheadnews · 5 years ago

Text

NIA Court Orders Malegaon Blast Case Accused To Appear on Dec 19

Mumbai (Maharashtra) , December 3: A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai on December 3, directed all accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case to appear before the court on December 19. The court will take the case up for hearing that day. Out of the seven accused in the matter, three accused including LT Col Purohit, Sameer Kulkarni and Ajay Rahirkar were present before the court today. The court took note of their presence and directed all accused to be present in-person before the court. Besides these three, BJP MP Pragya Thakur, retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Dwivedi and Sudhakar Chaturvedi are also accused in the case. They have been charged under various sections of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the Explosive Substances Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges include Sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) of the UAPA and Sections 120(b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153(a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups) of the IPC. Six people were killed and over 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in Malegaon, a town in north Maharashtra, on September 29, 2008. Read the full article

#2008MalegaonBlastCase #Mumbai #NIACourt #UAPA

0 notes

brajeshupadhyay · 5 years ago

Text

Delhi court extends police custody of two Pinjra Tod members by 2 days in connection with communal violence in Northeast Delhi

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday extended by two days the police custody of two women members of the Pinjra Tod group in a case related to the communal violence in northeast Delhi.

The metropolitan magistrate extended the remand of JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in the case after the police said custodial interrogation was required to unearth the conspiracy behind the case and identify other accused.

The two were arrested on Saturday in connection with a protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in Jaffrabad area in February.

On Sunday, they were granted bail by the court in the case, but moments later the Delhi Police crime branch had moved an application seeking to interrogate them and formally arrest them in a separate case.

They had sought 14 days of custody of the accused. The court had sent them to police custody for two days, saying the investigation was at its initial stage.

The case, in which they were arrested on Saturday, was registered under sections 147 (rioting), 186 (obstructing public servant), 188 (disobedience of order), 283 (danger or obstruction in public way), 109 (abetment), 341 (wrongful restraint), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging duty) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case in which they were arrested on Sunday was registered under sections 147 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 283 (danger or obstruction in public way), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 332 (causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 307 (attempt to murder), 302 (murder), 427, 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 188 (disobedience of public servant's order) of the IPC, relevant sections of the Arms Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and around 200 injured.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/2TEwZMP

#Blogger #followme instagood art friends beautiful prilaga like4like likeforlike fashion na

0 notes

f3news · 6 years ago

Text

#TikTok Ki Chakkar Me Gayi Jaan

Tik-Tok Ki Chakkar Me Gayi Jaan

Ek 17 saal ke Ladke ki hui maut TikTok ki video banaate hue

Ladke ka naam Pratik Wadekar (17) bataya jaa raha hai

Yeh haadsa Shirdi ke mandir – Ahmednagar mein hua on wednesday (12th June)

Police ka yeh kehna hai ki country-made pistol (katta) se hui maut..

Police Registered case on Thursday IPC under section 302 (murder) aur 307 (attempt to murder)

View On WordPress

0 notes

marymosley · 6 years ago

Text

Analysis of Winning MPs of Lok Sabha 2019 (Criminal Record, Assets, Gender & Education)

National Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) have analysed the self-sworn affidavits of 539 out of 542 Winners in the Lok Sabha 2019 Elections. Elections in Vellore constituency has been cancelled. 3 Winners were not analysed due to the unavailability of their clear and complete affidavits on the ECI website at the time of making this report.

Criminal Background

Winners with Declared Criminal Cases Out of the 539 Winners analysed in Lok Sabha 2019, 233 (43%) Winners have declared criminal cases against themselves. Out of 542 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2014, 185(34%) Winners had declared criminal cases against themselves. Out of 543 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2009, 162 (30%) Winners had declared criminal cases against themselves. There is an increase of 44% in the number of MPs with declared criminal cases since 2009.

Winners with Serious Criminal Cases: 159 (29%) Winners in Lok Sabha 2019 Elections have declared serious criminal cases including cases related to rape, murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, crimes against women etc. Out of 542 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2014, 112(21%) Winners had declared serious criminal cases against themselves. Out of 543 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2009, 76(14%) Winners had declared serious criminal cases against themselves. There is an increase of 109% in the number of MPs with declared serious criminal cases since 2009.

An INC Winner, Dean Kuriakose from Idukki constituency has declared 204 criminal cases against himself, including cases related to committing culpable homicide, house trespass, robbery, criminal intimidation etc.

