Sunday, March 31, 2013

More Indians killed by false cases and alimony ... Much more than by leopards !! 1 lakh cases every year

Leopards and Humans Peacefully Coexist in India

By Becky Oskin, OurAmazingPlanet Staff Writer | –

A leopard on the prowl. Western …

Leopards and humans peacefully share the same densely populated rural landscape in western India, a new camera trap survey shows.

The cameras caught leopards and other jungle cats, as well as hyenas and jackals, prowling close to houses through the night in farmland in western Maharashtra, India. The carnivores and people shared the same paths — so much so that the researchers had to turn off their camera traps during the day because of the human and livestock traffic.

Yet the leopards went largely undetected by people, according to a statement from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which helped fund the study.

"Human attacks by leopards were rare despite a potentially volatile situation considering that the leopard has been involved in serious conflict, including human deaths in adjoining areas," Ullas Karanth of the WCS, a study co-author, said in the statement. "The results of our work push the frontiers of our understanding of the adaptability of both humans and wildlife to each other's presence."

The findings were published online March 6 in the journal PLOS One.

The camera traps documented 10 large carnivores per 38 square miles (100 square kilometers) in the densely populated area — five leopards and five hyenas. The human population density is more than 300 people per 38 square miles. [Images: Backyard Leopards Caught on Camera]
The discovery of so many large carnivores living in proximity to people highlights the need to focus on conservation outside of protected areas, the researchers said.

The farming-intensive landscape lacks wilderness and wild herbivores for prey, and the region has only one protected area for wildlife, the Kalsubai Harishchandragarh Wildlife Sanctuary, the researchers said.

Email Becky Oskin or follow her @beckyoskin. Follow us @OAPlanet, Facebook or Google +. Original article on LiveScience's OurAmazingPlanet.


Proceedings for bail cannot be converted into recovery proceedings - Delhi HC

Notes ; beautiful judgement where the court grants anticipatory bail to Ian laws and also exposes a women who claims 4 crores as ransom from the hapless hubby and parents !!!!

=========judgement =========

Anticipatory Bail for 498a/406 IPC Granted to Parents - Proceedings for bail cannot be converted into recovery proceedings - Delhi HC


Before :- Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
Bail Application No. 1711 of 2007 and Bail Application No. 1716 of 2007. D/d. 21.8.2007

Smt . Surjit Kaur Chopra - Petitioner
State and Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Mr.K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Karan Singh, Mr.Santosh Chaurihar, Mr.Miraj Kain and Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocates.
For the State :- Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr.K.K.Manan, Mr.Tarun Goomber, Mr.Rishikesh Choudhary and Mr.Gaurav Goswami, Advocate.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406, 498-A and 34 - Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985, Rule 2 - Anticipatory bail - Cruelty - Breach of trust - Marriage - Love marriage and took place at Dubai - Marriage expenses proved to be borne by the in-laws of the complainant wife - Couple resided in their separate residence at Dubai and stayed there after the marriage till they came to India - Complainant stayed with her in-laws only for about 10 days - Allegations in the FIR are primarily made against the husband - Case of temperamental difference between the husband and wife - No allegations of dowry demand against the mother-in-law except that of retaining the jewellery of two crores gifted by her parents - No evidence that much jewellery was gifted by her parents - The couple separated at Dubai - Since the petitioners did not share a joint residence with the complainant, they could not be held to be in possession of her jewellery - None of the parties complied with the requirement Rule 2 of Presents to Bride Rules, 1985 - It is to be proved by evidence or to whether her parents were in a capacity to gift jewellery of Rs. 2 crores - The proceedings for bail cannot be converted into recovery proceedings - Anticipatory bail granted. [Paras 34 and 35]

Do you need our help to find the details of this Citation's Sources ? - Contact Now

Cases referred :
1. Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., 2006 (6) SCC 736.

2. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281.

3. Neera Singh v. State, I 138 (2007) DLT 152.


Pradeep Nandrajog, J. - Vide Bail Application No.1711/2007, Smt.Surjit Kaur Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. Vide Bail Application No.1716/2007, Sh.Harbhajan Singh Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. The 2 applicants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant, Arti.

2. At the outset, I must refer my displeasure at the manner in which Bail Application No.1711/2007 has been drafted by learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The same is a verbatim copy of Bail Application No.1716/2007.

4. Use of computers does not mean that learned members of the Bar would not apply their mind. Human beings cannot become computers and start operating themselves by clicking a mouse.

5. Little realizing that in Bail Application No.1716/2007 reference to the applicant was made as father of the husband of the complainant i.e. as father-in-law of the complainant, even Smt.Surjit Kaur Chopra has been referred to as father of the husband of the complainant i.e. father-in-law of the complainant.

6. In the instant case, the misdescription may be trivial. But in large number of cases I notice that the misdescription is not trivial, more so, when disputes relate to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. In said cases description of the accused with reference to the role assigned becomes relevant. Precious judicial time is wasted in identifying who is being referred to and in what context reference is being made pertaining to persons accused of offence and who have filed quashing petitions challenging the summoning order.

7. It is hoped and expected that learned members of the Bar would justify them being referred to as 'learned counsel'. Their being learned must be reflected in their pleadings.

8. Referring to the facts, why else would a father-in-law and mother-in-law be seeking bail? Of course, when their daughter-in-law has filed a complaint resulting in registration of FIR under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC. This has happened in the instant case.

9. Since issue of anticipatory bail has to be decided, reference to the FIR becomes necessary.

10. Touching upon the salient features of the FIR, complainant Arti, stated that she met Jitender Singh Chopra, son of the applicants in London in July 2004 through common friends. She states that the two met a number of times and around 3rd week of September 2004 decided to get married in Dubai on 30.9.2004 She stated that she and Jitender Singh Chopra came to Delhi and got engaged. That at the time of engagement presents worth Rs. 15 lakhs were gifted by her parents to the in-laws and relatives of Jitender. That her in-laws gave her jewellery worth Rs. 40 lakhs. That at the asking of her prospective mother-in-law, for relatives who were not present at the engagement, her mother sent additional gifts worth Rs. 5 lakhs. That marriage between the complainant and Jitender was solemnized at Dubai on 27.10.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage her mother, relatives and friends gave gifts worth Rs. 70 lakhs. Her in-laws gifted her jewellery worth Rs. 90 lakhs. Next day her mother-in-law took away the jewellery for safe keeping. She and her husband came to Delhi on 3.11.2004 and stayed at the farm house of the in-laws. The couple celebrated their first Deepawali. On said function her relatives gave gifts worth Rs. 40 lakhs to her husband. That her mother and her relatives gave her ancestral jewellery worth Rs. 1.75 lakhs at said function. That her in-laws gave her expensive gifts and jewellery worth Rs. 80 lakhs. That when they were at Delhi her brother-in-law tried to force himself upon her. That she was disgraced by the family of her in-laws who stated that they expected that she would bring a Mercedes car in her dowry. That when the couple left for their honeymoon her husband compelled her to drink excessively as also to indulge in vulgar sexual acts. That since it was her second marriage she did not speak to anyone. That on 18.1.2005 she and her husband went back to Dubai. For said trip her husband demanded Rs. 25 lakhs from her mother. Her mother arranged Rs. 5 lakhs and gave the same to her husband. That her husband demanded more money. Her mother paid Rs. 15 lakhs. That she came back to Delhi on 29.12.2005 and in spite of requests to hand over her jewellery, none was being returned to her. That her father-in-law wanted her parents to transfer ownership rights of 2 floors of their house in name of her husband. That her mother-in-law had retained her jewellery.

11. According to the petitioners the marriage at Dubai was financed by the petitioners. Entire stay of the family of the bride was paid for by the petitioners. That after the wedding, the newly wed came to Delhi to celebrate their first Deepawali and went back to Dubai in February 2005. They took on rent a villa and resided separately from the petitioners. That the couple separated due to temperamental differences. That their son sought divorce in London due to irreconcilable differences. That the FIR was a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by their son.

