SC Designates 37 Lawyers As Senior Advocates
To put things in perspective, it was in September 2018 that the Supreme Court had designated 25 former High Court Judges, who started practice in Supreme Court as senior advocates. It cannot be lost on us that the guidelines are notified pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment in Indira Jaising’s case titled “Ms Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India Through Secretary General and others in Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015 which had very clearly prescribed the parameters for designation of advocates as “senior advocates” after senior advocate Ms Indira Jaising who filed the petition pointed out that the present system of designating advocates as “senior advocates” is flawed! This was certainly a major landmark development which shall always be embedded in the golden pages of history and the contribution of Ms. Indira Jaising is certainly historic and remarkable!
Kartarpur Meet Delayed Over Khalistan Activists
It is nothing but stupidity of the highest order that politicians of India are not ready to learn any lessons from repeated betrayals by Pakistan and always indulges in day dreaming. This alone explains why inspite of so much of tension between India and Pakistan, India foolishly once again decided to trust Pakistan and go ahead with holding the second meeting with Pakistan to discuss modalities for the Kartarpur corridor! What did India get in return? Once again India was compelled to call off the meet with Islamabad on April 2 over legitimate concerns about the inclusion of pro-Khalistani activists in a Pakistani committee to facilitate Sikh pilgrims!
Why do our politicians behave so shamelessly and senselessly? Why do politicians expect that Pakistan will not play the Khalistan card to foment unrest in Punjab? Should Kartarpur corridor be opened at all under such circumstances? What has happened to our politicians?
Why can’t politicians of India nuke all relations with Pakistan and label it as “Aatankistan” as demanded by Maulana Mehmood Madani and BJP MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar long time back when he was an independent MP? Why politicians of India want to give Pakistan an opportunity to create unrest in Punjab? Why can’t we just lay off totally from Pakistan?
How can religion be above nation? How can religious interests be above national interests? Why our politicians repeatedly want to give Pakistan one more chance? Do they understand the consequences of what they do?
No wonder that on Pakistan’s 10-member panel we saw a man who demanded Sikh referendum last year. Sources said that the induction of Gopal Singh Chawla on the 10-member committee of the Pakistan Sikh Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (PSGPC) which will “help facilitate” the visit of Indians pilgrims to the Kartarpur Sahib gurudwara. It is this same Gopal Singh Chawla who had played a key role in raising pro-Khalistan slogans and putting up posters on a Sikh referendum in November 2018 during the visit of pilgrims!
What was most shocking was that Centre decided to adopt a “relax” approach and “care a damn” approach and did not lodge any protest? Should we be proud of it? What did we get in return? Now that same Gopal Singh Chawla is on the 10-member committee of Pakistan panel! Had Centre strongly protested at the first place perhaps they had dared not bring him in the panel! But for inexplicable and undisclosed relations, Centre for the sake of Sikh pilgrims decided to bite the bullet!
Centre must stop biting the bullet! Centre must not fritter away the extreme goodwill that it has generated after the Balakot air strike among the people! What did Centre get by declaring Ramzan ka ceasefire with Pakistan and terrorists? It gave them a golden opportunity to pounce on our soldiers, kill them and behead them! Can any Indian be ever proud of this so called “Ramzan ka ceasefire”? When there is no Holi ka ceasefire or Diwali ka ceasefire or Christmas ka ceasefire then why Ramzan ka ceasefire? Does Pakistan or its army or terrorists ever care for it? They use it as a golden opportunity to kill more soldiers of ours on the border areas! Shame on our leaders who give them such a golden opportunity! One hopes that no politician will ever again place Pakistan and terrorists above nation! Terrorists have no nation yet repeatedly our leaders stupidly, shamelessly and senselessly declare “Ramzan ka ceasefire”! Terrorists have no religion then why link Ramzan with terrorists? It is for our leaders to ponder upon!
What’s more, Pakistan’s Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry not just announced Chawla’s inclusion but also went ahead to announce at last three other pro-Khalistan elements – Tara Singh, Bishon Singh and Kuljeet Singh. What could Centre do under such circumstances? India should have cancelled Kartarpur but our reaction once again was mild and we decided to just postpone talks!