Lok Sabha Election Year Total Number of Winners Analysed Number of Winners With Declared Criminal Cases Percentage of Winners with Declared Criminal Cases Number of Winners With Declared Serious Criminal Cases Percentage of Winners with Declared Serious Criminal Cases 2009 543 162 30% 76 14% 2014 542 185 34% 112 21% 2019 539 233 43% 159 29%

Table: Winners with Declared Criminal Cases: 2009, 2014, And 2019

Winners with declared convicted cases: 10 Winners have declared convicted cases against themselves. The details of these winners are given below:

S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases(including pending cases) Serious IPC Other IPC 1 Dean Kuriakose Kerala Idukki INC 204 37 887 2 Chhatar Singh Darbar Madhya Pradesh Dhar BJP 1 3 0 3 Kailash Choudhary Rajasthan Barmer BJP 2 2 6 4 Manoj Kishorbhai Kotak Maharashtra Mumbai North East BJP 2 2 4 5 T.N. Prathapan Kerala Thrissur INC 7 1 35 6 K. Sudhakaran Kerala Kannur INC 3 1 6 7 Talari Rangaiah Andhra Pradesh Anantapur YSRCP 2 1 3 8 V K Sreekandan Kerala Palakkad INC 7 0 29 9 Jagdambika Pal Uttar Pradesh Domariyaganj BJP 3 0 3 10 Rajbahadur Singh Madhya Pradesh Sagar BJP 1 0 0

Table: Winners with declared convicted cases

Winners with cases related to murder: 11 Winners have declared cases related to murder (Indian Penal Code Section-302). The details of these winners are given below:

S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases Serious IPC Other IPC 1 Horen Sing Bey ASSAM AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT BJP 2 12 6 2 Sri Nisith Pramanik WEST BENGAL COOCH BEHAR BJP 11 21 23 3 Ajay Kumar UTTAR PRADESH KHERI BJP 1 1 0 4 Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL BJP 1 5 2 5 Chhatar Singh Darbar MADHYA PRADESH DHAR BJP 1 3 0 6 Atul Kumar Singh UTTAR PRADESH GHOSI BSP 13 14 23 7 Afzal Ansari UTTAR PRADESH GHAZIPUR BSP 5 3 11 8 Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury WEST BENGAL BAHARAMPUR INC 7 12 24 9 Naba Kumar Sarania ASSAM KOKRAJHAR IND 5 14 7 10 Bhonsle Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayanraje Pratapasinh Maharaj MAHARASHTRA SATARA NCP 8 17 44 11 Kuruva Gorantla Madhav ANDHRA PRADESH HINDUPUR YSRCP 2 4 0

Table: Winners with declared cases related to murder

Winners with cases related to Attempt to Murder: 30 Winners have declared cases of attempt to murder (IPC Section-307).

Winners with cases related to Crimes against Women: 19 Winners have declared cases related to crimes against women. Out of 19 Winners, 3 Winners have declared cases related to rape (IPC Section-376). The details of these winners are given below:

S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases Serious IPC Other IPC 1 Saumitra Khan WEST BENGAL BISHNUPUR BJP 6 19 3 2 Hibi Eden KERALA ERNAKULAM INC 7 2 26 3 Kuruva Gorantla Madhav ANDHRA PRADESH HINDUPUR YSRCP 2 4 0

Table: Winners with declared cases related to rape

Winners with cases related to Kidnapping: 6 Winners have declared cases related to kidnapping. The details of these winners are given below:

S.No. Name State Constituency Party Total Cases Serious IPC Other IPC 1 Horen Sing Bey Assam Autonomous District BJP 2 12 6 2 Satyapal Singh Baghel Uttar Pradesh Agra BJP 5 8 9 3 Kishan Kapoor Himachal Pradesh Kangra BJP 2 4 3 4 Pankaj Choudhary Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj BJP 5 6 9 5 Atul Kumar Singh Uttar Pradesh Ghosi BSP 13 14 23 6 Naba Kumar Sarania Assam Kokrajhar Independent 5 14 7

Table: Winners with declared cases related to kidnapping

Winners with cases related to Hate Speech: 29 Winners have declared cases related to hate speech.

