St. Stephen\’s College

CITY: New Delhi

Founded on February 1, 1881, St. Stephen\’s is the oldest college in Delhi. It was first affiliated to Calcutta University, and later to Punjab University. With the establishment of Delhi University in 1922, it became one of its three original constituent colleges.

St. Stephen\’s College

CITY: New Delhi

St. Stephen\’s College

Top 30 Engineering Colleges in India in 2019

1
IIT Delhi – Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi

2
IIT Kharagpur – Indian Institute Of Technology Kharagpur

3
IIT Bombay – Indian Institute Of Technology Mumbai

4
IIT Kanpur – Indian Institute Of Technology Kanpur Kanpur

5
IIT Roorkee – Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Roorkee

6
IIT Guwahati – Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati Guwahati

7
BITS Pilani – Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani

8
DTU – Delhi Technological University (DCE) Delhi

9
IITISM – Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad

10
IIT Indore – Indian Institute of Technology, Indore Indore

11
IIT Bhubaneswar – Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar

12
IIT Ropar – Indian Institute of Technology, Ropar Ropar

13
MNNIT Allahabad – Motilal Nehru National Institute Of Technology Allahabad

14
Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad Allahabad

15
Birla Institute Of Technology Mesra – BITMESRA Ranchi

16
IIT Gandhinagar – Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar

17
NIT – National Institute Of Technology Surathkal Mangalore

18
College of Engineering, Pune Pune

19
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela Rourkela

20
VIT – VIT University Vellore

21
Manipal Institute of Technology Manipal

22
Thapar University – Thapar Institute Of Engineering And Technology Patiala

23
PSG College Of Technology – PSGCT Coimbatore

24
AMU – Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh

25
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur Chennai

26
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology Nagpur

27
BMS College of Engineering Bangalore

28
Harcourt Butler Technical University Kanpur

29
SIT – Symbiosis Institute Of Technology Pune

30
University College of Engineering, Osmania University Hyderabad

This rating prepared by study by EduINDEX team. EduINDEX is a rating agency for educational and academic related services. We provide ranking of institutions and services. Visit us at www.eduindex.org

EduINDEX is a Registered trademark of Edupedia Publications Pvt, New Delhi

We provide ranking and evaluation services in the field of academics, publication, and advertising

Solid Waste Compost Plant at Model Town, Delhi

The establishment of a solid waste compost plant in Model Town, Delhi, would be a significant step towards sustainable waste management and environmental conservation. Composting is an effective technique that converts organic waste into nutrient-rich compost, which can be used as a soil amendment in agriculture and horticulture. Here’s an overview of the potential benefits and considerations of setting up such a plant in Model Town.

Waste Management Solution: The compost plant would provide an efficient solution for managing organic waste generated in Model Town. Instead of sending this waste to landfills where it contributes to the production of harmful greenhouse gases, the plant would divert the organic waste for composting. This would significantly reduce the amount of waste being landfilled, thus minimizing the associated environmental and health hazards.

Resource Recovery and Circular Economy: The compost plant would facilitate resource recovery by converting organic waste into valuable compost. This compost can be utilized to enrich the soil, enhance agricultural productivity, and reduce the reliance on chemical fertilizers. By closing the loop on organic waste, the plant would contribute to the principles of a circular economy by promoting the reuse and regeneration of resources.

Environmental Benefits: The establishment of a compost plant in Model Town would yield several environmental benefits. Composting organic waste reduces the emission of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from landfills. Moreover, compost acts as a natural soil conditioner, improving soil structure, water retention, and nutrient content. By utilizing compost, farmers can reduce their dependence on synthetic fertilizers, which can have adverse environmental impacts. Additionally, composting helps conserve water by improving soil’s water-holding capacity, leading to more sustainable agricultural practices.

Community Engagement and Employment Opportunities: The compost plant can serve as a community engagement platform, promoting waste management awareness and encouraging residents to participate in composting initiatives. Educational programs and workshops can be organized to educate residents about the benefits of composting and how to segregate organic waste at source. Moreover, the plant would create employment opportunities, both in terms of plant operations and outreach activities, contributing to the local economy.

Odor and Environmental Concerns: It is essential to address potential concerns related to odor and environmental impacts. Advanced composting techniques, such as aerobic composting or enclosed systems, can be implemented to minimize odor generation. Proper odor control measures, regular maintenance, and monitoring of the plant’s operations can help ensure that any potential negative impacts are mitigated.