12. Before dealing with the rival submissions on the issue whether petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail or not, it has to be noted that petitioners as also their second son i.e. the brother-in-law of the complainant sought anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Attempts were made to compromise the matter and in full and final satisfaction of all claims of the complainant not only the FIR be withdrawn but the couple could agree for an amicable settlement. Order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge records that a settlement was arrived at pursuant whereto complainant would be paid Rs. 4 crores in cash and a flat at DLF Gurgaon worth Rs. 60 lacs would be transferred in her name. Thereafter, the talks broke down inasmuch as offer was reduced to Rs. 2 crores.

13. Petitioners when charged with attempting to wriggle out of an agreed settlement explained that their younger son was briefing the counsel and he was receiving instructions from the husband of the complainant for the reason any payment under the settlement had to be financed by the husband of the complainant. That unfortunately, their son i.e. husband of the complainant could not firm up his mind and for said reason settlement failed.

14. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the applicants urged that proceedings for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be converted into a recovery proceedings. Learned senior counsel urged that the anxiety of the Court to try and effect a settlement between the warring couple may be a laudable act but is alien to the exercise of jurisdiction while deciding an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail. Learned senior counsel urged that the well known parameters viz. gravity of the offence, seriousness of the allegations constituting the offence, possibility of the accused absconding or threatening witnesses of the prosecution, inherent probabilities, for and against the accused are some of the factors which have to be considered by the Court while deciding an application for grant of anticipatory bail.

15. Expanding the argument, learned senior counsel submitted that documents annexed as Annexure-C to the petitions conclusively establish that the petitioners paid the entire bill at Dubai when marriage took place. Drawing attention to Annexure-D, learned senior counsel urged that the same evidences that the newly married couple set up separate residence in Dubai. As regards the petitioners, learned senior counsel urged that they were residents of Delhi. Their son was settled abroad. Except for participating in the joyous occasion of the marriage of their son and showering their blessings and gifts upon the newly wed as also to finance the marriage, the two had no role to play in the matrimonial life of the couple. Learned senior counsel further urged that allegations in the FIR are alien to the social norms of the society from which complainant, her family and the petitioners come from. Learned senior counsel explained that main items are gifted to the couple at the time of their marriage. Thereafter, as and when festive occasions occur, small gifts are exchanged. Learned senior counsel urged that it was unbelievable that at the time of Deepawali celebrations after the couple got married, complainant's family members would gift to their daughter and her in-laws, gifts worth Rs. 1.75 crores. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the allegations of dowry demand are against the husband i.e. the son of the petitioners. Allegations of mental and physical cruelty are against the husband save and except a vague allegation that on one occasion father-in-law threw a plate at the complainant and abused her as a bitch. Learned senior counsel stated that the two allegations pertaining to dowry demand against the father-in-law viz that he expected his daughter-in-law to bring a Mercedes car and a demand for ownership rights of 2 floors in her parent's house at Sunder Nagar are false. Learned senior counsel submitted that the gravement of the allegation against the mother-in-law is that she retained the jewellery of the complainant.

16. Learned senior counsel urged that in view of the fact that the complainant and her husband had set up their matrimonial house at Dubai, a residence separate from that of the petitioners, considering the social background of the family of the complainant as also the petitioners it was unbelievable that the complainant would have handed over her jewellery to her mother-in-law.

17. Fulcrum of opposition by learned counsel for the complainant centered around the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding a settlement between the parties from which petitioners back tracked. Learned counsel submitted that the said settlement evidenced the acknowledgment by the petitioners that the complainant had to be recompensed. Learned counsel submitted that the jewellery articles of the complainant have yet to be recovered. Counsel submitted that the complainants have started dissipating their assets. Thus, counsel urged that no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

18. It is not in dispute that the instant marriage was the second marriage of both parties. Thus, both would be presumed to be aware of not only their matrimonial obligations but even the matrimonial laws. Judicial authorities are replete with a caution by the Courts that the unfortunate tendency to rope in all family members of the in-laws is a growing trend which has two side effects. Firstly, innocent persons suffer the trauma of a criminal prosecution and secondly, even the accused get acquitted for the reason, false implication of innocent persons is followed by presentation of fabricated evidence before the Court. So inextricably interwoven is truth with lies that truth cannot be segregated from lies resulting in benefit of doubt being given even to the accused persons.

19. More often than not, pertaining to dowry, Courts are faced with a dilemma inasmuch as tax avoidance is the norm in India. Huge volume of black money in circulation finds expression in ostentatious marriages. But when called upon to prove that the family had enough assets to justify the stated gifts gifted at the time of marriage, family members of the girl side have no answers. They cannot establish the means to justify their capacity to shower gifts worth crores.

20. In the instant case, before the in-laws of the complainant can be called upon to account for the gifts given by the parents of the girl, the parents of the girl would have to establish their means and their capacity to gift items worth Rs. 3 crores to their daughter and her in-laws.

21. As noted above, gravement of the allegations are directed principally against the husband. No doubt, there is reference against the petitioners pertaining to dowry demand and retention of jewellery, but, as noted above, allegations of dowry demand are against the father-in-law and not against the mother-in-law. Vice versa, allegations pertaining to retention of the jewellery of the complainant is against the mother-in-law and not the father- in-law. Thus, if at all, father-in-law may be answerable to a charge under Section 498-A IPC. If at all, mother-in-law may be answerable for a charge under Section 406 IPC.

22. Qua the mother-in-law a circumstance which stands out is that her son and her daughter-in-law had a separate residence at Dubai. The couple was married at Dubai. Whatever may be the jewellery gifted to the complainant at the time of marriage, there is no material on record that when she along with her husband came to India they made a declaration to the Customs Authority that personal jewellery worth crores was being brought by her i.e. the complainant to India. Greater probability would be that either jewellery of the value alleged to be gifted to her by the complainant was not gifted to her, or if gifted, the same was in her custody at Dubai.

23. Pertaining to the father-in-law I find that the allegations are general. It is not stated in the complaint that because father-in-law desired that the complainant should bring a Mercedes car he i.e. the father-in-law took vengeance against the complainant. What is stated in the FIR is that the father-in-law commented that he expected that the complainant would bring as part of dowry a Mercedes car.

24. Prima facie, it is one thing to have a desire and express the same. It is altogether another thing to raise a demand as per the desire.

25. Allegation of mental cruelty against the father-in-law pertains to an alleged incident when according to the complainant she served cold food to her father-in-law. Prima facie, said allegation of cruelty does not relate to a dowry demand.

26. The only other allegation pertaining to transfer of 2 floors in the house of the complainant's parents at Sunder Nagar is without any particulars i.e. the day or the month when said demand was raised.

27. In the report published as v. (2006) SLT 475=III (2006) CCR 128 (SC)=2006 (6) SCC 736, Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. in para 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court lamented as under:-

"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests o lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

28. In para 19 of the report published as (2005) CCR 43 (SC)=V (2005) SLT 438=(2005) 6 SCC 281 Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentional provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike a the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a nw legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin's weapon. If the cry of ?wolf? is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual ?wolf? appears. There is no question of the investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalized a statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."

29. In the decision dated 23.2.2007 in Crl.M.C. No.7262/2006 Neera Singh v. State and Ors. a learned Single Judge of this Court had pains to note as under:-

"4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:


(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.

(2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.

(3) Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule (2)-(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;

(b) shall be in writing;
(c) shall contain:
(i) a brief description of each present;
(ii) the approximate value of the present;
(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and
(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship.
(d) shall be signed by both the brides and the bridegroom.

5. The Metropolitan Magistrate should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statements of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in."

30. Admittedly, neither complainant nor her family members have complied with Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules 1985.