Chances of Winning for candidates with Declared Criminal Cases: The chances of winning for a candidate with declared criminal cases in the Lok Sabha 2019 is 15.5% whereas for a candidate with a clean background, it is 4.7%.

Party wise Winners with Criminal Cases: 116(39%) out of 301 Winners from BJP, 29(57%) out of 51 Winners from INC, 10(43%) out of 23 Winners from DMK, 9(41%) out of 22 Winners fielded by AITC and 13 (81%) out of 16 winners from JD(U) have declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

Party wise Winners with Serious Criminal Cases: 87(29%) out of 301 Winners from BJP, 19(37%) out of 51 Winners from INC, 6 (26%) out of 23 Winners from DMK, 4(18%) out of 22 Winners fielded by AITC and 8 (50%) out of 16 winners from JD (U) have declared serious criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

Financial Background

Crorepati Winners: Out of the 539 Winners analysed, 475 (88%) are crorepatis. Out of 542 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha 2014 elections, 443 (82%) Winners were crorepatis. Out of 543 Winners analysed during Lok Sabha 2009 elections, 315(58%) Winners were crorepatis.

S.No. Lok Sabha Election Year Total Number of Winners Analysed Crorepati Winners Percentage of Crorepati Winners 1 2009 543 315 58% 2 2014 542 443 82% 3 2019 539 475 88%

Table: Crorepati Winners: 2009, 2014, And 2019

Party wise Crorepati Winners: 265(88%) out of 301 Winners from BJP, 43 (84%) out of 51 Winners from INC, 22 (96%) out of 23 Winners from DMK, 20(91%) out of 22 Winners fielded by AITC, 19(86%) out of 22 Winners fielded by YSRCP,and 18(100%) Winners from SHS have declared assets worth more than Rs. 1 crore.

Chances of Winning based on assets: The chance of winning for a crorepati candidate in the Lok Sabha 2019 is 21%, whereas chance of winning for a candidate with assets less than Rs. 1 crore is 1%.

Value of assets(Rs.) No of candidates No of Winners % of Winners Rs.5 cr and above 883 266 30.1% Rs.2 crores to Rs. 5 crores 678 125 18.4% Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs.2 crores 1601 112 7% Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs 2069 27 1.3% less than Rs.10 lakhs 2699 9 0.3%

Table: Chances of Winning on the basis of Assets

Average assets: The average of assets per Winner in the Lok Sabha Elections 2019 is Rs 20.93 Crore.

Party wise average assets: Among major parties, the average assets per Winner for 301 BJP Winners is Rs 14.52 Crores, 51 INC Winners have average assets of Rs 38.71 Crores, 23 DMK Winners have average assets worth Rs 24.51 Crores, 22 YSRCP Winners have average assets worth Rs 54.85 Crore, and 22 AITC Winners have average assets of Rs. 6.15 crores.

High asset Winners*: The 3 richest Winners in the Lok Sabha 2019 Elections are given below:

S.No. Name State Constituency Party Name Movable Assets (Rs) Immovable Assets (Rs) Total Assets (Rs) PAN Given 1 Nakul Nath MADHYA PRADESH CHHINDWARA INC 6,18,41,72,757 41,77,74,000 6,60,19,46,757 660 Crore+ Y 2 Vasanthakumar H TAMIL NADU KANNIYAKUMARI INC 2,30,49,30,444 1,87,00,00,000 4,17,49,30,444 417 Crore+ Y 3 D.K. Suresh KARNATAKA BANGALORE RURAL INC 33,30,03,790 3,05,59,16,927 3,38,89,20,717 338 Crore+ Y

Table: Top three Winners with highest declared assets

Low asset Winners: The details of top 3 Winners with low assets are given below :

S.No. Name State Constituency Party Name Movable Assets (Rs) Immovable Assets (Rs) Total Assets (Rs) PAN Given 1 Goddeti Madhavi ANDHRA PRADESH ARAKU YSRCP 1,41,179 0 1,41,179 1 Lacs+ Y 2 Chandrani Murmu ODISHA KEONJHAR BJD 3,40,580 0 3,40,580 3 Lacs+ Y 3 Mahant Balak Nath RAJASTHAN ALWAR BJP 3,52,929 0 3,52,929 3 Lacs+ Y

Table: Top 3 low asset Winners

Winners with high liabilities: The top three Winners with highest liabilities are as given below;

