CHANDIGARH: Backtracking on dowry allegations in court proved costly for a woman as she got entangled in her own web of lies, following which, a
show-cause notice was served to her for giving false evidence.
According to information, the Sector-25 based woman had levelled dowry charges against her 27-year-old husband, a resident of Sector 51, in May 2007.
In her police complaint, the woman alleged that soon after she got married, her husband started misbehaving and using derogatory language with her for bringing insufficient dowry.
She also alleged that she was thrashed and locked up in rooms on several occasions.
Subsequently, a case under sections 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 498-A (husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the IPC was registered against her husband on July 5, 2007.
However, the case took a new turn when during the court hearing on Monday, the complainant outright denied that she was harassed or maltreated by her husband or her in-laws.
The woman went on to state that a 'misunderstanding' had cropped up between the couple, due to which her relations turned sour with the in-laws, resulting in the two getting divorced.
Much to the surprise of the jury, the woman's parents also supported her statement and denied that she was never maltreated or harassed by her husband and his family.
Shocked at the turn of events, the prosecution declared the complainant hostile, while the judicial magistrate questioned her why she shouldn't be punished for giving false evidence in the court?
The magistrate in his judgment stated, "The complainant deliberately suppressed the truth and made a false statement knowing it could be used in the court proceedings. This clearly amounts to perjury."
He further said, "The complainant should be tried for giving false evidence in legal proceedings. A show-cause notice must be served to her under Section 344 of the CrPC, wherein she must explain why she should not be punished. Separate proceedings must be also initiated against her."
Meanwhile, the court acquitted the woman's husband by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
LIVE-IN RELATIONS - THE aasaan raasta
You can not afford to be more foolish to MARRY , if u born as an Indian male.
The practical situation is " IF BORN IN INDIA - DO NOT MARRY"
STATS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONS IN INDIA
Due to fear of 498a,DV all these biased laws following are the stats of living relations increased rather than marriage in Mumbai
Even you can find advertisements also on the nets,newspapers& hoardings & slogan is
"Bewkoof mat bano ,,asaan rasta chuno"
IN 2004 : 5479 people out of 1 lac
In 2007 : 23788 people out of 1 lac
In 2009 :118940 people out of 1.5 lac
The practical situation is " IF BORN IN INDIA - DO NOT MARRY"
STATS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONS IN INDIA
Due to fear of 498a,DV all these biased laws following are the stats of living relations increased rather than marriage in Mumbai
Even you can find advertisements also on the nets,newspapers& hoardings & slogan is
"Bewkoof mat bano ,,asaan rasta chuno"
IN 2004 : 5479 people out of 1 lac
In 2007 : 23788 people out of 1 lac
In 2009 :118940 people out of 1.5 lac
PATHETIC INDIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM
A seven-year-old has been charged in a dowry case in Bihar.
Santosh, a class four student has paid the price for a crime he did not commit.
"They framed me in a dowry case. I study in class 4. Police came to my house and asked for money. They threatened to send me to Munger otherwise," he said.
Santosh was named in a dowry harassment case last year along with his parents and his elder brother.
His parents and brother got bail after his father reached a compromise with the complainant. But given Santosh's tender age, the court didn't pass any specific bail order in his name.
Santosh's lawyer says there were serious lapses in the way the case was handled.
"The age of none of the accused has been mentioned in the entire case diary," said Vijay Maharaj.
Police admit they made a mistake but say the witnesses in the case had a role to play.
"None of the witnesses mentioned that the accused is under age. I agree that we have made a mistake in this case," said Amit Lodha, SP, Begusarai.
Police say Santosh can breathe easy irrespective of the outcome of the case. But this comes as cold comfort for someone who has learnt a bitter lesson so early in life.
Santosh, a class four student has paid the price for a crime he did not commit.
"They framed me in a dowry case. I study in class 4. Police came to my house and asked for money. They threatened to send me to Munger otherwise," he said.
Santosh was named in a dowry harassment case last year along with his parents and his elder brother.
His parents and brother got bail after his father reached a compromise with the complainant. But given Santosh's tender age, the court didn't pass any specific bail order in his name.
Santosh's lawyer says there were serious lapses in the way the case was handled.
"The age of none of the accused has been mentioned in the entire case diary," said Vijay Maharaj.
Police admit they made a mistake but say the witnesses in the case had a role to play.
"None of the witnesses mentioned that the accused is under age. I agree that we have made a mistake in this case," said Amit Lodha, SP, Begusarai.
Police say Santosh can breathe easy irrespective of the outcome of the case. But this comes as cold comfort for someone who has learnt a bitter lesson so early in life.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
SC scared of RTI Act.
This itself shows their insecurity!