Needless to say, Kartarpur corridor represents the best opportunity for Pakistan to revive militancy in Punjab. Who is allowing them to do this? Centre if it decides to go ahead with Kartarpur corridor as we all are seeing for ourselves. Who will be most happy with Kartarpur corridor? Pakistan, terrorists and the likes of Navjot Singh Sidhu whom BJP keeps criticizing so frequently yet is determined to fulfil his “dangerous and divisive” agenda of fully opening Kartarpur corridor in the name of Sikh pilgrims getting an opportunity to visit the birthsite of Guru Nanak!
To be sure, sources said that, “These developments have raised fresh concerns in India about the safety and security of pilgrims from India and misuse of the corridor for anti-India activities. India has made amply clear in the meeting and draft agreement that Kartarpur Sahib Corridor shall not be misused for any anti-India propaganda and activities. India has been strongly emphasizing on the need for foolproof security of pilgrims on Pakistani soil and demanding commitment from Pakistan to insulate them from any anti-India propaganda or activity during their visit to Gurudwara Kartarpur Sahib.”
What does Centre think it is doing? What does Centre think that Pakistan will honour its commitments of not fuelling anti-India propaganda from its soil? Why Centre places Sikh religion above India? Why is Centre not ready to learn anything from our past experiences with Pakistan?
How long will our leaders hope that Pakistan will address India’s concerns at the earliest? How long will our leaders overlook photos of dreaded slain terrorist Bhindrawale pasted all over the route to the Gurudwara Kartarpur Sahib not sparing even the Gurudwara also as we saw with our own eyes on various news channels? How long will our leaders overlook photo of Pakistan Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa with dreaded Khalistani terror leaders shaking hands and congratulating each other obviously for being able to fool our leaders who are not ready to see the stark reality which even an insane person can see through? It is for our leaders to decide!
At a time when our nation is on the verge of war with Pakistan, should we even think of opening the Kartarpur corridor let alone open it? Don’t we read nowadays frequently that our alert planes forced Pakistani planes to flee back when they tried to sneak into India? Should then religion be placed above nation? Sikh or Hindus or Muslims or Christians cannot be above our nation that is India!
Don’t our leaders know that Pakistan always indulges in double-speak? Don’t our leaders know that Islamabad is surreptitiously usurping land belonging to Kartarpur Singh Gurudwara in the name of developing the corridor? Don’t we know that India and Pakistan signed a pact in 1974 to facilitate visit of their pilgrims to the shrines located in each other’s territories but Kartarpur Sahib was not included despite repeated Indian requests?
Which reasonable person will ever trust Pakistan when it has been repeatedly betraying India and mercilessly killing our soldiers and not sparing even our women and children? How can BJP which proudly calls itself “party of chowkidar” and PM Narendra Modi who always proudly calls himself “chowkidar” do the stupidity most senselessly and most shamelessly of trusting Pakistan again and allowing Khalistani terrorists to misuse this route for their own dangerous and divisive agenda of “Khalistan 2020” as they keep propagating in UK, Canada, USA etc? At whose instance? Only and only BJP and PM Narendra Modi can best answer this!
All talks on Kartarpur corridor must be called off and similarly there should be no talks on opening of Sharda corridor for Hindu pilgrims or any other corridor because nation and national interest come first, always and every time and the religion and religious interest comes next, always and everytime! It is our politicians who ought to remember this always!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
Nations Must Make Gun Laws More Stricter
Finally India Now Has Lokpal In Place As Anti-Graft Body
Public school review: Choose the best school for your child to let him/her shine!!!