S.No. Name State Constituency Party Name Total Assets(Rs) Liabilities (Rs) Disputed liabilities (Rs) PAN Given 1 Vasanthakumar H TAMIL NADU KANNIYAKUMARI INC 4,17,49,30,444 417 Crore+ # 1,54,75,11,439 154 Crore+ 11,60,689 11 Lacs+ Y 2 Mala Rajya Laxmi Shah UTTARAKHAND TEHRI GARHWAL BJP 1,84,66,40,100 184 Crore+ 1,35,00,00,000 135 Crore+ 0 Y 3 Malook Nagar UTTAR PRADESH BIJNOR BSP 2,49,96,28,021 249 Crore+ # 1,01,61,48,176 101 Crore+ 20,48,20,865 20 Crore+ Y

Table: Top three Winners with high liabilities

#Disputed Liabilities

Undeclared PAN: A total of 4 out of the 539 Winners analysed have not declared their PAN details.

Winners with high income as declared in the ITR*: The details of top 3 winners with the highest income are given below :

S.No. Name Party Name Constituency State Total Asset (Rs) Self Source of Income Spouse’s Source of Income The financial year for which the last income tax the return has been filed by the winner Total income shown by winner in ITR (Self+Spouse+

Dependent) (Rs)

Self income shown by winner in ITR (Rs) 1 Jayadev Galla TDP GUNTUR ANDHRA PRADESH 3,05,14,85,242 305 Crore+ business, agriculture, salary from parliament,income from investment and rents business and income from investments 2017-2018 43,44,33,800 43 Crore+ 40,16,09,970 40 Crore+ 2 Dr.Gaddam Ranjith Reddy TRS CHEVELLA TELANGANA 1,63,46,95,131 163 Crore+ Salary Income, Rental Income, Business Income & Agriculture Income Salary Income, Rental Income & Agriculture Income 2017-2018 33,43,25,847 33 Crore+ 16,82,34,433 16 Crore+ 3 Vasanthakumar H INC KANNIYAKUMARI TAMIL NADU 4,17,49,30,444 417 Crore+ Business Nil 2017-2018 28,95,96,120 28 Crore+ 28,93,59,990 28 Crore+

Table: Top 3 Winners with high income as declared in ITR

*Total income includes income of self, spouse and dependents

Other Background Details

Education details of Winners: 128 (24%) Winners have declared their educational qualification to be between 5th pass and 12th pass, while 392 (73%) Winners have declared having an educational qualification of graduate and above. 1Winner has declared himself to be just literate and 1 Winner is Illiterate.

Age details of Winners: 194 (36%) Winners have declared their age to be between 25 and 50 years while 343 (64%) Winners have declared their age to be between 51 and 80 years. 2 Winners have declared they are more than 80 years old.

Gender details of Winners: There are 77 (14%) women Winners in the Lok Sabha election this year. Out of 542 Winners analysed in the Lok Sabha elections 2014, 62 (11%) Winners were women. Out of 543 Winners analysed in the Lok Sabha elections 2009, 59 (11%) Winners were women.

Comparative Analysis of the assets of re-elected MPs

Average Assets in 2014: The average assets of these 225 re-elected MPs fielded by various parties including independents in 2014 was Rs 17.07 Crores.

Average Assets in 2019 Elections: The average asset of these 225 re-elected MPs in 2019 is Rs 21.94 Crores.

Average Asset growth in 5 years (2014-2019): The average asset growth for these 225 re-elected MPs, between the Lok Sabha Elections of 2014 and 2019 is Rs 4.87 Crores.

Percentage growth in 5 years (2014-2019): Average percentage growth in assets for these 225 re-elected MPs is 29%.