Infrastructure and Regulatory Framework: Setting up a solid waste compost plant would require the necessary infrastructure, including composting units, shredders, curing areas, and quality control laboratories. Adequate space, proximity to waste generation sources, and proper waste collection and transportation systems would also be crucial considerations. Compliance with local environmental regulations and waste management policies would be essential to ensure the plant’s operations are in line with the required standards.

In conclusion, the establishment of a solid waste compost plant in Model Town, Delhi, would provide a sustainable waste management solution, contribute to resource recovery, and yield environmental benefits. It would require community engagement, proper infrastructure, and adherence to regulatory guidelines. By embracing composting as a waste management strategy, Model Town can move towards a more sustainable and environmentally conscious future.

Offences Under Section 307 IPC Can’t Be Quashed On The Basis Of Settlement Between Parties: SC

To begin with, it has to be appreciated, applauded and admired that after a long spell of time we finally see that the Supreme Court which is the top court of India has finally in the latest landmark case titled State

of Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5632 of 2014] which was pronounced on January 4, 2019 has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties. In this landmark judgment by a two Judge Bench of Apex Court and which was authored by Justice MR Shah for himself and Justice DY Chandrachud, it has been clearly and convincingly held that under Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) cannot be quashed, even when there is any settlement between the complainant and the accused, as it is a non-compoundable offence. Also, in this landmark judgment, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Shah were considering appeal filed by the state against the High Court order quashing criminal proceedings pending against the present accused under Sections 307, 294 read Section 34 of the IPC.

Without mincing any words, the Supreme Court took to task the Madhya Pradesh High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused on the ground of compromise between the parties. The Apex Court Bench very categorically and clearly held that, “We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC solely on the ground that the original complainant and the accused have settled the dispute.” Very rightly so!

Starting from the scratch, in para 1 of this landmark and laudable judgment, it is observed that, “Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.7.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6075 of 2013, by which the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the present Respondent herein by Crime No. 23 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 307, 294 and Sections 34 of the IPC registered at the Police Station Maharajpur, District Gwalior, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.”

Going into the nitty-gritty of the present case, it is then pointed out in para 2 that, “That the respondent No. 5 herein-the original Complainant one Birbal Sharma filed a complaint against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein-the original Accused for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC. That the said complaint was registered as Crime No. 23 of 2013 at the Police Station Maharajpur, District Gwalior. It appears that the original Accused filed an application for bail which came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Court and, thereafter, the original Accused approached the High Court by filing the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6075 of 2013 under Section 482 of the Cr.PC and requested to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the accused and the original Complainant have settled the dispute amicably. That the original Complainant submitted his affidavit stating that he has amicably settled the subject-matter of the crime with the original Accused and that he has no objection for dropping the criminal proceedings. That, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC has quashed the criminal proceedings against the original Accused which were for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC, solely on the ground that the original Complainant and Accused have settled the dispute and the original Complainant does not want to prosecute the accused and therefore, there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused persons. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the said application was opposed by the State observing that the offences alleged against the accused are non-compoundable offences and therefore, even if there is any settlement between the Complainant and the Accused, the complainant cannot be quashed. However, despite the above, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the original Accused on the ground that there is a settlement between the Complainant and the original Accused and the original Complainant does not want to prosecute the accused further.”

Be it noted, it is then observed in para 2.1 that, “Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.”

Going ahead, it is then observed in para 3 that, “We have heard Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Ms. Malini Poduval, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original Accused and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.”

More importantly, para 3.1 then clarifies that, “It is required to be noted that the original Accused was facing the criminal proceedings under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is not in dispute that as per Section 20 of the Cr.PC offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are non-compoundable. It is also required to be noted that the allegations in the complaint for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are, as such, very serious. It is alleged that the accused fired twice on the complainant by a country-made pistol. From the material on record, it appears that one of the accused persons was reported to be a hard core criminal having criminal antecedents. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the accused was facing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC and that the offences under these sections are not non-compoundable offences and looking to the serious allegations against the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC solely on the ground that the original Complainant and the accused have settled the dispute. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Gulab Das and Ors. V. State of M.P. (2011) 12 SCALE 625 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court has specifically observed and held that, despite any settlement between the Complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other, the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed, as the offence under Section 307 is a non-compoundable offence. Under the circumstance, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the original Accused for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.”

Finally, it is then held in para 4 that, “In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6075 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the criminal proceedings being Crime No. 23 of 2013 under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Maharajpur, District Gwalior be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits.”

