Launch of National Freight Index | Freight Rates and Trends for Better Decision Making

In line with our goal of transforming the logistics industry in India, I am excited to share with you the launch of the National Freight Index (NFI). With this, we aim to bring transparency to the previously opaque sector. Unrestricted, easy and open access to freight rate information through National Freight Index would empower millions of small fleet owners as well as logistics decision makers in India.

NFI is the first-of-its-kind barometer of the road freight spot market and is based on Rivigo Rate Exchange (RRE) that gives a live spot rate on over 7 million lanes (origin, destination) and vehicle type combinations in the country. NFI offers an aggregated picture of both, live rates and historical trends of spot prices across 150 different combinations. Both RRE and NFI are based on Rivigo’s machine learning and economics powered pricing algorithms.

On the page www.nationalfreightindex.com, you can look at the live freight index across adjustable filters on truck types, origin zones and haulage distance for spot rates. Additionally, 13-month index history and a dedicated page on insights generated from indices are available. Over the next few months, new features will be launched to enable index personalization and reflect market sentiment. A whitepaper for you to better understand and use the National Freight Index, is accessible here.

With NFI, it is easier to gauge the health of the road freight market and draw real and meaningful insights. It can cater to use cases for logistics decision makers, supply chain professionals in companies, consultants, researchers, sales force of trucking related businesses (OEMs, NBFCs) and academicians. One can use the trends reflected in the indices as a part of their operating plans, freight spend decisions, business proposals and research for providing sharper context to the earlier opaque freight industry. For example, trucking profitability can be sensed by evaluating NFI, fuel prices, interest rates together. Companies closely tied to trucking can adjust their product offerings, manufacturing volumes and sales strategy by understanding emerging trends from NFI.

Centre Must Now Immediately Order Creation Of HC Bench In West UP


How long will Centre like a shameless mute spectator just keep watching the law and order situation in West UP from turning more and more lawless? How long will Centre overlook the repeated murder of lawyers in West UP? How long will Centre overlook that while it proudly ensured the creation of a High Court Bench in West Bengal at Jalpaiguri for just about 4 districts which already had a Bench at Port Blair for 3 lakh people living there as the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge – Justice Jaswant Singh had recommended a high court bench there in mid 1970s but has taken no steps to create a high court bench in West UP as recommended very strongly by it for the more than 9 crore people living in more than 26 districts here?

How long will Centre overlook that many UP CM have in the past recommended that high court bench must be created in West UP at the earliest? How long will Centre overlook that it was Sampoornanand who had first recommended the creation of a high court bench in West UP at Meerut in 1955 after more than 100 elected representatives from West UP met him and apprised him of the need for the same? How long will Centre just admonish UP CM Yogi Adityanath that he cannot do anything on this just like it admonished him for placing 17 castes in SC list as it is the Parliament’s jurisdiction and State cannot on its own do so but itself will just do absolutely nothing to create a high court bench in West UP even as the law and order situation is turning from worse to worst and even though many of its elected MPs, Union Ministers like Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Home Minister Amit Shah, Gen VK Singh, Sanjeev Baliyan and many other former Union Ministers also like Dr Mahesh Sharma, Satyapal Singh among others who have all spoken in one voice demanding the creation of a high court bench in West UP and have repeatedly raised this legitimate and crying demand in Parliament also?

It is a matter of greatest national shame that Uttar Pradesh which is the biggest state amongst all the states in India with maximum population at more than 22 crore as UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Prime Minister Narendra Modi keep proudly bragging about at public rallies time and again which is more than even that of Pakistan and many other countries, maximum MPs in Lok Sabha at 80, maximum MPs in Rajya Sabha at 31, maximum MLAs in Vidhan Sabha at 404, maximum MLAs in Vidhan Parishad at 100, maximum Judges at lower courts at more than 5000, maximum Judges in High Courts at 160, maximum pending cases in lower courts at more than 50 lakhs, maximum pending cases in high court at more than 10 lakh, maximum members in UP Bar Council which is more than one lakh which is the highest not just in India but in the whole world as is pointed out in the website of UP Bar Council itself, maximum elected representatives at all levels including villages like Sarpanch, maximum villages which is again more than one lakh, maximum tehsils, maximum Mayors, maximum constituencies at 80, maximum districts at 75, maximum poverty and what not yet has least high court benches in India – only one and that too just about 200 km away from Allahabad at Lucknow! What a shame that Jawaharlal Nehru had the great guts to create a high court bench in Lucknow on July 1, 1948 about 71 years ago which is just 200 km away from Allahabad where main high court is located but no PM had the guts to create a high court bench thousands of kilometers away at any of the 13 districts in hilly areas which now constitute a separate state called Uttarakhand and the people then numbering 88 lakh living there had to travel so far for more than 50 years after independence which led to resentment and agitation of a separate state and now it has a high court nor at any other district in UP!

Why is it that West UP which owes for more than 57% of the total pending cases of UP as acknowledged by the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission itself has not even a single bench of high court in any of the 26 districts? Why is it that the situation in West UP is so lawless which can be gauged from this that the newly elected Chairperson of UP Bar Council – Darvesh Singh Yadav was shot dead right inside court premises just three days after being elected just recently on June 12, 2019 yet West UP has not even a single bench of high court? Why is it that another lady advocate Kuljeet Kaur who was a Supreme Court lawyer and wife of a retired Army Officer has been found murdered in less than a month after UP Bar Council former Chairperson Darvesh Yadav’s murder right inside her house in Noida in West UP which prompted the Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association to write to UP CM seeking protection of live and properties of the advocates and to say that, “This murder exposes the serious slackness in law and order situation in Noida.”

Where is Noida located? It is in West UP where Centre for undisclosed reasons has been shamelessly opposing the creation of a bench in any of the 26 districts and the people living here are compelled to travel whole night all the way to Allahabad to attend court hearings as there is no bench here!

Why is it that the former UP High Court Chief Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale who hails from Maharashtra in a heinous case involving rape of few women on national highway in Bulandshahr in West UP had rightly said as Chief Justice of Allahabad high Court that there is total lawlessness in UP as compared to Maharashtra where women can travel alone in night anywhere without any fear but still see the crowning irony that Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and latest at Kolhapur for just 6 districts but for UP just a single bench since 1948? When peaceful states like Maharashtra can get benches in no time then why Allahabad High Court in UP which has maximum pending cases in India has been denied its due share unfairly for such a long time?

Why the lawyers of more than 20 districts of West UP keep going on strike for last nearly 40 years from May 1981 till now every Saturday protesting the denial of bench but Centre does not deem it fit to even consider it most seriously? Why the lawyers of West UP even went on strike for 6 months in 2001 and earlier also several times similarly and not stopping here even went on strike for 3 months in 2014-15 also and for nearly a month every year time and again but still West UP has no bench? Why is it that litigants of West UP are compelled to travel more than 800 to 900 km away to Allahabad to attend cases as there is no high court bench in West UP yet CJI says nothing on it? Why even the repeated murder of lawyers, police officers and others fail to shake Centre to do anything on this score?

Why is it that West UP always remains in the news for wrong reasons for brutal crimes and still Centre never orders creation of a bench for it? Why is it that the population of West UP at more than 9 crore is more than all states except UP of which it is a part, Maharashtra and Bihar and here too areawise West UP at 98,933 square km is bigger than Bihar which has just 94,000 square km but still has not even a bench? What a crying shame that UP CM Yogi Adityanath government has the ability to bear Rs 36,000-crore for construction of 600 km Ganga Expressway for better connectivity of Allahabad with western districts of the state and which will be the longest expressway in the world but it can’t spare just a few crores for creating a high court bench in lawless West UP or at Bundelkhand or at any other deserving place so that people are not compelled to travel so far and waste huge money in doing so for various expenses like staying, travelling, etc as Centre is just not ready for it!

Why can’t Centre take serious steps to address this cancerous problem of law and order in UP root and branch by creating more benches here and not just resorting to baby steps, gimmickry and bandaid measures like reducing time limit to reach Delhi by about an hour or so by spending more than 20 crores on creating 14 lane national highways? Why can’t Centre direct UP government to immediately create a bench in West UP? Who is stopping Centre?

Who can deny that Allahabad High Court is the biggest high court not just in India but in whole of Asia yet has just one bench which is so close at Lucknow and is also one of the oldest high court which completed its 150 year of creation in 2016? Who can deny that Bar Council of UP has maximum members in whole world yet its former Chairperson Darvesh Yadav just within three days of being elected is brutally murdered right inside court premises by pumping three bullets on her? Who can deny that many senior lawyers in the past also have been brutally murdered not just in West UP but in other parts also as we saw in Basti?

Why is it that UP has just one bench and here too West UP which owes for more than half of pending cases has none? Why a single bench only for UP at Lucknow which is so close to Allahabad just about 200 km away and not anywhere else as in West UP where people have to travel about 700-800 km on an average all the way to Allahabad as there is no bench here? Why a bench for Lucknow since July 1, 1948 for just about 8 districts but no bench for West UP even in 2019 for 26 districts for more than 9 crore people living here which constitutes for nearly half of the population of UP? Can this be justified on any ground and under any circumstances? Certainly not!

If Lucknow is capital then so is Bhopal which has neither high court nor bench and same is true for Dispur which is capital of Assam, Bhubaneshwar which is capital of Odisha, Dehradun which is capital of Uttarakhand, Thiruvananthapuram which is capital of Kerala, Raipur which is capital of Chhattisgarh, etc! Allahabad High Court must get its due share as it has maximum pending cases, maximum Judges and what not yet has just one bench since 1947 till 2019 which is most shameful and most disgraceful! Allahabad High Court needs special care and not special neglect as most unfortunately we have been seeing till now!

It must have maximum benches in India and not minimum as most unfortunately we have been seeing since last 72 years! Centre’s adamant approach to not create any bench anywhere else in UP other than Lucknow is responsible for demand being raised for separate state as we see in Bundelkhand, West UP, Poorvanchal and other parts also! Centre can shamelessly create 2 more benches for a peaceful satte like Karnataka at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts even though it had a bench already at Hubli also for just 6 crore people living there but for more than 9 crore people of West UP it is not ready to create even a single bench! Karnataka has just about 1 lakh pending cases still it has 3 benches but for UP which has more than 10 lakh pending cases and West UP alone which has more than 5 lakh pending cases it has none! Same is true for Assam and Maharashtra which have 4 benches even though their pending cases stand nowhere when compared to UP whom Ban ki moon who is former UN Secretary General had slammed as “rape and crime capital of India” and even West UP alone has more cases which is more than both the states put together!

Is this is what Article 14 which talks about right to equality stands for? Is Centre not making an open mockery of Article 14 of Indian Constitution? Are the people of West UP not entitled to get “speedy justice”, “justice at doorsteps” and “cheap justice” just like the people of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Assam etc?

Needless to say, Centre must clarify its stand and not maintain a conspicuous and deafening silence on it! Former Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee had clearly said in 2001 while he was Attorney General that, “Centre is fully empowered to create a bench in any of the districts in West UP without any recommendation from the Chief Justice or anyone else in this regard.” Former Supreme Court Bar Association Chairman Krishnamani had also said that, “Only by the creation of a high court bench in West UP will the people living here get real justice.”CJI Ranjan Gogoi while disposing of a petition on this filed by a lady advocate KL Chitra last year had appreciated the dire need for a bench in West UP but also had said that it is for Centre to decide on it!

How long will Centre take to decide it? Another 100 years or 200 years or 300 years or never? It must have the guts to at least specify its clear stand on this! Dr BR Ambedkar who is the founding father of Constitution wanted UP to be divided into 3 parts as it was very big but Centre decided not just to not divide UP but also not to allow any bench anywhere else other than in Lucknow for reasons it has never had the guts to disclose from 1947 till now even though it created 2, 3 and more benches for smaller states shamelessly which alone explains that it did not accept the historic recommendation of Justice Jaswant Singh Commission to create 3 benches in UP in Agra, Nainital and Dehradun!

If a high court bench is created in West UP, it is “poorest of poor” and the most deprived and hapless women who will benefit most as they will be saved from the unnecessary trouble of travelling so far and spending so much extra money, time etc to just attend one hearing alone! We all saw how a 8 year old girl was brutally raped and murdered in Aligarh just recently! Rape, gang-rape and murder have become a very common thing in West UP! This alone explains why former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee who is the tallest leader of NDA till now himself forcefully raised this crying demand for bench in West UP inside Parliament more than 33 years ago in 1986 when he was Leader of Opposition!

On a concluding note, Centre must have some pity on woman at least who are most unsafe in lawless UP and especially West UP where they are repeatedly being brutally murdered as we have seen in case of Supreme Court lawyer Kuljeet Kaur, former UP Bar Council Chairperson Darvesh Yadav among others and immediately order creation of more benches not just in West UP but also in other parts of UP where the crime rate is high! Crime rate is highest in West UP which necessitates prompt creation of high court bench here! Will Centre deny or question this also? It cannot even if it wants because the crime statistics are easily available! Centre must now immediately come into action and order the creation of a high court bench in West UP as strongly recommended by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission also! Let’s hope so fervently!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

UAPA: SC Dismisses PFI Leader’s Plea Seeking Discharge In RSS Worker Murder Case


In a latest and significant development, the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice AM Khanwilkar in a latest judgment titled Asim Shariff Vs National Investigation Agency in Criminal Appeal No(s). 949 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No(s). 1253 of 2019) delivered on July 1, 2019 has dismissed an appeal filed by a Popular Front of India leader Asim Shariff accused in the murder of a RSS worker Rudresh in Karnataka. It may be recalled that Asim Shariff’s application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking his discharge from the case in which he was accused of various provisions under Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was dismissed by the Special Court. Also the Special Court framing charges against him was affirmed by the High Court rejecting his challenge against it.

To start with, this latest judgment authored by Justice Ajay Rastogi for himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar first and foremost after granting leave as mentioned in para 1 then goes on to point out in para 2 that, “The present appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against whom a criminal case bearing no. RC04/16-NIA-HYD came to be registered along with four other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC; Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 15, 16, 17, 18 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter being referred to as “UAP Act”).”

Moving on, it is then stated in para 3 that, “After completion of the investigation, final report was submitted before the trial Court against the accused persons including appellant. The appellant claims that there was no material for registering the criminal case neither investigating nor submitting the final report against him. At this stage, the appellant filed application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as “CrPC”) seeking his discharge from the case for the aforesaid offences. The application was dismissed by the trial Judge/Special Judge who ordered for framing of charges against him for the aforesaid offences under Order dated 2nd January, 2018 came to be challenged by the appellant in a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC which was dismissed by a lucid impugned judgment dated 22nd November, 2018 which is a subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.”