S.No. Party in Lok Sabha 2019 Total Number of Winners Average Assets in Lok Sabha 2019(Rs.) Average Assets in Loksabha 2014(Rs.) Average Asset Increase/Decrease(Rs.) Average % Increase/decrease in Asset 1. BJP 154 16,93,66,920 16 Crore+ 12,48,80,142 12 Crore+ 4,44,86,778 4 Crore+ 35.62% 2. AITC 15 5,89,49,046 5 Crore+ 3,27,23,241 3 Crore+ 2,62,25,805 2 Crore+ 80.14% 3. INC 14 36,93,83,109 36 Crore+ 14,75,08,188 14 Crore+ 22,18,74,921 22 Crore+ 150.42% 4. SHS 13 15,53,13,720 15 Crore+ 9,44,42,670 9 Crore+ 6,08,71,050 6 Crore+ 64.45% 5. LJP 3 4,85,43,451 4 Crore+ 3,00,14,195 3 Crore+ 1,85,29,256 1 Crore+ 61.73% 6. TDP 3 1,32,74,76,233 132 Crore+ 2,73,29,59,151 273 Crore+ -1,40,54,82,918 -51% 7. NCP 3 1,13,55,46,839 113 Crore+ 58,19,06,059 58 Crore+ 55,36,40,780 55 Crore+ 95.14% 8. TRS 3 85,97,74,347 85 Crore+ 57,28,26,690 57 Crore+ 28,69,47,657 28 Crore+ 50.09% 9. IUML 2 3,05,17,905 3 Crore+ 3,33,40,418 3 Crore+ -28,22,513 -8% 10. JD(U) 2 3,51,43,973 3 Crore+ 1,70,64,656 1 Crore+ 1,80,79,317 1 Crore+ 105.95% 11. BJD 2 64,07,98,160 64 Crore+ 72,99,12,651 72 Crore+ -8,91,14,491 -12% 12. IND 1 1,30,13,994 1 Crore+ 21,55,559 21 Lacs+ 1,08,58,435 1 Crore+ 503.74% 13. Revolutionary Socialist Party 1 1,75,00,650 1 Crore+ 1,62,28,989 1 Crore+ 12,71,661 12 Lacs+ 7.84% 14. AIUDF 1 78,80,64,044 78 Crore+ 43,27,48,134 43 Crore+ 35,53,15,910 35 Crore+ 82.11% 15. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference 1 12,19,04,435 12 Crore+ 14,18,85,154 14 Crore+ -1,99,80,719 -14% 16. AAP 1 1,64,27,274 1 Crore+ 4,30,57,512 4 Crore+ -2,66,30,238 -62% 17. SP 1 20,56,04,593 20 Crore+ 15,96,71,544 15 Crore+ 4,59,33,049 4 Crore+ 28.77% 18. SAD 1 2,17,99,19,870 217 Crore+ 1,08,16,64,910 108 Crore+ 1,09,82,54,960 109 Crore+ 101.53% 19. Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party 1 12,81,17,474 12 Crore+ 12,75,42,708 12 Crore+ 5,74,766 5 Lacs+ 0.45% 20. JMM 1 1,29,19,555 1 Crore+ 68,63,306 68 Lacs+ 60,56,249 60 Lacs+ 88.24% 21. Apna Dal (Soneylal) 1 2,69,00,662 2 Crore+ 2,68,58,156 2 Crore+ 42,506 42 Thou+ 0.16% 22. AIMIM 1 17,90,44,376 17 Crore+ 4,06,11,099 4 Crore+ 13,84,33,277 13 Crore+ 340.88% GRAND TOTAL 225 21,94,37,968.32 21 Crore+ 17,07,03,558.26 17 Crore+ 4,87,34,410.06 4 Crore+ 29%