All said and done, it is a commendable judgment which makes it absolutely clear that offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties. Attempt to murder as entailed in Section 307 of the IPC is a very serious offence and so there can be no question of any compromise on it under any circumstances! This is exactly what the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down also so succinctly in this landmark case. Any dilution in this under any circumstances is completely unacceptable. This must always be ensured by all the courts from top to bottom always as has very rightly been held also in this landmark and laudable case!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

The first six days….

On the first day of Christmas, I fasted from the Internet. It was a premeditated and deliberate fast. We had church in the morning and family the rest of the day. We exchanged presents, ate together, visited, played a game or two, and enjoyed each other’s company. There was a time when I was one of six people sitting in the living room, the only one of the six not looking at a handheld device, but even that was okay.

On the second day of Christmas I caught up. Nothing had happened on email or Facebook or WordPress that needed my immediate attention, so that was fine.

On the third day of Christmas I traveled to a relative’s house. Every year between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day the extended family tries to gather, and this year was no exception. In fact, a certain group of seven close relatives was together in the same place for the first time in more than five years, jobs and school and other commitments keeping one or another away from the family gathering each of the last several years. Again, we exchanged gifts, ate together, played a game or two, and enjoyed each other’s company. This is the closest I have ever come to a Christmas celebration involving “kids from one to ninety-two”: my father is ninety (ninety-one in a little more than a week), and my niece’s son is two.

Other years when we have gathered for a family Christmas, I have taken advantage of access to an almost-abandoned desktop computer with Internet access, and I have kept up with email and with social media. This year I decided on a whim not to touch that computer. For three days and three nights I was off the Internet. I have some catching up to do, but I gather that nothing happened in the last three days that required my immediate attention. One of my favorite sports teams may have made a change while I wasn’t paying attention, or there might have been some news I missed—although I did have access to the daily newspaper. I didn’t even go online to play nonograms or sudoku; I did do one sudoku by pencil in Saturday’s newspaper.

A holiday fast from the Internet is surprisingly refreshing. I was not completely without electric stimulus: some of us watched football on TV, and if someone wanted to show me a clever meme or video, I obliged. But during those three days and three nights I was interacting with people only if they were in the same room as me, only if we could hear and see one another as we spoke.

Tomorrow I will again catch up. Meanwhile, the chance to catch up with family was a good way to enjoy the Christmas season. And six days of Christmas remain to be celebrated. J.

Supreme Court’s Recent Observations On Criminals And Death Penalty

It has to be stated right at the outset that in a landmark judgment titled Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra in Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 306-307 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 145-146 of 2011 delivered on December 12, 2018 which is certainly going to be a trendsetter in the time to come, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Madan B Lokur while authoring this landmark judgment for himself, Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice Deepak Gupta clearly and convincingly held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. We thus see that pertinent issues are discussed on ‘sentencing’ which shall be discussed indepth now in the coming paragraphs. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law!

To be sure, this landmark and laudable judgment begins at the outset by first and foremost stating explicitly in para 1 that, “ ‘Sentenced to death’ – these few words would have a chilling effect on anyone, including a hardened criminal. Our society demands such a sentence on grounds of its deterrent effect, although there is no conclusive study on its deterrent impact. Our society also demands death sentence as retribution for a ghastly crime having been committed, although again there is no conclusive study whether retribution by itself satisfies society. On the other hand, there are views that suggest that punishment for a crime must be looked at with a more humanitarian lens and the causes for driving a person to commit a heinous crime must be explored. There is also a view that it must be determined whether it is possible to reform, rehabilitate and socially reintegrate into society even a hardened criminal along with those representing the victims of the crime.” Absolutely right! What wrong has the top court said? Nothing wrong!

While buttressing its stand as spelt out in para 1 and going ahead, it is then observed in para 2 that, “These conflicting views make it very difficult for courts to take a decision and without expert evidence on the subject, courts are ill-equipped to form an objective opinion. But, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 has thrown its weight behind a humanitarian approach and mandated consideration of the probability of reform or rehabilitation of the criminal and required the prosecution to prove that it was not possible for the convict to be reformed or rehabilitated. However, the Constitution Bench left open a corridor of uncertainty thereby permitting, in the rarest of rare cases, the pronouncement of a sentence of death. It is this paradigm that confronts us in these petitions.”