31. Since allegations in the complaint are to the effect that jewellery and gifts worth crores were given by the parents and relatives of the complainant, instant case would require a prior investigation by the investigating officer before petitioners are made to account for the gifts, whether at all the family of the complainant had the means to shower gifts of such magnitude.

32. I note that the husband of the complainant is paying to her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1 lakh.

33. Learned counsel for the State did not urge that the petitioners are not cooperating with the 1O.

34. The special circumstances of the case may be summarized:-

(a) Marriage is a love marriage and took place at Dubai. There is prima facie evidence that marriage expenses were borne by the in-laws of the complainant.

(b) The young couple took up separate residence at Dubai and stayed their after the marriage till they came to India to celebrate their first Deepawali festival. The complainant stayed with her in-laws for about 10 days. The couple departed for their honeymoon.

(c) Allegations in the FIR are primarily directed against the husband. Prima facie it appears to be a case of temperamental difference between the husband and the wife.

(d) There are no allegations of dowry demand against the mother-in-law. Allegation against her is of retaining the jewellery gifted by her parents as stated by the complainant to be in the value of over Rs. 2 crores. There is no evidence that jewellery of such magnitude was gifted.

(e) Allegations of dowry demand against the father-in-law only relate to transfer of ownership rights of 2 floors in a property at Sunder Nagar in the name of the husband of the complainant. The allegation is of a general nature. The time, date and month of demand has not been specified.

(f) The couple separated at Dubai. The petitioners did not have a joint residence with the complainant and thus could not be in possession of her jewellery.

35. Case is thus made to admit petitioners to anticipatory bail. While so directing, I am conscious of the failed compromise talks before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but I cannot ignore the fact that proceedings for bail cannot be converted into recovery proceedings. I find prima facie justification of the petitioners that their younger son was briefing the counsel and was informing the counsel what was being consented to by the son of the petitioners. If the son of the petitioners back tracks from his commitment, petitioners cannot be faulted with.

36. I additionally note that the complainant is being paid a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1 lakh by her husband.

37. Petition stands disposed of directing that on the petitioners surrendering their passport to the Investigating Officer and cooperating at the inquiry to be conducted by the Investigating Officer, in the event of the petitioners being arrested by the IO, the petitioners would be released on bail by the IO on the petitioners furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO in the above captioned FIR.

38. Needless to state, the petitioners would join the investigation as and when required by the 1O.

39. Copy of the order be supplied dasti to learned counsel for the petitioners.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Man commits suicide after "killing" wife..Family disputes are claiming more lives than deaths at the Pakistani border or due to terrorist attacks

Comments : a very sad incident where three lives were lost. Family disputes are claiming more lives than deaths at the Pakistani border or due to terrorist attacks. Every day india is bleeding by a thousand cuts . The fabric of the society is in danger. Women run to police to settle domestic quarrels and this costs the society, costs the exchequer and also ruins peace and family harmony

========= news ==========

Man commits suicide after "killing" wife
PTI Mar 27, 2013, 03.25PM IST

NEW DELHI: A day after he was charged with killing his estranged wife, the accused allegedly committed suicide near a railway station in Muradnagar in Uttar Pradesh.

Pawan, who had shot his wife Deepti, 25, and her father Bisham Das when they were entering the Karkardooma Metro station yesterday in Delhi, was allegedly found hanging from a tree today.

A Delhi police team has gone to Muradnagar, a senior police official said.

The police had yesterday seized a .12 bore double barrel gun from the spot where the firing took place. Pawan had fled leaving behind the weapon, they had said.

Deepti was rushed to nearby Hedgewar hospital but was declared brought dead while Das is undergoing treatment in Deepak Memorial hospital.

Five empty cartridges and the car in which Pawan came to the spot were also recovered from the spot, according to the police.

மாவட்ட நீதிபதியை அடித்து நொறுக்கியமனைவி மற்றும் உறவினர்கள் மீது வழக்கு

மாவட்ட நீதிபதியை அடித்து நொறுக்கியமனைவி மற்றும் உறவினர்கள் மீது வழக்கு

பதிவு செய்த நாள் : மார்ச் 25,2013,22:42 IST
மாற்றம் செய்த நாள் : மார்ச் 26,2013,00:32 IST

ராய்ப்பூர்:சத்தீஸ்கரில், மாவட்ட நீதிபதி ஒருவர், அவர் மனைவி மற்றும் உறவினர்களால், கடுமையாக தாக்கப்பட்டார்.சத்தீஸ்கர் மாநிலம் ராய்ப்பூரில், மாவட்ட கோர்ட் நீதிபதியாக இருப்பவர், அவினாஷ் திரிபாதி, 33. இரண்டு ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன், பிரியங்கா என்ற பெண்ணை மணந்தார். இவர்களுக்கு, ஆறு மாத குழந்தை உள்ளது. சில மாதங்களுக்கு முன், அவினாஷ் மற்றும் பிரியங்கா இடையே, கருத்து வேறுபாடு ஏற்பட்டதால், இருவரும் பிரிந்து வாழ்கின்றனர்.இந்த நிலையில், நேற்று முன்தினம், தன் தாய் மற்றும் சகோதரியுடன், அவினாஷ் வீட்டிற்கு சென்ற பிரியங்கா, அவருடன் வாக்குவாதத்தில் ஈடுபட்டார்.

வாக்குவாதம் முற்றவே, அவினாஷை, பிரியங்காவும், மற்றவர்களும் அடித்து உதைத்ததோடு, உருட்டுக்கட்டையாலும் தாக்கினர். பின், பிரியங்காவின் சகோதரரும், தந்தையும் தாக்கினர்.இவர்கள் அடித்துக் கொண்டிருந்த நேரத்தில், அவினாஷை, அவர் நண்பரான மற்றொரு நீதிபதி, மொபைல் போனில் அழைத்தார். அந்த மொபைல் போன் அழைப்பை, பிரியங்கா துண்டித்ததும், சந்தேகமடைந்த, அவினாஷின் நண்பர், போலீசுடன் அங்கு சென்றார். அப்போது, பலத்த காயங்களுடன் ஒரு அறையில் அடைக்கப்பட்டிருந்த அவினாஷ், மீட்கப்பட்டார்.இந்த தாக்குதல் சம்பவம் தொடர்பாக, அவினாஷ் மனைவி மற்றும் அவரது உறவினர்கள் மீது வழக்கு பதிவு செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது. நீதிபதி ஒருவர், அவர் மனைவி மற்றும் உறவினர்களால் தாக்கப்பட்ட சம்பவம், அந்த பகுதியில் பெரும் பரபரப்பை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது.


Married innocent woman with anther live in partner for 10years killed !!! Women need urgent protection

ஒன்இந்தியா » தமிழ் » செய்திகள் » தமிழகம்

 ஒரே நேரத்தில் 2 வாழ்க்கை.. 40 வயதுப் பெண் கழுத்து அறுத்துக் கொலை!

Posted by: Sudha Published: Thursday, March 28, 2013, 11:19 [IST]

சேலம்: சேலத்தில் 40 வயதான பெண் கழுத்து அறுத்துக் கொல்லப்பட்டார். இவர் திருமணமாகி கணவரைப் பிரிந்தவர். திருமணமான இன்னொரு ஆணுடன் வாழ்ந்து வந்தவர். கொலையைச் செய்தது யார் என்பது தெரியவில்லை. இதுகுறித்து போலீஸார் விசாரணை நடத்தி வருகின்றனர்.