If they do everything in the correct way, then why are they afraid of making
the process transparent for the citizens to audit? How can asking for any
information be treated as an interference, unless there's something which is
going to be exposed?
------------------------------------------------------------------
New Delhi: An appeal from the Supreme Court to itself may sound odd but its
unease with CIC’s orders has pushed the apex court to exercise the unusual
option. The SC moved the SC on Monday with appeals challenging orders of the
Central Information Commission
(CIC) asking it to divulge details relating to appointment of judges and
correspondence between the Chief Justice of India and Justice R Regupathy of
Madras HC on the alleged interference of a Union minister in a court case.
It had earlier moved the Delhi high court questioning a CIC order
directing opening up of information relating to declaration of assets by SC
judges. The appeal has been filed in the SC because of the feeling that the
apex court, being the final arbiter, should lay down guidelines on
applicability of RTI Act to matters relating to administration of justice.
Assailing the direction to make public information which were available
only with the CJI, the apex court in its two petitions, settled by attorney
general G E Vahanvati and drafted by advocate Devdatt Kamat, said the CJI
held the information pertaining to appointment of judges in a fiduciary
capacity, and hence it should be exempted from being made public under
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The short-cut taken by the apex court’s central principal information
officer (CPIO) in moving the SC instead of the normal course of approaching
the HC, is sure to raise eyebrows. The CPIO said it decided to come straight
to the SC because this is an issue of farreaching consequences and
substantial questions of law of general public interest, which have to be
ultimately and conclusively determined by the Supreme Court itself as the
top court of the country.
In one appeal, it challenged the CIC order directing SC to give details
of the decision not recommending the elevation of Justice A P Shah, Chief
Justice of Delhi HC, to SC even as the collegium headed by the CJI suggested
names of Chief Justices of four other HCs for appointment to the apex court.
In the second appeal, it sought setting aside of the CIC order asking SC
to furnish details to RTI applicant S C Agrawal of the correspondence
between the CJI and Justice R Regupathy of Madras HC on the incident in the
court in Chennai when the judge had alleged that a Union minister had tried
to influence him in a case pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail to a
person.
*Questions of law raised by the SC CPIO in both the appeals:
*Whether RTI applicant has a right to information relating to
appointment of judges under Section 2(J) of RTI Act
Whether the principles of independence of judiciary demand that the
functioning of judiciary should not be interfered with by ‘strangers and
busybodies’
If they do everything in the correct way, then why are they afraid of making
the process transparent for the citizens to audit? How can asking for any
information be treated as an interference, unless there's something which is
going to be exposed?
------------------------------------------------------------------
New Delhi: An appeal from the Supreme Court to itself may sound odd but its
unease with CIC’s orders has pushed the apex court to exercise the unusual
option. The SC moved the SC on Monday with appeals challenging orders of the
Central Information Commission
(CIC) asking it to divulge details relating to appointment of judges and
correspondence between the Chief Justice of India and Justice R Regupathy of
Madras HC on the alleged interference of a Union minister in a court case.
It had earlier moved the Delhi high court questioning a CIC order
directing opening up of information relating to declaration of assets by SC
judges. The appeal has been filed in the SC because of the feeling that the
apex court, being the final arbiter, should lay down guidelines on
applicability of RTI Act to matters relating to administration of justice.
Assailing the direction to make public information which were available
only with the CJI, the apex court in its two petitions, settled by attorney
general G E Vahanvati and drafted by advocate Devdatt Kamat, said the CJI
held the information pertaining to appointment of judges in a fiduciary
capacity, and hence it should be exempted from being made public under
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The short-cut taken by the apex court’s central principal information
officer (CPIO) in moving the SC instead of the normal course of approaching
the HC, is sure to raise eyebrows. The CPIO said it decided to come straight
to the SC because this is an issue of farreaching consequences and
substantial questions of law of general public interest, which have to be
ultimately and conclusively determined by the Supreme Court itself as the
top court of the country.
In one appeal, it challenged the CIC order directing SC to give details
of the decision not recommending the elevation of Justice A P Shah, Chief
Justice of Delhi HC, to SC even as the collegium headed by the CJI suggested
names of Chief Justices of four other HCs for appointment to the apex court.
In the second appeal, it sought setting aside of the CIC order asking SC
to furnish details to RTI applicant S C Agrawal of the correspondence
between the CJI and Justice R Regupathy of Madras HC on the incident in the
court in Chennai when the judge had alleged that a Union minister had tried
to influence him in a case pertaining to grant of anticipatory bail to a
person.
*Questions of law raised by the SC CPIO in both the appeals:
*Whether RTI applicant has a right to information relating to
appointment of judges under Section 2(J) of RTI Act
Whether the principles of independence of judiciary demand that the
functioning of judiciary should not be interfered with by ‘strangers and
busybodies’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)