Top 5 Best Physics Books for IIT JEE Mains Preparations
1. NCERT Book of Physics
2. Concepts of Physics Vol. 1 and Vol.2 by H.C. Verma
3. Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday and Resnick
4. Problems in General Physics by I.E. Irodov
5. Previous Years Question Papers
Adding Additional Accused: To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability Of Complicity Of A Person Required: SC
इस दिल में आते जाते रहिए
P&H HC Directs Protection Of Honest Officers While Setting Aside CM’s Remarks On Khemka
Karol Bagh Hotel Blaze Kills 17 As Rules Flouted Openly
Uncivilized And Heartless Crime: SC Enhances Compensation To Acid Attack Victim
To start with, the Supreme Court which is the highest court of our nation has most recently on March 15, 2019 in an extremely laudable and landmark judgment titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr v Vijay Kumar alias Pappu & Anr in Criminal Appeal No(s). 753 of 2010 has minced just no words in stating clearly and convincingly about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency. It is the most uncivilized and most heartless crime and this even the top court has acknowledged for which there cannot be any justification of any kind. The Apex Court also directed the two convicts to pay Rs 1,50,000 each as compensation to acid attack victim.
First and foremost, the ball is set rolling in para 1 by penning down in this commendable and noteworthy judgment authored by Justice Ajay Rastogi for himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar that, “The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dated 24th March, 2008 filed at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh whereby the High Court was pleased to partially allow the appeal filed by the respondents and altered the nature of offence from one under Section 307/34 IPC to one under Section 326 IPC and reduced the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and increased the fine to Rs. 25,000/- each and in default, to undergo further imprisonment of six months.”
For the uninitiated, the background is then chalked out in para 2 wherein it is pointed out that, “In the instant case, the victim has suffered 16% burn injury which was caused due to acid attack on the darkest day of her life, i.e. on 12th July, 2004. To unfold the prosecution version in nutshell that, on 12th July, 2004 at about 9.00 a.m. PW-13 Shami Verma resident of Mashobra, who was present at BCS at Khalini-Dhalli By-Pass saw PW-5 Kumari Ishita (victim) crying with burn injuries, who had jumped into the water tank nearby. PW-13 Shami Verma took out PW-5 Kumari Ishita-victim from the tank and informed to the Police Post, New Shimla, that a girl with burn injuries was present near her residence and this information (Exhibit PR) was recorded by the Incharge of the Police Post, New Shimla, who deputed a police officer on wireless set to go to the site. PW-36 Shakuntla Sharma went to the site and shifted the victim to the hospital and recorded her statement on which a case was registered. During investigation, PW-5 Kumari Ishita (victim) stated that when she was going to college, two boys came on a scooter and threw some acid over her from a jug and run away from the spot. After investigation, challan was filed against both the accused respondents who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their conviction which convicted them for offence under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each by judgment dated 30th November, 2005 which came to be challenged by them in appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.”
As it turned out, para 3 then states that, “Taking note of the chemical burns caused by sulphuric acid of around 16% which is evident from the report of Dr. Piyush Kapila (PW-2), Department of Forensic Medicine, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that the offence under Section 307/34 IPC was not made out and converted the offence from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 326 IPC and sentenced them for a period of 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each vide impugned judgment dated 24th March, 2008.”
Needless to say, para 4 then brings out that, “The accused respondents have accepted the coniction and have undergone their sentence in terms of the judgment impugned dated 24th March, 2008 and have deposited the fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- each as informed to this Court and were released on 9th December, 2008 after undergoing sentence in terms of the impugned judgment.”
To be sure, it is then also brought out in para 5 that, “The main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it was a case of acid attack on innocent young victim of 19 years and learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused respondents under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and there was no reasonable and cogent justification for the High Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 30th November, 2005 and once they had been held guilty, their alteration of punishment is uncalled for and prayed for restoring the conviction and sentence held by the learned trial Court dated 30th November, 2005. Learned counsel further submitted that if this Court is not inclined to restore the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court dated 30th November, 2005, at least the victim is entitled for compensation admissible under the law.”