Background

Going forward, para 3 then elucidates the background of this landmark case. It says that, “The appellant is convicted for the rape and murder of a girl aged 3 years. The offence was committed in the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd March, 2007. On the basis of circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution, the appellant was found guilty of and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 377 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 2007 by a judgment dated 6th September, 2008.”

Needless to say, it is then primarily pointed out in para 4 that, “With regard to the sentence to be awarded, the Trial Judge heard the prosecution and the appellant on 6th September, 2008 and again on 6th September, 2008 and again on 8th September, 2008 on which date he passed a preliminary order. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge passed an order on 10th September, 2008 awarding the sentence of death to the appellant.” Para 6 then brings out that, “On an overall view of the circumstances of the case, the Sessions Judge concluded that any alternative option of punishment is unquestionably foreclosed and therefore the only sentence that could be awarded to the appellant is of capital punishment.”

Be it noted, para 7 then further goes on to mention that, “The appellant preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence before the Bombay High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 2008. This was heard along with Criminal Confirmation Case No. 3 of 2008. Both these were taken up for consideration and the conviction was upheld and capital punishment awarded to the appellant was confirmed by the High Court by a judgment and order dated 26th March, 2009.”

It cannot be lost on us that it is then very rightly pointed out in para 29 that, “The result of the above discussion is that ordinarily, it would not be advisable to award capital punishment in a case of circumstantial evidence. But there is no hard and fast rule that death sentence should not be awarded in a case of circumstantial evidence. The precautions that must be taken by all the courts in cases of circumstantial evidence is this: if the court has some doubt, on the circumstantial evidence on record, that the accused might not have committed the offence, then a case for acquittal would be made out; if the court has no doubt, on the circumstantial evidence, that the accused is guilty, then of course a conviction must follow. If the court is inclined to award the death penalty then there must be some exceptional circumstances warranting the imposition of the extreme penalty. Even in such cases, the court must follow the dictum laid down in Bachan Singh that it is not only the crime, but also the criminal that must be kept in mind and any alternative option of punishment is unquestionably foreclosed. The reason for the second precaution is that the death sentence upon execution, is irrevocable and irretrievable.”

No doubt, it is also then elegantly pointed out in para 30 that, “Insofar as the present case is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant did not lay much stress on commuting the death sentence to one of life imprisonment only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence on record. Therefore, we need not examine the nature of the crime and other factors or detain ourselves in this regard. We have referred to the various decisions cited by learned counsel only for completeness of the record and to reaffirm the view that ordinarily death sentence should not be awarded in a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.”

Reform, rehabilitation and re-integration into society

Simply put, it is then underscored in para 31 that, “The discussion on the reform or rehabilitation of a convict begins with the acknowledgement in Bachan Singh that the probability that a convict can be reformed and rehabilitated is a valid consideration for deciding whether he should be awarded capital punishment or life imprisonment. This Court has also accepted the view that it is for the State to prove by evidence that the convict is not capable of being reformed and rehabilitated and should, therefore, be awarded the death sentence.” It is then acknowledged in para 32 that, “This view has been accepted universally in all the decisions that were cited before us by learned counsel for the appellant.”

Truth be told, para 45 then makes it abundantly clear that, “The law laid down by various decisions of this Court clearly and unequivocally mandates that the probability (not possibility or improbability or impossibility) that a convict can be reformed and rehabilitated in society must be seriously and earnestly considered by the courts before awarding the death sentence. This is one of the mandates of the “special reasons” requirement of Section 354(3) of the Cr.P.C. and ought not to be taken lightly since it involves snuffing out the life of a person. To effectuate this mandate, it is the obligation on the prosecution to prove to the court, through evidence, that the probability is that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. This can be achieved by bringing on record, inter alia, material about his conduct in jail, his conduct outside jail if he has been on bail for some time, medical evidence about his mental make-up, contact with his family and so on. Similarly, the convict can produce evidence on these issues as well.”