To recapitulate, para 4 then while dealing with the background of the case states that, “The background facts giving rise to this appeal which needs to be noted are that a criminal case came to be registered as Crime No. 124/2016 on 16th October, 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by Commercial Street Police after a complaint was filed by one Jayaram (CW-1), who stated that on 16th October, 2016 at around 12.40 p.m. when he along with his friends namely Rudresh, Harikrishna and Kumar assembled near Srinivas Medical Stores, Shivajinagar, one person (accused) being the pillion rider of the motorcycle hacked Rudresh with a sharp edged and lethal machete on the right side of his neck and fled. Rudresh was taken to a hospital wherein he was declared brought dead.”

Delving deeper, it is then envisaged in para 5 that, “Initially, four accused persons (Accused nos. 1 to 4) were arrested on 27th October, 2016. Accused no. 5 (appellant herein) was arrested on 2nd November, 2016. Subsequently, the task of investigation was entrusted to National Investigating Agency (NIA) by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 7th December, 2016. NIA registered FIR in RC No. 24/2016 against all five accused persons on 21st April, 2017 which stated that accused nos. 1 to 4 conspired with the accused appellant (accused no. 5) to kill RSS members and in furtherance of their acts, they committed offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused persons were said to be in possession of weapons without license, thereby it attracted the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act. Further, the acts of the accused persons including the accused appellant amounted to offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 16(1)(a), 18 and 20 of the UAP Act.”

To put things in perspective, it is then revealed in para 6 that, “The appellant sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC along with other accused persons which came to be rejected vide order dated 2nd January, 2018 and framed charges against the accused persons including accused appellant. Special NIA Court under its Order dated 2nd January, 2018 while deciding the application of appellant seeking discharge under Section 227 observed that it was admitted by the defence counsel that the appellant is the President of Bengaluru unit of Popular Front of India (PFI) and the other accused persons nos. 1 to 4 are also the members of PFI.”

More damningly, it is then further revealed in this same para 6 that, “It was also admitted by the defence counsel that there was frequent telephonic/mobile phone conversation among the accused persons nos. 1 to 5 prior and subsequent to 16th October, 2016 (the date of the incident) which gave rise to the Special NIA Court to arrive at a conclusion that the material placed in the charge-sheet on record gives rise to sufficient grounds of subjective satisfaction of prima facie case of alleged offence of conspiracy being hatched among the accused persons. It further observed that the accused appellant has failed to justify the necessary ingredients of Section 227 CrPC and finally held that the matter deserved to be proceeded with framing of charge. The said order came to be affirmed by the High Court on dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the unsuccessful appellant vide its impugned judgment dated 22nd November, 2018.”

On the contrary, it is then pointed out in para 7 that, “Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and is based on an erroneous interpretation of the factual circumstances of the case and the High Court has not taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record in the proper perspective which has vitiated the entire proceedings and led to gross injustice.”

More pertinently, it is then observed in para 23 that, “That apart, we have also gone through the relevant record and extract of the charge-sheet placed on record for perusal, the fact reveals that the accused appellant is the President of Bengaluru unit of Popular Front of India (PFI) and the other accused nos. 1 to 4 are also the members of PFI. It reveals from the charge-sheet that there was frequent telephonic/mobile conversation between appellant (accused no. 5) with other accused persons (accused nos. 1 to 4) prior and subsequent to 16th October, 2016 (the alleged date of incident) which persuaded the Court to arrive to a conclusion that there is a prima facie material of conspiracy among the accused persons giving rise to sufficient grounds of subjective satisfaction of prima facie case of alleged offences of conspiracy being hatched among the accused persons and truth & veracity of such conspiracy is to be examined during the course of trial.”

Most pertinently, it is then held in para 24 that, “After going through the records and the judgment impugned before us in the present facts and circumstances, we find no error in the judgment passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 22nd November, 2018 which calls for our interference.”

Needless to say, it cannot be lost on us that it is then enunciated in para 25 that, “We make it clear that what has been observed by this Court is only for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal and any observations made shall either way not prejudice the rights of the parties during the course of trial and the trial Court may also not to be influenced/inhibited by the observations made by us and proceed with the trial independently in accordance with law.” Para 26 then states that, “With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.” Lastly, para 27 then concludes by holding that, “Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”

In a nutshell, it can well be said that the road ahead for the appellant – Asim Shariff is very bumpy and thorny! He clearly failed to get the relief of discharge which he was seeking from the case in which he was accused of various provisions under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for being involved in the murder of a RSS worker – Rudresh in Karnataka! Also, accused No. 4 has confessed that accused appellant was the mastermind behind the killing of RSS member! He has to now face the law as there is no option now before him! Very rightly so! The famous dictum which states that, “As you sow so shall you reap” clearly applies on the appellant here!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

How To Record The Evidence Of Deaf And Dumb Rape Victim? : Bombay High Court


It has to be remarked that in a significant judgment titled Hanumant Vs The State Of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 2019 and Criminal Application No. 1702 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 2019 delivered just recently on June 26, 2019 by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court has explained as to how to record the evidence of deaf and dumb rape victim. It has also remanded the rape case to the Trial Court on the ground that evidence of deaf and dumb victim was recorded without considering the provisions of Section 119 Evidence Act. As per the proviso to Section 119 Evidence Act, when the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be videographed.

To start with, the ball is set rolling by Justice AM Dhavale who authored this noteworthy judgment by first and foremost pointing out in the introductory part in para 1 that, “Heard Shri Nilesh S. Ghanekar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.J. Salgare, learned APP for respondent/State.” Para 2 then states that, “Considering the important issue of mode of recording of evidence of deaf and dumb victim girl, the appeal is admitted.” Furthermore, it is then stated in para 3 that, “With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.”

To recapitulate, it is then pointed out further in detail in para 4 that, “The appellant has been convicted for offence u/s 376(2)(1) IPC for committing rape on a deaf and dumb girl and is sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer RI for three months. He is also convicted for offence u/s 323 IPC. On 16.11.2016, the victim’s brother lodged FIR at Shirur Police Station, Tq. Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed. As per the FIR, the informant had five sisters and the victim was deaf and dumb. She was aged 23 years. Since 7-8 days prior to the FIR, the victim girl had abdominal pains and was feeling weakness. When she was taken to the Civil Hospital, it was disclosed that she was pregnant for five months. When the informant and his parents made enquiry with her as to with whom she had relations, she pointed by signs the house of the accused and stated that the person residing there had entered her house before Ramjan and used force to press her neck and thereafter committed sex with her. FIR was registered at Crime No. 226/2016 and was investigated into. The investigation revealed that the victim was illiterate and was not even knowing the scientific sign language of the deaf and dumb persons. Her statement was recorded through an interpreter from mentally retarded school and its video recording was done.”

To be sure, it is then revealed in para 5 that, “Shri S.J. Salgare, learned APP submits that, the victim girl has delivered a child and there was DNA testing which proved that the accused was biological father of the child. The accused has taken a defence of total denial. Shri Ghanekar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, when witness or victim girl is deaf or dumb, her evidence should be recorded as per Section 119 of the Evidence Act. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal reported in 2012 AIR SCW (S.C.) 3036, wherein it was laid down that,

21. To sum up, a deaf and dumb person is a competent witness. If in the opinion of the Court, oath can be administered to him/her, it should be so done. Such a witness, if able to read and write, it is desirable to record his statement giving him questions in writing and seeking answers in writing. In case the witness is not able to read and write, his statement can be recorded in sign for language with the aid of interpreter, if found necessary. In case the interpreter is provided, he should be a person of the same surrounding but should not have any interest in the case and he should be administered oath.”

Going forward, it is then brought out in para 6 that, “Shri Ghanekar submits that, since the victim girl was illiterate, first course to record her evidence in writing was not possible but the ld. Trial Judge committed error in recording her statement with the aid of interpreter without giving him oath. Besides, the interpreter was the same person who had recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The ld. Trial Judge was bound to record the signs made by victim girl while giving answers. He argued that, though there is no specific defence that the act was committed with the consent, the prosecution is bound to show that if there was sexual intercourse it was against the will or without the consent of the victim girl. She was major and cannot be presumed to be mentally retarded or idiot. She is capable of giving consent and if the act has taken place with her consent, there would be no offence. He points out that, the victim girl had not disclosed the incident to anybody for a period of more than five months. Even the FIR was not immediately lodged after knowledge of her pregnancy. Shri Ghanekar relies on the evidence of Dr. Babasaheb Dhakane (PW6) to submit that the pregnancy of the victim girl was detected by her relatives in August-2016 only whereas the FIR is filed in November-2016. The victim’s brother has turned hostile. He also pointed out that, as per Section 119, it is mandatory to record the evidence of deaf and dumb person with videography. This has not been followed. The victim girl was not in a position to tell her name and age. No questions were asked to make enquiry about her intellectual capacity. Considering the facts, there was no fair trial and the accused has been prejudiced.”

On the contrary, it is then pointed out in the next para 7 that, “Per contra, learned APP submits that, statement of deaf and dumb was recorded with the help of interpreter and it was also videographed. Her evidence is supported with DNA report which shows that the accused is biological father of the child begotten by her. He refers to the evidence of PW3 that, she has identified the accused at the time of her evidence and showed by signs that he had pressed her throat and had moved her hand on her stomach indicating that the accused is responsible for her pregnancy.”

After hearing both the sides and considering their viewpoint and facts, it is then held in para 8 that, “Considering the facts, the most material issue in this matter is whether PW3 – the victim girl was consenting party or not? She was major and it is nobody’s case that she was not sound. She was capable of giving consent. There are some facts which may support the defence story that she was consenting as there was delay in reporting the matter to police. Nonetheless, there can be reasons which can be accepted for delay in lodging the FIR in such matters.”

More significantly, it is then held in para 9 that, “I find that, the ld. Trial Judge while dealing with a case of deaf and dumb girl ought to have considered the provisions of Section 119 and the apex court’s judgment on the same. The trial court did not verify her understanding capacity. Though evidence of the witness was recorded by appointing an interpreter, the ld. Trial Judge has not followed certain conditions. No oath was administered to the interpreter that he would fully and correctly interpret the questions put to the witness and shall also fully and correctly interpret the answers given by the witness in sign language to the court. As per Section 119 of Evidence Act amended from 03.02.2013, the proviso lays down that, when the witness is unable to communicate verbally, the court shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement, and such statement shall be videographed. The apex court has observed that, the Judge has not only to record the interpretation given by the interpreter but also he has to record the signs made by the witness. This is difficult and now the videography will solve the problem faced by the Judge in recording the signs. These provisions are not followed.”

What’s more, it is then further held in para 10 that, “Considering the facts, it is difficult to determine whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not. In the light of these facts, the conviction cannot be sustained and the matter will have to be remanded to the Sessions Judge with direction to record the evidence of PW3-victim girl afresh by following the provisions of Section 119 as interpreted by the Apex Court in Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal’s case (supra). The Judge shall record the competency to understand and interpret the sign language of deaf and dumb person. The Judge shall give oath to the interpreter for correctly interpreting the questions to the witnesses and the answers given by the victim to the court. Once it is done, the evidence shall be recorded and the same shall be videographed. The prosecution shall make arrangement of the videography of the evidence. The focal point of the evidence should be, whether the act was with consent or without consent. However, the parties shall be at liberty to lead evidence and challenge the same on any other legally permissible point according to law.

It cannot be lost on us that it is then held in para 11 that, “Considering the facts the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to record evidence of the prosecutrix again and decide the matter afresh. Since the accused is in Jail from 17.11.2016, he is permitted to file fresh Bail Application which the trial Court shall consider on its own merits.”

Not stopping here, it is then further held in para 12 that, “The appellant is directed to remain present in the trial Court on 08.07.2019. The ld. Trial Judge shall hear the matter expeditiously and shall dispose it of within one month from the date of receipt of record and appearance of the parties. The Registrar shall forward the record immediately.” Finally, it is then held in the last para 13 that, “In view of disposal of main appeal, nothing survives in the connected Criminal Application and same stands disposed of.”

In a nutshell, the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in this notable case seeks to explain how to record the evidence of deaf and dumb rape victim. The Trial Court was directed to follow the procedure of recording such evidence and also to dispose it of within one month as pointed out in the above para. The Trial Court earlier didn’t follow the proper procedure in this regard as has already been explained in detail in the above paras and now it has to comply according to the procedure laid down by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Why students should actually choose a community college and how to enroll?

Most of the people have a question in their mind why they should choose a community college over a big university name. This is one of the biggest questions that all the students who are looking for a college have. However, for some of the students, community college comes in the last slots of options but for many students, community college is the number one choice. Students are not choosing universities just to save their money or to stay closer to their home. But there are also many other reasons why students actually choose a community college. Have a look at these reasons:
College cost too much
Most of the big reputed universities and colleges cost too much and students are not able to afford these. The cost of the tuition fee is really very high at colleges. They choose community college to save their money for at least 2 years. After completing 2 years of a community college degree, they transfer themselves into a big name university.
“Community college enables them to avoid their debts”. Therefore, they ignore admission in universities and highly reputed college. 
Not ready for the university and college
Many times, students are not ready for university and college. They are not even ready to enter the first year of college. Sometimes, students have to take pre-req classes to get ready for college credit. It is one of the most common situations that students face. The general and pre-req classes at community college is considered as a step towards the degree, therefore, most of the students prefer to get admission in a community college. On top of that, community colleges are well equipped with resources where you can get a quality education.
It’s a choice of students
It is good news that community colleges have a good reputation in the market. According to community college review, many solid students prefer community college even they can afford the fee of the reputed colleges and universities. However, there are also some myths and misperceptions for community colleges. The community college also offers transfer, therefore, you can complete your degrees that will offer a boom to your carrier.
“Even in some community colleges, students can transfer directly into a local state university”
Therefore the transfer has become easier for the students and they can complete their degrees to give rise to their future. There are also programs in the community colleges that can excel the skills of students.
Academic Flexibility
Academic flexibility is another one of the most important reasons that make community college a great option for all students. It is a great option to ease into the world of higher education. This is a great option if you are struggling in your school or if you don’t have enough time as well as money. You can attend community college while working as part-time to support yourself financially. This is one of the great ways to complete your studies while supporting your family financially.
STEM education opportunities
Community college offers science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs. If you are interested in any of the subject then this is the right choice for you. So, if you want to enhance your skills through these programs then community college is an ideal option got you.
Transfer options
Most of the community colleges offer transfer certificate, therefore, these colleges are not the final destination for the students. You can complete your college after completing two years if education here. You can easily transfer to your college after completing your community college education along with saving hundreds of your dollars.
Get personalized attention
According to community college review, most of the community colleges have smaller class size, therefore, each student can get equal individual attention from their teachers. So if you have any kind of query you can ask your teacher and can enhance your skills. It is a big big plus point to all the students who like to learn their own while asking a number of questions from their teachers.
Bottom line:
Community colleges should be at the first slot when it comes to choosing the right college for yourself. So, check out a list of community colleges of your area and select the right one for you as per your needs and requirements. 