சேலம், காசக்காரனூரைச் சேர்ந்த சுப்பிரமணியன். இவரது மனைவி பெயர் சாந்தி. 40 வயதாகிறது. இந்தத் தம்பதிக்கு ஒரு மகள், மகன் உள்ளனர். இருவரும் 10 வருடத்திற்கு முன்பு கருத்து வேறுபாடு காரணமாக பிரிந்து விட்டனர். இந்த நிலையில் ஜாகிர்ரெட்டிப்பட்டியைச் சேர்ந்த 46 வயதான பாலசுப்ரமணியனுடன் சாந்திக்குத் தொடர்பு ஏற்பட்டது. பாலசுப்ரமணியனுக்கு திருமணமாகி 25 வயதில் ஒரு மகள் மற்றும் மகன் உள்ளனர். முதல் மனைவி பெயர் தனலட்சுமி. தனிமையில் வசித்து வந்த சாந்திக்கு, பாலசுப்ரமணியனுடன் கிடைத்த பழக்கம் நெருக்கமான நட்பாக மாறி, தன்னையே கொடுக்கும் அளவுக்குப் போனது.

இதையடுத்து இருவரும் கல்யாணம் செய்து கொள்ளாமலேயே சேர்ந்து வாழத் தொடங்கினர். முதல் மனைவி தனலட்சுமியுடனும் குடும்பம் நடத்தி வந்த பாலசுப்ரமணியன், மறுபக்கம் சாந்தியுடனும் குடும்பம் நடத்தினார். சாந்தியை தனியாக வீடு பார்த்து வைத்தார். அடிக்கடி வீட்டை மாற்றினார். 2 மாதத்திற்கு முன்புதான் சேலம் புதிய பஸ் நிலையம் அருகே ஒரு அபார்ட்மென்ட்டில் வீடு பார்த்து சாந்தியை குடித்தனம் வைத்தார் பாலசுப்ரமணியன்.

 இந்த நிலையில் நேற்று முன்தினம் இரவு முதல் சாந்தியின் வீடு அரைகுறையாக திறந்த நிலையில், வீட்டில் டி.வி.யில் பாட்டு விடிய, விடிய ஓடிக்கொண்டும், மின்விசிறியும் ஓடிக்கொண்டு இருந்தது. அதே வேளையில் வீட்டில் இருந்து ஒருவித துர்நாற்றமும் வீசியது. நேற்று சாந்தியின் வீட்டை தாண்டி அபார்ட்மெண்ட் உரிமையாளர் ஹரிபாஸ்கர் சென்றபோது, சாந்தியின் வீட்டில் சத்தமாக டி.வி. ஓடுவதை கண்டு, அதை குறைக்க சொல்வதற்காக சாந்தியின் வீட்டுக்கதவை முழுமையாக தள்ளினார். அப்போது வீட்டின் தரையில் சாந்தி கழுத்து அறுபட்ட நிலையில் நைட்டியுடன் அரை நிர்வாண நிலையில் கொலை செய்யப்பட்டு கிடந்தார். அந்த அறை முழுவதும் ரத்தம் வெளியேறி கிடந்தது.

இது குறித்து ஹரிபாஸ்கரின் மனைவி பட்டம்மாள், சாந்தியுடன் குடும்பம் நடத்தி வரும் பாலசுப்பிரமணியனுக்கு தகவல் தெரிவித்தார். அவரும் வீட்டிற்கு விரைந்து வந்து பார்த்து அதிர்ச்சி அடைந்தார். பின்னர் சாந்தி கொலை செய்யப்பட்டு கிடப்பது குறித்து பள்ளப்பட்டி போலீசாருக்கு பாலசுப்பிரமணியன் தகவல் தெரிவித்தார். வீடு புகுந்து சாந்தியை மர்ம ஆசாமிகள் கொலை செய்தபோது, அவர்கள் மீதும் ரத்தக்கறை படிந்தது. ரத்தக்கறை படிந்த கை, கால்களை வீட்டின் கழிவறைக்கு சென்று கழுவிவிட்டு, வளைந்துபோன கத்தியையும் அங்கேயே விட்டு கொலையாளிகள் சென்றுள்ளதும் தெரியவந்தது. கொலை செய்யப்பட்ட சாந்தி நைட்டியுடன் அரைநிர்வாண கோலத்தில் கிடந்தார். அதை மறைக்க கொலையாளில் வீட்டில் இருந்த ஒரு சேலையை அவர் மீது தூக்கி வீசிச்சென்றுள்ளனர். எனவே, சாந்தியை வலுக்கட்டாயமாக கற்பழித்து விட்டு, மர்ம ஆசாமிகள் கொலை செய்து விட்டு தப்பி சென்றிருக்கலாம் என்ற சந்தேகமும் போலீசாருக்கு எழுந்துள்ளது. சாந்தியுடன் கடந்த 10 ஆண்டுகளாக குடும்பம் நடத்தி வந்த பாலசுப்பிரமணியம் போலீஸாரிடம் கூறுகையில், சாந்தியுடன் நான் திருமணம் ஆகாமல் குடும்பம் நடத்தி வந்தது உண்மைதான். வழக்கமாக வீட்டிற்கு வராவிட்டால் செல்போனில் சாந்தியுடன் பேசிவந்தேன். நேற்று என்னால் பேசமுடியவில்லை. ஏனென்றால் செல்போனில் சார்ஜ் சரிவர இல்லை என்று கூறியுள்ளார். சேலம் பகுதியை இந்த சம்பவம் பெரும் பரபரப்பில் ஆழ்த்தியுள்ளது.

  [ கருத்தை எழுதுங்கள் ]   [ நண்பருக்கு அனுப்ப ] Topics: salem, murder, சேலம், கொலை English summary A 40 year old woman was murdered after rape in Salem . SHARE THIS STORY 1 Related Articles பாலச்சந்திரன் அண்ணனை கொன்னுட்டாங்க, நாங்க ஏதாச்சும் செய்யனும்.. ஆவேசத்துடன் உருமிய சேலம் சிறா ''எங்க எஸ்.பி. குழந்தை மாதிரி''... குச்சி மிட்டாய், கரடி பொம்மை கொடுக்க வந்த ஜோதிடர்!! தமிழகம் முழுவதும் விஸ்வரூபம் காணச் சென்ற ரசிகர்களை தடியடி நடத்தி விரட்டிய போலீஸ் மூட்டை பூச்சி, எலிகள் தொல்லை: சேலத்தில் ரயிலை நிறுத்தி போராட்டத்தில் இறங்கிய பயணிகள் March 28, 2013 ல் வெளியிடப்பட்ட பிற செய்திகளைப் படிக்க கருத்தை எழுதுங்கள்   Press Ctrl+g to toggle between English and Tamil Your name: Email: Will be displayedWill not be displayed Security Question: Type Here:   Post to Facebook   Post to Twitter User Comments Kannan 28 Mar 2013 01:57 pm தவறான பாதையில் செல்பவர்களின் இறுதி முடிவு இப்படிதான் அசிங்கமாகவும் கேட்பாரற்றும் முடிந்து போகும். [ கருத்தை எழுதுங்கள் ]

Read more at:

போலீஸ் அதிகாரி கொலையில் மனைவி தகவலால் குழப்பம்

Is this deputy commissioners Wife spinning yarn to confuse the police ???

Who shot the police commissioner ??

======= news ==========

போலீஸ் அதிகாரி கொலையில் மனைவி தகவலால் குழப்பம்

மும்பை:பயங்கரவாத தடுப்பு படையில் இருந்த, போலீஸ் துணை கமிஷனர், சஞ்சய் பானர்ஜி மர்ம மரணத்தில் நேற்று திடீர் திருப்பம் ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது. தவறாக கையாண்ட போது, துப்பாக்கி வெடித்ததில், தன் கணவர் இறந்ததாக, பானர்ஜியின் மனைவி, சுஷ்மிதா தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

மகாராஷ்டிரா மாநில, பயங்கரவாத தடுப்பு படையில், தானே நகரில், முன்னணி போலீஸ் அதிகாரியாக இருந்தவர், சஞ்சய் பானர்ஜி. இம்மாதம், 16ம் தேதி, தன் மனைவி மற்றும் மகனுடன், ஓட்டல் ஒன்றுக்கு சாப்பிட சென்றார். அங்கு, தலையில் துப்பாக்கி குண்டு பாய்ந்த நிலையில், மர்மமாக இறந்தார்.உடனிருந்த மனைவி மற்றும் மகனிடம் போலீசார் மேற்கொண்ட முதற்கட்ட விசாரணையின் போது, மன அழுத்தம் காரணமாக, திடீரென துப்பாக்கியை எடுத்து சுட்டு, தற்கொலை செய்து கொண்டார் என, தெரிவித்தனர்.