Having said this, it is then very rightly brought out in para 47 that, “Consideration of the reformation, rehabilitation and re-integration of the convict into society cannot be over-emphasised. Until Bachan Singh, the emphasis given by the courts was primarily on the nature of the crime, its brutality and severity. Bachan Singh placed the sentencing process into perspective and introduced the necessity of considering the reformation or rehabilitation of the convict. Despite the view expressed by the Constitution Bench, there have been several instances, some of which have been pointed out in Bariyar and in Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452 where there is a tendency to give primacy to the crime and consider the criminal in a somewhat secondary manner. As observed in Sangeet “In the sentencing process, both the crime and the criminal are equally important.” Therefore, we should not forget that the criminal, however ruthless he might be, is nevertheless a human being and is entitled to a life of dignity notwithstanding his crime. Therefore, it is for the prosecution and the courts to determine whether such a person, notwithstanding his crime, can be reformed and rehabilitated. To obtain and analyse this information is certainly not an easy task but must nevertheless be undertaken. The process of rehabilitation is also not a simple one since it involves social re-integration of the convict into society. Of course, notwithstanding any information made available and its analysis by experts coupled with the evidence on record, there could be instances where the social re-integration of the convict may not be possible. If that should happen, the option of a long duration of imprisonment is permissible.”

Continuing in the same vein, para 48 then states clearly that, “In other words, directing imprisonment for a period greater than 14 years (say 20 or 25 years) could unquestionably foreclose the imposition of a sentence of death, being an alternative option to capital punishment.” Very rightly so! There can be no denying it!

For esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, it would be imperative to now mention what para 73 says. It explicitly states that, “It is therefore quite clear from the various decisions placed before us that the mere pendency of one or more criminal cases against a convict cannot be a factor for consideration while awarding a sentence. Not only is it statutorily impermissible (except in some cases) but even otherwise it violates the fundamental presumption of innocence – a human right – that everyone is entitled to.”

As it turned out, we see that it is then observed in para 74 that, “Insofar as the present case is concerned, it has come on record that there are two cases pending against the appellant for similar offences. Both these were pending trial. Notwithstanding this, the Trial Judge took this into account as a circumstance against the appellant. It would have been, in our opinion, far more appropriate for the Sessions Judge to have waited, if he thought it necessary to take the pendency of these cases into consideration, for the trials to be concluded. For ought we know, the two cases might have been foisted upon the appellant and he might have otherwise been proved not guilty.”

Quite remarkably, it is then elucidated in para 75 that, “We may generally mention, in conclusion, that there is really no reason for the Trial Judge to be in haste in awarding a sentence in a case where he might be considering death penalty on the ground that any other alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. The convict would in any case remain in custody for a fairly long time since the minimum punishment awarded would be imprisonment for life. Therefore, a Trial Judge can take his time and sentence the convict after giving adequate opportunity for the prosecution as well as for the defence to produce material as postulated in Bachan Singh so that the possibility of awarding life sentence is open to the Trial Judge as against the death sentence. It must be appreciated that a sentence of death should be awarded only in rarest of rare cases, only if an alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed and only after full consideration of all factors keeping in mind that a sentence of death is irrevocable and irretrievable upon execution. It should always be remembered that while the crime is important, the criminal is equally important insofar as the sentencing process is concerned. In other words, courts must “make assurance double sure.” [Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Act IV, Scene I]”

Finally and most importantly, let us now discuss the concluding paras. Para 79 stipulates that, “Insofar as the present petition is concerned, the purposes of sentencing, the Sessions Judge, the High Court as well as this Court did not take into consideration the probability of reformation, rehabilitation and social re-integration of the appellant into society. Indeed, no material or evidence was placed before the courts to arrive at any conclusion in this regard one way or the other and for whatever it is worth on the facts of this case. The prosecution was remiss in not producing the available DNA evidence and the failure to produce material evidence must lead to an adverse presumption against the prosecution and in favour of the appellant for the purpose of sentencing. The Trial Court was also in error in taking into consideration, for the purposes of sentencing, the pendency of two similar cases against the appellant which it could not, in law, consider. However, we also cannot overlook subsequent developments with regard to the two (actually three) similar cases against the appellant.” Lastly, para 80 then concludes by holding that, “For all these reasons, we are of opinion that it would be more appropriate looking to the crimes committed by the appellant and the material on record including his overall personality and subsequent events, to commute the sentence of death awarded to the appellant but direct that he should not be released from custody for the rest of his normal life. We order accordingly.”

All said and done, it is a very progressive and humane judgment which accords the highest priority to even the right of criminal to lead a life of dignity and respect. It also lays down that the probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It is very rightly held that, “A trial Judge can take his time and sentence the convict after giving adequate opportunity for the prosecution as well as for the defence to produce material as postulated in Bachan Singh so that the possibility of awarding life sentence is open to the Trial Judge as against the death sentence.”

