The Supreme Court has held that motive can be considered as a relevant circumstance for convicting the accused in a criminal case if the evidence is clear and unambiguous. The court made this clear while reversing the acquittal of six persons convicted by a trial court in Uttar Pradesh in a case of triple murder 30 years ago.
Justice Sathasivam said, “Motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as circumstance which is relevant assessing the evidence. But if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one.”
Showing posts with label The Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Supreme Court. Show all posts
Monday, August 11, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
The Police Post
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered that a policeman turning away a person without registering his complaint could face contempt of court charges.
The court rejected the apprehensions of some counsel that an order as harsh as this could be prone to misuse. The bench said that in India, officials were activated only by the crack of a whip.
The court rejected the apprehensions of some counsel that an order as harsh as this could be prone to misuse. The bench said that in India, officials were activated only by the crack of a whip.
"Supreme Court protecting corrupt judges"
The former Law Minister, Shanti Bhushan, appearing as a coucel here, remarked in the Court today that the Supreme Court was protecting corrupt judges. He quoted attempts at giving effect to an earlier ruling of 1991 to prove his point.
Visibly annoyed, Justice Agarwal offered to withdraw himself from the hearing. "If a former Law Minister and an eminent jurist like you make such allegations, we shall not hear the matter. You are not behaving like a lawyer. You are arguing like a street urchin," he said.
Justice Agarwal further said: "This is contemptuous. You cannot proceed to make remarks like this. This is an allegation against the Supreme Court of India."
But it had no effect on Bhushan who continued "Your Lordship can proceed against me. I stand by the charges."
Justice B N Agarwal, a senior judge of the apex court, thenwithdrew himself from hearing. The Court was hearing Provident Fund scandal case of Ghaziabad. The case allegedly involves, among other names, those of several sitting and retired judges.
Chief Justice Balakrishnan had earlier excused himself from the matter after Shanti Bhushan questioned the propriety of his hearing the case. Justice Agarwal is the seniormost judge in the hierarchy after Chief Justice Balakrishnan.
Visibly annoyed, Justice Agarwal offered to withdraw himself from the hearing. "If a former Law Minister and an eminent jurist like you make such allegations, we shall not hear the matter. You are not behaving like a lawyer. You are arguing like a street urchin," he said.
Justice Agarwal further said: "This is contemptuous. You cannot proceed to make remarks like this. This is an allegation against the Supreme Court of India."
But it had no effect on Bhushan who continued "Your Lordship can proceed against me. I stand by the charges."
Justice B N Agarwal, a senior judge of the apex court, thenwithdrew himself from hearing. The Court was hearing Provident Fund scandal case of Ghaziabad. The case allegedly involves, among other names, those of several sitting and retired judges.
Chief Justice Balakrishnan had earlier excused himself from the matter after Shanti Bhushan questioned the propriety of his hearing the case. Justice Agarwal is the seniormost judge in the hierarchy after Chief Justice Balakrishnan.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
When Servants behave like Masters
When servants behave like masters, "even The God cannot help." The Supreme Court, observed this as it expressed its frustration over the reluctance of the Centre and state governments to take tough measures against bureaucrats and others overstaying in public accommodation.
The court wants the governments to amend laws to treat squatting in government premises as criminal trespass of public property. The army of servants, who prefer to call themselves officers, is obviously not willing to oblige and the politicians who share their loot through them only, are on their side.
The bench of Justices B N Agrawal and G S Singhvi was informed that the government has decided as not to amend the relevant Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, overstaying in official bungalows will not be made an offence.
Following the refusal of the Centre and states to make the squatters pay, the dejected court dropped its advocacy for a stronger law.
"In our view, the stand of the Centre and the states is condemnable,” as the trend of unauthorised occupation of official accommodation, is on the rise, it said.
"The whole government machinery is corrupt. We may lay down the law, but who will implement it? It has to be done by the clerks”. The secretaries and joint secretaries have no guts to go against the clerks. The law is there, the statute is there, but the system has become non-functional," it said.
The SC, frustrated by the determination of politicians and bureaucrats to stay put in subsidised accommodation beyond their eligibility, had proposed amendment last year, saying that only "third degree method" would work with the heedless and well-connected lot.
The court wants the governments to amend laws to treat squatting in government premises as criminal trespass of public property. The army of servants, who prefer to call themselves officers, is obviously not willing to oblige and the politicians who share their loot through them only, are on their side.
The bench of Justices B N Agrawal and G S Singhvi was informed that the government has decided as not to amend the relevant Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, overstaying in official bungalows will not be made an offence.
Following the refusal of the Centre and states to make the squatters pay, the dejected court dropped its advocacy for a stronger law.
"In our view, the stand of the Centre and the states is condemnable,” as the trend of unauthorised occupation of official accommodation, is on the rise, it said.
"The whole government machinery is corrupt. We may lay down the law, but who will implement it? It has to be done by the clerks”. The secretaries and joint secretaries have no guts to go against the clerks. The law is there, the statute is there, but the system has become non-functional," it said.
The SC, frustrated by the determination of politicians and bureaucrats to stay put in subsidised accommodation beyond their eligibility, had proposed amendment last year, saying that only "third degree method" would work with the heedless and well-connected lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