எனினும், அதை போலீசார் நம்பவில்லை. மனைவி, சுஷ்மிதாவிடம் தொடர்ந்து விசாரித்து வந்தனர். நேற்று அவர் போலீசில் அளித்துள்ள தகவலில், "சாப்பிட்டுக் கொண்டிருந்த போது, திடீரென கைக்குட்டையை எடுக்க முயன்ற போது, இடுப்பில் வைத்திருந்த கைத்துப்பாக்கி கீழே விழுந்து வெடித்தது. அதில், தலையில் குண்டு பாய்ந்து இறந்து விட்டார்' என, தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.
இதுகுறித்து, தானே போலீஸ் கமிஷனர், கே.பி.ரகுவன்சி கூறும் போது, ""சுஷ்மிதாவின் தகவல் எங்களை மேலும் குழப்பமடைய செய்துள்ளது. அதை நாங்கள் நம்பவில்லை. தொடர்ந்து விசாரிக்கிறோம்,'' என்றார்.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Woman files fake rape complaint to get married

Woman files fake rape complaint to get married

HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times  New Delhi, March 23, 2013

First Published: 00:45 IST(23/3/2013) | Last Updated: 00:48 IST(23/3/2013)

A 24-year-old management graduate filed a rape case against her live-in partner allegedly because the man’s family was against their relationship. 
The woman, who worked for a pharmaceutical company, got her live-in partner arrested and took the matter to the court to pressure him and his family for marriage. According to the police, she told the man's family that she would withdraw the case only after she is allowed to marry him legally.
Left with no other alternative, the family members of the accused apologised to the woman and consented to the marriage. On Wednesday, she eventually married her partner at an Arya Samaj temple and to keep her promise, she moved an application in the court on Thursday seeking withdrawal of her case.
Talking to HT, the woman claimed that the entire matter got settled after they tied the knot.
"Everything has been settled between us and today he is my legal husband. Hence, I don't want to drag this issue further," said the woman, who currently lives with her husband at a rented accommodation in south Delhi's Malviya Nagar.
According to the police, the woman had approached the Malviya Nagar police station on March 13 and lodged a rape case against her friend, with whom she was in a live-in relationship for several months.
"She alleged that her friend and classmate, who hails from Jharkhand, forced himself upon her because of which she became pregnant. Her friend physically assaulted her after she told him about her pregnancy. As a result of the physical assault, she suffered a miscarriage," said an officer, adding that the two became friends while studying together at a private management college in Katwaria Sarai.
The man, the officer said, got scared and agreed to marry her. However, when his parents came to know about the match, they refused to accept her as their daughter-in-law. Succumbing to parental pressure, the man refused to marry her. It was then she decided to file a rape case against him.


any idea what happened to this case where a man sued back for two crores ?

Snippets from history that make you feel good

Man sues ex-wife, police and witnesses
TNN | Dec 7, 2005, 03.26 AM IST

CHANDIGARH: For Kuldip Babbar who fought a five-year long legal battle in courts to prove his innocence, it's payback time.

After a local court acquitted him and his family of all charges of dowry harassment last year, Kuldip Babbar, 42, has now moved court against the UT police, his former wife and 16 other witnesses seeking damages worth Rs 2 crore (Rs 50 lakh each for his aged father, two sisters and himself) for defaming and falsely implicating him and putting his family through a harrowing time for more than five years.

Babbar has also sited mental harassment, loss of livelihood and income and expenditure incurred while defending the 'malicious prosecution' as reasons for seeking the damages.

Admitting the petition, Civil Judge (Senior Division) RK Bhankar issued notices to the UT IG, SSP, SHO (Sector 19 police station), Reena and other defendants, summoning them for appearance in court on February 14, 2006.


Out of 43 cases taken today 13 cases were of 498 a , DV and 125 crpc.

////Manoj Yadav
Out of 43 cases taken today 13 cases were of 498 a , DV and 125 crpc. These case are now source of employement of whole of judiciary.////
Location : Rewari court # 8

Sunday, March 17, 2013

completely false, fictitious rape case !! takes approx 14 years for justice

# Two families have rivalry
#  the daughter of one of these families runs away because she is forced into a marriage ...she wants to escape that so she runs away 
# the daughter marries her cousin (probably known guy ...BUT NOT some lover boy), no planned eloping either 
# marriage takes place in the presence of HER ... Girl's relatives !!
# father of the daughter convinces girl back home 
# some panchayat is held and girl agrees to return home
# now.... the father promptly files a false rape case on the husband !!
# [false] accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months!!!!!
# both Trail court and Madras High court give the same verdict 

# false accused have to fight till supreme court to win justice

# supreme court tears the prosecution case to shreds and releases the accused 

# supreme court states "....It appears that the entire prosecution story has been concocted for reasons best known to the prosecution....."

# what about the false accusing father ??
# what about the run away girl ?
# what about the lower courts that were completely oblivious to the various contradictions in the prosecution case ???

# history ...very sad history in the making !!!

ps : # this case also has important notes on the documentary value of a birth certificate of the woman, whether it is of evidentiary value ?? 
# plus / minus error on the age of the victim etc 

======== case ==========

Alamelu & Anr. vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police on 18 January, 2011

Author: S S Nijjar

Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy, Surinder Singh Nijjar


Alamelu  &  Anr. .. Appellants VERSUS
State represented by Inspector of Police ..Respondent WITH

Sekar  &  Anr. .. Appellants VERSUS
State represented by Inspector of Police ..Respondent WITH

Rangasamy  &  Anr. .. Appellants VERSUS
State represented by Inspector of Police ..Respondent JUDGMENT


1. These three appeals are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 6th February, 2008 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 406 and 414 of 2000 confirming the common judgment passed in S.C. No. 255 of 1997 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 28th April, 2000 whereby the trial court had convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 2009 had been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. In Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 2009, Sekar, appellant No.1, had been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Appellant No.2 Kandasamy had been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

 In Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2009, both the appellants were convicted under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that PW2 (hereinafter referred to as the  " victim "  or  " girl "  according to context) is the daughter of Chinnathambi, (PW1) who is a teacher and resident of Nedupatti Village, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu. The victim had failed in the SSLC examination. Therefore, she was admitted in private tutorial college called Seran Tutorial College.

3. It is alleged that on 31st July, 1993 at about 3.00 p.m. when she was walking near Nedupatti on the way to her house from the local bus stop, after attending her tutorial classes, Sekar (A1) told her that he loved her and wanted to marry her. The victim, however, did not agree to such proposal. Thereafter, a car bearing registration No. TTA 1886 came near the victim and she was forcibly pushed into the car by Sekar (A1). Rangaswami (A2), Paramasivam (A4) and Alamelu (A5) were already inside the car. 

This incident was informed to the father (PW1) of the victim by one Sugavanam, who had received a call from Sekar (A1). The incident was confirmed by another person called Thangavel (PW3) who informed PW1 about an hour later.

4. Since PW1 is a handicapped person and unable to walk, he sent his relatives in search of his daughter. According to the prosecution case, the car was taken to the residence of Selvi, who is the sister of Sekar (A1) at Pudupatti. Thereafter, Parmasivam (A4), Alamelu (A5) and Subramani (A8) were advising the victim to marry Sekar (A1), however, she refused to do so. At that stage, Kandasamy (A7) declared that it is not necessary to take the consent of PW2 and they should just go to the temple in the morning and perform the marriage ceremony.