The Apex Court also commendably said that there were views that punishment for a crime must be looked at with a more humanitarian lens and the causes for driving a person to commit a heinous crime must be explored and that it must be determined whether it is possible to reform, rehabilitate and socially reintegrate into society even a hardened criminal along with those representing the victims of the crime. Absolutely right! There can be no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Of writing many books there is no end

A merry Second Day of Christmas, St. Stephen’s Day, and Boxing Day to all!

This morning I updated my page “Books written by Salvageable” to add two books that came out late this year. The first is “Martin Luther’s Small Catechism with additional commentary,” which began as a series of posts on this blog in October 2017 and ran well into 2018, celebrating the 500^th anniversary of the Reformation. The other is “Salvageable: A Collection of Short Stories,” which also includes material that has appeared on this blog, generally under the category of “First Friday Fiction.”

In the new year I hope to pick up two projects that I began this year and set aside for a time. One is “Revelation Unveiled,” a study (but not a commentary) on the last book of the Bible. This book will show an understanding of Revelation as a guide for Christians living in the present age, not a countdown of future events that are yet to be fulfilled. It will connect Revelation to the other sixty-five books of the Bible, using them to interpret Revelation rather than the other way around. It will also demonstrate how the Day of the Lord is approached seven times from different directions in the book of Revelation, with a rewind into present times the first six occurrences and a jump into the future new creation only after the seventh view of the Day of the Lord.

The second book I began and hope to complete is a study of how Christians worship. It will look at the traditional form of worship that has been used by Christians over the centuries, the Biblical roots of each part of that service, and some other Christian traditions associated with worship, including the Church calendar of seasons and holidays, architecture, church furniture, and clothing.

Next November I expect to publish the recently completed “Advent thoughts,” with a slight rearrangement to wind up with Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6, rather than having them appear around the middle of the season.

I have several other books written long before I began blogging, and I might select one of them to round out my pattern of four new books a year. But one other book I hope to outline and perhaps begin writing (especially if Revelation or Christian Worship get mired again) is tentatively titled “Embracing the Dark Side.” This book would reflect the mistake many Christians make, thinking that their lives in this sinful world must be marked always with joy and peace, that any episodes of anxiety and depression are sinful and are not part of the Christian life. In part, I plan to refer to Christian works from other times, such as The Dark Night of the Soul, to show that every day in the life of a Christian isn’t required to be sunlight and flowers, and that Christians often grow spiritually during the dark times of their walk more than during the joyful and happy times.

I hope and pray that everyone had a good First Day of Christmas and that all are now enjoying the following days of the Christmas season. J.

Advent thoughts: December 24

“Behold, I send my messenger and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple” (Malachi 3:1—read Malachi 3:1-6).

Malachi, like Haggai, reports that the Lord will visit his temple. This Jesus did—as an infant, and as a boy, and as a man. He came to rescue sinners. He came in grace to fix what sin and evil have broken. He came to fight, not against Romans and other foreign powers, not against all sinners, but against sin itself and against the consequences of sin.

Malachi compares the Lord in his coming as a refiner’s fire and a fuller’s soap. Both are very powerful cleansers. A refiner’s fire is hot enough to melt silver or gold and to burn away any impurities in the metals. A fuller’s soap is coarse enough to add body to fabric (making the fabric fuller, hence its name) and also to remove dirt from the fabric. Either of these products can cause injury and death if misused. Both of them, used properly, add value to the metal or the fabric to which they are applied.

So Jesus, in his coming, is dangerous to sinners, but he did not come at first to judge sinners. He came at first to rescue sinners. He came to melt our hearts, to burn away our impurities, and to recast us in his own image. He came to wash us so we can be clean and pure, useful for his purposes and acceptable for his kingdom.

On the Day of the Lord Jesus will have to judge and condemn those who rejected him. Some loved their sin more than their Savior and clung to their sin, refusing to be rescued. Others thought they needed no Savior: they clung to their good works and demanded that God give them what they deserve. In sorrow, Jesus must send both groups away. But those who have trusted his promises have already been washed clean and refined. Those who trust in him will live in his new creation, celebrating eternally the victory Jesus won.

On his birthday, Christians like to pull out the baby pictures of Jesus. We remember him wrapped in cloths, lying in a manger. We remember him visited by shepherds. Later he was visited by wise men bringing gifts. But that baby grew to be a man. As a man, he fought evil, and he won. He resisted the devil’s temptations. He refused to be dragged by the world into sin. He suffered the consequences of sin, and he paid in full for the world’s sins. He died, but he rose again victoriously to live and reign eternally. He is our God, our Savior, and our Redeemer. We belong to him today and forever. Thanks be to God! J.