On the contrary, it is then pointed out in para 6 that, “Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the High Court dated 24th March, 2008 and submitted that the respondents were young at the given point of time on the date of incident dated 12th July, 2004 and looking into the chemical burns of 16% which the victim had suffered, by no stretch of imagination, it could be considered to be a case of Section 307 IPC of committing an attempt to murder. Further, in the given facts and circumstances, it was not even a case of Section 326 IPC but they have accepted the wrong which had been committed by them and after undergoing sentence in terms of the impugned judgment, both were released on 9th December, 2008 and there is no justification to restore the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court dated 30th November, 2005. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Sachin Jana and Another Vs. State of West Bengal 2008(3) SCC 390 and submitted that it was a case where the victims suffered more than 50% burn injury caused due to acid and the conviction was under Section 307 IPC and yet this Court had reduced the sentence to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/-.”
Simply put, para 7 then states that, “In this background, the question for consideration is whether the imposition of sentence by the High Court is proportionate to the crime in question and whether the victim is entitled to what has been awarded under the impugned judgment.”
On the one hand, para 8 points out that, “Learned counsel for the appellants submits that by no stretch of imagination, the period undergone, can be regarded as appropriate for the offence under Section 326 IPC and definitely not when there is acid attack. She submitted that there may not be any misplaced sympathy and exhibition of unwarranted mercy to pave the path of injustice to the victim.”
On the other hand, para 9 then discloses that, “Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the incident has happened long back on 12th July, 2004 and by this time, the victim as well as the respondents have been living their individual lives and respondents have undergone the sentence passed and were released on 9th December, 2008. They are leading a reformed life and after a long lapse of time, to send them to custody would tantamount to a gross injustice to them.”
What’s more, para 10 then envisages that, “The two-Judge Bench of this Court in Sachin Jana and another’s case (supra) where the accused persons faced trial for offence under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC on account of 50% burn injury which was caused due to acid attack were convicted by the High Court for offence under Section 307/34 IPC but their custodial sentence was reduced to 5 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The relevant extract is as under:-
“9. It is to be noted that three persons suffered injuries on account of acid poured on them. The doctor had indicated that each of the injured persons suffered more than 50% burn injury which was caused due to acid and the same was sufficient to cause death if not attended by medical aid at appropriate time.
12. When the evidence on record is analysed, it is clear that Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC has clear application. The acid burns caused disfigurement.
13. Considering the nature of dispute the custodial sentence is reduced to 5 years. However, each of the appellants is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000. If the amount is deposited by the appellants within six weeks from today, out of each deposit, Rs. 10,000 shall be paid to each of the victims PWs 1, 2 and 3: in case the amount of fine imposed is not deposited, the default custodial sentence of one year each”.”
Going ahead, the Bench then stipulates in para 11 that, “The matter in reference to the victim suffered due to acid attack was further considered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another 2017 (4) SCC 546 where learned trial Court convicted the accused person under Section 326 and 448 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The High Court while confirming the conviction under Section 326 IPC released the accused to the period which he had already undergone of 30 days which came to be interfered by this Court and the punishment and sentence of one year under Section 326 IPC was restored. But while doing so, this Court also ousted the compensation which the victim may be entitled for under Section 357 and Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”).”
It is most heartening to note that it is then very rightly noted in para 12 without mincing any words that, “Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that in the present case the victim had suffered an uncivilised and heartless crime committed by the respondents and there is no room for leniency which can be conceived. A crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency. This Court cannot be oblivious of the situation that the victim must have suffered an emotional distress which cannot be compensated either by sentencing the accused or by grant of any compensation.”
Delving deeper, it is then held after considering all the points in para 13 that, “After going through the material on record, we are of the considered view that the accused respondents have rightly been held guilty and their conviction under Section 326 IPC and sentence for 5 years at least needs no interference but at the same time, we are disposed to address on victim compensation which may at least bring some solace to the victim for the sufferings which she had suffered.”
While referring to past leading and relevant case laws, it is then held in para 14 that, “In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 (6) SCC 770, a two-Judge Bench of this Court referred to the amended provision, 154th Law Commission Report that has devoted entire chapter of victimology, wherein the emphasis was on the victim.