5. The next morning, on 1st August, 1993 at 4 `o' clock, they all took the victim to Arapaleeswarar Temple at Kolli Hills. On reaching the temple, Sekar (A1) tied the mangalsutra on the neck of the victim in spite of her resistance. Thereafter, she was taken to Mullukurichi. She was kept in a house and repeatedly raped for three days. 

 6. On 4th August, 1993, she was taken by Sekar (A1) to Palampatti. Since it was known to Sekar (A1) that the police was searching for the girl (PW2), he took her to Thiruverumbur Police Station. He told the police officials there that they were husband and wife and had been legally married.

7. In the meantime on 3rd August, 1993, PW-10, the Sub- Inspector of Police of Vennandur Police Station on the basis of the complaint dated 2nd August, 1993 went to the place of occurrence and prepared observations mahazar (Ex.P8) and rough sketch (Ex.P7) and recorded the statements of the witnesses.

8. On receipt of a copy of the FIR on 6th August, 1993, the Circle Inspector of Rasipuram Circle (PW11) took over the investigation. On the basis of the information gathered, PW11 arrested Sekar (A1) and rescued the girl (PW2) from door No.86, Thiruverumbur Police colony on 10th August, 1993. In the presence of the witnesses PW11 recovered mangalasutra, the dresses worn by the accused (A1) and the victim under mahazars. He arranged to send the seized properties for chemical analysis. In the morning of 11th August, 1993, Sekar (A1) and Thangamani were sent to the local Magistrate's Court. Thereafter, he (A1) was remanded to judicial custody.

9. At the same time, the victim was sent for a medical examination. PW13 Dr. Manimegalaikumar examined the victim on 12th August, 1993 at 2.00 p.m. and recorded her findings in report Ex.P13. In the report, she opined that age of the victim was between 17 to 19 years. On the other hand, PW8, Dr. Gunasekaran, the Radiologist had given her age as above 17 years and below 18 years. Dr. Chidambaram (PW14) examined A1 on 11th August, 1993 at 8.00 p.m. In his report (Ex.P15) he stated about the potency of A1.

10. Thereafter, PW12, the successor of PW11, after seizing the vehicle used for abduction and after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet on 19th June, 1996 (Ex.P13) against Sekar (A1) for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and accused Nos. 2 to 8 for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 109 IPC.

 11. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14. Ex. P1 to P16 have been marked besides M.O.1 to 11. No one was examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were produced on their behalf.

12. When the accused were questioned with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of witnesses, the accused had denied the same as false. Sekar (A1) filed a written statement which reads as follows :-

 " I am innocent. The charge that I have kidnapped PW2 and married her and raped her is false. On my enquiry I came to know that PW1 and his wife parents of PW2 compelled her to marry her uncle's son. But PW2 refused and she had left the house voluntarily. To suppress the mistake committed by PW2, at the instance of my enemies after several days a false case has been filed against me. The evidence that PW11 arrested me along with PW2 at Thiruverumbur Police colony is false. I was staying in my village and they took me from my house and foisted the case. PW3 is the sister's son of PW2 and, therefore, he is deposing falsely. PW4 is the co-brother of PW1 and therefore, he is giving evidence in support of PW1. PW6 is the close relative of PW2 and therefore, is giving false evidence. " 

13.On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as 7 noticed in the opening paragraph of the judgment. The conviction as well as the sentence have been maintained in appeals. Hence the present appeals.

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

15. The learned counsel has submitted that the conclusions reached by both the Courts are perverse. According to him the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses which have been ignored by both the courts would destroy the very root and foundation of the prosecution case. The High Court has even failed to take note of the plea raised by the appellant (A1) in the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel submitted that this is a clear case of false implication. The prosecution is based on an imaginary story. The witnesses of the prosecution are procured. They are all close relatives of PW1. He submits that non appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

16. Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel then submitted that the complaint was falsely lodged by the 8 father (PW1) of the girl (PW2) due to old enmity against A1. PW2 had only given evidence under pressure from her father and her relatives. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the true story which would clearly show that there was no incidence of abduction. The girl had run away from home as she was being compelled to marry one of her relatives. The entire abduction story is due to enmity because of a dispute over land. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the material particulars which were duly narrated by the prosecution witnesses themselves. There was no question of any forced marriage between the victim and Sekar (A1) Learned counsel has pointed out that at the time of the alleged marriage, according to the victim (PW2) and Thangavel (PW3), the relatives of the victim were present. In their presence, there could be no forced marriage. He further submitted that had it been a case of abduction PW1, the father of the victim, would not have waited for two days to lodge a complaint. Referring to the evidence of PW1, it is pointed out that he had stated that there was a panchayat held in the house of the local MLA Palaniammal. It was on the direction of the Panchayat that the victim had decided to go with her father. Since then she has been with her parents.

17. The learned counsel has further pointed out that if Sekar (A1) had taken the victim to the police station, she would have complained. According to the learned counsel, the truth of the matter is, which has been admitted by PW1 in his evidence, that the mother of the girl did not want her daughter to get married to her maternal uncle's son. The entire story has been concocted subsequent to the time when the panchayat was held in the house of the local MLA. At that time, the police was present but PW1 did not demand that any one of the accused be arrested. Learned counsel submitted that a close scrutiny of evidence of the prosecution witnesses would show that deliberate efforts have been made to suppress the true version. In any event, there is no question of any abduction, forcible marriage or rape.

18. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the prosecution version is consistent. The trial court as well as the High Court, upon a thorough scrutiny of the evidence, 10 have given concurrent conclusions about the abduction as well as rape. Learned counsel further submitted that according to the father (PW1), the girl (PW2) was only 15 years and 2 months old on 31st July, 1993. Therefore, all the accused have rightly been found to be guilty of the offences under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 109 IPC. He submits that in exercise of the powers under Article 136, this Court would normally not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

19. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Before we embark upon an examination of the evidence, we may point out that even though the powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide, but in criminal appeals, this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts, save in very exceptional cases. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court does not normally appreciate the evidence by itself and go into the question of credibility of witnesses. The assessment of the evidence by the High Court is accepted as final except where the conclusions recorded by the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable by the evidence on record. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we have examined the findings recorded by the Courts below.

20. In our opinion, there is much substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The trial court as well as the High Court have failed to take into consideration the inherent improbabilities in the case sought to be projected by the prosecution. In our opinion, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and unsupportable by the evidence on record.

21. In our opinion, the prosecution version has been distorted from beginning to the end, in an effort to suppress the actual truth. It was the case of the prosecution that Sugavanam had seen the victim being abducted on 31st July, 1993. This fact was brought to the notice of the father (PW1) of the victim (PW2) immediately. Sugavanam had been told about the abduction on the phone by Sekar (A1) himself. The abduction was further confirmed by Thangavel (PW3) about an hour later. According to PW1, he had sent his relatives, namely, Kuppusami, Athiappan, Velumani and Thangavel (PW3) in search of his daughter. But he did not go with them. According to this witness, these persons told him that his daughter could not be located. Therefore, on 2nd August, 1993 he lodged a complaint with the police.

22. The subsequent events make the story of abduction wholly improbable. Sugavanam, who had informed the father of the abduction, was not examined in the Court. It would be rather odd that Sekar would himself inform Sugavanam of the abduction, if he was responsible for the same. Further, PW1 admits that Sekar was not on visiting terms with the family of the girl. There is no previous history of any relationship between Sekar and the girl. Even the High Court concluded that there was no familiarity between the two. There was no material placed on the record to show that Sekar was involved with the girl. Even in this court, no explanation was offered as to why Sekar would want to marry the victim; in the absence of any previous familiarity between the two.

23. There is no evidence to prove that the victim was forcibly taken in a car. Neither the owner nor the driver of the car has been examined in the Court. PW3 states that they had made enquiries and had been told that the car used in abduction had gone towards Senthamangalam. They had also hired a car to go after them. None of these persons have been examined.

