Jaipur: The high court has disposed of a criminal appeal pending for 19 years in a case of accidental death due to negligent driving. The trial court had sentenced Seidu Ram to nine months’ imprisonment on November 12, 2003, after hearing the case for several years. The sessions court on January 16, 2004, rejected the appeal filed by Ram and upheld the sentence. Both these orders were challenged in the high court in 2004.
A single bench of Justice Birendra Kumar said that it was not interfering in the orders of the lower courts, but the petitioner had suffered the pain of long litigation and his sentence was being reduced to the punishment already served.
We also published the following articles recently
A single bench of Justice Birendra Kumar said that it was not interfering in the orders of the lower courts, but the petitioner had suffered the pain of long litigation and his sentence was being reduced to the punishment already served.
We also published the following articles recently
Ludhiana court sentences 13 cops to 5-year RI in corruption case
Thirteen police officials in Ludhiana, Punjab have been sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment each in a corruption case. They have also been fined Rs 20,000 each, with the additional punishment of two months of rigorous imprisonment if they fail to pay the fine. The court acquitted one accused in the case, while proceedings against two others were already abated. The convicted officials include a sub-inspector, head constables, constables, and a special police officer.
Thirteen police officials in Ludhiana, Punjab have been sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment each in a corruption case. They have also been fined Rs 20,000 each, with the additional punishment of two months of rigorous imprisonment if they fail to pay the fine. The court acquitted one accused in the case, while proceedings against two others were already abated. The convicted officials include a sub-inspector, head constables, constables, and a special police officer.
Politics is the next court of appeal
The Supreme Court of India has rejected marriage equality for queer couples, stating that it is the responsibility of the government to legislate on the matter. While there were dissenting opinions suggesting civil partnerships and adoption rights for queer couples, the majority verdict refused to intervene. The court directed the government to set up a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of queer unions, but the details and binding nature of this committee remain unclear. The LGBTQ+ community is now focused on holding the government accountable for equal rights through political engagement.
The Supreme Court of India has rejected marriage equality for queer couples, stating that it is the responsibility of the government to legislate on the matter. While there were dissenting opinions suggesting civil partnerships and adoption rights for queer couples, the majority verdict refused to intervene. The court directed the government to set up a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of queer unions, but the details and binding nature of this committee remain unclear. The LGBTQ+ community is now focused on holding the government accountable for equal rights through political engagement.
Mumbai court sentences man to 10 years in jail for sexually assaulting 16-year-old friend
A 21-year-old man has been sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl. The court stated that no Indian girl would falsely accuse someone of rape due to the severe social stigma attached. The victim’s testimony was deemed trustworthy and reliable, with the judge noting that she had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The judge also emphasized that even if there was a love affair, it did not give the accused the right to sexually assault her. The victim’s testimony was supported by medical evidence.
A 21-year-old man has been sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl. The court stated that no Indian girl would falsely accuse someone of rape due to the severe social stigma attached. The victim’s testimony was deemed trustworthy and reliable, with the judge noting that she had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The judge also emphasized that even if there was a love affair, it did not give the accused the right to sexually assault her. The victim’s testimony was supported by medical evidence.