Continuing in the same vein, para 15 then states that, “In Laxmi Vs. Union of India and Others 2014 (4) SCC 427, this Court observed that Section 357-A came to be inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31st December, 2009 which, inter alia, provides for preparation of a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. This Court further directed that acid attack victims shall be paid compensation of at least Rs 3 lakhs by the State Government/Union Territory concerned as the aftercare and rehabilitation cost.
Not stopping here, it is then held in para 16 that, “In State of M.P. Vs. Mehtaab 2015(5) SCC 197, this Court directed the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs noticing the fact that occurrence took place in 1997 and it observed that the said compensation was not adequate and accordingly, in addition to the said compensation to be paid by the accused, held that the State was also required to pay compensation under Section 357-A CrPC and reliance was placed on the decision in Suresh Vs. State of Haryana 2015(3) SCC 227.”
Moving on, it is then unfolded in para 17 that, “Victim Compensation Scheme has been considered by this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Rampal 2015 (11) SCC 584 and this Court opined that compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was inadequate taking note of the fact that the life of young child aged 20 years was lost and taking note of the precedents observed that in the interest of justice, the accused is required to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and the State to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation.”
Most importantly, it is then held in para 18 that, “Taking note of the precedents of which reference has been made, we consider it appropriate to observe that both the accused shall pay the additional compensation of Rs1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) each and the State of Himachal Pradesh shall pay the compensation as admissible under the Victim Compensation Scheme as in vogue to the acid victim (Ishita Sandhu, D/o Late Shri Rikhi Ram Sandhu) (Appellant No. 2). If the accused does not pay the additional compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) each within six months, the defaulting accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months. The State shall deposit the compensation before the trial Court within three months from today and the learned trial Court, after proper identification of the victim, disburse at the earliest.”
To put things in perspective, para 19 then enunciates that, “The impugned judgment of the High Court stands modified and the appeal is accordingly disposed of. Lastly, it is held in para 20 that, “Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.”
No doubt, it is an exceptional, elegantly written and excellent judgment which will send the right, loud and clear message to one and all that acid throwing will not be taken lightly under any circumstances and the accused should be prepared not just to suffer jail sentence but also pay huge penalty as fine! No justification by accused of any kind would be able to stand scrutiny before the court! The State Government must ensure that it deposits the compensation before the Trial Court within three months and the learned trial Court after proper identification of the victim disburse it at the earliest! It merits no reiteration that all the courts from top to bottom must always ensure that acid throwing is not taken lightly ever and accused as we see in this landmark case are made to pay heavily so that it acts as a suitable deterrent to others from indulging in such wanton and despicable acts!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
Top 25 Universities of World for Natural Science 2019 EduINDEX Ranking
1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
2. Stanford University
3. Harvard University
4. University of Cambridge
5. University of Oxford
6. ETH Zurich – Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
7. University of California, Berkeley (UCB)
8. California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
9. The University of Tokyo
10. Imperial College London
11. Princeton University
12. Kyoto University
13. National University of Singapore (NUS)
14. University of Toronto
15. Tsinghua University
16. Lomonosov Moscow State University
17. Yale University
18. EPFL – Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
19. Peking University
20. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
21. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU)
22. University of Chicago
23. Columbia University
24. Technical University of Munich
25. Cornell University
Top 25 Universities of Social Sciences and Management 2019 EduINDEX Ranking
Top 25 Universities of Social Sciences and Management 2019 EduINDEX Ranking
1. Harvard University
2. London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
3. Stanford University
4. University of Oxford
5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
6. University of Cambridge
7. University of California, Berkeley (UCB)
8. Yale University
9. National University of Singapore (NUS)
10. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
11. University of Pennsylvania
12. Columbia University
13. University of Chicago
14. Princeton University
15. The University of Tokyo
16. Bocconi University
17. New York University (NYU)
18. The University of Hong Kong
19.Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU)
20. The University of Melbourne
21. University of Toronto
22. Northwestern University
23. The Australian National University
24. Peking University
25. University of Michigan













You must be logged in to post a comment.