24. Proceeding further, we notice that PW1 admits that all the relatives mentioned above are very close blood relations. In fact, Thangavel (PW3) is the son of his elder sister. In other words, PW3 is a cousin of the girl. Athiappan is the son of his coparcener Kailasam. Palanivel is the brother-in-law of Murugesan. Murugesan is the son of Kailasam. Kuppusamy is the elder brother of Velumani who is the son of his senior coparcener. Kumaravel is the grand son of the aunt of Kuppusami. These very close relatives, who were almost family members, had told PW1 that his daughter could not be located. But surprisingly, these very relatives, according to PW2, were present at the temple just before the marriage. Although, the victim (PW2) knew that if she was in trouble they would come forward to help her, she did not raise any alarm. The presence of these blood relatives is also confirmed by Thangavel (PW3). He stated that even though these relatives were present at the marriage, they could not prevent the forced marriage. 

Knowing fully well that the victim (PW2), was being compelled to marry Sekar (A1), they did not send someone to the police station with the necessary complaint.

25. The presence of the relatives at the alleged wedding is confirmed by Thangavel (PW3). He has stated that they could not find the girl (PW2) or Sekar (A1) in Rasipuram. But the search party was told on enquiry that Sekar (A1) and the girl (PW2) had gone in a car towards Santhamangalam. Therefore, Thangavel (PW3) and his relatives also hired a car and reached Arapaleeswar Temple. But since none of the accused were present, they decided to stay the night in the temple itself. He further stated that they had suspected that the marriage will take place in the morning, therefore, they had waited till the morning. This witness also stated that he informed his uncle about the marriage on 2nd August, 1993.

26. PW1 admits that he had been told that his daughter (PW2) had been abducted by Sekar (A1). The distance between the house of Sekar (A1) and the house of PW1 was only one kilometer. He also admits that Sekar (A1) is a local boy but is not related to him. 

He had received the information about the alleged abduction on 31st July, 1993. He did not go to the house of Sekar (A1) to complain to his mother. He also did not go to the police station. Even the complaint with the police was registered only at 6.00 p.m. on 2 nd August, 1993. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that his relatives had gone to the neighbouring village and searched but were not able to locate his daughter. From the evidence of this witness, it becomes quite clear that there was a dispute between the husband and wife i.e. mother and father of the victim (PW2) about the proposed marriage of the girl. Chinnathambi (PW1) states that he did not want his daughter to get married at all till she completes higher studies. He wanted her to get married only after she had become a teacher like himself. On the other hand, his wife had thought that her daughter (PW2) should be married to the son of Kuppusami, her maternal uncle's son. The girl (PW2) did not want to marry her cousin.

27. Taking the aforesaid evidence into consideration, one cannot rule out the possibility that the victim girl had run away from her parental house. This is further apparent from the statement of PW1 himself. He had stated that soon after the incident a panchayat was held in the house of Rasipuram MLA, Palaniammal. At that meeting, his wife and his daughter were also present. But, in his anxiety to deny that his daughter had agreed to go back home on asking of MLA, he made a very relevant disclosure. He stated that  " My daughter was asked to talk with myself and wife separately in a room for one hour. After the lapse of one hour my daughter told me that she will accompany me and we also brought her. "  This statement itself is indicative of the fact that disappearance of his daughter for few days may not have been the responsibility of the accused persons. Otherwise, it would not have taken over one hour to convince the girl to return home. 28. The testimony of PW1 in fact makes it further clear that the whole prosecution version has been concocted to falsely implicate the accused. This witness had admitted that the police had arrived on 3rd August, 1993. During that time, Sekar (A1) was also present but no demand was made for his arrest at all. He also stated that all the accused were also present, he did not ask for the arrest of those accused also. No complaint was made to the police at that stage that any of the accused persons were involved in any incident of abduction. In fact he made another startling disclosure where he states that  " till date I am not aware as to what happened to Thangamani. On 3rd August, 1993 either myself or any other witness had not furnished any information against the accused to the police. "  According to this witness, the victim, has been with her family since 3rd August, 1993. He went on to state that after 3rd August, 1993 the police did not undertake any further enquiry.

29. Even the testimony given by PW2 also seems to be wholly unreliable and contrary to the evidence of PW1. According to her, she was walking towards her house and she was being followed by Sekar (A1). He had told her that he liked her and wanted to marry her. She simply told him to go away and continued to walk towards the house. There was a car parked near the house of Sekar's mother's elder sister. She then narrates the story as to how she was pushed into the car. She stated that she had dropped her books on the road but, surprisingly though the car was parked in front of Sekar's aunt's house, no one found the books.

 30. She then states that when she was being taken to the temple, she saw some known persons standing at a distance. But she did not yell out for help. According to her, Sekar (A1) had raped her on three consecutive days, i.e., 1st, 2nd and 3rd of August at Mullukurichi. On 4th of August she was taken to Palampatti. However, on 5th August, 1993 when Sekar (A1) received the news that the police was looking for her, she was taken to Tiruchy police station. There he had told the police that they were married. She again did not complain; nor did seek help to be returned home. Thereafter, on 10th August, 1993 Rasipuram Circle Inspector (PW11) had arrived and arrested Sekar (A1). It was only after that she was left with her parents. On the other hand, as noticed earlier, father states that she has been at home with her parents since 3 rd August, 1993. This in our opinion leads to an inescapable conclusion that the versions of the father and the girl are in sharp contrast, if not contradictory to each other.

31. She had further stated that during the night of 10th August, 1993, she had narrated the entire sequence of events to the police. The police had also given her alternative clothing to wear and taken her clothes in possession. According to the victim herself, even after she was recovered on the 10th August, 1993, she did not go to the house of her parents, instead she went to the house of her senior paternal uncle situated at Thengalpalayam. Therefore, it becomes increasingly difficult to place reliance on any one of the prosecution witnesses.

32. Talking about her alleged forced stay in the house at Pudupatti, again she was unable to state whether it was thatched house or terraced house. She was also unable to state as to whether the door of the room in which she was kept could be locked only from outside or from inside. In the same breath, she says that she remained in the room by locking it from inside. But again she changed her mind and said that the door was not locked but it was closed. She talks of one Rangasamy being present. But then she says that there were two individuals by that name, one old and one young. But she did not give any of their particulars to the police, as the police did not ask for them. Yet she claims that both the Rangasamy had taken her to the temple. But then she says to the police that only one Rangasamy took her.

 33. Now coming to the marriage, she reiterates that some known persons were present at the temple but on seeing them she did not raise any alarm. She admits that Kuppusami, Velumani, Athiappan, Thangavel and Palaniammal are her close relatives. She also admits that if she had told them that she was in trouble they would have helped her. But she did not complain to her relatives. This would be wholly unnatural behaviour from a girl who had been abducted and was being compelled to marry someone, she did not want to marry.

34. The scene after the alleged marriage is equally blurred. The girl denies ever going to the house of MLA on 3rd August, 1993. She was not aware that any panchayat had been held in his house on that day. She also states that she did not go to the house of her father on 3rd August, 1993. She further denies that she had ever narrated the events that had occurred between 31st July, 1993 to 10th August, 1993 to her parents.

35. In our opinion, the trial court as well as the High Court had failed to bestow proper attention on the inherent improbabilities contained in the evidence of the prime witnesses of the prosecution. Both the courts below had failed to notice that the prosecution did not even care to produce any witness from the temple where the marriage has been allegedly solemnized. No cogent reason has been given as to why the `Pujari' of the Temple or some other office bearer could not have been summoned.