Mere Aggressive Behaviour Of Wife Not A Ground Of Divorce: Punjab and Haryana High Court


It has to be candidly conceded by all of us that a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Hon’ble Mr Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled Ravinder Yadav Vs Padmini @ Payal in FAO-M-126-2019 (O&M) delivered on May 17, 2019 has categorically and convincingly held that mere aggressive behaviour and sadness of mood of wife does not mean that the wife is spoiling the atmosphere of her matrimonial home. Thus we see that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in this case dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed by a husband. The Division Bench was considering an appeal filed by a man against the Family Court order which dismissed his petition.

While the ball is set rolling in the first para of this notable and praiseworthy judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill for himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain wherein it is pointed out that, “By way of present appeal, appellant-Ravinder Yadav has assailed the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2019 passed by the District Judge, Narnaul, vide which his petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) against respondent-Padmini @ Payal was dismissed.” The appellant thus wanted the Division Bench of High Court to review the judgment and decree which went against him!

To recapitulate, it is then pointed out in the next para that, “The facts which need to be elaborated are that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 09.03.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated but no child was born out of the said wedlock. As per the allegations in the petition, the respondent-wife always imbibed with independent and modern thoughts posing herself to be a broad minded lady. Right from the next day of marriage, respondent started quarrelling with the appellant and his parents and threatened them to do everything under her command. The respondent flatly refused to perform household work and alleged that if she was compelled to do so, she would commit suicide and create problems for appellant and his family members. It was alleged that the respondent used to consume liquor and take drugs and had illicit relations with one Kuldeep Shekhawat. She was in the habit of leaving matrimonial home without informing the appellant and his family members and on asking, she used to say that nobody was allowed to interfere in her personal life. The respondent often used to make phone calls on mobile No. 9521677437 (at some places the mobile number is mentioned as 9621677437) and whenever the appellant called her she would remain busy on whatsapp and facebook with strangers and friends. The respondent even refused to share bed with the appellant which had caused mental cruelty to him. As per the appellant, the respondent left her matrimonial home on 17.04.2015 without informing him and his family members. On 06.05.2015, her father along with other respectable came to the appellant’s place and used bad words against him and his family members. The respondent also broke the Mangalsutra (Necklace) in the presence of the Panchayat members and flatly refused to live with the appellant as his wife and left her matrimonial home on 13.05.2015.”

Needless to say, it is then pointed out in the next para that, “On the other hand, the respondent-wife, though admitted the factum of marriage yet specifically denied that she had ever raised her voice, rather asserted that she had followed all the social and religious customs in her matrimonial home. She alleged that the appellant is M.Sc., M.Ed. qualified and was doing job in a private school. It is also alleged that the appellant used to pressurize the respondent to bring more money from her parents and asked her parents to sell their land, but the respondent and her father did not accede to such demand of the appellant. It was the appellant and his parents, who harassed the respondent physically and mentally and used to call a Tantrik for doing black magic upon her. She had denied the factum of attempting to commit a suicide. She used to prepare the food for the appellant and his family members at proper time and used to serve the guests as well. It was also denied by the respondent that she was a wanderer or used to consume liquor or drugs. The incident dated 06.05.2015 was admitted by the respondent as her family members came to drop her back to her matrimonial home. However, she was never accepted by the appellant and his family. They tortured her and ultimately she was turned out of her matrimonial home.”

As things stand, it is then pointed out in the next para that, “In the present case, issues were framed on 09.05.2017 and the appellant had examined as many as five witnesses along with his mother, namely, Bhatteri Devi as PW-2.”

Moving on, it is then illustrated in the next para that, “On the other hand, respondent had appeared into the witness box as RW-1 along with his father and other witnesses. After taking into consideration the evidence on record, the petition under Section 13 of the Act was dismissed on the ground that marriage was solemnized on 09.03.2015 and the respondent-wife had been residing with her parents since 13.05.2015 and the present petition was filed by the appellant-husband on 25.02.2016. It was, thus, held that the allegations of cruelty remained unsubstantiated.”

After hearing both sides, it is then held in the next para that, “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.”

Furthermore, it is then held in the next para that, “PW-3, namely, Vartika, in her cross examination had testified that the respondent was having illicit relations with one Kuldeep Shekhawat and his name was told to her by her friend Raveena. This witness further stated that she had come in contact with the respondent while studying and staying as a Paying Guest and had made a complaint to the owner of the P.G. regarding the behavior and conduct of the respondent-wife. Neither the owner of the P.G. stepped into the witness box to throw light on the said aspect nor any link evidence in this regard was led. Thus, the oral evidence of Vartika, PW-3 will not advance the cause of the appellant/petitioner.”

What’s more, it is then pointed out in the next para that, “Though it is an admitted fact, as it had come through oral testimony, that the respondent-wife has been residing separately since 13.05.2015, but to our mind, it is the appellant, who alone is instrumental in ensuring that the respondent-wife stays away from her matrimonial home and there is no intentional cessation of cohabitation on the part of the respondent-wife nor there is any intention to desert the appellant-husband.”

It cannot be lost on us that it is then made clear in the next para that, “The statutory period of two years of desertion, as envisaged under the Act, immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, had not expired, before the filing of the divorce petition by the appellant. At this stage, it would be relevant to consider Section 13(ia) and (ib) of the Act which reads as under:-

13. Divorce

(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party

[(i) xxx xxx xxx

[(ia) has after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

[(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or”

To be sure, we thus see that it is then laid down explicitly in the next para that, “In Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, it has been specifically laid down that desertion is to be considered for the continuous period of not less than two years, immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.”

As it turned out, it is then held in this new para that, “In the case in hand, the respondent-wife has allegedly left her matrimonial home on 13.05.2015 and the present petition was filed on 25.02.2016, thus, on the date of filing of the divorce petition, the statutory period of two years had not expired. Thus, the present divorce petition had rightly been rejected on this count by the Court below.”

To say the least, it is then held that, “Thus, the relief of divorce was denied because the legislation in its wisdom had framed the Act on the basis of “fault theory” and “break down theory” which was not proved in the present case.”

To put things in perspective, it is then pointed out that, “In Rajni Goyal versus Amit Kumar 2015 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 871, the Hon’ble Court has held that “adultery is a serious charge and has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But at the same time it is difficult to procure direct evidence for procuring such a charge. It is only from the circumstances that an inference can be drawn that the spouse against whom complaint has been made was leading an adulterous life”.”

More importantly, it is then held that, “To our mind, in the present case there is ordinary wear and tear of the married life of the parties, which happens in day to day life. Mere aggressive behavior and sadness of mood of wife does not mean that the wife is spoiling the atmosphere of her matrimonial home.”

To put it succinctly, it is then aptly pointed out that, “It has been held by the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh versus Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 515 that the concept of cruelty differs from person to person, depending upon his or her upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. Therefore, it is essential for the party claiming the relief to prove that a particular conduct or behaviour has resulted into cruelty to him or her. The aggrieved party has to make specific case that the conduct of the spouse had caused cruelty to him/her. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity of alleged cruelty. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it.”

Finally and perhaps most importantly, it is then very rightly held that, “In the present case, no cogent evidence has been placed on record that the behaviour of respondent is uncalled for. Regarding relationship of respondent-wife with Kuldeep Shekhawat the same had not been proved and above all Kuldeep Shekhawat had not been arrayed as party in the divorce petition so that he could join the proceedings and some light could have been thrown on the allegation. As a matter of fact adultery cannot be considered without impleading the alleged adulterer as per Rule 10 of Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules, 1956. Rather unsubstantiated and uncorroborated testimony associating the respondent with adulterer has caused mental cruelty to the respondent. Thus nuptial knots cannot be allowed to be broken on these types of unfounded allegations of cruelty, physical or mental. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.”

In conclusion, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it explicitly clear in this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment that mere aggressive behaviour of wife cannot be a ground for divorce. There have to be strong grounds on which divorce can be granted. Just mere allegations of adultery also are not sufficient to constitute a ground of divorce. It must also be proved beyond a shadow of doubt for it to be admissible in a court of law. It was held in this case that the husband failed to produce cogent evidence against the wife and therefore his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was rejected! It was also very rightly held that mere aggressive behaviour wife and sadness of mood of wife does not mean that the wife is spoiling the atmosphere of her matrimonial home! Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Condition Of Lady Advocates Vulnerable: Lawyer Approaches Supreme Court Seeking CBI Enquiry In Darvesh Yadav Murder Case


To start with, a woman advocate named Ms Indu Kaul who is a regularly practising lady advocate duly entered on the roll of bar Council of Delhi under Advocates Act, 1961 has approached the Supreme Court by filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking CBI enquiry in the murder case of Ms Darvesh Yadav who was the newly elected President of UP Bar Council and who was shot dead within just three days of her election right inside court premises! It merits no reiteration that her brutal murder in court premises itself has thrown up very serious questions regarding the security level and this has been taken very seriously even by the Allahabad High Court itself! Chief Justice Govind Mathur of Allahabad High Court has asked all the District Judges of the State to take necessary steps for security of court campuses across the state. The Registrar General of Allahabad High Court in the communication dated June 21 has asked all the District Judges to ensure that adequate security is provided to all the persons related to ‘dispensation of justice’ in the state.

Earlier a delegation led by acting Chairman of UP Bar Council Prashant Singh Atal had met the Chief Justice with regard to murder of advocate and Chairperson of UP Bar Council – Darvesh Yadav on the Agra court premises. The delegation had demanded security for office-bearers and members of the UP Bar Council and also earnestly requested the Chief Justice to ban entry of persons carrying weapons in court premises across the state. Why ban entry of persons carrying weapons in just UP alone? It should be banned uniformly all across India in all the courts in our country!

It must be mentioned here that in her PIL, advocate Indu Kaul has also sought a direction to the Bar Council of India to formulate a scheme towards the Social Security Measures for lady advocates and also for providing police security to lady advocates in court premises and its amenities beyond court working hours throughout the country. There is a lot of merit in what she has said so eloquently in her petition. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the matter on June 25.

First and foremost, it is pointed out in the petition that, “The instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation highlighting the dastardly murder of first chairperson of U.P. Bar Council and lady advocate Ms Darvesh Yadav practicing at Agra District Court on 12.06.2019 by her male colleague Manish Sharma inside the chamber situated in precinct of Agra district court, State of U.P. Late Darvesh Yadav got elected as Chairperson of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 09.06.2019 and immediately after that she propelled into the world of success being the first lady Chairperson of the state bar council. Prior to this no lady advocate in the country has earned this accolade in any Bar Council in the country. Darvesh was 38 years of age and was single and unmarried. The irony is that the scourge of her dastardly murder was none other than her male colleague Manish Sharma who had been her senior in law college also and thus an old acquaintance. It is claimed by several eyewitnesses to her murder as reported in livelaw.in on 12.06.2019 and the Times of India dated 13.06.2019 and other websites namely Bar and Bench, The First Post etc. that Manish Sharma was heard saying “Tu jeet gayi (You’ve won.)” before he shot her dead thrice minutes after the victory procession was taken out at Agra district court celebrating the victory of Darvesh Yadav’s on her becoming elected as the Chairperson of Uttar Pradesh Bar Council. As reported there had been a fallout between Darvesh and Manish recently and advocate colleagues were surprised to see Manish present at the celebrations. Manish Sharma shot her thrice and then shot himself. Darvesh Yadav succumbed to her injuries on the spot. Manish Sharma was taken to the hospital where he died later. Male insecurity has been a common feature from women placed at a higher position and in many instances this becomes a constant threat for successful women. While reporting this incident it has also been found on social media that this male insecurity might have been the motive for killing Darvesh Yadav as she broke the glass ceiling by intruding and trespassing into the men’s domain.”

Furthermore, it is then mentioned that, “It is germane to mention that Bar Council of India respondent no. 3 has made an appeal for Advocate Protection Bill. As reported in livelaw.in dated 12.06.2019 Chairman, Bar Council of India issued a Press Release demanding that a compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs be given to the family of the deceased besides strict security of members of the Bar across country. It is ironical that the Bar Council of India Respondent No. 3 instead of paying a suitable compensation to the deceased from its own Advocate Welfares’ Fund collected from the enrolment advocates’ across the country through respective state bar councils is issuing a Press release. In addition to this Bar Councils from different states and Bar Council of India collect a huge amount of money on the sale of Advocates’ Welfare Stamp affixed mandatorily on every Vakalatnama irrespective of the fact that the case is criminal, jail petition, of women, old and indigent persons and/or PIL.”

More importantly, it is then pointed out in the next para that, “This petition raises an important issue that there is no social security provided to the advocates either through bar councils or bar associations. Many a times in case of premature death or fatal illness some bar associations for e.g. Supreme Court Bar Association extends a paltry sum of Rs 50000/- to Rs. 1 lakh for illness and Rs 5 lakhs in case of death and it is not out of context to mention here that on the common appeal for financial assistance by advocates, there has been some occasions when senior advocates/advocates who are well off have made generous contributions/donations. Recently as per the newspapers and bar circulars Delhi Government has promised a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the Bar Council of Delhi but as per the information of the petitioner there is no uniform policy of disbursement of the ‘Advocate Welfare Funds’ to ill, indisposed of on death of an advocate. Neither the bar councils nor the bar associations have formulated any policy for providing social security to the advocate members. It will not be out of context to mention here that even after ‘one bar one vote’ advocates do take membership of different associations for availing the bar facilities in the court premises but may opt to cast their vote in a bar of their choice, the paradox is when they suffer illness or injury they are left at the mercy of their own funds. The petitioner by this writ petition vindicates the fundamental rights of ill, indisposed, indigent, old and lady advocates (young and married) as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to lead a life with dignity in such conditions when they are not in active practice. For instance, the petitioner by way of this Public Interest Litigation raises an issue of national importance as to would there have been any source of sustenance of Darvesh Yadav if luckily she would have survived the attack but became physically indisposed for being able to continue in active practice? An advocate like any other citizen of India has to pay for medical treatment by taking life insurance, medi claim insurance, pension, disability allowance, non-practising allowance for looking after themselves, their old parents, children’s education etc. The present petition thus raises the issue of social security of advocates at large and particularly of lady advocates and protection of lady advocates in court premises, chambers, restrooms, car parking, bar offices and libraries after the court hours.”

What’s more, the sequence of events is then described in chronological order stating that, “The List of Dates is as follows:

09.06.2019 Darvesh Yadav was elected as the Chairperson of Bar Council of U.P.

12.06.2019 The last rites of Ms. Darvesh Yadav were performed in her native village Chandpur, Etah district, UP. State Law Minister Brijesh Pathak also attended the last rites of Darvesh Yadav.