Table : Party Wise Average Assets increase/ decrease of Re-elected MPs

Top 10 Re-elected MPs with highest asset increase (Rupees- wise) *

S.No. Name Source of Income (Self) Source of Income (Spouse) Party in Lok Sabha 2019 Party in Loksabha 2014 State in Lok Sabha 2019 Constituency in Lok Sabha 2019 Constituency in Loksabha 2014 Assets in Lok Sabha 2019(Rs.) Assets in Loksabha 2014(Rs.) Asset Increase/decrease(Rs.) % Increase/decrease in Asset Total Annual Income as per last return(Rs.) 1. D.K. Suresh Salary , Capital Gains , Agriculture Income & Other Sources ( Such As bank Interest) Nil INC INC KARNATAKA BANGALORE RURAL BANGALORE RURAL 3,38,89,20,717 338 Crore+ 85,87,13,138 85 Crore+ 2,53,02,07,579 253 Crore+ 295% 1,87,81,090 1 Crore+ 2. Bhonsle Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayanraje Pratapasinh Maharaj Agriculture, Inerest Income, Rent, Salary & Others Rent, Interest Income & Others NCP NCP MAHARASHTRA SATARA SATARA 1,99,68,13,173 199 Crore+ 60,60,89,208 60 Crore+ 1,39,07,23,965 139 Crore+ 229% 1,40,56,080 1 Crore+ 3. Harsimrat Kaur Badal Salary as Minister ,Rent, Interest and Agriculture Income Salary as MLA,Rental Income, Interest and Agriculture Income SAD SAD PUNJAB BATHINDA BATHINDA 2,17,99,19,870 217 Crore+ 1,08,16,64,910 108 Crore+ 1,09,82,54,960 109 Crore+ 102% 2,62,83,388 2 Crore+ 4. Hema Malini Dharmendra Deol Business & Rent & Interest Business & Pension & Interest BJP BJP UTTAR PRADESH MATHURA MATHURA 2,50,82,70,292 250 Crore+ 1,78,20,15,620 178 Crore+ 72,62,54,672 72 Crore+ 41% 2,23,43,260 2 Crore+ 5. Kotha Prabhakar Reddy RENTAL INCOME & REMUNERATION AS MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT BUSINESS TRS TRS TELANGANA MEDAK MEDAK : BYE ELECTION ON 13-09-2014 1,26,65,81,773 126 Crore+ 68,43,85,203 68 Crore+ 58,21,96,570 58 Crore+ 85% 92,19,758 92 Lacs+ 6. Sukhbir Singh Jaunapuria Agriculture, Business and Remuneration from Lok Sabha Agriculture, Business and Interest Income BJP BJP RAJASTHAN TONK SAWAI MADHOPUR TONK SAWAI MADHOPUR 1,23,38,02,420 123 Crore+ 71,41,24,612 71 Crore+ 51,96,77,808 51 Crore+ 73% 11,59,340 11 Lacs+ 7. Jigajinagi Ramesh Chandappa Agriculture Dead BJP BJP KARNATAKA BIJAPUR BIJAPUR 50,41,22,985 50 Crore+ 8,94,29,828 8 Crore+ 41,46,93,157 41 Crore+ 464% 44,32,850 44 Lacs+ 8. Shrirang Chandu Barne Agriculture , Construction Business, Salary Housewife, Agriculture And Transport Business SHS SHS MAHARASHTRA MAVAL MAVAL 1,02,33,10,134 102 Crore+ 66,50,47,926 66 Crore+ 35,82,62,208 35 Crore+ 54% 45,59,571 45 Lacs+ 9. Badruddin Ajmal Business, Bank Interest, Remuneration from Partnership Firm, MP Salary, Gains on sale of Property, Profit from Partnership Firms Etc. Bank interest, Dividend, Gains on Sale of Property etc. AIUDF AIUDF ASSAM DHUBRI DHUBRI 78,80,64,044 78 Crore+ 43,27,48,134 43 Crore+ 35,53,15,910 35 Crore+ 82% 4,29,08,120 4 Crore+ 10. Nishikant Dubey Salaried Income Rental Income, Income from Profession BJP BJP JHARKHAND GODDA GODDA 46,27,57,500 46 Crore+ 15,56,33,719 15 Crore+ 30,71,23,781 30 Crore+ 197% 2,45,41,830 2 Crore+

Table: Assets Comparison of top 10 re-elected MPs – rupees –wise *There could be assets for which the winner might not have disclosed the value in 2019 or in the affidavit from the previous election

For the complete report, please go to: https://adrindia.org/content/lok-sabha-elections-2019-analysis-criminal-background-financial-education-gender-and-other

The post Analysis of Winning MPs of Lok Sabha 2019 (Criminal Record, Assets, Gender & Education) appeared first on Legal Desire.

Analysis of Winning MPs of Lok Sabha 2019 (Criminal Record, Assets, Gender & Education) published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