Advent thoughts: December 23

“Behold, your King is coming to you, righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9—read Zechariah 9:9-12).

When Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem at the beginning of Holy Week, he was fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah. Of course, God did not create a checklist through Moses and the prophets and then begin figuring out how to accomplish all that he had said. God created time. God exists outside of time. God experiences all times at a glance. When Moses and the prophets spoke the Word of the Lord, their messages were already accomplished in the sight of God. The Holy Spirit reported the plan of salvation to Moses and the prophets as if it had already been accomplished in time. Therefore, they wrote in the past and present tenses about events that were still centuries in the future.

The donkey is a humble creature, a beast of burden. Having a king ride a donkey in a parade is equivalent to seeing an important leader today riding a bicycle in a parade. The humility of Jesus is reflected in his choice of a donkey, yet Jesus also exercised the royal privilege of riding an animal that had never been ridden before.

The prophet calls the King righteous. Jesus is perfectly righteous. He lived a pure and sinless life, never once breaking any of God’s commands. He loved his Father fully and trusted his Father completely. He loved the people around him and helped them in their needs. Jesus never used his power as the Son of God for his own benefit. In righteousness, he used his divine power to help others: to heal the sick, to feed the hungry, to calm storms, to cast out demons, and even to raise the dead. We view perfect love as we read about all the miracles Jesus worked to help others, and as we realize that he refused to use any of that power to help himself.

Jesus also has salvation. He rescues people in trouble. His healings and other miracles were part of his rescue mission, but they only paved the way for his greatest act of service. Jesus could fix anything that goes wrong with the body: eyes, ears, legs, and even minds. But his goal was to strike at the root of the problem—to overcome evil at his source. Therefore, Jesus took on the guilt for the sins of the world and carried them to the cross. He paid in full the penalty for all the sins of history. In the process, he defeated sin and evil, and in the end, he defeated death itself.

The full results of that victory will be experienced when Jesus is seen on the Day of the Lord. All the dead will be raised on that Day, and all will stand before his throne of Judgment. Every eye will see him, and every ear will hear his voice. No one will be blind or deaf. On that Day, the King will welcome into his kingdom all those who trust his promises. Those who looked elsewhere for salvation will be left standing in the darkness, outside the celebration of his kingdom.
“Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope; today I declare that I will restore to you double.” The price Jesus paid to redeem us is more than sufficient. We will not always be prisoners of sin and evil and death. Because of the price Jesus paid, we will celebrate his victory with him in his kingdom forever. Thanks be to God! J.

Advent thoughts: December 22

“The latter glory of this house [the Temple] shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the Lord of hosts” (Haggai 2:9—read Haggai 2:1-9).

When they sacked Jerusalem, the Babylonian soldiers destroyed the glorious Temple that Solomon had built for the Lord. Seventy years later, the Persians sacked Babylon; the Persian emperor allowed the Jews to return and to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. Some of the elderly Jews could remember Solomon’s Temple, and they wept, seeing the far more plain Temple that was being erected on the same spot.

God sent his prophet Haggai to comfort those who mourned over the simpler second Temple. Speaking for the Lord, Haggai promised that the glory of the second Temple would exceed the glory of Solomon’s Temple. God promised that he would be present in this new Temple. He said that he would bring the wealth of nations into the new Temple. He said that in that place, the new Temple, the Lord would give peace.

All these promises were fulfilled when Jesus came into the Temple. His first arrival was as a baby, forty days old, when Mary and Joseph went to the Temple to fulfill the ceremonies required by the old covenant for the birth of a first-born son. Simeon and Anna both recognized their Savior in that infant, and they spoke to others about the promises of God that were being fulfilled in their time.

When he was twelve, Jesus spent three days in the Temple, discussing Torah with the Bible experts and amazing them by his wisdom and understanding. During those three days Jesus was missing, lost to his family as far as they knew. This loss was a picture of the Passover when Jesus would be arrested, tortured, killed, and buried. Once again he was lost to his family and friends for three days, but on the third day he rose from the dead, and they found him alive, just as he had promised.

As an adult, Jesus taught in the Temple and debated his enemies. Once again, by his presence Jesus made the Temple holy. Its glory was greater than the glory of Solomon’s Temple, not because of silver and gold, but because the true Temple was making his presence known in this new Temple in Jerusalem.