12.06.2019 FIR No. 0390 dated 12.06.2019 has been lodged at P.S New Agra Distt. Agra, Uttar Pradesh by one informant Sunny Yadav, nephew of the deceased. It is reported that the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh gave instructions to the Distt. Authorities for investigation through SSP but no announcement has been made to give ex gratia amount to the deceased advocate.

19.06.2019 The petitioner invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by way of Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for protection of lady advocates in the court precincts including her chamber and implementation of social security system by bar councils who have enormous funds in the name of Advocates’ Welfare Funds.”

Most importantly, the reasons why relief is sought is very rightly highlighted by the petitioner in para 9 stating, “That the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raises important issues pertaining to protection of lady advocates in court premises and also for having a uniform social security measure provided to them for sustaining themselves in case they suffer from any physical disability and premature death. The Petitioner thus invokes the extra ordinary civil writ jurisdiction for the issuance of the writ of mandamus on following amongst other:-

REASONS

I. BECAUSE the safety in court premises, chamber blocks, bar libraries, bar offices, car parking has no security provision like deployment of police personnels at these places.

II. BECAUSE for the safety of lady separate rest rooms for ladies at distanced locations in close proximity of chamber blocks need to be constructed.

III. BECAUSE there are combined chamber blocks for men and lady advocates, lady advocates fall easy prey to misbehaving male advocates including those who do not desist from consuming liquor inside the chambers and under the pretext of liquor loosely conduct themselves at public places like car parking, bar libraries and at times inside the bar offices.

IV. BECAUSE women by and large are still unsafe in this country post amendments in criminal law and as almost every day one finds reporting about incidents of rape, sexual assault, acid attack etc. The common psyche of men in general and male advocates in particular is a lady advocate working late hours and/or wearing modern dresses is an easy going person and often lewd comments are passed against her.

V. BECAUSE Lady advocates are found to be contesting elections in many bar associations and bar councils, the brutal murder of Darvesh Yadav in court chamber is a big deterrent for any lady advocate to dare to contest elections.

VI. BECAUSE such incidents of rape, sexual assault, voyeurism, eve teasing reflects gender disparity even after nearly 100 years of entry of lady advocates who still maintain the rule of ‘sunrise to sunset practice’ as they still do not find it safe to work beyond court hours.

VII. BECAUSE the women representation in the legal profession is abysmally low despite mushrooming law colleges all over the country as lady advocates still prefer corporate practice and law firms instead of litigations mainly due to lack of infrastructural facilities and security.

VIII. BECAUSE the young lady advocates who get into marriage and have to stay away from courts periodically when they are on family way, there is no social security measure introduced towards maternity benefits. In case of illness, indisposition, old age and her becoming indigent her situation is even worse for want of non practising allowance.

IX. BECAUSE there is no retirement age in the profession a lady advocate becomes pitiable in her old age when her practice diminishes due to her health condition and her family still nourishes the impression that being an advocate she must be capable of earning her livelihood. Through social security measures there must be a provision for pension when she opts out of active practice.

X. BECAUSE wide gender difference is found despite increased women participation due to the professional uncertainties. The requirement of legal professional coupled with societal expectations act as inherent barriers for women. One has to invest at least 12 hours every day to survive in the field. Under these circumstances, a lady lawyer has to slog for long hours in their chambers so without adequate security facilities it is not possible.

XI. BECAUSE if a lady advocate breaks the stereotype of being meek and that she can break the glass ceiling all circumstances start working against her such as hostility from male colleagues, insecurity in the court premises, lack of social security measures and family expectations. She has to fight it all alone.

XII. BECAUSE the Bar Council of India instead of paying a suitable compensation to the deceased from its own Advocates Welfares’ Fund collected from the enrolment advocates’ across the country through respective state bar councils is issuing a Press release. In addition to this Bar Councils from different states and Bar Council of India collect a huge amount of money on the sale of Advocates’ Welfare Stamp affixed mandatorily on every Vakalatnama irrespective of the fact that the case is criminal, jail petition, of women, old and indigent persons and/or PIL. Bar Council of India, state bar councils have not formulated any social security measures for the sustenance of the lady advocates in their non-active period in the profession despite having huge savings under ‘Advocates Welfare Funds’ as enrolment fee, verification of licence fee and earnings from welfare stamps.”

All said and done, the petitioner has raised very valid points in her writ petition by which lady advocates can stand to gain immensely if the Supreme Court grants her relief. The petitioner Indu Kaul who herself is a practicing lady advocate has very rightly sought direction to the Bar Council of India to formulate schemes towards the Social Security Measures for lady advocates and most importantly has very rightly sought police security to lady advocates not just in court premises but also beyond court premises in working hours throughout the country. It will be a major breakthrough if the Supreme Court accepts her writ petition and this will not just be her personal victory but it will be the victory of all lady advocates who under present circumstances are working in unfavourable conditions with no security available to them which some times even culminates in their gruesome murder also as we saw just recently in the case of UP Bar Council Chairperson Darvesh Yadav who was murdered right inside court premises shortly after attending the welcome ceremony of being elected as Chairperson! This burning issue directly concerning the security of lady advocates cannot be kept any longer in the cold storage! 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.

Enact Strict Law To Ensure Personal Safety Of Doctors

Let me begin with a candid confession: I have not seen God with my own eyes whom I worship but yes I have always seen the best creation of God – “Doctors” right from my childhood days because whenever I had any problem of any kind pertaining to my physical well being, my parents always took me to doctor who always took utmost care to ensure that I don’t suffer from any problem any more and prescribed the best medical treatment for my problem! The mere soothing words of doctors prove to be the biggest medicine for patients in many cases.
 Yet it is most unfortunate that doctors themselves in our country are not safe and are abused, attacked and assaulted by some disgruntled people on one pretext or the other! It is an unpalatable truth and sad commentary on the state of affairs in our country that three out of every four doctors admit to face some form of verbal or physical abuse!
                               To put things in perspective, we all saw just recently how the seven-day old strike by junior doctors and ‘cease-work’ in West Bengal medical colleges and hospitals was spreading all over India but ultimately when the Chief Minister of West Bengal – Mamata Banerjee agreed to accept their demand, the doctors promptly called off their strike! The strike was triggered by an attack on a doctor – Dr Paribaha Mukhopadhyay with bricks who is now being treated for a skull fracture by the family of patient who died at the NRS Medical College and Hospital at Kolkata! We all saw how doctors across the country joined the protests and observed a shutdown in response to a call by the Indian Medical Association.
                                    It is most distressing that people fail to realize that doctor can only perform operation but the survival of patient cannot be controlled wholly by a doctor! Which doctor will ever want that the patient whom he/she is treating should ever die? Is it fair that a doctor is beaten black and blue just because a patient fails to survive?
                               As it turned out, just recently we saw that when the Union Health Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan who is himself also a doctor wrote to Chief Ministers of States asking them to frame laws for protection of medical professionals, he also attached to it a draft law framed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA). The draft titled Protection of Medical Service Persons and Medical Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage of Loss of Property) Act, 2017 proposes a ten-year jail term and a Rs 5-lakh fine for violence against doctors. The IMA is currently seeking a seven-year jail term for the offence.
                             Needless to say, there is no reason why the IMA proposal should not be accepted in its entirety. Violence against doctors in any form cannot be justified under any circumstances! Those who still dare to indulge in it must be made to pay heavily for it and under no circumstances should be allowed to escape unpunished! Only then will the fear of punishment deter potential offenders from letting loose violence of the worst kind against doctors!
                                It may be recalled here that the draft law was submitted by the IMA to the Health Ministry in 2017. It had demanded a central law for the protection of doctors and has raised it again in the wake of the NRS Medical College and Hospital incident in Kolkata. Very rightly so!
                         To be sure, the provisions of the draft law are stringent: it categorizes both mental and physical abuse as violence against doctors and covers not just hospitals and a radius of 50 metres around them, but also home visits. Such violence, it says, will constitute an offence that is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and fit for trial by a court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Apart from penal provisions, it also provides that the offender in case of any property damage will have to pay twice the price of the damaged property as compensation. Very rightly so!
                                        What’s more, the draft law lays down specifically that, “any act of violence, mental or physical abuse against medical service personnel during or incident to, including, but not limited to going to or coming from medical service institution, discharge of his lawful duties pertinent to medical and healthcare delivery within or within 50 metres of such medical institutions, (safe zone) or in a mobile clinic or in an ambulance or during home visits shall be prohibited”. 
                                    It cannot be lost on us that Dr KK Aggarwal who was President of IMA when the draft Act was submitted told the media that, “At that time, when we looked at the legal protection available to doctors, we found that 19 states have some provisions, many have promulgated ordinances. When we met the Inter-Ministerial Committee, the Additional Secretary told us that health is a state subject, so only if some states write to the Centre for such an Act, can a central Act be made. Their position was that there are enough provisions in the IPC to tackle this situation, but our position was that in public interest, doctors need a special provision. If one doctor is assaulted, several hundred patients suffer as he goes off duty.”
                            As things stood, in his letter to Chief Ministers, Dr Harsh Vardhan cited a July 2017 letter sent by the Union Health Ministry to all Chief Secretaries which contains the decision taken by the Inter-Ministerial Committee constituted under the Ministry to review the Ministry to review the issues raised by the IMA. The Committee, in its report, recommended that the Health Ministry suggest to all state governments, which do not have a specific legislation to protect doctors and health professionals, to consider one to strictly enforce the provisions of special legislation wherever they exist or enforce the IPC/CrPC provisions with vigour.
                                        To say the least, Dr Harsh Vardhan who is Union Health Minister also wrote that, “The Indian Medical Association (IMA) has raised this concern many a time. Since ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are State subjects, Government of India, on many occasions has drawn attention of State Governments for an urgent need for a robust criminal justice system with emphasis on prevention and control of crime.”   
                                       No doubt, this burning issue cannot be any longer allowed to hang fire! It must be addressed forthwith. Doctors must be provided adequate security so that they can function without any fear! When politicians can be provided security then why can’t doctors also be similarly provided security?    
                                       Be it noted, at least 19 states which includes West Bengal which is the real epicenter of the protests have already passed what is called the Protection of Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence And Damage To Property) Act, also known as the Medical Protection Act (MPA). The Act which is covering doctors affiliated to institutions as well as independent practitioners, outlaws attacks against physicians and damage to their property. The offenders under this Act can get a jail term of up to three years and a fine of Rs 50,000.    
                                Well, it must be said that as stringent as it sounds, the Act, however, utterly fails to really protect doctors because it features neither in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) nor in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It goes without saying that this makes it difficult for victim doctors to approach the police for help or the latter to file a complaint against suspects. The palpable reason underlying it is explained by Dr Neeraj Nagpal who is the Convener and Managing Trustee of the Medicos Legal Action Group in Chandigarh and who aptly points out that, “Without any provision in the IPC, filing a case can sometimes mean taking a copy of the Act to the police because she or he may not even know about it.” He also further added that, “Police may not even be sure under which section to file such a case.”
                                      It needs no Albert Einstein to conclude that all this can be addressed if the Centre displays political will power and brings in suitable legislation in this regard to ensure personal safety of doctors at all cost. It is known all too well that doctors have long been demanding that a central law be put in place instead of a state-wise MPAs as well as adequate security at hospital premises. Dr Rajan Sharma of the Indian Medical Association was at pains to point out that, “I have lost count of the number of requests we have made for a central law.”
                                      Going forward, Dr Rajan also lamented that, “Protests only take place after attacks happen and it has been impossible for us to keep track of the rising number of such cases.” Why can’t Centre accede to their legitimate  and well deserved requests which is their biggest grievance also? Centre must accede now!
                        It cannot be dismissed lightly that in 2017, the IMA released a study that found 75 percent of doctors faced some form of violence while on duty. Dr HL Nag who is a sports doctor at All India Institute of Medical Sciences rued that, “Violence is not just physical. We also face verbal abuse almost every day. I have even been forced to call the police several times.” It is very rightly feared by doctors that intermittent attacks on physicians may stop people from taking up the profession. Dr HL Nag also further rightly lamented that, “The number of doctors vis-à-vis the number of patients is already less in hospitals across the country. We skip food and work without taking breaks to cater to patients. With news about attacks against doctors on the rise, more and more people are leaving the profession. Resident doctors and those practicing in rural areas are most at risk of being violently attacked.”    
                                    To say the least, barring the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT)  Act, 1994 – making prenatal sex determination illegal – the Central Government generally does not intervene in any health laws. Here also, Centre is dishing out the same reason! Many nod their head in approval with Centre’s stand!
                                   Having said this, it is high time and Centre must also now consider the serious gravity of the situation concerning increasing attacks on doctors! Dr Nagpal very rightly hit the nail on the head by pointing out that, “Why is the PCPNDT Act a central one? It is because the authorities saw a unique problem that could be better monitored and remedied by a central law. The situation is same when it comes to violence against doctors.”  
                                It is heartening to note that the IMA too stands firmly with the protesting doctors and echoes demand for a central law and better security of physicians. Centre must now step up on the gas and take a strong stand on it and enact swiftly a strict law in this regard to ensure that unabated violence against doctors never goes unpunished and unchecked under any circumstances. Violence against doctors is completely unacceptable and unjustified.
                                     On a concluding note, it must be said that doctors too rightly want that their community should be left alone so that they can do their jobs safely. Shame on us, shame on our lawmakers and shame on our system that cannot even ensure that those who attack doctors are sent behind bars for at least 10 years as rightly proposed by IMA and heavy fine of Rs 5 lakh also imposed which may even be raised if the damage is more! No more excuses, no more delays, no more ifs and buts! Only and only prompt action is needed to enact a strict law that is enforced in totality and with swiftness to ensure that those who lay their dirty hands on doctors are made to face the dire consequences! Assault on doctors must be made a non-bailable offence! No compromise can be done here!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Ban Advocates From Carrying Weapons Inside Court Premises