36. In our opinion, the entire story about the abduction by car and the forced marriage seems to have been concocted to falsely implicate all the accused under Section 366 IPC. There is no reliable evidence to support the conviction of Sekar, or the accused relatives of Sekar, for the offence of abduction under Section 366 IPC. Possibility can not be ruled out of the father, PW1 suspecting that his daughter was romantically involved with Sekar. Therefore, when she disappeared from home, Sekar was presumed to be responsible for it. Hence the false story of abduction. Even in the face of the wholly unreliable evidence, as noticed above, both the Courts have convicted all the accused under Section 366 and 376 IPC. The High Court, in our opinion, committed a grave error in confirming the conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 366 IPC.

 37. We may now take up the issue of Sekar's conviction under Section 376 IPC. Whilst upholding the conviction of Sekar under Section 376 IPC, the High Court has held that the girl would not have voluntarily gone with Sekar. It has also been held that she was not a major at the relevant time. In our opinion, both the conclusions recorded by the High Court are contrary to the evidence on record.

38. We will first take up the issue with regard to the age of the girl. The High Court has based its conclusion on the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 and the certificate issued by PW8 Dr. Gunasekaran, Radiologist, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 indicates that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid certificate, she would be above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The transfer certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded. The date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate would have no evidentiary value unless the person, who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. We may notice here that PW1 was examined in the Court on 9th August, 1999. In his evidence, he made no reference to the transfer certificate (Ex.P16). He did not mention her age or date of birth. PW2 was also examined on 9th August, 1999. She had also made no reference either to her age or to the transfer certificate. It appears from the record that a petition was filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to produce the transfer certificate and to recall PW2. This petition was allowed. She was actually recalled and her examination was continued on 26th April, 2000. The transfer certificate was marked as Ex.P16 at that stage, i.e., 26th April, 2000. The judgment was delivered on 28th April, 2000. In her cross-examination, she had merely stated that she had signed on the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 issued by the School and accordingly her date of birth noticed as 15th June, 1977. She also stated that the certificate has been signed by the father as well as the Headmaster. But the Headmaster has not been examined. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no reliable evidence to vouchsafe for the truth of the facts stated in the transfer certificate.

39. Considering the manner in which the facts recorded in a document may be proved, this Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit1, observed as follows:-  

" The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined......................................................... ......................................................................... 

Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents. Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the documents. The truth or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the date of birth of the two candidates as mentioned in the documents could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. No evidence of any such kind was produced by the respondent to prove the truth of the facts, namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid documents 1 1988 (Supp) SCC 604 have no probative value and the dates of birth as mentioned therein could not be accepted. "  

The same proposition of law is reiterated by this Court in the case of Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal2, where this Court observed as follows:-

 " The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the  " evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue " . " 

40. In our opinion, the aforesaid burden of proof has not been discharged by the prosecution. The father says nothing about the transfer certificate in his evidence. The Headmaster has not been examined at all. Therefore, the entry in the transfer certificate can not be relied upon to definitely fix the age of the girl.

41. In fixing the age of the girl as below 18 years, the High Court relied solely on the certificate issued by PW8 Dr. Gunasekaran. However, the High Court failed to notice that in his evidence before the Court, PW8, the X-ray Expert had clearly stated in the cross-examination that on the basis of the medical evidence, generally, the age of an 2 (2003) 8 SCC 745  individual could be fixed approximately. He had also stated that it is likely that the age may vary from individual to individual. The doctor had also stated that in view of the possible variations in age, the certificate mentioned the possible age between one specific age to another specific age. On the basis of the above, it would not be possible to give a firm opinion that the girl was definitely below 18 years of age. In addition, the High Court failed to consider the expert evidence given by PW13 Dr. Manimegalaikumar, who had medically examined the victim. In his cross-examination, he had clearly stated that a medical examination would only point out the age approximately with a variation of two years. He had stated that in this case, the age of the girl could be from 17 to 19 years. 

This margin of error in age has been judicially recognized by this Court in the case of Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu  &  Kashmir  &  Ors.3, In the aforesaid judgment, it is observed as follows:-  " ......However, it is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side. " 

3 (1982) 2 SCC 538 27

 42. We are of the opinion, in the facts of this case, the age of the girl could not have been fixed on the basis of the transfer certificate. There was no reliable evidence to vouchsafe the correctness of the date of birth as recorded in the transfer certificate. The expert evidence does not rule out the possibility of the girl being a major. In our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the girl was a minor, at the relevant date.

43. We may further notice that even with reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a public document has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P.4 held as follows:-

 " The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted. " 

(2006) 5 SCC 584 28

44. In such circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the High Court without examining the factual and legal issues has unnecessarily rushed to the conclusion that the girl was a minor at the time of the alleged abduction. There is no satisfactory evidence to indicate that she was a minor.

45. The High Court concluded that even if one was to exclude the evidence given by PW3, the conviction for abduction and rape by Sekar could be recorded on the sole evidence of PW2. Undoubtedly, the testimony of victim of sexual assault stands at par with testimony of an injured witness, and is entitled to great weight. Therefore, corroboration for the testimony of the victim would not be insisted upon provided the evidence does not suffer from any basic infirmities and the probability factors do not render it unworthy of credence. 

This Court in Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan declared that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the aforesaid case, Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows:-

 " The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge, ... The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand. " 

The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by this Court in numerous judgments subsequently. These observations leave no manner of doubt that a conviction can be recorded on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of a victim provided it does not suffer from any basic infirmities or improbabilities which render it unworthy of credence.

46. In our opinion, the evidence of PW2 does not satisfy the aforesaid test. The High Court erroneously concluded that the girl had not willingly gone with Sekar. The conclusion could only be recorded by ignoring the entire evidence with regard to the conduct of the girl from the time of the alleged abduction till the time of the alleged recovery. We have noticed earlier that she did not make any complaint on so many occasions when she had the opportunity to do so. We may, however, notice that even after the alleged marriage, the girl continued to be a willing partner in the entire episode. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in its totality, it would be established that the girl was staying with Sekar (A1) from 31st July, 1993 till 10th August, 1993. Even PW5, Thiru Thirunavukarasu stated that Sekar (A1) had brought the girl with him to his house and told him that he had married her. They had come to see Trichy and requested a house to stay. This witness categorically stated that he thought that they were newly married couple. He had made them stay in door no. 86 of the Police Colony, which was under his responsibility. On 10th August, 1993, the police inspector, who arrived there at 10.00 p.m. told this witness that Sekar (A1) had married the girl by threatening her and  " spoiled her " . The girl, according to the prosecution, was recovered from the aforesaid premises. Therefore, for six days, this girl was 31 staying with Sekar (A1). She did not raise any protest. She did not even complain to this witness or any other residents in the locality. Her behavior of not complaining to anybody at any of the stages after being allegedly abducted would be wholly unnatural. Earlier also, she had many opportunities to complain or to run away, but she made no such effort. It is noteworthy that she made no protest on seeing some known persons near the car, after her alleged abduction. She did not make any complaint at the residence of Selvi, sister of Sekar (A1) at Pudupatti. Again, there was no complaint on seeing her relatives allegedly assembled at the temple. Her relatives apparently took no steps at the time when mangalsutra was forcibly tied around her neck by Sekar (A1). No one sent for police help even though a car was available. She made no complaint when she was taken to the house of PW5, Thiru Thirunavukarasu and stayed at his place. Again, there was no protest when Sekar (A1) took her to the police station on 5th day of the alleged abduction and told at the Tiruchi Police Station that they had already been married. The above behaviour would not be natural for a girl who had been compelled to marry and subjected to illicit sexual intercourse.

5 (1952) SCR 377 30

47. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt any of the offences with which the appellants had been charged. It appears that the entire prosecution story has been concocted for reasons best known to the prosecution.

48. In our opinion, the conclusions recorded by both the courts below are wholly perverse. The appellants are clearly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. All the appellants are acquitted. They are directed to be released forthwith. 

J. [B.Sudershan Reddy]
J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

New Delhi
January 18, 2011.