Both Solomon’s Temple and the second Temple were pictures of Jesus. A god dwells in a temple and is accessible to his people in that temple. In the Person of Jesus God dwelt among his people, and Jesus still makes his Father accessible to those who come to the Father through Jesus. The Church is the body of Jesus and is therefore also his Temple. In the Church the nations have entered the Temple, bringing their silver and their gold, making a far more glorious Temple than Solomon’s one building in Jerusalem.

The nations of the world still suffer strife and violence and war. The nations gathered in the Temple—the Church, the body of Christ—have received peace. The Prince of Peace bestows his blessings to all who come to him in faith. Peace on earth is promised by angels. Through Christ we receive the peace that surpasses all human understanding. Thanks be to God! J.

The limitations of science

I am a fan of science. I was a boy at the time of the Apollo missions to the moon, and I watched full coverage of them on television. Over the years, my parents bought me a telescope, a microscope, a chemistry set, and a 100-project electrical kit. I got As in science all through school. I still keep up with the latest discoveries, from the exploration of Mars to the particles detected from split atoms.

Science provides many benefits. Science gives us longer and more productive lives, thanks to expanding knowledge about nutrition, sleep, exercise, medicine, therapy, and the battle against pests, from viruses and harmful bacteria to fleas, ticks, and tapeworms. But science cannot help us beyond death. Science cannot tell us whether any part of our being survives death. Nor can science reveal the destiny of that surviving entity, whether it will go to heaven or to hell.

Science is limited to studying the physical world. It can measure and describe matter and energy, but science cannot observe anything that does not consist of matter or energy. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, angels, demons, or the human soul. It is not scientific to say that science disproves those entities, because the rules of science do not permit science to determine anything about the nonmaterial world.

Therefore, anyone who puts his or her faith in science is as mistaken as someone who puts his or her faith in money, or in political power, or in one’s own good deeds, or in Baal or Zeus or Thor. Money and politics and good deeds all have value; they each have a place in our lives. But none of them can take the place of God. None of them can do what God does for his people.

One of the benefits of science is that it changes. New discoveries invalidate prevailing theories and force the creation and testing of new theories about the material world. Isaac Newton applied mathematics to science. He found the equation that describes how gravity works. After Newton, science grew more and more mechanical, with the hope that one day science could explain everything in the universe. But Albert Einstein and other twentieth-century scientists showed that Newton’s mathematical and mechanical universe only describes matter and energy of moderate size. The rules change with the very big, the very small, and the very powerful.

Because science changes, it is unreliable. One researcher says coffee is good for people; the next researcher says coffee is bad for people. Efforts to eradicate the spread of disease and improve the cultivation of crops have damaged the environment by killing off insects and poisoning the creatures that eat insects. Food additives, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and perhaps even life-saving vaccinations can have damaging side effects, which may explain the increase in recent times of autism, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, and intolerance of one another. The poisonous social atmosphere in which we live may literally be poisoned by the same scientific advancements that were intended to improve our lives.

The person who relies on science and scientists to provide all Truth is missing a great deal. The knowledge that our souls will spend time elsewhere when we die—a better place or a worse place, depending upon who we know and trust—and that our bodies will be raised to eternal life at the dawn of the new creation—this knowledge shapes much of what we choose to do today. Knowing the Creator of the universe is far more important than knowing when and how the dinosaurs lived. Knowing that the life and death and resurrection of Jesus provides forgiveness of sins, fellowship with God, and victory over all enemies is far more important than encyclopedic knowledge of all the chemicals or all the planets and planetoids or all the subatomic particles.

One reason science seems to be more valuable than religion is that science has, over the years, provided material explanations for phenomena (such as thunderstorms and epileptic seizures) that were formerly attributed to spiritual causes. One might chart the number of phenomena that are explained by science and no longer attributed to spirits and assume that the need for religion will disappear. But even though science can improve our lives in this world, it gives us no reason to go on living. Nor can science guarantee eternal life in a better world after death in this world. Science cannot lift the guilt of a person who knows that he or she has done wrong. Science cannot teach people how to forgive one another and live in harmony. Science is beneficial, but it cannot replace religion. A life based on science is as empty as a life based on money or politics or entertainment.

I remain a fan of science. But my faith is in God. Science studies the things God made. Theology studies God. God is not too small for science; he is too big for science to grasp, too powerful for science to measure, too grand for science to explain. I thank God for all the things science has discovered about his creation. I praise God for who he is, information which science cannot supply. J.