It is most horrifying to learn that a 37 year-old young and promising lawyer Darvesh Yadav who had just recently on June 9, 2019 been elected as the first woman chairperson of Bar Council of UP was on June 12 just three days later shot dead right inside the Agra District Court by another lawyer Manish Sharma thus cutting short her life in the most gruesome manner which can never be justified under any circumstances! 
Why can’t advocates as well as others be barred from carrying weapons inside court premises? UP Bar Council is the biggest Bar Council in the world with maximum members numbering more than one lakh and what a spectacle has been created that none other than the Chairperson of UP Bar Council has been shot dead right inside court premises!
                                        Needless to say, the lawyers of not just West UP but of entire UP observed strike the next day following her murder and everyone roundly condemned the dastardly manner of her killing right inside court premises! Manish Sharma fired at least three rounds at Darvesh Yadav inside the chambers of another lawyer – Arvind Kumar Mishra and then later shot himself on the head. Alas, a promising young woman’s career who became UP Bar Council head at such a young age of 37 and her life was brought to an abrupt end! It must be ensured that henceforth no person whether he/she is advocate or anyone else is allowed to carry weapons right inside court premises!
                                      In an emergent meeting convened by the Oudh Bar Association in the wake of the shocking murder, it condemned the incident and resolved to abstain from work to protest the attack. The Association also resolved to call for special enquiry by the State Government into the crime. Last March, a lawyer was shot dead in a court campus in Basti district.
                                        It must be revealed here that Agra City’s Assistant Superintendent of Police Prashant Verma said that she was shot by lawyer Manish Sharma who had been her long time acquaintance. He said that the pistol used by the lawyer is a licensed weapon and the police have taken possession of it. Manish Sharma who also shot himself is currently undergoing treatment at a hospital and is in a critical condition.”  
                                     To be sure, Prashant Verma disclosed that an FIR has been lodged against Manish Sharma on charges of murder at the New Agra police station. According to Verma, lawyers on morning of june 12 took out a victory procession to celebrate Darvesh Yadav’s victory, which ended at around 2.30 pm. Darvesh Yadav then went to the chamber of a local lawyer Arvind Mishra. Verma also revealed that, “While Darvesh was talking to lawyers, Manish Babu arrived there. A few minutes later, a heated argument took place between Darvesh Singh and Manish Babu over some issue. Suddenly, Manish took out his licensed pistol and shot her thrice.”
                        Furthermore, Verma also revealed that, “Before lawyers present there could understand, Manish Babu shot himself in the head with the same pistol. An autopsy report is still awaited.” Verma also said that police were yet to determine the motive. He said that, “Manish Babu was a long-time acquaintance of Darvesh Singh. So far, no lawyers had come forward to tell if there was a dispute between Darvesh Singh and Manish Babu. The investigation is on.”
                                             Both Darvesh and Manish had started practicing in Agra district court in 2004 and had been sharing the same office also. Lawyers at Agra court reveal that Manish Sharma was the biggest supporter of Darvesh and had even campaigned for her in the UP Bar Council elections and are too shocked to explain the reason for this extreme act. In photo also he can be seen waving victory sign along with Darvesh Yadav after she won!
                          To say the least, Agra Bar Association’s General Secretary DP Ojha said that, “Manish Babu was once a junior of Darvesh Singh, who was unmarried. We have no idea of the dispute between them.” Darvesh Yadav was staying at the Khandari area of Agra. He said that, “On Wednesday morning the Agra Bar Association had organised a welcome programme for Darvesh Singh. After she returned to advocate Arvind Mishra’s chamber after the programme ended, the incident occurred. Darvesh Singh was shot thrice in the head and chest.” It must be revealed here that Arvind Kumar Mishra who is former legal advisor to ex UP Governor BL Joshi did not speak to media about it and refrained from saying anything.
                                Going forward, Durgvijay Singh Bhaiya who is the former General Secretary of Agra Greater Bar Association said that, “We are shocked. Darvesh and Manish had cordial relation for several years. Can’t understand how could Manish shoot his colleague.” This gruesome incident has certainly shocked not just the entire legal fraternity but also others who have no association with courts in any manner!  Ajay Kaushal who is station house officer of New Agra told media that, “Darvesh’s body has been sent for autopsy, while Manish who shot himself in head has been referred to Medanta hospital in Gurgaon.”                  
                         According to eye-witnesses, Manish Sharma, who shared office with Darvesh Yadav in Agra district court and had close ties with her for over a decade, pumped three bullets from his licensed pistol into Darevsh head, chest and stomach while standing at the entrance door of advocate Arvind Kumar Mishra’s chamber inside court premises. Later in the evening, Darvesh’s nephew Sunny Yadav lodged an FIR in which he named Manish Sharma, his wife Vandana and another advocate Vineet Gulecha. The three have been booked for murder, criminal conspiracy and criminal intimidation.    
                                 Be it noted, the FIR says that, “My aunt Dravesh Singh Yadav was sitting at advocate Arvind Kumar Mishra’s chamber when accused Manish Sharma came with his pistol and fired shot at her and another relative Manoj Kumar. While Kumar escaped the bullet, Darvesh suffered three hits. Later, Manish shot himself with the same weapon.” Meanwhile, the CM Yogi Adityananth while taking immediate cognizance of it had directed the Agra DM and SSP to investigate the reason for the incident. The investigation is still on.
                                          It would be pertinent to mention here that advocate Abhishek Yadav whose office is opposite the chamber where the crime took place said that, “A heated argument had broken out inside Mishra’s chamber between Darvesh and Manish. Seconds later, he came out of Mishra’s chamber and took out his weapon to load bullets. He went back and stood at entrance of chamber and fired three shots at Darvesh.”
                                    It would be worth mentioning here that the Bar Council of India has condemned the murder and demanded security for its members. It sought a minimum compensation of Rs 50 lakh to the family of the victim. Very rightly so! Former UP Bar Council Chairperson and present member – Akhilesh Awasdthi said that Darvesh Singh was elected chairperson on June 9. He said that, “She was earlier Vice President of the Bar Council. We demand compensation of Rs 50 lakh for her family. We also request the state government to provide security to all UP Bar Council member and lawyers.”   
                                     More importantly, a law should be made whereby no advocate or anyone else is allowed to carry weapons or bullets inside court premises under any circumstances. Also, even advocates must be checked to ensure that no one carries weapon with him/her inside court premises under any circumstances! Only then can security of advocates and those working in courts be ensured which is indispensable four judicial system to function normally and fearlessly under all circumstances!  
                                          It must be mentioned here that National Commission for Women Chairperson Rekha Sharma who visited the court premises expressed her strong displeasure over the armed weapon been brought inside the court premises. She rightly said that, “Why should lawyers or anyone be allowed to bring weapon inside court premises. We will write to Bar Council of India and UP Bar Council to ensure that no weapon is allowed in court premises. It’s extremely disappointing that an advocate was shot inside court by her own colleagues. I’ll submit my finding report to Union Home Minister.”
                               Taking a stern view of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council Chairperson Darvesh Yadav’s murder in Agra court premises, the Allahabad High Court directed the state government to ensure foolproof security in all court premises in the state. The Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court, through a press note has informed that as the Chief Justice has taken serious view of the matter, has directed the state government to take appropriate steps immediately regarding ‘zero error security’ in the High Court, Allahabad and Lucknow and district courts of the state. The press note of the Registrar General mentions that, “I am directed to assure all the advocate fraternity that the court is taking all necessary steps to beef up the security of the court’s campus and the persons related to dispensation of justice on the subordinate courts.”
                                       It is welcome to note that following this dastardly incident of murder of UP Bar Council Chairperson, the lawyers of District Court of Allahabad held a condolence meeting and thereafter observed a day’s strike condemning the incident. Manoj Kumar Singh alias Lokesh who is Secretary of District Bar Association of Allahabad has minced no words in saying unequivocally that, “We have demanded that all the necessary steps should be taken to revamp the security of all the courts of the state and no one, be it lawyers and common public, should not be allowed with arms including those possessing licensed weapon.” Absolutely right!
                                   Ban advocates and also all others absolutely from carrying any kind of weapons or bullets inside the court premises under any circumstances! Only then can it be ensured that in future no young and promising advocate like Darvesh Singh Yadav’s life is cut short so abruptly and suddenly for no fault of hers! 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. 

Why Is CJI So Conspicuously Silent On More High Court Benches?

It is a matter of greatest national shame that Uttar Pradesh which is the biggest state amongst all the states in India with maximum population at more than 22 crore as UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Prime Minister Narendra Modi keep proudly bragging about at public rallies time and again which is more than even that of Pakistan and many other countries, maximum MPs in Lok Sabha at 80, maximum MPs in Rajya Sabha at 31, maximum MLAs in Vidhan Sabha at 404, maximum MLAs in Vidhan Parishad at 100, maximum Judges at lower courts at more than 5000, maximum Judges in High Courts at 160, maximum pending cases in lower courts at more than 50 lakhs, maximum pending cases in high court at more than 10 lakh, maximum members in UP Bar Council which is more than one lakh which is the highest not just in India but in  the whole world as is pointed out in the website of UP Bar Council itself, maximum Mayors, maximum villages which is again more than one lakh, maximum tehsils, maximum Mayors, maximum constituencies at 80, maximum districts at 75, maximum poverty and what not yet has least high court benches in India – only one and that too just about 200 km away from Allahabad at Lucknow!

What a shame that Jawaharlal Nehru had the great guts to create a high court bench in Lucknow on July 1, 1948 about 71 years ago which is just 200 km away from Allahabad where main high court is located but no PM had the guts to create a high court bench thousands of kilometers away at any of the 13 districts in hilly areas which now constitute a separate state called Uttarakhand and the people then numbering 88 lakh living there had to travel so far for more than 50 years after independence which led to resentment and agitation of a separate state and now it has a high court nor at any other district in UP!

                                        Why is it that Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice Jaswant Singh had in late 1970s recommended 3 high court benches at Agra, Dehradun and Nainital but Centre did not approve even a single bench for UP even though it created bench at Aurangabad in Maharashtra, at Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and Madurai in Tamil Nadu on its recommendations? Why former UN Secretary General Ban ki moon had slammed UP as the “rape and crime capital” of India when he was in office but our law makers never felt it necessary to create even a single more bench for any other district in UP other than Lucknow where it was created way back in 1948? Why peaceful states like Karnataka has 3 high court benches, Assam has 4 high court benches, Maharashtra has 4 high court benches but UP which has maximum pending cases at more than 10 lakh cases in high courts even though other states have just 1 or less than 2 lakh pending cases yet they have so many high court benches but UP has just one?
                               Why is it that West UP which owes for more than 57% of the total pending cases of UP as acknowledged by the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission itself has not even a single bench of high court in any of the 26 districts? Why is it that the situation in West UP is so lawless which can be gauged from this that the newly elected Chairperson of UP Bar Council – Darvesh Singh Yadav was shot dead right inside court premises just three days after being elected just recently on June 12, 2019 yet West UP has not even a single bench of high court? Why is it that the former UP High Court Chief Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale who hails from Maharashtra in a heinous case involving rape of few women on national highway in Bulandshahr in West UP had rightly said as Chief Justice of Allahabad high Court that there is total lawlessness in UP as compared to Maharashtra where women can travel alone in night anywhere without any fear but still see the crowning irony that Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and latest at Kolhapur for just 6 districts but for UP just a single bench since 1948? When peaceful states like Maharashtra can get benches in no time then why Allahabad High Court in UP which has maximum pending cases in India has been denied its due share unfairly for such a long time?    
                                       One cannot but fully agree with Chief Justice of India – Ranjan Gogoi that the number of Judges must be increased and the retirement age of High Court Judges must also be increased from 62 to 65 but what about High Court Benches? Why is CJI so conspicuously silent on such a sensitive issue? Why is it that CJI Ranjan Gogoi fully admired that KL Chitra a woman advocate who filed a PIL pleading for a high court bench in West UP last year was right that there is a valid reason for creating a bench in West UP but declined to entertain it as he said that it is for the Centre to do so knowing fully well that Centre has done nothing in last more than 70 years even after the historic recommendations of Justice Jaswant Singh Commission of creating 3 benches in UP but not a single bench was created in any hook and corner of UP?  
                                        Why is it that CJI ignores that the 230threport of Law Commission of India recommended more high court benches for states? Why CJI ignores that Centre created 2 more high court benches for Karnataka at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts in 2008 first as circuit benches which were made permanent in 2012 apart from the bench at Hubli but for UP not a single bench created till now in 2019  even though Karnataka has less than 2 lakh pending cases and UP has more than 10 lakh pending cases and here too West UP alone has more than 5 lakh pending cases in high court? Why CJI does not writer about this to Centre?
                                          Why the lawyers of more than 20 districts of West UP keep going on strike for last nearly 40 years from May 1981 till now every Saturday protesting the denial of bench but CJI does not deem it fit to mention it to Centre? Why the lawyers of West UP even went on strike for 6 months in 2001 and earlier also similarly and not stopping here even went on strike for 3 months in 2014-15 also and for nearly a month every year but still West UP has no bench? Why is it that litigants of West UP are compelled to travel more than 800 to 900 km away to Allahabad to attend cases as there is no high court bench in West UP yet CJI says nothing on it?           
                               Why is it that West UP always remains in the news for wrong reasons for brutal crimes and still CJI doesn’t write to Centre demanding high court bench for it? Why is it that the population of West UP at more than 9 crore is more than all states except UP of which it is a part, Maharashtra and Bihar and here too areawise West UP at 98,933 square km is bigger than Bihar which has just 94,000 square km but still has not even a bench? Why CJI does not point out that so many UP CM like Sampoornanand had recommended a high court bench for West UP at Meerut in 1955 but till now not a single bench created anywhere in any of the 26 districts of West UP? Why CJI does not point out that even small islands like Andaman and Nicobar islands have high court bench with just 3 lakh population at Port Blair but West UP with more than 9 crore population has none?
                                          Why CJI does not recommend more benches for other lawless states like Bihar which has none even though we daily keep listening news of horrifying crimes in different districts of Bihar? Why other big states like Odisha has no high court bench even though the lawyers of Western districts keep protesting for a bench frequently, why  Rajasthan has just one high court bench at Jaipur alone and not at other places like Udaipur where lawyers keep demanding the same? Why only a few big states like Maharashtra, Karnataka and Assam have either 3 or more than 3 benches? Why not others who either have just one or have none? Why can’t this glaring and shameful indiscrepancy be corrected immediately?
                                    What a crying shame that UP CM Yogi Adityanath government has the ability to bear Rs 36,000-crore for construction of 600 km Ganga Expressway for better connectivity of Allahabad with western districts of the state and which will be the longest expressway in the world but it can’t spare just a few crores for creating a high court bench in lawless West UP or at Bundelkhand or at any other deserving place so that people are not compelled to travel so far and waste huge money in doing so for various expenses like staying, travelling, etc! Why can’t Centre take serious steps to address this cancerous problem of law and order in UP root and branch by creating more benches here and just resorting to baby steps and bandaid measures like reducing time limit to reach Dlhi by about an hour or so by spending more than 20 crores on creating 14 lane national highways? Why can’t CJI direct Centre to do so accordingly?    
                               Why is CJI so conspicuously silent on more high court benches not just in UP but in other different states also like Bihar from where the present Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad hails? Why only a few states are enjoying the right to speedy justice, justice at doorsteps and cheap justice? Why big states like UP, Bihar and others are being wrongly deprived of the same?
                         Let me again reiterate that there can be no denying or disputing what CJI says regarding increasing the number of Judges in Supreme Court and High Court and age also of High Court Judges but  this alone is not enough to ensure that people get justice easily and cheaply! More high court benches also must be created for big states like UP, Bihar, Rajasthan, Odisha and others as was very rightly recommended by the 230th report of Law Commission of India more than 10 years ago but which has been implemented only in Karnataka, Maharashtra and West Bengal! Why UP which has maximum pending cases and other states left out in the cold?
                                      Should the CJI not speak out most vociferously on this also? Who can deny that Allahabad High Court is the biggest high court not just in India but in whole of Asia yet has just one bench which is so close at Lucknow and is also one of the oldest high court which completed its 150 year of creation in 2016? Who can deny that Bar Council of UP has maximum members in whole world yet UP has just one bench and here too West UP which owes for more than half of pending cases has none? Can this be justified on any ground and under any circumstances? Certainly not! Allahabad High Court must get its due share as it has maximum pending cases, maximum Judges and what not! It must have maximum benches in India and not minimum as most unfortunately we have been seeing since last 72 years! It is CJI’s moral and constitutional duty to point out in detail about this to the Centre and if still Centre does not act then the CJI must most promptly order the creation of a high court bench in any of the 26 districts of West UP and also at other suitable places in different deserving states like Bihar, Odisha and Rajasthan! It brooks no more delay anymore now!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh. 