todaybharatnews · 6 years ago

Link

via Today Bharat More than 40 per cent of the elected members of 17th Lok Sabha have criminal cases against them, says an analysis by election watch group Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The ADR conducted an analysis of 539 affidavits filed by the winning candidates in which it was found that 233 (43 per cent) winners have declared criminal cases against themselves. This is higher than 2014 when out of 542 winners 185 (34 per cent) had declared criminal cases against themselves. In fact, in 2009, out of 543 winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections, 162 (30 per cent) had declared criminal cases against themselves. Hence, in 2019 there is an increase of 44 per cent in the number of MPs with declared criminal cases since 2009. A total of 159 (29 per cent) winners in 2019 have declared serious criminal cases including cases related to rape, murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, crimes against women etc, ADR said. Compared to this, out of 542 winners analysed during 2014 Lok Sabha elections, 112 (21 per cent) winners had declared serious criminal cases against themselves and out of 543 winners analysed during Lok Sabha elections in 2009, 76 (14 per cent) winners had declared serious criminal cases against themselves. There is an increase of 109 per cent in the number of MPs with declared serious criminal cases since 2009. Interestingly, Congress leader Dean Kuriakose elected from Idukki constituency has declared 204 criminal cases against himself, including cases related to committing culpable homicide, house trespass, robbery, criminal intimidation etc, ADR report said. At least 10 winners have declared convicted cases against themselves and 11 winners have declared cases related to murder (Indian Penal Code Section 302). There are 30 winners who have declared cases of attempt to murder (IPC Section 307) and 19 who have declared cases related to crimes against women. In fact out these 19 winners, three have declared cases related to rape (IPC Section 376).nbsp; They are BJP's Saumitra Khan from West Bengal, Congress' Hibi Eden from Kerala and YSRCP's Kuruva Gorantla Madhav from Andhra Pradesh. There are 29 winners who have declared cases related to hate speech. During the analysis it was found that chances of winning for candidates with declared criminal cases in the Lok Sabha 2019 was 15.5 per cent whereas for a candidate with a clean background it was 4.7 per cent. Going by the analysis of party wise winners with criminal cases, there were 116 (39 per cent) out of 301 winners from BJP; 29 (57 per cent) out of 51 winners from Congress, 10 (43 per cent) out of 23 winners from DMK, 9 (41 per cent) out of 22 winners fielded by AITC and 13 (81 per cent) out of 16 winners from JD(U)nbsp; have declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

#IFTTT #Today Bharat

0 notes

whittlebaggett8 · 6 years ago

Text

All Malegaon blast accused told to appear before court once a week

Mumbai: A particular courtroom listed here conducting trial in the 2008 Malegaon blast scenario, Friday directed all the seven accused, including BJP’s Bhopal Lok Sabha candidate Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, to look before it the moment a 7 days. Upset more than the frequent absence of the accused for the duration of the trial, NIA court docket choose Vinod Padalkar gave this direction. He also directed that exemption sought without having cogent factors will be turned down. The court, at existing, is recording the testimony of the witnesses in the case. The make any difference will be upcoming heard on Might 20. Other than Purohit and Thakur, Big (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni are other accused in the scenario. They are all out on bail. In Oct last year, the court docket had framed charges in the situation from all the seven accused for terror routines, felony conspiracy and murder, among other people. The accused facial area trial less than sections of the stringent Illegal Things to do Avoidance Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They have been charged below sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) of the UAPA. Under the IPC, they ended up charged under sections 120 (b) (felony conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily creating harm) and 153 (a) (endorsing enmity concerning two religious teams). The accused were also charged less than related sections of the Explosive Substances Act. On September 29, 2008, six people today were killed and above 100 wounded when an explosive unit strapped on a motorcycle went off in the vicinity of a mosque in Malegaon, a town about 200 km from right here in north Maharashtra. —PTI

Hindutva outfit, Modi Govt

The post All Malegaon blast accused told to appear before court once a week appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/05/17/all-malegaon-blast-accused-told-to-appear-before-court-once-a-week/

#Hindutva outfit #India #Modi Govt

0 notes

loyallogic · 7 years ago

Text

Hashimpura Massacre Case – Verdict by the Delhi High Court Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonment

This article is written by Advocate Sanjeev Sirohi.

The unfolding of events

The two incidents

Click here

Summary of conclusions

For the sake of brevity, it is time now to dwell directly on the summary of conclusions. Para 115 states explicitly that, “To summarize the conclusions:

Final directions

(i) For the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, to imprisonment for life;

(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, to RI for 5 years and fine of Rs 10,000 and in default of payment of fine to six months’ SI; and

(iv) For the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC, to RI for 3 years and fine of Rs 10,000 and in default of payment of fine to six months’ SI.

The above sentences are directed to run concurrently

The post Hashimpura Massacre Case – Verdict by the Delhi High Court Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonment appeared first on iPleaders.

Hashimpura Massacre Case – Verdict by the Delhi High Court Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonment published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

0 notes