Definition of Open Access Publication

An Open Access Publication is one that meets the following two conditions:
 
The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship, as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.
A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization that seeks to enable Open Access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).
 » As a member of Publisher International linking Association, PILA, Eduindex follows the Creative Commons Attribution License and Scholars Open Access publishing policies.

Why Should UP Have Least High Court Benches In India?

Let
me begin on a bitter note by expressing my profuse disappointment and
utmost disenchantment with the continuous and callous disregard of more
than 19 crore people living in different parts of UP which is more than
10 small states put together by Centre since 1947 till 2019! Why is it
that only Eastern UP has high court at Allahabad and a single bench at
Lucknow and all the other regions like Western UP, Bundelkhand and
Purvanchal etc have been completely disregarded and denied their
legitimate share by giving them at least one high court bench? Why no
government in Centre has ever taken any initiative to correct this worst
injustice since 1947 till now in 2019? It is UP where maximum cases of
crimes takes place and West UP alone owes for more than half of the
total cases in UP and yet it has not even a single bench of high court
even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme
Court Judge Jaswant Singh categorically recommended bench for West UP in
early 1980s even though on its historic  recommendations benches were
created in Aurangabad in Maharashtra and Madurai in Tamil Nadu and other
places!

                                        Which
state has maximum districts in India – 75? UP! Which state sends
maximum MPs to Lok Sabha – 80? UP! Which state sends maximum MPs to
Rajya Sabha – 31? UP! Which state sends maximum members to Vidhan Sabha –
404? UP!
                                       Which
state sends maximum representation to Vidhan Parishad – 100? UP! Which
state elects maximum Mayors? Which state elects maximum representatives
at all levels? UP! Which state has maximum population which is more than
19 crore as per 2011 census even though in public rallies UP CM Yogi
Adityanath and PM Narendra Modi keep saying more than 22 crore? UP!
                                         Which
state has maximum villages more than one lakh even though no other
state has more than few thousand villages at the most? UP! Which state
has maximum poverty? UP! Which state has maximum cities which is more
than 700? UP!
                                    Which
state has maximum crime to the extent that former UN Secretary General
Ban ki moon had slammed UP as the “rape and crime capital of India”? UP!
Here too which part of UP owes for more than 52% of pending cases of UP
and yet has no high court bench? West UP! Which state has maximum
pending cases which is more than the cases of 10 states put together?
UP! Which state owes for maximum dowry deaths? UP! Which state owes for
maximum custodial deaths? UP! Which state has maximum pending cases in
lower courts more than 65 lakhs? UP!
                                    Which
state has maximum pending cases of communal violence and riots as we
saw in Muzaffarnagar in 2013, Meerut riots in 1988, Bareilly riots, Agra
riots etc all in Western part? UP! Which state has maximum pending
cases of rape, molestation, murder and other crimes against women? UP!
Which state has maximum strength of Judges both in high court at 160 and
in lower courts at 5000? UP! Which state has maximum vacancies of
Judges? UP! Which state has sent maximum PM which includes Narendra Modi
from Varanasi? UP!
                                  The
larger point that I want to make here is this: Why is it that Allahabad
High Court tops among all states when it comes to the number of pending
cases which is more than 10 lakhs whereas most of other states have not
more than one lakh cases and still Centre is busy creating more and
more high court benches for them with latest at Jalpaiguri for just a
handful of districts!  Assam till a few years ago had 7 high court
benches but after Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura were given separate
high courts, it now stands reduced to 4! But Allahabad High Court which
is the biggest court not just in India but in whole of Asia with so vast
a jurisdiction and also one of the oldest high court in India has just
one! This is certainly most shameful!
                                Lamentably,
even small states like Sikkim, Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur, etc with
just about 6 lakh population, 29 lakh , 36 lakh, 27 lakh have high
courts but West UP with more than 9 crore population has not even a
single bench of high court! Even Andaman and Nicobar islands with just 3
lakh population has bench but not West UP with more than 9 crore
population!  
                                              Not
just this, Centre has always ensured that this high court has maximum
vacancies of Judges which is highest in country with more than half of
seats which stands at 160 keep lying vacant! Is this fair? Is Centre not
aware that Allahabad High Court needs “special attention” and not
“special neglect”? Allahabad High Court is biggest court not just in
India but in whole of Asia with maximum High Court Judges and maximum
District Judges and also Judges at lower level still it has the least
bench in India – only one!
                                         Is
Centre not aware that Justice Jaswant Singh Commission had
categorically pointed out that West UP owes for about 57% of the total
pending cases which is more than half of the total pending cases in UP
still why its landmark recommendation to create a bench here to take
care of nearly 40 districts at Agra with circuit benches at Nainital and
Dehradun overlooked? Why not a single bench approved for UP? It must be
investigated by a retired CJI or a retired Judge of Supreme Court! 
                         Why
when Sampoornanand recommended a high court bench to be created at
Meerut in 1955 after more than 100 elected representatives met him and
convinced him of the dire need of the same did Nehru refuse? Why when
even other UP CM like ND Tiwari, Rajnath Singh and others recommended
was bench not approved? Why when bench could be created at Lucknow in
1948 could a bench not be created at Meerut which is more than 700 km
away? Why when Kapil Sibal wanted a high court bench to be created at
Meerut when he was Union Law Minister as another Union Minister RPN
Singh had disclosed but the then UP CM Akhilesh Yadav objected did
Centre not listen to its own reputed and one of the most reputed jurist
of India?   Why Centre said that the recommendation made by Law
Commission in its fourth report in 1955 recommended against creating
more benches and so West UP could not be given a bench conveniently
overlooked everything when it came to other states and kept on creating
benches there and also overlooked that the Law Commission in its 230
th report
in 2009 recommended creation of more benches yet West UP and other
parts of UP like Bundelkhand were overlooked for benches?
                            
                                 Why
Centre took no time to create 2 more high court benches for Karnataka
with just 6 crore population which is less than even West UP population
alone and which already had a bench at Hubli for just 4 and 8 districts
at Gulbarga and Dharwad respectively but for 26 districts and more than 9
crore people of West UP not a single bench was approved even though the
lawyers here keep going on strike as they did thrice like once in 2001
for 6 months from July to December and for 3 to 4 months as they did in
2014-15 and for one month as they did in 2010 and for many weeks as they
keep doing every year apart from the strikes on Saturdays for last 38
years and many times even on Wednesdays? Why Centre disregarded the most
commendable recommendation made by one of the most eminent jurist of
India – Soli J Sorabjee who as Attorney General in 2001had categorically
recommended that, “Centre is empowered to create a high court bench in
West UP without any recommendation from the Chief Justice or Chief
Minister or anyone else in this regard”? Why Centre even disregarded
what former Chairman of Supreme Court Bar Association BN Krishnamani
said that, “Only by the creation of a high court bench in any of the
districts in West UP will the people living there get real justice”?
                                     Why
Centre approves one more bench for Mumbai high court at Kolhapur for
just 6 districts which already had 3 benches at Panaji, Aurangabad and
Nagpur just recently in 2018 itself but cites 100 reasons for not
creating a single more bench for Allahabad High Court in any hook and
corner of UP leave alone West UP? Why Centre from 1947 till 2019 has
taken the stand that, “Ask anything for UP but not a high court bench as
only Lucknow deserves it”? What rubbish!  
                          If
Lucknow is capital then so are Bhopal which is capital of Madhya
Pradesh, Dehradun which is capital of Uttarakhand, Bhubaneshwar which is
capital of Odisha, Dispur which is capital of Assam, Raipur which is
capital of Chhattisgarh and Thiruvanathapuram which is capital of Kerala
yet they have neither high court nor bench! Also, Lucknow’s area
jurisdiction is just 62,00 square km and that of West UP is 98,933
square km! The number of districts which come under the jurisdiction of
Lucknow bench is just 12 and that of West UP is 26! The population of
districts under Lucknow jurisdiction stands nowhere as compared to West
UP whose population at more than 9 crore is more than any other state
except UP of which it is itself a part, Maharashtra and Bihar and here
too areawise West UP has 98,933 square km and that of Bihar is just
94,000 square km!   
                                   Why
catchy slogans like “speedy justice”, “justice at doorsteps” and “cheap
justice” not implemented for West UP and other remote areas of UP by
creating more benches here? Why Mayawati wanted high court itself for
West UP by recommending to Centre that it be made a separate state way
back in 1995 but Centre is not ready to concede even a bench for West
UP? Why is BJP a blind follower of Congress in this regard and till now
has ensured that not a single high court bench is created in any hook
and corner of UP except the one created already by Nehru 70 years ago in
1948 at Lucknow?  
                               This
despite the fact that former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee had thundered in
Parliament way back in 1986 as Opposition Leader demanding the creation
of a High Court Bench in West UP and Yogi Adityanath who is now UP CM
also himself thundered while demanding for a High Court Bench at
Gorakhpur way back in 1998 right inside Parliament but 20 years later we
don’t see any High Court Bench anywhere being created in UP! One can
understand that Vajpayee didn’t enjoy majority but Modi has it but we
see no action forthcoming on this so far even though he is taking other
steps for UP like pompously inaugurating the 14 lane highway connecting
Delhi with Meerut and other districts of West UP in which many crores of
rupees have been spent which will reduce the time limit from Meerut to
Delhi from 2 hours to just 45 minutes which is commendable but what
about high court bench in West UP which is affecting the litigants of 26
districts most adversely due to which they are still compelled to
travel more than 700 km all the way to Allahabad whole night without
reservation many times and bear all sorts of inconveniences?  When will
action be taken on this score? Why can’t few crores be spared for
creating a bench in West UP and other needy areas of UP like in Jhansi
in Budelkhand and in Gorakhpur?
                                   It
is not for nothing that Union Minister Satyapal Singh demanded in
Parliament the creation of 5 high court benches at Meerut, Agra, Jhansi,
Gorakhpur and Varanasi but the real tragedy is that his own PM is not
listening to him and not creating even one more bench anywhere else in
UP other than the one which already exists at Lucknow! Similarly many
other BJP MPs like former Union Minister Sanjeev Baliyan, Union Minister
Gen VK Singh, Mahesh Sharma and other MPs like Rajinder Agarwal keep
demanding benches but to no avail!
                                      As
per the Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, the Centre
can create a high court bench in any of these 3 states – UP, Bihar and
J&K directly by bringing it up in Parliament. Centre does not need
any recommendation from State Government or the Chief Justice as has
been very wrongly propagated for many decades! What a national disgrace
that these very 3 states – Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Bihar
keep on grabbing the national news headlines for all the wrong reasons
as crime incidents keep multiplying very rapidly and what is worst is
Centre’s stupid and crazy determination to not allow a single more bench
in all these 3 states!
                              It
is incomprehensible why Centre can approve 3 or 4 or 5 benches for
peaceful states like Maharashtra, Karnataka among others but not more
than one for UP which has maximum pending cases which is more than 10
states put together! Allahabad High Court must be given its due honour
and it must have maximum high court benches and not minimum! Disband all
high court benches in India if Allahabad High Court cannot be given
more benches, West UP cannot be given a bench nor can Bundelkhand or
Gorakhpur (which is CM Yogi’s constituency and where BJP just recently
lost) for people living so far away who face maximum sufferings because
of this but which no PM has ever dared to address for reasons never
disclosed!
                                      This
all-important issue directly affecting billions of litigants coming
from all sections of society is lying largely unattended and untreated
since many decades! But now not any longer! Allahabad High Court must
get its due by creating more benches for it! 
                             No
one is safe in UP! Even lawyers and those in police are themselves not
safe! Criminals know that it take ages for cases to be decided in UP as
UP has least benches in India and maximum pending cases in India! Former
UP High Court Chief Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale in a case involving
rape of few women on national highway in Bulandshahr in West UP rightly
said that there is total lawlessness in UP as compared to Maharashtra
where women can travel alone in night anywhere without any fear and this
I have also seen myself at Pune from where I did LLB but see the
difference that Maharashtra has four high court benches with latest at
Kolhapur for just 6 districts  and Pune is all set to get another as CM
Devendra Fadnavis has approved it for which we all must applaud him but
Centre must create benches in UP also! When Maharashtra can get benches
in no time then why Allahabad High Court in UP which has maximum pending
cases be denied its due share? Why in last more than 70 years has a
single bench more not been added for UP?
                       Why
can’t Centre take serious steps to address this cancerous problem root
and branch and not just resort to baby steps and bandaid measures like
reducing time limit to reach Delhi by spending many crores of rupees on
creating 14 lane national highways but doing nothing at all to create
more benches anywhere in UP so that people are not compelled to travel
whole night to Allahabad? Why can’t this be done? Is it such a big deal?
Certainly not! Only political will needed! What a crying shame that
Yogi Adityanath government has the ability to bear Rs 36,000-crore for
construction of 600 km Ganga Expressway for better connectivity of
Allahabad with western districts of the state and which will be the
longest expressway in the world but it can’t spare just few crores for
creating a high court bench in West UP for which people numbering more
than 9 crore are ready to bear the expenses also!       
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh. 

Drop This Episode From Your Minds And Gossips”: BCI Endorses Bobde Panel Report, Accuses The Complainant

Image result for BCI Endorses


In a latest, landmark and extremely laudable decision, the Bar Council of India (BCI) which represents all the lawyers of India and lays down rules and regulations which all lawyers have to follow has clearly, courageously and convincingly endorsed in no uncertain terms the Bobde Panel Report which was prepared by the second most senior Judge of Supreme Court – Justice Sharad A Bobde along with two eminent women Judges of Supreme Court – Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Indira Banerjee. The Bobde Panel Report after examining the charges in detail had found no substance in the allegations made by the woman complainant against the CJI Ranjan Gogoi and therefore her complaint was rejected. The incumbent CJI Ranjan Gogoi thus stands exonerated!

Needless to say, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has very rightly minced no words in directly appealing to the members of the legal fraternity, the Judges and the people of this country to rise to the occasion and come forward, get united, and be vocal to discourage negative forces which are all out to weaken the most sacred institution of judiciary! The Bar Council of India has made this most fervent and most commendable plea in the backdrop of the complaint of sexual harassment charges against CJI Ranjan Gogoi and everything that happened in its aftermath bringing judiciary in limelight in a bad way, saying rightly that judiciary is the only ray of hope for the poor people of the country. The Bar Council of India (BCI) certainly deserves to be complimented and congratulated for daring to take the bold decision to stand by the incumbent CJI Ranjan Gogoi who ever since he took oath as office has demonstrated extraordinary determination to reform the judiciary and ensure that all vacant posts for Judges in different courts are filled up at the earliest and he suo motu took action on it as we all know very well! Yet, the CJI has faced unwarranted and unbecoming criticism from a powerful section of the media without any strong basis!

To be sure, the statement from Bar Council of India says that a common advocate always feels that his first duty is to protect the institution of judiciary and that bar cannot tolerate any attempt that tears at reputation of courts of law and damages and demolishes their authority. Absolutely right! Moreover, this CJI has never once faced any iota of any sort of allegation against him of any kind and has rather himself always shown the determination to act against corruption as we saw while in his stint as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court he ensured that a Judge involved in corruption was made to resign!

Not just this, he took all the High Courts to task right on assuming office for not filling Judges vacancies and warned them that if they fail to fill up the vacancies in a fixed time, the power of appointing Judges would be taken away from them and given to either UPSC or the Supreme Court will itself take upon itself this onerous task! This resulted in vacancies being released in huge numbers in different states and for first time in UP we saw HJS vacancies being notified twice in a year which is a record by itself! Should this not be appreciated and applauded?

Earlier we saw how vacancies came out after 2 or 3 years and in case of UPPCSJ no vacancies came out from 2007 to 2012 that is for full five years! If CJI has vowed that now this will not go on like this, should this not be appreciated or should here also question marks be raised on CJI? If I fail to clear Judges exam as I have till now then I must have the guts to admit that I have not worked hard enough instead of finding fault in CJI or in any other person and questioning the fairness of the system without any basis whatsoever! If there is one CJI whom I hold in highest esteem it is none other than this CJI Ranjan Gogoi because he has shown the urge to do what no other CJI has ever at least to the best of my knowledge ever dared to do in filling up Judges vacancies not just in Supreme Court or High Court but even in lower courts also by taking suo motu note of it and asking all High Courts to start filling up vacancies within a time limit and setting clear deadlines for it!

It is this CJI Ranjan Gogoi who inspite of qualifying for prestigious Civil Services exam opted for judiciary as he felt it to be more sacred for him. Similarly it is this CJI who had left his roaring practice in Guwahati High Court to take up Judgeship knowing it fully well that Judges get very meager pay but as Judges get more reputation, he opted for it! His whole life is an inspiration for others to follow but in one fell stroke all this has been laid to tatters which has certainly shattered him yet he has managed to control his emotions and is still discharging his duties most commendably! This alone explains why I wrote very rightly in heading in my earlier articles that, “Even God Cannot Shake My Faith In CJI Ranjan Gogoi” and “My Unflinching Faith In CJI Stands Fully Vindicated Now”!

For me, character is always more important than reputation. This is because reputation is “what people think you are” and character is “what actually you are” and “which only you yourself know that”! That is why it is rightly said that, “When you lose your reputation, you fall in the eyes of others but when you lose your character, you fall in your own eyes”!

Complaint Against CJI Is Fishy

Truth be told, while smelling foul in the modalities followed by the complainant in filing the complaint, BCI says that on examination of the complaint and the annexures and the way facts have been narrated by the complainant in her complaint, and the manner she claims to have recorded everything in her mobile while at police station, and the way she has been dealing with the police, the Courts, CBI, IB and everyone is fishy from every angle! How can this be dismissed lightly? It also says that Indians are wise enough to understand the dirty game to spoil the dignity of country’s judicial system and says further that there is now realization amongst the Indian masses that there is some backing behind the complaint against CJI and that complainant is not a “simple lady”! Which sane person can ever deny this?

To say the least, the BCI also said that, “If you examine the complaint and the annexures and see the way facts are narrated; the manner in which she claims to have recorded everything in her mobile while at police station, and the way she has been dealing with police, the Courts, CBI, IB, everyone, if one analyses these things carefully, you will find something fishy”. This observation is not made by some single, petty individual like me or anyone else but this observation has come from none other than the Bar Council of India! Will critics of CJI now question this also?

Nothing Wrong With Justice Bobde Report

It is most heartening to read in the web portal “LiveLaw” what all has been stated in detail by the BCI for which it too certainly deserves to be complimented and congratulated for the common person would not have come to know all this had it not been published by them in their website! I too have gathered most of my information from this website! BCI says in no uncertain terms that there is nothing wrong with the report of the in-house committee which has given clean chit to the CJI and that its decision is “just and proper” as it has not found any merit in allegations against the CJI.

It also says that complainant was not happy with anyone after Justice Gogoi, she started blaming and commenting against Justice NV Ramana that he favoured Justice Gogoi [being close to him] due to which Justice Ramana had to recuse himself from the case after which two very noble, fair, polite and soft spoken lady Judges were included in the in-house panel. Not stopping here she still continued raising questions and did not attend the proceedings till the end and left it mid way while casting aspersions on the fairness of the proceedings itself! How can this be condoned or justified under any circumstances?

To put it succinctly, while making a humble request to the members of the Bar, it says that Bar is duty bound to protect the democracy and protect the independence of judiciary and should desist from commenting on and criticizing each and every step of the institution of judiciary and the authorities. It makes also a request equally to the senior and other advocates of Supreme Court of India and of all the High Courts and to entire legal fraternity to stand united and fight the negative elements that destroy the credibility of institution of judiciary.

Justice Bobde A Man Of Nice Behaviour

Of course, Bar Council of India is also not happy with the way complainant has made allegations of “unfairness” against Justice Bobde Committee and says that the members of the Supreme Court and those aware of the functions of the Supreme Court know about the politeness and the nice behavior of Justice Bobde. It says that Justice Bobde is a man who always smiles and is never angry and same is true about other two lady Judges on the panel. Can anyone ever deny or dispute this? Certainly not!

As it turned out, the BCI said that, “The members who practice in Supreme Court and those who are aware of the functionings of Supreme Court are fully aware of the politeness and nice behaviour of Justice Bobde, he is a man who always smiles, we have never seen him angry; same is the case with the other two lady judges (Mrs Justice Indira Banerjee and Mrs Justice Indu Malhotra). But the complainant opted to make allegations of unfairness even against this Committee and refused to appear before this panel.” This is so strange and perhaps most baffling! This alone explains why BCI further goes on to state that, “We were of the considered opinion that the Committee should proceed ahead and the inquiry should be completed at the earliest. This could be called an attempt to scandalise the Institution. It is due to this reason that we appreciate the procedure adopted by the Committee.” There can be no denying it!

Procedure Adopted By Committee Proper And Fair

No doubt, BCI rightly says that Committee has taken the proper decision after examining the material and everything before it carefully and no one should doubt the decision of the Committee which would send a wrong signal and there would be no end to the malicious complaints against the respectable authorities discharging important functions. It says that complainant, as per her own story, was at police station for quite long time and there she demanded no legal help nor felt need for videography or audio-recording and was quite comfortable but surprisingly before the panel of three Judges of the Supreme Court, which included two ladies, the complainant allegedly felt nervous and felt the need for audio and video recording. It pointed out that, “Even the proceedings of Courts, or in camera proceedings held in chambers of Judicial officers or Hon’ble Judges are not Video-graphed. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the Committee in this particular case. Why there should be some deviation in this special case?”

Bluntly put, the BCI sought to send an unmistakable message that, “Those who love this Institution and whose livelihood is attached to it, those who love the Constitution and our democracy, will never tolerate disrespect of our Supreme Court, High Court or our Judges by anybody.” It also made it clear that it fully respects the opinions of Justice DY Chandrachud but all those concept and suggestions expressed by him for providing liberties and legal assistance to complainant are for innocent, ignorant and helpless complainants and not for a litigant, who is apparently trying to malign the highest institution. Further, BCI said that, “There was, thus in our opinion, in this case, no need to include any other outsider or of any assistance of any Lawyer when the lady boldly came out and refused to participate in the inquiry. We are sure that Hon’ble Mr Justice Chandrachud will also agree with our view.”

End The Unfounded Controversy

As things stood, BCI said that instead of filing an FIR, Complainant had lodged her complaint with the Judges of the Supreme Court and had herself opted for the same and now that in-house committee has decided the matter, there is no justification on commenting over it or criticizing it and there should be an end to this “unfounded controversy”.

Judges Themselves Responsible For Such Unfortunate Situation

As anticipated, BCI rightly says that judiciary is itself responsible for the culture of “malicious complaints” by encouraging them. It says further that some of the totally “absurd, sentimental and reckless verdicts” of the Judges of the Supreme Court has resulted in lodging of such complaints frequently and expects practicality from Judges in future.

Going forward, BCI also gave a note of advice to Judges saying said that, “The oral testimony of the prosecutrix is enough to convict under Section 354 or 376 IPC,” Why? We are not in 18th century, that one can presume that a female will never make such allegations to falsely implicate her enemies. We have great respect for our women. But time has changed, we must keep in mind. Our Judges are expected to be practical now, they should think of common man and other respectable citizen also while deciding or dealing with such cases. They should not be guided by the sentiment or presumptions only. Always think that like 498A IPC, such cases of false implications have now become very common/very easy/rampant.”

Hope That Our Judges Will Lay Down Some Law Soon

To put things in perspective, the BCI said that, “Bar is hopeful that our Judges would now realize the problems, the mental and physical agony and harassments of the common men. So long our traditional Laws, Evidence Act were properly applied by our Law Courts, we found 90% cases resulting in acquittals; but, when our Honourable, Learned, Experienced, Knowledgeable Judges started keeping the settled principles of Evidence Act in waste paper boxes, the incidents of false implications started increasing and today we have reached to this situation.”

Limitation

Be it noted, the BCI also rightly suggested that, “When Indian Judiciary and our Legislature are treating such offences of Section 354 or 376 I.P.C. very serious, then why should not there be some period of limitation for reporting such offences? If some delay is there in lodging a case of murder, it is viewed with doubt, then why should the case of 354 or 376 I.P.C. could be taken and accepted so casually, without considering the delay factor? The delay normally very much proves and establishes that the so called prosecutrix was/is either a liar or was a consenting party. And after sometimes, when the situation changes or for blackmailing, complaints are lodged.”

Moving on, the BCI also then rightly laments that, “But our Judges have made this most vital factor of delay in such cases totally meaningless and redundant. Is it not against the set principles of our Criminal Jurisprudence? If such cases are not reported immediately, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. What is the sense in entertaining such cases reported after several days, several weeks, several months or even for several years of alleged occurrence/story?” Also, it rightly urges that, “This is the high time, the Parliament and our Supreme Court are required to apply their mind over this important factor in the changed social scenario and degeneration of moral values.”

Appeals To Members Of Bar And Common People

What’s more, the BCI requests the members of the Bar to drop this episode from their minds and gossiping as it is causing serious harm to the institution of judiciary. Manan Kumar Mishra who is Chairman of Bar Council of India rightly urges that, “I request the members of the Bar to drop this episode from their minds and gossiping; it is causing serious harm to the Institution; one should imagine the mental agony suffered by a respectable man because of someone’s conspiracy to malign his image and/or to lay so much of undue pressure upon him.” It says candidly that, “It is the duty of the entire Legal fraternity to save and protect the institution on such occasion of crisis.” It also says explicitly that, “It is sure that not only the members of the Bar but every sensible citizen of the country will agree with the views expressed by the apex body of advocates, and will stand with the highest institution of the justice. The statement of BCI reads: “We are to save our Constitution and the Democracy. And for that purpose, the independence of the Judiciary, creation of a fearless atmosphere for the smooth discharge of functions by our Judges, would be first and foremost necessity.”

On a concluding note, it has to be said without any caveats that the BCI deserves certainly to be complimented, commended and congratulated wholeheartedly for taking such a balanced, principled and determined decision of fully endorsing the Justice Bobde panel report and also for reposing unflinching faith in the incumbent CJI Ranjan Gogoi who has always enjoyed an unblemished reputation and who never believes in giving out-of-turn hearing to even senior advocates and who believes that all advocates must adhere to rules and procedure while arguing cases and should not try to rush cases just because they are senior! BCI too feels that there is no substance in the allegations made by the complainant against the CJI Ranjan Ggoi! History will always judge BCI very lavishly on this score! Eminent and senior lawyers like Harish Salve too have posed their full faith in CJI Ranjan Gogoi and so have lawyer-turned-politicians like our Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and many others! Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Successive Bail Applications Should Be Placed Before The Same Judge Who Considered The First One: SC

Image result for bail application


In a fresh and latest development, the Supreme Court on May 6, 2019 has in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled M/s Gati Limited Vs. T. Nagarajan Piramiajee & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 6677 of 2018] reiterated as it has several times in the past that successive bail applications filed by an accused should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available. If that Judge is not available who had refused bail at the first instance then it can be placed before some different Judge. Both the litigants and also all the Judges must always keep this key point in mind on such cases. There can be no denying or disputing it!

To start with, this notable judgment begins by first and foremost observing in para 2 that, “This appeal is filed questioning the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Cri. O.P. (MD) No. 9348 of 2018 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Cri. O.P. (MD) No. 9348 of 2018 granting anticipatory bail in favour of Respondent No. 1.”

To recapitulate, it is then pointed out in para 3 that, “Respondent No. 1 is the accused (hereinafter “the accused”) in Crime No. 364 of 2017 registered at SIPCOT Police Station, District Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”). The allegations against the accused as found in the First Information Report (FIR) are that he had furnished two forged Bank Guarantees each amounting to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores) to the Appellant in lieu of the services of the Appellant. Initially, the FIR was registered for milder offences. However, the High Court passed an order directing the police to alter the offences suitably, and accordingly, the FIR was altered by adding Sections 467, 468 and 472 of the IPC. The accused was absconding during that time. The High Court directed the police to arrest him and report to the Court by 22.12.2017. Despite the same, the accused was not arrested. Ultimately, on 02.01.2018, he filed an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court as Cri. O.P. (MD) No. 288 of 2017 in the first instance. The application came to be dismissed by the High Court on 09.04.2018. Prior to the disposal of the said application by the High Court, the accused had approached this Court in SLP (Cri.) Diary No. 7830 of 2018 questioning the order of the High Court directing alteration of sections in the FIR and the same had been dismissed by this Court with the specific direction that the accused was at liberty to surrender before the Trial Court and to obtain regular bail. Despite the said order of this Court, the accused subsequently pressed his anticipatory bail application before the High Court filed as Cri. O.P. (MD) No. 288 of 2017 which, as mentioned supra, came to be dismissed by the High Court. The said order of the rejection of the application for anticipatory bail by the High Court was confirmed by this Court in SLP (Cri.) Diary No. 15986 of 2018 on 17.05.2018. Thereafter, after a lapse of merely 13 days, i.e. on 31.05.2018, the accused filed a second application for anticipatory bail bearing Cri. O.P. (MD) No. 9348 of 2018 before the High Court that too without any change in circumstance. The High Court by the impugned order granted anticipatory bail to the accused.”

To be sure, it is then pointed out in a sharp stinging remark in para 4 that, “On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the High Court has not applied its mind to the merits of the matter. The High Court has not assigned any valid reason or shown any change of circumstance since the rejection of the first application for anticipatory bail, for granting anticipatory bail to the accused.” This is clearly a rap on the knuckles of the High Court which is pretty obvious. There can be no denying it.

Furthermore, it is then pointed out commendably in para 5 while citing some landmark cases that, “Another aspect of the matter deserves to be noted. The first application for anticipatory bail was rejected by a certain learned Judge, but the second application for anticipatory bail was heard by another learned Judge, though the Judge who had heard the first application was available. This Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (1987) 2 SCC 684, in a similar matter concerning filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail, made the following observations:

“5. …The convention that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Judge who may have passed earlier orders has its roots in principle. It prevents abuse of process of court inasmuch as an impression is not created that a litigant is shunning or selecting a court depending on whether the court is to his liking or not, and is encouraged to file successive applications without any new factor having cropped up. If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges there would be conflicting orders and a litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in weakening the creditability of the court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there would be wastage of courts time. Judicial discipline requires that such matters must be placed before the same Judge if he is available for orders…”

In State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605, this Court placing reliance upon Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra) observed:

“7. …In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of court inasmuch as it will prevent an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the Court’s time as a Judge familiar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with dispatch. It will also result in consistency…”

At the risk of repetition, we would like to quote similar observations made by this Court on subsequent occasions. In the case of Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 62, this Court observed:

“3. …Otherwise a party aggrieved by an order passed by one bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt to get the matter reopened before another bench, and there would not be any end to such attempts. Besides, it was not consistent with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by courts both in the interest of administration of justice by assuring the binding nature of an order which becomes final, and the faith of the people in the judiciary…”

To the same effect, this Court observed in M. Jagan Mohan Rao v. P.V. Mohan Rao (2010) 15 SCC 491:

“3. In view of the principle laid down by this Court, since the learned Judge who had refused bail in the first instance was available, the matter should have been placed before him. This Court has indicated that such cases of successive bail applications should be palced before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available…”

In Jagmohan Bahl and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 501 too, this Court has observed along the same lines:

“15. …when the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge had declined to grant the bail application, the next Fourth Additional Sessions judge should have been well advised to place the matter before the same Judge. However, it is the duty of the prosecution to bring it to the notice of the Judge concerned that such an application was rejected earlier by a different Judge and he was available. In the entire adjudicatory process, the whole system has to be involved. The matter would be different if a Judge has demitted the office or has been transferred. Similarly, in the trial court, the matter would stand on a different footing, if the Presiding Officer has been superannuated or transferred. The fundamental concept is, if the Judge is available, the matter should be heard by him. That will sustain the faith of the people in the system and nobody would pave the path of forum-shopping which is decryable in law”.”

What’s more, the Bench then minces no words in pointing out in para 6 that, “In the matter on hand, it is clear that the well settled principle of law enunciated in the decisions cited supra has not been followed, inasmuch as the second application for anticipatory bail was heard by a different Judge in spite of the availability of the Judge who had disposed of the first application.”

It cannot be lost on us that it is then observed in para 7 that, “Be that as it may, even on merits we do not find any reason to take a lenient view in favour of the accused. This Court vide its order dated 19.03.2018 observed that the accused is at liberty to surrender before the concerned Trial Court and obtain regular bail, but he did not choose to surrender. In any event, since there has been no change of circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail in the second application since the disposal of the first, in our considered view, the High Court was not justified in granting anticipatory bail to the accused.”

More crucially, it is then observed in para 8 that, “It may be noted that the only reason assigned by the High Court for granting anticipatory bail is that the accused has shown his bona fides towards liquidating his liability by offering an encumbered property in Survey No. 121 belonging to his father, which might fetch a sum of Rs 45 lakhs, and also by handing over demand drafts for a sum of Rs 40 lakhs in favour of the complainant. Except for this, no other reason has been assigned. Since the allegation against the accused is that he has furnished two forged Bank Guarantees worth Rs. 10 Crores in lieu of the appellant’s services, and having regard to other facts and circumstances on record, we do not find this to be a change in circumstance that justifies the order of anticipatory bail based on the second application of the accused.”

Now it is time to dwell on the concluding paras. It is held in para 9 that, “In this view of the matter, we find that the order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused is liable to be set aside, and the same stands set aside accordingly.” Lastly, it is then held in para 10 that, “The accused is directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court and it is open for him to seek regular bail. The appeal is allowed accordingly.”

As things stand, we thus see that leave is granted. Also, the appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. The accused is directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court and it is open for him to seek regular bail.

All said and done, this noteworthy, latest and commendable judgment makes it absolutely clear that successive bail applications should be placed before the same Judge who considered the first one. Many case laws were cited in this notable judgment to support this logical point of view which has already been considered in exhaustive detail in the above paras. It is only when the Judge either resigns or is transferred or is not available for some other reason that the bail application can be placed before some other Judge! All courts and all Judges must always strictly adhere to what has been laid down in this landmark and latest case by none other than the top court itself so explicitly and so elegantly!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Witness Can Be Called Interested Only When He/She Derives Some Benefit Seeing An Accused Person Punished: SC

Image result for interested in crime
It has to be remarked right at the outset that in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled Sadayappan @ Ganesan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police in Criminal Appeal No. 1990 of 2012 delivered on April 26, 2019 has explicitly, elegantly and eruditely ruled while rejecting a defence contention in a criminal appeal that, “The witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he/she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished”. It was also held that, “A witness cannot be said to be ‘interested’ witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim.” Very rightly said!

First and foremost, this noteworthy judgment authored by Justice NV Ramana for himself and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar sets the ball rolling in para 1 by stipulating that, “This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 13th December, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and upheld his conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.”

Briefly stated, para 2 then envisages that, “Prosecution case in brief is that Selvam @ Thangaraj (deceased), Karuppusamy (A1) and Sadayappan @ Ganesan (A2/appellant herein) were neighbouring agricultural land owners in the village of Kandavayal who used to go together for hunting of rabbits in the nearby forest area. Around 15 years prior to the incident, the deceased Thangaraj had negotiated to buy some agricultural land from A1 and paid him Rs. 30,000/- towards the sale value and took possession of the said land. However, despite, repeated requests, A1 had never come forward for registering the sale deed in favour of the deceased. Owing to this, A1 and the deceased developed animosity towards each other. A2 – appellant herein is the adjacent landowner who always supported A1 in avoiding registration of the sale deed. Despite animosity against the deceased, A1 and A2 kept on going to the forest for hunting along with him. On May 27, 2008 at about 11 p.m., both A1 and A2 went to the house of deceased and insisted that he accompany them to the fields/forest. Eventually, the deceased went with him hesitatingly. When the deceased did not return home till 4 am in the morning, his wife – Rajamal (PW1) sent one Palanisamy (PW2 – brother of the deceased) and Govindarajan (PW3 – nephew of the deceased) to search for her husband. PWs 2 and 3, while searching for the deceased, found his dead body near the fields with bleeding injuries. They immediately rushed to PW1 and informed her of the same.”

As it turned out, it is then pointed out in para 3 that, “On a complaint given by PW1, the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW14) at Sirumugai Police Station registered the crime under Section 302, IPC and Section 25 (1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act against the accused. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (PW15 – Pandian) took up the investigation and after completing the formalities of holding inquest and preparing inquest report (Ext.P21), sent the body of the deceased for post-mortem. On August 29, 2008 the accused appeared before the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) and confessed to committing the crime. When the VAO produced the accused with their confessional statements, at their instance recovered material objects including Single Barrel Muzzle Loading Gun (MOI), torch light with battery, blood stained and normal soil, torn clothes, lungi, towel etc. and sent them for chemical analysis. Subsequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore who framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.”

Furthermore, it is then pointed out in para 4 that, “After an elaborate trial, the Trial Judge opined that the circumstantial evidence correlates with the accused and clearly proves that owing to prior enmity, A1 and A2, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of the deceased with a gun shot from the unauthorized gun owned by accused-appellant. The Trial Court thereby found both the accused guilty and accordingly convicted the appellant herein under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 vide order dated 18.05.2011. Both the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed vide order dated December 13, 2011. Aggrieved thereby, both the accused preferred separate appeals before this Court. It is pertinent to state that the appeal of the A1 stood abated owing to his death during its pendency. Thus, we are now concerned only with the appeal preferred by A2.”

On one hand, it is pointed out in para 5 that, “Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the courts below have incorrectly relied on the testimonies of interested witnesses who are relatives of the deceased. He submitted that the chain of circumstances connecting the appellant to the crime is incomplete. He further submitted that the courts below erred in holding that the appellant had motive to commit the alleged crime and shared a common intention with A1, inasmuch as the land dispute between A1 and the victim had already been settled amicably in the panchayat. He argued that A1, A2 and the victim were on friendly terms thereafter which is reinforced from the fact that they used to go to the forest for hunting together.”

On the other hand, it is then pointed out in para 6 that, “Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, supported the judgment of the High Court and submitted that there was no occasion for this Court to interfere with it.”

Needless to say, the Bench while observing in para 7 that, “We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and meticulously perused the material on record” then goes on to add in para 8 that, “Admittedly, the deceased A1 and A2 (appellant herein) were neighbouring agricultural landowners and used to go for hunting together. Further, there is no denial of the fact that around 15 years prior to the date of incident, the deceased and A1 had entered into a deal through which land was sold to the deceased, but the same was never registered. Additionally, record shows that A2 – the appellant herein, whose land was adjacent to that of A1, always supported A1 in the matter of delaying the registration of land in favour of the deceased. This is the factual matrix of enmity between the accused and the deceased which serves as motive for the offence. Despite this, the deceased kept on going to the forest for hunting with the accused persons. These facts are abundantly clear from the testimonies of PWs1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.”

Going forward, it is then observed in para 9 that, “Further, PW1 – wife of the deceased (complainant), who is the witness to the last seen, supported the prosecution version and deposed that two days prior to the incident she had pressed A1 to register the land, but he kept quiet and went away. She further stated that owing to this pre-existing enmity, the accused persons were motivated to eliminate her husband. Thus, on the fateful night, the accused had come armed to take the deceased along with them to the forest, a request which was acceded to by the deceased hesitatingly.”

To be sure, it is then envisaged in para 10 that, “With respect to the deposition of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 which firmly establish the prosecution version, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that they are inter-related and interested witnesses, thus making their evidence unreliable.”

What’s more, it is then held in para 11 that, “Criminal law jurisprudence makes a clear distinction between a related and interested witness. A witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. The witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. [See: Sudhakar v. State, (2018) 5 SCC 435].”

Interestingly enough, it is then also clarified in para 12 that, “In the case at hand, witnesses may be related but they cannot be labelled as interested witnesses. A scrutiny of their testimonies which has stood the rigour of cross-examination corroborates the prosecution story.”

Truth be told, it is then revealed in para 13 that, “PW2 – brother of the deceased and PW3 – nephew of the deceased, clearly deposed that when they came to know from PW1 that the deceased did not turn up after leaving home at 11 pm on the previous night, they went in search of him and found his dead body in ‘Vaalaithope’. Similarly, PW4 – another nephew of the deceased has also deposed that upon coming to know from his brother – PW3 about the death of his uncle, he along with his mother went to ‘Vaalaithope’ where they found the dead body of the deceased. PW6 – another nephew of the deceased also deposed in his statement that when he went to Sirumugai Police Station he saw the accused persons there and witnessed their confessional statements recorded by the police. He also stated that he accompanied the police with the accused to the place of occurrence where normal and blood stained mud was collected and that he signed the observation Mahazar (Ex. P7).”

What cannot be lost on us is that it is then held very clearly and convincingly in para 14 that, “Going by the corroborative statements of these witnesses, it is discernible that though they are related to each other and to the deceased as well, their evidence cannot be discarded by simply labeling them as “interested” witnesses. After thoroughly scrutinizing their evidence, we do not find any direct or indirect interest of these witnesses to get the accused punished by falsely implicating him so as to meet out any vested interest. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the evidences of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are quite reliable and we see no reason to disbelieve them.”

On a different note, it is then pointed out in para 15 that, “With respect to forensic evidence, Dr. T. Jeya Singh (PW12), who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased, found prominent injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage from multiple injuries (perforating and penetrating) which were possible due to piercing of pellets. The post mortem report and chemical analysis report confirms the gun shot and proves that the gun powder discovered on the body and clothes of the deceased was the residue of the gun (MO1). The ownership of this gun (MO1), which was discovered on the basis of his extra-judicial confession, has not been disputed by the appellant in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement.”

Not stopping here, it is then added in para 16 that, “The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant agitated the genuineness and admissibility of the extrajudicial confession of the accused on the basis of which recovery of gun (MO1) was made. He questioned the same on the basis of absence of the examination of the VAO who allegedly recorded the same. It is to be noted that the record indicates that the VAO could not be examined due to his death before the commencement of the trial. However, it is clear that the said confessional statement, was sent by the VAO to the Inspector of Police along with a covering letter (Ext. P14). Moreover, the Village Assistant – PW 11, even though turned hostile, had specifically deposed that the said extrajudicial confession was recorded by the VAO.”

No doubt, it would be pertinent to also mention here that it is then held in para 17 that, “Though the prosecution case is premised on circumstantial evidence in the absence of any eye witness, the depositions of prosecution witnesses which have stood the rigour of cross-examination clearly support the prosecution version and establishes enmity between the accused and the deceased. This fact supported by PW1’s last seen evidence, her prompt complaint to the police and the forensic evidence which correlates the recovered weapon to the physical injuries on the body of the deceased proves the prosecution case beyond any reasonable doubt independent of the extrajudicial confession.”

Finally, it is held in the last para 18 that, “Thus, the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant and did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned judgment which merits interference. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.”

In the ultimate analysis, it has to be said with certitude that it is a very well balanced and quite reasonable judgment which gives adequate and justified reasons in its findings. It was rightly held by the Bench of Apex Court that witness can be called interested only when he/she derives some benefit seeing an accused person punished. It is rightly held that just because the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased, they cannot on this ground alone be termed as “interested witnesses”! This must be always kept in mind by all the Judges of all Courts while deciding on such cases! 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.